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.

 

Polls show atheists on the rise in America

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


There you go with that lack of belief stuff again.

Here is the fact of the matter. When I say the word god to you, immediately you are presented with images/ideas and so forth in your mind. In your mind there exists and idea called "God". This idea of god is basically what you think god is.

It is that idea in your head that you do not believe in. It is from that which you debate against and so forth. It is there no matter if you like it or not, or if you want to admit it or not.

You have a belief in god.

That idea of god has been dictated to you all your life. That is why I say "they" don't care if you pick 1 way or another on religion - just so long as you accept them as the authority. So long as you let them put the idea and define what god is for you.

In this way the belief which you are in denial of actually closes the doors for what might really be there, because rather than seeking for the truth that idea is accepted instead.

An atheist will state their beliefs. An agnostic will be asking questions/observing and asking about concepts etc. 1 of them is being close minded, 1 of them is not.

So don't tell me you are an agnostic after you tell me your beliefs.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





I don't disagree, it's not always that. I didn't mean for it to sound as if it is always that. But it happens enough that I'd have to say it is more than 50%. I see it way more often than I don't.


I understand

but when we define concepts, the oversimplification of things - which is a pretty consistent approach for all of us - is the rule

after enough of it the information and or opinion becomes accepted

what you said earlier is true - but only partially true

I find it fascinating - really I do - that atheism is so difficult for some to understand

of course it makes it easier to reject the idea of a creator when you see how stuff tends to go down here in the dirt

looking at atheism with that factored in really does make it all seem to be about rebellion - which then makes it seem like nothing more than a childish knee-jerk reaction to being told what to do

which goes on to make it an easier idea (seemingly) to dismiss

these endless religious and philosophical debates would mean so much more if everyone understood what the other actually believed - but that will never happen - will it?

because that would be hard - and get in the way



I think agnostic and gnostic are the only 2 honest positions.


I think calling it a position is a real giveaway

and honesty is in the eye of the beholder



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


I know, I say that all the time. I don't mind at all that you corrected it, as I didn't mean for it to be taken that way.

But as for the rebellion part, I think it's mostly that people who are told they have to accept this, then you look at the hypocrisy of the people and the crazy things they believe that make no real sense.

That is what did it for me anyway. I thought it was the dumbest stuff in the world, and a means of control. Still do. But just because those people do things in the name of god, doesn't mean god told them to do it, or that god supports it. Have to separate religious people from god.

It's fine to debunk what people say about god. But using what people say to debunk god is just plain dumb.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Why do atheists have meetings?

I mean, if they've all come to the conclusion that there is no god what is there to discuss? Do atheists have struggles with their 'faith' that call for group support to bring them back to the fold? Do they embark on evangelical recruiting missions and need to plan attacks and strategy?

I dont get it. What do they do?


Maybe they have a beer and sit back and have a laugh.

Did that not cross your mind?

[edit on 28-8-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





An atheist will state their beliefs. An agnostic will be asking questions/observing and asking about concepts etc. 1 of them is being close minded, 1 of them is not.


There are different types of atheists. Atheism itself is very broad; it is lack of god-belief. If you’re of the mindset that atheism is the positive belief that there are no gods, you’re wrong.

Believing that there are no gods is a characteristic of some atheists, not atheism. Many atheists simply lack a belief in gods without having the belief that no gods exist.


Agnosticism is dealing with knowledge , not belief, therefore being a separate school of thought, it is not a third option aside from theism and atheism.

A person either has or does not have a belief in one or more gods. Accordingly, a person is either a theist or an atheist. Gnosticism and agnosticism are introduced when describing the theist or atheist.

A theist or an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic.

Ever heard of Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by badmedia
 





An atheist will state their beliefs. An agnostic will be asking questions/observing and asking about concepts etc. 1 of them is being close minded, 1 of them is not.


There are different types of atheists. Atheism itself is very broad; it is lack of god-belief. If you’re of the mindset that atheism is the positive belief that there are no gods, you’re wrong.

