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.

 

Atheists in America

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Firstly, i would like to say sorry for jumping into the debate so late but if

its ok i would like to say a few things.

- i don't think that the anger/aggression that some of the posters use is

very productive in coming to any sort of understanding.



- i think i just said it, but you need to arrive at an understanding instead of

trying to convert eachother. Celebrate life as you feel to be fitting for

you, at the end of it all(life/exsistance/universe/whatever else you can

think of) what really will you have achieved through fighting with

eachother, what ever you choose to believe, you all have beliefs! There is

no point in agruing with an Atheist if you are a christain or anyother

religion, due to the fact that you are trying to prove to that person that

your beliefs are real, i think the "human condition" is what we all must

over come and not cause pain to ourselves or anyone else, we dont have

the right.



- i want to suggest a bit of expanded reading for all i think that if you

tolerate the information that you read/research then that will only give

depth to your on belief system,

atheism.about.com...

obviously anyone can read the bible, we all take what we need from the

information presented but should do it in a way that is with an open heart.



- i dont live in the USA, however i find it ironic that some of the posters

here say about the commandments being in your courtrooms, yet the US

still carries the death pelenty!?



- what i believe is that we should all respect eachothers opinions and take

from the encounters that we have with eachother consolation, we are not

alone in this universe, we have plenty of company around us and what we

are jugded on by everyone is the interaction that we have with that

company.



- i enjoy the idea of karma, so i think that believing in a god (for want of a

better word) means that a god believes in us, and the whole idea of belief

is to put it in motion on the earth to eachother, believe in eachother and

understand that each of us does what is right for us, and if we dont agree

with what someone is believing that does not deminish us it only affirms

that what we believe is correct for us. This is what strength of character is

about, i believe.



- last note - i don't think Jesus was a religious man, he was open to

following the truth that was set out before him, he had to choose to follow

that truth and he did not find it easy, nor should the rest of us either, i feel

that churches sell you a product, and when you bring it back to them they

ask "Have you got a receipt?". my point is there are no guarantees.


mcktj




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Landis and OrangeTom

that remark about 'bringing over to the other side was a joke...

I guess tones get lost on the interwebs, oh well.


shizzle

Yeah, I remember all that stuff at Halloween as well. In fact, we had a 'Hallelujah' night, where the church held it's own halloween party w/ candy. I guess there's nothing wrong with that...but I know I'd rather have been running around on the streets w/ real friends: sigh

I also remember getting 'points' for bringing friends to church. The more points you earned, the bigger prize you got at the end of the year. That's really strange, IMO. I don't think ANY other faith does that, although I could be wrong...



Originally posted by orangetom1999

To spend such an inordinate amount of time and resources worrying about being saved..putting ones money in the box...doing works to get saved is Paganism..and has its roots in the Pagan traditions...I'm not intrested in this dogma.


It's rare to know christians that realize most of their 'current' traditions are actually called out against in their bible.
That means you've read it for your self, and I applaud you. I wish 90% of the other christians out there would do the same. Then maybe we (non-christians) could all finally get along with those other 90% in the christian faith.



I certainly dont think Athiests are better than me..since I know I deserve hell and damnation. It is not a issue..sophism is however..and is often marked by logic and reason. You might want to find out the origins of Sophism. Logic and reason..and philosophys. Historically I mean.


I'll need to look that up.



As to the guy on the stool on the street corner and other dramas..no thanks. Im not into drama queens or techniques.

I should probably tell you ..that I actually have more problems with the multitude of variations under which travels much of Christianity than Athiest philosophy..but it is intresting for its pattern.


Again, thank you. You're 'one of the good ones'




AThiesm just trys to look different and more individual than much of what passes for Christianity today.


Atheism doesn't try to look like anything. Atheists aren't an organized, we don't believe in no gods for the same reason. Each one of us disbelieves for our own personal reason. I guess that's why it's so hard for people to understand atheism, because they try to find a common ground in what all atheists believe. But none of us have any belief in anything, I guess that's just hard for MOST theists to understand.

As for what passes as christianity today. Obviously, that's do to the other 90% of christians out there that do not actually read/study the scriptures themselves.



