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.

 

What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Woodcarver

Atheism is a religion and yes i used some humor but in all honesty. Atheists legitimately believe they *evolved* from Monkies.


Um... No... First off, belief in evolution isn't a requirement to be an atheist. Second off, evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys.


And i was not lieing being here in the North Americas. You can't pass science class unless you swallow all this nonsense.
People apparently know how old rocks are too. And you need to memorize how old they are and what their names are. Lets have a religion where common belief becomes the structual norm of society that holds our fabricated realities together. Last time i checked, we are spinning around a ball of fire drifting through empty space and if i or someone has a different explaination outside the cultured norm the one belief on non-creatorism trumps the professional industry because to them. Anything other than the status quo is blaspheme. Because many professions that generate high income require a faith baised ideology and in the North West as well as the U.K, China- Global Atheism.


We are actually spinning around a ball of super heated plasma, not fire, and space isn't empty. Even the spots between planets that APPEAR empty aren't empty. Though none of that is required beliefs to be an atheist.


And your reply redicules it like as if it's some sort of joke.

Yet here we are on a part of the internet that is a little unorthadox in the ways we approach say conspiracy theories.
I'd say that there is a conspiracy for atheists to deny the regimented system other atheists have webbed together into the organized religion that denies it is a religion.


No, more like people like you can't seem to separate science from atheism.


Yet Atheism is a fully government funded religious organization. In terms of how i described how they decide who is and isn't credible.


What you described is a strawman.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

The finely tuned universe argument is just another name for Creationism. It's a name invented so that Creationists can make their theory sound sciency. But it is equally flawed because it views the current state of the universe as a destination the universe was MEANT to achieve, but that is an unfounded assumption. There is no evidence to say that the universe has a purpose


No its actually not. Its a theory by a physicist and was hijacked by christians.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Just because we don't understand something, or haven't cracked every code, the answer to unanswered questions has never been revealed to be god. People used to think that earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, disease etc., were caused because some god was angry. We now know better.




What about cancer patients changing there dna through meditation?


I don't know about that, do you have a link with proof?

At any rate, Uri Geller bent spoons with his mind, supposedly. Ingo Swann was able to astro-project. Do you suppose they were gods? Evidence of the unexplained is not evidence of a god, or the supernatural.



edit on 16-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Atheism is not a belief system.It is not having a belief in a God.However all atheist have a Belief System which is "their" religion(what they believe in faith) just as all the rest of mankind have a Belief System religion because being religious is mans nature.The amalgamation of all of a persons experience form their belief(perception) in faith(observation) of their Belief System religion.

The fallacy of atheism is the belief their is no scientific proof there is a God when any proof or lack of is impossible and unreliable.Science is not the clear cut black and white unvarnished truth that many believe it is.The act of observing actions to categorize it as truth is fallible because humans are very poor perceivers and observers.Any intellectually honest physicist will confirm that truth.

Mans perception and observation serve a useful function for everyday living like perceiving objects have a color when the fact is that objects color is every color but the one the person sees because it is reflecting that color.The truth is every object is only shades of gray.Fortunately most peoples brain and eyes perceive objects as having color.This is only one of the multitude of ways that mans perception and observation is only a part of their Belief system religion but is not truth.

The truth is an atheist absence of a belief in a God is closer to the truth than a theist belief in a God and IMO it is far better(closer to truth) to NOT believe in a false God than to believe in a false God.The facts is neither atheist or theist beliefs are true because mankind cannot perceive the truth through their observation it is only a perception of observation...and the vicious cycle continues.

In effect it is a moot point to argue about the definition of an atheist and their religion and what they believe or don't believe.All perceptions through observations cannot cause anyone to "know" the truth about anything ...especially a God.It is just another longunfruitful trip around the vicious cycle of belief.Some people have so many lumps on their soft pumpkin head from that futile cyclical journey they enjoy it to the point of perversion.

