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.

 

Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers?

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by silent thunder
 




Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers?


Between no evidence and no evidence?


Sweet!
What do you teach your children?




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


So do you think God wasn't righteous in sending the flood to destroy the world.When it had become corrupt and full of violence.He only spared Noah because he was still righteous amoung men.His blood was uncorrupted.
See you so quickly dare to judge God and you know nothing
of his righteousness.Think of a world filled by this horror.

It was The fallan ones attempt to defile the blood of all mankind so Christ could not be born. Gods judgements are righteous and true because that's what he is. Seriously how could he be subject to the judgement of anyone
with such a puny existence as you or I.
Hypotheticzlly speaking for your sake, say you find out one day, the God of the bible does exist. Do you honestly think you wil be able to
stand there before him, and question him, with your supreme knowledge that you have accuired over the vast sixty years you have been in
existence. No my friend, all that will fill your mind in the presence of God is that you are nothing.



[edit on 13-10-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 13-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by sirnex
 


You are right about God creating evil. Now mankind has a choice. Good or Evil. It is everyone's choice. By man's decisions are we all judged.


If you do not mind . Let me take this opportunity to explain Jesus. Of course IMO.
Let's say God ---the owner of planet earth---needs a supervisor. He keeps it in the family and sends his kid in to handle the flock of free willed humans. That would be the way to explain it Biblically.
Darwin could have said it this way. The very first life form here on planet earth gave birth to it first offspring and told it to pass this message down the evolutionary line.
So like a thief in the night, LIFE itself is responsible for keeping itself on the path and out of the mouths of wolves.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by reticledc
 


They Live (Movie)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


as a religious person, i agree that i don't want my children's science teachers going any where near any kind of religious doctrine. who in their right mind would want a small minded, athiest government employee teaching their kids their interpretation of the bible or koran? its insanity.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Hey there I'm back - hehehe - just needed to catch my breath - okies I've kinda of put various thoughts together in no particular order - I wrote them down and then pasted them in here - after this I will dig into the other things we were discussing as well - the prophecies you mentioned and so forth however that is a very deep subject and I'm no scholar so it may take me a while to wrap my brain around



If theism is the belief in the existence of God, then a-theism ought to mean "not theism" or "without theism." Actually, there is no notion of "denial" in the origin of the word, and the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist — if he exists at all. Rather, the word atheism means to an atheist "lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods." An atheist is one who does not have a belief in God, or who is without a belief in God. The importance of these distinctions is that one cannot understand what one cannot define accurately. An atheist cannot deny the existence of that which he finds to be without meaning, namely the term God. In order to deny the existence of something, one must know what the term one is denying means.


Thought you might find that interesting since it breaks down, using logic, the etymology of the word atheism.

I will give you a point taken on my calling atheism a “social philosophy” – it is a philosophy by some definitions but not a ‘social’ philosophy – calling it a social philosophy puts in a category with such writers as Locke [author of the social contract]– however it most definitely plays a crucial role in certain social philosophies like Marxism, which we’ve already established.

However to say its simply the belief in no gods is misleading in my opinion - especially when advocates of this philosophy go on social crusades to change laws, ban certain types of speech and so on. When that happens its now very much in the social and cultural realm and becomes more involved and complex than “just a belief in no deity’…. So when you say its just a simple belief in no god – I take exception because I see the evidence of atheists imposing their philosophy by attempting to eliminate mine from the cultural arena exactly the same way some believers campaign to have their beliefs represented . That’s my observation –

Then there is the question of Dawkins accusing a person of child abuse who is supposedly told to stone their child by God – and then extrapolating that to an entire group of people – that’s called bigotry – Dawkins is a bigot in my opinion – since I would never stone a child nor give credence to someone who claims that God told them to stone their child I can only conclude that Dawkin’s motivation in using this example is to paint all Christians or believers with the same brush – again that is called bigotry. It’s also why I am not a Calvinist…LOL!! For all his talk of Christ, Calvin was a brutal man and not my cup of tea.

To say that I cannot mix politics with communist atheist’s motivation to murder entire groups of people[even though atheism is used philosophically to justify said crime ie. the gulags of Russia and china] then by the same token and use of your own logic, please do not mix God with politically motivated crimes in which God is invoked to legitimize said crimes – for example – Islam is bad because some Muslims are political extremists who invoke Allah to legitimize their crimes – or Christianity is bad because hundreds of years ago Spain invoked God in their political campaign to unite their country and drive out an infuential class of people ie the Jews of Spain…

Now I’m going to reintroduce the question of DNA – DNA is a code – that is the dictionary definition – a code is different from a naturally occurring patterns like the formation of snowflakes or other non sentient energy combinations-naturally occuring patterns in nature do not require conscious design – However as a code DNA is in fact very much like human language- with syntax – like a computer code instead of binary it has four letters – those letters combine to make words, sentences and then chapters – for example the chromosome could be said to be a chapter…no code has been discovered that does not have a mental process as it origin – a code is a message – in the case of DNA it is a set of instructions to the cells of our bodies – a message – so please – show me a code that has no designer…?I know we wrestled with this before but your rebuttal wasn't much better than my initial argument


Ok these are just food for thought – This is such a great opportunity to converse about things that are seriously interesting to me - more fun than a barrel of designer monkeys
Be back later

[edit on 14-10-2009 by realshanti]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 



An atheist is one who does not have a belief in God, or who is without a belief in God. The importance of these distinctions is that one cannot understand what one cannot define accurately.


Sounds more like a purposeful play of words based upon the acceptance of an assumption as absolute truth incapable of being denied. Not even the whole of monotheists can even agree on their definition of God, so what exactly does that say for them in retrospect?


