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.

 

Atheist Chat

page: 28
15
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Duzey,

Intresting point you have made here.

I think that in that company the leaders would pray or say devotions over their meals no matter what time of year.

While I dont celebrate Christmas..Easter or any holidays.I dont have any objection to saying prayers or devotions before meals.

The irony to me especially among athiests is the concept of tolerance.

What I have found or learned is that concerning such behaviors in others is that they are often not very tolerant. I have also found that often governments are not very tolerant...in spite of claims to the contrary. Makes me wonder what is the "true religion" of governments....or even many athiests.

I am trying to say that the obvious lack of tolerance under the guise of tolerance is not good nonsense to me.

Hope all is well up there Duzey.

Orangetom




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Duzey
 


i would have probably stayed still quietly without my head bowed with the mission impossible theme song running through my head (not for any particular reason, it's just been going through my head lately) and possibly sneaking a bite while nobody is watching.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Deson
 


I have to admit to being slightly uncomfortable with it myself. It caught me off guard, saying grace at a work function is not something I ever expected to do.



reply to post by orangetom1999
 


All is well for me orangetom, I hope the same can be said for you and yours.


Intolerance is not exclusive to any group. I'm reminded of this quote by C.D. Howe (if you're not a Canuck, I don't expect you've heard of him):


Gentlemen, we all must realize that neither side has any monopoly on sons of bitches.




reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Sorry, no sneaking food for you. It was a buffet full of yumminess and we hadn't gotten any yet.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I think I would have done three things - in order:
1. Bow my head (I don't feel like being fired from a job for some trumped up reason.)
2. Peek around a bit to see if there were any others who may be closet non-believers.
3. Update my resume' and prepare to find a job in a firm that doesn't push the beliefs of the owner or bosses on the employees.

Occam



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Personally I'm liking being the boss and making it clear to everyone that we have a keep-it-to-yourself policy regarding religion.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

All is well for me orangetom, I hope the same can be said for you and yours.


Intolerance is not exclusive to any group. I'm reminded of this quote by C.D. Howe (if you're not a Canuck, I don't expect you've heard of him):


Gentlemen, we all must realize that neither side has any monopoly on sons of bitches.



Duzey,

Well, said Well, said and is pretty much what I have found out in the wildlife of this world.

Thanks for the quote and you are correct in that I have never heard of CD Howe... but the quote is appropriate to many situations.

Orangetom



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Hi, everyone!

I've been out of town visiting my family for Festivus. Or whatever it is. Just got in this afternoon, and I'm not going to put in any time reading any threads until Wednesday probably, including this one. I'm glad to see that there's been some conversation here while I was gone, and this is the first thread I'm going to check out when I get the time.

Columbus, it's really nice to see you back on the board. You (and your avatar) have been missed around here.

I just want to put in one point, and it is about recommended reading.

I have a book that I am working on that anyone that debates theists on this board should have as a must-read.

Natural Atheism, by David Eller.

I have only read the first few chapters, and it's slow going because it is extremely information dense and it takes time to assimilate all the points Eller talks about.

Basically, this book shows the steps for "recovery" from theism, breaks down critical thinking, logic and reason, and shows how to debate and refute theists and their dogma.

I have learned a LOT from this book, and I can tell I'm going to have to re-read it with a highlighter next time.

My style of debate is going to change drastically. And no doubt I'll be painted more of a bully than ever, even though I will be taking emotion out of it as much as possible and going strictly by rationality.

This book is just what we harried atheists need when we seem overwhelmed by fundamentalist delusion.

Do yourselves a favor and get your copy as soon as possible. I'd like to discuss it here with other readers as I go along.

And now, I'm off to finally rest as the kids are in bed and the non-denominational holiday gifts are distributed under my 2-dimensional solstice tree.

Catch you all later ...



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Major Malfunction,


And no doubt I'll be painted more of a bully than ever,


Your joking ..yes???

All right..if you say so. No problem. Will be observing carefully. Thanks for the heads up.

Oh..by the way. I will be glad when this holiday is over and things can get back to something else. I dont celebrate it at all. Nor any other holiday or birthday. Not intrested in any of this stuff. Been trying to stay out of the stores as much as possible. Never went into them much anyways except for mostly essentials.

