10 Signs You Are an Unquestioning Atheist

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Not even one of these made sense.

Religious people will group together and flag anything... Oh what is the use? You've got to cling, what could be worse than accepting that your whole life has been based upon false ideals from the first century?

And that my friend is as simple as that. Well stated. It is from my own human compassion that keeps me from becoming some militant atheist and walking around trying to bust every believers bubble. I would rather try to breed them out.


But sometimes....when I'm all alone...I think about what i would like to say to my wifes step brothers and sisters next time we are sitting together at dinner on thanksgiving. They are all holy rollers who devout all there time to going to seminary school and delving deeper and deeper into scripture. And it makes me incredibly weak at heart to listen to their youngest sons and daughters recant garbage they learn in sunday school about how the world works according to this 2000yr old book of anthologies written by people who wandered the desert aimlessly.

Maybe thats why history repeats itself. The majority of the planet live there lives by moral codes that were created in the rudiments of the 1st century.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Not even one of these made sense.

Religious people will group together and flag anything... Oh what is the use? You've got to cling, what could be worse than accepting that your whole life has been based upon false ideals from the first century?

Easy, cling to false premises to cling to 21'st century pseudo science calling it science when it's an awful lot closer to philosophy

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


And "lower" mammals came from the same protolizards lizards came from.

The first fully terrestrial vertebrates were amniotes. Like amphibians, they have lungs and limbs. Amniotes' eggs, however, have internal membranes which allow the developing embryo to breathe but keep water in. Hence amniotes can lay eggs on dry land, while amphibians generally need to lay their eggs in water.

The first amniotes apparently arose in the late Carboniferous. They descended from earlier tetrapods, which lived on land already inhabited by insects, and other invertebrates, and by ferns, mosses, and other plants. Within a few million years two important amniote lineages became distinct: the synapsids, which include mammals; and the sauropsids, which include lizards, snakes, crocodilians, dinosaurs and birds. Synapsids have a single hole (temporal fenestra) low on each side of the skull.

SOURCE

NO! BAD DOG! The very article you copied says that mammals didn't come from lizards. Its like you said that since your second cousin and yourself have the same great-great grandfather then you must have the same father as well.

I like your use of the term "protolizard" though. It's liek you thought that if you used "lizard" in the word that must mean it's a lizard, very sneaky. However, the term "protolizard" means pre-lizard, so by your own definition it is not a lizard. If it was, it would be called one.

As for the rest.... Meh..... Just because there are people who as you claim does not negate the fact there are those that act as he was talking about.

Typical, just ignore and dismiss what you can't argue with.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by Tiloke]

reply to post by rationaluser

Yes that is a pickle we have gotten ourselves into after all it's not as if science has advanced over 2000 years.....OH WAIT. Also we have a little system called peer review wich i thin you'll find is VERY effective

okay, every institution on the face of the earth grows corrupt after a few centuries, this includes the peer reviewers. the folks at the tippety top of the science pyramid, have to tow the line to get on top, already established by the big wigs who came before them. there are a handful who make the decisions for the rest of the scientific world, just like in any other man made institution, and it is an institution. try a little empirical experiment:

take a pet theory of yours, that is outside the confines of established science and try to get it peer reviewed and accepted. before you begin, be sure to have an appointment set with a psychologist, so when the dust clears, you'll be able to resurrect the pieces of your ego that have been torn asunder and tossed to the wind, right along with your pet theory.

Wow, so basically what we have here is some snarky Christian who decided to start a thread with no point at all except to make fun of atheists...

...aaaand the mods let it run 7 pages. Three cheers for ATS!

I can't speak for other Atheists, only myself. So here goes...

Originally posted by trueperspective
1 You think the statement “My linage derives from evolved lizards” is more logical then “A higher intelligence created intelligent life on earth, according to their kind.”

I don't think either statement sounds logical to be honest. I simply "don't know". But buying in to either theory without proof is equally illogical.

2 You don’t accept the idea of God, but you talk about him more then most religious zealots.

No, I only talk about him when religious zealots bring the subject up first. Then I am more than happy to explain to them the errors of their reasoning.

3 You despise the idea of faith, but you have a hyper-abundant amount of trust in “time and chance”

I don't "despise" the idea of faith, I just think it is illogical. A bunch of guys got together 1600-1800 years ago and compiled a collection of short stories into a larger book, and now you base your whole life/beliefs on what those men decided to put in that book, without one shred of evidence for anything they said, even though it has now been proven that a large number of stories they chose existed in other religious texts from thousands of years passed, they just adopted and changed them to their liking.

4 You despise organized religion by being a part of an organized religion against organized religion.

I am not a part of any organized religion. I have only met less than a half dozen other Atheists in my life, and I do not meet with any of them to discuss religion. The very idea of religion is so insignificant to me that I don't even give it a place in my day to day thoughts.

5 You claim that religious people are brainwashed, but you spout off quotes from renowned atheists to defend your beliefs.

Religious people are brainwashed, by definition.
Brainwash: To persuade through coercion.
Pursuade: To convince.
Coercion: To compell by force of authority.
Sounds to me like exactly what the churches of the world do to people. They use their "authority" to "convince" you that if you do not live your life a certain way, you will suffer eternally.

