It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:39 AM
I agree with this. Science cannot prove God does not exist. And Religion cannot prove he/she DOES exist. So my question is: wat da problem is? I agree with Sirnex in his post. People are all children at heart, I know too many people who say this. And how true it is. (This is a generalization, not to be interpreted as a personal attack against ANYONE). Humans are children who squabble over who has the best new toy. Atheists toy is the Almighty Science God. And religious fanatics Toy is the Almighty God/Allah/Jehovah/Elohim/Buddha/Mary/Jesus...whatever.

Point is, earth is a playground of kids that like to boast about whos toy is better. Always has been since science was invented.


Theory means something cannot be proven but is most likely what occurs in all instances.

Faith means to accept something as truth without proof.

Well....neither faith NOR theory offer any proof. So the question still stands: wat da problem is?

edit cause I quoted the wrong post...woopsies

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Mr. Toodles]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by sirnex

The title of this thread: Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers:

Your response to the first non-atheist who shows up on the thread:

"The god path and the naturalistic path are so insanely different that they can not ever be reconciled into one grand unified theory of idiocy."

It seems the question has been answered.

What was it someone was saying earlier about atheists not being the ones to rail on Christians?.......

[edit on 8-10-2009 by whitewave]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:06 AM
reply to post by whitewave

Oh please, atheists aren't railing on the Christians, I'm just letting them no that there God has no place in a naturalistic explanation to the universe. You want to brandish around the word 'militant' in regards to any belief structure, keep it with your own. Christians have caused more deaths and genocides than any one group in history. Talk about militant in your beliefs!

Face it, this is a fact and has always been a fact.

God is an explanation for the universes beginning through an act of supernatural creation, created and designed by God alone.

The naturalistic theories, for which there are many, postulate a universe that was neither created nor design by any supernatural entities but arose through a natural process that is of yet still unexplained and unknown.

The glaring issue facing reconciliation between God and science is that they both postulate a beginning to the universe, but at opposite ends of the spectrum, there is no middle ground.

When I 'railed' on bluejay, I did so in context of the personal experience argument. People claim personal experience for religious truth in well over one-thousand different deities. Seeing as how most personal experience arguers believe in the monotheistic god, we can validly state that god doesn't exist as a real entity as he is the new team player on the proverbial ball field. To reconcile *that* particular god, science would have to throw out *everything* consider to be archeological fact showing that god as being created by mankind like all the rest.

I had also given other explanations of where we would have to thrown out most if not all of science or naturalistic explanations if we attempt to create a middle ground. That one variable of including God would create a huge mess in physics, chemistry and biology. All of our advances in those fields are due to naturalistic explanations *without god* for how they work. Throwing God into any one specific point in any of those processes would invalidate all those theories and facts and make all of our technological advances made from those sciences an impossibility as they all rely on the sole reasoning that these forces or processes don't require a supernatural entity to work and have been demonstrated as to not require a supernatural entity.

Even if we throw God into morality, we *still* can't reconcile him with atheists. Attempting to show that God is required for a person to be moral is plain dumb. The biblical god tells parents to stone their children, immoral in my book. There are many different cultures and religious doctrines that all dictate different moral codes of conduct and not all of them are in agreement with each other. There is no universal morality and there never will be unless mankind unites as one people living on one planet.

I understand some of you religiously minded folks may find statements such as this as being 'militant', but honestly it's just common sense. Until you prove your god is a real entity, keep him to yourself and stop trying to push back our advancement as you have been doing for two-thousand years. Who care's if we discover thing's that go against the idea of a naked invisible daddy of creation, you want to believe in that, go for it. We don't so stop shoving it upon us. Get it off our money, keep it out of my schools, stop preaching it at abortion clinics and most of all, stop knocking on my damn door! You people are the militant one's, you bother and pester in hopes that you might convert us. If your god is so real, let HIM convert us, let him prove he is real.

No, instead get all up in a bind for telling you a simple common sense truth, but then again, since when have you guys listened to common sense and logical reasoning.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by sirnex]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:46 AM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by whitewave

Christians have caused more deaths and genocides than any one group in history. Talk about militant in your beliefs!

Sirnex: Can you qualify that statement?

Before you point to the crusades, I have already demonstrated the Roman Catholic Church was in control and the protestant reformation did not take place until 1517.......77 years after the invention of the printing press. There were very VERY few true Christian believers back then. In fact, there are very few even today. Back in the 1200 to 1400's the masses were not well educated and they were dumned down as far as spiritual beliefs by the opressive rule of the RCC (people were forbid to read a bible and only a few understood Latin.

Also consider: I have presented the evidence to debunk the belief that Hitler was a Christian. He was raised a Catholic, accepted Darwin's survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc. and he despised Christianity.

