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.

 

Atheism

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Refute that God is Love? Have you read his words? It's easily refuted.




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ac3rr


Refute that God is Love? Have you read his words? It's easily refuted.

Oh? Then please be specific, if it's so easy.
The Bible is full of love, especially the New Testament. Love is what it's all about - and I am not talking about mushy pink hearts and saccharine warm fuzzies - to quote CS Lewis' allegory, 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' "Aslan is not a tame lion"!
Read, if you can, 1 Corinthians chapter 13, for a description of love, and what it is and is not.
Vicky



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Love is... understanding, respect, true, truth, kind, forgiving, indisputable, caring, all things that are good.

I haven't even looked into Corinthians yet myself...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.


I have to admit this comparison is kind of weak, have you seen the dictionaries definition of what you believe ?

yes what you "believe" is actually a word called (belief) look it up in an establish non-third party dictionary, and that does not include user entered Wikipedia.

for in fact one is only a doubter... which acknowledges a deity exist or one would not be on about it.

or one is a resentful and spiteful non-comprehender...


edit on 1/19/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)


I don't need a book to define what I do and don't believe, dictionary or otherwise. Atheism is no more than a label applied to me by others who require everything to be neatly labeled.
I don't collect stamps is that my hobby ?
I don't have a belief in deities is that my belief ?
No, in both cases. It merely signifies no interest in either pursuit.

I do have a hobbies however. One of which is trying to understand how belief orientated people think.
I am most certainly not a doubter. I know there are plenty with belief. I believe in belief and faith, I see them everyday. The conundrum is not that they exist, but why.
As for being spiteful or uncomprehensive. How so ?
I hold no disdain for your beliefs, merely puzzlement as to why any reasonably intelligent person would "buy in".



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
I don't collect stamps is that my hobby ?
no


I don't have a belief in deities is that my belief ?
then why is the question even here ?


It merely signifies no interest in either pursuit.
if not interested why question ?


I do however. One of which is trying to understand how belief orientated
great hobby.


I am most certainly not a doubter.
yes this falls in line with "active denial" yet again see your question number 2 in quote above, a truly open-minded person in this quest or position would be more like an Agnostic. Atheism only exist in the form of the execution of its practice.


As for being spiteful or uncomprehensive. How so ?
for alot it is their methodology and composure in questioning, and search for knowledge.


I hold no disdain for your beliefs, merely puzzlement as to why any reasonably intelligent person would "buy in".
that's cool, I only buy into observable "truth" and no one unjust likes a truth teller.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Re Noncompatible

You wrote:

["I do have a hobbies however. One of which is trying to understand how belief orientated people think."]

Recently and increaingly I have come to a similar interest. My own social and educational background (and my character) has a strong rational approach to existence. (Though this doesn't necessarily imply exclusive linear logic and reductionist science, far from it).

And from this position I have been active on ATS for app. one year with an attitude of 'defend liberal society against elitist claims' (here mainly proposals of christian theocracy or christian privileges), and until a month or two ago, extremist christian attitudes baffled me no end.

Extremist christians would sometimes be up against competent opposition making void of their argumentation (most often on points including scientific or logic perspectives), and then the same extremists would turn up on another thread starting from the same basic as they used before, completely ignoring/'forgetting' the former initial steps of similar debates. They were not continuing a subject/point, it's a question of returning to an already demonstrated invalid square one. How many times have the present semantic ideocy of 'atheism as religion' been refuted already? And how many times has it popped up again as if nothing has happened? (One example amongst many).

I am now forced to realise, that such individuals totally disregard any information, knowledge, communication or system outside their pre-arranged 'answers', but only regard such as inconvenient disturbances for their rigid mindsets and mindset-fanatisms. Consequently they react as if debates are wars to win, and not as a medium for extended understanding or learning. Communication in dialogue-form is impossible; clichées, deflectionary methods, fabulation in a tight corner and even outright machiavellian role-playing is acceptable. And a forum is a message-board or a pulpit.