I dont think it occurs to many of you that much of what passes for Christianity today is in fact carefully disguised Paganism. Even many of the Christians are do dumb they dont get it. Dont worry ..it is very easy for many of you to confuse alot of the Christians today. They are what I call "Rice Christians."


exactly... and that's what I have a problem with. Again, I can't speak for all atheists, but I believe that's wherein they see the hypocrisy, and try to point it out.

wait, 'rice christians'
haha
Where's that from?!



I am not about to attack physically a athiest or anyone else. That is just plain dumb and uncivil. I am also not about to ask anyone if they have "accepted Jesus." LOL LOL LOL. A proper Christain can tell if one has the Lord living in them in short order..they can also tell too..if one has another god living in them. For all that matter ..so too can Pagans tell without speaking if someone is of the Pagan fingerprint. It is unavoidable to the perceptive.


It's harder than you may think. Everyone acts differently. Lots of people are amazed I'm an Atheist. I get weird look all the time when they assume I'm christian, and I tell them otherwise.



As a person steeped in logic and reason ..not drama...you should already know this.

I read the bible for myself too..and there is a Christian Philosophy out here. Unfortunately much of the Christian perspective of the Lord and the time of the Apostles has been seduced by the body politic and cheap merchandizing.


Very true. That's the part of christianity that pissed me off, when I was a christian. Especially when I'd try to tell everyone, and they blew me off as a heretic (well, not heretic, but a noisy kid).



Which is why I often say that Christians are not even aware of the Paganism which has creeped into thier Faith. Ironically much of this change through divinity schools and universitys/bible colleges.


Actually, I've found the opposite. Two of the most intelligent and well meaning christians I've ever known went to bible college. Although, I guess it depends on the individual...

In either case, it's obvious you're not part of the ignorant 90%, so for that, I'm happy. It makes threads like this much more productive.


OK: onto the CNN clip.

I thought the guy they had was trying to back up Atheism with 'they have the right to do and believe' and yadda yadda. But those two squawk boxes (women) wouldn't hear it. Not to be a sexist, but it did somewhat portray the stereotype that women are MUCH more emotional, while men, even while not sharing a particular view, can generally 'put on the other shoe' so to speak.

So I don't think everyone was anti-Atheist, just the christian woman, and the jewish woman. Zahn wasn't really getting involved.

Oh Dawkins. I read that got moved to tomorrow (monday the 12th).
I'm looking forward to it!


[edit on 2/11/2007 by Arcane Demesne]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
orange, please, reserve any discussion of your perceptions of mainstream christianity for another thread

whether or not you think that mainstream christianity is pagan or not isn't relevent to how atheists are being treated



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
madness, I know you were trying to keep it with the discussion of the cnn show but in the same token orangetom has brought up some interesting points on "atheism in america" which is the name of the thread, and we don't get to see richard in action untill monday.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shizzle5150
madness, I know you were trying to keep it with the discussion of the cnn show but in the same token orangetom has brought up some interesting points on "atheism in america" which is the name of the thread, and we don't get to see richard in action untill monday.


I agree. Especially since it isn't christians like orangetom that have a deeply troubled vision of atheists (at least from what I've gathered). Although they're rare, they exist, and can perhaps help the 'mainstream' christians change their views.

Can't wait for Monday! Anyone know if it'll just be him and Zahn, or if they'll have another panel for him to decimate?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Can't wait for Monday! Anyone know if it'll just be him and Zahn, or if they'll have another panel for him to decimate?


Apparently it will include a panel - Christopher Hitchins (another British atheist - we have a good supply, heheh), Niger Innis (some conservative dude), and Roland Martin (a religious commentator).



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Apparently it will include a panel - Christopher Hitchins (another British atheist - we have a good supply, heheh), Niger Innis (some conservative dude), and Roland Martin (a religious commentator).


I promise you that something will be fishy about this. Dawkins is insidiously intelligent, and given free reign on a panel he'll be leaving the metaphoric teeth of his opponents all over the floor, and be opening viewers' eyes in the process. Dawkins stands up to dogma like Odin on the battlefield, disregarding collateral damage and throwing political correctness to the wind. He usually offends the more indoctrinated in ways that most Americans cannot concieve.

They'll have a saddle on Dawkins for sure, and probably cut his mic off a few times too.

