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.

 

Why should any educated adult believe any of the stone age religions are anything but make believe?

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I find it very interesting that the question posed refers to any of the stone (though I think Bronze would be more applicable) Age religions. Yet the thread itself once again, as always, focuses on the Abrahamic trio.
Why no others ?
What causes them to be invalid?
What are the reasons behind their fall from grace?

Ask yourself these questions and the initial question effectively answers itself.

@Annee :
I most humbly disagree with your statement that a "true" atheist must also be agnostic. There is no such animal as a "true" atheist. You are atheistic, there are no gods, or you are not is the only common denominator. To add caveats is to be as judgemental as a garden variety theist.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible

@Annee :
I most humbly disagree with your statement that a "true" atheist must also be agnostic. There is no such animal as a "true" atheist. You are atheistic, there are no gods, or you are not is the only common denominator. To add caveats is to be as judgemental as a garden variety theist.


Are you atheist?

Atheist does not claim there is no God.

Proof would be required.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

First of all of God were benevolent and just he could have made himself known to those tribes he decided to kill. He could have given them examples of his miracles before killing them and therefore they could have changed their ways. But no God only spoke to his "chosen" people in the old testament and killed everyone else.

Second. If he did have to kill those who did child sacrifices that's not so bad. But killing the children and or leaving the children as orphans and also stating that he takes pleasure in it doesn't sound very godly to me.

Thirdly the Lord your God allowed the rape of unwed women as long as a payment was made to the father.

How you can justify worshipping something like that is beyond belief.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

Part of me thinks that's why they coined the term "god fearing christian".

I know that the phrase actually means somebody who is very strongly dedicated to their faith.

But the fearing part makes perfect sense. They literally fear god and don't want to be punished by him so they believe and follow his laws just in case. I'd be afraid of that tyrant as well if he were real. He's basically a dictator.

edit on 4 7 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

If he were real I would probably fear him as well. Luckily the lack of evidence is enough for me to cast aside at least the biblical version of God.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
"Religion".

Yeah.

So there are 2 sides (maybe more, depending) to almost all ancient religions. There's the "profane": the average joe and what he learns. To a Christian, this is the guy who goes to church on Sunday, buys his salvation with a donation to the collection plate, etc. He hears allegories related to morality, values, etc. Its a good thing, especially for people who don't already have that firmly radiating from within them. Its also a totem for comfort for people who are struggling to deal with something (my mom and her faith were inseparable when my dad died, and I wouldn't have wanted to see her go through that without the faith totem to keep her centered).

Then there are the "initiates". These are people who now some/all of the underlying meanings and secrets held within the religion. In Christianity, this is mostly contained within one of the orders of Catholicism. There is not a whole lot of mysticism in the non Catholic churches that I have found.

There is not quite as much depth/breadth of information held in Christian mysticism when compared to Jewish. Even more so in Islam, which is antithetical to mysticism for the most part (although i've made little attempt to actually discover Muslim mysticism, so I could be incorrect).

So with that being said: its obvious there is value to the "stone age religions" as far as abrahamic beliefs go. For most its the belief that they can hold on to for context on their lives. For many others, its about maintaining the traditions of their culture. And for very few, its about maintaining the traditions of mysticism within their religious framework.

Anyway, its part of what makes humans what we are. And given the longevity of the mindset within the species, its likely that it'll be with us for quite some time.

We are still monkeys, just now becoming aware that there is something beyond the canopy of trees above us. But we pretend we are actually peering over the clouds.
Hubris is another trait we tend to have.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I am indeed an atheist. Where did I claim there is no god (singular)? I in fact claim nothing of the sort, don't have too. Because there is no evidence of gods ( please notice the plural) beyond the anecdotal.
The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
I ascribe no greater bias to any current mythical deity over others less "fashionable" .

Should it ever , to play devils advocate for a moment, occur that I am shown to be in error...well then I will shrug and say "Well played" then carry on about my day.

To say an atheist must be agnostic to be "true" is still a somewhat strange viewpoint.
I regard myself as a simple atheist. There are no gods, nor tangible evidence that there has ever been.


edit on 8-4-2016 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: randyvs

I am looking at it from a logical point of view.
Logic seems the be the thing believers fear the most.



On the contrary, it would be highly illogical if a Creator could not
destroy his creation and start over if it displeased him.
So your're wrong.


I can't believe I missed this one. By the same logic parents who have unruly children should just kill them and start over. They would be following gods example.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible
a reply to: Annee

I am indeed an atheist. Where did I claim there is no god (singular)? I in fact claim nothing of the sort, don't have too. Because there is no evidence of gods ( please notice the plural) beyond the anecdotal.
The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
I ascribe no greater bias to any current mythical deity over others less "fashionable" .

Should it ever , to play devils advocate for a moment, occur that I am shown to be in error...well then I will shrug and say "Well played" then carry on about my day.

To say an atheist must be agnostic to be "true" is still a somewhat strange viewpoint.
I regard myself as a simple atheist. There are no gods, nor tangible evidence that there has ever been.



