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 is NOT a Religion - Accept this, move on.

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Whatever the case might be, too late to stave it off now, I'm just trying to keep TD from further muddying the waters by proposing the lower case "gnostic" as an antonym of "agnostic".


dictionary.reference.com...

gnos·tic
   /ˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[nos-tik] Show IPA
–adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.
1.
pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3.
( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

.. snip ..

I'm good with these definitions if you are


Well, since none of the definitions of gnostic is the equivalent of "I know that God exists", I guess so (the second definition, though it seems to be that, is merely a statement of what the Gnostics claimed.)

I don't think that it matters, though -- someone who believes in God, even to the extent that they would say that they "know" he exists, is a theist, the additional tag isn't necessary. The definition of the opposite of agnostic, I think I'll leave to our friend Eight Bits to provide, but I suspect it would be a definition of someone who didn't exist or was better categorized as something else.

Cool new avatar, by the way. I'd change mine to be a bit more personified, but in every picture I'm in, I look like a boring accountant. Mostly because... well... there's no changing reality, I guess.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by The Revenant
 


Whether or not a lack of faith would qualify as an actual faith, in and of itself, is great fodder for rhetorical debate and discussion...

But in real world application, I can tell you this much. Atheists tend to be every bit as zealous in their lack of belief as believers are in their chosen beliefs. Both sides tend to get so heated that, with the volume down, so to speak, one wouldn't be able to differentiate which participant was the believer and which the nonbeliever.

So, in that regard, the two things do share a commonality.

~Heff


Heff...

You are definitely one of my favorite members here. Your posts are always so well framed and eloquent. Take this one for example, just wonderfully well said. I was explicity NOT going to get involved in this debate, because, quite frankly, I tend to get very upset (read: angry) whenever I attempt to enter into this. You stated in such a way that framed my points nearly perfectly, so for that, I thank you. Peace...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I don't think that it matters, though -- someone who believes in God, even to the extent that they would say that they "know" he exists, is a theist, the additional tag isn't necessary. The definition of the opposite of agnostic, I think I'll leave to our friend Eight Bits to provide, but I suspect it would be a definition of someone who didn't exist or was better categorized as something else.


The terms by themselves may be misleading in the context that they're being applied in this thread. However, the terms "gnostic theist", "agnostic theist", "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" are legitimate and commonly used terms to distinguish whether one does or doesn't believe in god AND whether they base their beliefs on knowledge.

Thanks for your compliments on my avatar. I rather enjoy my disembodied head



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ahhh..but when you consider the inherent elegance of our observable universe, a higher order...whatever it may be, manifests itself as the laws of nature. If nothing else, it balances out the tendency towards entropy.

Natural laws = higher order. I can work with that.
edit on 18-1-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)


In that case there's nothing particularly supernatural or spooky present. You're simply redefining terms. There's no particular reason to use this as an argument against atheism.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by type0civ
Not sure if this "trolling' but check out this headline

Court Rules Atheism a Religion


For legal purposes in America atheism would have to, at some point, be considered a religion in order for atheists to receive protection under the first amendment. However, atheism meets no requirements of the definition of religion in any other capacity.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Therefore, given I have seen no evidence in all my life that any theists claims are truthful, I KNOW that no god exists etc.

The Rev.


Lord, I promised myself I wouldn't trouble with this 'ass'inine debate, but sometimes when I see such felacious thought, I just can't help myself.

So by this logic, if you grew up before Einstein, you would have KNOWN that time was a constant, because you would have been presented with no evidence to the contrary.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The Revenant
 



Atheists generally only have faith in hard evidence.


This is the very foundation of atheism - the belief and faith in "hard evidence".

Implicit in this belief is the faith-based assumption that reality does not extend beyond the scope of the scientific method.

This assumption itself lies outside the claims of science as it cannot be verified by the scientific method.

As atheism rests on a foundation of faith about the nature of reality, it is understandable that many regard it as a religion.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ahhh..but when you consider the inherent elegance of our observable universe, a higher order...whatever it may be, manifests itself as the laws of nature. If nothing else, it balances out the tendency towards entropy.
Natural laws = higher order. I can work with that

In that case there's nothing particularly supernatural or spooky present. You're simply redefining terms. There's no particular reason to use this as an argument against atheism.

I'm merely disputing the idea that atheism is a fact-based notion, and opining that it, too requires a leap of faith.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I'm merely disputing the idea that atheism is a fact-based notion, and opining that it, too requires a leap of faith.


I don't recall anyone stating that atheism was a fact-based notion in any way, else it would be a matter of knowledge and not belief. It also doesn't require a leap of faith in any way, rather a lack of faith. Example: is not believing in Zeus a leap of faith for you?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by The Revenant
 



Atheists generally only have faith in hard evidence.


This is the very foundation of atheism - the belief and faith in "hard evidence".

Implicit in this belief is the faith-based assumption that reality does not extend beyond the scope of the scientific method.

This assumption itself lies outside the claims of science as it cannot be verified by the scientific method.

As atheism rests on a foundation of faith about the nature of reality, it is understandable that many regard it as a religion.


Reverant's statement is inaccurate to begin with. Atheists don't "have faith in hard evidence". That more accurately describes skeptics rather than atheists. Atheists simply have no faith in someone's claim that gods exist.

The very foundation of atheism is disbelief in unproven claims, not faith of any kind.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Yup, i agree with OP, athiesm is not a religion..neither is Buddhism for that matter. And i'd like to add that neither Athiest's or Buddhists have ever been responsible for wars. Religions on the other hand have been responsible for many wars.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoochieboochies
Yup, i agree with OP, athiesm is not a religion..neither is Buddhism for that matter. And i'd like to add that neither Athiest's or Buddhists have ever been responsible for wars.


