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.

 

This Sort of Thing Is Why I Speak Out Against Religion

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: luthier
Not Christian at all. Don't believe in the bible at all. I am a deist.

I am however a student of philosophy and thus so have seen these arguments run out to there extreme by other philosophers.


My bad, I didn't read all the posts in this thread.


No problem I love philosophy. Just wanted to point out just because I support some Christian principles doesn't mean I believe in Christianity.

I had an amazing atheist professor (almost 20 years ago now) he always stood up for religion when there were unsupported claims. He was also the first atheist I met (many more after) against abortion once the fetus was conscious. He said there was no philosophical way to reconcile it was not murder. We actually spent a few classes on the topic and he even got some feminists to change how they thought about it.

Sometimes I feel like playing devils advocate to both sides just to point out logical holes.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

First off not Christian or religious. Guess you didn't read any of my posts or misread them.

Second never said morality needed god. It does need to be taught culturally and is not innate. Like I said if you know anthropology morality is very different every where you go.

I am perfectly fine with morality being taught purely philosophically.

When I studied philosophy we studied these arguments and there fallacies. Atheists don't have any more or less morality than zealots. There have been many serial killers who identify as atheist for instance.

Don't put words in my mouth please.


If you are just a deist, from who do you take morals from?

As you said earlier Atheists teach immorality...

You said;


Without god and humbleness he could trample over other human beings to get whatever you want.


If you think that, means you take moral from a specific religion...

Otherwise being deist, and not following a known religion, mean you take morals directly from God...?
Please explain....

You referred to St Anselm, st Aquinas.
If you believe in sins, Heaven and Hell, or the teachings of Christ, but not following a specific church,
Or if generally your concept of God shares characteristics with already known gods...

Then you are still just a heretic of christianity or Judaism or whatever, and not just a Deist in the ''panentheistic'' or pantheistic meaning.

Nevertheless I agree with you that morals are objective to societies, and I would prefer too, our morals to be constantly subjects of philosophy and sociology instead of superstitious myths and traditions!



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Tenebris

I've reached the conclusion that any deity who inflicts death and destruction upon a group of people in order to get the attention of others is acting in a quite futile manner.

That youtube was posted 2011. Have there been any recorded mass conversions? I haven't heard of any.

Back in the day, Hurricane Katrina was divine justice against U.S. for Invasion of Iraq. But evidently, I was the only one who understood that because the religious leaders with the bullhorns were blaming the usual suspects: gays, Voodoo, abortion, atheists, ACLU.

The December 26, 2004 Earthquake and Tsunami:


Why did the South Asian Tsunami happen? Reasons given by some religious conservatives

Shakur R. Sheffield of Miami, FL is reported as having posted a message to the Miami Herald's feedback bulletin board called: "Perspectives on the power of nature, relief funds, and God." He wrote:

"Make no mistake about it, this was no accident or freak of nature. This was a warning, a reminder or, shall I say, a 'word' from God. The first thing most of us say is, 'Those things happen in third-world countries.' Well that's just another way of saying that we have been blessed -- so far. These tsunamis should make us realize that we are one world, one people, living under the mercy of one God. Don't think that because we are living in the high-tech, modern world that our technology makes us special or will protect us from all evil. Believe it or not, God still rules."

If Sheffield's interpretation is correct, then it is not clear exactly what God's warning is. One might speculate that the victims of the tsunami who were overwhelmingly Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims should abandon their faith and adopt the true faith that worships the "true" god. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether this is Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Sikhism, or some other religion. One might also speculate that God's message might be that wars are to cease, or the destruction of the environment is to be reduced, exploitation of the poor is to stop, etc.

The story about Timothy McVeigh was that he wanted to kill Bill Clinton and Janet Reno as revenge for Branch Davidian massacre, after all, they both publically said, "I take personal responsibility", yet neither went to prison. McVeigh, finding it a bit difficult to get to either Clinton or Reno, instead went for a soft target, the Federal Building. That didn't hurt Clinton or Reno one bit. They certainly didn't suddenly decide to turn themselves in for prosecution.

People who think of their deities as the type of people who kill many people to get the attention of some other people might as well worship Timothy McVeigh.