6 Your best defense to the idea that religious people cram their beliefs down people’s throats is to cram your beliefs down people’s throats (Richard Dawkins)

Atheists have never gone door to door to attempt to increase their numbers. They don't have their own TV stations that play 24/7 messages of their beliefs. They do not send fliers to your mailbox trying to convince you to meet with them. Try again.

7 You say the Bible is utterly made up non-sense, then use stories from it to condemn God…who you claim doesn’t exist.

We only use stories from it to show how hypocritical the bible is in different places, not to condemn God. I doubt you will ever find an Athiest who is condemning God. To do that he would first have to be aknowledged.

8 One of your favorite arguments against believing the Bible is that it was written by men, but you unquestioningly believe science text books…written by men

When we point out that it was written by men, it is only to show you that it is not true when it says it is the "word of God". You're the one who believes God is all powerful, yet needed a man to create a book for him. Hundreds, thousands of years after the events supposedly happened. Our argument is simply that it was written by men, therefore don't believe that it is the word of God. The reason we believe in science text books is because science comes up with theories, performs related experiments, proves the theories to be true, then teaches the information to others. Religion has no proof.

9 You get stark raving mad when someone says God (who doesn’t exist) will send you to Hell (a place that doesn’t exist), and use that as “evidence” that God doesn’t exist.

I don't use that as evidence. I use that to show how hypocritical you are being when you believe he is loving, caring, loves us all as his children, etc. but that he will sentence us to eternal damnation if we dont stroke his ego every minute of every day.

10 You deny the testimony of countless millions of believers, but trust the research of a few hundred atheist...and call that being "open-minded"

I am more open minded than most people I know. I have actually read the bible, in its entirety, that is why I feel confident enough to discount it. Just because millions of people believe in religion, and only a few hundred dont, doesn't make religion right. The vast majority believed that hitler was doind Gods work, that didn't make it right.

reply to post by mattifikation


it was a response, apparently, to this

Ten Signs You Are An Unquestioning Christian
www.abovetopsecret.com... thread

which has already run 12 pages and is linked at the top of the site.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by tooo many pills
Not even one of these made sense.

Religious people will group together and flag anything... Oh what is the use? You've got to cling, what could be worse than accepting that your whole life has been based upon false ideals from the first century?

Easy, cling to false premises to cling to 21'st century pseudo science calling it science when it's an awful lot closer to philosophy

What?

Please explain

reply to post by Tiloke

NO! BAD DOG! The very article you copied says that mammals didn't come from lizards. Its like you said that since your second cousin and yourself have the same great-great grandfather then you must have the same father as well.

No. I merely provided information as proof of the divide. I merely commented that both branches share the same source. As is provable with the fossil record. You provided the assumed inference.

Typical, just ignore and dismiss what you can't argue with.

I could've, perhaps, went on a case by case basis, but, what exactly would be the point when the statement I did make covers it all? You're battling a non-generalized statement *he did not after all state all atheists were unquestioning ones* with generalized statements and it is not required for me to waste my time posting and discussing each one.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by mattifikation


And had the shoe been on the other foot and this had been one in support of your "side" and the mods "shut it down". You'd be screaming about how ATS is hostile to atheism.... Funny that.

Little rodents hid in little caves and underground burrows laughing at the dinosaurs cause their little minds brought a huge ass asteroid/comet and gave the dinos a king hit to the face. Came out and had sex in front of them while they starved to death.

reply to post by Moegli


And prior to that proto-mammals battled proto-dinosaurs for dominance and lost.

reply to post by mattifikation

Wow, so basically what we have here is some snarky Christian who decided to start a thread with no point at all except to make fun of atheists... ...aaaand the mods let it run 7 pages. Three cheers for ATS!

Well some snarky atheist started a thread to make fun about Christians...

aaaand the mods have let it run for 12+ pages. That leads me to the conclusion that it is all right to make fun of Christians, but woe on the man who makes fun of atheists.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by jagdflieger]

To start off with... I am a scientist, kind of a nuetral party member who finds atheists especially annoying and hypocritical lately.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
There is evidence to show that it happened that way [reptiles made us].

Yet... you don't believe in intelligent design.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Atheists are often demonized. We have to explain why we don't believe in gods, and well, that takes a lot of talking about gods to do. Furthermore, why do you say "God?" Atheists deny the belief in all deities, not just yours.

Believers are very often demonized by atheists, and, depending on the decade, rounded up into camps and killed.

And, what is a deity but a representation of your belief system's ideal? Does it really bother you that some religions recognize this and others do not?

Originally posted by PieKeeper
I have no idea what you're talking about, but my best guess is evolution and/or abiogenesis. There is evidence to suggest that abiogenesis is very possible, and we know evolution as fact.

Evolution, religion and even aliens are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Atheism is not an organized religion. Atheism does not demand the worship of anything or make any supernatural claims. Atheism is simply the disbelief/lack of belief in a deity.

