It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm Going as an Unbeliever for Halloween.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


if its real to them, it doesnt matter if i am blaspheming against something i dont believe in. and thats the point. you seem to think that communication relies solely on the communicator and is minimally influenced by the audience. quite the opposite. if i were to tell a four year old i shot santa in the head it would upset them because their perception tells them i committed an heinous act against a symbol of joy and hope that they fully believe in. intention is only half of the exchange. that is the whole reason you made this thread because you were aware of how it would be perceived not just how you intended it to be perceived. the two are very different.


Good thinking.

Frankly, I could care less how articulations regarding actual states of affairs pleases or displeases. If you were to articulate to a four year old that you shot Santa in the head, you would be speaking a lie with intent to harm. If you were to tell the four year old that Santa does not exist, you would be speaking a truth with intent to enlighten. If you intend to blaspheme by speaking untruths about someone’s untruths, you would intend to be a liar, not a blasphemer. If you intend to speak truths about someone’s untruths, you would intend to be honest, not a blasphemer.

Only if you believe that there is a God to blaspheme against can you intend to blaspheme.




posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: xDeadcowx


Please explain how you choosing to not believe in the pink unicorns is any different than be not believing in your God?


Maybe you misread. I specifically said I do not believe in the proposition that pink unicorns exist. A proposition is different than a pink unicorn. One cannot believe or disbelieve something that was never there to begin with. Believers do not believe in God, per se, but they belief that what the Bible reads is true.


They have the same amount of supporting evidence, which is to say zero. If it's because people do not worship pink unicorns, lets change it up. How about Zeus, do you believe in zeus? Would you consider yourself atheist when dealing specifically with the Greek gods? If the answer is yes, would it be fair to claim that you really do believe in the Greek gods and that anybody who does not believe in the Greek gods is actually a mythical character?


Sorry I do not deal in nothings, unlike yourself. I prefer to deal in reality. One can only speak of nothings for so long before it becomes a circular mess. If by “gods” you essentially mean what amounts to nothing, then no I do not treat one nothing differently than another nothing. If you are trying to prove that you do not believe in nothing, that is fine, and I’ll just have to take your word for it. If by gods you mean characters in books, statues, works of art—which exist by the way—then by all means, let’s speak about things that exist.

Atheist is a condemnation conceived within the minds of superstitious theists, not unlike witch or demon or djinn. It is a slur, not unlike Kafir or infidel or pagan, and also, not unlike the other religious slurs. The word was born, abused and utilized within the dusty confines of ecclesiastical dogma and bigotry. Yes, you define yourself within the realm of ecclesiastical nomenclature. Your whole argument is simply another instance of theology, that is, overly concerned with the nature of God.


You don't get to make wild claims about others based off of what you believe. Each person can, will, and has the right to believe whatever they want, whether it be God, Muhammad, Zeus, pink unicorns, or nothing. Who are you to claim something about someone else? What makes you think its ok to make blanket statements about anybody who doesn't subscribe to your own personal version of the afterlife.

You are but a single person on a world with billions of others. They have a word for people who think they are above everyone else, that word is arrogant.


Here comes the speech from the high-horse. Get off it, sir, we’re on equal ground here. Who are you to claim something about someone else?



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Sold. Rooster it is.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you. Your words speak more here in this one post than most other threads combined.

Just as the believer stands on a vantage point but still does not see over the wall, you have set your foot on a higher point still, and have surveyed all that lies beyond.

Misanthropy Pure.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Hey, Les Mis, Here's a story about Raven-Symone, who is a black, gay person, saying she doesn't want to be "labeled" as black or gay... I thought of you... www.msn.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But there is a sort of art to religion, and when it is taken away, life seems to lose its poetry.

Take for example the person who has a hard life, is often persecuted, and has struggle daily to get by. This same person often goes around with a scowl and lets you know about all of that, otherwise you would not have known that he goes through such. He blames his life, his parents, his society, and God (although he denies His existence), all the while he is to blame for all of it. Whereas the person of religion can repent, the commonly accepted thought is that there is no sin.

This denial of sin leads one to forfeit the remedy of his soul although it is in reach.

This is a totally acceptable person in society, and I might add, a very common one.

Life is poetry LesMis, and I would not call that life a good song, but rather, a terrible grunge song.

The grass and flower fade,
along with them you leave,
in time, but time is short.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: backcase


Take for example the person who has a hard life, is often persecuted, and has struggle daily to get by. This same person often goes around with a scowl and lets you know about all of that, otherwise you would not have known that he goes through such. He blames his life, his parents, his society, and God (although he denies His existence), all the while he is to blame for all of it. Whereas the person of religion can repent, the commonly accepted thought is that there is no sin. This denial of sin leads one to forfeit the remedy of his soul although it is in reach.


so to remedy ones soul, one must admit there is no remedy. that is after all the nature of sin. you cannot heal yourself, according to modern religious lore. sin to me is the fact that we are do not match the human ideal of perfect. here is my question - which is worse, sin or the human ideal of perfect? reject the human ideal of perfect and you reject sin because there is no sin without that ideal. sin is the opposite of that ideal, the rejection of it. sin feels an awful lot like self-abasement, beating yourself up because you have to poop essentially. there is a difference between abhorring murder and abhorring the desire to procreate. baby and the bath water.
edit on 7-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: IntastellaBurst




I pressed.the quote button on accident and had to delete that overly long post, imagine if I had to read that drivel.