I'd agree with Buddhists, but you either don't know anything about who is an atheist or not, or your knowledge of history is seriously flawed. Let me name drop for you...

Josef Stalin
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot

Atheists all. Between the three of them, they likely killed more people than all purely "religious" wars in history, combined. Numbers range up to 200 million dead. Pol Pot killed a third of the people in his country.

Admittedly, it would be a stretch to say that the atrocities committed by these three and their governments were done "in the name of atheism", but don't delude yourself into thinking that atheists are automatically some sort of noble class.

People are people, and some will do evil things, regardless of what they do or do not believe.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   


The very foundation of atheism is disbelief in unproven claims,
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Your statement contains the same implication - that reality is limited to that which is potentially provable by the scientific method.

Metaphysical realities lie outside the domain of science as it stands today, hence they cannot be verified by the scientific method.

It is disingeneous to infer that atheists would accept "proven claims", as this is simply not possible with our current science.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by The Revenant
 



Atheists generally only have faith in hard evidence.


This is the very foundation of atheism - the belief and faith in "hard evidence".

Implicit in this belief is the faith-based assumption that reality does not extend beyond the scope of the scientific method.

This assumption itself lies outside the claims of science as it cannot be verified by the scientific method.

As atheism rests on a foundation of faith about the nature of reality, it is understandable that many regard it as a religion.


Please note that you are simply trying to use LANGUAGE to put meanings into things that aren't there. "Having faith in" is a figure of speech, perhaps poorly chosen to ascribe 'confidence in' the evidentiary requirement aforementioned.

Please do not try and jump through a hoop that isn't there - your constant attempts to assign 'belief' or 'faith' to Atheism are null and void. They do not apply. Understand this, and move on.

The Revenant.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Atheism has little to do with denouncing God. A newborn baby is atheist, but cannot possibly denounce god, as it has no understanding of the concept of God.

The religious and apologist agnostics purposely spread misinformation about Atheism and what it is.

As a word 'Atheism' serves no purpose. It shouldn't exist.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by The Revenant
 


Agree wholeheartedly OP. Atheism is no more a religion than theism is. Would a theist identify THEISM itself as their religious affiliation? Would they go to a church of THEISM? Atheism and theism are just stances on belief in regards to god(s).

Star and Flag



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   


Please note that you are simply trying to use LANGUAGE to put meanings into things that aren't there. "Having faith in" is a figure of speech, perhaps poorly chosen to ascribe 'confidence in' the evidentiary requirement aforementioned.
reply to post by The Revenant
 


Ok, then I shall reword my sentence:

As atheistic worldviews rest on a foundation of "confidence in" the nature of reality as circumscribed by the limitations of the scientific method, it is understandable that many regard them as religious beliefs.

Compare with the following:

As theistic worldviews rest on a foundation of "confidence in" the nature of reality as reaching beyond the circumscribed limitations of the scientific method, they are regarded as religious beliefs.

There is no scientific evidence to show that the nature of reality of the atheist is any more true or "real" than the nature of reality of the theist. From that point of view, they are both simply beliefs.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia
Atheism has little to do with denouncing God

atheism has alot to do with openly and actively denouncing God...

atheism is not a religion but it is only a "doubt" for if one was confident in their non-belief in a deity atheists would be confident in their stance going about their lives keeping it to themselves...

quite simple psychology 101 stuff if you ask me.

a "doubter" suspects there is a God or wants to believe in a deity but only looking in the wrong form being that of a flying spaghetti or a human like being with white hair and fiery eyes.

a "denier" engages in spiteful resent not being able to perceive or comprehend a deity.

but the "first Church of Atheism" says it is not a religion either, or is it as their title suggest ?
firstchurchofatheism.com...

the United States government recognizes Atheism as a Religion though...
Source


In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[10] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.

but it's not a religion.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by NadaCambia
Atheism has little to do with denouncing God

atheism has alot to do with openly and actively denouncing God...

atheism is not a religion but it is only a "doubt" for if one was confident in their non-belief in a deity atheists would be confident in their stance going about their lives keeping it to themselves...

quite simple psychology 101 stuff if you ask me.

a "doubter" suspects there is a God or wants to believe in a deity but only looking in the wrong form being that of a flying spaghetti or a human like being with white hair and fiery eyes.

a "denier" engages in spiteful resent not being able to perceive or comprehend a deity.

but the "first Church of Atheism" says it is not a religion either, or is it as their title suggest ?
firstchurchofatheism.com...

the United States government recognizes Atheism as a Religion though...
Source


In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[10] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.

but it's not a religion.


And there's the point. The United States and the theocratic fascists that run the country have been trying to turn Atheism into something it isn't since the nations birth.

The fact is Atheism can be both the absence of belief in God or Gods, or the rejection. It's not one or the other.

I'd never even heard the argument that Atheism is a religion or strictly the rejection of God before joining American forums. It's nonsense. Another case of semi-literate Americans corrupting the English language with bunk definitions for political purposes.

When I was 3 I was an atheist. I wasn't denouncing God openly or secretly. I had no idea who or what God was supposed to be.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia
And there's the point. The United States and the theocratic fascists that run the country

how about less of the anti-Americanism


this is one of my main suspicion about Atheism's Missionaries all along, please don't confirm it.

I tend to believe alot of things which have run through our Supreme Court, they happen to be a leading think-tank when it comes to stuff and things like this.

lets look into what British law says about Atheism...


Atheist’s sentence signals ‘a new and dangerous blasphemy law’ in the UK
freethinker.co.uk...

wow ! they are much more serious and seemingly not so lenient or open-minded about Atheism calling it straight-up "blasphemous"

edit on 1/18/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join