If you don't believe in God, then what is the difference between a group of atheists with the same beliefs and a group of believers with the same beliefs? Nothing. They are both exactly the same thing, a natural way that humans interact, forming cultural groups with the same values. Values that, I might add, are completely false, even atheist ones. The only thing that matters is that the group of people share the same ones.

The truly dangerous thing about denying this is, atheists, who reject culture, will eventually band together to form a shoddy half-ass culture with the intent wipe out all other cultures, attempting to justify it, thinking that their culture is somehow more enlightened and accepting... yet... it is killing the others... and hasn't been around as long to learn.... Okay...

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Not all of us are word smiths. What's the point in saying something if someone else has said it better?

Then don't get on believer's cases for doing the same thing. There is truth in what they say as well, you just are too closed-minded to see it.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Richard Dawkins works for the public understanding of science and to make atheism an accepted and acknowledged stance. We do not cram our beliefs (Atheism doesn't require any beliefs at all) down anyone's throats, but there are groups that reach out to atheists who may not have "come out of the closet"

I am an agnostic and I read Dawkins. He is an idiot. He spends the whole time assaulting something that he doesn't believe exists, the phenomenon of religion. He never actually realizes that if he truly did not believe in God, then he would be looking at a natural human phenomenon. The only way out of this is to either concede that God does exist (and can therefore be attacked) or that people have free will to do things that are not natural, in which case, he still loses.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
The best way to show you that it's nonsense is to use the stories themselves as examples.

Other people use the stories from the Bible to convey the wisdom of their particular culture, which might be different than yours, but they are both false. The only thing that makes them true is the fact that they are beliefs that have evolved from a particular culture and have followers. So please, respect other people's cultures. Trust me, you are not any closer to the truth than them

Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by mattifikation

 

Wow, so basically what we have here is some snarky Christian who decided to start a thread with no point at all except to make fun of atheists... ...aaaand the mods let it run 7 pages. Three cheers for ATS!

Well some snarky atheist started a thread to make fun about Christians...

aaaand the mods have let it run for 12+ pages. That leads me to the conclusion that it all right to make fun of Christians, be woe on the man who makes fun of atheists.

Exactly why I think atheists are hypocritical idiots.

I tend to believe that even the staunchest atheists manage to eek out at least one prayer while they are on their deathbed.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

Lets play a Game. I will go first so I'll be God do you want to play?

To bad Im God so you have no choice. Lets start, First its a Win or Loose game win live with me forever in heaven loose go to Hell forever.

Ready lets start: There are 10 rules you must follow the first 3 are about me I'll make it easy on you and let those slide a bit so there are only 7 that you really need to be concerned about.

Now were will I put you on this tiny little planet to get the game going.
I know Indonesia (the largest Muslim country by population, home to 15.6% of the world's Muslims)

SORRY YOU LOOSE

OK dudes just to let you know your all imbreds, Adam and Eve made out and ONE of the children decided to screw one of their brothers/sisters. I heard theres a genetic mutation involved when two members of the same family get busy, and leads to certain kinds of abnormalities...

Athiests vs. Christians is like comparing Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Communists vs. Capitalists, or 9/11 Truthers vs. Official Deniers, or James Randi followers vs. any all possible conspiracy theories PERIOD, or insert other binary based head to head phiosophies.

It's funny tho how athiests commit such over arching logical fallacies in their staunch exploits to come off as logical. For instance, the Bible has flaws... therefore there is no 'god'. i.e. 'We've disproven the Bible therefore we've proven that god doesn't exist.'

Anyone see the logical fallacy there? Do I really need to clarify. Hints: Inductive Reasoning & False Dilemma.

It is interesting to note how quick Christians are to disband all agnostic types as heretics and lump them as outcasts along with the athiests, and how quick athiests are to lump them in with themselves to Appeal to Popularity.

Tell the typical Christian zealot that you don't interpret the Bible (or parts of it) the same as they do, and you're disbanded as a heathen.

Once I posted elsewhere in a similar type of thread: my opening sentence here. Wow if I didn't get a scathing PM from one of the athiest debaters telling me how I'm really a athiest (that basically all agnostics are athiests)!

In similar vein, if you're a writer, for instance, and you fail to somehow write everything in the context of religious etc, religious tend to criticize or ignore it. On the flip side, athiests will turn off to any hugeseriously important expose and move on and forget about it if anything religious is mentioned anywhere therein. One might declare I'm commiting Hasty Generalization fallacy, except I know this from experience.

Many years ago I'd often mix biblical concepts in with a lot of my technology works, but eventually I grew logically agnostic seeing the flaws in both sides. When I did do that sort of thing, however, I'd get daily PM's from hardliner athiests trying to debate me on everything under the son, so much that I had to eventually ignore them to be able to get any new research done. I eventually noticed less and less comments and such from people who had always had stuff to say in said regards. Conversely, I no longer get constant comments decrying everything I'm talking about as religious fanatacism.

In short, I've personally experienced equal intolerance and zealotry out of both camps.

Theres a lot of arrogance coming out of each camp. I don't claim to know whats behind it all, or what isn't.

Mark Twain said of the binary political party system we have here in the US:

All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]