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 Atheism a religious/blind faith belief?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I am an Atheist and would like to hear your comments and rebuttals of the following statement.

Atheism is not a non-inferred perceptual / blind faith system of belief like other "supernatural" religions.

That is my belief. And while stating that it is a belief so is everything you can perceive . I am talking about faith with no reference , perceptual coherence , and logically inexplicable concepts.


Is it the same as most religions or not?


I will jump in sometime so I wish to hear your best evidences! And also please keep it civil!




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Imo you can't say there is no god...just like you can't claim to know there is a god. The only people humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers are agnostics. They give the only valid answer to the "is there a god?" question: WE JUST DON'T KNOW, AND THAT'S OK!

The difference between a religion and atheism is that atheism is based on rational conclusions...which manifest themselves in the absence of any evidence for god's existence. So saying "there is no god" isn't that horrible because as it stands, we have NO proof for his existence. It's like saying "there's no flying purple spaghetti monster".

[edit on 23-7-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


THere is a god. THere is no god. Each statement has exactly the same probability if god just "existed". Who would want a god like that? And who could call it a god? yuck!


Agnosticism is a cop-out. They can logically process the self-destructive philosophy of religious entities , but they just cannot let go of the thought that they might be in for trouble if they choose a no god approach.

In order for a god to exist in a thought , a certain description or definition of what a god is must exist also. So an agnostic must think about god conceptually . What does an agnostic believe he/she is achieving with such a trite stance? I have no clue because either god does exist and is gonna be mad at them or he doesn't and they thought about it too long or failed to try and steer others away from the ill-formed logic.

It is like saying "well I don't believe in a blue fairy because it might be blue." Doesn't make sense! If there was a god that created us he would've revealed himself in some way and there are those that claim god has! You either accept it or not and sitting on the fence is only gonna make their butts hurt, kinda like jail.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


So whenever you don't have the answer to a question, you flip a coin and go with either heads or tails because admitting you don't know the answer is bad...and you consider it "sitting on the fence"?

Sorry, but that's a very illogical approach to uncertainty or questions in general.

What about scientists? Should they also flip a coin each time they don't have an answer just because you believe it's better to "pick a side" than to admit you don't know?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Atheism is a controlled mind belief system that nothing exists beyond this life. Hey, its your belief. Who am I or anyone else to intrude on your belief system.

Fortunately, I have had my rare experience that says otherwise. I wish you the best. The cosmos is so very much ahead of us mere humans.

Until one experiences the unusual life after, you will always be a sceptic. I'm sold on the after life. Call me an idiot or call me spiritual. I don't care anymore what others think of me. Life continues on. See ya in the next whatever.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by brilab45]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by brilab45]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
How about this?




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Atheism is not a religion, it is the refusal to join or believe in any religion until facts prove the existance of a god, gods, dieties, the easter bunny, santa clause or any other number of mythical beings.

We are all born atheists, I am an atheist. We are taught to be religious. Our parents teach us there is a god and we trust them becuase they are our keepers, our protectors and our teachers. Our faith develops in religion because of a faith in our parents to teach us right from wrong. However when you base this faith on the unsubstantiated claims of a book that has so many authors and translations that it should look like swiss cheese, then that is where the faith ends.

Atheists are ridiculed because they choose to ask questions about the obvious, and when those in power get questioned, they retaliate. (See christianity for a good example)

Not just one religion falls into this category, all religions have the basis of faith through social order, teachings and acceptance. I however was lucky not to have been taught religion and I made up my own mind when I tried it as a teenager.

It's all about social conditioning, not religion in general, atheists just choose to think for themselves and accept responsibility for their actions.

King



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Both absolute answers *atheism or theism* are logically fallacious as they both run afoul of argumentum ad ignorantiam. So how exactly is that atheism is not a blind faith stance? To look to the borders of human knowledge and to pretend to know what's beyond or not is foolhardy and reliant more on personal opinion than hard fact to say the least.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


Actually, we are all born agnostic. Minus an strong opinion either way.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Atheism has a weird attachment to certain ideas...

At root, it's just someone who says there probably isn't a god.

As much as one would say there isn't a giant fairy in every volcano, now we could be wrong, and some could very much believe so, but that's how it is.

You may also consider yourself a a-astrologer, you don't buy into astrology, but of course there isn't a name for people who don't.