I've modified my views on Hurricane Katrina.

edit on 24-6-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: luthier

First off not Christian or religious. Guess you didn't read any of my posts or misread them.

Second never said morality needed god. It does need to be taught culturally and is not innate. Like I said if you know anthropology morality is very different every where you go.

I am perfectly fine with morality being taught purely philosophically.

When I studied philosophy we studied these arguments and there fallacies. Atheists don't have any more or less morality than zealots. There have been many serial killers who identify as atheist for instance.

Don't put words in my mouth please.


If you are just a deist, from who do you take morals from?

As you said earlier Atheists teach immorality...

You said;


Without god and humbleness he could trample over other human beings to get whatever you want.


If you think that, means you take moral from a specific religion...

Otherwise being deist, and not following a known religion, mean you take morals directly from God...?
Please explain....

You referred to St Anselm, st Aquinas.
If you believe in sins, Heaven and Hell, or the teachings of Christ, but not following a specific church,
Or if generally your concept of God shares characteristics with already known gods...

Then you are still just a heretic of christianity or Judaism or whatever, and not just a Deist in the ''panentheistic'' or pantheistic meaning.

Nevertheless I agree with you that morals are objective to societies, and I would prefer too, our morals to be constantly subjects of philosophy and sociology instead of superstitious myths and traditions!


Good questions.

My morality comes partly from family, culture, and mostly philosophy. I was very lucky to have great philosophy and anthropology teachers. Ultimately I became a luthier, sound engineer, and musician.

I used Nietzsche as example that atheists can also be zealots and immoral. I do not think atheism teaches immoral behavior. I also don't think it teaches anything. It just is. Most of my atheist friends (have plenty today) and professors (20 years ago) are exceptional people but there are plenty of immoral homicidal atheists as there are religious people. My opinion is the inn at quality we carry is ego and that corrupts anything mankind does without guidance and observation.

I believe very thinly in god based on my own lack or understanding of how the universe could exist from nothing. Without infinite regress how did something come from nothing? If there was always something that could be god. Also what is the purpose of observation, of reason, and intelligence? I don't know. There are a lot of answers people studying cosmology there whole lives can't explain on either side of the god no god debate.

I don't believe in Christianity but it doesn't mean I don't find wisdom in some of the parables. I also am not a Tibetan Buddhist but find a lot of profound thought there too.

I also like to point out fallacies (imo) I see in both sides of the arguments just to see how much people have actually thought through their reasoning.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

My morality comes partly from family, culture, and mostly philosophy.


Since your morals come from the ''sources'' you stated and not some supernatural being,
you obviously agree that morality, is unrelated to any God, or religion, and we humans are able to
establish impartially, healthy morals in our societies.

I agree that atheists can also be immoral, just like every other group of people, It's logical...
But if I were you I would rather emphasise to the immorality of the religious ones,
because they are the ones that try to teach, share or dictate their religious morality to others.
And that's somehow ironic, isn't it?

As you said Atheism doesn't teach anything, So what's the point to point the immorality of the atheist immoral percentage,
as long as it is just the same percentage as the various immoral (religious or not) people of society in general.

Furthermore since healthy morality can exist without god, the necessity or purpose of god ,
shrinks into just a reason or an answer if you like, to the unknown...
Just like some ancient and prehistoric people, related to God anything they couldn't explain , Sun, stars, thunder, cataclysms, earthquakes, death, life etc.

Even in our time we can describe God with the equation; God = unknown.

We have made massive steps into understanding cosmology,
But still the unknown excites our imagination,
Inner insecurities about the ultimate questions find comfort in various supernatural ''answers''
which were the building blocks for the concept of god in all religions. Birth of God in human mind...


I am a pantheist myself, I do not accept any Gods known or unknown, or any deities of any kind.
I only accept the possibility of the universe itself or nature in general, being a devine mechanism
of some kind, the laws of nature create my ''patheon'' in an ancient polytheistic way of thinking.

I understand this doesn't make much sense to others, so I just call myself an atheist.

Anyway I wish you a nice journey into philosophy, spirituality or whatever you seek.

