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.

 

ATS: Atheist Thrashing Service

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I said it may be pseudo, Wraoth. I don't remember the U2U, so I can't comment.

So, yes, atheism is more based off of logic and the concrete, while religion is more based off of faith. That's my opinion on the matter. Some atheists may be lacking in the logic category, but in whole that's what it is based off of.

I can't see it, I can't feel it, I can't hear it, therefore it is not there.

Are there dumb atheists who don't use good logic? Sure, but that door swings both ways.




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Both sides are using logic of a sort friend. And to call one side illogical and the other side is showing obvious bias.
Here is the definition of Logic:


log·ic Audio Help /ˈlɒdʒɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loj-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

Source: logic @ dictionary.com

Now logic as I understand it, and NOT the Startrek definition of some supermind power by which ultimate knowledge can be reached, is a straight line from information point A to information point B, etc etc etc etc.

And the example you have given of logic contains a leap.
Especially when you factor in the facts that there are a few things that fit under that criteria that is widely accepted as existing.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I never said illogical.

That's where you are confusing me with one of your usual ideological opponents.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


The inference is there, you say this group is logical.
As if the that is a distinction the other group does not have.
Otherwise highlight atheists as logical while giving no such distinction the other way? Were you not talking about differences after all?

And no I know exactly to whom I speak.

P.s.: The grrrr in my mood is not at you, but other things I am tied up in here atm. I am merely trying to discuss what I see with you and hope we are still kewl. Well somewhat as I am still slightly annoyed about that earlier incident but that is not really a part of this conversation and sorry I brought it up.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Illogical in the terms you are using it means unreasonable. In no way did I ever say that.

Are you honestly saying that there is more logic in religion than science? I guess faith is out the door then. Don't tell God though, he might be pretty upset that people have found other reasons than faith to worship him.

*Edited:

Perhaps I should clarify. Logical may be the wrong word. How about fact-based? Or based on tangibles?

Does that suit better?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Strawman....................
*sigh*

Are you going to turn antagonistic now?

No there is a form of logic to both sides.
Hopeless bent in the case of some but unlike you apparently I fault both sides in it.
As I do not hail one side as "logical" as opposed to the other.
Seemingly in the Star Trek/Vulcan sense of the word I talked about earlier.

Oh and btw your proving my point.


And as for the fact based part. Or tangibles based err whatever.
Show me the facts or tangibles that state there is no such being as a "high power/prime mover/god" then you can label them thus sure.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


No, you're just taking everything out of context.

Part of the reason I end up getting grouped in. You are offended too easily.

I clarified my stance in the above post if it suits you better.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


As did I. Reread please.
*line added because I like cheese*

And no I am not offended so kindly stop trying to tell me what I am and what I am not. And the words Ad hom comes to mind.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Honestly? Jesus, calm down.

Fact based in the sense that they rely off of facts only. Perhaps they cannot prove there is no God, but they base their life off of what they CAN prove.

That's how they are fact based. Most atheists don't argue with Christians about the existence of a God, they just live. I know a few atheists, and none of them argue with Christians in their spare time. They just don't believe it.

Their basing their life off of facts that are known to them. That means they are living a fact based life.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 



Honestly? Jesus, calm down.


Once again. Stop telling me what I am. Assumptions, I heard a good saying recently "They make an 'a**' of 'u' and 'me'.



Fact based in the sense that they rely off of facts only. Perhaps they cannot prove their is no God, but they base their life off of what they That's how they are fact based. Most atheists don't argue with Christians about the existence of a God, they just live. I know a few atheists, and none of them argue with Christians in their spare time. They just don't believe it.

Their basing their life off of facts that are known to them. That means they are living a fact based life.


And none of those facts state there is no possibility of such a being. Once again applying a mantel to those who do not deserve said mantel. Neither side really does deserve it. Most likely never will.