In reply to "Lookingup" on another thread, I slaughtered his statements in which he insisted Hitler was a Christian:

So, naturalist/evolutionist teachings led leaders to justify more mass killings in a 100 year period than what had occurred in all previous known history.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:48 AM
I read the title of this thread and took offense to it, but it appears others have as well.

This NYT article and the title of this thread appear to attack atheists by labeling them "militant". The favor is not returned to those who believe in organized religion. As such there is no way to discuss this subject with such a clearly hateful bias showing against one side.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:10 AM
Why is the comparison between militaristic atheist and Christians. Should that not be between militaristic atheist and militaristic Christians? I think most moderates can live with people of other faith. In fact, most simply want to be left alone to worship or not to worship as they please. Without be bothered by those of other beliefs to convert to their views.

It's only the more extreme members of a religion that view any beliefs other than their own as not only wrong, but threatening their own beliefs. As an example, we often see the extreme Christians attacking other Christian denominations. Like the southern evangelicals who attack Mormons and Catholics as not being real Christians.

Likewise, the militaristic Atheist will never be satisfied until all symbols and religious messages are removed from society. A cross on public property is forcing religion on them in their views.

So, asking whether the extreme members of a belief will ever get along is like asking will cats and dogs ever get along. The answer is unlikely.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Kaploink]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:32 AM
I person"s religious beliefs are personal and should stay that way. Both Atheists and Those who believe in various gods have a common enemy - the banksters/PTB or what ever you call them.

The infighting between Atheists and Those who believe in various gods is just another "lets you and he fight" promoted by TPTB. Both my hubby and I are atheists and had no problem with the school starting the day with a prayer or "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. The fuss and bother is about causing a fight period.

As far as evolution is concerned, the ability to insert different genes and alter food to cause GMO crops, not to mention documented mutations sort of confirms the THEORY at least in my eyes. I got drug into helping with blind crayfish studies.

Again as Atheists both my husband and I took courses in Religion AND went to church because our parents wanted us to be knowledgeable about religion. The choice of what to believe should be based on knowledge and be left to the individual. If that is done there should be no infighting. It is only when one side or the other of a debate insists on censorship that I and others should have a problem.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:09 AM
Wait. Why do we need to compromise?

I'll believe what I want to believe, and you believe what you want to believe.

That's the only compromise that needs to be made.

The guy who wrote the article (the article, not the op) sounds rather short sighted to me.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

Assuming things again about people you don't know?

Please walk up to the dvd player take out "Expelled" and burn the disinfo and lies and manipulation of an ignorant fool, named Ben Stein.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:15 AM
I don't see why you atheists complain about the title.

It's no over statement to say that atheists are militant in their attacks on believers.

I didn't think an atheists would be offended by that title....I expected them to wear it like a badge of honor!!

The ATS archives is littered with negative epitaphs, euphemisms, false statements, and insults aimed at Christians.

I'm not saying that people calling themselves Christians haven't engaged in the same activity against atheists.....but....atheists attack far more often, and for no good reason. So the word militant is well deserved.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Republican08
reply to post by John Matrix

Assuming things again about people you don't know?

Please walk up to the dvd player take out "Expelled" and burn the disinfo and lies and manipulation of an ignorant fool, named Ben Stein.

First, your post is off topic.
Second you are attacking people and their views without knowing them or what you are talking about.

What are the "assuming things" are you referring to? You did not quote anything specific to qualify your criticism.

I enjoyed Ben Stein and the others featured in the video....including Dawkins. I thought the video was well done....unlike some of the more militant style videos that the atheist evolutionists put out about creationsists.

I saw no disinfo, lies and manipulation. If you want fraud and lies look up recapitualation and pitdown man.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

I saw disinfo...

It was a dirty thing for Stein to do... very dirty.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by John Matrix
One's God is that which one obeys,

The atheist obeys himself.

The atheist is his own God.

This is not true.
The atheist only obeys himself as much as the believer obeys himself. The believer obeys his own choices to do as his God instructs. So he is obeying himself - to follow the teachings of his chosen religion, his chosen God. He still has free will, just as the atheist does and follows that will, just as any atheist does.

Atheists believe many things. But the only belief they have in common is that there is no God. That's IT. Many like to say that atheists worship science or only believe in what they can prove or don't believe in spirituality, but the fact is, atheists cannot be grouped as to their beliefs, because there is only ONE belief they share. And that is that there is no God. After that, their beliefs splinter and run far and wide.

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's no over statement to say that atheists are militant in their attacks on believers.

Once again, you generalize. While some atheists are militant, the majority are not. Them, you never hear from.
I, an atheist, strongly support freedom of religion and support people having and practicing their religion. Does that sound "militant" to you?