Ps Sorry for being slightly off- topic



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: luthier

My morality comes partly from family, culture, and mostly philosophy.


Since your morals come from the ''sources'' you stated and not some supernatural being,
you obviously agree that morality, is unrelated to any God, or religion, and we humans are able to
establish impartially, healthy morals in our societies.

I agree that atheists can also be immoral, just like every other group of people, It's logical...
But if I were you I would rather emphasise to the immorality of the religious ones,
because they are the ones that try to teach, share or dictate their religious morality to others.
And that's somehow ironic, isn't it?

As you said Atheism doesn't teach anything, So what's the point to point the immorality of the atheist immoral percentage,
as long as it is just the same percentage as the various immoral (religious or not) people of society in general.

Furthermore since healthy morality can exist without god, the necessity or purpose of god ,
shrinks into just a reason or an answer if you like, to the unknown...
Just like some ancient and prehistoric people, related to God anything they couldn't explain , Sun, stars, thunder, cataclysms, earthquakes, death, life etc.

Even in our time we can describe God with the equation; God = unknown.

We have made massive steps into understanding cosmology,
But still the unknown excites our imagination,
Inner insecurities about the ultimate questions find comfort in various supernatural ''answers''
which were the building blocks for the concept of god in all religions. Birth of God in human mind...


I am a pantheist myself, I do not accept any Gods known or unknown, or any deities of any kind.
I only accept the possibility of the universe itself or nature in general, being a devine mechanism
of some kind, the laws of nature create my ''patheon'' in an ancient polytheistic way of thinking.

I understand this doesn't make much sense to others, so I just call myself an atheist.

Anyway I wish you a nice journey into philosophy, spirituality or whatever you seek.

Ps Sorry for being slightly off- topic


No I appreciate these type of discussions. Especially without the slander and with thoughtful debate.

However, I am pointing out to others who think its enough to reject religion and call themselves atheist it is not. Nor is it valid to attack religion where it is mans own corruption of the text and not the text itself. Mankind does this stuff with or without religion. You could write a beautiful atheist manifesto and it would be perverted by man eventually. Just like the use of the word liberal for instance no longer follows John lockes (religious) philosophy. Or how communism came from Marx's (athiest) manifesto.

Second many incredibly gifted thinkers came from religion. The big bang was a Jesuit priests theory, Einstein was deeply religious and said his faith led him to his observations.

Superstitions are also not all bad and played a useful role in a less experienced human experience.

As far as your own beliefs as with most beliefs there are already in place interesting arguments both supporting and arguing against them. We have come along way with cosmology but, that long way is also realizing how much we don't know and may not have the capacity to observe or understand (holographic universe, merging realities etc). Its very possible our senses are incapable of understanding reality at all.

My point in all this is when you close yourself to say something isn't true you close your self off from understanding the possibility you may be wrong. There is no way to say if god exists or not. Kant said the shores of metaphysical debate are littered with ship wrecks. If you follow such debates finely tuned universe etc, un moved mover, multiverse etc you can see it is impossible to say A posteriori any of this is true.

Without empirical observation (holographic universe) we can't even say anything is real. Only that it is real once observed. We constitute our own reality through observation.

Now I am way off topic.
edit on 24-6-2015 by luthier because: edit

edit on 24-6-2015 by luthier because: clarity



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
No I appreciate these type of discussions. Especially without the slander and with thoughtful debate.

However, I am pointing out to others who think its enough to reject religion and call themselves atheist it is not. Nor is it valid to attack religion where it is mans own corruption of the text and not the text itself. Mankind does this stuff with or without religion. You could write a beautiful atheist manifesto and it would be perverted by man eventually. Just like the use of the word liberal for instance no longer follows John lockes (religious) philosophy. Or how communism came from Marx's (athiest) manifesto.

Second many incredibly gifted thinkers came from religion. The big bang was a Jesuit priests theory, Einstein was deeply religious and said his faith led him to his observations.

Superstitions are also not all bad and played a useful role in a less experienced human experience.

As far as your own beliefs as with most beliefs there are already in place interesting arguments both supporting and arguing against them. We have come along way with cosmology but, that long way is also realizing how much we don't know and may not have the capacity to observe or understand (holographic universe, merging realities etc). Its very possible our senses are incapable of understanding reality at all.