Dawkins did this in Virginy, and it leads to a bunch of other clips of Dawkins
Richard Dawkins

However, this one is the real deal

Root of all Evil



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Sunsetspawn, i agree
well, except for the Odin part
i always viewed Dawkins as Thor

anyway
either CNN has absolutely no idea what they're in for
which would be incredibly entertaining to watch
or they're going to heavily restrain Dawkins



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Just a friendly reminder, this is coming on in thirty minutes. For those who wanted to watch but were disapointed to find out that anna's death is the most important news at the time.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I just saw it. It was a hoax in my opinion!


It was a pre-taped segment w/ Zahn and Dawkins, and only 3-4 questions were asked, and it was obvious it was edited. I'll keep watching, but I doubt there'll be more of him...

Wish they would have had him in studio...



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
I just saw it. It was a hoax in my opinion!



agreed
it's especially sketchy that paula took the night off...
maybe she has trouble facing atheism/ts?



It was a pre-taped segment w/ Zahn and Dawkins, and only 3-4 questions were asked, and it was obvious it was edited. I'll keep watching, but I doubt there'll be more of him...


i found out that the original interview was 20 minutes long, they cut 16



Wish they would have had him in studio...


and i wish they also had the time to give him his proper say
even if he was in the studio, they would have still had some much less informed people in the discussion that he'd simply destroy

though i thought the lady that they used in his place was adequate



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
My comments on the program are this, where as they brought dawkins in and asked him direct questions. he answered and then they dropped him and went to the panel. I have seen people teleconference on debates many a times on CNN and I strongly doubt dawkins would have a problem in doing so. But it was what it was so lets address some of the questions.


Firstly I would strongly agree that the problems Christians have with atheists does not stem from a misunderstanding of who we are, for the most part I don't think we are not understood as if to say we are mysterious and there is no knowledge of our ways, they fully understand who we are, how we feel and why we feel that way. There is a fine line between ignorance and dishonesty.

I was particularly interested in the question where do we get our morals? The Christians get theirs from the bible. Lets take off the atheist shoes for a minute and say that the Christians are correct and there is a god. In the bible it states god gave man discernment. If this is true every man has a common for lack of a better word understanding or perhaps morality of what is right and what is wrong. I.E. I know that to steal is wrong, I don't have to have anything other than my brain and my conscience to know that.

So if there is a god and the bible is held to be correct, all men/women whether they choose to follow god's ways are born with the common sense of right and wrong. Being born with Morality is a given. we all have it from the time we are born, the understanding increases with age. So to make the assumption that someone does not have this common trait because they do not adhere to your personal set of values is more than wrong, it is overriding the very right and wrong instincts that the bible says god gave man.

I would also like to point out that just because man is born with discernment that Christians hold god gave us, it does not guarantee it is always used, by those with or without faith. So even if Christians truly subscribe to the words of their religion to believe that someone does not have morals based on what they believe is wrong in their book. It's convenient for them to forget this when debating with atheists. I get my morals by simply knowing what is right and wrong in everyones eyes, this may vary some but there are "cardinal rules" which all agree are not right.

I would also like to point out the the Christian on the panel stated that this country was founded on Christianity, where as that was the prevalent religion at the time, it was founded on a freedom from religion. They were persecuted hence the whole purpose for coming here. They also tried to ensure that we (their new found country) would never become what they fought so hard against. So EVERYONE no matter their beliefs were accepted and not forced into believing or more so practicing a religion as they were.
Freedom from religion, not a particular one is what this country was founded on.

Those checks and balances are being eroded and that is a problem to patriotic atheists in this country. It is speculation to say but none the less, if you could bring someone from back in the time after this country was first founded and let them survey our current status of religion in this country they would be concerned as what they went through would still be fresh in their mind.

Those are my thoughts.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
link to the CNN segment here

Thought Dawkins done well, as usual.

