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.

 

Atheism: So dark, the con of man.

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Many Atheists I have met are really Deists in denial.




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
All of the normal arguing aside, I am getting a little tired of hearing so called atheists complain about how persecuted they are.

Maybe it's just me but i honestly can't see how or where they're being persecuted. Maybe you guys have never been to New York City, or the southern NY area in general. Talk about persecution, you just try and bring up anything closely Christian and you'll get a slammed from all angles.

Anyway, perhaps I'm just not reading the right material here but I've found 90% of atheist arguments to show a poor understanding of the religious texts they're deriding. Basically, I'm a Christians because all the arguments i've heard to the contrary have been pretty poor. (obviously it's not the only reason)

However, the atheists will never gain a proper understanding of say the Bible, because they are incapable of having a spiritual experience. If you haven't had one, if you haven't felt that sudden loving oneness with creation and with God then you will always view the Bible as somthing untrue and outside yourself and always compare it to what you deem as science and logical thought.

I had trouble understanding and believing what I had read and felt until I had a spiritual experience or two, now it all makes perfect sense to me.

But it's pretty much hopeless to try and convince atheists to change their mind, they're usually pretty dead set on thinking what they want and knowing they're right. Plus, many of them become atheists so they can rebel against their parents or teachers or whoever else.

I always like arguing the existence of atheism with "atheists", I always start it off by saying somthing to the effect of:

"If you honestly, truly, in your heart believe there is no God, no soul and no afterlife, then why do you feel the need to argue it so strongly? I think you're an agnostic."

They never see the irony in arguing the existence of atheism.


So what exactly constitutes a "spiritual experience"? Being blinded by the sun and falling off your horse? Perhaps starving in the desert for a month and hallucinating?

Please, enlighten me about this "love" that just seems to affect already quite unstable people and turns them into weeping fools at evangelical events....

As for not knowing the "holy books", well, I used to rather religious when i was younger. Read the Bible cover to cover. Then I realised it was in fact a pile of tripe, written by men to control men (why do you think Rome adopted Christianity and then was instrumental in it's abuse for 1500 years?).

I personally believe that there may be a higher plane of existence, so I guess that probably makes me some sort of proto-Buddhist. But I do like to eat animals and do occasionally like shooting them, so I guess that counts me out of being a proper Buddhist....

So, in short, I don't follow any rules as proscribed by someone thousands of years ago "just because"...

If you want me to buy into you hyped up fairy stories, your going to have to show me something pretty convincing, I am afraid....

As for the opening analogy about China. Well, I've seen pictures, TV images, met Chinese people and eaten Chinese food.

I take it then, that you have seen a picture of God, met Him, and eaten Godly food?

See how foolish your argument is?

[edit on 21/1/07 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Quote and a little story:

"The anti-theist must show just as much faith in God's non-existence, as a theist shows in God's existence." - ?

Being a theist, when I first heard this i thought "hah! you can't deny that! Atheism truly is bunk, it still requires faith." I was so enamored of it that it became my msn nick for a time. Then a friend of mine, who happens to be an athiest, messaged me and said "i luv ur name!"

Puzzled, I asked him why. He related that the night before some buddies had been harrassing him about why he believes (or doesn't believe?) as he does. Many beers later, following a spirited debate about science and empirical evidence, he simply told them that he just did, much as they did (or didn't). At first, I laughed. I thought jeez, Tony, I think you just contradicted your faith (or lack thereof). But the more I thought about it, I began to realize that this quote is a double edged sword. How is is understood is entirely dependant upon the reader.

One thing athiests and beleivers have in common is that we don't have all the answers. The question of faith or science then, is not one of God, but a question of how we choose to deal with the unknowable. Science vs. Faith is a foolish worldview, akin to music vs. math. The two are integral parts of the human experience and both are "correct", they differ only in their descriptions of the world in which we live. Atheists and believers alike need to integrate these aspects of perception, we can only better ourselves and each other by doing so.

So am I full of crap, or did that make sense to anyone?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Also if you do understand Atheists in general they are more informed about religion than most people who claim to be religious.