Believing that there are no gods is a characteristic of some atheists, not atheism. Many atheists simply lack a belief in gods without having the belief that no gods exist.


Agnosticism is dealing with knowledge , not belief, therefore being a separate school of thought, it is not a third option aside from theism and atheism.

A person either has or does not have a belief in one or more gods. Accordingly, a person is either a theist or an atheist. Gnosticism and agnosticism are introduced when describing the theist or atheist.

A theist or an atheist is either gnostic or agnostic.

Ever heard of Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism?


hehe Daniem always using such twisted semantics, Does ANYONE have belief before knowledge?

I mean really, who talks using such circular semantics but atheist's who activley deny God. EXAMPLE:


Many atheists simply lack a belief in gods without having the belief that no gods exist.


Are you saying you have no belief that "no" gods exist or simply that you don't believe God exists? Just say it without all the "lack" and added disclaimers. You either don't believe in God because you don't think he exists or you think he could exist but you doubt it. The idea of having so many levels of atheism is just another excuse to add agnostics to your numbers in my opinion. I have read other posts you are in regarding this topic and they are all so confounded.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


How can it be very broad if it is all a lack of belief? Now "nothing" can have a broad range within it? There is more than 1 way to have a lack of belief?

Since people say calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color - How many different styles of bald are there?

Telling me your beliefs and how you can categorize them, and then after telling me you are agnostic and without belief is like someone with a cigarette in their mouth telling me they don't smoke.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by makinho21
 

Just goes to show that atheism is actually a religion. This thread just highlights the main reasons I eventually stopped being an atheist.


What on earth are you babbling on about man?

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of religious belief and the disbelief in any higher diety.

I am not religious, therefore i am not in a religion. I don't believe in god.

I respect those that do and i respect agnostics. But to say atheism is a religion is just not right.
Get a grip.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
They just dont get it. so what can i do? I didnt use my own, words.. i just got the definitions from official dictionaries.. which i agree with. If you use your own definitions on words, then please post YOUR definition. You obviously dont agree with dictionaries etc.

Badmedia even posted the definition of atheism and still thought atheism is just believing there are no deities





Just say it without all the "lack" and added disclaimers.


I am an agnostic atheist.

Why:
Agnostic because i dont know for surtain if there are gods somewhere, just like i dont know if fairies exist somewhere.

Atheist because i dont havent found any evidence that there are deities, i think the concept is probably man made, its fantasy, just like fairies, and so i cant\dont believe in god.

So as you see i dont believe that: god does NOT exist.
But im still atheist!?.
So plz dont say that atheism = there is no god\gods

[edit on 28/8/2009 by Daniem]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


If belief in god is religion, then non belief in god is also a religion.

I do not belong to any religion and so forth. But because I know god exists I am classified as a religious person.

The real point is just that people who have "beliefs" are basically the same. I don't really give a crap if someone calls it a religion or not, I'm just make the point that belief from either side is equally stupid.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


And that definition also contained the word "or". It could be this, OR this. It also separates the 2. You do NOT separate the 2.

I know that many agnostics call themselves atheists. But there is a difference, if there wasn't a difference then the definition wouldn't say "or", it would have said "and".

In 1 paragraph you are claiming to be agnostic. In the next paragraph you are telling me you don't believe god exists. You can't have it both ways, even by the definition which says OR.

But the simply fact you call it a "lack of belief" and then categorize it and tell me what you do believe exposes the truth of the situation. Again, how many categories and styles of bald exist? If there is no belief, then how are there differences in it - oh yeah, because there is actually belief in it?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


the problem with the word belief is it's association with faith

faith is the real hot button word - we should leave belief alone and focus on the word faith

if I say "I have come to accept as real or true..." as opposed to "I believe..." - then I can say a great many things and never once ruffle even the tiniest hair on anybody's nearly bald head - no matter what color of bald

semantics - yes, I know - lame and annoying



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Well, I maintain that regardless of semantics, one can't help but have a belief of some sort. I understand the different "categories" and such, and don't disagree with them. I think agnostic is a step above both atheist and theist. Of those 3, it is the only honest position - which is why atheists want to cling to it so badly.

