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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


:-)

but - where are the photos?

after all this time...

meanwhile, fortunately, we are all free (well - in many places) to believe what we will and get together over a few beers - or iced tea - and talk about it

in groups

the Spaghetti Monster is endlessly fascinating




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


You are completely avoiding the point. The idea of god exists, no matter if people want to admit it or not. It is that idea which the opinion/belief or whatever other semantic name you want to throw on it is based on. If there were no idea, there would be nothing for that person to discuss, as they would have no idea what to discuss and would be incapable to discussing it in the first place.

To say that idea doesn't exist and if true, it would mean that person by default would have no idea what they are talking about.

Just like the spaghetti monster. It may or may not exist, but you still have an idea on what it is that exists or doesn't exist.

People say "I see no evidence for god". What would constitute evidence of god for them? Well that "proof" will be based on what their idea of god should be.

Here is a thread about "What would it take for you to believe in god".

www.belowtopsecret.com...

That idea got there from something. It is there, admit it or not. So who really defined that idea for them? Religion and what people say. So, they are accepting religion as the authority on the topic, allowing them to define it and so it becomes 2 sides of the same coin.

Which is about like me defining the sky as green, and then some people believing me on faith, and another group saying they see no evidence the sky exists because they see no green when they look up. In the end, they are 2 sides of the same coin, because they have allowed me to define the sky for them.

So you can look out on the surface of things all you want, but I'm not going to do that. I'm looking deeper into things to try and uncover the truth and if one can not be honest with themselves, then the truth is of no real consequence to them outside themselves either. Something has defined the idea of what god should be for those people, and if the person is unwilling to admit that then they are really only lying to themselves.

This goes well beyond "god". It's all over the place with other words/things as well. People will try to define things for you, and they will as long as you let them do it. If you realize and understand things on a deeper level as I am speaking of, then you can stop allowing them to define them for you.

It wasn't even in this topic that I first started to notice it.

This is how that freedom = slavery, strength = ignorance crap we see in politics with the "9/11 GOP party" formerly known as republicans. Those who recognized they were trying to define things didn't allow, those who didn't recognize it were those who were more likely fooled by it.

Success/Happiness is defined by material wealth and so forth. It is ALL manipulation, and both atheists and theists have fallen into the belief trap.

Basically, we are talking about mind control - the real thing. Recognize it so that you can "deny ignorance". Maybe next we can get into "hollow words" where people use their existing beliefs to fill the meanings of those words, and how they are used to gain support.



[edit on 8/29/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Here is a thread about what I'm talking about in general. How everything is defined for people and such. Well, atheist and theist is just another part of it.

"Debt Slave"

If you accept them, then you create a box and then you no longer search for the real answers.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem


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]


I'm not saying anything like that if you're post is in response to mine, however I still see you using "slingo" when you say:



i dont believe that: god does NOT exist


If you do not believe that god does NOT exist, then conventional wisdom would suggest that you believe that he does, else you'd have said " I believe I simply can't decide which of the two postulates I agree with making you agnostic. An atheist doesn't sit on the fence like that and will say "I don't believe there is such a thing as a God" He doesn't have to justify it with all the minutia about evidence etc. He simply holds a single position on the matter and that is that he believes with what finite knowledge of the universe he has, that it is safe to assume there is no such thing as God. An agnostic, won't say that because it is left of dead center. You are either an atheist or an agnostic but it sounds to me that if you had some proof of such a thing as a deity, you would have no problem with it where many atheist's , well that would mess up their whole decade.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
People like to believe in something and I accept that. But forcing your beliefs onto someone else is not only wrong but ignorant. Why are there so many athiests today? It shouldn't matter to non-athiests. There's also a fine line between believing and fact. Religion has no fact yet tell that to someone who is involved in a religion and you will be yelled at until the end of time. It's ironic. It's a constant battle from side to side as to whose right.

I respect people's beliefs but I dont respect throwing them into peoples faces and telling them whats right and wrong. Hence why Atheism is considered in all actuality a religion- yet they dont really believe in anything related to a religion. There are different types of atheists and rightfully so. If Scientology can exist and Christianity can exist, then it's only logical that atheism exists.

I dont see what the big fuss is with Athiests- there are other religions too. Whose to say whose right or wrong? No-one knows. It's about time people started thinking for themselves rather than whats been passed on to them or what they've read in a book from thousands of years ago and re-written by man.

Let me blow some minds here...How is a bible holy if its 100% printed and manufactured in a factory or from a publishing company? Does that mean I could worship my Maxim magazines? Churches are built by man...yet they are holy? Just like every bible you've ever put your hands on- its been tainted by man. Constant contradictions lead atheists on the path they are on. People need to find the path thats right for them- not simply because you believe they should go a certain way.

