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: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Tearman
And I don't believe any of those definitions, ergo.... I'm a... you know what.

You're a person who doesn't believe in... something... or nothing. The undefinable. In my book, that's not "not believing in God." It isn't anything.


Unless you hold a belief in god/s, regardless of how vague and paradoxical their descriptions are, you're an atheist.

The only way to not be an atheist is to be a theist. It's that simple.


Correct. As technically we are ALL agnostic.

The real meaning of agnostic is: "God can not be proven or dis-proven".




posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So gods are like the Lorax and have the same level of reality? i.e. they're imaginary creations of the human mind?

I can accept that actually. I think I'll choose Thor as my new imaginary deity ... apparently he happens to look a lot like Chris Hemsworth.

... and that hammer ... mmm hmm.



If you want to confine the concept of god to the realm of the intangible, then yes.

And for the most part God is intangible. Very few people do have direct experiences of Him.

But then, things like love are intangible too. I think that I have experienced love directly. I am guessing at some point you must have too. However, how do I know that what you have experienced as love is the same thing I have experienced as love? I don't. You don't. There is no way for us to share our experiences and compare. So when you say you have experienced love, I simply have to trust, or take on faith if you will, that what you have experience of is the same as what I have experience of.

God is similar and a much rarer direct experience.

So yes, until you have that experience, and many don't, He is like the Lorax or the unicorn - a concept.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
An agnostic is waiting for evidence that will never come, in the vain superstitious hope that evidence for or against the existence of a deity will be produced.


Agnosticism is about admitting that you don't know the answer, or that you simply do not care if there is a god or there is not. Whether there is a god or not, doesn't affect my life, I'm content whether evidence is found or it is not. There is no superstition at all, there is an admission that we don't know what we don't actually know. People aren't just waiting around hoping for evidence, they literally don't care. You seem to think that they are losing sleep over not knowing the answer and are desperately waiting for evidence to arise. That isn't the case, they are content in not knowing the answer.


Why don't you suspend your belief that such evidence exists. Are you hoping you’ll turn over a rock one day and you’ll find the inscription “God does not exist. Yours truly, The Universe”? The assumption that there is such evidence is as naive as the assumption there is a god. It’s annoying fence-sitting at best.


That's why I call myself an agnostic atheist. I am technically atheist because I reject pretty much all beliefs about deities, but I am willing to change my views IF we do in fact discover evidence of a god's existence. That doesn't mean I'm wasting my life away sitting around waiting for evidence, I simply don't care. Nobody is assuming that any evidence exists aside from the theists. Agnosticism comes from a position of honesty. You call it annoying fence sitting, but is it really annoying to be honest and admit we do not know the answer to a question that we really don't know the answer to?

It's not a social issue like gun control or abortion, it's a belief or lack thereof. If I don't have internet service where I am, and somebody asks me if it is raining right now in South Africa, I will say that I do not know. Would you consider that being an annoying fence sitter, or should I take a guess about the weather potentially giving this person the wrong information? The honest answer is, "I don't know if it is raining in South Africa, but if I find out, I'll let you know". That doesn't mean I'm giving validity to the idea that it is raining in South Africa right now.


By utilizing, embodying and breathing life into their superstitious terms? Why don’t you call yourself a witch? It amounts to the same thing.


Please explain how admitting we do not know the answer or rejecting other people's superstitious claims is breathing life in the superstitious terms? It still makes no sense. By rejecting those beliefs I am literally NOT utilizing, embodying or breathing life into them. That is the whole point.


If god doesn’t exist, then you are speaking about literally nothing. That which doesn’t exist is nothing.


If.

But the point is we don't know.

Of course we are speaking of something we don't believe exists, that's the point! You act like I spend my whole day worrying about it. I do not care if god exists or not. I do not spend years writing thesis papers on agnosticism. I just admit I don't know the answer and call it a day.


You are speaking about something, what does exist, namely, what god does exists as, which after a brief analysis, amounts to no more than some word in a book.


I am speaking about a claim made about god by religious people. There are many different versions. You are reading way too deep into this. Religious people claim god exists. I don't buy it. It's that simple. I am rejecting people's CLAIMS, which doesn't condone any superstitious beliefs.

edit on 11 9 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't "want to do anything" ... this is your baby. You're arguing that the Lorax and unicorns are real.