If not for atheists falsely saying they have no belief and such, and using belief/faith as an "automatic wrong", then I wouldn't even bring it up. It's like trying to enter a debate, make points and then after claim you aren't taking a side, thus any return points are by default invalid - unless you can prove the unprovable.

It by default sets up a false premise under which ends up by default leaving anyone with any belief in god wrong, and with a task no different than trying to prove to a blind man the color blue exists and what that color looks like etc. It is completely unprovable to the blind man.

Why do atheists refer to god as being "out there" and as being a bearded man in the clouds or a sky fairy? Because that is what they believe god to be, and that is what they are basing their non belief on.

If we are going to debate if the flying spaghetti monster is real, both "sides" of that debate are going to have to get some sort of idea on what that fly spaghetti monster is. And that idea is the belief. If that idea/belief doesn't exist, then the person by default has no idea what they are talking about and would be unable to debate the topic at all.

One might not agree with that belief, but they still have the belief. But where does that idea/belief come from? The same exact people. And because that idea/belief has come from the same exact people, both sides have accepted those people as being the authority on the topic.

So, people can call it a lack of belief all they want, but they are just lying to themselves.

There is also a difference between faith, and blind faith(belief).



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by newworld


Actually, many people, for several thousands of years, HAVE strayed from their own belief systems, so my logic is not incorrect.
It is possible to get out of a belief system, it's called conversion.

In addition, what kind of church would be against it's god? care to elaborate on your last points?


You were talking about billions who never heard of God remember so yes your logic is flawed and now so is your straw man because this has nothing to do with what I responded to,.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



Well, I maintain that regardless of semantics, one can't help but have a belief of some sort.


it can't be regardless of semantics in this case - because semantics is the issue here

you want to foist the word belief on to a group of people - when it's meaning is really unworkable there

you imply faith where there is none

however, you won't take that one extra step because you know that the meaning won't fit - and so won't suit your argument

listen – I’ve done it myself :-)

it’s an easy argument – a lazy argument even – but if we were honest you and I, we would have to admit – it’s really a nonsensical argument in the end – and not fair


I think agnostic is a step above both atheist and theist. Of those 3, it is the only honest position


atheist, theist - such graceful, elegant words :-)

agnostic...the sound before the hairball

it sounds a little like what it is - awkward and uncomfortable

I would love a really good explanation of why not knowing something - and admitting you don't know - is superior to accepting that you know something

and yes – I didn’t use the word believe – on purpose

I am agnostic - because I don't know - and I know that I don't know

now, that is honest, but how is it more honest?

in order for it to actually be more honest, I would have to be able to prove that god either does exist – or doesn’t. All it proves is that I don’t know – NOT that either one of the other two don’t know

the minute I claim to know that they can't possibly know - well, you see how that kinda spoils the whole agnostic thing - right?

again you use the word position - as in defensible

it's not a position - it's more a condition


...which is why atheists want to cling to it so badly.


I don't understand what you mean by this


Why do atheists refer to god as being "out there" and as being a bearded man in the clouds or a sky fairy? Because that is what they believe god to be, and that is what they are basing their non belief on.


why don’t you listen to what actual atheists are saying – and stop relying on what you base your belief on?

so, back on topic then – I think we should at least try

this thread was based on an article about atheists getting together to be there lovable atheist selves – and discuss all manner of atheistic stuff :-)

this prompted people to wonder – well – if it’s not a religion – why would they need to form groups, or discuss – anything?

what is the point – if not to hatch some nefarious plot to bring religion to it’s knees?

well – safety in numbers comes to mind

but we could also ask – what’s the deal with religion and groups?

why all the meetings?

what do they do in there?

what do they decide?

it’s the deciding that makes everyone a little nervous I think


[edit on 8/29/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus

What disinformation did you get that notion from?

