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 & Theism: Menaces to Society

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   


My conclusions are based upon my own thought. A religious man cannot conclude that heaven or reincarnation exists then....


So you admit that you do not know whether a supreme being exists or not.




But... Not all Buddists believe in a supreme being. And why do you assume that only the religious can believe in other realms or dimensions? Can the spirit be a harmonic state of being? This does not require the belief of any god. Only the belief in vibrations and atomic states.


Most atheists not only reject religion but all forms of spirituality. You are obviously an exception.




And Buddists believe in Karma. There is no religion/philosophy that has as few dieties and gods.


Some atheists, when probed on issues of accountability (vs. the coincident-universe of the pure atheist) suddenly refer to buddhism or pretend to be OK with Buddhism. I havent met any atheist that actually practices Buddhism.

But for now, lets pretend you are OK with buddhist philosophy. Looking a bit deeper you will find that it too is religion and not in tune with the anti-religious stance you claim you have:


One basic Mahayana Pure Land concept is that Nirvana (liberation, awakening, salvation) has become increasingly difficult to attain, and that only through devotion to Amitābha Buddha and looking towards Amida Buddha for guidance can one be reborn in the Pure Land, a perfect realm



Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences and abuse the right Dharma. [2].


Source

Sounds pretty much like many other religions to me...



I LOVE reading about the myriad religions of the planet. But i don't believe in any of them.


Pure atheism has no reason for accountability. Selectively choosing an aspect of Buddhism and claiming you believe in it while you actually dont wont change that.

But essentially, you are one of the "friendlies" mentioned in the OP, not the militant atheist. Most likely the militants wont even show up here because they dont understand what is being talked about.



Those who only believe in the possibility of God are called Agnostic. You could say that those who aren't sure ARE the one's who are morally weak and shallow minded, but again this would be wrong.


Yeah...thats what some of the religious believe. "If you dont have absolute faith in your religion, you are weak". Some muslim sects think its a sign of weakness not to kill for Allah. While there is some merit to having certainty, it can always be overdone and cause harm.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
A popular thread claiming that atheists are "more intelligent" than theists can be found HERE.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think a great example of a Spiritual Atheist can be found in Sam Harris. He admits to going to Meditation retreats for months at a time and spending 18 hours a day in silent meditation.

This is something that other more militant Atheists like Dawkins would argue serves no purpose.

Sam Harris has a good defense of his Spirituality with a lack of a "Spirit" in his debate against Rick Warren. I really enjoyed reading the debate because both sides are very strong debaters and both sides present a good case. I think Rick Warren is a little bit more Fundamentalist in that he is not open to the possibility that he could be wrong and Sam Harris IS open to the possibility that he could be wrong.

In defense of Sam Harri's spirituality he says ...


WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?

HARRIS: You can feel yourself to be one with the universe.

WARREN: OK, then why can't you just take the next step? Because right now you're talking in extremely nonrational terms.

HARRIS: There's nothing irrational about it. You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally. Many people draw from that the metaphysical conclusion that "I'm just spirit, and I can transcend the body." That's not the only conclusion you have to draw from that experience, and I don't think it's the best conclusion.

WARREN: You're more spiritual than you think. You just don't want a boss. You don't want a God who tells you what to do.

HARRIS: I don't want to pretend to be certain about anything I'm not certain about.


The full debate of Sam Harris/Rick Warren can be found at

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


Thats good. Its not spiritual-atheists referred to in the OP of course. Strictly speaking, those people arent atheists in the original sense of the word either.

Not to mention that the actual metaphysical state of enlightenment is pretty divine



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Good post. I can only disagree in saying that this is in fact only 1 single area of it, and as such not really the cause itself, but a symptom of the cause.

I first noticed it in politics. The same things happen. Left vs Right and so on. And when you really look at the 2 sides, they are actually exactly the same in action. Which is also true in your examples, both sides are really just alike.

Nationalism and so forth between countries is again the same thing. Racism same thing. And on and on we can go.

In the end, it's all just a result of low levels of thinking, and being caught in dualism. Each side plays the evil of the other side. The true rational arguments are pushed aside and dismissed as kooky/crazy/irrational and so forth.

Even if we get rid of atheists and theists and all were in agreement, it would just be something else. These are all symptoms of low levels of thinking.

Each side will always point out the worse in the other side, ignoring their valid points, while pointing out there good side and calling their bad side justified.

It is purposely done to turn people into devices of action and reaction, and to make choice an illusion. The people think they are choosing, but in reality they are stuck in duality and merely reacting in the way those with the real power wanted. It does not matter which side you pick, they need people on both sides. Just so long as you pick a side, and choose what you believe to be the "lesser of 2 evils" or whatever. You pick a side, and then "play the game". Meanwhile, it's the stadium owners reaping in the real rewards, outside what they pay their star players.

