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

reply to post by awake_and_aware

"What reason do you have to assert a belief in something that is unknown?"

It´s a choice. You are free to choose what you want to believe. The sooner people will realize that, the better will be.

To have faith in the "unknown" is like rationalising: "That volcano is angry, must be a God, let's obey him"

Allow me to disagrree here. To have Faith in the "Uknown" is like rationalising: " That Volcano is going to explode. I pray to God it doesn´t. And if it does then I pray that no harm will happen to people. And to hope that the people get to warned from the authorities soon enough, to minimize casualties.

Believing someone is evil because of scripture,

Allow me to disagree here. I believe someone is evil/good person based on his/her actions and not based of the scripture.

or bombing another religion because you belief yours is the true one.

I certainly never bomb another persons beliefs. Sure religion is a tool, and can and we have seen, that religion been used, through history for evil purposes. The same is with Science, because science is also a tool, and can and we have seen through history, that was used for evil purposes also.

Its a big debate, and to say it is unimportant seems like nonsense to me.

I guess everyone, is entitled to his own opinion.

Peace

Bogomil,a bird is a bird only because more than one human being agrees it is a bird or a bird could be a rock.

Our existance in and participation in a cumulative reality ensure that there is an answer for everything including god existensionalism and any other seemingly abstract concept we can conjure up because all are just that CONJURED UP.

The answer is simply in the numbers of people who through the process of free will and the excercise of freedom of choice if available CHOOSE TO AGREE WHAT WILL BE REAL outside the realm of empirical evidence,understand that empirical evidence must also be agreed upon by the majority or it isnt real or accepted as real.

Witness the internet,if you and I could have the entire planet participating in our conversation in real time thereby all choosing to cumulatively decide on the future we would have all of the answers to all of the questions.

You only get to have an individual opinion or reality because there has been no forum through which all of humanity could get on the same page at the same time,dont you see that the vast majority of belief systems and opinions and micro-realities that people selfishly choose to exist in are being incorporated into one.The basic idea of individual rights that eclipse those of humanity as a whole is a major job of disinformation,intentional misleading using a basic human emotion as a key component .greed---we all exist together and we never had the right to fight for the survival of billions of conflicting realities,we were hoodwinked long ago by religons or whatever they were called back then clubs is just as good a word gangs is an equally accurate word.Power and greed not the progression and welfare of humanity,these are the things we have been misleadingly taught.

You can now see that there was once a time in our past when we were all on the same page as with the internet in real time because all of these doctrines in religons for example split off at the same time,and ultimately take paralell paths.

If we lose the information capability we have today through natural causes,how long do you think before we all get on the same page again?

Originally posted by defenestrator
If you had actually read my post, you would see that I suggested epistemology, are you opposed to learning about epistemology for some reason?

I am learning about epistemology. I am learning about it from you. From what I see of it so far, there is not much more I care to learn about it because it apparently leads to a hateful disposition which mocks and denigrates the positions of others.

Yours, Truly

Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["I never said Love was God, I said it the will of God."]

And.....? It's still YOUR postulated absolute, which my point was about.

Quote: ["Science has confirmed that love is absolutely necessary to our existence. It is what leads to a healthy and secure development from womb to adulthood. A child reared on love is not only healthier emotionally, but also physically. The benefits are astronomical. As been proven through countless studies."]

Yes.

Quote: ["I won't be doing anyone's homework for them!"]

I doubt anyone would want that, considering the way your method manifests.

Quote: ["So it is an accurate statement that: It is the will of God to love one another."]

You conveniently skipped half-a-dozen steps before concluding with another of YOUR postulated absolutes.

Quote: ["or translated for the more science tongued... It is unknown why, but love is a necessary element in the development of our biological structure."]

And in the knowledge-vaccum of "it's unknown why" you edge in one of YOUR postulated absolutes as an 'explanation': That 'god' did it.

You are circle-argumenting all the way. Relate to my post and demonstrate and validate your method, instead of presenting its 'just-push-the button' ready-made answers.

reply to post by IAMIAM


You are so incredibly without the ability to reason that I am truly dumbfounded. I'm not teaching epistemology here, at all, merely suggesting that you are not currently equipped to discuss the topics you are attempting to discuss here.

I don't hate you, but I do hate ignorance. Hatred is a valid, normal, human emotion, just like love. I am sorry that I have been less than gentle with my words toward you, because you are obviously very sensitive and emotional. I will be gentle with you in the future, and be sure to punctuate each sentence with words of loving kindness so that I do not cause you distress.

I will not back down from my assertion that you are not educationally equipped to have a cogent opinion on this subject. I will remove myself from this topic, because it has become pointless. People who are addicted to irrational beliefs are as violent in their defense of them as a junkie with their stash.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

Some people believe in spirit, but don't believe in any gods. One belief i can think of of the top of my head refer to spirit as energy, like qi for example.