Our Nation is founded on Hermetic and many Masonic principles, along with some Platonic, Pythagorean, but mostly Iroquois principles. Our Constitution is plagiarized with some ideas from those god-less French heathens, atheists and pantheists Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu thrown in for good measure.

As for our Founding Fathers, they made clear that the United States was not, is not, nor shalt be, a Christian Nation or founded on Christian principles:

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."



Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.



The fact is that the United States was founded on the concept that our rights, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, come from our "Creator." The intent of the First Amendment was to make government neutral among religious sects, rather than neutral between religion and atheist's




"The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime. In the American republic, the "principles which did not change" and which were "certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community" were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained: To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. The Founders echoed that theme: All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.



James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice [T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. 18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution [T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . "
www.freerepublic.com...




THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
February 29, 1892

"These and many other matters which might be noticed,
add a volume of unofficial declarations to
the mass of organic utterances that
this is a Christian nation."



"It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe. * * * As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily." Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832
"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. * * * Religion [516] morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470] faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this,


is a Christian nation."
vftonline.org...




There are, of course, many other arguments, based on trivial inconsistencies, against the claim of the Highest Court in the nation. But the U.S. Supreme Court did not say that America was a perfectly Christian nation.

America is not an atheistic nation, like the Soviet Union or Communist China.

America is not a Hindu nation, like Nepal or India.

America is not a Buddhist nation, like Tibet, Sri Lanka, or Thailand.

America is not a Cherokee nation, a Sioux nation, or a Navajo nation.

America is not a Muslim nation, like Iran.

John Locke, one of the most influential American Founders, theory of government began with the Bible. He said first that all laws must conform to Scripture:


"The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.
Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135. "


This thought is found in the Declaration of Independence ("the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"). More specifically, the Bible requires that office-holders be men who "fear God." This excludes atheists, which is what Locke and every single state in the union did.

The constitution he drafted for Carolina did not allow atheists to hold office. And in his Essay on Toleration, Locke specifically exempted the atheist from the civil protection of toleration and said:


"Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration."



In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court took half of its unanimous opinion to sketch out the Christian roots of America. It's an entire history course, one most Americans alive today never received in government-run schools. The evidence that America is a Christian nation is overwhelming.


So why is there such a vocal group of atheists attempting to refute the claim of the Supreme Court? Why do they insist on using the treaty of tripoly out of context without giving the rest of the history of that document?

What do those who say "America is not a Christian nation" hope to gain? Do they want America to be more like Iran, or the Soviet Union? What do they fear?


Why do we see so many atheist's sueing the Government at every turn to have the ten commandments removed from Court Houses, Nativity scenes from Library's Prayer from schools, the words " so help me god" from the oath of office? Why do they ALWAYS say they are offended?

Simple answer to the latter is they must be offended before the Government can even begin to take notice and that is written in the law so saying they are offended is what they MUST say to begin any lawsuit. They want to do things that had long been a crime, like commit adultery. In addition, they understandably fear attempts by the "Religious Right" to outlaw drugs, cigarettes, gambling, and other activities that the Religious Right thinks are inadvisable, This is where Atheist's have every right to fear it and where Religion has blown it. These are reasons our Government was decided it be a secular one but on Christian Principles. Much of the vices and sexual activity atheists do not want the religious right to have control over are a lot like slavery, where the Bible teaches to treat slaves well but that doesn't mean it endorses it. many of these are issues the religious right would want to control but the Bible never made a crime.


So what they fear about our being a Christian Nation is the religious right putting sanctions against their sins.