That is funny.



That is primarily due to the emphasis of reason and logic in Atheism over blind faith.


And that reason and logic starts with what?



Also there is the constant challenge that atheists face and therefore reading up and being informed in a necessity.


And theists do not face a constant challenge, nor do they need to read up and be informed? Makes sense, if god is on their side, i guess they don't face the same constant challenge. Sort of sounds logical to me.



As an atheist I dont believe in the myth of divinity just as I dont believe all people are equall. But I understand the purpose of the concept and its role in society. I am sure some atheists would agree but then again I believe in fate!



So as an athiest i assume you do not buy into the bull of the bible, so do you view church as a crutch for those who need a little more help?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
Well why should I respect a belief that says I am scum, that says I am a fool, says that I will burn for eternity in a lake of fire?


First, i need of reference for where any religion says you are "scum", please.

Secondly i like to say something else.

Why should i respect .........

doesn't really matter what comes after that.

A decision has been made to not respect, until someone else can justify why you need to respect ........ (*doesn't matter what comes after that)

Why should i respect .....?


[edit on 22-1-2007 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
First off, I'd like to thank the atheists on this thread for proving my points, I don't have time to get into a protracted argument right now so I'll just point out how you've proven me right:

I said that I can't see how the atheists are so persecuted, it seems to me that it's generally the Christians being persecuted by atheists.

The next 7 or 8 posts were completely focused on attacking me for what I said.


Most of you seem to have trouble separating religion from both spirituality and a close personal relationship with a higher power. Atheists seem to fluxuate between denying the existence of a higher power based on philosophical beliefs and then denouncing it all because "Christianity has killed thousands of people!"


I said that you can't really understand any of the Bible or any spiritual beliefs with out first having a spiritual experience. Some of you admitted your ignorance as to achieving one so I'd suggest you go to the library and read a few books. Some of you said that you have had spiritual experiences which proves my other point:

You're not an atheist, you're an agnostic.


Ok, ok ok, I'll admit it, I don't have time right now to argue with all you atheists as much as I'd really like so I'll leave you with this:


Atheists have always seemed like a screaming child in a toy store who is rebelling against his/her parent and thinking they're getting somewhere. One way or another, that child is still leaving the toy store, going home with the parent, and adhering to the parent's rules at home.

Kick and scream all you want, we're all facing the end one day.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
Many Atheists I have met are really Deists in denial.


Yup!!!!

Many of them believe that if they deny it hard enough they won't have to be accountable for their actions.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Washington, DC—American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

www.asanet.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Good post Melatonin.

I think you should add intellectual elitism to that list at the end of your quote.

I think a lot of people have trouble accepting atheists because they view them as rebels without a real cause. They are rebelling against something without a strong moral reason to do so. They also tend to pick on the easiest aspects of religion to pick on, mainly that of faith.

Faith is the basis for all religions, obviously there is no hard "proof" in the form most atheists demand. It comes down to the fact that I can't "prove" God exists anymore than an atheist can "prove" he doesn't exist.

I think a lot of people view atheists as immoral because their morals are not faith based. The morals taught in the Bible have withstood the test of thousands of years yet an atheist's morals are based off current thought. Adhering to the morals of the 1940s would get most of us arrested these days.

If Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor, to do good deeds for those in need, to be a righteous and moral person, to try and make the world a better place and you're rebelling against, and in opposition to, those teachings than you can easily see where many people would view atheists with skepticism.

I have personally never understood why atheists feel so strongly about the need to not believe in anything. I was a nihilist for a long time and it's a dark and depressing spiritual position.

And it does seem ironic that atheists feel the need to defend their beliefs at the cost of mine yet ridicule my beliefs for hindering those of others.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Good post Melatonin.


Awww, schucks...

Yeah, it shows how ignorant some people of faith are.


I think you should add intellectual elitism to that list at the end of your quote.


I can think of a few to add to yours.


It comes down to the fact that I can't "prove" God exists anymore than an atheist can "prove" he doesn't exist.