My point in all this is when you close yourself to say something isn't true you close your self off from understanding the possibility you may be wrong. There is no way to say if god exists or not. Kant said the shores of metaphysical debate are littered with ship wrecks. If you follow such debates finely tuned universe etc, un moved mover, multiverse etc you can see it is impossible to say A posteriori any of this is true.

Without empirical observation (holographic universe) we can't even say anything is real. Only that it is real once observed. We constitute our own reality through observation.

Now I am way off topic.


Einstein was born in a religious family and was raised that way. But...
Various quotes of him have been misinterpreted in a way to sound religious
Einstein wasn't deeply religious at all,he was a panentheist;

Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether
he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions
of human beings."

So no relation with the Jewish dogma or any other personal dogmatic god or holy books, etc.

IMO superstitions are always bad because they distort our perception of reality. and are the main reason for the closed minded people you referred to.

My beliefs aren't exactly beliefs, like those of the religious
You see gravity exists, and I experience it no matter if I believe in it or not
Also I can't pray to gravity... ok I can, but what's the point of that?
I don't believe in laws as deities, I just study their properties and perceive them for what they are.

Atheists usually are not the close minded ones.
and they don't close themselves from ''possibilities''
they just ask for actual evidence of these possibilities!
We go with what we know, and do not make up stories what we don't
Theories rely on evidence and not possibilities,
there are infinite possibilities, that discribe an infinite holographic universe
But the best way to reach the truth is the search for actual evidence.

Since the evidence of all known gods being made up by humans,
are much stronger than the evidence that these gods exist...
there is no reason to be open to the possibility that these supernatural
ignorant ideas -that have done more bad to humanity than good- have a place in our cosmology
I can say with confidence that lochness monster doesn't exist, the same way I can say with confidence that Yahweh doesn't exist.
But bring some evidence of either, and I have no problem changing my mind.


In contrast with the ancients, thanks to progress and science, we now have instruments that go way beyond our natural senses and help us expand our understanding and observetion into realms we couldn't even imagine...
As long as scientific knowledge evolves, we can infinite expand our senses learning more and more about our universe,
and thus leaving less and less room for religion until it will eventually extinct! (Amen!)

p.s. I am really sorry op, if you think we are off-topic and or hi-jacking your thread, lets us know to stop this discussion or move it somewhere else, apologies...



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: luthier
No I appreciate these type of discussions. Especially without the slander and with thoughtful debate.

However, I am pointing out to others who think its enough to reject religion and call themselves atheist it is not. Nor is it valid to attack religion where it is mans own corruption of the text and not the text itself. Mankind does this stuff with or without religion. You could write a beautiful atheist manifesto and it would be perverted by man eventually. Just like the use of the word liberal for instance no longer follows John lockes (religious) philosophy. Or how communism came from Marx's (athiest) manifesto.

Second many incredibly gifted thinkers came from religion. The big bang was a Jesuit priests theory, Einstein was deeply religious and said his faith led him to his observations.

Superstitions are also not all bad and played a useful role in a less experienced human experience.

As far as your own beliefs as with most beliefs there are already in place interesting arguments both supporting and arguing against them. We have come along way with cosmology but, that long way is also realizing how much we don't know and may not have the capacity to observe or understand (holographic universe, merging realities etc). Its very possible our senses are incapable of understanding reality at all.

My point in all this is when you close yourself to say something isn't true you close your self off from understanding the possibility you may be wrong. There is no way to say if god exists or not. Kant said the shores of metaphysical debate are littered with ship wrecks. If you follow such debates finely tuned universe etc, un moved mover, multiverse etc you can see it is impossible to say A posteriori any of this is true.

Without empirical observation (holographic universe) we can't even say anything is real. Only that it is real once observed. We constitute our own reality through observation.

Now I am way off topic.


Einstein was born in a religious family and was raised that way. But...
Various quotes of him have been misinterpreted in a way to sound religious
Einstein wasn't deeply religious at all,he was a panentheist;

Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether
he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions
of human beings."

So no relation with the Jewish dogma or any other personal dogmatic god or holy books, etc.