I am not offended by the title because it reflects the opinions of silent thunder and has nothing whatsoever to do with me. His or her opinion is incorrect and a generalization of atheists. It's like saying that Christians are fanatical. Some are, some aren't. It's a stereotype. But it doesn't apply to me, so I don't choose offense.
I deny ignorance.

The ATS archives is littered with negative epitaphs, euphemisms, false statements, and insults aimed at Christians.

Yes, and also epitaphs, euphemisms, false statements, and insults aimed at atheists. Some are right here in this thread. Made by you.

I'm not saying that people calling themselves Christians haven't engaged in the same activity against atheists.....but....atheists attack far more often, and for no good reason.

Oh, really? Interesting, if skewed and biased, perspective.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by Republican08

I will review the video and get back to you on it.

Since it involves Dawkins and Stein who are at the forefront in the heated debate on evolution vs. creation, I expect some embarrassing moments from both sides. But I have not been able to view the video hang in there.

Do you think evolutionists/atheists haven't engaged in disinfo, out right lies, and fraud?

BTW, thank you for responding to my post....i'm trying to increase my response to posts ratio.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

Posts to reply ratio... hmm

Is that effective, like if I hit post reply, does it go up, I thought it was just for responses to your threads...hmm

There is lies and fraud in everything, admittingly.

As long as atheists can teach there religion to our kids and receive government funding, there will be no compromise, and Creation science will continue to expose the lies and fraud inherent in the atheists religion.

We still get taxed like the .... oh no.. that's just us isn't it...

Free pass for churches...

A youtuber, I think, made the example that atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair color.

I believe it's also the creationist that use the human footprint in the dinosaur foot print, and quickly made tons of textbooks and sold them for a pretty penny.

No research was actually done...... oh and when there was research done.... yeah, it was all a hoax, but part of the youth, now believed in people walking with dinosaurs...

The atheist believes he is right.

... Who believes that they are wrong... no one really walks around being like, well i'm a muslim, but its okay because I know it's not right. lol

And to make feminist happy, it should be he/she.

The atheist obeys himself.

And the laws of physics... the basic principles, I don't rape, I don't steal, I don't kill, I obey the gov't when seen fit.

The atheist is his own God.

I'm not god... aw shucks, my ego is pretty big, but not infinite.

The atheist is a religious believer.

... bald... hair color.

The Gospel message will be preached throughout all corners of the earth.

Most likely the muslims got this one in the bag

The Gospel will most likely be preached on all corners, and science won't.

Still tribes in africa who think getting rid of aids is done only by having sex with a virgin.

Yet we send bibles, and the pope condemns condoms....

their scientists are government funded.

I think they should be funded.

I mean, what's so wrong with that...?

Even though, funding isn't enough, NASA can't even fund it's neccesary and mandatory objectives.

But a pastor can say he needs some millions of dollars immediately or god is going to kill him.... and he receives it. Sigh.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:44 AM
Hi, this is my first post on ATS, but iv been viewing the forums for a while. I always enjoy the religious debates in particular.

I personally am an atheist. For whilst i like to think im wise enough to understand that creation through the power of a devine being IS possible, i am also intelligent enough to realise that of all possibilities it is the least likely. The least likely by a massive margin. And that is before you even break it down into different brands of faith (christianity, etc.) where the stories you are supposed to believe (with no backing what so ever) just become more ridiculous.

Which comes to the point of compromise... I dont think there will ever be compromise purely because religious people are the way they are due to either complete and unshakeable indoctrination, a fudamental lack of intelligence, or just simply they are desperate people who want to believe a fairy tale no matter what, because they are afraid and need something to believe. Most often it is a combination of all three. And these people will generally try and push their faith onto others because the more people in your cult, the more powerful your cult is and the more secure you feel with your beliefs... You may have noticed that christianity happens to be a particularly powerful one.

So you will never be able to comprise with a religious zealot. They just do not want to even listen to any possible alternatives. Whereas an atheist is always open to new evidence to help explain the ways of the universe. It will never be a religious explanation though. For they only ever use the same tired old arguments and quotes from man made books they believe (with no reason behind it) to be devinely inspired. Its pointless even talking to these people. Just leave them to their ignorance to avoid argument. Thats the only compromise youre going to find.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by John Matrix

You can't disprove Hitler's faith in God by ignoring Hitler's faith in God.

You can't disprove the horrific acts committed by the follower's of God by ignoring the history of those followers.

You haven't disproved a thing, you've ignored it.

Hitler did not kill the Jews because of atheism or evolutionary theory, that is a total bogus flat out lie. He had faith in God and that what he was doing was God's work. That is history and just because it doesn't sit well with your own moralistic beliefs doesn't grant you the right to attempt and rewrite or ignore that history to make it sit well with yourself.