And that is why your god is equivalent to an invisible pink unicorn or a celestial teapot.

cheers.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   


And that is why your god is equivalent to an invisible pink unicorn or a celestial teapot.



I fail to see your logic Mel.

Can you disprove the existence of a higher power? Maybe I've missed the news story that said science has finally proven the non-existence of a higher power.

I know atheists have trouble not taking statements at face value but what I was saying is that your "evidence" or "proof" that leads you to not believe in God is just as flimsy as my evidence that there is a God.

I know there is a God because I feel it in my heart, because I've spoken with God all my life, because my prayers are answered, because I can clearly see him working in my daily life.

You don't believe in God because of something you read, because you're smarter than me and the other believers. Because you can't believe in anything outside of the material world. If you can't see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or do it yourself, then it doesn't exist.

Your god of science is equivalent to my God in many ways, the science in which you put your faith is as complex as the theology in which I place mine.

You can't explain to me how the resonant frequencies of super strings affect the fabric of space time, yet you still believe in it.

You can't even prove the existence of strings at all.

Should I stop believing the physicists just because I can neither understand it all nor prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Again I will say, as an atheist I really do not feel like there is some huge attack happening agains me or others like me... all the attacks that i perceive are done by individiuals and dont take to seriously..
I am not agnostic, I do not believe in God or a higher power... and I dont believe for a moment that there needed to be a god or higher power to give mankind morales and values... abrtract thought is what seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, it was only a matter of time before we developed morale laws and the like



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I fail to see your logic Mel.

Can you disprove the existence of a higher power? Maybe I've missed the news story that said science has finally proven the non-existence of a higher power.


There are many things we can't disprove. That is the point. We also can't disprove that invisible pan-dimensional pixies are involved in intelligent falling. However, we can take a sceptical position - the lack of evidence does not warrant belief. It is not a 100% absolute proposition, like yours is for the existence of a god.

Atheism need not be a positive assertion that gods do not exist but rather the lack of belief in gods.

This is why I am an agnostic-atheist or weak atheist. An extreme hard atheist will claim that gods do not exist, that is a 100% proposition.


I know atheists have trouble not taking statements at face value but what I was saying is that your "evidence" or "proof" that leads you to not believe in God is just as flimsy as my evidence that there is a God.


I don't need to look for evidence he doesn't exist, but just accept the absence of real-world objective evidence that he does.

If belief in gods is like TV channels, atheism is the off switch.

You are an atheist for thor and Zeus, I would think. I just go that little bit further



I know there is a God because I feel it in my heart, because I've spoken with God all my life, because my prayers are answered, because I can clearly see him working in my daily life.


Sounds great, I'm sure that belief makes you feel good.



Your god of science is equivalent to my God in many ways, the science in which you put your faith is as complex as the theology in which I place mine.


Science has no god.


You can't explain to me how the resonant frequencies of super strings affect the fabric of space time, yet you still believe in it.

You can't even prove the existence of strings at all.

Should I stop believing the physicists just because I can neither understand it all nor prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?


No, I'm quite sceptical of string theory. I do not 'believe in it', I accept it is a mathematical model that does make predictions, however, they are pretty much untested.

I don't even believe it deserves the 'theory' label, it is really a mere hypothesis. However, it should be possible to falsify it, the LHC may provide the first empirical observations.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   


There are many things we can't disprove. That is the point. We also can't disprove that invisible pan-dimensional pixies are involved in intelligent falling. However, we can take a sceptical position - the lack of evidence does not warrant belief. It is not a 100% absolute proposition, like yours is for the existence of a god.


This is my point, that the basis for your belief in the non-existence of God is as sturdy as the basis for my belief in God. If you choose to believe there is no God simply because you have not seen enough evidence for it, because you haven't been convinced yet, you have based your belief system simply on your own opinion.

No one is arguing the belief in magic pixies, I'm not even arguing a belief in Jesus (though I am Christian). The debate between "atheists" and "theists" is essentially the debate between the existence or non-existence of a God, no matter what you want to call him/her or how you imagine him/her to appear.