I've never lost a chess game when I've played both sides.

And the manipulation is done because the people are the real authority.

The only cure is to take on as many perspectives as possible in all situations. Look at things from as many sides as possible, and then you start to see the evil in the sides. Then just do not do/support the evil things. By taking up evil in response, it just becomes evil fighting evil and the greater evil ends up winning. Sad path that is.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Ive been following your efforts in the "Im an atheist, that means Im smarter than you" thread. You've tried to explain the world beyond narrow-mindedness many times, but it falls on deaf ears.

The pattern is obvious.

Atheism vs. Theism

Left-Wing vs. Right-Wing

Relativism vs. Absolutism

etc.

...and all of them are false dichotomies.

The world beyond that is either

a) Neutrality or Middle Ground
b) Multi-Positionality
c) Non-Dualism
d) Synthesis

Those in power know the name of the game and know that "playing both sides" wins the game. They`d prefer people to stay stuck in one position so that they can continue winning the game.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
No offense to anyone but this is pure theocratic pseudo intellectual garbage and for one simple fact.

There is nothing moderate about the religious except in their own eyes.

Religion that adopts a faith based system of analytical thought is simply not analytical or moderate.

Extreme Religious Zealot = G-d created the world 6,000 years ago there was no such thing as dinosaurs.

Moderate Religious Practitioner = G-d created the world sometime a long time ago and dinosaurs were G-d’s creatures too.

Barely Religious Practitioner = Well, duh everyone knows G-d made everything?

Whether they are barely practicing the religion, or ‘moderately’ practicing the religion, or are an extreme Zealot you are never going to intelligently have a conversation about the possibility that G-d didn’t create the world.

There faith based circular logic prohibits such out of the box inspection or alternative conclusions.

There is no such thing as freedom in Religion, tell your Catholic Priest you want to become a Mormon and see how well that dog hunts.

There is no such thing as moderation in Religion. You either have a circular logic fundamental way of looking at and accepting things that the ‘faith’ has taught you to adopt and never question…

Or you’re hanging out at the Nude Beach on Sunday thinking about Extreme Nude Volleyball. Extreme atheists laugh out loud, the only extreme atheists are the ones involved in political movements like Zionism looking to exploit and cash in on extreme religious types and likely laughing all the way.

On a side note I know Santa Claus must be real and plan on catching him one of these Christmas mornings soon! Him or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or Puff the Magic Dragon!



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Those in power know the name of the game and know that "playing both sides" wins the game. They`d prefer people to stay stuck in one position so that they can continue winning the game.


Interesting stuff, Sky. I've been thinking about something similar over the last couple of days. Yes, we are definitely pitted against each other in the divide and conquer strategy. In some conspiratorial extreme respects, I feel it's to push us to the boiling point where we engage in a civil blowout.

Black/White, Liberal/Conservative, Theist/Atheist, Male/Female and all the other little labels we're given to wear.

What I've been thinking about also is one of the advantages that come with this. It's like an unspoken check and balance system. Yes, liberals make my head spin but they also keep me in check and bring me back down to earth if they expose an error in my conservative thinking. Although I am a Christian, I enjoy hearing [respectful] arguments from another side because that gives me a chance to look into things and learn something I never knew.

The constant war back and forth sucks the big one and is too often used against us. However, I try to look at it from the beneficial perspective because I understand that if anything gets too lopsided and we're only presented with one end of the spectrum, it can become dangerous because we don't have an opposing perspective to keep us in check.

I even don't see the problem in having two diametrically opposed sides as long as they balance each other out. As nice as meeting in the middle can be, not everyone will be a moderate and that should be OK, too. It's OK to have adamant opinions on certain issues. Where the problem comes in is when balance is destroyed because the opposing opinion is not allowed like in one party political systems or state religions or state atheism.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
this is pure theocratic pseudo intellectual garbage.

There is no such thing as freedom in Religion

There is no such thing as moderation in Religion.

On a side note I know Santa Claus must be real and plan on catching him one of these Christmas mornings soon! Him or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or Puff the Magic Dragon!


Thanks for exemplifying militant atheism. Most religious people I know are moderate, decent, friendly folk.

If the internet is your main source of information on religious people rather than having dinner with your neighbours, I can understand how your sense of reality might get distorted in this way.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating




So you admit that you do not know whether a supreme being exists or not.



No i conclude by saying that i dont believe for a single second that a supreme being exists. This is my choice, this is my conclusion and my belief. :p Nice try though.




Most atheists not only reject religion but all forms of spirituality. You are obviously an exception.


Maybe i am. I dont think i'm any better or worse for it. I try to understand things at a base level (or bass level?) as i have started to study the science of sound, and believe that we operate on levels we can only begin to imagine. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's automatically the work of a divine being.

