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.

 

Atheists don't "know" there is no God.....

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

It interests me that you categorize belief systems but you don't have a grasp on ALL of them

Beliefs systems often categorize themselves with no need for me to do so.

I never said I had grasp on ALL.


To your mind it seems there are only two, Atheists and Theists.

You brought up atheists with your fallacious demand for proof. Yes I used the word 'theist'. I could use other terms if you wish. The point is religious gods are asserted by religious people, and the burden of proof is on them to prove, and not for others to disprove.


You know there is the Agnostic as well.

Are you even reading my posts.


Belief in the existence of God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority.

Fine. Exclude deism then. Lets refer to the religious gods that do rely on the authority of revelation.


So what caused your rejection of this ideology

I make no claim to knowledge that such a deity doesn't exist. I simply disbelieve one exists. Agnosticism doesn't preclude one from being an atheist. I elaborated in an earlier post on this page.
edit on 3-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Seed76

So all in all your assertion about a Spagheti that is flying and have a Raptor son named Jesus...well.....


Okay. Do you believe Zeus exists?

Imagine you were hooked up to a lie detector, hypothetically one that's 100% accurate and cannot be fooled. It asks you 'Yes or No' do you believe Zeus exists? If you reply 'No' what do you think would be the results of the lie detector?
edit on 3-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


Lol what? you think being Greek makes you an authority?


No, but i have better understanding concerning Greek words and their meanings than you will ever have. But since you like to quote dictionary :

The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.


Peace



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

As you can see it is still the same ole same ole.

An overwhelming amount of people still don't understand that if you don't believe in deities that make's one an atheist.


Whenever one of the threads pop up that ask if people are atheists if you simply answer them with the definition of atheist their responses are somewhat interesting.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Atheism rejects the fantastic fairytale claims that the Bible
and theists make in regards to a supernatural being. As the cause
for the existence of everything in the universe. They laugh and scoff
and use words like silly, perposterous, invisible man. Yet in not one
instance, has any atheist ever been able to forward a summation that
isn't more perposterous than the one rejected outright.

I find that comical and laugh.
edit on Rpm30315v40201500000053 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Do you not reject the fantastical claims of Greek mythology? What about Scientology? Pray tell how your rejection of these other mythological gods, and the mythos that surround them, is so wholly different than what atheists do with yours? This high ground you're attempting to gallop on is a bit rocky. This also gives me a good chuckle. I'm happy we are both in laughing moods.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


Do you not reject the fantastical claims of Greek mythology?


Who doesn't?

And only an atheist would try to draw such a lame comparison
when there is absolutely no comparison.

The answer is to simple I guess.
I reject those for a far better one.
Which is my premise in the first place.
Still laughing. Not chuckling. Laughing.

Scholarly historicity will back me all the way.
But you most likely know that.

Also not even you can deny that, even in this modern era,
lives are changed and many even saved, in the name of Jesus
Christ. Not Zeus not Apollo not Muhammed.
edit on Rpm30315v502015u50 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Keep laughing. Apparently that's your contribution here.

You're suggesting your religious explanation is the best one. How exactly are you expecting me to respond to that notion? I obviously don't agree. There are scientific models more grounded in evidence that give alternate explanations. You obviously don't agree.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB:It interests me that you categorize belief systems but you don't have a grasp on ALL of them


Lucid Lunacy: Beliefs systems often categorize themselves with no need for me to do so.

I would hope not as you would be a very powerful entity dictating their exact purpose.


Lucid Lunacy: I never said I had grasp on ALL.
You should have; before expounding on just a few favorite flogging/whipping points. Include all faiths without prejudice; favoritism shown to those only known. The others should be shown the same interest as to incur similar wrath.


VHB: To your mind it seems there are only two, Atheists and Theists.


Lucid Lunacy: You brought up atheists with your fallacious demand for proof. Yes I used the word 'theist'. I could use other terms if you wish. The point is religious gods are asserted by religious people, and the burden of proof is on them to prove, and not for others to disprove.

I am not a religious person; do not include me in any assertions that I need an Atheist to tell me God does not exist or a Theist to tell me God DOES exist. Your point is to say unreligious people need not bother to assert the fallacious idea God exists. Religious people are wasting their breath. Point taken. There is no burden for either to prove anything because NEITHER CAN DO IT; a pointless exercise of the individual EGO overthinking an existential argument of faith to a logical pragmatist.


