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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


You keep putting words in my mouth.
I never said no atheist is a militant atheist, I said even many strong atheists don't claim a deities existence as impossible, only improbable.

If that's not the case, quote me saying what you claimed I said.


My argument:

The next you seemingly go into extended diatribes about, pretty much, how no atheist is truly militant

You do know what pretty much means right? I am sure you do. You use simular terminology.... But either way.....

then what I said is true, as most atheists are "weak atheists".



I seriously think you're misunderstanding a lot of what I'm saying because we have a misunderstanding of the word "atheism".
A lot of what you claim I say I haven't said at all...
There absolutely ARE militant atheists, and Richard Dawkins falls under this category. But a lot of atheists are rational and won't say they know 100% that God doesn't exist, just that it's extremely unlikely.
I'm not even willing to say it's "extremely unlikely" anymore, because I really don't know. That's what "weak atheism" is.


I know exactly what you are saying and I know how you are keeping the terms largely slanted to make a great deal of your cohorts SOUND like they are reasonable despite their own words. Which is to be expected.....

I have also watched you multiple times squirm now out of what you yourself claim in the extension of your statement. And then there is the OBVIOUS distortions and intentional misintrepetations.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Again, you're generalizing.
The word atheist means lacking a belief in God. No specific world view is required to be an atheist. People who call themselves agnostic also fall under the category of atheism simply because they aren't theists.
You have to either be an atheist or a theist, that is you either believe in a god or you don't believe in a god (not to be confused with making a claim that deities don't exist).
What you're really against isn't atheism in general, but 'strong atheism', that is the belief that there is no god rather than a simple lack of belief in a god.
The two may sound similar, but they are very very different.
One claims to know what it can't, while the other simply doesn't subscribe to any theistic magazine.


If that were so there would be no need for atheistic magazines, lectures, books, since atheism is supposedly an abscence of a position.




Again you seem to be misunderstanding what atheism is.

Atheism: a lack of belief in a deity


And in practice it entails going around the world and internet forums wronging the religious.




We're all born atheists, because we're all born without a belief in god


We`re born with a clean-slate with no opinion on God or anti-god at all. No child holds the concept of atheism in mind.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I'm not even willing to say it's "extremely unlikely" anymore, because I really don't know. That's what "weak atheism" is.


If you say "I dont know" you´re not an atheist but an enlightened sage.

Going around society, campaigning to remove spiritual references from the U.S. Constitution, burning down churches, vandalizing religious texts, ridiculing any sense of reverence and the sacred and special...

...thats the type of atheism we are talking about here. And its a menace to society, just like the religious Inquisition was.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
My argument:

The next you seemingly go into extended diatribes about, pretty much, how no atheist is truly militant

You do know what pretty much means right? I am sure you do. You use simular terminology.... But either way.....



But I didn't say "pretty much" no atheist is a militant atheist.
I'm talking about percentages.
There definitely are many militant atheists.
There definitely are many people in the world that are blind.
But most people aren't
Notice the difference between "many" and "most".
One deals with percentage - which was what I was referring to.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I know exactly what you are saying and I know how you are keeping the terms largely slanted to make a great deal of your cohorts SOUND like they are reasonable despite their own words. Which is to be expected.....



Why would I openly state that militant atheism is a bad thing, and then secretly slant words to make the opposite appear true?
It makes no sense.

We talked about respectful debate before...
I consider it disrespectful and childish to accuse someone of twisting words multiple times and not provide evidence.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I have also watched you multiple times squirm now out of what you yourself claim in the extension of your statement. And then there is the OBVIOUS distortions and intentional misintrepetations.



You claiming that I twist and distort words doesn't magically make it true, if anything it shows that you're paranoid and think I'm something I'm not.
I may have, at the most, made a mistake while explaining this, but I'm not being dishonest about anything.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If that were so there would be no need for atheistic magazines, lectures, books, since atheism is supposedly an abscence of a position.


Not at all.
I didn't say all atheism is a lack of belief, I said that many atheists feel this way - as I do.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
And in practice it entails going around the world and internet forums wronging the religious.


Not always.
Any belief can be used to wrong others, if the believer believes strongly about it.
It's not any particular belief that's the problem.
People are the problem.
People are always going to have strong beliefs, religious, political, personal, etc.
And they are always going to cause problems.

