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.

 

Dawkins getting rich selling atheism

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Daniem
 


Ok, so what is the difference?


I think i have explained it to you before, and you dont seem to think someone can be atheist and still not know if there is some god, like odin, zeus or yahweh.

Im an atheist and i dont know if the invicible pink unicorn exists, just like i dont know if god exists. Since there isnt any reason for me to acctually believe in them (no evidence or trace of them), i dont. Im still an atheist, even though i dont say THEY DO NOT EXIST.





I find the entire notion that because something has no crossed the perspective of someone, that it is by default false to be completely ignorant and arrogant.



You dont believe in the invicible pink unicorn.. does that mean you as an aunicornist definitly believe he doesnt exist? (that makes you ignorant and arrogant you said yourself)

No, i think you lack belief in the unicorn because of lack of evidence for him. But by golly.. you are still an aunicornist.


So you see, its possible to not believe (atheism, aunicornism etc) and still not say the existance of them is by default false.

[edit on 17/8/2009 by Daniem]




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Is the Pope the richest man on Earth?
All because of millions of gullible people giving their hard earned money to the man in gilded robes who preaches the virtue of poverty.
I see something wrong with this picture, don't you?

There are various chapters of this book available on the internet.
This is chapter one.
Vatican billions

Now there is a billion dollar corporation built entirely upon donations.
This fete has never been equaled.

So why the outcry when some guy writes a book and sells it?
There is a lot of useless literature out there that people pay for and none of you are complaing about that. Why not?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Thanks for those links OhZone, looks like i have some reading to do. Its always been an aspect of religion that has fascinated me.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Dawkins gets rich selling his views, the vatican gets rich selling theirs... No problem imo.

Given the choice i would buy Dawkins work, he uses more than one book as his source.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
God forbid [irony intended] someone wrote something that makes you think.....what would the world come to?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Your entire post is just trying to call agnostics atheists. It's how atheists hide and try to pretend to be open minded, no different than the way theists hide behind gnostics(Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi and so on).


Atheism



Atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


There is a difference in not knowing and believing there is no god. Why group apples and oranges up as fruit, when you can define them both separately?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


And yet, you prove exactly what I said before. You are basing your beliefs based on those who claim to be of god and you are still accepting what they say is true.

That it's ok because "they do it too". Well you can live by that all you want, but where I come from it's called hypocrisy.

Just goes to show how polarized people are. Same thing as democrats vs republicans. Someone shows something a democrat does thats wrong, and then they point out - well that republican did it too. When are people going to wake up and realize it's wrong no matter who does it?

Your walking down the road and a car pulls up and starts shooting at you. Does it matter if the person in that car is a republican or democrat, atheist or theist? Not really, either way it's still the actions themselves that are wrong, and being on a certain side doesn't justify those actions.

The church btw is Satanic and is the same kind of crap Jesus actually spoke against and dealt with. But that doesn't mean the other "side" is by default right.


[edit on 8/17/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Daniem
 


Your entire post is just trying to call agnostics atheists.



Atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.



Jesus christ man.... what the matter with you? You are completely unable to think or something.. It says there in your definition that atheism is DISBELIEF or DENIAL og god\gods. Disbelief is not the same as denial, now is it??

Agnostics can be atheists, get that into your ... thats the way it is, no matter how much you dont want it to.



atheism.about.com...



Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.




A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism.


Now stop lying, dont tell people that i as an atheist claim there are no gods. If you dont stop spreading this disinfo from now on i will assume you are being deliberatly dishonest.

After all these posts you should get it now (but maybe i shouldnt count on it)



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Why are you so upset because a distinction is made between those who just say they don't know, and those who completely deny god and believe it is a fairy tale?

I understand that many agnostics call themselves atheist. But I'm saying there is actually a difference between the 2 when you get down to it.

You are the one who doesn't seem to want to make that difference. Why not? How am I "spreading dis-info" for making a distinction?

The reason I make the distinction is because 1 of those positions I believe is closed minded and ignorant/arrogant, and the other I consider to be open minded and honest. So I make the distinction so that my comments are better directed to the appropriate place. Why is that a problem?



[edit on 8/18/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by badmedia
 




Atheism is a belief that no god exists.


No, doesnt have to be that and only that. It CAN be that, Or the lack of belief in god\gods

And remember there is a difference in believing god does not exist and not believing in god. I hope you understand that.


No, I don't.

Other than using the term 'believe' or 'lack of belief' or one being a negative and the other a positive in structure what are you saying. Surely you're implying more than sematics here.

If what you are implying is that you can think there is a 'god', but that you don't 'believe in' him, than that wouldn't be athiest would it.

Please clarify.

(edit=grammar)

[edit on 18-8-2009 by JustG]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by JustG]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You are implying that:
1) agnostics DONT KNOW, end of story.
2) theists say there is a god or gods
3) atheist say there is no god or gods

That is blatantly wrong. To say: "Atheism is a belief that no god exists." is DISINFO It is lying. You provided us with a definition of atheism, but you still dont seem to get it.