VHB: You know there is the Agnostic as well.


Lucid Lunacy: Are you even reading my posts.

Why would I do that, that is just well; crazytime thinking.


VHB: Belief in the existence of God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority.


Lucid Lunacy: Fine. Exclude deism then. Lets refer to the religious gods that do rely on the authority of revelation.

No, lets not exclude ANYTHING; In particular: What is at the bottom of "deism" and its NON reference to religious Gods that rely on the authority of revelation. Lets not focus on the others that do; as you were the DEIST that rejected this notion.


VHB: So what caused your rejection of this ideology


Lucid Lunacy: I make no claim to knowledge that such a deity doesn't exist. I simply disbelieve one exists. Agnosticism doesn't preclude one from being an atheist. I elaborated in an earlier post on this page.

Your claim is you as a being created by others do not believe a higher creator being created you (you are self created) tell me how you accomplished this all by yourself. I am not an agnostic or an atheist or a theist so I cannot relate to the elaboration you are speaking of.
edit on 4-3-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Scholarly historicity will back me all the way.
But you most likely know that.

Historically has religion offered the best explanation? Well yeah. Historically speaking science is the new kid on the block. For most of our history religion was the explanation.

“Religion was the race's first (and worst) attempt to make sense of reality. It was the best the species could do at a time when we had no concept of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. We did not know that we lived on a round planet, let alone that the said planet was in orbit in a minor and obscure solar system, which was also on the edge of an unimaginably vast cosmos that was exploding away from its original source of energy. We did not know that micro-organisms were so powerful and lived in our digestive systems in order to enable us to live, as well as mounting lethal attacks on us as parasites. We did not know of our close kinship with other animals. We believed that sprites, imps, demons, and djinns were hovering in the air about us. We imagined that thunder and lightning were portentous. It has taken us a long time to shrug off this heavy coat of ignorance and fear, and every time we do there are self-interested forces who want to compel us to put it back on again.” ~Christopher Hitchens
edit on 3-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I would counter that all of those scientific explanations that
are beholding to "evidence" as you call it. Evidence that only
attempts an explanation for what has already happened by using
the mechanics of what is already there. And any attempt to further
the explanation to the detail and scope that is given in the Bible?
Always must veer off into some higher level of absurd disbelievability.
Such as the universe has always existed. It is retro actively infinite.
How is it rational to believe that life is just a space between
two blanks? That would render not only life and man, but the
whole universe with absolutely no purpose at all. Everything
came from nothing, for nothing, by nothing and will return to
nothing. Because it was better off as nothing. But every once
in a while nothing gets a wild hair up it's ass and becomes something
for a while. And if that's what we as mere slow motion, accidental
beings of nothing, by nothing, and good for nothing, are experiencing
right now, for nothing? If the life force and consciousness do not continue
after the physical life ? No matter how irrational it may seem to some ? Then
absolutely nothing should be rational. Now, is that the case, not at all.
Much of our consciousness in existence, experiences rational thought
and occurrances. So if nothing were rational, it would not have become
something in the first place.

That's my contribution here. I'm done.


edit on Ram30415v222015u37 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The others should be shown the same interest as to incur similar wrath.

You're completely missing my point if you think what I am saying about the burden of proof only applies to one particular religion. It would apply to anyone making a claim something was truthful. Did you read that link I included about that fallacy? It should have made that clear.

The Biblical god was merely the context of the conversation. The burden of proof is also on scientologist, hindus, mormons, etc, etc.


There is no burden for either to prove NEITHER CAN DO IT;

I fully agree neither can prove or disprove the existence of god, or anything said to exist outside the Universe. That doesn't change where the burden lies if the religious person is asserting it as objective truth.

The fact it's currently impossible to procure evidence means no one has proof for any religions god. As such there is good grounds for disbelief aka atheism.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

That would render not only life and man, but the
whole universe with absolutely no purpose at all.


The absence of some ultimate greater purpose that transcends Earth and our Earthly lives doesn't render our lives meaningless. We make our purpose in life on Earth while we live.

Sure...with no afterlife, and some preservation of our time on Earth, then we could say that meaning & purpose ends when we die. I won't argue that perspective.

It would be great if there was an afterlife, and a personal god that cared about me. I don't want to die. I want to see loved ones again.

