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.

 

Is atheism a bona fide religion ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Riley, I think intrepid (I could be wrong) is using a personal interpretation base on his view of how been an atheist is still link to religion or faith.

Again I could be wrong.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Do you realize that you sound just like a Fundie? "This is the way I see it and I don't care what you think."

OK, PROVE IT to me then. And don't shoot me Santa, I don't believe in him. PROVE THE LACK OF A HIGHER POWER.

The ball's in your court.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Told you they were snobs.



What we have here is the classic problem to all beliefs. We are arguing over who is right where God is concerned. Odds are each and every one of us has it wrong.

If we would only respect each others right to believe what they choose to believe and live our own path in peace, There would be no more religious wars.

Each of us has a right to believe, or not believe, as we choose.

The problems occur when we start denying that right to others.

Arguing over God is the ultimate in ignorance, because quite frankly it's a subject you know nothing about. None of us do. One guess is as good as the other.

In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all jus git alone?" (or something like that.)



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 


Actually I was almost about to post that on the thread on ATS been taken over by religious extremist.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Definition of Belief:

Dictionary.com

–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Would this subscribe to one of the 3 options in the OP?

~Ducky~



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
What is the difference in saying these two things:

1. I believe there is a God.
2. I don't believe there is a God.

Belief is belief.

Belief systems.

~Ducky~



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove more]
I am a student of all religions and have been for many years. Atheism is not a bonified religion. I believe in the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Therefore I am classifed as a Christian. I am not a member of any religious group because I agree with none. I believe in the scientific community, and deeply respect other religions and the atheist belief.

IMHO a persons religious or non religious beliefs, just as different skin colors, should be accepted and respected. We are all in the same boat and need to work together to make our world a better place for all people. It seems very childish and immature to resort to name calling and complete intolerance of different beliefs.

Our earth is in trouble. We all want a good life for our children and their children. If we are fighting each other we cannot fight our enemy. We can stand united and still have very different beliefs. We must focus on the problems that are killing us and our planet.

Sorry, I guess I got off the subject.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
It creates much of the same problems as religion. Religion creates hate through it’s fundamentalists and so do atheists. They both provide a base from which to throw your attacks. Many atheists vigorously attack religious people for attacking other religious people and non religious people. Calling people’s Gods “invisible men“. Without both side’s need to prove they are right through constant bickering, it wouldn‘t matter. That is why being agnostic, being respectful, or minding your own business is most preferable.

When religion leaks into politics, some atheists get mad, and they should. When they can plug in debates about Mormonism and Christianity to cover up flawed political views, there is a problem. I think George Bush is a big reason there are a lot of angry atheists. Atheists are kind of the Democrat’s evangelists.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by captainplanet]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Actually Intrepid, that's the thing. The ball isn't in our court. The religious are the ones making the extraordinary claims about invisible, omnipresent beings. The burden of proof is on them, not on us. Sorry, no amount of caps lock will make that any less true.

And as far as the Santa comparison goes, Santa and the Christian god are very similar. Both watch you throughout your life, unseen and all knowing, judging your actions against their criteria, and both use what they've seen to levy a judgment on you. Even the punishments are similar, albeit on different scales. They both also provide no evidence that they exist. The only real difference is that anyone over the age of 10 is usually smart enough to see that one of them is patently absurd. Why most people don't pick up on the other one by that age is really beyond me.

edit: This topic is seriously getting tired. It's been beaten down countless times here, and is starting to get as annoying as the argument that the US is founded on Christian ideals or that Intelligent Design is a science. Come on people, is there nothing else we can discuss here?

[edit on 18/12/2007 by Thousand]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I consider myself an atheist. However, I don't assert knowlege that there is no god. Instead I would say the evidence is lacking for a belief in god. In the strictest since this is definitely agnosticism, because I can't say one way or the other. In practice I say atheism because the evidence just simply isn't there.

[EDIT] And I agree that the burden of proof does not rest with unbelievers. I would venture that most atheist, excluding the most stubborn, would gladly believe in a deity for whom there was sufficient evidence. Unfortunately, any time any such idea is put forth, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It all comes down to faith, and going with the evidence can hardly be considered faith.

[edit on 12/18/07 by Nutrients]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by riley
 


Do you realize that you sound just like a Fundie? "This is the way I see it and I don't care what you think."

..lets have a look at what you said to me again:


Sorry, that's a stretch and I'm sympathetic. Equating the falacy that is Santa to God? Um, no, not going to fly.

Your original point was atheism requires faith.. that would be agnosticism as faith implies someone is unsure and believes in something despite lack of evidence. I'm not rejecting god/s and choosing not to have faith in it.. I just don't believe there is anything to believe in as there is no evidence.
I already stated why I don't believe and immediately you dismissed my answer without regard for my own life experiences which is why I was blunt in replying.. yet you then used my negative reaction to accuse me of 'sounding like a fundie'? please. You were the one making claims about atheists.

OK, PROVE IT to me then. And don't shoot me Santa, I don't believe in him.

You don't? So why should 'god' be any more believable to me? Thats my point and thats why I used santa as an example. Would you prefer me use Zeus instead? They are all mythical beings to me so I don't see one as being more plausable than another. I'm sorry if this offends you but thats how I honestly feel.

