Atheist ads to adorn New York subway stations

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Yes it is quite telling actually. I would call the dogged and vocifierous defense of someone claiming to be simply a individual for a grouping extremely telling. It does not matter what you claim you would or would not do if no such label existed because that does not reflect on the reality of the situation and is also a null argument as you cannot prove that is in fact what you would do. You identify with and defend the label while attempting to put it in a context that so that it sounds *semantically* above and beyond it's percieved opposite. By your actions alone you argue against your stated pretext.

Actually i can easily prove it You see when i was young i did not know the label atheist, i was someone who simply did not believe, i never gave myself a label. I was raised a Christian but i saw that as rubbish when i was 8. I only started using the label atheist when others kept calling me it. I realised that if a label exists to describe my lack of belief then it makes sense to use the label.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I would argue that purging "religious" people simply because they are "religious" very much doing something in the name of atheism. But also, everything done by a so called "religious" person is argued to be because of "religion". Hm. That excessive one-sided qualifier thing I hinted at earlier.

But most likely you think I am just some theist out to denigrate and slight your "non-belief" that you take so much action in defense of.

You can argue all you like but that doesn't make it correct. These people you allude to, are you talking about the communist killing of millions of religious people? If you are then i can simply state that communism is in itself a religion, not just a political system. In communism the people worship the state and so once again it is not done in the name of atheism.

You can try and push it all you like but it won't work

As for me defending my non belief, well what else am i supposed to do? I enjoy debate, a thread was posted and i replied but the fact that you are going once again after me personally and not just my thoughts on the issue says a great deal.

I don't understand the oneupmanship I see in any thread related to religion. People who want to believe can believe... no skin off my nose... as it should be no skin off their nose should someone else chose not to believe.

I think there are far too many bored people on this forum. As far as the atheist adds are concerned. Good for them. They should have every right to express their belief as anyone else. After all, they have to deal with religious dogma being shoved in their faces all the time. Fair is fair!

IRM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Ok, let me rephrase then... Most Atheist don't know the definition of God.

So basically you're going back on what you said because you were wrong? Good to know, i can at least respect that.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

1: The supreme or ultimate reality can be considered "the universe". If the universe contains all power (energy), wisdom, and goodness, and it was responsible for our creation, than it could be considered God.

Hang on, in that definition it says clearly that the being or reality is perfect, that is putting a human value on the universe and so ultimately means that anything we consider perfect is god. It in no way however means that it created us. Further, we came to be, to state that we were created sounds like intent existed, which would require intelligence. Is the universe intelligent?

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
4: The universe IS all power and energy that exists, and it rules.

Well according to modern w=physics we are one of many universes however let us use only one for now. You say the universe rules, what do you mean? Are you talking about the rules that govern physics? If so then these are simply natural laws that exist by chance and therefore the universe is not a god.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
To first prove God exists, you must clarify the definition of God.

Yes and i have a dictionary definition and none of them fit the universe as you have tried to state.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
It seems Atheist like you just don't have a clue about the definition, so you make up your own definition in your mind.

No we have a really good clue we just don't stretch our belief system to fit a definition such as yours. The reason we don't is because we operate on logic when it comes to this particular issue. There are three ways to approach this.

1) Stretch the definition around your belief

2) Stretch your belief around the definition.

3) Accept the definition for what it is and see if your beliefs can fall within that definition. If they can't then you disgard those beliefs and create something new until you settle on something that fits.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Since the definition is different with different religions, there is no way you could EVER prove that God doesn't exist, until you make your own definition of it.

You can't prove a negative, that old saying. You cannot prove a pink faerie is not responsible for the sunrise. Oh you can prove where the sun and earth are in space but hey i say the pink faerie has invisible strings that control the motion of all bodies in the universe.

Prove me wrong

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
So you Atheist are fighting a losing battle.

I'm not even fighting a battle, this is a debate. If you want to bring out the swords, or more correctly pitchforks thats up to you

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

No, I never said that. You just made that up in your own mind, and then thought that is what I meant which seems to be a pattern with Atheists. You also just proved my quote correct. Reread it again...