That's why I'm saying theists and atheists aren't the problem, rather a (in reality) small percentage of these people are the problem. But a small percentage of conservatives and liberals are the problem as well...
But it would be absurd to say conservatism and liberalism are menaces to society because they aren't the problem. People are.

I think you understand this, it's just the title of the thread suggests otherwise.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
We`re born with a clean-slate with no opinion on God or anti-god at all. No child holds the concept of atheism in mind.


It's not a concept in the broadest sense of the word...
It's a lack of belief.
You can't believe what you don't know.
Weak atheism - a lack of belief, is actually the default position - the same as you may consider agnosticism to be the default position.




Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you say "I dont know" you´re not an atheist but an enlightened sage.


But according to the broadest sense of the word, I fall under the category of atheism for the simple fact that I'm not a theist.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
Going around society, campaigning to remove spiritual references from the U.S. Constitution, burning down churches, vandalizing religious texts, ridiculing any sense of reverence and the sacred and special...

...thats the type of atheism we are talking about here. And its a menace to society, just like the religious Inquisition was.


I'd personally rather state it a different way - that certain people who take beliefs (ANY belief) too seriously are menaces to society.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


But I didn't say "pretty much" no atheist is a militant atheist.
I'm talking about percentages.
There definitely are many militant atheists.
There definitely are many people in the world that are blind.
But most people aren't
Notice the difference between "many" and "most".
One deals with percentage - which was what I was referring to.


Pretty much and mostly is synonomous. As for the rest, I am loving watching you constantly backpedal.


Why would I openly state that militant atheism is a bad thing, and then secretly slant words to make the opposite appear true?
It makes no sense.


Yet you do, the sheer amount of time you have spent justifying, qualifying and claiming contrary for people who have made their stand perfectly clear has been awe inspiring.


We talked about respectful debate before...
I consider it disrespectful and childish to accuse someone of twisting words multiple times and not provide evidence.


I am pretty sure cutting and pasting the entire conversation is against ATS T&C. In fact I know it is.


You claiming that I twist and distort words doesn't magically make it true, if anything it shows that you're paranoid and think I'm something I'm not.
I may have, at the most, made a mistake while explaining this, but I'm not being dishonest about anything.


Um, remember how just last post I had to point out something for you? Yea, that is my basis. It's been happening this whole time. Rather like when you took just because I mentioned the word delusion that I was applying it to you and proceeded to act accordingly despite it was an obvious reference to the book written by a person you spoke about.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Not at all.
I didn't say all atheism is a lack of belief, I said that many atheists feel this way - as I do.


Um, Argumentum ad populum ring a bell? Besides this nonstance nonsense is silly at best.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

We talked about respectful debate before...
I consider it disrespectful and childish to accuse someone of twisting words multiple times and not provide evidence.


I am pretty sure cutting and pasting the entire conversation is against ATS T&C. In fact I know it is.


So that's your excuse is it (who said anything about an entire conversation)? lol.
Nice to know.

I'm done.

I thought I had already learned my lesson - not to argue against someone who won't even allow the possibility that he/she is wrong, but I certainly learned it this time...

Have a nice life.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Funny that you would just include that part.
And I have been pointing it out for a while now. And since it bears repointing *common with you I have noticed* out...

Um, remember how just last post I had to point out something for you? Yea, that is my basis. It's been happening this whole time. Rather like when you took just because I mentioned the word delusion that I was applying it to you and proceeded to act accordingly despite it was an obvious reference to the book written by a person you spoke about.


Now, good day. Hope you feel better.




[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Funny that you would just include that part.
And I have been pointing it out for a while now. And since it bears repointing *common with you I have noticed* out...

Um, remember how just last post I had to point out something for you? Yea, that is my basis. It's been happening this whole time. Rather like when you took just because I mentioned the word delusion that I was applying it to you and proceeded to act accordingly despite it was an obvious reference to the book written by a person you spoke about.


I already responded to this...
What you "pointed out" to me, and what you thought was an error, turned out to be an error in your understanding of what I said.
Jesus...

You'll no doubt continue to try to get me to waste my time arguing with you, which I've seen is pointless.
Go for it.

But all the answers to your questions are right up there ^ (as I've explained these things to you enough to write a short story about how much I've explained these things to you).