Thought you might find that interesting since it breaks down, using logic, the etymology of the word atheism.


Come on... Your smarter than that! You know damn well that wasn't etymology of the word atheism. That was a philosophical musing of the word without any basis in logic at best.


however it most definitely plays a crucial role in certain social philosophies like Marxism, which we’ve already established.


As well as politics, economics, socialism and some form of anarchism. Yet I don't see any of those being bashed in the same mannerism of a lack of belief in God. The political agenda your trying to shove off on atheism could not equally happen if the church was in power for any of those other aspects of it. This is more like cherry picking one aspect because it just doesn't have a belief in the bogeyman whereas the rest don't explicitly say anything about it so their OK for that political agenda.


especially when advocates of this philosophy go on social crusades to change laws, ban certain types of speech and so on.


Atheists are not doing that at all. At least not here in America, where are country was founded on acceptance of all religious practices and the fact that the government can make no establishment towards one particular religious institution. If anything, our constitution has failed miserably as has our country simply because Christians make up the majority and have lobbied for their beliefs to be branded about on our money, in our courts and in public places.


When that happens its now very much in the social and cultural realm and becomes more involved and complex than “just a belief in no deity’…. So when you say its just a simple belief in no god


That's funny, really it is. It's funny because the founding fathers of America used politics to allow you as a Christian and a Buddhist monk to co-exist peacefully in the same nation without fear of prosecution from the church. Even more equally funny is how our founding fathers did believe in a higher power of some form.


I take exception because I see the evidence of atheists imposing their philosophy by attempting to eliminate mine from the cultural arena exactly the same way some believers campaign to have their beliefs represented . That’s my observation –


Is it your actual observation or are you reading Christian-ized news? I look at our country and I don't see your religion being infringed upon at all. Hang on, let me pull out a dollar bill... *In God we Trust* Ah, nope. You guys are good, it's still there!


Then there is the question of Dawkins accusing a person of child abuse who is supposedly told to stone their child by God – and then extrapolating that to an entire group of people – that’s called bigotry


Well, Dawkins isn't my God and I don't really know much of anything about him, but if one does read the bible God does allow what we would consider child abuse today. *IF* religious people did actually listen to their God, then yes they would be guilty of child abuse. I don't know how he argues it, but from my point of view, it's solely based on if you guys actually did listen to him like your supposed to.


To say that I cannot mix politics with communist atheist’s motivation to murder entire groups of people[even though atheism is used philosophically to justify said crime ie. the gulags of Russia and china] then by the same token and use of your own logic, please do not mix God with politically motivated crimes in which God is invoked to legitimize said crimes – for example – Islam is bad because some Muslims are political extremists who invoke Allah to legitimize their crimes – or Christianity is bad because hundreds of years ago Spain invoked God in their political campaign to unite their country and drive out an infuential class of people ie the Jews of Spain…


Point taken, but I still disagree and believe that the two are inherently different.


Now I’m going to reintroduce the question of DNA – DNA is a code – that is the dictionary definition – a code is different from a naturally occurring patterns like the formation of snowflakes or other non sentient energy combinations-naturally occuring patterns in nature do not require conscious design – However as a code DNA is in fact very much like human language- with syntax – like a computer code instead of binary it has four letters – those letters combine to make words, sentences and then chapters – for example the chromosome could be said to be a chapter…no code has been discovered that does not have a mental process as it origin – a code is a message – in the case of DNA it is a set of instructions to the cells of our bodies – a message – so please – show me a code that has no designer…?I know we wrestled with this before but your rebuttal wasn't much better than my initial argument


This line of logic demands chemical bonds must be nonexistent and thus requires a creator for them. The attempt to use DNA as proof of is ridiculous and illogical. Using DNA is denying the physics, chemistry and biology involved and purposefully ignoring it's importance and effect.



Ok these are just food for thought – This is such a great opportunity to converse about things that are seriously interesting to me - more fun than a barrel of designer monkeys Be back later


Kudos! I find these discussions important as well. I know a lot of people consider them taboo, just one of those things you don't talk about. Except if we don't then we'll never learn anything about it.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
wow, this is a long thread, anywho where did the term militant anthiest come from? never heard of one, and religious people? what kind? christian? god? jesus?, uneducated assumption of the word religious when attaching it to people.

but if you are pulling off a point of view as athiest backfiring against religious christian activists and crap because they dont want jesus shuved down there throat, then i can see that, perfectly normal in american society.

Compromise? ha! not hardly, science and religion are both fine and interweave but most people do not know where they both meet, nor should we expect anyone to look it up, thats like trying to get people to study history and politics when they hate the subject. At most a Fail at that.

In fact in history science and religion use to be interweaved, science was the method and religious inspiration and enlightenment was the result. but u cannot mix christianity and science together, they defy each other, but take old european ways of thinking along with their spiritual ideas and theory's in asatru, eastern teachings and science, especially egyptian and and hebrew kabala is very modern for its time and without knowing its history or where it came from would look very Universal in the 21st century.
With that said bickering people have to stop bickering, buckle down and know their history, and where their religious beliefs have evolved through time, which i do not see happening in the near future.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Compromise is not possible, nor should it be desired in this situation. You can't ask the head to make a compromise with the heart, without mediation from the hands. What I mean by this is, by nature, they can never make an idealogical compromise, they can only reach a compromise through their actions and dealings with eachother.

The true christians would never force their beliefs on anyone; such goes against what the bible teaches.

The problem is the evangelicals on either side of the river yelling across it. There really isn't even a real problem if everyone would just shut up and keep to themselves...



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
its very possible.
both sides just need to get off their high horses and
listen to the other for just a moment. Be open for just a moment
to consider the many possibilities.




top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join