I believe in ghosts, this may suprise you. But i also believe by studying them they can eventually be deciphered into something partially logical. Such as in one thread, i believe that ghosts are the result of lower sound frequencies.





Some atheists, when probed on issues of accountability (vs. the coincident-universe of the pure atheist) suddenly refer to buddhism or pretend to be OK with Buddhism. I havent met any atheist that actually practices Buddhism.


I've always been fine with Buddhism. Mainly because it's a religion of peace, inner meditation and they don't come knocking at my door trying to convert me.
They don't preach, they consider other religions as equal and also give atheists and agnostics just as much time.

I'm not pretending anything and i never said i was practising it. (?)



But for now, lets pretend you are OK with buddhist philosophy. Looking a bit deeper you will find that it too is religion and not in tune with the anti-religious stance you claim you have:


Erm... There's a BIG difference between understanding and respecting a religion and then being anti-religious. As i said earlier i can educate myself on religion and NOT practice it, much the same way i have practically memorised the core rules of advanced dungeons and dragons (2nd edition) it doesn't mean i believe in elves, goblins and orcs.

One of my friends doesn't believe in God, yet she's studying religious education in college.




One basic Mahayana Pure Land concept is that Nirvana (liberation, awakening, salvation) has become increasingly difficult to attain, and that only through devotion to Amitābha Buddha and looking towards Amida Buddha for guidance can one be reborn in the Pure Land, a perfect realm



Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences and abuse the right Dharma. [2].


Source

Sounds pretty much like many other religions to me...


I don't see what your point is here. I mentioned believing in karma, but i didn't say i practiced buddism. Although i like the passifist nature of buddism, doesn't mean i have to follow any the eight fold path or the four noble truths any variation of buddism such as the variants of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

Although morally, like some aspects of christianity, things that i believe in will of course over lap, but where a priest would say it's the path of jesus, i'd say it's pretty much common sense not to steal, not to murder and not to shag your neighbours wife.



Pure atheism has no reason for accountability. Selectively choosing an aspect of Buddhism and claiming you believe in it while you actually dont wont change that.


I think i already answered that above ^^

I bet you've never murdered anyone, does that make you a buddist, a christian and a muslim??



But essentially, you are one of the "friendlies" mentioned in the OP, not the militant atheist. Most likely the militants wont even show up here because they dont understand what is being talked about.


Thankyou, i don't think im militant, but i will defend atheism.



Yeah...thats what some of the religious believe. "If you dont have absolute faith in your religion, you are weak". Some muslim sects think its a sign of weakness not to kill for Allah. While there is some merit to having certainty, it can always be overdone and cause harm.


And some muslims believe that killing in the name of Allah is not Islamic at all and is in actual fact very wrong.

--

Okay here's a question.. Thousands of years ago. People used to worship Zeus, Apollo, Heres, Thot, Ra, Amun, tetzcatlipoca etc etc...

Why then is it WRONG to believe in the 'dead' gods nowadays?

What about in ten thousand years time, will we think the same of the christian god or Allah or Shiva or Hanuman?



[edit on 3-8-2009 by mr-lizard]

[edit on 3-8-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
It's OK to have adamant opinions on certain issues. Where the problem comes in is when balance is destroyed because the opposing opinion is not allowed like in one party political systems or state religions or state atheism.


State Atheism - North Korea
State Religion - Iran

the two trouble-spots of the world.

I agree that some extremism is valuable for the balance-system. Up to the point when that extremism becomes physically violent and thinks its cool to vandalize religious texts and churches (militant god-haters) or thinks its cool to burn down meetup-places of homosexuals and feminists (the militant religious).



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
A popular thread claiming that atheists are "more intelligent" than theists can be found HERE.



and you'll notice that i gave that a wide berth.




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I would debate you on your post AshleyD. You said


I try to look at it from the beneficial perspective because I understand that if anything gets too lopsided and we're only presented with one end of the spectrum, it can become dangerous because we don't have an opposing perspective to keep us in check.


Yet in the recent thread of Republican08's you state


Nothing. There is absolutely nothing you can do at all whatsoever.


When prompted with the question of what What will it take for you to Stop Believing!? (Deity).

I think that YOU represent the Militant Theist AshleyD.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



State Atheism - North Korea
State Religion - Iran


Exactly. There's no balance. There's no opposing voice to keep things in check. And as much as I love my faith, I see what happened when Christianity was allowed to run unchecked during the middle ages. Or if I look at my country, I see what happens when we have a majority Republican or Democrat congress when the president is the same. Or our national history before the civil rights movement when whites dominated everything. It's too much and one group runs amok.

As long as there is balance, I think it's nice. But without that balance is when extremists can get it an abuse their power. I totally agree with you about violent extremism, though. Even in my own 'groups' it just really gets to me.

