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.

 

An Indictment Of Atheists

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
No god ever said
"vote for me" because no god
ever tried to run.




posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No god ever said
"vote for me" because no god
ever tried to run.

For office; It has 7 billion constituents; will easily win if ran (has to proclaim once and for all its existence first).



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
Have you read anything in this thread? Atheism has been defined numerous times.

This is ATS -- ATS "definitions" mean as much to me as the average McDonald's hamburger serves as nutrition.


It's a lack of belief in deities. Period. Nothing else.

That may be the traditional dictionary definition of the the term, but it's not what atheism presents as in most cases. Atheism is more often than not a belief - 'cause that's all it is, without conclusive, empirical evidential backing - that there is no "God".

Clearly, declarations one way or the the other - for the existence of "God" or against - are inane and predicated purely upon inculcate prejudices. A fairy take book originally designed as a system of control for the masses, re-written, rehashed and regurgitated ad infinitum, is as much evidence for the existence of "God" as an arbitrary contrary declaration is the opposing position -- i.e., atheism.

Atheism has the preponderance of evidence on its side, to be sure. But that does not make its tenets categorical "gospel".



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TheInhumanCentipede

Looks to me that if anyone is trying to use a special definition to suit there agenda here it's you, not Klassified.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede

This is ATS -- ATS "definitions" mean as much to me as the average McDonald's hamburger serves as nutrition.


Not ATS. American Atheists definition.



What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

atheists.org...



edit on 14-11-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TheInhumanCentipede
Looks to me that if anyone is trying to use a special definition to suit there agenda here it's you, not Klassified.

'The fool always finds one more foolish to admire him.' ...That's why ATS exists!



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
'The fool always finds one more foolish to admire him.' ...That's why ATS exists!


That's a neat quote, but it doesn't belong here. I'm not admiring anyone. I'm saying that if anyone should be accused of changing definitions it's you.
edit on 15-11-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Women are not equal.




Originally posted by vethumanbeing

As Are Superior.


LOL…Funny

First they were (considered) inferior, then they became equal and now they think they’re superior lol

No seriously, Woman are awesome…




- JC



edit on 15-11-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Women are not equal.




Originally posted by vethumanbeing

As Are Superior.



JC: LOL…Funny
First they were (considered) inferior, then they became equal and now they think they’re superior lol
No seriously, Woman are awesome…
- JC

As you express to your mother or wife or sister (non apologetic); just misinformation.
edit on 15-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
That's semantics amounting to diddly squat. It's like arguing not "all " Moslems are terrorists -- an obviously inane angle of argumentation that completely elides the issue/s at hand.

The point: Atheism, when represented as some 'belief' of the non existence of a deity - it's majority application - is little different to any other form of superstition worship -- an empirical evidence devoid delusion stemming from inculcated prejudice.

I would take this position even faced with Richard Dawkins; despite my firm logical contention that there is in fact no "God" (base on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence buttressing thus stance). However, this assertion does not stem from any prejudice or indoctrinated 'belief', but a weighing of the available information, using my "God-given" faculty of logic and reason.
edit on 15-11-2015 by TheInhumanCentipede because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

and now they think they’re superior

No seriously, Woman are awesome…

They do?...

...and every single Christian thinks all gay people should be tortured for eternity in Hell. I heard it from a Christian, therefore it's true of all Christians. Right?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

For office; It has 7 billion constituents; will easily win if ran (has to proclaim once and for all its existence first).

Those 7 billion constituents are not deists. They each have an expectation as to what their god is like according to their scripture. You think Christians, Jews, and Muslims are going to bow down in reverence when a being shows up with blue skin and multiple arms demanding worship? You make it sound like they have strong common ground. Religious pluralists are a rare demographic. If a being showed up and it didn't reflect their specific scripture many would take issue.
edit on 15-11-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What nonsense. The Freethought movement has been around for at least 1500 years, and "modern" organizations dedicated to Free-thinking (a life lived through by choice, through the application of logic and reason over dogma, spirituality or mysticism) have been in existence for more than 200 years.

You are wrong, and your argument is invalid.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb: For office; It has 7 billion constituents; will easily win if ran (has to proclaim once and for all its existence first)



LucidLunacy: Those 7 billion constituents are not deists. They each have an expectation as to what their god is like according to their scripture. You think Christians, Jews, and Muslims are going to bow down in reverence when a being shows up with blue skin and multiple arms demanding worship? You make it sound like they have strong common ground. Religious pluralists are a rare demographic. If a being showed up and it didn't reflect their specific scripture many would take issue.

