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: 48
34
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?


Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Do you want me to U2U and show you how to quote properly? That would make your posts so much easier on the eyes.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Please, spare me the semantics:-


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)


I don't claim to understand or put faith in what is unknown, i am Agnostic.

Therefore, i take the Atheist position, as i believe it is a positive assertion that cannot be verified. Because it cannot be verrified logically or empirically i take the position of scepticism.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?


Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.


Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?


Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.


Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.


I don't see them as contradictory terms.

Maybe - - but to me each stands on its own.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Please, spare me the semantics:-


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)


I don't claim to understand or put faith in what is unknown, i am Agnostic.

Therefore, i take the Atheist position, as i believe it is a positive assertion that cannot be verified. Because it cannot be verrified logically or empirically i take the position of scepticism.


If you are agnostic then you don't take the atheist position, that makes you an atheist and no longer and agnostic - I didn't make the rules! The two are at odds with each other. Sorry, that's what dictionaries do for you!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


It depends on the context and definition of God.

If it refers to just the belief in a creative source of reality then i am Agnostic, and therefore Atheist until it can be reasoned otherwise. Evidence is presented? - I will renounce my Agnosticism, and inherently my Atheism.

If it refers to the omnipotent intervening God (religion's claim) then i am a Gnostic Atheist. I don't believe any God intervenes, and the creative force is certainly without care as 99.8% of species have become extinct on our planet alone, and gallaxies are on collision causes with each other. I think it's evident that this God is not omnipotent therefoer i am Gnostic Atheist to that specific definition of God.
edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?


Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.


Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.


I don't see them as contradictory terms.

Maybe - - but to me each stands on its own.


They are kind of are contradictory - I don't believe/I don't know if I believe/I believe - the bottom line is one of the three - if you really care to call yourself any of them. The definitions are kind of clear cut.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by something wicked
 


It depends on the context and definition of God.

If it refers to just the belief in a creative source of reality then i am Agnostic, and therefore Atheist until it can be reasoned otherwise. Evidence is presented? - I will renounce my Agnosticism, and inherently my Atheism.

If it refers to the omnipotent intervening God (religion's claim) then i am a Gnostic Atheist. I don't believe any God intervenes, and the creative force is certainly without care as 99.8% of species have become extinct on our planet alone, and gallaxies are on collision causes with each other. I think it's evident that this God is not omnipotent therefoer i am Gnostic Atheist.


Thank you for your response, and the term Gnostic atheist comes from where? Important to me as it still is an oxymoron so I would like to see if it's a comfort blanket type term that has come into place quite recently.

Ah, ok, I've just read that it's described as 'weak atheism' ok, thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
As regards the difference between Agnostic and Atheistic stances:
www.positiveatheism.org...
Please read section II. The Meaning of Atheism
There is more than one type of Atheism, and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

@ IAMIAM - I do love you, if I didn't care at all I would never have posted, but I still think you are flat wrong.
The post wherein I said I was removing myself from this thread, which you quoted, was edited for a reason.
Please stop asserting that I have an "ailment." It is offensive and condescending.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?


Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.


Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.


I don't see them as contradictory terms.

Maybe - - but to me each stands on its own.


They are kind of are contradictory - I don't believe/I don't know if I believe/I believe - the bottom line is one of the three - if you really care to call yourself any of them. The definitions are kind of clear cut.


Where is "I believe"?

One says - - - there is no proof".

The other says basically - - - I would be arrogant to claim full knowledge of all that exists.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Re One4all

Quote: ["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."]

Including 'free will cumulative' citation from a former post of yours. Nice, I'll go along.

Quote: ["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."]

Semantically, yes. Hope you're not trying to carry 'observer created reality' to the extreme of denying birds an independent existence in cosmic terms.

Quote: [".... 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."]

What's empirical is in an epistemological context also a co-census decission. On science's own ground, I'm satisfied with sciece's defintion of empirical. Questions on this be raised though, when we e.g. reach the alleged M-brane level. What will be 'empirical' there.

Quote: ["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."]

Agree. But this is another 'level', needing another perspective. At least until we have grand unified theories covering both ends and knitting them together.

Quote: ["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 "]

A political 'level', tentatively met by the political answer liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy. Sofar the most functional model, but far from ultimate.

I'm not being critical with the following. But there's is a perspective beyond the one you're using now.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
Agnostic atheism is surely a buzzword, and to quote the two together is surely an oxymoron?


Not really.

Atheist - lack of belief in a deity - - - there is no proof.

Agnostic - I don't know. It would be quite arrogant to claim I KNOW there is no god. There simply is no proof.

Why do some keep trying to complicate this.


Hi, I think we agree, so agnostic atheism is still an oxymoron? And yes, I've said several times in this thread that we shouldn't try and complicate this.


I don't see them as contradictory terms.

Maybe - - but to me each stands on its own.


They are kind of are contradictory - I don't believe/I don't know if I believe/I believe - the bottom line is one of the three - if you really care to call yourself any of them. The definitions are kind of clear cut.


Where is "I believe"?

One says - - - there is no proof".

The other says basically - - - I would be arrogant to claim full knowledge of all that exists.


"I believe" is not present in the list because it only has bearing for the individual who so believes. It is purely subjective to the individual and has no place in a rational objective argument. It is perfectly valid for an individual to have an empirically unsupported belief, yet it is equally invalid to attempt to apply that belief to other individuals.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

So, what are we really talking about here? Isn't it like a gay person arguing his "case" and a heterosexual completely disagreeing? Who is right? Both are ...

At the end of the day all that matters is what we did with our lives. Go and hug your loved one.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
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.


I have demonstrated it. I have validated it. Yet, you reject it, not of any rationalisation, but out of your hatred for the label of the Unknown.

Hatred is not rational thought which is why this argument will continue on into infinity. Neither side will let go of their hatred for the choice of terminology of the other. Both sides are saying the same thing, yet neither understands the other.

God truly has confounded the tongues. LOL

Anyway, I will leave you folks to beating each other senseless until something unknown causes you to look beyond your words and find understanding.

The world is a reflection of the attitudes present here. As this thread is chaos, so is the world. It is an organised chaos which will result in a new order. Watch.

bon au revoir mes amis!

avec l'amour,

Votre Frère
edit on 5-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





Now what is the Fathers will?

To love one another. That is all we are supposed to do. We are not supposed to judge or harm each other. Because we have, new understanding is coming, and the old beliefs are dieing out.


Yet we don't all love each other leading us to conclude a few possibilities -

A] There is no father

B) There is but you don't know what its' will is

C) It is not omnipotent if it were then its' will could not, not be done.


I notice you don't consider your god omniscient, why so ?


edit on 5-2-2011 by The Djin because: speeling



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

Academic Atheism (as in, "there is no proof for the existence of God," not "There is not, nor can there be a God") is not faith based, it is based on evidence, of which there is none. It really is very simple to understand.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by bogomil
 


Do you want me to U2U and show you how to quote properly? That would make your posts so much easier on the eyes.


My offer's still valid ...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["To me God is the sum of all energy."]

Just for the record: Energy is most likely only a phenomenon/concept inside cosmos. An alleged 'god' wouldn't be limited to such anthropomorphic notions.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 





The theist and atheist position are both faith based.


Atheism is certainly not faith based



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join