Orangetom

[edit on 25-12-2007 by orangetom1999]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
i'd just like to wish my fellow atheists, agnostics, pastafarians, invisible pink unicornists, teapotists and all other non-religious folk a merry ChriFSMas



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Ho! Ho! Ho!



Ho! Ho! Ho!



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Welcome back, MMF. I've missed your posts. I'll be interested to see how your methods of argument are modified by that book.

Occam



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Thanks, Occam! I'm still catching up on stuff, so I will be on light posting duty today.


I just wanted to put up a couple of points from my reading for everyone's consideration.

There is no God there are only gods.
There is no Church there are only churches.
There is no Theism there are only theisms.

Why? Because there is no proof that any god belief is the right one. Or even if there is a right one.

Religious claims of god/spirit/afterlife must carry the burden of proof which CANNOT be shifted to the one stating that they do not believe the claim of existence. The burden of proof must be at least as high as if the claim were on trial. If the claim of god/spirit/afterlife does not have enough real evidence to meet the burden of proof that would be required in a trial in a court, then it is not sufficient to use in debate. Circumstantial evidence is not enough; hearsay (arguments from authority) is not enough. Without clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then the burden has not been met and the claim is invalid.

It is not true that you cannot prove a negative. In debate (or trial) it is unnecessary to do so. However, if you can do so, the case against the claim becomes more compelling and stronger, and perhaps even conclusive. Example: If you are accused of a crime, and you can provide a solid alibi, you have effectively proved the negative of the claim being made. This applies also to religious debate.

An argument from authority is not an argument at all. It is a logical fallacy to accept something is true just because an authority says it is true. Why? The authority could be wrong. The authorities often disagree. Theists like to claim names of scientists who believe in gods. Atheists can come up with lists of scientists who do not. Neither mean anything. This argument fails before it begins.

Further, if a YEC produces a Nobel-winning physicist who is a Christian, the right point to make is, He is an authority on physics, but what makes him an authority on religion? When an authority speaks, the process of reason begins, rather than concludes.

Last point from David Eller's book for today deals with the statistical argument (theists who like to say X number of people believe in god, so it must be true).

For the sake of argument, let us assume there are 1000 religions in the world. This makes the odds of someone in any of these religions of being wrong 99.9%. If we state for the sake of the argument that there is only a 50/50 chance AT BEST of there being a god at all, then the chance of being wrong rises to 99.95%.

At the time of the publishing of the edition of Natural Atheism that I am using (2004) a survey had shown there were at least 33,000 sects of Christianity alone, which gives each sect a 99.993% chance of being wrong.

In the end, no matter what religion one chooses, it is almost certain that that person is wrong.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


right on, MM. the FSMmother of atheism on ATS.

oh, i'd like to post a resource that i regularly use and have probably put up here before

it's a list of

4862 gods, godesses, deities, avatars, incarnations, angels, demons and various spirits, and 520 aliases, mispronounciations and generally confusing name variations.


Ye Largishe List ov Gods & Spirits



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
God - Denying logic since 0.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Ah, an oxymoron.

According to xians, god created you, so he gave you the ability for logic which is an inescapable and necessary part of human thought.

so by denying logic, you are denying your own god.

Well done.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


All right! I want a list of everyone who exchanged gifts yesterday. How many of you celebrated Christmas? Perhaps you exchanged winter solstice packages.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
God is not the logic of man. God, the stumbling block since 0.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


i celebrate festivus (which also happens to fall on my birthday)
no conflict of interest there.

i also participate in ChriFSMas.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I celebrated Xmas a couple of days ago. Despite the Christchurch climate the sun was out and the rain stayed away . If I didn't have any family I wouldn't bother with Xmas because other then being with family the day is really meaningless to me .



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Thanks again to everyone who answered me about my saying grace situation.

There was something that kind of surprised me - out of 5 people that answered, 2 of you said that you would have bowed your head. I didn't expect that. After all, if everyone else has their head bowed, they aren't going to notice if you don't.

Why bother?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join