Thank you very much for your reply. I apologize for asking stupid questions, but it seems to me that some are simply getting lost in terminology. To me God is the sum of all energy. Would that be consistent with an atheist belief system?

Do Atheists have a problem with the depiction of God in the OT/NT, but some do believe in a spiritual realm?

Thanks for your time.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oh dear, where do I start? Randomly I guess.

Quantify is relavent, I was quantifying, you were attempting to qualify. Quantify is to measure - I said atheism is a binary decision - believe in a deity or don't believe in a deity. You listed several degrees of atheism. We were both quantifying the level of atheism.

You said "you do not believe in things you do not know of".... I do not know the population of Sierra Leone - does that mean I do not believe Sierra Leone has a population? Of course it doesn't, it means I don't know it. I guess you've got some leftover atheist t shirts you feel the need to give away, but please stick to logic. (BTW, please don't go on Wikipedia to tell me the population, if I wanted to know I'd look myself.) What if, understandably, as a baby I am not aware of what Sierra Leone is - does that mean I disbelieve in it? No, it means I have no concept of what it is and so have no opinion worth discussing. I think we will have to disagree on this, I know my opinion is correct as much as you know yours is, that's why opinions are so worthwhile. Your opinion is wrong though

You have no idea of the general religious population of ATS for one reason - it's entirely possible that people who log into ATS do not do so to discuss religion. ATS is a broad church dealing with many different things, religion is one of them. Perhaps when people are saying that George Bush is a shape changing reptile from Pleides they neglect to mention they are also, well I don't know, let's pick something at random.... an atheist. If the highest number of users of ATS is based in America I'll concede that as of 2011 most have some level of Christian faith then so be it.

You said 'not everything Jesus said was right', kind of means you accept a character called Jesus said things, some of which you agree with, some you don't - how can you possibly interpret your words differently?

Just so we both understand my words - if you are unaware of a deity, you don't have an opinion on said deity. That means one thing... you don't have an opinion.

You stated it's my opinion that - and I quote "if there is any doubt over belief then you are not an atheist" is just an opinion. Seeing as the dictionary definition of atheism is disbelief in God, then how can you then claim that is just my opinion but I haven't bothered with a basic reason? It's very black and white - disbelief = atheist. Not sure = not atheist.

Argument to authority? You're suggesting a dictionary that exists to define words is questionable? The term arguement to authority (also known as appeal to authority) is most often used when claims by a person who's credentials are claimed to suggest a deeper knowledge in the area are used. A good example is 'astronaut says aliens exist". I hope you aren't suggesting using a dictionary definition falls into this space? If so, that's a little sad. A quote from a philosopher would though be an argument to authority as they are stating an opinion.

An atheist group is still laughable I'm afraid. Not believing in God is not currently a movement, it's a personal opinion. Why are such people distrusted? Do they stand outside places of worship shouting 'I don't believe in your God'? If so, they are never going to win friends. Please tell me what they do to warrant this distrust in the eyes of those who distrust them.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

The problem is semantic. 'Spirit' and 'spirituality' are some of the most misused terms concerning the 'invisible' part of existence. They can mean practically anything from an individualized part of an entity to non-mundane theistic concepts.

A good way to avoid confusion is to relate to 'beings' 'inside' or 'outside' creation.

Fairies, ghosts, djinns, ETs etc can be 'inside' creation, part of the universe though of different construction than mankind; sometimes being invisible.

'Gods' are usually supposed to be 'outside' creation (though not in buddhism).

Thanks for your answer.

I believe that the spiritual element animates this carbon based life form that is writing this sentence.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

There, happy? It should have been obvious to you what I was talking about.

edit on 2/3/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)

Yes, I'm happy. I hope you are too.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["I never said Love was God, I said it the will of God."]

And.....? It's still YOUR postulated absolute, which my point was about.

It is not an absolute. It is an UNKNOWN!

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["Science has confirmed that love is absolutely necessary to our existence. It is what leads to a healthy and secure development from womb to adulthood. A child reared on love is not only healthier emotionally, but also physically. The benefits are astronomical. As been proven through countless studies."]

Yes.

Of course you agree. It's a language you like and understand.

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["I won't be doing anyone's homework for them!"]

I doubt anyone would want that, considering the way your method manifests.

The same way yours manifests my friend. Thought.

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["So it is an accurate statement that: It is the will of God to love one another."]

You conveniently skipped half-a-dozen steps before concluding with another of YOUR postulated absolutes.

Allow me to translate the phrase that confuses you. It is UNKNOWN why, but it is beneficial to our species to love one another.

