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.

 

What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

page: 36
34
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["But that's trying to make things line up. What if they line up from just observation and with no actual attempt to decipher or change anything?"]

I could give a more relevant response, if you would supply some reference. But until then I'll just make a guess. Are you referring to the difference between

1/ a basically unexamined perceptual process (apart from the automatic 'filters' implied in perception).

And.....

2/ a structured analysis of information (as e.g. by systematic methodology)?

If that is the case, are you then back to the for you undefined and thus unsolved, difference between deduction and induction, or do you have something else in mind?



edit on 4-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling, paragraphing




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Without God they have no belief. It is a selfdestructing beliefsystem. One must believe in God to deny it as one must consider Gods existence to want to have no faith in him.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
want to hear one saying they don't believe in a deity, in a superiour without losing the structure we all live in. So they learn from eachother? Where does their wisdom come from? Their spiritual insight they have not or what? God is love. Strip yourself of faith?. How do they see people? There is no freedom in atheism. Please don't start.

That makes me wonder. Is God a part of us? No,

He is a Father. In that consideration it is true to say there is no God, they don't believe in the concept of there being a superior Father in heaven. Do they have laws?
edit on 2011/2/4 by etherical waterwave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Re Etherical Waterwave

You wrote: ["Without God they have no belief. It is a selfdestructing beliefsystem. One must believe in God to deny it as one must consider Gods existence to want to have no faith in him."]



"If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs"



Nice going as always, Etherical.
edit on 4-2-2011 by bogomil because: missing quote



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Re Etherical again

Quote: ["I want to hear one saying they don't believe in a deity, in a superiour without losing the structure we all live in."]

I hereby declare, that I don't believe in a deity. And....., whoops, .....you're right Etherical my structurometer went down to zero at once.

Quote: ["So they learn from eachother? Where does their wisdom come from?"]

If put that way, their wisdom then comes from learning from each other.

Quote: ["Their spiritual insight they have not or what?"]

Maybe there isn't such a thing as 'spiritual' (at least the way you seem to use it). And on the other hand there can be alternative kinds of 'insight'.

Quote: ["God is love."]

Amongst other things and on the condition, that he exists.

Quote: ["Strip yourself of faith?"]

Excellent idea.

Quote: ["How do they see people?"]

Who are 'they'?

Quote: ["There is no freedom in atheism. Please don't start."]

I take it: As opposed to the freedom in religious doctrinalism.

edit on 4-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Just on this implicit atheism notion...

Atheism is a disbelief in God. To disbelieve you need to understand the concept of God/s to reject it, therefore if you do not know the concept you neither accept it nor reject it. Using your logic you could also call someone who is not familiar with the concept an implicit theist.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
The teaching is love and we learn as love is shown!

Great reply bogomil, I was given the opportunity to think because of you


Who they are is they are like us so we start to talk about we. As we share love here on the board we are doing a good job. Are we sharing love? Well this must have been started here right now.

The teaching is love and when love is shown we learn. Then we become friends and such. whii

To respond to the question who are they I must say they are like us. Did we somehow had a fight about something which ended in us seperating ourselves in groups that stand against eachother? Because of God we stand against eachother. This is a true statement and then again it is no more true and can be considered true and not. Do you get this?

The teaching is love and love is the teaching.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
whehe, I doubleposted in one post. Crazy life, take me up in thee.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


First off I was giving an example.Atheist I KNOW don't know about the religion they are bagging on.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Re Etherical

You wrote:

["The teaching is love and we learn as love is shown!"]

I don't think, many will object, when love is shown, ... not preached.

But then there are people, who have some monopolistic ideas of love being copyrighted, and they (in the name of love) then start fighting about it. Apparantly more to protect the copyright, than to spread love.

Quote: ["Who they are is they are like us so we start to talk about we. As we share love here on the board we are doing a good job. Are we sharing love? Well this must have been started here right now."]