You have sensors in your body to let you know when to eat and sleep. There is nothing for needing a religious belief or needing to pray. It is not required for living.



[edit on 8/29/2009 by AceOfAces]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfAces
People like to believe in something and I accept that. But forcing your beliefs onto someone else is not only wrong but ignorant. Why are there so many athiests today? It shouldn't matter to non-athiests. There's also a fine line between believing and fact. Religion has no fact yet tell that to someone who is involved in a religion and you will be yelled at until the end of time. It's ironic. It's a constant battle from side to side as to whose right.

I respect people's beliefs but I dont respect throwing them into peoples faces and telling them whats right and wrong. Hence why Atheism is considered in all actuality a religion- yet they dont really believe in anything related to a religion. There are different types of atheists and rightfully so. If Scientology can exist and Christianity can exist, then it's only logical that atheism exists.

I dont see what the big fuss is with Athiests- there are other religions too. Whose to say whose right or wrong? No-one knows. It's about time people started thinking for themselves rather than whats been passed on to them or what they've read in a book from thousands of years ago and re-written by man.

Let me blow some minds here...Churches are built by man...yet they are holy? Just like every bible you've ever put your hands on- its been tainted by man. Constant contradictions lead atheists on the path they are on. People need to find the path thats right for them- not simply because you believe they should go a certain way.

You have sensors in your body to let you know when to eat and sleep. There is nothing for needing a religious belief or needing to pray. It is not required for living.
[edit on 8/29/2009 by AceOfAces]




Constant contradictions lead atheists on the path they are on.


Set apart to the service or worship of God; hallowed; sacred; reserved from profane or common use; What does holy mean? we found 4 entries for the meaning of holy


Holy \Ho"ly\, a. [Compar. Holier; superl. Holiest.]

[OE. holi, hali, AS. h[=a]lig, fr. h[ae]l health, salvation, happiness,

Given its definition, I don't see how it would be that far a stretch to call a Book about God "Holy" and of course it was written by men, what is the problem with that? Our Constitution was written by men also but I never see THAT getting ridiculed having been written by men somehow making it suspect.

The "Path" atheists are on? what path is that?

When was the last time someone "forced" you to believe in anyones religion, philosophy, or ideology? Was it by gun point or did you comply without a struggle?

What contradictions and spare me the ones you find on websites like the evil bible.com until you go to some Scholars site and find out just how many of those so called contradictions aren't contradictions at all or are making mountains out of mole hills.

Religion has no facts? What do you mean exactly? You have any idea how many times the Bible can be given credit for things Science now admits it was right about all along?




How is a bible holy if its 100% printed and manufactured in a factory or from a publishing company? Does that mean I could worship my Maxim magazines?


It isn't paper or publishing companies that makes it a holy book, it is what it is about that makes it a holy book just the same way what Hustler Magazine is about makes it a porno magazine.

It's the content and anyone reading ancient texts or have visted indian ruins where they know anything about them, they could distinguish between what were their holy sacred burial grounds, holy writings etc.

It is because of the content.



If Scientology can exist and Christianity can exist, then it's only logical that atheism exists.


Actually I don't see how the existance of scientology is all that logical.
Just my opinion heheh



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 





To say that idea doesn't exist and if true, it would mean that person by default would have no idea what they are talking about.


I'm not sure whether or not I believe the idea exists

I'm a complete agnostic

among other things

but I feel pretty good about being in the superior position I guess

all of this is off topic though



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


You agnostics seem to get a rough time of it don't you. People seem to think you're cowardly in not making absolute or even general conclusions of matters that you have no experience of. People seem to think that it has to be one or the other, and that sitting on the fence isn't a valid stance.

Goddangit, I respect your agnosticism.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


You agnostics seem to get a rough time of it don't you. People seem to think you're cowardly in not making absolute or even general conclusions of matters that you have no experience of. People seem to think that it has to be one or the other, and that sitting on the fence isn't a valid stance.

Goddangit, I respect your agnosticism.


PffffT! Ha ha yeah riiiight Agnostics have it so ruff around here why just look at how many threads are created with titles like "Agnostics are destroying ATS" or "ATS is being run by Left Wing Agnostics!" or "is Agnosticism a religion!" or how bout all the arguments that have taken place by agnoticisms best selling authors of books titled

"The God Delus,, umm nevermind"

"God is not great, or is he?"