I read it clearly, i read it again and i'm still interpreting it in the same way, this is a deflection from you because there are seriously limited ways to view that statement.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I said reading, and knowing something, doesn't mean you understand it.

Basically, what you just did was read what I said, you knew I said it, but you didn't understand what I said.

When someone writes something you are supposed to TRY to interpret the writing the way the writer meant you to interpret it. If you just make your own interpretation then that means you don't understand what was written.

I understand perfectly what you meant in that statement, if you explained yourself badly or tried to be cryptic to sound wise than that is the fault of the writer.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I don't understand the oneupmanship I see in any thread related to religion. People who want to believe can believe... no skin off my nose... as it should be no skin off their nose should someone else chose not to believe.

I think there are far too many bored people on this forum. As far as the atheist adds are concerned. Good for them. They should have every right to express their belief as anyone else. After all, they have to deal with religious dogma being shoved in their faces all the time. Fair is fair!

IRM

I agree entirely with this, however if someone is criticising a class of people i fall into, then i'll reply to such a person. That is how all debates and the furthering of human knowledge has happened. However it should also be noted that simply discussing something can be beneficial for the person discussing it as it can help concepts solidify in their mind It can also be fun simply to debate.

reply to post by mattifikation


Not once have I stated that I am Christian or Catholic or any religion. I was raised in a religious atmosphere. To quote old writings and the like regarding marriage is a good point. But for someone to state that a contract was the basis for marriage is hypocritical in the least.

I am a religious person, from what I have seen and learned in my life, their cannot be life without a higher power. After stating, this organized religion made me leave the church, for many of the reasons that both sides are posting on this thread.

Contracts boil my blood, for contracts to stand corporations must be involved. And no human being is a corporation.

And yes, I could care less about someone advertising atheism. But, I am sick and tired of atheists telling any religion that they have no rights. I will fight for the RIGHT of anyone to have their own beliefs.

TPTB want to control everything.
AND THEY CANNOT DO IT WITH RELIGIONS IN THE WAY, I BELIEVE THAT IS WHY THEIR IS WAR ON ISLAM. No, I am not a follower of Islam.

As for a moral code, I hope this link is not true.
China Secular Country "Eating Human Embryos"

edit for total gramma mixup


[edit on 10/22/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Actually i can easily prove it You see when i was young i did not know the label atheist, i was someone who simply did not believe, i never gave myself a label. I was raised a Christian but i saw that as rubbish when i was 8. I only started using the label atheist when others kept calling me it. I realised that if a label exists to describe my lack of belief then it makes sense to use the label.

That proves nothing. A unsubstanciated claim to back another unsubstanciated claim. And your actions speak otherwise, if it was a label that you used simply because it was applied to you and held no meaning to you would not defend it with the abuse of qualifiers you do. Seeking as you do to whitewash it at every turn.

You can argue all you like but that doesn't make it correct. These people you allude to, are you talking about the communist killing of millions of religious people? If you are then i can simply state that communism is in itself a religion, not just a political system. In communism the people worship the state and so once again it is not done in the name of atheism.

Yet they actively did not believe in even the possibility of a "god". Which fits under that nice little label you assumed for yourself.

You can try and push it all you like but it won't work

You honestly think I am have delusions of you agreeing? Given your abuse of qualifier so far that would be a most unrealistic expectation for me to have.

As for me defending my non belief, well what else am i supposed to do? I enjoy debate, a thread was posted and i replied but the fact that you are going once again after me personally and not just my thoughts on the issue says a great deal.

Acting in defense of a nonbelief that has a nonfollowing. Rather like thinking a nonthought. Otherwords, nonsense. And, no, I am talking about your thoughts on the matter. I am pointing out unequal qualifiers amongst other things. Don't know you and neither would I care to.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


All of your responses have been nothing but accusatory about qualifiers and the like. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, i have not abused qualifiers and yes i will protect the label that applies to me.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Acting in defense of a nonbelief that has a nonfollowing. Rather like thinking a nonthought. Otherwords, nonsense. And, no, I am talking about your thoughts on the matter. I am pointing out unequal qualifiers amongst other things. Don't know you and neither would I care to.

