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.

 

Are you an atheist? Then you're probably a PSYCHOPATH!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SaturnFX
I have to inquire here, Saturn. I personally assert there are no gods/deities, so I'm guessing you would classify me as a gnostic atheist. But I would disagree. I do not believe in gods/deities because I believe they are a human/social construct/concept. So while I deny the existence of deity, I do not deny the possibility that an entity might exist, some might refer to as "god". It's just that I do not. Referring to such an entity as deity elevates it to a status I am not willing to give it, even if it does exist.

How does that fit into your analysis?

If you are claiming you have knowledge enough to say there either are or are not deities, then you are a gnostic...and if you make the claim, then you must provide the evidence that demonstrates the claim.
You can believe in super awesome aliens and still believe, or not believe, in deities. that is beside the point

If you think ancient cultures didn't speak of literal deities but rather say, aliens or interdimensional beings, well, that isnt proof of no deities, just that those religions, claims, etc were wrong.
but it doesn't resolve the question of deities.

A status you give it doesn't matter. a deity is a defined thing, and if something meets the definition, it is a deity. you can choose to not accept...words..and definitions, but your choice doesn't matter.
I choose to not see you as a human..doesn't mean you stop being human..just means I am being daft.



You are a gnostic atheist..
gnostics are intolerable




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX
That doesn't make sense Saturn. Just because we each define the same entity differently, doesn't make me gnostic. It makes my perspective different. In other words. What you and others call "god", I call an entity. We're still both talking about the same being, we just see its definition and status differently.

Nevertheless, you answered the question, and I appreciate your candor, as I always have. That's why I asked you instead of someone else. I wanted a straightforward opinion.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. I haven't been called intolerant intolerable for a while.

edit on 3/24/2016 by Klassified because: correction



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SaturnFX
That doesn't make sense Saturn. Just because we each define the same entity differently, doesn't make me gnostic. It makes my perspective different. In other words. What you and others call "god", I call an entity. We're still both talking about the same being, we just see its definition and status differently.

Nevertheless, you answered the question, and I appreciate your candor, as I always have. That's why I asked you instead of someone else. I wanted a straightforward opinion.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. I haven't been called intolerant for a while.

Oi! I didn't call you intolerant, I called you intolerable. totally different

means I am intolerant if you must know
anyhow point is simple
words have meanings
in this case, deities..(deities means god(s))


capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

we can safely eject meaning 3 or 4 as its not what is being discussed here
we can also arguably eject meaning 2, although that falls into the super alien thing as being the definition of a god also..but its not the core of what an atheist is stating
1. the incorporeal divine creator and ruler of the universe
and one day, we may find out there indeed is just that..a super being from a different dimension that, like a mad scientist, initiated and designed the universe..
maybe..who knows..could be a council of gods that do this in order to uplift a new god..the universe may be an egg and god is mother goose, etc..
thing is, its a unknown..and because its an unknown, it..cant be neither dismissed nor accepted in any reasonable capacity.

You can shrug off the 2nd definition of god as a actual god..sure, why not. advanced aliens and such would seem much like the 1st definition, but they are just different, yet they didn't create the universe. You could also totally call them gods if you want (and using the second definition).



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX
This...


1. the incorporeal divine creator and ruler of the universe and one day, we may find out there indeed is just that..a super being from a different dimension that, like a mad scientist, initiated and designed the universe.. maybe..who knows..could be a council of gods that do this in order to uplift a new god..the universe may be an egg and god is mother goose, etc.. thing is, its a unknown..and because its an unknown, it..cant be neither dismissed nor accepted in any reasonable capacity.

...I can live with as a definition. My biggest issue with the dictionary definition of god or deity is their elevation of this entity to reverential heights and worship. In other words, a human construct. That is where I always get stuck. What you just defined above is fine, and under that definition, I can use the words god or deity, because it doesn't elevate said entity to some human idea of status, rather than just being descriptive.

Unfortunately, not everyone defines god or deity the same way, which is why I usually reject the words, not the possibility of the existence of the entity. Thanks for the reply.

edit on 3/24/2016 by Klassified because: edit



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
Unfortunately, not everyone defines god or deity the same way, which is why I usually reject the words, not the possibility of the existence of the entity. Thanks for the reply.


In that regard, I reject the biblical descriptions of god, because the bible has been proven inaccurate repeatedly, therefore those accounts are flawed and corrupt.
Also, on principle I reject the biblical god simply because it is an insult to my intelligence. the biblical god is about as wise and forgiving as the most petty schoolyard bully with no foresight.
then they suggest that being of the old testiment is the creator with infinate wisdom, love, etc etc..no..dont be silly. that is a kid with a magnifying glass hovering over a ant pile having fun at the expense of the ants

But on a more grand scale..some sort of source..conscious universal overpresence..maybe..who knows..would be neat to find out but would it be even possible to communicate with such a raw force...I know that on such scale, humanity, hell, even this galaxy and perhaps this universe bubble may not even register on its awareness scale.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

So you are like an agnostic Diest or panthiest?

I lean that way myself.

Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself (Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

I think Kant had it right.
edit on 24-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
So if I'm an apatheist (meaning I don't care if a god exists or not) what does that make me?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan
So if I'm an apatheist (meaning I don't care if a god exists or not) what does that make me?


That would still make you an atheist, if you don't hold any beliefs in gods.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
That would still make you an atheist, if you don't hold any beliefs in gods.

I'd say it's more like an agnostic who doesn't care enough to put much thought into the matter.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: Ghost147
That would still make you an atheist, if you don't hold any beliefs in gods.

I'd say it's more like an agnostic who doesn't care enough to put much thought into the matter.