Agnostic means "I don't know" - - and you don't. No one does. No matter what you believe or lack belief of - - you don't know.

It is the default position of not being able to prove god or prove god does not exist.

If you want to be a hard atheist and say there is no proof of god - - go for it. Personally, I feel that is dishonest. You can't prove there isn't.

Therefore, "true" atheist. One honestly acknowledging they don't know and can't prove it either way.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Noncompatible
a reply to: Annee

I am indeed an atheist. Where did I claim there is no god (singular)? I in fact claim nothing of the sort, don't have too. Because there is no evidence of gods ( please notice the plural) beyond the anecdotal.
The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
I ascribe no greater bias to any current mythical deity over others less "fashionable" .

Should it ever , to play devils advocate for a moment, occur that I am shown to be in error...well then I will shrug and say "Well played" then carry on about my day.

To say an atheist must be agnostic to be "true" is still a somewhat strange viewpoint.
I regard myself as a simple atheist. There are no gods, nor tangible evidence that there has ever been.



Agnostic means "I don't know" - - and you don't. No one does. No matter what you believe or lack belief of - - you don't know.

It is the default position of not being able to prove god or prove god does not exist.

If you want to be a hard atheist and say there is no proof of god - - go for it. Personally, I feel that is dishonest. You can't prove there isn't.

Therefore, "true" atheist. One honestly acknowledging they don't know and can't prove it either way.


Sorry, but let's agree to disagree. Your feelings regarding honesty are not relevant. As an atheist I do not have to prove there are no gods. I repeat, the burden of proof is not mine. Also I do not , nor is it, regard atheism as a belief. I don't believe there are no gods, nor evidence of them. I state there are no gods. It is a position, not a belief. I don't need to prove it, I don't care if you accept it. Truth does not require acceptance, it simply is or is not.
You are correct in that there are many things I do not know, and many I never will.
But I do know my own mind and I do know I am rational and that I can distinguish between what I wish was true and the cold stark reality of existence.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Noncompatible
a reply to: Annee

I am indeed an atheist. Where did I claim there is no god (singular)? I in fact claim nothing of the sort, don't have too. Because there is no evidence of gods ( please notice the plural) beyond the anecdotal.
The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
I ascribe no greater bias to any current mythical deity over others less "fashionable" .

Should it ever , to play devils advocate for a moment, occur that I am shown to be in error...well then I will shrug and say "Well played" then carry on about my day.

To say an atheist must be agnostic to be "true" is still a somewhat strange viewpoint.
I regard myself as a simple atheist. There are no gods, nor tangible evidence that there has ever been.



Agnostic means "I don't know" - - and you don't. No one does. No matter what you believe or lack belief of - - you don't know.

It is the default position of not being able to prove god or prove god does not exist.

If you want to be a hard atheist and say there is no proof of god - - go for it. Personally, I feel that is dishonest. You can't prove there isn't.

Therefore, "true" atheist. One honestly acknowledging they don't know and can't prove it either way.


Sorry, but let's agree to disagree.


Can you disprove God?

How can you state "there are no Gods" - - - when atheism is simply lack of belief in Gods? No where does atheism state there are no gods.
edit on 8-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Don't need too. I am not threatened by their non-existence.

Because I am an individual that is free thinking and uses the word atheist as the easiest label for others to identify my position.
Atheism is not a belief system or a club, it is merely a label. It has no statements.


There are not nor have there ever been any gods. In fact let's clear that up for good an' all. It is not "G"od or "G"ods..it is simply gods. Mankind had invented a plethora of them throughout time, all of them flawed and all of them with a use by date. The current crop are no better or worse than those that went before.

The above is my position, there are many like it, but this one is mine. Once more I don't need to prove it. It doesn't require approval. It does not even require anyone else to accept it.
The only way to change it is to supply tangible, hard evidence of its incorrectness.
Which cannot be done by using belief or even lack of belief.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible
a reply to: Annee

Don't need too. I am not threatened by their non-existence.

Because I am an individual that is free thinking and uses the word atheist as the easiest label for others to identify my position.
Atheism is not a belief system or a club, it is merely a label. It has no statements.


There are not nor have there ever been any gods. In fact let's clear that up for good an' all. It is not "G"od or "G"ods..it is simply gods. Mankind had invented a plethora of them throughout time, all of them flawed and all of them with a use by date. The current crop are no better or worse than those that went before.

The above is my position, there are many like it, but this one is mine. Once more I don't need to prove it. It doesn't require approval. It does not even require anyone else to accept it.
The only way to change it is to supply tangible, hard evidence of its incorrectness.
Which cannot be done by using belief or even lack of belief.



Whatever dude.

Whatever you need to hang on to, to feel good about yourself.

I don't need it.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Noncompatible

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Noncompatible
a reply to: Annee

I am indeed an atheist. Where did I claim there is no god (singular)? I in fact claim nothing of the sort, don't have too. Because there is no evidence of gods ( please notice the plural) beyond the anecdotal.
The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
I ascribe no greater bias to any current mythical deity over others less "fashionable" .