Well people call any non believer an atheist, people then insult said atheists so yes defending that position is perfectly logical. I fail to see where you struggle with that.

As for your final sentence there was no reason to post it other than you are trying to illicit an angry response.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Ah, so what do you say when I point out that one of the "Holy Wars" known as the "Crusades" was more about the trade routes through that region at that time than it was about the "Holy Land"? Remember your qualifiers about Communism now.

And no it was a simple statement of fact. I don't know you or care to. Your response to it doesn't matter to me.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Ah, so what do you say when I point out that one of the "Holy Wars" known as the "Crusades" was more about the trade routes through that region at that time than it was about the "Holy Land"? Remember your qualifiers about Communism now.

My response is simple, there are numerous writings from Christians about it being gods will. I am fully happy to believe that trade played a part, but as always religion was the tool by which their goals were achieved and religious followers were all to happy to kill for their god.

And i just realised we're straying well off topic so i'll end that one there and my apologies to the OP for going off track here.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Thank you for proving my point sir. Good day. I also should have mentioned how prevelant looting was in those times. That is where most soldiers found a good chuck of their "profits" so to speak and the middle east was a rich area. Then of course we can get into the psychology of the matter and how no man does things he truly believes is "evil" and will so make excuses for himself. Generally twisting it to the point he sounds "noble" for doing what he was going to do anyway.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
Yes. Atheism itself is really nothing more than a religion for non believers in religion. Stupidity in its purest form.

An ad against something they claim doesnt exist to begin with....to unite, support or encourage the 'secular' community?

There is a reason these idiots always end up drooling and begging whatever creator they didnt believe in (while young and healthy) for forgiveness on death beds...

Religion is religion, not Believing is not religion, it is not believing.

I am constantly amazed at the put-downs used at ATS by so many now. Here's this.... "Stupidity" and "these idiots" as if the person making the claim is superior to all those who do not see as they see.

Why not allow others to have their stuff and you have your's without resorting to name calling and biased judgement?

On your own deathbed you may learn you were wrong, or not.

reply to post by network dude


LOL, I can indeed imagine the dinner table discussions.

I notice in this thread the disdain of Atheists reading the likes of Richard Dawkins which is quite typical of xtians.

Personally I have read quite a bit of Dawkins 1 because I like to read 2 because I have read what "God" has to say ie some bibles. I note with interest that many xtians fear reading Dawkins and skim the bibles.

My daughter who is 13 was recently asked by her teacher what she thought of people of xtian faith, she replied that they appear to be delusional. The teacher was quite taken back and responded that some people could take offense to that remark. Again my daughter responded, well that's up to them you asked my opinion and I gave it to you based on the evidence provided.

What I find quite repugnant about all this is, there seems to be an assumption of reverence toward religion continuously attempted to be instilled instilled inot children.


I cannot speak for the US but in the ads like "God is probably not real" are only saying what many children already know , the ads are just giving the kids (and many adults) support to not fear ridicule for thin king or expressing it.


Is this Atheist campaign a religion in itself ? I would argue that it is mostly christians suffering from "failing faith syndrome" who tout this childish nonsense. Not unlike the last kid in the yard that still believes in Santa touting a nonsense defiantly.




[edit on 22-10-2009 by moocowman]

reply to post by Tayesin

On your own deathbed you may learn you were wrong, or not.

LOL Which immediately made me think of this -

Grow up or die !

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So basically you're going back on what you said because you were wrong? Good to know, i can at least respect that.

No, not because I was wrong, but because you didn't understand the first thing I said, so I rephrased it so you could understand.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Hang on, in that definition it says clearly that the being or reality is perfect, that is putting a human value on the universe and so ultimately means that anything we consider perfect is god.

Uh, what? How the heck did you come to that non-logic? "Anything that we consider perfect is God"? That is ridiculous. I think you need to read slower, or something.

That didn't mean "anything that is perfect is God"... that is YOU making things up, again.

