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.

 

Should Atheism be a thing????

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: DISRAELI

Because there is no theism ... the idea of a God, is lunacy ... to say the least. Do we "label" people who aren't insane?

No, we don't.

When you start labeling "a-theist" the word being used is "theism". The preposition being used, is that "theism" is the normal state of mind, and "a-theism" is the anti state of mind.

We do not live in 2000 BC, we live in the year of 2017 AD, and in a couple of days we'll eneter 2018.

You want to keep the state of mind, that beliveing in Santa Claus is normal ... hell no. Believing in Santa Claus is lunacy, it's literally being "retarded" to a point of fault. Not because there cannot be a creator, but because any "rabbi" claiming to *understand* the mindset, or the intent of any spernatural being is not just fallacy, it's not just merely a falcehood ... it's arrogance to the point, where that rabbi is claiming to be a God himself. To understand the omnipotent and omniscient, you must be one yourself.

So, the preposition that people who do not believe in lunatic ideology are a-"anything" is not acceptable.

Why don't you start calling people, who believe in "God" or "Allah", as a-normal. Seriously, thats more fitting.


this country was founded on the premise that every human has the right to freely think whatever they choose so long as their actions respect the basic rights of their fellow citizens. that means we all have the right to be "retarded" as you put it. if you can't abide by this, then move to a country where such freedoms don't exist, and enjoy the consequences of thought policing and authoritarianism.




posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Atheist are the biggest religious people I have ever conversed with. They have more faith than most Christians in what they claim to and not to believe.

But then you know my views JoshuaCox.


Complete load of BS. Atheists call out the false claims of theists. They don't have faith, they LACK faith. There is nothing about atheism that requires faith. It only requires logic. There is no evidence to suggest god exists, therefor it's logical to not have that belief. Don't be upset with atheists, because they call out religious people when they attack science and spread lies that claim their religion is proved. If Christians just left other people alone, you wouldn't have atheists so adamant about calling out their BS, but they always try to claim their religion has been proved and is backed by evidence instead of simply accepting that it's one belief possibility of many. They indoctrinate young impressionable children and force their views on others, and that is harmful to society, so we will call that out any time we see it.

Yeah atheism is a religious belief, just like not playing basketball is a sport. Sorry, but you don't get to define what other people believe. Ask somebody what they DO believe. Don't define them based on what they DON'T.


edit on 1 9 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

He's right you know (insert Morgan Freeman voice here)...

Atheism is no different from any other religious doctrine, it is believed totally by faith.


How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion...

Atheism as a Stealth Religion

Ironically, most atheists are disgusted with Christianity because atheists claim Christianity requires “blind faith” or “blind trust.” But by the very definition of the name they carry, atheists in fact are the ones who have based their beliefs on the absence of evidence.

Atheists are a people “without a belief in theism” not because they have disproved the existence of God with evidence, but rather because they claim there is an absence of evidence for God. They believe there is no God because they cannot see any evidence of God. Atheists trust there is no God not because of what they see, but because of what they cannot see. Their conviction stems from things not seen.

The Blind Faith of Atheism



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Should atheism be considered a separate group???


It's sort of like the term "minority".
That's another group determined by what they aren't.

There are more specific atheists who join a group like the church of satan.

I'm an atheist and whilst I believe in all the doctrines of the church of satan I wouldn't consider myself a satanist.

The fact that no atheist has looked into all religions yet still claim that god does not exist makes it pretty clear that it is a faith statement which needs to be identified somehow.

I think agnosticism is the silly label however.
You can't believe in something when you refuse to make a stand on its existence.

All agnostics are atheists.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
There is nothing about atheism that requires faith. It only requires logic. There is no evidence to suggest god exists, therefor it's logical to not have that belief.


Wouldn't abiogenesis be a faith position?
Wouldn't panspermia be a faith position?

I believe atheism is a clearly superior faith position however there is an assumption that life began from nothing without evidence that it is possible.

Both theist's and atheist's are claiming a position on something beyond their understanding.

Is there really much difference between...

"God works in mysterious ways"
and
"We don't have the answers yet"

If atheists aren't willing to accept the flaws in our own logic then how can we expect the theists to do that?
edit on 11-1-2018 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid


Atheism is no different from any other religious doctrine, it is believed totally by faith.


Sorry, you are wrong here. Atheism isn't a religious doctrine. There is no scripture, dogma or system to follow. There is only lack of belief in god, which applies to tons of different people with varying beliefs, even religions that don't believe in god like Buddhism. Theists constantly misrepresent us dishonestly and it's really getting old. Theists just have this need to project their faith on other people and force it down their throat, so they pretend atheism is this irrational belief that means there is absolutely no god. That ain't how it works, pal. Instead of pigeonholing people, ask them what they DO believe, and then categorize them based on that.

Trying to define somebody by what they don't believe is stupid. Do you believe in fairies or vampires? Well, I guess that means you have faith in the religion of afairyism or avampirism and irrationally believe they absolutely don't exist anywhere in the universe and follow that doctrine. Just stop with the nonsense. The one thing that defines atheism is not having a belief in god and any atheist will tell you that. Funny how you people always try to tell us what we think and believe. It's completely dishonest, especially when your view is a complete guess based on faith.


edit on 1 12 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Wouldn't abiogenesis be a faith position?
Wouldn't panspermia be a faith position?