HOWEVER, a truly Christian nation is not a police state Low crime and moral integrity are not fostered at the barrel of a gun. Most parents want their children to be taught that God says not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, so that their children can become successful and respected adults. Liberty means abolishing federal control of education so that parents can choose a school that is Under God. When the U.S. Supreme Court removed voluntary prayer from public schools, one Judge was quoted as saying "Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system as far back as washington"

That religion of course was none other than the Christian religion





[edit on 29-8-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Isn't atheism,
just the religion of science?
richard dawkins and his evolution perspective.
newton, einstein, the saints and divinities of science.

let us call religion a belief system
philosophy be a belief system or religion
philosophy be developed in greece by male only homo sexuals (they loved using what's now called ad hominim fallacies, or referencing the individuals life situation)
science be developed from a mixture of various european philosophy religions called alchemy (now chemistry) and physics.

Francis Bacon was a major spell castor that contributed to the creation of the north american new world order.
In Francis Bacon's day the New World was America, as the Old World was Europe, Asia, Africa.
Now the phrase has changed it's meaning with a parenthesis shift, was (new world) order
and now be new (world order).

well as an atheist, that's completly fine,
be aware it be a belief system.

Like a machine floating in a fog,
the more extended the belief system,
the more the machine can do in the fog,
the fog of the multiverse,
you be a machine with awareness, love and choice.

do be aware of where you are
and where you are going.
do love what makes you feel happy.
do make self-guided choices.


[edit on 29-8-2009 by lowki]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
it can't be regardless of semantics in this case - because semantics is the issue here


They have an idea of god in their head, it is that idea which they reject. If they had no idea, no belief, then they wouldn't have anything to reject.

I am looking beyond the surface. It's like in politics. They provide 2 sides, 1 side says do it this way, the other side says do it this way. And the people go and vote. But the people do not see that both sides are saying the exact same thing in 1 area - both sides agree they should be in control of the issue. Well, you can say you believe or lack belief all one wants, but under it there is an acknowledgment/belief in an idea of god on both parts. And so both people are accepting things.

It is important to realize for people because they need to realize yes they do have this idea of god, and then they need to ask how put it there. Who defined god for them etc.

I can't stop people from making the argument, but I'm saying if you look deeper you will find out what I'm talking about is true. When I say the word "god" to you, there is an idea that exists in your head of what that means. Denial of it isn't going to change that fact.




I would love a really good explanation of why not knowing something - and admitting you don't know - is superior to accepting that you know something


Because it is honest, and it is required before one comes upon true understanding. It is what the bible means by "becoming a child". A child doesn't carry beliefs, and so it asks questions and looks for understanding.

Belief generally comes from acceptance. Authority is created so that you will accept it. But when you accept it, then you rob yourself of understanding. Because you are putting that which is accepted in place of the understanding.

Take math, anyone can accept that 1+1=2. But to understand it is to understand math. Belief is acceptance on the same level - no matter what that belief is. Do not accept, instead come to understand.

And both atheists and theists just accept and do not understand. They don't seek any further because they just accept what is told to them.

To not accept what is given, and to seek that understanding and gain it is true knowledge which works in the same way as math does. To gain that is to become gnostic(with knowledge). That is the real goal, why guess? And the only way to get to that is again to become agnostic.

That is why it is superior. It's a step towards one actually thinking for themselves and being honest rather than plugging in beliefs as walls of their box.

"Any fool can know. The point is to understand. " — Albert Einstein

Any fool can "know" or "believe" 1+1=2. But it's really only useful if you understand.



and yes – I didn’t use the word believe – on purpose

I am agnostic - because I don't know - and I know that I don't know

now, that is honest, but how is it more honest?

in order for it to actually be more honest, I would have to be able to prove that god either does exist – or doesn’t. All it proves is that I don’t know – NOT that either one of the other two don’t know


If you don't know, then you don't know. That is honest. Someone who has a belief doesn't know either, but they don't even admit it. If you do actually have knowledge, then you would be gnostic.



the minute I claim to know that they can't possibly know - well, you see how that kinda spoils the whole agnostic thing - right?


Yes, because you have overstepped the boundaries of not knowing. Although it is human nature to deny in others what we ourselves lack, so it's actually pretty common and something I did myself. There is a line.