IMO superstitions are always bad because they distort our perception of reality. and are the main reason for the closed minded people you referred to.

My beliefs aren't exactly beliefs, like those of the religious
You see gravity exists, and I experience it no matter if I believe in it or not
Also I can't pray to gravity... ok I can, but what's the point of that?
I don't believe in laws as deities, I just study their properties and perceive them for what they are.

Atheists usually are not the close minded ones.
and they don't close themselves from ''possibilities''
they just ask for actual evidence of these possibilities!
We go with what we know, and do not make up stories what we don't
Theories rely on evidence and not possibilities,
there are infinite possibilities, that discribe an infinite holographic universe
But the best way to reach the truth is the search for actual evidence.

Since the evidence of all known gods being made up by humans,
are much stronger than the evidence that these gods exist...
there is no reason to be open to the possibility that these supernatural
ignorant ideas -that have done more bad to humanity than good- have a place in our cosmology
I can say with confidence that lochness monster doesn't exist, the same way I can say with confidence that Yahweh doesn't exist.
But bring some evidence of either, and I have no problem changing my mind.


In contrast with the ancients, thanks to progress and science, we now have instruments that go way beyond our natural senses and help us expand our understanding and observetion into realms we couldn't even imagine...
As long as scientific knowledge evolves, we can infinite expand our senses learning more and more about our universe,
and thus leaving less and less room for religion until it will eventually extinct! (Amen!)

p.s. I am really sorry op, if you think we are off-topic and or hi-jacking your thread, lets us know to stop this discussion or move it somewhere else, apologies...


Yeah sorry op. But it is kinda relevant. I am somewhat down with spinoza's god myself and see it as a valid possibility. Like the aboriginal "divine oneness". However spinoza had some trouble upholding a lot of arguments logically.

As far as einstein i will have to read more than that one excerpt to be convinced.

This isnt an attack but are you assuming that good scientists today are athiest or is emperical? Have you found a valid emperical argument A posteirori against the finely tuned universe? To me the multiverse seems more theoretical than the ftu (which actually uses emperic data). Yes it is completely mis used by christians but,..

As far as your senses and equiptment its true to a point but without actually being able to understand with our senses we may not have a clue what we are looking at. Which is what the holographic universe theories are kind of showing. Sure they are testing in fermilab with cutting edge equiptment but our brains because of what we presume reality to be based on our senses has a hard time interpretting the information. Maybe transhuminism will change that?

Ironically the holographic universe theory is very similar to some tibetan budhist "superstitions". It is also some what similar to Kants coepernican revolition in critique of pure reason. It could also explain what seem to be supernatural events. If we create reality through observation (overlapping). Of course this could only apply to the quntum field.

Its also possible we have been alterred or tamppered with by another intelligence since the model of evolution is so incomplete. I think its reasonable to theorize if we can genetically alter a life form so could something else (a stretch but notnas far as a guy with a beard on a cloud). It doesnt make sense to me yet why homosapiens only come from Africa while archaic humans were already all over the earth. Unless you believe in the multiregional theory.

Also how can you know emperically that religious ideas did more harm than good? We learned a lot about engineering because of them. They were the first forms of philosophy and the first questions people tried to answer about the cosmos. It seems to me impossible to know that they were not a necesarry path to get where we are now.

I digress now. Sorry. I am home with my twin daughters (toddlers) and my wife is out of town. Been stuck without adult conversation.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




It wasn't her religion that caused the Japanese to expand their empire and slaughter millions


Did anyone even suggest this was the case? This statement has no relevance whatsoever.




The saddest thing are posts like these that have offered nothing of value but "hey look at this video".


I have put forward an example as to why I view religion as a problem. As I said in my original post.




Its not the religions fault, its the person reading and understanding it.


It most certainly is the religion. Take a look at these verses from the Bible:

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. - Isiah 13:15-18

Deuteronomy 17:12-13 tells you to kill anyone who doesn't listen to a priest.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. - Ephesians 6:5

How on earth can these be understood in any other way? And yet you claim that if it weren't for your God, we would have no morals?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula

It's fine, go ahead. You're making good points anyway.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tenebris
a reply to: borntowatch




It wasn't her religion that caused the Japanese to expand their empire and slaughter millions


Did anyone even suggest this was the case? This statement has no relevance whatsoever.