My suggestion is to live life and avoid the vicious cycle as much as possible and let sleeping Gods lie.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Saying the world came about from a big bang in a science text book is about as atheist as it gets. Saying humans came from tiny organisms that spawned after the planet cooled and then evolved into humans is also An Atheistic belief as it is a belief of human origins. Only without a creator. This is all government and privately funded in schools that teach kids.

It is a requirement to pass school. This is only grazing the nail on the head. To deny it isn't anything of the sort as i described is in of itself blaspheme.

No one knows how old rocks are but we can estimate. No one knows when dinos died and no one knows if the universe is eternal or not but were going to answers for you and tell your kids because its better if everyone is assimilated into the same belief system. Atheism.

And this is paid for by tax dollars, Not to mention the tax breaks many of these intitutions receive. Atheism in the top 5 religions to sucessfully dominate and control the flow of information as well as impose it's cultural taboo as a matter of fact as any other religion and are not any less tyrantical and controlling than the others.
edit on pm70000003115Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:33:14 -0500 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Woodcarver

Atheism is a religion

Atheism is one belief. It is not a religion. Wherever you are getting these claims from, they are just not correct.



and yes i used some humor but in all honesty. Atheists legitimately believe they *evolved* from Monkies.
you are referring (incorrectly) about evolution. And no, evolutionists do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys. They can show without a doubt, that apes, and humans had a common ancestor. If you are going to debate, at least learn what you are debating. If you had actually learned what evolution teaches, it would start to make more sense to you.



And i was not lieing being here in the North Americas. You can't pass science class unless you swallow all this nonsense.
do you mean science class? Well then yes. Science is a requirement to graduate. Do you also not believe in math? Or reading?



People apparently know how old rocks are too. And you need to memorize how old they are and what their names are.
yes, this is science class again. This field of study is called geology, among other disciplines. All of which is very convincing. I'm sure you haven't actually looked into any of it though.


Lets have a religion where common belief becomes the structual norm of society that holds our fabricated realities together.
it should not be common belief that structures society, that is what religion is doing for you right now.

Our beliefs should be based on what can be proven, because we want to believe as many true things as possible and reject things that are untrue. Science, which is the study of physical matter, is the best way to discern truthful claims from those that are false and imagined.


Last time i checked, we are spinning around a ball of fire drifting through empty space and if i or someone has a different explaination outside the cultured norm the one belief on non-creatorism trumps the professional industry because to them. Anything other than the status quo is blaspheme. Because many professions that generate high income require a faith baised ideology and in the North West as well as the U.K, China- Global Atheism.
you have a very distorted view of how the world works. I am sure this makes the world a very scary place.


And your reply redicules it like as if it's some sort of joke.
well... Your claims are ridiculous and easily disproved.


Yet here we are on a part of the internet that is a little unorthadox in the ways we approach say conspiracy theories.
I'd say that there is a conspiracy for atheists to deny the regimented system other atheists have webbed together into the organized religion that denies it is a religion.

Yet Atheism is a fully government funded religious organization. In terms of how i described how they decide who is and isn't credible.
uuuuhhh..... No its not????

Religion is actually subsidized in the form of tax exemptions. Atheism is not really.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Saying the world came about from a big bang in a science text book is about as atheist as it gets. Saying humans came from tiny organisms that spawned after the planet cooled and then evolved into humans is also An Atheistic belief as it is a belief of human origins. Only without a creator. This is all government and privately funded in schools that teach kids.

It is a requirement to pass school. This is only grazing the nail on the head. To deny it isn't anything of the sort as i described is in of itself blaspheme.

No one knows how old rocks are but we can estimate. No one knows when dinos died and no one knows if the universe is eternal or not but were going to answers for you and tell your kids because its better if everyone is assimilated into the same belief system. Atheism.

And this is paid for by tax dollars, Not to mention the tax breaks many of these intitutions receive. Atheism in the top 5 religions to sucessfully dominate and control the flow of information as well as impose it's cultural taboo as a matter of fact as any other religion and are not any less tyrantical and controlling than the others.


The big bang was theory came from a jesuit priest.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

You are only showing that you do not care enough about the details that these fields of science uncover.