"The one eye'd watchmaker"

You suggest it's a valid stance? Ok ON WHAT? What committment to which side of the argument are they so worthy of being given credit as valid when they can simply switch sides depending on which side happens to be winning the argument. I see most agnostics "chime in" as supporting commentary but they never get their hands dirty, they invariably have an "out" if they need it because they can't be held accountable to any side of an argument so why acknowledge the courage it takes to stand for nothing over the risk and ridicule one has when taking a stand for one side or the other. VALID STANCE? yeah as long as it comes with a holds harmless clause as an option. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a thing against people just because they haven't got enough to make a choice and stand up for the choices they make but on the issue of being a valid stance taking any courage is not something you can attribute to someone who hasn't been able to pick what team they are on to even get in the game unless they are a free agent with a by the minute updatable contract but who wants a team mate with that kind of loyalty.

It might be logical to be agnostic, it might even be the best position to take is no position at all but I have to say I respect the atheist for their passion and sheer guts to stand up to an institution like religion whether they are right or wrong, I got to say, it takes a lot more guts to do that then "sit on the fence" .



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I may not be able to read badmedia's posts at this point (the awesome power of the "ignore" button)
but I can sort of guess what he is blabbering about.
That being completely "agnostic" is somehow more honorable and respectful than being able to say with confidence Jesus didn't rise to heaven and cure the blind and so forth.

But really, it is a poor argument.
As with my prior spaghetti monster example, then saying such a creature doesn't exist is somehow dishonest and shows lack of character?

That is why we have guidelines and criteria to which we measure things against, in order to test, observe, and make predictions which can be demonstrated on more than a simple personal level.


Simply because it shows religious belief to be a complete charade, he deems it dishonest of us to put labels upon it, even when they are obviously quite warranted.

I would encourage anyone reading this thread to ignore media, and save themselves the unnecessary frustration of dealing with such a close-minded arrogant turnip.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


well, let's face it

you can only get so much respect for "duh...I dunno"

:-)

thank you for that though - it goes a long way



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 





That being completely "agnostic" is somehow more honorable and respectful than being able to say with confidence Jesus didn't rise to heaven and cure the blind and so forth.

But really, it is a poor argument.


I suppose you're right makinho21 -

but I was just starting to feel pretty good about myself

:-)


[edit on 8/30/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 





It might be logical to be agnostic, it might even be the best position to take is no position at all but I have to say I respect the atheist for their passion and sheer guts to stand up to an institution like religion whether they are right or wrong, I got to say, it takes a lot more guts to do that then "sit on the fence" .


oh crap - I thought I was going to get out of here

are you kidding me with this?

your view on all this is no different from badmedias

do you understand why?

and, on the subject of cowardice...say what's you got to say to the person you mean to say it to

[edit on 8/30/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Stylez
 





It might be logical to be agnostic, it might even be the best position to take is no position at all but I have to say I respect the atheist for their passion and sheer guts to stand up to an institution like religion whether they are right or wrong, I got to say, it takes a lot more guts to do that then "sit on the fence" .


oh crap - I thought I was going to get out of here

are you kidding me with this?

your view on all this is no different from badmedias

do you understand why?

and, on the subject of cowardice...say what's you got to say to the person you mean to say it to

[edit on 8/30/2009 by Spiramirabilis]


Really? what part of my view doesn't make any sense? The part about them not having it as tough? Or all the threads ? My view happens to be the same one Richard Dawkins has regarding agnostics.

Since my post was responding to a comment warfe had made about agnostics, I most certainly did say what I wanted to the person I wanted to say it to. In case you're wondering, I'd have said it to you also without skipping a beat.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


somehow I knew that would be easy

:-)



You suggest it's a valid stance? Ok ON WHAT? What committment to which side of the argument are they so worthy of being given credit as valid when they can simply switch sides depending on which side happens to be winning the argument.

I see most agnostics "chime in" as supporting commentary but they never get their hands dirty, they invariably have an "out" if they need it because they can't be held accountable to any side of an argument so why acknowledge the courage it takes to stand for nothing over the risk and ridicule one has when taking a stand for one side or the other.

VALID STANCE? yeah as long as it comes with a holds harmless clause as an option.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a thing against people just because they haven't got enough to make a choice and stand up for the choices they make...


...but on the issue of being a valid stance taking any courage is not something you can attribute to someone who hasn't been able to pick what team they are on to even get in the game unless they are a free agent with a by the minute updatable contract but who wants a team mate with that kind of loyalty.


had to break it up - was just so beautiful - piece by piece...by piece

:-)

philosophy - really a team sport for you - isn't it?

it's not war - there are no sides

not in the realm of ideas - only out here in the real world where money gets made off them and people get killed for them

you and Badmedia - pretty amusing actually - you both assign value to points of view

there's a right and a wrong - and you're either on the right side - or the wrong side

and you know what - you could have addressed me directly - but you didn't - did you?

responding to Welfhard?

so?

meanwhile - this constant battling between "the sides and the squishy creamy center" is still off topic





[edit on 8/30/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 





My view happens to be the same one Richard Dawkins has regarding agnostics.


quit hiding behind Dawkins skirt - say what you mean to say



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
philosophy - really a team sport for you - isn't it?