Atheism pretty much means your just a person... doing people things, you haven't subscribed to a religion. It requires no faith, no belief. I don't believe in any deities, that doesn't automatically mean that I must have a belief that they don't exist, it just simply means I am not taking part in others games. I mean if you walk into a room and one person is playing MW2, another Halo, and another.... Forza II, what do you call the person whose not playing any games, you wouldn't call him a gamer, and more definitely you wouldn't call him a Halo player. Moreso you wouldn't expect him to have to pick up a name that says he's not a player, you would just expect him not to be, you would say "that guy is the antihalo player", we could come up with antithesis names for everything then! He just simply is... a guy in a room.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Atheist is a label for the state we are born into.
I was not born with an automatic belief in a Deity, no one is.
I did not make a choice to NOT believe in God, I chose to remain in my natural state. There was little to no convincing empirical evidence to convince me otherwise.
It does not require faith to stay this way. It would require a massive leap of faith (or indoctrination from an early age) to change that.
So in conclusion. No it is everyones original state.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Noncompatible]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Ah but if the guy becomes vocally against halo. What then?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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


Both absolute answers *atheism or theism* are logically fallacious as they both run afoul of argumentum ad ignorantiam. So how exactly is that atheism is not a blind faith stance? To look to the borders of human knowledge and to pretend to know what's beyond or not is foolhardy and reliant more on personal opinion than hard fact to say the least.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Noone is looking at the outside of human comprehension and making bold statements about it other than the religious folk, who have been divinely told exactly what it is, how it is, and that they need to tell everyone else about it.

Noone should be claiming to know things they couldn't possibly know, and moreso to call it the infallible truth!

What atheist are saying here is that we don't know everything about the universe, and how wonderful is that, that we will keep on learning and understanding, but as for there being a god we have found nothing to indicate this to be true, so unless something were to come along and change that we are sticking to what we know. We are not yelling there is no god, we cannot say that, we can only say there probably is no god. Science forbids absolutes in cases like this where things cannot be proved nor disproved, only that they become reasonably and scientifically acceptable with large amounts of evidence (theory) or they become unsubstantiated ideas that are disregarded and not accepted (religion).



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Not even close to my point.... reread my post again and if that doesn't help read it again.


There is a problem with YOUR position.

My post deals with unobservable , illogical , and indeterminate subjects. A scientist just doesn't say "I don't know" about any of the previously mentioned criteria because a scientist doesn't use it!

All basis's for scientific approach are precluded by observable , logical (mostly) , and determinate subjects. THAT is the difference and you should know to differentiate this if you like debating these subjects.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Republican08
 


Ah but if the guy becomes vocally against halo. What then?


The first person to say negative things about halo I would suspect would be either one of the guys playing a different game which they believe is better.


He is just a guy expressing his distaste for halo, his status I would say hasn't changed, the only thing that has happened is halo fell into his dislike category. He has still not fallen into a category of 'gamer'.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Ah, so atheists don't evoke science in an attempt to claim that beyond a shadow of a doubt nothing we ants *in the big scheme of things we are* would call a "god" can exist? That's funny. This board is riddle with just such claims and more.

And BTW. Hiya man. How ya been doing?


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I truly have trouble distinguishing an agnostic from an Atheist these days...I mean, an agnostic person will say the answer is currently unknown or unknowable...and what does an Atheist say..."God doesn't exist"? Do they claim there is no God? How do they know that?

I've heard Atheists claim because there is no valid proof of God(s), then the default position is naturally "God doesn't exist until proven otherwise". The existence of Dark Matter can't be conclusively proven, it's a theory based on unexplained phenomena that potentially indicates its existence.

The tooth fairy doesn't exist until proven otherwise. That I would agree with. But I think there's one case where the default position is not "it doesn't exist until proven otherwise". And that is when you're talking about an infinite omnipotent super consciousness responsible for creating the fabric of existence.

As I've said many times, to claim there is no God is equally as ignorant as claiming there is a God. Neither person can be completely sure of their claims, and when it comes to a topic of this nature, to push those claims onto people like they are fact is seriously dangerous. Whether it's an Atheist trying to claim God is nothing but a human creation, or religious folk trying to claim humans are Gods creation. The only "right" person is the agnostic, who admits "I don't have enough information to make a conclusion, I do not know the answer".

[edit on 23/7/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


It's the difference between No and Maybe if you ask me. :p



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


I agree with some points , however Atheism IS a belief in the minor sense.

Anyways , being an Atheist myself I do not care what book or religion anyone really belongs to . I do like to hear concepts about the god/s they believe in. That is the key.

And religious upbringing is definitely indoctrination , but what of others who convert in later years? Who cares why they convert, what matters is the "God". What is it? What does it do? How does it do it? Does it care about you? etc


These beliefs are the ones that make or break a concept when looked at with exacting logic and CAN be proven false. That is my stance.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Republican08
 


Ah, so atheists don't evoke science in an attempt to claim that beyond a shadow of a doubt nothing we ants *in the big scheme of things we are* would call a "god" can exist? That's funny. This board is riddle with just such claims and more.

And BTW. Hiya man. How ya been doing?


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Don't judge this board by the whole of atheists...
We don't say science can disprove god, it most likely cannot, but it shows no indication that there is, it's on par with trying to prove and disprove the teapot in orbit.

I'm alright dude, hows the Job, PM if you feel it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join