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["or translated for the more science tongued... It is unknown why, but love is a necessary element in the development of our biological structure."]

And in the knowledge-vaccum of "it's unknown why" you edge in one of YOUR postulated absolutes as an 'explanation': That 'god' did it.

Of course! That is what that word MEANS.

Originally posted by bogomil
You are circle-argumenting all the way. Relate to my post and demonstrate and validate your method, instead of presenting its 'just-push-the button' ready-made answers.

There is NO absolute in the UNKNOWN. The UNKNOWN is simply a point in understanding. It is an ever shifting point which moves in the direction of greater understanding.

You keep judging the label I am using instead of looking at what that label means. You are stuck my friend.

If I said that a dollar bill WAS God. And God bought me a soda, you would argue that God did not buy me that soda.

I am not going in circles. You keep bringing us back to the beginning of the circle because you cannot get passed the chosen label.

GOD IS THE UNKNOWN. It is just a WORD which represents the limit of our understanding as to the why something IS the way it is.

You HATE the label and insist that the label be thrown to the dust of history in favor of one you are more cozy with. That is fine. However, it is not your right to choose one's choice of language. The idea is to try to understand one another. I have provided numerous translations, but it is your own hatred or fear that is keeping this going back to the beginning.

I do not care if we use GOD or UNKNOWN in our conversation. I understand what is meant by both WORDS.

This is the benefit of loosing your hatred or fear for all things. You see clearer what others are saying.

Of course, you loose the understanding of why people HATE.

I suppose it is because of some perceived injury, real or imagined. Pain and Fear are the only source of hate that I am aware of.

Interestingly, the Bible did say that people should fear God. I never realised it meant the actual word.

Too funny.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Atheists can't prove a negative.

A proper Atheist should not have to "prove a negative," because they are not making any claims. Theists make the claim that God exists, and so the burden of proof rests on them.

I've definitely noticed a spike in Theist posts on ATS in general, and I'm offended. Among the real answers about the universe around us, how many came from religion? 0.
All the things we understand about reality have been answered by science. Sectors of the scientific community can be co-opted, infiltrated, or subjugated, but the scientific method itself is incorruptible, and the best tool we have to further our understanding.

Hi there,

I'm interested in theology, and study of faith based movements. Theists actually don't have a burden of proof as it is a faith based structure. If proof existed then faith would not be required. That is infuriating for someone who wants facts, but I'm afraid it is the case.

Belief in extra terrestrial life, time travel, weird reasons why the pyramids were built and many other wonderful topics on ATS do have a burden of proof on them as they make a claim for which scientific evidence must exist. Faith doesn't work like that, sorry, but it's really the case.

Edit to add.... an atheist also has no burden of proof. Faith is a personal thing is it not? Believe, don't believe, what is there to prove.

Re Tiger5

You wrote:

["Many mystics rapidly outstripped their mindsets"]

Valid point. And then, many didn't.

Quote: ["Have you explored mysticism?"]

Valid question.

Answer:

Experientally and theoretically in several experimental directions for app. 45 years. Combined with an epistemological search for systematic methodology on the subject (including some science etc).

Quote: ["Some of the most persecuted religionists on the planet have been mystics who have been persecuted by their own religionists."]

Dissenters of all kinds in all ideologies have been persecuted. Doesn't validate anything.

Quote: ["How on earth would an atheist know of practical religious experience anyway?"]

Most likely: Nothing. But that is the case of many religionists or wanna-be mystics also. They get carried away by some personal motivation and in a feed-back reaction to expectations, they start fabulating. That goes up to the popular 'gurus', most of whom actually fake quite a lot or suffer from delusions of grandeur.

I'm not asking for negotiations, I'm asking for useful methodologies. Tao-te-king is probably such a one, but it takes 20 years of de-zombification to even start understanding it. Personally I don't claim this enlightened level. I'm satisfied with being a wary student as long as it takes.

reply to post by IAMIAM


A Postulated Absolute is a term used in Logic, which is another class you should consider attending.
You continue to prove me right about your inability to argue rationally, and my compassion for you is growing, for you are well and truly lost.

Peace be with you and yours, best of luck.

@bogomil You are an inspiration to me, and I appreciate your efforts and level-headedness on this thread.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Atheist - There is no known God!!!!
Theist - There is an unknown God!!!!!
Agnostic - What the hell are you two arguing over again??

Food for thought

With Love,

Your Brother

Although I doubt everyone on here will agree, you've just encapsulated the whole thing in a nutshell!!!!

Nice one IAMIAM!!!!

Originally posted by defenestrator
You are so incredibly without the ability to reason that I am truly dumbfounded.

I most certainly CAN reason that you are dumbfounded. That was the first thing that I did reason. I do hope it isn't terminal.