1) agnostics
a) dont know, but it isnt a belief in itself.. they usually exist on either the theistic or atheistic side in addition to their agnostisism.
b) there are some who claim one cannot have ultimate knowledge, and so you cant prove something is god, or you cant prove something is not god.

2) theist
a) accept the existence of gods\god
b) dont know, but believe in gods\god (agnostic theism)

3) atheist
a) deny the existance of gods\god
b) dont know, but do not believe (agnostic atheism)

[edit on 18/8/2009 by Daniem]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Spectrum of Probabilities

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G.Jung, 'I do not believe, i know.'

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but i strongly believe in God and i live my life on that assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but i am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence or non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I dont know whether God exists but im inclined to be sceptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but i think God is very improbable, and i live my life on that assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I personally find myself within the 6th category.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Atheist and theist are in my opinion exactly the same. They are based on beliefs rather than understanding and experience. Both are confined in their own little boxes. I find both to be close minded and dishonest to themselves.

The 2 honest positions I see are agnostic and gnostic. You either have direct knowledge and experience, or you don't. Gnostic is what the ultimate goal of all people is, and the only way to obtain that is to first become agnostic a step away from both atheism and theism.

Blind belief in god is dumb, no matter what side of things the person is on. It is not the same as understanding and real knowledge(gnosis).

Call it disinfo if you want, but you yourself showed the "or" part of things, which in itself implies a difference/2 things.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Daniem. I can see you you've already been asked about this; if I may interject.

Atheist and agnostic are not the same. They are not synonymous.

There is a difference between saying: I believe there is no god and saying I don't know if there is a god, but probably not.

Do you have a reference for your definition because my dictionary advises as follows:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JustG
 




There is a difference between saying: I believe there is no god and saying I don't know if there is a god, but probably not.


Yes indeed. They are both atheists. One thinks there is no god= atheist
The other dont know (agnostic), but isnt a theist.. therefore he also is an atheist. (agnostic atheist)


And lol at you dictionary:



Date: 1551


Time to get that updated? If you had a older, roman dictionary it would probably say: ATHEIST; One who believes Zeus and co doesnt exist.

Romans called christians atheists because they didnt believe in the roman gods.

[edit on 18/8/2009 by Daniem]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bwinwright
 



Dawkins has been avoiding debates with microbiologists because they know how wrong Darwin’s Theory really is and can prove it too.


hmmm... Darwin lived 200 years ago! You do realize that the theory of Evolution has much evolved since then, don't you? Only religious fundies seek to debate Darwin's outdated theories themselves. (Do you really believe all atheist biologists believe a bear can turn into a whale?)


Dawkins says Faith is one of the world’s great evils. Faith has been defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Jesus taught in Matthew 9:29, “According to your Faith be it unto you.”


I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan."
~ GW Bush, 2003

Under any other circumstances, people would've said, "Wait a minute, the President hears voices in his .!!!" However, luckily for Bush, the totally irrational belief in gods is accepted and cannot be challenged. This is why Dawkin says religion is a great evil.

Check out Sam Harris. He's a lot more outspoken about the dangers of these beliefs and the fact that the very mention of gods virtually casts aside any rational discussion.

PS, why don't you believe in Zeus?

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
~Stephen Roberts




[edit on 18/8/09 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





Why are you so upset because a distinction is made between those who just say they don't know, and those who completely deny god and believe it is a fairy tale


How about this to complicate it further.

I don't know, what I do know is, that there is not proof absolute.

I completely deny, as it is a complete fairy tale in my opinion as it has not been proven otherwise.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Atheism is an absolute. It translates as "negative God", which means "no God absolutely". Only an omniscient being can absolutely know that there's no omniscient being, which becomes a contradiction. A human being can only be at most an agnostic, which is non-belief in (a) God.

And who cares if Dawkins makes money selling a book? There are much, much worse books out there than his. At least makes people think. He's not a bad guy. Let him make some money.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Quaght]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
How dare he make millions off of a 10 dollar paperback and 17 dollar hardcover, what a charlatan /sarcasm off. I wonder how much the church has made off of their bibles and other B.S. not to mention all of the christian authors writing their interpretations of the bible lol.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quaght
Atheism is an absolute. It translates as "negative God", which means "no God absolutely". Only an omniscient being can absolutely know that there's no omniscient being, which becomes a contradiction. A human being can only be at most an agnostic, which is non-belief in (a) God.

And who cares if Dawkins makes money selling a book? There are much, much worse books out there than his. At least makes people think. He's not a bad guy. Let him make some money.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Quaght]


I disagree with the core belief of atheism seeing as how I don't believe it's possible for any human being to know whether there is a god or isn't (which is my I am agnostic), I like the ideas which branch from atheism things like being responsible for yourself... you know being a rational open minded human being an not submitting to a higher authority. Our lives are what me make it, not god.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Mtheory]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join