I've also come to the introspective conclusion, that I until now have been INCREDIBLY naive concerning the existence of people functioning this way. I've read about them, but living in a sheltered corner of Europe, I've sofar only met this fringe of mankind in contexts of mental illness etc.; but being face-to-face with the phenomenon has been an eye opener for me. Hope I can adapt too this for me new extended reality soon.

edit on 21-1-2011 by bogomil because: words feel out in first posting



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Re Cosmic.Artifact

In a former post on this thread you wrote:

["I have clearly defined the largest part of my deity, and I consider this deity to be the Christian's God, my definition is God is "Love" "]

Considering the intensity you have in propagating your religious opininons, it's surprising how little this 'love' is manifesting in your own attitudes. On former threads you have demonstrated extremly confrontational and derogatory opinions of opponents. Let me hear some rhetoric explanation of how this 'love' in reality is brutality for our own good.


From the same post:

["refute it if you wish, no one has yet since I have stated it."]

Refute your attitude or that your 'god' is 'love'?

In any case 'refuting' is a completely meaningless word in a context, where you are involved. You are law, judge, prosecutor and jury wherever you turn up, and in your own fantasies you always emerge as 'winner'.


From the following post:

["yes what you "believe" is actually a word called (belief) look it up in an establish non-third party dictionary, and that does not include user entered Wikipedia."]

The 'atheism is religion' is a semantic trap, which very easily can be demonstrated. Words as 'faith', 'belief' and 'belief-systems' cover a VERY wide range (as they are defined), and depending on perspective includes anything from circle-argumentatory assumptative doctrinal ideology to the uttermost perspective of epistemology, where the basis of the scientific model is debated from a 'belief system' approach.

A per definiton semantic similarity ISN'T the same as being identical. Only demagogic preachers use such twisted argumentation.


Same post:

["where are you from and what are the laws is the only real question determining Atheism as a religion..."]

Only partly correct. Even in a US context an atheist organisation, defined as a 'religion' by itself or by the state, isn't representative for atheism in general.

And from your latest post:

[" that's cool, I only buy into observable "truth" and no one unjust likes a truth teller."]

Like as on several other threads, where you've made repetitive preposterous pseudo-scientific/logic claims, totally ignoring requests of verification on your fabulations.

In this latest post of yours I see a change from your former style. You don't rant so much now. Has your personal fiasco with our resident grand old man of science been a revelation for you, so you've settled for twisted semantics instead?

edit on 21-1-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Has your personal fiasco with our resident grand old man of science been a revelation for you
no, I merely came to ats and then into this section to be revealed something entirely opposite of what you claim, the truth is Atheism "attacks" anything that or which it can not understand and demands knowledge.


so you've settled for twisted semantics instead?
no, I have simply settled for the same tactics and attitudes the "active atheists" use to proves a point and in their supposed quest for knowledge... if this is the "liberal-way" then I surely am a "democratic republican" taking into account the world I live in at the moment.

pertaining to this argument some sound as if my claim that by majority Atheism is the minority belief system on the planet... the argumentum ad populum is observable globally, and atheism has had quite the same number people who believe and state that they believe their way since the dawn of man. A limited spoiled select few that feel they are enlightened and everyone else are neanderthal.

Majority rule is democratic, so if atheists gain momentum and over take all the theistic structures globally (which I doubt very highly) then atheistic majority would have favor of their rationality and beliefs, unfortunately and thankfully we are not living in that world yet.

it is only when I watch videos like from the man himself Carl Sagan, bless his heart... he revealed so much to me when I applied his teachings to real world scenarios, and also taking into account his fear, or better yet liberal cowardice because of the time period Cosmos was made and in the shadow of nuclear annihilation.
I just can't get over how many times I hear the word "us" in this video clip, as if the kid down in Africa living a horrible life thinks and understands the way he does... everybody lived the life he has surely. Sagan sounds here as if he is his own God or trying to make people think that way if you ask me. The problems with this are numerous.