The religious dude apparently gets his morals from god, hope he doesn't keep slaves. Christians are selective in the ethics they take from the bible, thank FSM.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
link to the CNN segment here


mel, you just saved my hide
i actually was doing a project on the whole "fear of atheists" thing for one of my classes and needed a source that wasn't using YouTube for those clips

everyone, remember to be vigilant for the full 20 min uncut interview

[edit on 2/12/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I myself am an aethist as well. I have read the bible, perhaps not as thoroughly as most of the posters in this thread, but I got the gist of it, and agree with alot of it. I follow the majority of the commandments, and agree it helps make you have better morals. But I don't think the bible is anything but a self-help book. It has been argued that God should be taken off money, out of the pledge, and out of courtrooms. Why? I don't see the point in taking them out. But at the same time, I don't see why it would be a problem taking them out. Im not sure if that made since, but basicaly I guess im just trying to say is, if there is some reminders of God, it is not a big deal. Im not being swayed, im not being persecuted. But if I was a follower, the absence of these reminders, these offereings to God wouldn't make me question their faith. Basicaly im saying this argument is mute. No point to it. Will it kill you if they are gone or if they stay? No, you will remain who you are regardless



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I agree with you lizzardking although the church will be mad about loosing all those "advertising dollars"



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
lizardking, the whole taking the god off of money, out of the pledge, and out of the courtroom has to do with the constitution

religions are free because we are free from them
if there was no freedom from religion, then any single religion could gain supremacy through government



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
lizardking, the whole taking the god off of money, out of the pledge, and out of the courtroom has to do with the constitution

religions are free because we are free from them
if there was no freedom from religion, then any single religion could gain supremacy through government




Sorry dude...but this is sophistry of the worst type and attempts to take advantage of peoples ignorance..and there is alot of ignorance out here ..even among athiests.

You should know much better than this but have been programmed not to think this through. If this is a statement from "expert" athiest it is at odds with what the history states.

As I have posted in other threads ..suggest very strongly you read some history of

"Divine Right of Kings " and its relationship to "Seperation of Church and State"

You are misquoting and reshuffling the deck to suit your bias. What you state is at variance with the history of why this is so.

The purpose is never ...never ..never to be free from religion...this is your very poor misquote to to those who know better and differently.

The purpose has always been to limit the Governments interfearence in the religious sector and hence the two combine to fleece the public..ie control for thier individual puposes...to the benifit of the Government and the benifit of the Church organization. I am in agreement with this modus operandi.

Seperation of Church and state is a limit on Government..not on the people.

It is obvious that when you have Government regulating and controlling religion you have eventually Government as the religion and you are back to royalty and royal feudalism...just as was the complaint when In Europe the Church and state were one..and fleecing the public. Our Founders knew this pattern in history. Ignorant of history they were not.

It was never to be free from religon...That you can do on your own..merits or demerits.

When you do this stuff and preach the dogma you preach ..it is quite obvious that you are not tolerant of dissent as you would have others twords your beliefs.

The proper Christian practice twords that which they find unacceptable is to seperate from such. Unfortunately many Christians today no longer know this. In this they have lost their Salt.

People try to sell me stuff all the time ..including other Christians..when I dont want it or anything to do with it I send them packing...quickly.
This is called being Salty. I try to be meek and mild but when warranted I can be very Salty.

YOu are misquoting and misdirecting. Unfortunately this technique is become quite popular and acceptable today..especially by the body politic.
This even passes for excellence and greatness among those who never got over public education ..financed by the same body politic.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
He learned a new word - "sophistry" - so he's going to beat us all to death with it. He knows all, too, so everybody else shut up because only OrangeTom knows what the hell he's talking about.

Are you happy now, OT? Is there anything else we can do for Your Highness?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Ok orange, I would have to say this you are correct in that we are not guaranteed a "freedom" from religion. Article 1 of the constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in no way can I take that to mean freedom from.

But, where madness is correct is that it does have to do with the constitution. They shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "In God We Trust" was established as the national motto of the United States through a law (36 U.S.C. Section 186) passed by Congress in 1956. And also by two statutes, 31 U.S.C. 5112(d) (1) and 5114(b) You can check that out at the Treasury Department So, by no stretch of the word sophistry (which you really seem to like using in this thread) can you say that the congress did not pass a law(s) respecting the establishment of Christianity.

Also I don't see why you like to talk about people never getting over public schools so often. A persons intelligence is determined by what they want to learn, not where they learned it.

So freedom from religion, no. Not making laws respecting the establishment of, Yes.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join