No, not really. Those are scientific hypotheses, currently being studied and figured out. They aren't based on blind faith, in fact abiogenesis has several experiments that back it. They are basically works in progress in science, they aren't just made up out of the blue, they are based on what we understand about the universe.


I believe atheism is a clearly superior faith position however there is an assumption that life began from nothing without evidence that it is possible.


Who says that life began from nothing?


Both theist's and atheist's are claiming a position on something beyond their understanding.


It's a belief position yes, but it's based on logic. Since there is no testable evidence to support the existence of god, it is logical to not have that belief until that changes. Theists are the ones that claim it's beyond our understanding, atheists just admit we don't know the answer yet, and they could change their position if evidence were found.


Is there really much difference between...

"God works in mysterious ways"
and
"We don't have the answers yet"


Yes there is a big difference because one makes an assertion that god exists, while the other is a position of honesty that admits we don't know.


If atheists aren't willing to accept the flaws in our own logic then how can we expect the theists to do that?


What logical flaws are there in lacking a belief in something that has no supporting evidence? Is it logically flawed to lack belief in vampires?


edit on 1 12 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Theists are the ones that claim it's beyond our understanding, atheists just admit we don't know the answer yet, and they could change their position if evidence were found.


I'm an atheist and I claim it's beyond our understanding.
We can't even comprehend half of the dimensions that exist.

I think it's scientifically sound to say that if you cannot comprehend half of existence then any claims of understanding will be "at best" incomplete.

Regarding abiogenesis or panspermia...
As you said, they are hypotheses. If you believe in either one then you have a faith position until it becomes a theory.
Personally I lean towards panspermia. I kind of like the fact that I dismiss god's input in favour of life coming from "the heavens".

Regarding life from nothing...
You're right, I should have said life from no life.

Regarding god works in mysterious ways vs we don't have the answers yet...
They are both claims of ignorance which should be respected.
I do see your point however. One claims "God" and the other claims "yet".

Regarding flaws in logic...
I don't believe that you're an atheist because there is no supporting evidence for theism.
I also don't believe you dismiss vampires because of the lack of supporting evidence.

My reasoning (and yours too I believe) is based on the mountains and mountains of evidence which specifically contradicts both "god's" and Bram Stoker's words.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
With regards to a non-belief in god or gods, atheists and christians are the same really, atheists just have one more god on their list. Just one more god!

The person who started this thread really needs to get out more and learn.

Coomba98



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Master Coomba98
With regards to a non-belief in god or gods, atheists and christians are the same really, atheists just have one more god on their list. Just one more god!

The person who started this thread really needs to get out more and learn.

Master Coomba98


Why Master Coomba, isnt the belief in God 50/50 no?

Well youngling your confusing probability with possibility!

How so Master Coomba?

Well youngling, are you saying if I go home tonight I would find a million dollars on my bed, its a 50/50% chance?

No Master Coomba! im saying my god is real, real man! Look at the world.

Well youngling, much to learn you still have!

Master Coomba



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I'm an atheist and I claim it's beyond our understanding.
We can't even comprehend half of the dimensions that exist.

You are talking about the origins of the universe, rather than god, right? Yes, we don't comprehend the origins of the universe yet or what may be involved. If god doesn't exist, it can't be beyond our understanding, he's just not there.


I think it's scientifically sound to say that if you cannot comprehend half of existence then any claims of understanding will be "at best" incomplete.


Yep and every scientific theory is different in that regard.


Regarding abiogenesis or panspermia...
As you said, they are hypotheses. If you believe in either one then you have a faith position until it becomes a theory.
Personally I lean towards panspermia. I kind of like the fact that I dismiss god's input in favour of life coming from "the heavens".


Again, abiogenesis is backed by some experiments, god is not. Science is not something that requires faith or belief, it's merely asking the question "how can we test this idea?". Scientists are working it out. We don't currently know all the answers, but that doesn't mean we never will. Faith in experiments is not needed, the results speak for themselves. Nobody takes dogmatic positions when it comes to hypotheses. They acknowledge that science is working on it and it hasn't been proved yet. Theories are quite different, however.


I don't believe that you're an atheist because there is no supporting evidence for theism.
I also don't believe you dismiss vampires because of the lack of supporting evidence.

My reasoning (and yours too I believe) is based on the mountains and mountains of evidence which specifically contradicts both "god's" and Bram Stoker's words.


I'm not aware of any science that actually contradicts the existence of god. I've always seen science as neutral to that, since there is no evidence to test, it can't really be factored into anything. Yeah, the evidence contradicts literal versions of holy books, but not the existence of god as whole. You can't have evidence of non existence without complete knowledge of the universe. Vampires could very well exist somewhere in some dark corner of the universe. So could god. But logic says to go with what can actually be empirically demonstrated. That doesn't mean you should close your mind to it completely. I disbelieve in god because the burden of proof for god's existence has not yet been met.

edit on 1 15 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join