Originally posted by defenestrator
I'm not teaching epistemology here, at all, merely suggesting that you are not currently equipped to discuss the topics you are attempting to discuss here.

If you cannot see that your attitude and behavior when around others is a demonstration of how your thought processes work, then you are correct. I am ill equipped to hold a discussion with you.

Originally posted by defenestrator
I don't hate you, but I do hate ignorance. Hatred is a valid, normal, human emotion, just like love.

Hatred is a response to stimuli. Hatred is caused by either fear or pain. Thus, ignorance brings you either fear or pain. I understand you just fine. I do hope you find the remedy to your ailments.

Originally posted by defenestrator
I am sorry that I have been less than gentle with my words toward you, because you are obviously very sensitive and emotional. I will be gentle with you in the future, and be sure to punctuate each sentence with words of loving kindness so that I do not cause you distress.

Once you start, it gets hard to stop my friend!

And it is healing.

Originally posted by defenestrator
I will not back down from my assertion that you are not educationally equipped to have a cogent opinion on this subject. I will remove myself from this topic, because it has become pointless. People who are addicted to irrational beliefs are as violent in their defense of them as a junkie with their stash.

Be well my friend.

Originally posted by Condemned0625

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by lowki

 

The user i am replying to has stated in another thread that:-

"Atheists have no problems with making oaths to Satan"

Nonsense - we don't believe in deities.

LOL! Wow. Actually, that person is right, about me at least. I have absolutely no problem making an oath to Satan, but he doesn't exist. No harm done to me, no possession, no "demon" infestation, no voices in my head, nothing. All because I don't believe it, which adds the extra bonus of not experiencing those illusions.

You are free to believe in what you want, but I can tell you with all honesty and with every fiber in my body that your statement is not correct.

Just because you "don't believe it" doesn't mean anything. It just means you have not experienced it (yet).

Originally posted by defenestrator
A Postulated Absolute is a term used in Logic, which is another class you should consider attending.
You continue to prove me right about your inability to argue rationally, and my compassion for you is growing, for you are well and truly lost.

I knew you weren't really leaving me!

You love me. Go on and admit it!



I love you too big guy.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

I DO NOT KNOW.

God is the UNKNOWN.

Of course this is my answer. And yes God is the unknown - in ancient times God was earthquakes, God was thunder and lighting, God was volcanoes, God was the ocean, God was the rain.

It's the good old "God of the Gaps"

"We don't undestand - Must be God."

I'm sure if God is that obvious, then the scientific methodology will prove it so. At the moment, there's no information, so it would be unwise to guess.

Agnostic Atheism is the open-minded position that states, i'm happy to renounce my Atheism providing there is enough reason to do so, at the moment, many scientists agree that there is no enough evidence to assert a belief, or even to have blind faith.

Thanks.

Hi there, Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron? Atheist is defined as a disbelief in God (the God, or faith you choose to selectively disbelieve in, but to be an atheist really means to disbelieve in all) Agnostic means you believe nothing is or can be known about the existence of God (Oxford dictionary). Of course you can be both at different stages of your life, but not so sure you can be both at the same time. If you argue that you can, then surely you are just as much an agnostic theist and agnostic atheist?

Re IAMIAM

Quote: ["There is NO absolute in the UNKNOWN. The UNKNOWN is simply a point in understanding."]

And this unknown you label 'god'. Why not stay with 'unknown' or as the REAL mystics do: The nameless? It would be more to the point and less controversially binding.

Quote: ["You HATE the label and insist that the label be thrown to the dust of history in favor of one you are more cozy with."]

Ofcourse I hate the label, as it is a lousy semantic trick to sneak in irrelevant postulates.

Quote: ["However, it is not your right to choose one's choice of language."]

No. But I can dispute the resulting rhetorical derivatives.

E.g. allegories: The shadows in the cave: Yes. The true nature of the light: ?????

Quote: ["Pain and Fear are the only source of hate that I am aware of."]

Don't pop-psychologize me.

I can only support Defenestrator's answer to you:

Quote from Defenestrator to you: ["Every post, up to and including the one to which I am replying, which you have made on this thread is full of pseudo-philosophy and I've had it up to here with that crap. Please go take a course on epistemology so you never have to go on about "how you know what you think you know." Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, it would help you, and save the rest of us from your pointless ranting."]

And like Defenestrator I also believe, that you privately probably are a nice guy. But you do need to demonstrate and validate your method, before using it the way you do.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


Not really. Many atheists view religion subjectively as a scorn of the earth with nothing good from it. I'd through a ponder that many aliens are the same too.

True objectivity leads to antagonistic if anything. With no proof for or against it's just a possibility. An objective alien would see atheists as just another bloc of humans with culture, beliefs, statements, sects, prophets and leaders, and common goals.