They all were derived/divided from the one AUO (our creator) and what happened to those 3 trillion individualized soul aspects is not my problem. They decided to organize under many specialized Demi-Gods; force feeding DOGMA of a religious nature upon different civilizations in many regions. What is your point; who's civilization is best expressed by what existing document?
edit on 15-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If my point wasn't evident in that response then let's just agree to disagree even though we don't understand what we are disagreeing with [apparently].



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If my point wasn't evident in that response then let's just agree to disagree even though we don't understand what we are disagreeing with [apparently].

What was your point; that is what debate entails (clarify). I am not ggordonliddy and automatically agree to disagree.
edit on 15-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I know the structure of debate. My hesitation to have one is not from a position of ignorance.

The 7 billion constituents believe in a very specific being, not a general metaphysical concept of one. All in accordance to the descriptions espoused from their dogma. That's what they're ingrained with, that's what they expect. It's not simply the belief in a prime mover, an 'alpha omega'. These 7 billion are not unified on those grounds. If a being shows up and it doesn't match their definition then it's the work of an evil force acting as impostor of the divine [or extraterrestrial] and not the being their religion spoke of. My point is that it's not accurate to say "god" has 7 billion constituents.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
a reply to: Annee
That's semantics amounting to diddly squat. It's like arguing not "all " Moslems are terrorists -- an obviously inane angle of argumentation that completely elides the issue/s at hand.

The point: Atheism, when represented as some 'belief' of the non existence of a deity - it's majority application - is little different to any other form of superstition worship -- an empirical evidence devoid delusion stemming from inculcated prejudice.

I would take this position even faced with Richard Dawkins; despite my firm logical contention that there is in fact no "God" (base on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence buttressing thus stance). However, this assertion does not stem from any prejudice or indoctrinated 'belief', but a weighing of the available information, using my "God-given" faculty of logic and reason.




I am atheist. I lack belief in a god. That's it. No further word(s) or explanation required.

But, here's a word for you: grandiloquent


edit on 15-11-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Women are not equal.





Originally posted by vethumanbeing

As Are Superior.




Originally posted by Joecroft
First they were (considered) inferior, then they became equal and now they think they’re superior lol

No seriously, Woman are awesome…




Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
They do?...



The above was just a joke…




Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
...and every single Christian thinks all gay people should be tortured for eternity in Hell. I heard it from a Christian, therefore it's true of all Christians. Right?



I’m NOT a Christian…I’m more of a Gnostic…

And not every Christian believes that…so no…

“Jehovah witnesses” for example believe that God “destroys” people in Hell, so there’s no torturing for all eternity taking place within their beliefs…I’m not suggesting that’s any better though…just answering the question…

Personally I See Hell (either version) as an abhorrent belief…


- JC



edit on 16-11-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Women are not equal.


vhb:
As Are Superior.



Joecroft:
First they were (considered) inferior, then they became equal and now they think they’re superior lol
No seriously, Woman are awesome…



LucidLunacy:
They do?...



Joecroft: The above was just a joke



LucidLunacy:
...and every single Christian thinks all gay people should be tortured for eternity in Hell. I heard it from a Christian, therefore it's true of all Christians. Right?

Christians are not beheading gays or others in a belief of Sharia Law Islam; LIVE on a Christian fundamentalist network.



Joecroft: I’m NOT a Christian…I’m more of a Gnostic
And not every Christian believes that…so no“Jehovah witnesses” for example believe that God “destroys” people in Hell, so there’s no torturing for all eternity taking place within their beliefs…I’m not suggesting that’s any better though…just answering the question…
Personally I See Hell (either version) as an abhorrent belief. JC

Gnosticism is the belief of the future; as reveals the truth of managed civilizations, how it was done and whom the Demi-Gods actually are (false Gods) manipulating the human.

edit on 16-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I know the structure of debate. My hesitation to have one is not from a position of ignorance.

The 7 billion constituents believe in a very specific being, not a general metaphysical concept of one. All in accordance to the descriptions espoused from their dogma. That's what they're ingrained with, that's what they expect. It's not simply the belief in a prime mover, an 'alpha omega'. These 7 billion are not unified on those grounds. If a being shows up and it doesn't match their definition then it's the work of an evil force acting as impostor of the divine [or extraterrestrial] and not the being their religion spoke of. My point is that it's not accurate to say "god" has 7 billion constituents.

A specie gone rogue; no sustainability without any clue or direction. Sounds like a great plan for "success" (you know its not sustainable).
edit on 16-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join