You are bringing false claims here that we then have to correct. You are getting these claims from other creationists and just repeating them here, because you don't know any better.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No, it was a chemist, which means that he wasn't a SME on the matter.

Like I said, the problem with the idea is that it presupposes that the universe has a purpose (life), which is a complete guess because we can't know if the universe has a purpose. If one or two variable were off, these scientists are probably right, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life in another form wouldn't exist. Heck something else entirely could exist.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Name an atheist politician, and show how he is trying to pass legislation that is furthering his atheist stance.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Saying the world came about from a big bang in a science text book is about as atheist as it gets. Saying humans came from tiny organisms that spawned after the planet cooled and then evolved into humans is also An Atheistic belief as it is a belief of human origins. Only without a creator. This is all government and privately funded in schools that teach kids.


No, that is called science. Atheism is just the rejection of the belief in god.


It is a requirement to pass school. This is only grazing the nail on the head. To deny it isn't anything of the sort as i described is in of itself blaspheme.


I'm not denying that you have to pass science classes to pass school, but that is irrelevant. Science and atheism aren't the same thing. Again you are presenting a strawman.


No one knows how old rocks are but we can estimate. No one knows when dinos died and no one knows if the universe is eternal or not but were going to answers for you and tell your kids because its better if everyone is assimilated into the same belief system. Atheism.


This is ridiculous. Science doesn't require our belief to be true nor does it require you to be an atheist to believe in it. STOP conflating the two. It is intellectually dishonest.


And this is paid for by tax dollars, Not to mention the tax breaks many of these intitutions receive. Atheism in the top 5 religions to sucessfully dominate and control the flow of information as well as impose it's cultural taboo as a matter of fact as any other religion and are not any less tyrantical and controlling than the others.


And NOW the purpose of your strawman fallacy has become apparent. You are using science to try to explain how atheism is domineering, which shows that you understand neither. Nor are you looking to understand them. Enjoy your bubble of ignorance.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Whats false about it? If i believe Aliens created humanity and have proof of it. But a prior belief system ( Atheism) Holds to the belife that humans evolved from primordial soup to apes to us in a universe that is brand new. In my oppinion will these fanatics lay down their beliefs in human godom.

Because if you really want me to get down to the meat and bones of what Atheism is all about. It's the belief that humans will become God. Atheism is a branch into Transhumanism. Because if God does not exist then that means humans can assume personified roles as God uncontested.

Which is what this society teaches. Which has lead to the climate problems we have now. Hell theres no god theres no nothing, Burn the planet to the ground, Dig its guts out. Be the greatest economic tyrant as one can be, Atheists Unite.

It is this system that tries to treat everything like matter in motion on a collision course to self destruction leading to oblivion so who cares what happens right? That forest there pfft. im Atheist. There's nothing sacred about it, hey plants have seeds we can always cut it down and the pissed off hippies can seed it to our mutual benifit.

But non of this has to do with Athism because according the blind. This has nothing to do with belief.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
He was a belgian cosmologist/astronomer who was a catholic priest.

Georges Lemaitre
www.amnh.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Woodcarver

Whats false about it?
pretty much every thing you have said.


If i believe Aliens created humanity and have proof of it. But a prior belief system ( Atheism) Holds to the belife that humans evolved from primordial soup to apes to us in a universe that is brand new. In my oppinion will these fanatics lay down their beliefs in human godom.
many belief systems have been discarded because of new evidence being found. That would be science. If you have compelling evidence then bring it to the table. But you don't even know what science is claiming. You only parrot the strawmen that others bring forth. Learn what science has proven and why it makes the claims that it does. You can't lie about scientific claims here. We are better educated than you are. I have done many of the simple experiments that you can't even explain properly.



Because if you really want me to get down to the meat and bones of what Atheism is all about. It's the belief that humans will become God.
this again is a weird claim that i have never heard. Isn't it a common religious theme to enlighten ones self and to be as god? To emulate the positive aspects of god and to become like him?