So the atheism vs. theist tift back and forth can be nice because it keeps us in check. For instance, back in 2002 I scoured the web looking for Biblical criticisms because I wanted to know what the challenges to my new faith were. In a weird way I'm glad they were there because upon researching them and debunking them, my faith was fortified. Example, the 'Jesus didn't exist group' inspired me to really look into the evidence for a historical Jesus. If it weren't for them, I would have taken that issue on faith but now I'm confident he's a historical figure. Or perhaps if I only kept up with right-wing news sources, I'd only get a biased perspective instead of both sides of the coin.

But I do agree that when the feud between atheist and theist gets hateful, it gets frustrating (And yes, I have been guilty of that myself lol).



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
this is pure theocratic pseudo intellectual garbage.

There is no such thing as freedom in Religion

There is no such thing as moderation in Religion.

On a side note I know Santa Claus must be real and plan on catching him one of these Christmas mornings soon! Him or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or Puff the Magic Dragon!


Thanks for exemplifying militant atheism. Most religious people I know are moderate, decent, friendly folk.

If the internet is your main source of information on religious people rather than having dinner with your neighbours, I can understand how your sense of reality might get distorted in this way.


To be militant wouldn't I ?

(a) have to be armed and prepared to committ violence to people and property to force my views on others?

(b) belong to an organized heirachy and chain of command?

(c) At the very least have a colorful Bandana with some kind of cryptic writing on it?

Or are we (d) picking up on the fact that Extreme Nude Volley Ball is an organized and team sport and applying the militant badge to it***

***Please do not attach badges to nude people...ouch!

I have had no luck having any of the neighbors for dinner, they squeal and scream horribly as soon as you begin roasting them over the coals and my refigerator is simply not large enough for the leftovers...waste not want not!



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


Militant, no. I could never bring myself to harm another person, I don't believe in influencing politics, I endorse the separation of church and state for very important reasons, I don't bash people for their lifestyles, impose my beliefs on others (although I'm always open to talk about it), etc.

Confident believer, absolutely. I also prefer to defend the faith and not so much preach the faith which is why I'm an apologist and not an evangelist. My faith is very precious to me and really the only subject on earth that will really stir up my passions. That is why I said before, being passionate is not a bad thing and not everyone can or will be in the middle of the road. Being a passionate theist or passionate atheist- no problem. It's when you get into the violent extremism or resort to the low grade 'You delusional moron' tactic is when it becomes counterproductive.

Everyone has the right to stand for something and for me, my Christian faith is that 'one thing' I don't bend on personally.

Keeping each other in check and having strong beliefs is fine when there is balance and respect.

Oh, and I also wanted to add: I can definitely see how I might seem over the top at times but it's just the way I am and it will probably never change. So for me it's my personal decision but I'd never force anyone else into being like me. I think that is where the difference rests. Be as passionate as you want but don't force everyone to agree with you.

[edit on 8/3/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by serbsta
I would however beg to differ with your argument regarding theist approaches and political associations


Explain, so that all my learn your view.


You stated: (atheist-communist and religious-fascist)

I would beg to differ as this is really generalizing what is a really complicated issue. I suppose i myself fall in between. That's all i had to say on the matter really.

Christian Communism: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
No i conclude by saying that i dont believe for a single second that a supreme being exists. This is my choice, this is my conclusion and my belief. :p Nice try though.


I feel kind of sorry for the little ant that says "I conclude by saying that I dont believe for a single second that a mountain exists. This is my choice, this is my conclusion and my belief".



I bet you've never murdered anyone, does that make you a buddist, a christian and a muslim??


No, it makes me someone who thinks life has a meaning, a value.




Okay here's a question.. Thousands of years ago. People used to worship Zeus, Apollo, Heres, Thot, Ra, Amun, tetzcatlipoca etc etc... Why then is it WRONG to believe in the 'dead' gods nowadays? What about in ten thousand years time, will we think the same of the christian god or Allah or Shiva or Hanuman?


Yeah. Faces change. But the concept of IntelligentDesign by a Creative Force remains.






[edit on 4-8-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
To be militant wouldn't I ?


Militant is the wrong word. Extreme would have been better.



Or are we (d) picking up on the fact that Extreme Nude Volley Ball is an organized and team sport and applying the militant badge to it*** ***Please do not attach badges to nude people...ouch!


I enjoy the occasional nude-ball match. But do you guys have to do it on Sunday morning in front of a church? How about taking it to the beach?

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Everyone has the right to stand for something and for me, my Christian faith is that 'one thing' I don't bend on personally.



And thats fine imo. Not bending = strength. But trying to bend others to the same position as yours = weakness. I think you know that though.

Just like the friendly atheist, you are one of those friendly religion practitioners. When people are kind and considerate, no problem arises - no matter how much their beliefs are at odds with each other.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Skyfloating]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join