They are real because they can be imagined.

As they are imagined, they can be rendered artistically, verbally, etc.

That's your contention, not mine.

I agreed with you that God, like the unicorn, has an imaginary existence.

Now, you are inserting new commentary, which I have absolutely no interest in.

Love is an emotion. It is experienced. It has causes and effects. You can feebly try to equate love to God if you wish.

As you say, most humans have felt love. Love, though an emotion (or state of mind) has tangible, reproducable effects that are not assignable to any other cause. Love can also be measured by observing brain activity patterns, as can most emotions. Source. Some emotions can be reproduced by stimulating the correct sector of the brain. So, unless you're claiming that God is now an emotion, this line of "reasoning" is not related at all to your previous commentary in which I ceded that God is imaginary, like the unicorn.

It makes little difference to me whether you "believe" that I understand what love is, or not.

You're miring yourself down in subjectivity and that's fine, but there's no evidence to be had there.

God is not a rare experience at all. Look at the statistics. God is a garden-variety experience if anything.

If you are saying that God is a purely subjective emotional experience, I don't have a quibble with that.

If you are saying that God is imaginary, I don't have a quibble with that.

If you're saying anything else, it's a matter of your belief, and I don't have a quibble with it, because I don't have it.

I don't care that you have it, or begrudge that you have it, and the only issue I have is when you start trying to use your relationship with that imaginary or emotionally subjective quality to control or justify real world actions that affect me or mine.

/shrug
edit on 15Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:56:24 -060015p0320151166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You are viewing agnosticism in the wrong light. You are viewing it as fence sitting, when in reality it is where you don't form an opinion at all. If the evidence for or against a creator doesn't exist, then an agnostic doesn't form an opinion about the creator. We aren't concerned with if the evidence actually exists or not. We are just concerned as to when we are allowed to form an opinion about the topic. Saying, "I don't know," is just an easier way of expressing that.


The agnostic hears the argument in regards to the existence of a creator, then forms the opinion that he does not know. Silence too is a choice. What evidence leads him to believe he does not know? Nothing besides the assumption that the stories of creation might actually be true accounts of the creation of the universe, that it is in fact possible that a creator mightexist. Of course, nothing shows this to be the case. There is no evidence that a deity is even possible. Even Huxley’s admission that the question is insoluble, is an assumption.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand what you're saying and it makes complete sense. But I have personal and philosophical reasons which have lead me to deny all labels except for my birth name, which has served me well for my labelling purposes.


I respect that.

Again, thanks for taking the trouble and time to explain.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Agnosticism is about admitting that you don't know the answer, or that you simply do not care if there is a god or there is not. Whether there is a god or not, doesn't affect my life, I'm content whether evidence is found or it is not. There is no superstition at all, there is an admission that we don't know what we don't actually know. People aren't just waiting around hoping for evidence, they literally don't care. You seem to think that they are losing sleep over not knowing the answer and are desperately waiting for evidence to arise. That isn't the case, they are content in not knowing the answer.


I don’t think you are losing sleep over it. I think you’re advocating a position as if it was rational, when in fact you’ve just given up.


That's why I call myself an agnostic atheist. I am technically atheist because I reject pretty much all beliefs about deities, but I am willing to change my views IF we do in fact discover evidence of a god's existence. That doesn't mean I'm wasting my life away sitting around waiting for evidence, I simply don't care. Nobody is assuming that any evidence exists aside from the theists. Agnosticism comes from a position of honesty. You call it annoying fence sitting, but is it really annoying to be honest and admit we do not know the answer to a question that we really don't know the answer to?


Agnosticism is based on the assumption we cannot know either way. How do you know we cannot know either way? Like believers who continually expand their goalposts, you will do the same. “Well it is possible a deity exists outside the universe, and since we cannot look there, we cannot know.” “It is possible a deity existed in the past, but since we do not exist in the past, we cannot know”. And it is also possible there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. This is an assumption, not any deduction from facts and evidence.


Please explain how admitting we do not know the answer or rejecting other people's superstitious claims is breathing life in the superstitious terms? It still makes no sense. By rejecting those beliefs I am literally NOT utilizing, embodying or breathing life into them. That is the whole point.


