It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's true. I agree. And.....? What is the problem with that? I don't really care where it came from. It fits.
Other people first approached me and told me that I'm "harsh" in my communications. I now have a word that I can inform others about myself. I don't care that I didn't come up with it myself. I don't care that it came from someone else.
It's worth mentioning that the word "atheist" originated with the Greeks, where it means essentially the same thing it does today. Any further connotations are derived from context, which means that the contempt and ridicule you describe is a product of interpretation, rather than direct translation.
I avoid all words and doctrines where God and superstition is the root. Theism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism—all of these are positions regarding the same overused, empty and useless concept. Are there not more important things to consider?
Because I am against one side does not mean I am for the other. I am for and against all of them.
Theism was first. How can one be without God if God was never there to be without? It’s like defining the people of the middle ages by saying they were without computers. Sure, it is logically and evidently true, but it’s meaningless. When these terms were used, they were devised under the idea that there was a God there to be without. Take Socrates for instance. If there were no gods to be without, he wouldn’t have been charged with being without gods.
Can you paint picture of a colour that doesn’t exist? Then how is it that people are able to picture a deity, and indeed, to paint their images, build their statues and pray to them, if they do not in some way exist?
Let’s look at the properties of a deity—and no, no make-believe properties such as omnipresence, omniscience and the like; such properties are also myths. Gods possess the exact same properties as Orcs, as Tom Sawyer, and Holden Caufield. In that sense, they do exist.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I’m just saying it is contradictory to employ a term while at the same time repudiating where it came from.
Yeah, about a year ago when you split I was bummed so as a 'hail Mary" to try and keep you from bailing out I "rivalled" you and defaced your wall (just kidding about the wall).
Seriously, though, your posts, and posts by the likes of NorEaster are what usually keeps me around when I lose interest in the other forums.
I've looked around; ATS has something special here with this P&M forum, I haven't found another like it.
I think that if we all ganged up we could probably blow out the politicos on the front page.
But no one ever flags the P&M threads.
Even the folks that post on them.
We need to break that trdition so that we can show our numbers.
Thanks again for doing what you do, it's folks like you that put the P in P&M.
OMG I just realized this is in the RTF forum. That's cool too: the dialectic by any other name smells just as sweet.
I suppose your exposition could be considered political philosophy, couldn't it? I'm just getting my feet wet with the stuff..
So you're on the fence. Good to know that you don't allow yourself a stance by which to be criticized, as you do others so often.
Socrates was punished for rejecting an ideal. Otherwise, those gods would have come down and punished him themselves.
My Ufrack, which you might find in various posts throughout these sorts of threads, is based on a hybrid of the Pokemon Venonat and the Woola creature in the John Carter film. I envisioned a nonexistent creature using ideas that already existed. So if you take an architect and imagine him as a giant being hovering just out of sight in the sky, there you go. God. Because that's the function he represents to you. A huge, invisible architect. You act as though you have no idea how these things work, and I know you do.
Also, you can't paint a new color because you can't rebuild the electromagnetic spectrum. Duh.
I'm not repudiating religion. It's a part of our culture. Some people find great comfort in it. I don't disapprove of religion. In fact, there's a lot about it that I do approve of. I disapprove of how some people USE it.
The fence is around pig pen, full of mammals trying to gain an upper hand with their mouths. Can you really blame me?
I’m glad you give me something to criticize. If you think it pertains to you then maybe there’s some truth to it. If not, then I am not speaking about you.
Exactly. Gods are ideals. That is the only thing he was ever without. Saying one is without God, however, is perpetuating the myth that one can be with or without Gods.
It sounds like fan-fiction to me. What you are really saying is that you can use existing ideas to create more existing ideas. You did not create something that does not exist. You created out of existing ideas another existing idea. What that idea represents to a person is of no consequence.
You are criticizing my philosophical position as being watery and unnecessary. Perhaps not my position specifically, but your strafing certainly covers my corner of the philosophical map.
Without belief in a god. Without a construct resembling a divine authority. I don't understand what's difficult to grasp about that.
Pardon my bluntness, but that is an ignorant statement. This world was born from ideas, ever since man first walked on two feet.
If atheism is a philosophy, it is the exact same one children hold when they stop believing in Santa Clause. In other words, not believing something is not a philosophy. What atheism is concerned about is theology.
No. Without belief in an idea; without belief in a promises; without belief in a book; without belief in scholastic philosophy. No god ever enters the equation.
Well pardon my honesty, but that is an ignorant statement. Perhaps you haven't thought about it. Ideas change nothing. They have no causal power, no volition, no material, no hands, no feet. You're attributing supernatural powers to a pile of words arranged in a certain way—the epitome of superstition.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If atheism is a philosophy, it is the exact same one children hold when they stop believing in Santa Clause.
Atheism is a reaction to the story of the experiences, not the experiences.
If a kid cuts himself off frrom Christmas presents when he finds out Santa isn't real, then that kid has over-reacted.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
My atheism is a reaction to both.
oH rly. Well here is my reaction to your story about your atheism. I don't believe it. And here is why. I've seen no indication from you, in all your posts, that you know anything about the experiences. All you know about is the story, and you've demanded to recieve no presents as a result. So all you get is lumps of coal.
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity
Because of statements like this:
"I am AfterInfinity, and I am a staunch atheist with no interest in recovery."
"My atheism is a reaction to both."