The saddest thing are posts like these that have offered nothing of value but "hey look at this video".


I have put forward an example as to why I view religion as a problem. As I said in my original post.




Its not the religions fault, its the person reading and understanding it.


It most certainly is the religion. Take a look at these verses from the Bible:

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. - Isiah 13:15-18

Deuteronomy 17:12-13 tells you to kill anyone who doesn't listen to a priest.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. - Ephesians 6:5

How on earth can these be understood in any other way? And yet you claim that if it weren't for your God, we would have no morals?


I have a feeling I am going to be torn apart for defending religion again but, the whole problem with putting your belief in a book is it can be interpretted so many different ways. The aramiac and acient greek can be misinterpreted we are talking about poems metaphores, and parables. Things can be added or taken out. The bible obviously should be scrutinized coming from a pagan dictator, passing through a political religeous empire, and being edited by a king. However the gnostic and essene philosophies at the time were working on human understanding however right and wrong they were.

Like i said to Dr1 it is impossible to say this isnt the only way we could end up in a scientific society. The greeks, indians, chinese, turks, persians etc all had religeon which was a stepping stone to understanding geometry, architecture, language etc.

Were the fascist communists any better for not having religeon or did mankind once again pervert a philosophy that had promise? Marx never intended communism to come from a rural poor society. It was supposed to come after capitalism consolidated wealth to such a small population in a technological society that the workers would just decide to cut out the owners and make the goods for each other.

Persoanlly i beleieve strongly in bucky fullers ideas. After reading owners manual for spaceship earth and critical path as well as his extensive thoughts and pattents on incredibly advanced designs i came to realize there is a design in nature and some people can see it and recreate it into human artifacts and tools far ahead of anyone else. Now i dont believe in the intelligent design that christians have come to misuse but it does make me wonder. Thats as close as i get to god.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Its true by all atheists by definition. If you don't believe in the concept of god you are atheist. If you don't know that is not atheist.


I have read several of your posts in this thread, and it's clear you don't have the slightest idea what "atheist" means. I don't know where you've gotten your information and I'm not sure why you talk as if you KNOW how atheists think, what they believe and how they behave, but you're CLEARLY placing all atheists in a box and labeling it with indelible marker, so you can feel better and more secure about yourself and your beliefs.

That's OK, but just FYI, you are incorrect in a lot of your statements about us. Here's a video that explains what an agnostic atheists is... Just so you'll know more next time you get on a roll like this, telling us what we think, believe and how we act. I really suggest you take the time to watch it. And to quote you:

Don't put words in my mouth please.


Lack of Belief in Gods
edit on 6/25/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: luthier
Its true by all atheists by definition. If you don't believe in the concept of god you are atheist. If you don't know that is not atheist.


I have read several of your posts in this thread, and it's clear you don't have the slightest idea what "atheist" means. I don't know where you've gotten your information and I'm not sure why you talk as if you KNOW how atheists think, what they believe and how they behave, but you're CLEARLY placing all atheists in a box and labeling it with indelible marker, so you can feel better and more secure about yourself and your beliefs.

That's OK, but just FYI, you are incorrect in a lot of your statements about us. Here's a video that explains what an agnostic atheists is... Just so you'll know more next time you get on a roll like this, telling us what we think, believe and how we act. I really suggest you take the time to watch it. And to quote you:

Don't put words in my mouth please.


Lack of Belief in Gods


My information from? How about the definition.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods

Also through philosophy by essays of prominant atheist philosophers respected by their peers in academia. I had a great Atheist proffesor when I went to the Berklee school of music. We shared classes in humanities with Harvard.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thank you for the link to youtube. The definition is at 3:53.
"Atheism: Lack of Belief - I lack belief in gods - gods don't feature among the things I believe exist"

That's basically the way I understand atheists to be. I think it would have been helpful if the definition had been restated a few more times on the video.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: luthier
Its true by all atheists by definition. If you don't believe in the concept of god you are atheist. If you don't know that is not atheist.