no the universe surely was not made for us, humans like Sagan do not have enough empathy to be gods as this video here would seem to proclaim. I just apply things I have heard in Cosmos to real-time thinking and critical thought with rationality along with a sort of global-mind (the internet) that we did not have back in the day. Sagan's world was so small, seemingly only living in his own backyard, but thanks to the internet, we now know better and are becoming more rational thinking creatures.

go tell it to the kids down in Africa Mr Sagan...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
oh I almost forgot to add that is one actually sits through this stint, try switching the word "we" when it is heard with "I" as it would then quite be obviously who is preaching and not asking questions...

this is afterall just one mans personal opinion you know... I like his videos, there are not enough around like him anymore to help bring people to rationality.
edit on 1/21/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Re Cosmic.Artifact

I believe, you confuse non-believer argumentation with the rhetoric, which seems to be your main option, when your pseudo-understanding and imitations of opposing systems don't hold.

When pressed, you're not even able to say yes or no to completely legitimate questions, and you consequently ignore requests for specifications of your fabulations.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
And I almost forgot.....

We're not even at the point of validating the original fantasies anymore, now it's about tactical tricks to push these fantasies:

"My fantasies are entitled to special privileges, and if I don't get these privileges I'm persecuted"

"I have the privilege of preaching and pushing without opposition"

"As I'm right, because I'm right, I don't need to relate to any other source of information, methodology or answer"

"Also as I'm right, because I'm right, I should be constitution, parliament, legal system and executive authority. And I as thus decide, what's right and wrong, I always 'win' "

"Naturally my version of elitist extremism is the only acceptable one, it being true, because it's true. All other competing forms are just pretenders, which are a threat not only to my fantasies, but actually to everybody"

"Democracy targets on christians, and pamper competitors of christianity"

"Christianity is the ONLY defense against moral corruption and competitors to christianity"

"I can interpretate and apply science better than scientists, based on my own christian version of 'science' "

"Because black and white both are included in the common concept 'visual experience', I can eventually 'prove' that black is white"

"The bible is literally true, and when in conflict with common sense and science, common sense and science fall short"

"Logic is not everything, except when I need it; and then I'm self-allowed to give it a twist, so it fits my purposes"

"Rhetoric, embellishment and bad semantics is acceptable on my part to 'explain' those parts of my arguments opponents are too ignorant or uninformed to 'understand' "

"I'm not responsible for the inquisition, though I still support the same doctrines and attitudes used then"

"DISPROVE my fantasies. PROVE competing fantasies"

"Epistemology? Why should that be necessary? I'm obviously right from the start"

"My God is brimming of love, and if experiencing his love hurts you, it's your own fault and for your own good"



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact


no the universe surely was not made for us, humans like Sagan do not have enough empathy to be gods as this video here would seem to proclaim. I just apply things I have heard in Cosmos to real-time thinking and critical thought with rationality along with a sort of global-mind (the internet) that we did not have back in the day. Sagan's world was so small, seemingly only living in his own backyard, but thanks to the internet, we now know better and are becoming more rational thinking creatures.

go tell it to the kids down in Africa Mr Sagan...


If the internet is as you so state a sort of global mind. Does that mean based on a tremendous amount of its content that mankind should be labeled a mental incompetent to be kept away from sharp objects ?

Interesting that one with such a parochial belief system would refer to Sagan's world (and by implication, vision) as small.
I thought the kids in Africa along with everyone else were your God of Love's responsibility ?

It would smack of hubris for a mere man to assume that mantle would it not ?

If you truly believe in observable facts as you state, then observe the world you live upon and reconcile it with a deity centered existence.
(I'll play along for a moment) If this world and our species were created by a deity then observable evidence would dictate that we are a long forgotten, broken toy (insert your freewill "get out of jail free" defense here).
I accept that belief and faith exist as I've stated before. I find them fascinating to observe. In your instance (and many others) it appears to be a coping mechanism to ward off the despair that the only purpose to your life is one you ascribe yourself.
Simply one more example of someone failing to comprehend there is no "why?" Just "how?" in the way a life is spent.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Cosmic.Artifact

I believe, you confuse non-believer argumentation with the rhetoric, which seems to be your main option, when your pseudo-understanding and imitations of opposing systems don't hold.