An agnostic states that it is impossible to know if god does or doesn't exist, not that they are undecided or don't care

So long as he doesn't hold any beliefs in god, he's an atheist. Perhaps a Weak/Soft Atheist position, but an atheist nonetheless


edit on 24/3/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

This is true. An agnostic can hold beliefs or not hold beliefs. Its about the knowing not the belief.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: Ghost147
That would still make you an atheist, if you don't hold any beliefs in gods.

I'd say it's more like an agnostic who doesn't care enough to put much thought into the matter.


An agnostic states that it is impossible to know if god does or doesn't exist, not that they are undecided or don't care

So long as he doesn't hold any beliefs in god, he's an atheist. Perhaps a Weak/Soft Atheist position, but an atheist nonetheless



This reminds me of a discussion we had not too long ago





posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




An agnostic states that it is impossible to know if god does or doesn't exist, not that

they are undecided or don't care

So long as he doesn't hold any beliefs in god, he's an atheist. Perhaps a Weak/Soft Atheist position, but an atheist nonetheless


Ghost147, please! Stop that drivel! Weather or not one believes that some "god" exsists or is the case, cause or ruler, depends ONLY on the definition what that term "god" means. Verdammt nochmal!

IF one defines "god", or "God" as, for expample: Everything there is and not is in this universe...then that means all and everything (including the concept of nothing/emptiness or not-existing) as being the definition of "god". And then, and only then, the term "god" is meaningless, because IF all and everything, including nothingness, is "god", that is the same as saying: "there is no god, there is only everything, including nothing/emptyness."

Why don't you get that?

The ones who do not care to define what the term "god" or "God" means, simply don't care and are therefore called: Those who don't care about that kind of issue!

Are you really are that obsessed about giving them names, like atheits or a-gnostics or atheist-agnostics or what ever?

WHY?

WHY?

Duuuude! Please!



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
Ghost147, please! Stop that drivel! Weather or not one believes that some "god" exsists or is the case, cause or ruler, depends ONLY on the definition what that term "god" means. Verdammt nochmal!


I never denied this


originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
IF one defines "god", or "God" as, for expample: Everything there is and not is in this universe...then that means all and everything (including the concept of nothing/emptiness or not-existing) as being the definition of "god". And then, and only then, the term "god" is meaningless, because IF all and everything, including nothingness, is "god", that is the same as saying: "there is no god, there is only everything, including nothing/emptyness."


What you're describing is Pantheism:

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
link


originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
Why don't you get that?


It's not about me holding ignorance on anything, it's quite clear you are unaware of specific terminology, and the terminology you are aware of you simply misunderstand.


originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
The ones who do not care to define what the term "god" or "God" means, simply don't care and are therefore called: Those who don't care about that kind of issue!


The issue ends up being if they 'do not care to define a god' and still don't believe that one exists, or that they 'do not care to define a god' but still think one exists.

Those are still two different kinds of views. One is theistic, the other Atheistic. Agnosticism isn't a 'non-position', it is literally defined as someone whom claims any kind of god cannot be known. It's a position based on an impossibility of knowledge, not a 'non-position', and I've already linked the description to the dictionary to back up my stance.


originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
Are you really are that obsessed about giving them names, like atheits or a-gnostics or atheist-agnostics or what ever?


It has nothing to do with me wanting to give anyone names. The English language has terminologies, and the positions that have been described within this topic so far fall under those specific terminologies.

It's not about me labeling people, it's just a matter of handing down knowledge. If you choose to reject that knowledge, despite all encyclopedias and dictionaries backing that knowledge, then you choose to reject reality.


originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
WHY?

WHY?

Duuuude! Please!


What's the ATS slogan again?

Oh right, deny ignorance.

That's why.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Furthermore, IF someone defines the term "god" or "God" as something like this: This is god but this is not. Then, and only then, that is something to be concerned about, BECAUSE the mere fact that someone is excluding some parts of the universe we all are part of from others, calling them godly and other are considered as non-godly. THAT is what needs to be exposed as:

Superiority-complex in action, trying to tell someone else he or she or it is not IT. Not part of this universe, which simply is false, obviously.

'mkay?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

And now it's your turn to define "god" or "God", Ghost147. And if you can't, stay away from telling others what they are or what they are not.

Define...now...9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-...



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147

And now it's your turn to define "god" or "God", Ghost147. And if you can't, stay away from telling others what they are or what they are not.

Define...now...9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-...


You don't need to define a god in order to hold a position...



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




You don't need to define a god in order to hold a position...


If you can't define that term you so passionately argue about, you should not deal in that kind of discussions. For the simple reason that you don't know what that term, "god" or "God" means, other than you trying to refute or deny what you don't even can define by yourself.

If you don't know what a table is, don't tell others what it is not.

Get it?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Willingly

I've not once seen him tell anyone or try to define what god is or isn't. I believe you're mistaken.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Willingly

Labels are often dumb. Especially so in casual conversation. Once one has bothered to enter a philosophical conversation however they are important for having dialogue. These conversations about God are not new. They have been on going since at least Diagoras. It's helpful to use historical arguements and definitions to have philosophical debates.

Theism the term came from enlightenment era philosophy. From Atheism of antiquity. It originally meant religious in a sense. Just like Diesm also came from enlightenment era philosophy it meant belief in God without religion. (Basically).

Agnosticism is a way to say I don't know. Classically it also means I don't know and there is no way to know. Which is most likely true based on my reference to Kant. Whatever has created the cosmos whether the cosmos itself or a being or beings of some kind would be most likely unkowable to our current senses and understanding. You have the whole infinite regress problem on top of that.

Basically these terms if not used in a squabbling or malicious name calling way can be used to have meaningful discussions and not constantly rehash arguements that have already happened and been either dealt with or proven to be unknowable. It's a way to discuss your belief and understanding of history and philosophy.

But yeah to just label people to make fun of them is lame IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join