If you have any legitimate questions though, I'll be happy to answer them...
But from what I've seen, you just like arguing lol.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Now, good day. Hope you feel better.



Actually for the past week I was really sick... (lost about 10 lbs)
But I do feel a lot better now...
Thanks for your concern.. I guess?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Here you are again. Same contrary statements that are somehow supposed to illuminate you saying the opposite and blaming the reason I notice them on my failings. I thought you said you were done?

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I thought you said you were done?


Done like dinner
.
Speaking of which...



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 



Actually for the past week I was really sick... (lost about 10 lbs)
But I do feel a lot better now...
Thanks for your concern.. I guess?


Wasn't what I was talking about but well, glad to hear that your not sick anymore. I find you thoroughly dishonest but it doesn't mean I wish you bodily harm.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Just for amusement:




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by mr-lizard
 

reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Actually, no you didn't. I spoke to him after I broached the subject to verify my suspisions.
I would be happy to post the u2u's if he doesn't mind. Any other blatantly contradictory to your stance lies you wish to try? And it of course begs the question, if you are willing to so blatantly lie about this one little thing when called on it, what else are you?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


What on earth are you talking about? Up to now i've enjoyed this debate with sky floating and other members. Then you start poking your nose in and making it out that this discussion has been anything but forward.

I've chewed on many of the angles and opinions pointed across, from several different members. Most of it has been in good natured, light discussion and now you start throwing obscure cynicism my way and for what end?

I've even thought about some of the opinions in my daily life and reflected on my own life experience. I've argued my case and respectfully listened to other peoples points of view.

Go ahead post the u2u's or better still u2u them to me, to save derailing what is an otherwise fine thread.

Please don't accuse me of being a liar, especially since you are wrong and unfairly disrespectful just because YOU took something completely out of context. This is a pathetic way to gain grounding in your arguement and is akin to playground bullying.

If skyfloating has a problem with me (which i don't think he does) then we can discuss that as adults. I don't need somebody else poking their deconstructive nose into this and belittle me with smary arsed accusations and comments that have little fibre in this thread.


Thankyou that is all i have to say to you.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Nice cover up attempt. Doesn't work though.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Nice cover up attempt. Doesn't work though.


Nice way to dodge out of an explanation. Doesn't work though.

I still don't quite understand what you are accusing me of lying about?

Lying about being an atheist? Lying about u2u'ing skyfloating and thanking him for the discussion.

If one of these are indeed your point. Then again you are wrong. Not that it concerns you in any manner at all.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I refer you to the history of the thread.
Shall we now stop derailing seeing as to how you have u2u'd me and we are discussing it there now as well.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Its a classic atheist tactic to claim that they are taking "no stance".
As such, you are fulfilling your role of being an atheist very well.

What is universally missed is that "no stance" is also a stance.

If I witness some wrong, such as murder, and I ask one of the witnesses on his stance toward the murder and he says "I have no stance on it", that is an expression of carelesness.

Epistemologically speaking, there is no such thing as "no stance". Much less for the atheist as he has an anti stance.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Skyfloating]


this is actually exactly what i was saying. i wasn't claiming to have no stance. i have a very firm stance.

i was directly referring to this:



Or one could not stand at any position at all. That would mean the person is totally open and accepts all positions. Standing at one position is kind of limiting in that it narrows ones perception to a singular point from which all else is understood. Know what I mean?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
while you denounce militant atheism, and militant theism, you are taking a very obvious militant stance in your own beliefs. i guess it would be a militant middleman view.



There have been many statements like this that try to water-down the meaning and intention of the OP. Sine I am not an activist for my views and do not require anyone to believe them, I cant be considered militant. Neither is the moderate/middle stane "militant" in any frame of reference known to man.




so...there's nothing "militant" about repeatedly claiming that views that differ from your own are held by people that are narrow-minded, weak-willed, ignorant, etc.?

maybe i had your meaning of the word misconstrued after all.



hmm...we're obviously not understanding one another, so i'll try to explain it a different way.
i'm not saying that you're militant in your belief or disbelief in god directly, i'm saying that you're, at least in this thread, being militant about an ideology that holds to neither side.

true, you never specifically stated that your views are the only views that are right, but you sure as hell pissed all over any other side of the argument.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join