PROVE THE LACK OF A HIGHER POWER.

PROVE THERE IS NO ZEUS or santa, Ganesh or guardian angels. Doesn't make sense does it? You are the one who said atheism requires faith.. which is illogical as the whole concept of faith is believing in something thats not provable.. and the concept of proof requires evidence. Can't prove a negative. As I don't believe there is anything there.. why would I try disprove it? That would be saying I'm not sure. I'm atheist.. not agnostic.

The ball's in your court.

I'm not going to 'prove' god doesn't exist as thats contradictory but I will try explain why I don't believe in it to you. take it or leave it but please don't start dismissing my answers yet again.
E=mc2. The theory if relativity asserts nothing can exist outside of time and space so nothing can preceed it.. including 'sentient' energies. Space, time matter and enery are in reality just different forms and dimensions of the same thing. This is one of the reasons I don't believe as the concept of a creator god does not make any sense to me.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by riley]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Atheism is the absence of religion and God. Definitively, they acknowledge no super-conscious entities of life beyond themself. Either that, or they are totally stuck on the pre-colonial archaic 'God in a cloud' , religious sense of God. This is what I think sways people to atheism - that and a hatred of religion.

I acknowledge religion to be manipulated for all the wrong reasons, look at the amount of people who elected a satanist war-monger into office because of his professed christian good ol' boy southern image. It's classic mis-representation. Atheists have no interest in the misrepresentation or authority of God, while agnostics are willing to understand his ultimate design regardless of organized religion. Correct?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Atheists have no interest in the misrepresentation or authority of God, while agnostics are willing to understand his ultimate design regardless of organized religion. Correct?


Again, I think, essentially, atheists and agnostics are practically synonomous. I think either would be willing to understand his ultimate design if it was presented in a way that couldn't be misconstrued. Currently, it is put forward as 'revelation' through human conductors. Personal revelation and anecdotes don't cut it. Not for me, at least.
I would be more than happy to assist god in his/her/its plan, but it's going to take more than faith to rouse me.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Perhaps the problem comes with the given definition in the dictionary of the noun Faith.

But I see how can anybody will attach it to Atheism because is a denial of God, still base on religion.

Unfortuantly I don't know of any other term to use otherwise I would. It's tradionally the word 'heathen' thats more about the denial of god and, 'denial of god' is often seen as a rejection rather than disbelief where the person is considered a 'lost sheep' [prodigal son stuff]. I think many people see atheism the same way.. maybe they think we are just more stubborn or something..

[edit on 18-12-2007 by riley]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I think what intrepid is saying is that IF atheism has no connection to FAITH or BELIEF (as some are asserting here), it should be PROVABLE that there is no supernatural being. And since it is not PROVABLE, atheism is connected to faith and belief.

For an atheist -a person who does not believe in the existence of God (or as I like to put it, believes in the non-existence of God
)- there is an element of faith involved, because they do not believe in God.

For an agnostic -a person to who says that belief in God is irrelevant, because the knowledge of God's existence is knowable- there is no requirement of faith, unless you go by the narrow definition of faith in the unknowability of God.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Actually, to the Atheist, there is ample proof that an omniscient, omnipresent creator does not exist - faith doesn't even enter into it. Such a creator would be inherently paradoxical, and unable to exist in our universe. That's it. It's like saying you've met a man who ate his own head. The idea is so absurd it's rejected outright. I don't even need to research cases where people say they may have met such a man. You can't eat your own head just as surely as you can't be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.

The standard defense to this is to state that this divine being is somehow outside the influence of this universe. Well, once you say that you can say anything you want, because you've just started making up the rules as you go along. It's about here that the mudslinging starts, at which point a smart Atheist will walk away and find something productive to do, as the ensuing waste of time and breath that would surely define the debate to follow is more than enough to put them off any attempt at rational, logical conversation.

The problem with proving the non-existence of a creator (as Intrepid would have us do) is that every time we'd come up with proof of the non-existence, the believers would simply shuffle their creator around to dodge the bullet and continue to assert victory. The God of the Gaps is a very slippery beast indeed, especially when he or she will fit into any size gap you can dream up, no matter how ridiculously small.

[edit on 18/12/2007 by Thousand]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Thousand
 


Nobody is using the god of gaps here, and I've yet to see any of this ample proof of the non-existence of God (one might attempt to disprove the existence of the Christian concept of God, or the Islamic concept of God, but how can you overall disprove the existence of God?).

Of course it is going to be said that God would be outside the influence of the universe. If God was within the influence of the universe, then the universe would be greater than God, and this God wouldn't exist.


Dae

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


The difference is more apparent when you word it differently.

1 A belief in God

2 No belief in God.

I really liked the bald head analogy! Bald is not a hair colour!


Side note: anyone else fed up with the sheer amount of religious stuff on ATS?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   
An atheist has the same opinion regarding the existence of God as most people have regarding the existence of the tooth fairy or the fluffy pink bunnies who run the fast food outlets on the Moon .....

(Except, of course, we know that the latter really exist
)



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Atheist is defined as "one who does not believe in the existence of God or Gods and operationally believes that there is no God". Note the use of the word operationally: meaning that I believe such a thing for the purposes of decision making within my life, but I am not 100% certain.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join