Why would I explain what I never said? I stated that taking the label “atheist” is no different than taking taking the label “witch”. Both are terms born out of superstitious beliefs, invented by believers and the orthodoxy of the day, used in order to justify the auto de fe of innocent people, and to condemn people to the fiery flames of hell. Atheists either exist and the burnings were justified, or atheists never existed in the first place, and believers were wrong all along, just like witches.


But the point is we don't know.


That’s the assumption you’re pushing, yes. But it’s just a refusal to weigh the evidence and decide. Fence-sitting.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm basically saying if you haven't experienced it then it might as well be imaginary for you unless you choose to have faith in it and what others say about it.

If you can live with god as concept in that sense, then fine. We can go that route.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ah ... to "have faith" ... to believe that whatever quantity or quality that you experience or imagine when you use the word God is actually what you believe "God" to be.

But see, here's the thing ... I do feel/experience/imagine all those things ... but none of them are called "God."

There's no faith or belief required (or available) for me.
edit on 17Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:35:03 -060015p0520151166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Feminism is a mental illness and so is religion. But to put the two together makes for silly putty of the human brain. Why these lunatics insist on imposing such nonsense on the mentaly sound is beyond me. Everyone knows tumblr is a cesspool of feminist extremists and SJW's. They are a cancer.


I read that crack pot's rant out loud but couldnt stop from laughing



Thanks for peoviding me with laughs OP

edit on 9-11-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Dp
edit on 9-11-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don’t think you are losing sleep over it. I think you’re advocating a position as if it was rational, when in fact you’ve just given up.


I feel that it is rational to be honest when we do not have evidence to analyze. Making assumptions gets us nowhere. I basically take the position of science. If there isn't objective evidence, I don't want to hear about it. That doesn't necessarily mean any of it is wrong, it just shouldn't be factored into any experiments or treated as true.

When it comes to existence, non existence is the logical default UNTIL evidence is found. This puts atheism at the logical default. Add agnostic on to the word and it is essentially just admitting that we aren't at the pinnacle of scientific understanding. It's being open to new evidence, which is completely rational, in my opinion. Most atheists are agnostics and vice versa.


Agnosticism is based on the assumption we cannot know either way. How do you know we cannot know either way?


There is no evidence to analyze. Right now, we cannot know either way. However, that understanding could change as I explained above.


I stated that taking the label “atheist” is no different than taking taking the label “witch”. Both are terms born out of superstitious beliefs, invented by believers and the orthodoxy of the day, used in order to justify the auto de fe of innocent people, and to condemn people to the fiery flames of hell. Atheists either exist and the burnings were justified, or atheists never existed in the first place, and believers were wrong all along, just like witches.


Look, I hate labels and generalizations as much as you do. I don't wear it like a label, but if somebody asks me my beliefs about god, I'll be honest about it. Atheist isn't even a label, it's a lack of belief. It is literally one aspect (non aspect really) of a person's worldview. But as I explained above, based on what the words mean today, being an atheist is indeed the logical position, so no supernatural beliefs required.



That’s the assumption you’re pushing, yes. But it’s just a refusal to weigh the evidence and decide. Fence-sitting.


"I don't know" is not an assumption. In fact, it's the exact opposite, making NO assumption either way.

What evidence are you referring to? By all means, provide me a list of objective evidence to analyze in favor of existence or non existence of a god or deity.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift


If only atheists would just meet together in some kind of large building and express their shared beliefs and perhaps donate a small bit of money to keep that establishment solvent, they could organize enough to fight this kind of injustice.


Yeah Blue, I don't see how some kind of a crusade is even
avoidable at this point. Festivals, revivals really just do it up
right. TV marathons.

Gotta give the atheist this much credit.



They're never somebody you wanna punch in the face at the airport.
edit on Rpm110915v19201500000019 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Having discussed with several agnostics,
and after reading the latest replies on this excellent thread.
There is a fair amount of confusion about a-gnosticism

But what is gnosticism, other than the popular ''cult'' or heresy if you like, of the Gnostics?
the core of the word is gnosis (knowledge) and gnostic is the ''one who knows''(or claims to know,it doesn't matter),
the alpha-privative a-, creates the word meaning, the one who doesn't or know, (or can't, or cares to know).