If you declare yourself an atheist then you are proclaiming to not believe in a God or higher spiritual force in anyway what so ever. To simply use examples like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the magic pixies you're only obfuscating the debate.

However, there is as much "hard evidence" against God as there is "hard evidence" for God. To simply take the atheist position because it's easier to not prove something than to endeavor to prove something in the lack of "hard evidence" seems to me to be a bit of a cop out.

This is why I generally believe most atheists to actually be agnostics at heart. Agnostic and atheist are two very very different terms and can not be interchanged. If you are in fact an agnostic and wish to debate the reasons why God is unknowable or unreachable and does not affect our lives than I will be glad to do so (this goes for anyone, not just Mel).

People need to understand that to be an atheist is to deny deity in any form, and that bringing up the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not help to prove their position at all. The FSM argument only argues against Jesus (or Allah or Elohim etc) as the all mighty deity but does not, in fact, deny the existence of a God or gods.

To decide whether you are an atheist or an agnostic you must be truly honest with yourself and decide whether you really believe there is nothing more than this material world, or if you believe that we can't not understand God, we can not contact God, and that He does not act in our lives in anyway.

It's a very important distinction and if you're going to label yourself as one or the other then it's very important that you understand the differences.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Shadowflux]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
This is my point, that the basis for your belief in the non-existence of God is as sturdy as the basis for my belief in God. If you choose to believe there is no God simply because you have not seen enough evidence for it, because you haven't been convinced yet, you have based your belief system simply on your own opinion.

No one is arguing the belief in magic pixies, I'm not even arguing a belief in Jesus (though I am Christian). The debate between "atheists" and "theists" is essentially the debate between the existence or non-existence of a God, no matter what you want to call him/her or how you imagine him/her to appear.

....

However, there is as much "hard evidence" against God as there is "hard evidence" for God. To simply take the atheist position because it's easier to not prove something than to endeavor to prove something in the lack of "hard evidence" seems to me to be a bit of a cop out.


There is no hard evidence for god. There is no hard evidence against god.

Just the complete lack of hard evidence, any objective evidence. Therefore I do not hold a belief in god/gods.

There is no hard evidence for greys. There is no hard evidence against greys. Therefore I do not hold a belief in greys.

Hence, I do not believe in the existence of greys/unicorns/gods/celestial teapots.

If you make a proposition that something exists, you need to show evidence. I do not need to disprove it. Until the evidence is produced, I do not hold a belief in that something.

I can go a step further and claim, that I am almost certain that greys do not exist. However, I still leave open the possibility that I am wrong and that new evidence of greys may be found.

I am an agnostic-atheist...


Agnostic atheism is a philosophical doctrine that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct: atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs" while agnosticism is usually defined as "an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge)". An agnostic may identify as an atheist or a theist in certain circumstances (see Agnostic theism).

One of the earliest explanations of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887-1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism):

"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one." (p.49)

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..." (p.50-51)

Individuals may identify as agnostic atheists based on their knowledge of the philosophical concepts of epistemology, theory of justification and Occam's razor.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 22-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   


If you make a proposition that something exists, you need to show evidence. I do not need to disprove it. Until the evidence is produced, I do not hold a belief in that something.


But here in lies the problem, the evidence that is produced is almost always rejected by skeptics and atheists such as yourself. Your example of the grays is a good one, you say there is no evidence for the existence of grays so you do not believe in them. However, there are many who do believe in them and believe there is plenty of evidence but people like yourself deny it.

You say you try to stay open minded, that if there ever was "hard evidence" as to the existence of grays then you would believe them. Maybe its me but I don't really see this stance as open minded, it's just believing what other people tell you. To me, being open minded would be to actively go searching for evidence of something such as grays or God and taking all evidence with an open mind, not comparing it to your original position on the subject.

If you go searching for evidence of grays or God, and test every shred of evidence by whether or not it changes your mind right away then you are actively ruining any evidence you do come across.