I have read several of your posts in this thread, and it's clear you don't have the slightest idea what "atheist" means. I don't know where you've gotten your information and I'm not sure why you talk as if you KNOW how atheists think, what they believe and how they behave, but you're CLEARLY placing all atheists in a box and labeling it with indelible marker, so you can feel better and more secure about yourself and your beliefs.

That's OK, but just FYI, you are incorrect in a lot of your statements about us. Here's a video that explains what an agnostic atheists is... Just so you'll know more next time you get on a roll like this, telling us what we think, believe and how we act. I really suggest you take the time to watch it. And to quote you:

Don't put words in my mouth please.


Lack of Belief in Gods


I find it ironic the op can put "religeon" in a box from a video excerpt of an extremist but when I (as stated in posts over and over) play the devils advodcate and do the same to athiests you see the fallacy.


has never done any good or more harm then good? All religeous people and superstitions are bad. You do realize that is an insult to..shinto, budhist, zorastrian, hindu, sikh, jain, christian, sufi, muslim, hebrew, etc.

Its ok to put them in a box?

Please point out where i gave an incorrect definition without hiding behind sematics.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I just reread my post and I could have been much more diplomatic, but that's not my strong suit. I apologize. I am an atheist and much of what you stated isn't true about me, nor is it true about most of the atheists I know. I mostly thought your statements about atheism were painting far too wide a brush. I actually agree with most of what you say, except for those generalizations you made.

So now to respond to your post:


originally posted by: luthier
I find it ironic the op can put "religeon" in a box from a video excerpt of an extremist but when I (as stated in posts over and over) play the devils advodcate and do the same to athiests you see the fallacy.


The OP didn't do that, though. Read this in particular:



You don't have to tell me that there are religious people who are kind, decent human beings. I know that. I have a cousin who is an evangelical Christian, and he is the most wonderful person you're ever likely to meet.


They didn't say "Christians think this, or religious people do that"... The OP spoke of the girl in the video and people who believe as she does only, not all religious people. Whereas the points you made seemed to be about "how atheists are". These are the our comments that I disagree with (I know you did make a caveat in one post but the generalizations about "how they act, what they think and what they call themselves" just rubbed me the wrong way:



Atheists think they are some how better and more scientific. Truth is they have faith god doesn't exist but can't prove it.
...
With god out of the way and morality you can treat your fellow man however you want.
...
Its true by all atheists by definition. If you don't believe in the concept of god you are atheist. If you don't know that is not atheist.
...
Agnostic atheism doesn't make sense by definition.




Please point out where i gave an incorrect definition without hiding behind sematics.


I posted a video that explains agnostic atheism.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I just reread my post and I could have been much more diplomatic, but that's not my strong suit. I apologize. I am an atheist and much of what you stated isn't true about me, nor is it true about most of the atheists I know. I mostly thought your statements about atheism were painting far too wide a brush. I actually agree with most of what you say, except for those generalizations you made.

So now to respond to your post:


originally posted by: luthier
I find it ironic the op can put "religeon" in a box from a video excerpt of an extremist but when I (as stated in posts over and over) play the devils advodcate and do the same to athiests you see the fallacy.


The OP didn't do that, though. Read this in particular:



You don't have to tell me that there are religious people who are kind, decent human beings. I know that. I have a cousin who is an evangelical Christian, and he is the most wonderful person you're ever likely to meet.


They didn't say "Christians think this, or religious people do that"... The OP spoke of the girl in the video and people who believe as she does only, not all religious people. Whereas the points you made seemed to be about "how atheists are". These are the our comments that I disagree with (I know you did make a caveat in one post but the generalizations about "how they act, what they think and what they call themselves" just rubbed me the wrong way:



Atheists think they are some how better and more scientific. Truth is they have faith god doesn't exist but can't prove it.
...
With god out of the way and morality you can treat your fellow man however you want.
...
Its true by all atheists by definition. If you don't believe in the concept of god you are atheist. If you don't know that is not atheist.
...
Agnostic atheism doesn't make sense by definition.




Please point out where i gave an incorrect definition without hiding behind sematics.


I posted a video that explains agnostic atheism.