Do you need the definition of perfect?

dictionary.reference.com...

It said "perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness".

The universe is perfect in power, it is all power that exists.

The universe is perfect in wisdom, because in it exists all wisdom.

The universe is perfect in goodness, because all that is goodness is within it.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It in no way however means that it created us.

The universe created us, and all things within it, you can't deny that.

Created does not only mean "with intent", it also means "without intent" as well, but either way the universe created us. To debate if it did it with intent or not doesn't matter, nor does it change the definition of God.

Even if the universe didn't create us with intent, it would still be considered our creator a.k.a. God.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Further, we came to be, to state that we were created sounds like intent existed, which would require intelligence.

You just said "we came to be"... do you know that is the definition of "created"??

dictionary.reference.com...

1: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

1: To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Is the universe intelligent?

YES!

Are you intelligent? Yes.
Are you a part of the universe? Yes
That means the universe is intelligent.

You are a part of the universe, and you are intelligent, so that means parts of the universe are intelligent. Life forms are intelligent, and they are a part of the universe, so that is intelligent to.

So I can confirm that parts of the universe are intelligent.

Can I confirm that other parts are intelligent? Not yet. But, it would be dumb to think that only parts of the universe could be intelligent but not all.

That is like saying only parts of your brain are intelligent, but your brain as a whole isn't intelligent. That is unintelligent.

In MY beliefs, the entire universe is intelligent. Every spec of energy and matter in the universe can act as a giant brain. Just like how our brains work.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well according to modern w=physics we are one of many universes however let us use only one for now.

No, according to physics THEORIES, not proof. Even then, they show a total lack of understanding of the definition of the word "universe".

dictionary.reference.com...

1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

By definition, if there are any other universes, they would all still be considered to be a part of ONE WHOLE TOTALITY OF KNOWN OBJECTS. So no matter what, there is only ONE universe.

By definition, the universe is INFINITE, because anything we discover will be a part of the universe.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You say the universe rules, what do you mean? Are you talking about the rules that govern physics? If so then these are simply natural laws that exist by chance and therefore the universe is not a god.

dictionary.reference.com...

I meant it in every way possible. The universe rules in more way than one.

It rules over our time, night and day. It rules over the heavens above and the movement of the planets and stars, and their positions. It rules over our weather, our plants, our land, us.... everything. Yes, that includes physics. It just rules (slang for being awesome).

The laws of physics do not exist by "chance". A "chance" is an absence of understood cause. Physics exists because humans started to study and measure the actions of the universe WITH a cause, and they named that study physics.

To humans, they call it "natural" laws because it's formed by nature (the universe), and because of their lack of knowledge they think these "natural" actions of the universe are accidental. It seems they don't care to figure out if they are accidental or not. However, that doesn't mean a "cause" doesn't exist.

I can prove that some plants have grown (evolved) thorns to protect themselves from being eaten.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That falls under "the study that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force." A.k.a physics.

I can prove that other things in the universe have changed or acted with a cause in order to survive. Since all things are a part of the universe, that means the universe is trying to survive, and it's actions have a cause, so that is not by "chance", and it is "with intent".

The energy that makes up the universe, and it's design, and it's properties, are what causes the actions of the universe (physics). The design itself is responsible for everything we see. Science has not yet proven or dis-proven how or what made the original design, but they have proven the design exists.

Just because a bunch of unintelligent people think the universe is all by "chance" doesn't prove that God (the universe) didn't create/control the "chance".

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
To first prove God exists, you must clarify the definition of God.

Yes and i have a dictionary definition and none of them fit the universe as you have tried to state.

You are just blind then.

The universe is everything that exists, and if a God exists, the universe is God. This is absolute logic.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
No we have a really good clue we just don't stretch our belief system to fit a definition such as yours. The reason we don't is because we operate on logic when it comes to this particular issue. There are three ways to approach this.

No, you have no clue, nor logic. If you had any type of logic you would understand everything I have said about God and the universe.