I was once an atheist, when I was really young, but as I got older, and as I studied more I approached the topic with an open mind and an open heart. When I asked a question, I received an answer. When I prayed for something, I was given whatever I asked for. When I examined my life with an open mind and open heart it was easy to see God's influence through out my entire life.

If I were to pray for something, receive it, then try to explain it away as some dull happening of chance I would only be defeating myself. If I review my life and see I was always watched over and always provided for even in the darkest hours of my life then turn around and say I did it all myself, I would be defeating myself.

God never had any stipulations when it came to his love for us all, it's only man that has stipulations in his love for God.

If you were an orphan and had no knowledge of your parents what so ever and was never able to find any evidence of your parents, would you believe yourself to have been grown in a test tube as some sort of clone?

Would you consider yourself grown in a test tube until someone showed you evidence that you were in fact gestated in your mother's womb?

Of course not, you would have faith that you were born of two human parents.

Just as you now have faith that the tremendous mass of a planetary body causes an attractive distortion in the fabric of space time.

Just as you now believe that there is enough oxygen around you to survive.

Just as you probably believe in the Big Bang theory.

Just as you believe that your emotions are simply chemicals released by the firing of certain neural pathways in your brain.

I feel sorry for people who're only able to believe in what they're told. It was the process of questioning what I'm told that led me to my belief.


EDIT: BTW, it's not fair to edit your post while I'm writing mine

I think your friend Mr. Flint is effectively not saying anything at all, he is at best arguing semantics.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by Shadowflux]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
But here in lies the problem, the evidence that is produced is almost always rejected by skeptics and atheists such as yourself. Your example of the grays is a good one, you say there is no evidence for the existence of grays so you do not believe in them. However, there are many who do believe in them and believe there is plenty of evidence but people like yourself deny it.


Because the evidence is generally personal testimony and not reliable and/or objective. I have a certain standard of evidence that I will accept. That is why I do not believe in string theory, I believe the theory exists, I deny the theory has enough supporting evidence and is a model of the real-world. Just because people believe in things does not validate that belief.


It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts.
--- Thomas Huxley, Letter to Charles Kingsley ---


And if you note my Huxley quote in my sig., you will see I go where evidence leads. Like any good scientist.

Cheers.

ABE: OK, sorry. I just wanted to outline my position better. A person can be agnostic and atheist. You seemed to suggest I didn't understand their meanings.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   


And if you note my Huxley quote in my sig., you will see I go where evidence leads. Like any good scientist.


But if we were to only study, research, and follow that which there is already enough hard evidence for we would not have many of the things we do today.

If the journey of science is not a journey into the unknown then what is it?

Science is about discovery, you can't discover something you already know all about.

If there were not aspects to life that indeed had no evidence at all then we would not have science to begin with.


Edit: I understand Mel, I was simply saying that I believe atheism and agnosticism to pretty much cancel each other out.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Shadowflux]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
But if we were to only study, research, and follow that which there is already enough hard evidence for we would not have many of the things we do today.

If the journey of science is not a journey into the unknown then what is it?

Science is about discovery, you can't discover something you already know all about.

If there were not aspects to life that indeed had no evidence at all then we would not have science to begin with.


Well, of course. Science aims to clear the shroud of ignorance, it is very successful. The most powerful tool for knowing we have.

What we can do is examine specific claims made by people who do claim knowing status. So, if someone claims that prayer works, we test and find it wanting (unless the person knows they are being prayed for).


Edit: I understand Mel, I was simply saying that I believe atheism and agnosticism to pretty much cancel each other out.


Nope, I say that you cannot know if god(s) exist, they are supernatural [agnostic]. We cannot measure or test them. They have no testable nature, behaviour - nada, zilch. There is no evidence either way.

Therefore I do not believe in god(s) [weak atheist]. which is not the same as saying no gods exist.

An agnostic-atheist. I am almost certain they do not exist, but I do not know so.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I guess I classify as agnostic-atheist as well.. I highly doubt that god(s) exist but am open to being proved wrong.




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join