Not everything can be condensed into a tweet for you. In other words, imagine if you had to read.


Life is short, I only.read things worth reading.


.........this one was skimmed.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I got to chime in since there isn't another thread on this,

Seriously people, this day is for and about kids.

Whatever it was about in the past is gone, whatever political agenda some have -it is not their personal platform day to spread their beliefs, it is not about being the A-Hole on the block passing out your religious crap to a child or likewise your non-religious crap to a child. (Im equal opportunity)

It is and always has been for the kids and nothing more.
A child doesn't care religiously what you think about this day,
A child doesn't care about your political platforms,
A child only cares about dressing up, carrying the biggest candy bag and hitting as many houses as possible,
without getting religious comic books, unwrapped candy, or homemade cookies they have to throw away, while the parents get pissed off about the jerks leaving their porch lights on as if to say welcome when it should be turned off until later.

My god everyone, this is about the kids. Can't people just put all their issues aside for ONE single day? Actually just a few hours so the kids can be kids and have fun??

...End rant

Sorry this used to be such a fun day for all, but it seems every year it just keeps getting to be a bigger and bigger hassle for anyone to have fun with anymore. Christmas is the same way, as well as around the corner, but a different thread. I'm glad my kids are too old to go trick or treating anymore. Im the cool one on the block with the decorations, Michael Myers costume, blinking lights and hands out LARGE candy bars and takes joy in seeing the kids be happy for one day in their lives.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm


if its real to them, it doesnt matter if i am blaspheming against something i dont believe in. and thats the point. you seem to think that communication relies solely on the communicator and is minimally influenced by the audience. quite the opposite. if i were to tell a four year old i shot santa in the head it would upset them because their perception tells them i committed an heinous act against a symbol of joy and hope that they fully believe in. intention is only half of the exchange. that is the whole reason you made this thread because you were aware of how it would be perceived not just how you intended it to be perceived. the two are very different.


Good thinking.

Frankly, I could care less how articulations regarding actual states of affairs pleases or displeases. If you were to articulate to a four year old that you shot Santa in the head, you would be speaking a lie with intent to harm. If you were to tell the four year old that Santa does not exist, you would be speaking a truth with intent to enlighten. If you intend to blaspheme by speaking untruths about someone’s untruths, you would intend to be a liar, not a blasphemer. If you intend to speak truths about someone’s untruths, you would intend to be honest, not a blasphemer.

Only if you believe that there is a God to blaspheme against can you intend to blaspheme.




dont tell me that i exercised "good thinking" then act like you didnt read a word i said. i have already explained this to you, it is now your decision to take it into consideration or dismiss it. clearly youve done the latter, so whatever.

this is the definition of blasphemy, largely dependent on how the blaspheming is perceived: "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk."

im done arguing with you about what is blasphemous and what isnt. its not like you would know, given your lack of taking a stance in anything except not taking a stance. dont pick a fight then claim to be netrual then claim to have knowledge about not being neutral while STILL being neutral. you are one twisted donut of a philosophical quandary.
edit on 8-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


dont tell me that i exercised "good thinking" then act like you didnt read a word i said. i have already explained this to you, it is now your decision to take it into consideration or dismiss it. clearly youve done the latter, so whatever.

this is the definition of blasphemy, largely dependent on how the blaspheming is perceived: "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk."

im done arguing with you about what is blasphemous and what isnt. its not like you would know, given your lack of taking a stance in anything except not taking a stance. dont pick a fight then claim to be netrual then claim to have knowledge about not being neutral while STILL being neutral. you are one twisted donut of a philosophical quandary.


Why would I claim to be neutral in a debate I find idiotic? No; I am in opposition, in resistance, in dissent, hostile towards and against theology, whether atheist or theist or agnostic. Mark me down as a negative.

It is you who has dismissed my argument. I in fact read every word you said. How could I miss them? Poor punctuation sticks out like a black tooth to me. I’m glad you’re done arguing because I’m tired of reading you.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: IntastellaBurst




Life is short, I only.read things worth reading.


A period sentence...if only you wrote things worth writing.

edit on 8-10-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
If, in fact, you resemble your avatar at all, I can see the need to per-consider how to change my appearance for the holiday. Unless it's a recent change, this thread is my first interaction with you.

I'm a bit surprised the resemblance to George Harrison has gone unmentioned.

I always liked George... Most of my musician buddies had the mistaken opinion that I wasn't taking his passing as seriously as John's. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The difference is all about perspective. John was just starting a renewal of his position in the art world. To have that snuffed out had a big impact on me.

George, on the other hand, had spent years focusing on 'what comes next'. It's possible for me to listen to what he left us and still be happy for him (in a bittersweet kind of way). By the time I learned of his passing, he'd either had all his questions answered or it didn't make any difference.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join