I don't care about the labels really, it's that line that I'm trying to show.



why don’t you listen to what actual atheists are saying – and stop relying on what you base your belief on?


I do actually. I've debating and talked to many of them on this site, and know what they believe and such pretty well.



this thread was based on an article about atheists getting together to be there lovable atheist selves – and discuss all manner of atheistic stuff :-)

this prompted people to wonder – well – if it’s not a religion – why would they need to form groups, or discuss – anything?

what is the point – if not to hatch some nefarious plot to bring religion to it’s knees?

well – safety in numbers comes to mind

but we could also ask – what’s the deal with religion and groups?

why all the meetings?

what do they do in there?

what do they decide?

it’s the deciding that makes everyone a little nervous I think


I don't think it's anything sinister. Discussion of things is healthy IMO, so if they want to get together and discuss things more power to them IMO. It will depend on the people there if it's actually discussion rather than bashing etc. I just hope for them it's intelligent discussion rather than blind bashing.

I seriously doubt the majority of people have bad intentions; theists, atheist or otherwise.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





They have an idea of god in their head, it is that idea which they reject. If they had no idea, no belief, then they wouldn't have anything to reject.


you keep mentioning rejection – it’s only one possible way of reasoning through this – there are others you won’t acknowledge

they aren’t rejecting god – they can’t reject something that doesn’t exist

they can, however, reject all attempts to force them to believe something they just don’t believe – that is where the rejection DOES comes in


I am looking beyond the surface. It's like in politics. They provide 2 sides, 1 side says do it this way, the other side says do it this way. And the people go and vote. But the people do not see that both sides are saying the exact same thing in 1 area - both sides agree they should be in control of the issue.


nobody is voting for a belief – no one is providing a side - bad example

it’s why you keep using the word position – it’s not a position – it’s a conditional assumption – a conclusion at which an individual person has arrived

before you can argue over the power struggles that come out of all this – you have to first understand how people are thinking - you’re putting the cart before the horse


...Well, you can say you believe or lack belief all one wants, but under it there is an acknowledgment/belief in an idea of god on both parts...


no there isn't - and just saying it's so doesn't make it so - that word belief is completely inadequate here

try using more words - or different words to describe the way people view things - maybe then you'll understand what I'm trying to say


It is important to realize for people because they need to realize yes they do have this idea of god, and then they need to ask how put it there. Who defined god for them etc.


you’re deciding for other people how they should think? What you’re doing – in addition – is assuming what they think – for yourself

as opposed to trying to understand what they’re explaining to you – using real words


I can't stop people from making the argument, but I'm saying if you look deeper you will find out what I'm talking about is true. When I say the word "god" to you, there is an idea that exists in your head of what that means. Denial of it isn't going to change that fact.


there is a fine line between having an opinion you would like to communicate or share – and proselytizing

in my opinion

so, I’m going to skip through much of this – I’m not here for the sales pitch



why don’t you listen to what actual atheists are saying – and stop relying on what you base your belief on?


I do actually. I've debating and talked to many of them on this site, and know what they believe and such pretty well.


I don't see that. What I see is you trying to talk people out of their explanations - instead of just listening. You claim to have been an atheist – but I think you use that to give yourself some sort of credentials that don’t really work to your advantage here

My dad was an atheist. One grandfather. Many of my friends – past and present

Two things I can say about ALL of them:

The reasons for calling themselves atheists are as individual as they are.

They never once – not one of them – insisted that I or anyone else see things their way

but they all, to the man (or woman) put up a hell of a fight when someone told them they need to change their thinking – which tends to happen - often


...I just hope for them it's intelligent discussion rather than blind bashing.


Indeed. Nobody likes blind bashing - privately or publicly


I seriously doubt the majority of people have bad intentions; theists, atheist or otherwise.


on this we agree – which is why I find it so amusing that people wonder why atheists would congregate - why wouldn't they?

why shouldn't they?

what are people thinking?

:-)



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

well, I maintain, that regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof), the flying spaghetti monster exists.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join