When pressed, you're not even able to say yes or no to completely legitimate questions, and you consequently ignore requests for specifications of your fabulations.


oh I am not pressed believe me...

what counter-apologetics website did you cut and paste that from ? the grammar is just not "you" from what I have read of you so far.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

oh I am not pressed believe me...

what counter-apologetics website did you cut and paste that from ? the grammar is just not "you" from what I have read of you so far.


Tut tut, going for the player and not the ball. You realize this is akin to conceding defeat, yes ?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

oh I am not pressed believe me...

what counter-apologetics website did you cut and paste that from ? the grammar is just not "you" from what I have read of you so far.


Tut tut, going for the player and not the ball. You realize this is akin to conceding defeat, yes ?


one only has to read through this thread and some of the other threads I have been in to see just who has been going after the player and avoiding the ball.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
one only has to read through this thread and some of the other threads I have been in to see just who has been going after the player and avoiding the ball.


WHAT!?!?!?

I'm just shocked that you continue.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
WHAT!?!?!?

I'm just shocked that you continue.


perseverance...

btw anyone seen Sir Spanners ?

I need some avatar work, I seen him offering services...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


It's ironic that I am refuting something that I do not adhere to? Are you saying it would make more sense for me to refute that which I believe in? I don't understand your logic.

The beliefs you have aren't good. It is not good to promote faith over logic and evidence. It is not good to put a greater value on Jesus and God than you would a human being. Being drunk also provides a happy life, but that doesn't make it a healthy lifestyle. There are positive ways to be happy, and negative ways to be happy. Religion is a negative.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Re Cosmic.Artifact

You wrote:

["what counter-apologetics website did you cut and paste that from ? the grammar is just not "you" from what I have read of you so far."]


Obviously you aren't that much of an expert on me and my grammar, as you imagine. In any case it's completely irrelevant, and probably meant as a deflectionary maneuver to get away from the question of your formerly demonstrated reluctance or inability to answer straightly to anything inconvenient for you.

I can only agree with Annee's surprise concerning you.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 



Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by ac3rr


Refute that God is Love? Have you read his words? It's easily refuted.

Oh? Then please be specific, if it's so easy.


Ok, I'll take that challenge up. The rest of this post will be taken from the Bible (KJV, though I can use alternate versions if you wish).

Leviticus 15:19-33 (God emphatically states that women who are menstruating are 'unclean')
Exodus 14:4 (God causes the suffering of Egyptians and Jews by hardening the heart of the Pharaoh)
Genesis 38:7 (God just straight up kills Er because he thinks he's wicked)
Genesis 17:14 (God commands the abandonment of uncircumcised children)
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (Raped women who don't rape loud enough get stoned to death)
Isaiah 13:15-18 (If God wants to he will kill you, your children, and then rape your wife)
2 Samuel 12:11 (God tells David that he will have his neighbor rape all his wives...the neighbor is David's son)

I could keep going for quite a while. Hell, I haven't even gotten to the parts about slavery)



The Bible is full of love, especially the New Testament.


Matthew 5:17 (Jesus is all for the above and all other laws of the Old Testament)
I can actually quote more specifics of crap from the New Testament, but Jesus giving the thumbs up to the law of the Old Testament is more than enough to say that it is not full of love.



Love is what it's all about - and I am not talking about mushy pink hearts and saccharine warm fuzzies - to quote CS Lewis' allegory, 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' "Aslan is not a tame lion"!


Ah...CS Lewis...why do Christians think he's so great? I mean, he's an amateur apologist who wrote some okay children's books.



Read, if you can, 1 Corinthians chapter 13, for a description of love, and what it is and is not.
Vicky


Other "great" passages from 1 Corinthians:
5:9-13
6:9-10
10:8
10:9
10:10 (Apparently God is a destroyer aside from being love)
10:20
11:5-6
11:7-9
11:10
13:34-35




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join