Its no problem. I do apreciate coming back to jesus (j/k)

Drk1 did make a list of why athiests were better suited for science. I havent heard yet is this was anectdotal or emperical.

I was purposely pushing buttons i am the one who should be sorry. Really though if you look deeper into what I am saying just on ats you will see a lot of what i am talking about with atheisms often blind hatred for anyone religious. Mayne for good reason historically but even in this thread there is plenty of back slapping.

What is the op title? That seems to point towards a box i think.

Tibetan and many budhists with all their superstitions have made incredible progress in counsciousness. The scientific studies on meditation are astounding they include permanent brain physical changes, the ability to change dna, the ability to control body temperature amongst other things.

If i were to speak out against religeon would I most likely disregard these types of things or do I just pick and choose.

Some of my point was there are profound thinkers within religeon and atheism. There is profound ignorance and superstition within atheism and religeon.

I am having trouble putting the two definitions of agnostic and atheist together. What is the point? Why not say agnostic if you can or cant prove god exists?

Agnostic:a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

What does putting atheist in there do?

I teter between agnostic and deist myself but I am not an agnostic deist. The two definition cancel each other out.

Because the noun atheist cancels out the noun agnostic i dont get it.

Agnostic says you make no claim atheist says you make a claim.

Seriously not trying to be a jerk just having trouble with this by definition.

What i said about Neitzche and having god out of the way is a play on what he said about god and christians in general. I am sorry to be vague and should have included a quote from neitzche that reflected having god out of the way to reach your full potential instead of worying about your fellow man you should be trying to become his boss.

I admit i was pushing buttons from my own buttons being pushed from the insinuation that religion creates thoughtless drones who are zealots.

I think my point about communism is a good way to compare how the ego of man whether religious or atheist has trouble with morality.
edit on 25-6-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Because the noun atheist cancels out the noun agnostic i dont get it.

Agnostic says you make no claim atheist says you make a claim.


Atheist and agnostic are nouns and adjectives.

There is a difference between atheism (not believing a god exists) and agnosticism (not knowing if a god exists).

An agnostic atheist, admits that they do not know if a god exists but they also do not believe a god exists.

Some atheists claim to know that a god does not exist so in that situation, they would be an atheist but not an agnostic. Some believers claim to know a god exist so they would be gnostic theists, some believers say they believe in a god and have faith but do not claim to know for sure so they would be agnostic theists.

There is a difference between what you believe (theism) and what you feel you know (gnosticism).



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: luthier


Because the noun atheist cancels out the noun agnostic i dont get it.

Agnostic says you make no claim atheist says you make a claim.


Atheist and agnostic are nouns and adjectives.

There is a difference between atheism (not believing a god exists) and agnosticism (not knowing if a god exists).

An agnostic atheist, admits that they do not know if a god exists but they also do not believe a god exists.

Some atheists claim to know that a god does not exist so in that situation, they would be an atheist but not an agnostic. Some believers claim to know a god exist so they would be gnostic theists, some believers say they believe in a god and have faith but do not claim to know for sure so they would be agnostic theists.

There is a difference between what you believe (theism) and what you feel you know (gnosticism).

So agnostic theists and agnostic atheist just admit the truth but hold a belief they cant prove?

I thought atheist only believe things they can prove or have evidence for? Isnt the only thing you can prove the agnostic viewpoint? Basically you hold a belief you cant prove seems contradictory to what atheist say about why they dont believe in god (lack of evidence).

Last time I checked holding a belief you cant prove is considered going on faith. If an atheist holds a belief that god does not exist but admits they can not prove it is that not having to rely on faith to prove your belief?







edit on 25-6-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Just for clarification: Gnostic means knowing, agnostic means not knowing. Theism means believing in God, atheism means not believing in God.

Gnostic atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist. They hold an actual belief that there is no God. agnostic atheists say they don't know that there is no God but that they are not convinced that there is a God.

Most atheists are agnostic, so they say they don't know if there is a God but are not convinced to believe that there is a God.

Not all atheists believe in the scientific method of following evidence. There are solipsistic atheists. Spiritual atheists who believe in spirits but not gods, and many other types.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join