Atheism is a branch into Transhumanism. Because if God does not exist then that means humans can assume personified roles as God uncontested.
nope. Again atheism is not trans humanism. They are completely separate things.




Which is what this society teaches. Which has lead to the climate problems we have now. Hell theres no god theres no nothing, Burn the planet to the ground, Dig its guts out. Be the greatest economic tyrant as one can be, Atheists Unite.
i could argue that since the religious majority is in control of our legislation, that perhaps they are at fault? Name an atheist president.
I could also say that it is a religious mindset that is against science that has caused these problems. Politicians making policy that allows large industries to pollute our world? Those are all christian politicians. They think their kingdom is in heaven and so they forsake and destroy this world because they believe god will just clean it up or that it is gods will.



It is this system that tries to treat everything like matter in motion on a collision course to self destruction leading to oblivion so who cares what happens right?
nope. This again is a religious view. I believe it was a religious person who said "FTW let god sort it out"



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

No, it was a chemist, which means that he wasn't a SME on the matter.

Like I said, the problem with the idea is that it presupposes that the universe has a purpose (life), which is a complete guess because we can't know if the universe has a purpose. If one or two variable were off, these scientists are probably right, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life in another form wouldn't exist. Heck something else entirely could exist.


This is the problem when you just google things and dont read sciwntific papers or actual theory. The FTU has been expanded and modelled by many physcicists. Hoyle in 1950 was starting the theory.

You are just argueing for no reason without any prior knowledge.

First you say its just something christians use to persuade, then you say a chemist , but really it was started by an astrophyscicist. It has nothing to do with christianity. Some christian theologists have used it.

Honestly you are not doing your argument any good. The teleological arguments is not that easy to disprove without theoretical constructs like a multiverse.

Perhaps you havent read this thread but i am agnostic not promoting one thing or another. Just pointing out there are rational arguments for god that dont comw from the bible. Even aquinas and anslem had points.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
What you are arguing against, is science, not atheism. Sure, there is a lot of bad science, but not the things you are bringing up. We fully expect science to to get more and more accurate as evidence is found and processed. Also with the advent of the internet, info flows through society faster, making bad science easier to separate from good science. There is such a thing as bad science, but the only thing that can refute it is better science.

Still, you have to study science to know what science claims.

a reply to: AnuTyr


edit on 16-7-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

No, it was a chemist, which means that he wasn't a SME on the matter.

Like I said, the problem with the idea is that it presupposes that the universe has a purpose (life), which is a complete guess because we can't know if the universe has a purpose. If one or two variable were off, these scientists are probably right, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life in another form wouldn't exist. Heck something else entirely could exist.


This is the problem when you just google things and dont read sciwntific papers or actual theory. The FTU has been expanded and modelled by many physcicists. Hoyle in 1950 was starting the theory.

You are just argueing for no reason without any prior knowledge.

First you say its just something christians use to persuade, then you say a chemist , but really it was started by an astrophyscicist. It has nothing to do with christianity. Some christian theologists have used it.

Honestly you are not doing your argument any good. The teleological arguments is not that easy to disprove without theoretical constructs like a multiverse.

Perhaps you havent read this thread but i am agnostic not promoting one thing or another. Just pointing out there are rational arguments for god that dont comw from the bible. Even aquinas and anslem had points.
Aquinas was a philosopher and not a scientist. Sure he made some good points about the human condition. But bring those points into the modern age and psychology does a much better job of describing the mind of a person, all without bringing god in to explain the things that aquinas could not.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

No, it was a chemist, which means that he wasn't a SME on the matter.

Like I said, the problem with the idea is that it presupposes that the universe has a purpose (life), which is a complete guess because we can't know if the universe has a purpose. If one or two variable were off, these scientists are probably right, life as we know it wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that life in another form wouldn't exist. Heck something else entirely could exist.


This is the problem when you just google things and dont read sciwntific papers or actual theory. The FTU has been expanded and modelled by many physcicists. Hoyle in 1950 was starting the theory.