Belief in the monotheistic deity has led to countless unnecessary deaths and genocides of those who don't practice or uphold those same beliefs. No one who follows evolutionary theory has killed another human nor committed an act of genocide because of the theory or in the theories name. That domain is left entirely to your God and his followers, we want nothing to do with that garbage. So please, *please* stop trying to rewrite your own history and attempting to place it on our shoulders.

This is why we attack and belittle you folks. Constantly forcing your own actions upon non-believers. Constantly trying to dismantle any progress in knowledge out of fear of it disproving your irrational belief structure. Constantly banging on my door once a week in order to convert me. Evolutionary theory was not the cause of monotheistic violence among your population. Evolutionary theory was not the cause of Hitler killing millions of Jews. Keep your history where it belongs and learn it well as it shows the true color of the majority of God's followers. Convicts, murders and haters of everything opposing an irrational belief.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for your response.

A true believer does not follow himself. A true believer follows Christ the Son of God. "What does than mean?", one might ask. To follow Christ and show faith in him requires one to imitate His Divine nature, which is contrary to our human nature.

What is human nature and Divine nature?

Human nature: consists of covetousness, envy, and pride....and when any one or more of those elements are contradicted, a fourth element of wrath is born. All that one does while living under the power of human nature, from birth to death, is for want of something. Human nature left to itself is a never ending feedback loop of desire continually wanting and wanting continually desiring.

God's Divine nature, as manifested in the flesh through the life, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God, consists of humility, patience, love, compassion, kindness, justice, mercy, truth, and all righteousness. etc.

Sure there are self seeking counterfeits to all of those elements of the Divine nature of God, but they are easy to spot because they are put on to glorify "self" and not to glorify God.

So you see....the two natures are contrary to each other. When one lives for the one nature, they deny the other.

So I see no possible compromise, and if the Bible be true, neither does God.

One can only choose to live according to the Divine nature of God by receiving a birth of It in one's soul. This is the gift of God which brings a new Love and new Life into one's soul. When God's nature becomes part of one's soul, only then is one's nature and course in life set right.

A Christian is one that lives by the Spirit and according to the Divine nature of God.

An atheist cannot live by the Spirit of God, nor can he live according to the Divine nature of God until a Supernatural birth takes place in him.

This is foolishness to the atheists.
The atheists do not accept God.
The atheist is a God unto himself.

Everyone resembles (in character and deeds) the God they understand.


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:40 AM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix

Hitler did not kill the Jews because of atheism or evolutionary theory, that is a total bogus flat out lie.

Sigh!! Sirnex....please fix the audio on you computer and view all the videos I posted and linked to before you make comment like this...It's becoming a burden to have to keep correcting you flawed view of history and reality.

Please allow the readers to decide for themselves, rather than you deciding for them regarding what the truth is.

Pay special attantion to 4:14 into the video....and don't forget to view all 7 videos in the series.

Quoting Adolf Hitler

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

A reader asks,"Where did the quotes from Hitler's Secret Conversations come from? How do we know that they are accurate?"

Hitler's Secret Conversations is a translation of a document called the "Bormann-Vermerke" or Borrman endorsements. They are a collection of hand written notes made by Martin Bormann who was Hitler's personal secretary during the war.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by John Matrix
A true believer does not follow himself. A true believer follows Christ the Son of God. "What does than mean?", one might ask.

Thanks for the sermon, but I'm not really interested.

So I see no possible compromise

I don't suggest a compromise. And now that I read the OP again, I see I was answering a question he wasn't asking. Sorry about that. I thought the question was more along the lines of "Can atheists and believers get along?". And my answer to that is "absolutely"!

Atheists and the religious cannot compromise, however. A compromise is to take two ideas and require that each "give up" some of theirs and accept some of the other to come together to form a single belief. I don't believe that is possible nor desirable. Their beliefs are diametrically opposed to one another. And both beliefs are fine as they are.

But they can get along WITHOUT compromise, stop expecting the other to change their beliefs. Stop expecting a compromise.

The atheist is a God unto himself.

Are you an atheist? If not, how can you speak for them? What you say is not true. Whether or not you claim it as opinion, you are wrong.
To an atheist, there is no God. Not even himself. That is what the term means. The fact that you desire an atheist to think of himself as "god" is irrelevant. You cannot and do not speak for us, no matter how much you want to.

In fact, what you say is as much an "attack" as it would be for me to say "Believers are gullible and need to believe in a fantasy outside themselves because they don't trust themselves."

Do you want atheists speaking for you? No? Then why the hypocrisy of speaking for them?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in