Should it ever , to play devils advocate for a moment, occur that I am shown to be in error...well then I will shrug and say "Well played" then carry on about my day.

To say an atheist must be agnostic to be "true" is still a somewhat strange viewpoint.
I regard myself as a simple atheist. There are no gods, nor tangible evidence that there has ever been.



Agnostic means "I don't know" - - and you don't. No one does. No matter what you believe or lack belief of - - you don't know.

It is the default position of not being able to prove god or prove god does not exist.

If you want to be a hard atheist and say there is no proof of god - - go for it. Personally, I feel that is dishonest. You can't prove there isn't.

Therefore, "true" atheist. One honestly acknowledging they don't know and can't prove it either way.


Sorry, but let's agree to disagree.


Can you disprove God?

How can you state "there are no Gods" - - - when atheism is simply lack of belief in Gods? No where does atheism state there are no gods.


Doesn't atheism imply that if there were a god, atheists would have reason to conclude it's existence, even if they didn't worship it?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Noncompatible

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Noncompatible
a reply to: Annee

I am indeed an atheist. Where did I claim there is no god (singular)? I in fact claim nothing of the sort, don't have too. Because there is no evidence of gods ( please notice the plural) beyond the anecdotal.
The burden of proof is not mine to carry.
I ascribe no greater bias to any current mythical deity over others less "fashionable" .

Should it ever , to play devils advocate for a moment, occur that I am shown to be in error...well then I will shrug and say "Well played" then carry on about my day.

To say an atheist must be agnostic to be "true" is still a somewhat strange viewpoint.
I regard myself as a simple atheist. There are no gods, nor tangible evidence that there has ever been.



Agnostic means "I don't know" - - and you don't. No one does. No matter what you believe or lack belief of - - you don't know.

It is the default position of not being able to prove god or prove god does not exist.

If you want to be a hard atheist and say there is no proof of god - - go for it. Personally, I feel that is dishonest. You can't prove there isn't.

Therefore, "true" atheist. One honestly acknowledging they don't know and can't prove it either way.


Sorry, but let's agree to disagree.


Can you disprove God?

How can you state "there are no Gods" - - - when atheism is simply lack of belief in Gods? No where does atheism state there are no gods.


Doesn't atheism imply that if there were a god, atheists would have reason to conclude it's existence, even if they didn't worship it?


I'd say yes.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god. Nothing more, nothing less.

Agnostic is the default position of God can't be proven or dis-proven.

Agnostic atheist.

If God was able to show and prove himself that would be acceptable.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Doesn't atheism imply that if there were a god, atheists would have reason to conclude it's existence, even if they didn't worship it?


That is one viewpoint , yes. Annee's is another. One that I simply said I found strange. I didn't dismiss it, I simply questioned the validity of stating that it was "true" atheism, because the statement smacked of religiosity

Honestly I was not expecting such a vigorous response and find it mildly amusing that my position could cause such fervor.

There is however no handbook for what atheism "is". To dismiss a viewpoint that does not match your own is adopting the mantle of religion. The whole "there is one true belief" mantra.

Some of us choose not to be pigeonholed. If that makes others nervous or unsure, that cannot be helped.

Nothing will change however much we debate this. So as I said before, best to agree to disagree.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Whatever dude.

Whatever you need to hang on to, to feel good about yourself.

I don't need it.



In order:

Generally I hang on to my wife and children to feel good about myself.

It is simply my position, was curious about yours since I found it strange.

I am aware of this and don't require your validation .



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Some thoughts…

Many people get mad at religion or God eventually because it seems to never really penetrate reality enough for fulfillment.


Once a person finally gets tired of their “faith” pretending it knows the truth then often they get angry and feel the way many here are feeling, totally justified in my opinion.

Religion is just so insufficient and becomes a psychological crutch for many

On the other hand many just get tired of the game…constantly worrying about whether they believe what the believe or pretending they know it.

Many ex-believers end up thinking some sadistic “god” is just playing some very sadistic psychological game on human beings.


But likely the religions being so flawed only reflects the flaw in man’s soul

Just think about it, if we had a perfect religion we wouldn’t need one in the first place


edit on 8-4-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noncompatible

originally posted by: Annee

Whatever dude.

Whatever you need to hang on to, to feel good about yourself.

I don't need it.



In order:

Generally I hang on to my wife and children to feel good about myself.

It is simply my position, was curious about yours since I found it strange.

I am aware of this and don't require your validation .


OK, sorry. Sick with a sore throat and laryngitis.

I don't, as a rule, do "strike out" posts.

I put "true" in quotes. For me that means an atheist who acknowledge he/she does not know. Because we don't.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Is there any education that proves that there is no God? What proffesion would that be?

There is no proffesion that proves the existance of God either.

The existance and non existance of God can only be argued, not proven.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join