And I was not talking about most atheists and it should pretty obvious. I am talking about the ones that come antagonistically to attack others beliefs and expect theirs to be on a pedestal. It's ALL just beliefs. No one has a bigger pile of facts and you and others pretend otherwise apparently.

And those that want to say their views are "science" and fact and right.
Regardless of the fact they have VERY LITTLE proof to actually back that up.


[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Well I agree with you about atheists that look to start a fight with Christians about whether there is a God or not.

That is illogical, as there is no way they could possibly prove it.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


But yet you credit them with having science on their side.
How is that anything other than belief?
The same as every other yayhoo that calls themselves "religious".

And I never see you speak out against them, just those bonehead of the other crowd. I can and have spoken out against theists thought more than a few on here thinking I am just another of their number.


[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


We are comparing apples and oranges. I am not defending atheists who go out to pick a fight, but rather your typical run of the mill atheist.

And I never said they had science on their side. I just said they look at science and only science. They believe that when they die they go into the ground. That's what they see.

They don't go around finding Christians and telling them they are wrong - because that's really contradictory to what being an atheist is. On the same note, true Christians don't go around telling others how to live their life, as that is contradictory to their faith.

I guess what I really believe is this:

Atheist: A term to label those who have no faith.

Christian (and other religions): A way of life.

Atheists cannot all be grouped together other than the fact that they all agree on one subject. So in that sense, it makes it hard to define atheists, because they don't conform into one group.

It's like comparing Mormon's to Catholics. It doesn't work. Some atheists believe this, some believe that. But they are not labeled by what they do believe, but rather by the one thing that they don't believe in.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


You say just that right
Here
.


Atheists use logic and science


The rest I agree with but I still see a slant that shouldn't be there in one that claims neutrality.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I admitted I lean to one side. Just like I lean towards being a liberal, but I will not define myself as a democrat (because I don't necessarily agree with the whole agenda).

I have no understanding of religion. I can't be religious. So it would be impossible for me to remain completely impartial. I'm not just an atheist. I will not say there is no God. I have no particular feelings on whether there is a God or not.

Agnostics get stuck in a tough place. On one hand are cold hard facts, and on the other is a giant movement of people who claim to know of something you don't.

I do my best to remain impartial, but the second I see anyone saying "science is gullible", you'll see me in that thread because that's a ridiculous statement.

So I rely off of science. It does not say there is no God, but nor has it proven there is one. And that's where I lay, right in between, possibly leaning a bit in one direction, but not so far as to be jaded.

*Edit:

Man I've had a few. Not sure I can handle a full blown grammatical/semantics debate right now!


[edit on 30-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


All I have to say is that anyones bias no matter how much in whatever direction will lead them in the direction that bias leans.
As far as I am concerned and as far as I have seen you are an atheist.
Your words/actions speak more in that direction than anyone who is not.

Lets go on a little fact based trip shall we?
1) You repeatedly inferred that science=atheism, logic=atheism, you even tried to infer that the mystery poster was banned for that post alone, etc etc etc.
2) You repeatedly defend atheists and attack theists, hell you even attacked my after a blatant misinterpretation that went completely against the content of my previous posts. Never speaking against atheists when they cross the line.

Yet you state your agnostic.
Which am I going to believe? The facts as I see them or your words?

Either way. Just something to think about. Shall we drop this?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


The fact that I don't care what you think proves the rule.




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


I expected otherwise?
Just pointing out with proof that I know what you are and what your game is.
Even with all of the smoke and mirrors.

Know thyself, know thy opponent, after all. Sun Tzu was a smart bugger.

Goodnight.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
What is an agnostic


What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.


It's a pretty good summary. You should check it out. Possibly learn about your "enemy" a bit.

I know myself a lot better than you give me credit for.


[edit on 30-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


hEh.
I never claimed you did not.

Yet you repeatedly speak out in judgment and with an obvious slant.
You know the atheists use science and logic for their beliefs, obvious fallacious comments.
Eh all well.

*tips hat*
Goodnight as I said.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join