Not really but if it were, I'm ok with that too. How bout you



it's not war - there are no sides


Oh you wouldn't think so but have you seen how many posts have blamed religion for most of the wars that have happened? Did you happen to notice the millions spent on Dover VS Kitzmiller?

Have you seen the petty law suits over such things as the "In God We Trust on our coinage and the pledge of allegiance having the words "Under God" is like a big deal to them and it "offends" them to the tune of an entire organization motivated to do one thing and that is remove the word God from our very language, just take a visit to the "freedom FROM religion website".

To Christians, God is what gives us that higher authority above all humans that says no one can take those rights from us.



not in the realm of ideas - only out here in the real world where money gets made off them and people get killed for them


So you DO understand it is war like and why you shy away from it?

The last bit kinda tick you off? Kinda un-necessary to throw that dig in there about you shying away from it wasn't it.

Yeah, I feel much like that about the digs you are making



you and Badmedia - pretty amusing actually


(in my best Pechi impersonation) What amusing? what like I'm funny? Like a clown? I'm funny like a clown, is that what you're saying? what is so amusing?


you both assign value to points of view


That is because we HAVE a point a view, remember.


there's a right and a wrong - and you're either on the right side - or the wrong side


and you're waiting to see which one is right so you can jump to that side when the time is right.


and you know what - you could have addressed me directly - but you didn't - did you?


No I didn't and that's because you didn't say what I responded to,
Welfhard did . I also thought my first answer to that was sufficient or did you forget or are you just trying to start making a mountain out of a mole hill? Here Ill refresh your memory since it seems giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just forgot is preferable to the mountain mole hill

I said and I quote


"Since my post was responding to a comment warfe had made about agnostics, I most certainly did say what I wanted to the person I wanted to say it to. In case you're wondering, I'd have said it to you also without skipping a beat. www.abovetopsecret.com...



so?


Look, dont ask for clarification on something when I give it you are going say "so" as if you don't care. It didn't stop you from making an issue about it is "so"


meanwhile - this constant battling between "the sides and the squishy creamy center" is still off topic


Shall I alert? Or is that something you are waiting for when I respond to your off topic remarks? What is the point of saying its off topic letting us all know you are aware of that, yet rather than change the direction, you post the infractionary post anyway.

I think it is on topic as I believe atheists blur the distinctions between the two atheist and agnostic to add to there numbers.







[edit on 30-8-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Stylez
 





My view happens to be the same one Richard Dawkins has regarding agnostics.


quit hiding behind Dawkins skirt - say what you mean to say


Hey tough guy I think the macho stuff is kinda silly seeing how you are so safe behind the monitor in your internet anonyimity. So can we dispense with the challenges to masculinity? I'm thinking you are not old enough to engage me in civil discussions now.

And by the way, I already said exactly what dawkins said to you, I only added him to let you know that prominent atheists think that too. capeche?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jvm222
i'm not religious at all but atheists are as ignorant and blind as fundamentalists. They are just like religion, never finding a balance to their reasoning and thus chasing their tail into the abyss!


How right you are


Atheists are as close-minded as religious nuts. Both choose to believe they know it all, and are unable to see we know so very little.

The open-minded are entirely undecided. I have personal spiritual beliefs, but choose to accept the possibility that they are all false. I'm agnostic.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 




Hey tough guy I think the macho stuff is kinda silly seeing how you are so safe behind the monitor in your internet anonyimity. So can we dispense with the challenges to masculinity?


:-)

nice try compadre

you challenged your own masculinity earlier on - several times over

it's all for sport now


I'm thinking you are not old enough to engage me in civil discussions now.


is that what you're thinking? funny - because that's the general direction my thinking was heading as well :-)



And by the way, I already said exactly what dawkins said to you, I only added him to let you know that prominent atheists think that too. capeche?


which is how I know you're not quite as brave as you pretend

Dawkins doesn't need the advertising

stand up for yourself - use your own words

still - all of this is off topic

what do you say - should we bring it back around some?

but, how...?

we're in agreement on some things already - but it seems we each have different levels of testosterone fueling our approach

and of course, one of us is a sniveling coward - and who would want to side with that?

:-)


edit to add: we are in agreement on some things - but not the things you might think

I wonder if it's possible for you to see what they are?

[edit on 8/30/2009 by Spiramirabilis]




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join