You are just argueing for no reason without any prior knowledge.

First you say its just something christians use to persuade, then you say a chemist , but really it was started by an astrophyscicist. It has nothing to do with christianity. Some christian theologists have used it.

Honestly you are not doing your argument any good. The teleological arguments is not that easy to disprove without theoretical constructs like a multiverse.

Perhaps you havent read this thread but i am agnostic not promoting one thing or another. Just pointing out there are rational arguments for god that dont comw from the bible. Even aquinas and anslem had points.
Aquinas was a philosopher and not a scientist. Sure he made some good points about the human condition. But bring those points into the modern age and psychology does a much better job of describing the mind of a person, all without bringing god in to explain the things that aquinas could not.


He also made epistemological arguements.

I am not a big believer in most psychology. I think its a pseudoscience. I disagree but dont want to derail the thread. In order for it to be a real science one wouod have to use anthropology to understand what the human condition is in the first place. Psychology is great at profiling. Its base is however moveable as is what is normal. If our society needed ADD workers it would become normal and we would give people drugs to make them what we consider normal behavior. Not to mention they can only treat symptoms and not cure anything. I think neuroscience is the real science. Psychology is subject to trends and behavior created by society at the moment but "normal" is not a fixed point.

I noticed you didn't respond to the communism atheism point I made. Atheism has so far no better luck with large scale collective political structure than religion making me believe its mankind and not philosophy or theology that creates suffering.
What Mao and Stalin did was no better than the Vatican and none of the three actually followed the philosophy they were controlling society with.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Woodcarver

Whats false about it?
pretty much every thing you have said.


If i believe Aliens created humanity and have proof of it. But a prior belief system ( Atheism) Holds to the belife that humans evolved from primordial soup to apes to us in a universe that is brand new. In my oppinion will these fanatics lay down their beliefs in human godom.
many belief systems have been discarded because of new evidence being found. That would be science. If you have compelling evidence then bring it to the table. But you don't even know what science is claiming. You only parrot the strawmen that others bring forth. Learn what science has proven and why it makes the claims that it does. You can't lie about scientific claims here. We are better educated than you are. I have done many of the simple experiments that you can't even explain properly.



Because if you really want me to get down to the meat and bones of what Atheism is all about. It's the belief that humans will become God.
this again is a weird claim that i have never heard. Isn't it a common religious theme to enlighten ones self and to be as god? To emulate the positive aspects of god and to become like him?



Atheism is a branch into Transhumanism. Because if God does not exist then that means humans can assume personified roles as God uncontested.
nope. Again atheism is not trans humanism. They are completely separate things.




Which is what this society teaches. Which has lead to the climate problems we have now. Hell theres no god theres no nothing, Burn the planet to the ground, Dig its guts out. Be the greatest economic tyrant as one can be, Atheists Unite.
i could argue that since the religious majority is in control of our legislation, that perhaps they are at fault? Name an atheist president.
I could also say that it is a religious mindset that is against science that has caused these problems. Politicians making policy that allows large industries to pollute our world? Those are all christian politicians. They think their kingdom is in heaven and so they forsake and destroy this world because they believe god will just clean it up or that it is gods will.



It is this system that tries to treat everything like matter in motion on a collision course to self destruction leading to oblivion so who cares what happens right?
nope. This again is a religious view. I believe it was a religious person who said "FTW let god sort it out"




Atheism does not hold the only cards with science. There are many many famous religious scientists who still believe in god. Even some in the most advanced fields and physics today.

The first few presidents were deists they did not believe in religion and said so in their private writings and correspondence with each other. They played the part sometimes to keep from being run out by the fanatics.

John Locke was pretty religious but his ideas are pretty darn important to modern society.

Nietzsche was an atheist and quite frankly a complete oppressive nutjob.

My point here is there are no absolutes. Both sides have egg on their face. The abrahamic faiths have done a lot of damage but there is plenty of evidence no matter what people believed the same problems would have happened. Its just they created writing and reading for the masses so we have a good record of the injustice.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join