Today's agnosticism (beside the literal meaning), is all things already described(very well) on this thread by previous posters and I agree with most.

I wanted to simplified it a bit and say that
Agnosticism is about doubting the existence of the divine in any possible form -according to the existing evidence
And atheism is a about disbelieving the existence of the divine in any possible form -according to the existing evidence
BOTH would change their views as long as evidence come along that prove the contrary.

The point is Atheism is disbelief, and Agnosticism is doubt.
Related yes, but certainly not the same.

edit on MonMon, 09 Nov 2015 18:29:19 -06001PMk000000Mondaypm by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula




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.

atheists.org...

edit on 9-11-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


I agree with everything you quoted, (although atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial)
but we have to remember that our modern definition of atheism was born under the suppression and influence of specific, monotheistic religions.

Atheism in known history, appeared in Ancient Greece same as Secularism.
Polytheists were already questioning and seeking allegorical truths inside the myths of God.
Until that suddenly stopped with 1 Emperor (dictator ruler of the region),
and later 1 God (dictator ruler of peoples thoughts)
The Monotheistic dogma was forced upon society with violence, misery and suffering.
Society had no other options than accept the new Dogma.
Dark come and questioning died with the Pagans
It was born again in the Renaissance with the designation and study of the ancient philosophers.
And that was the birth of today's atheism.

So the monotheistic influence was inevitable.
And although monotheistic characteristics were given to the term,
I think we shouldn't distinguish between cultures and religions,
Believers are disbelievers to all Gods, but their own
Atheists are disbelievers to all Gods, without exceptions.
edit on MonMon, 09 Nov 2015 20:56:03 -06001PMk000000Mondaypm by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)

edit on MonMon, 09 Nov 2015 20:57:30 -06001PMk000000Mondaypm by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
a reply to: Annee


. . . atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial



I am atheist. I understand the difference. That's all that matters.

Whatever you are trying to convince yourself of in all those words, is lost on me.


edit on 9-11-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
a reply to: Annee


. . . atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial



I am atheist. I understand the difference. That's all that matters.

Whatever you are trying to convince yourself of in all those words, is lost on me.


Why would you think I was trying to convince anyone,
it's merely my input on our discussion of definitions.
''all those words'' are my arguments directed to your quote from ''atheists.org'' about the definition of atheism and monotheistic influence as quoted, and it's my answer to this question in your quote:
''So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists?''
I just tried to explain why.

Also, referencing a quote from ''atheists.org'', when trying to define your own personal beliefs or disbeliefs, looks evangelical and makes it hard for us to argue that atheists aren't one organized religion, or that we don't share views, morality standards, like some theist's or the op feminist's claims.

PS sorry for my too many words.I know I am not good at writing,
but I can't express myself in English any better... sorry



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
a reply to: Annee


. . . atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial



I am atheist. I understand the difference. That's all that matters.

Whatever you are trying to convince yourself of in all those words, is lost on me.


Why would you think I was trying to convince anyone,
it's merely my input on our discussion of definitions.
''all those words'' are my arguments directed to your quote from ''atheists.org'' about the definition of atheism and monotheistic influence as quoted, and it's my answer to this question in your quote:
''So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists?''
I just tried to explain why.

Also, referencing a quote from ''atheists.org'', when trying to define your own personal beliefs or disbeliefs, looks evangelical and makes it hard for us to argue that atheists aren't one organized religion, or that we don't share views, morality standards, like some theist's or the op feminist's claims.

PS sorry for my too many words.I know I am not good at writing,
but I can't express myself in English any better... sorry



I am not the right person to have a long debate about this.

I lack belief in any God. I don't need more then that.

I posted 2 paragraphs of someone else's explanation of why it's lack of belief, not disbelief --- because you don't seem to get it. Or don't want to.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Its etymology is interesting.

However, the colloquial understanding of the term simply means 'disbelief in the existence of god(s)'.

That's what atheists today intend this label to represent.


(although atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial)

Exactly. An atheist isn't necessarily making any certitudes in regards to its existence. Agnosticism and atheism are mutally compatible for that reason.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join