The idea of God was not created because someone wanted to create it. It was a name given to the universe. That name was then given a definition, and the definition has evolved over many years. The definitions were molded after all the things the universe has done, like give you life for one. So when you deny it, it's just ignorance.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
You can't prove a negative, that old saying. You cannot prove a pink faerie is not responsible for the sunrise. Oh you can prove where the sun and earth are in space but hey i say the pink faerie has invisible strings that control the motion of all bodies in the universe.

You obviously failed to understand or comprehend what I am saying, so there is no point in even talking to you until you learn to read, or slow down when you read.

It had nothing to do with proving a negative.

I meant that many people have many different beliefs of who or what their God is, so you will never win an argument about God existing or not.

I believe the entire universe is God's body, so to say my God doesn't exist is pretty much pointless, because I have proof and you don't.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I read it clearly, i read it again and i'm still interpreting it in the same way, this is a deflection from you because there are seriously limited ways to view that statement.

If you read the same thing twice and still interpreted it the same way both times even after I told you that you interpreted it wrong, then you have a problem.

Normal people would try figure out another way to interpret it, after the writer told you to interpret it different.

That means you still don't have a clue what I meant.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I understand perfectly what you meant in that statement, if you explained yourself badly or tried to be cryptic to sound wise than that is the fault of the writer.

The only thing you understood was your own interpretation of what I said, and your interpretation was incorrect.

Now that is off subject.

Anyway, you can try all you want, but I am working with absolutes, and the only thing you are working with is doubt. So I will never lose this debate.

The universe created everything you see, with or without intent, it still makes the universe responsible for our existence (God).

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by endisnighe


True to all of that.

In fact, the Wikipedia source also refutes the claim that marriages originated as contracts. Because marriage predates recorded history, there's no clear idea of what it originated in. But we do know that it didn't originate with any religion that exists today, because all of our current religions sprung up within recorded history.

It's more than likely, I think, that humans getting "married" has existed since humans came to be. It's simply part of our reproductive behavior to pair up with a mate, and it's part of our natural group mentality to form a society that attempts to respect those pairings. But that's just my guess.

What a waste of money,instead of putting up silly ads they should be trying to combat the ignorance regarding some aspects of religious believers.Specifically the fact that in the 21st century people still believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is a myth. As for religion being a moral compass,human are primates, we are sociable creature with a complex social structure. We have an innate ability to *put ourself* in someone elses shoes so to speak. That was probably a large driving force in morality and also for the simple fact that a social community wouldn't last long if you everyone was killing each other 24/7. Course we still have a darker side as do other primates, murder being one of them. But to say we would all be killing,raping and looting day in day out as a species is nothing short of nonsense. We wouldn't be sitting here chatting if that was the case. Our species would have died out a long time ago.

Free speech, and they can spend their money on ads if it makes them happy. Who cares? Are those ads any better or worse than the ones for toilet paper? If Theists don't like it, then let them cough up the money to wish everyone a Merry Christmas or push their God. "Jesus loves you", or whatever.

The message is simple - people are basically good, even without a God to frighten them into obedience. It's certainly more pleasant than, "You'll burn in hell forever if you don't believe".

Now, Merry Christmas, everyone...

Originally posted by chiron613
Free speech, and they can spend their money on ads if it makes them happy. Who cares? Are those ads any better or worse than the ones for toilet paper? If Theists don't like it, then let them cough up the money to wish everyone a Merry Christmas or push their God. "Jesus loves you", or whatever.

The message is simple - people are basically good, even without a God to frighten them into obedience. It's certainly more pleasant than, "You'll burn in hell forever if you don't believe".

Now, Merry Christmas, everyone...

Hey tons of atheists celebrate christmas. Not because it's anything to do with religion but because it's a time for family, to relax, to have fun and be friendly

I understand that atheists have more faith in their own intellect and strongly discourage any belief in "mythology".

My question is, why is it okay for atheists to destroy faith while faith can not do the same?

I've noticied a commonality in many of these "higher-power type" arguments, they're using the bible to discount the bible, the constitution to discount the constitution, faith to discount faith...

reply to post by endisnighe


Thanks Endisnighe I'm glad someone appreciated my little observation.