There's an intrinsic problem here. It's difficult to quantify love, transmitting it verbally. It's better and easier done by direct-contact transmission (though it CAN be done verbally, try my friend IAMIAM here on ATS. He's good at it). If a verbal quantification of love fails, it usually degenerates into doctrinal love; and then, back to square one.

Quote: ["Because of God we stand against eachother. This is a true statement and then again it is no more true and can be considered true and not. Do you get this?"]

Yes, I grok (=get it). But it's not because of 'god' per se, it's how the message about 'god' is spread. Communism has a few good points (at least theoretically), but nobody liked Stalin very much.

Quote: [" The teaching is love and love is the teaching."]

Don't loose it now (=don't go astray). This is semantics, not 'real'. If you want love, ...be it, use it, show it; don't preach it.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by zombiesC4
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


First off I was giving an example.Atheist I KNOW don't know about the religion they are bagging on.

There was a study published last year that showed that atheists are typically more knowledgeable about religion than adherents to those religions, so I'd counter that a significant number of theists don't know about the religion they're defending.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Just on this implicit atheism notion...

Atheism is a disbelief in God. To disbelieve you need to understand the concept of God/s to reject it, therefore if you do not know the concept you neither accept it nor reject it. Using your logic you could also call someone who is not familiar with the concept an implicit theist.

It's not disbelief, it's a lack of belief. The difference is subtle, but it's there. If a person didn't have a concept of a God or gods, then by definition they lack belief and are atheists. It's not a hard concept.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by zombiesC4
 





I completely agree! But Atheism isn't the greatest religion either.


How on earth can not believing something be a religion ?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





Quote: ["can instead cast that you're smart, and have increasing abilities to comprehend concepts conveyed."] I'm quite sure this means something.






Two lines of laughing uncontrollably



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
The same way black is a color.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by something wicked
 






You said that Christians believe man and dinosaur co-existed.



This is what I said -]


Insisting or depicting human beings happily cohabiting the planet with the dinosaurs takes stupidity to the level of retardation.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





Just on this implicit atheism notion... Atheism is a disbelief in God.


Nope atheism is a disbelief in your god






To disbelieve you need to understand the concept of God/s to reject it,


No I don't ,

"There is an invisible man "

"I don't believe you"

There you go rejection with but one attribute



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Referring to recent posts, where the seemingly endless semantic christian shufflings about 'atheism as a religon (or whatever)' are revived for the umpteenth time, I have some general observations.

From day one, the emerging christianity only had one fixed reference point: A book, which apparently can be interpretated any old way. Along this interpretation-process additional doctrinal tools have been constructed, but at the end of the day, the system is self-contained.

Not surprisingly, with no outer reference-points, christianity has increasingly come to rely on semantic presentations, and a deeply embedded tradition for semantic twists, hairsplitting defintion-quibblings, bad syntax or just plain propaganda slogans has evolved.

Thus we see these manifested scholastic and rhetoric inputs from the invasive christianities, droning on and on over minor points, usually as a strategy for tirering out or deflecting opposition. Personally I believe this semantic approach is so much an intrinsic part of the extremist christian mindset, that the christians using it take it as a 'natural' and legitimate approach. The long winter-evenings can cosily be spend with chewing over the meaning of a few words or a sentence.

If science and logic used this approach, the funtionality and effectivity of the wheel would still be under debate.
edit on 4-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by something wicked
 





Just on this implicit atheism notion... Atheism is a disbelief in God.


Nope atheism is a disbelief in your god






To disbelieve you need to understand the concept of God/s to reject it,


No I don't ,

"There is an invisible man "

"I don't believe you"

There you go rejection with but one attribute



What do you mean by atheism is disbelief in my God? Does that mean you may believe in someone elses?

Could you pass me a copy of your atheism rulebook? Where does it say atheists are allowed to believe in one persons God but not anothers?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by something wicked
 






You said that Christians believe man and dinosaur co-existed.



This is what I said -]


Insisting or depicting human beings happily cohabiting the planet with the dinosaurs takes stupidity to the level of retardation.



Yes, that's what you said, I asked you to provide evidence that this is stated somewhere - anywhere apart from a personal opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join