What I desire to be true, and what is true, may never be in agreement. So instead of basing it on what I desire, I follow sound reasoning based on observable evidence.

This is quite off-topic though.
edit on 4-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I apologise for the drift in earnest. My bad.
edit on Ram30415v34201500000008 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Also not even you can deny that, even in this modern era,
lives are changed and many even saved, in the name of Jesus
Christ.

You would have to explain what you mean by 'changed' and what you mean by 'saved' before I could agree or disagree to that.

*Edit: I probably should have included this in my other post. I'm sure it will come up in another thread so don't need to address it here.
edit on 4-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB: The others should be shown the same interest as to incur similar wrath.


Lucid Lunacy: You're completely missing my point if you think what I am saying about the burden of proof only applies to one particular religion. It would apply to anyone making a claim something was truthful. Did you read that link I included about that fallacy? It should have made that clear.

You included someone else's hyperbole to support your argument? No I did not read a link you did not author. I am not missing anyone elses anything.


Lucid Lunacy: The Biblical god was merely the context of the conversation. The burden of proof is also on scientologist, hindus,mormons, etc, etc.

All of them, every one of them? What if they don't see an argument that justifies the time spent? Maybe they are sure of their faith and would look at your atheism with a sense of charity, humor, compassion or concern as to what brought you to such a place that caused you to deny your creator being.


VHB: There is no burden for either to prove NEITHER CAN DO IT;


Lucid Lunacy: I fully agree neither can prove or disprove the existence of god, or anything said to exist outside the Universe. That doesn't change where the burden lies if the religious person is asserting it as objective truth.The fact it's currently impossible to procure evidence means no has proof for any religions god. As such there is good grounds for disbelief aka atheism.

You alone made the determination to be an Atheist. I'm not going to argue with you as you apparently have convinced yourself you have"good enough grounds for disbelief".


edit on 4-3-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No I did not read a link you did not author.

Well I am sorry you didn't. It would have clarified this. I linked it because it explained the fallacy, and what I was attempting to convey.


All of them, every one of them?

Yes. Im just repeating myself. Please read it. It's not long. Link


What if they don't see an argument that justifies the time spent?

This is tangential to what we are discussing. I'm not saying anyone has to argue about anything. None of that changes where the burden for proof lies, and where it doesn't.


Maybe they are sure of their faith

Great. With such conviction about the truthfulness of their faith, is it so surprising people would ask for proof?


and would look at your atheism with a sense of charity, humor, compassion or concern as to what brought you to such a place that caused you to deny your creator being.

I fully support their freedom to think anything they want about my position. Their feelings towards me doesn't in any way increase the likelihood their faith represents reality.


You alone made the determination to be an Atheist.

Ultimately it was me but I source from the wealth of knowledge in the World.


I'm not going to argue with you

That's fine.


you apparently have convinced yourself you have"good enough grounds for disbelief"

Certainly for any religious god, yes.
edit on 4-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Okay. Do you believe Zeus exists?


Really Lucid ? You really want to go down that path ? You really want to argue the existence of Zeus with physical tangible evidence ?

Let me ask you this : Do you believe you have an actual physical "Brain" ?

If you answer with "Yes" how can you prove to me that you have an actual physical "Brain", since i cannot "See", "Touch", "Smell", "Taste" or "Hear" your "Brain". If you answer with "No", then you do not have an actual physical "Brain".

Peace




edit on 4-3-2015 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Seed76

I don't answer questions when that person ignores mine. Not how I choose to do things.

Peace. Indeed.

*Edit: this isn't about the reasons for disbelief. Simply that one has disbelief. Ones reasons could be terrible, but that doesn't preclude disbelief. You have ignored and dodged my questions in my attempt to address this. So I think we are done here. Also I could show you my brain activity with an EEG. That's physical evidence. Again, wasn't the point.
edit on 4-3-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


I don't answer questions when that person ignores mine. Not how I choose to do things.


I have answered your questions about the FSM and his Raptor son named Jesus. Although originally your question was "If i believe in Zeus" but you changed it to "If i believe Zeus exists". And again i answered your question. Just because you do not like the answers given, there is no need to be dishonest and accusing me of ignoring them.


Also I could show you my brain activity with an EEG. That's physical evidence.


I can show a picture and a statue of Zeus. That´s physical evidence also.


So I think we are done here.


Ok.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join