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.

 

Are all atheists cowards?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
By the way, some of you are doing a GREAT job staying on point. Kudos for you!




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 



Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
Well, Gee, Wally...

Islam teaches that ANYONE who wont convert to Islam must die. I don't know of ANY Christians, shown in videos on the internet, beheading people.


Well, that's because the Enlightenment helped drag Christianity out of the Dark Ages, when they used to hang, burn, and otherwise torture people.

Christianity teaches that you can be forgiven for your crimes on Earth by sincere repentance. That gives you free reign to do whatever it is you feel you must in the name of Christianity so long as you feel bad about it and later repent.

And I don't know of any Muslims in the USA that have bothered to change the laws to force their religion down my throat.



It just has smell of hypocricy when atheists rail against Christianity when the biggest threat to their freedom, and very existance, is Islam.


No, the biggest thread to my freedom is Evangelical Christians. Why? Well, fundamentalists Muslims don't have much of a say in the USA. Evangelical Christians don't care about the environment, they mentally abuse children, and they try to ram their religion down other people's throats.

As for the greatest threat to my existence...well, exactly how many people are killed by Muslims in the name of Islam every year? And how many people are killed slipping in the shower every year?

Religion is the problem, not Islam. Christianity has just had 700 more years than Islam to be civilized by secular society. Islam is about as barbaric as Christianity was 700 years ago.



If you really want to do the world some good, convert an Islamic extremist to atheism.


We don't go out to convert. We put out the arguments and let people decide. Most Islamic extremists, just like most Christian extremists, don't bother to listen.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Wow... a whole forest full of straw men are burning on that comment! Gotta be a record...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wow, you must be unaware of a recent move in the courts to make Shariah law supercede civil law...right here...in the good ol' USA...

Oh, and even suggesting that Christianity is a greater threat to you than Islam is absurd. Go to a church and say your an atheist, someone will probably debate you. Go to a mosque and say there is no Allah, you are a dead man! Even if you walked around Times Square shouting there is no Allah, you'd be lucky to survive the day...literally.

No...sorry...you gave your TRUE colors away with that comment...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 



Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wow, you must be unaware of a recent move in the courts to make Shariah law supercede civil law...right here...in the good ol' USA...


You must not know anything about the law.



Oh, and even suggesting that Christianity is a greater threat to you than Islam is absurd.


Really? Up until a few years ago an Evangelical Christian had the



Go to a church and say your an atheist, someone will probably debate you.


Or they'll look at me like I'm satan incarnate and ask me incredibly ignorant questions.



Go to a mosque and say there is no Allah, you are a dead man!


I've actually gone to a mosque before (something I doubt you've done) and they were quite polite to mean. They did debate me. It was at a time when I was already an atheist an was trying to 'find god' so to speak. I spoke with every did type of religious person I could find, including Muslims.

The issue here isn't the religion. There are some churches in the poorer part of the world where I might get killed for claiming that Christ was not real. The issue here isn't a delineation between Christianity and Islam, it's the fact that Christianity has had an additional few centuries to mature.



Even if you walked around Times Square shouting there is no Allah, you'd be lucky to survive the day...literally.


I doubt it.



No...sorry...you gave your TRUE colors away with that comment...


My true colors? You think I'm a secret Muslim, don't you?

You gave away your true colors when you didn't bother addressing my points.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Point to a single straw man in my comment.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Point to a single straw man in my comment.

Certainly.



Christianity teaches that you can be forgiven for your crimes on Earth by sincere repentance. That gives you free reign to do whatever it is you feel you must in the name of Christianity so long as you feel bad about it and later repent.


Christianity does NOT teach that we have a license to sin (free reign to do whatever): "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Rom. 6:1-2)
edit on 17-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


I didn't actually say 'sin', I said "do whatever it is you feel you must". You do realize that the Christian religion is absent a concept of morality, right? Sin is a system that doesn't respect morality, it respects the idea of offending the most powerful being in the universe. It is a 'might makes right' system.

Now, there are all sorts of horrible things you can do that are not sins. You can prevent non-Christians from voting. You can prevent women from having any power in society. You can install a theocracy. You can prevent education.

I'm not referring to sin, I'm referring to bad actions.

Furthermore, was the slaughter of the Middianites a sin? If so...why was it commanded by your deity? If not, why does your deity demand genocide?

Got another supposed straw man? Maybe two? Hell, just point to them all, it'll make this go by faster.
edit on 17/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Last line added.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I didn't actually say 'sin', I said "do whatever it is you feel you must".

You added, "and then feel bad about it later..." We're supposed to feel bad about non-sins? It looks to me like you're backpedalling from your original claim, just so it can't be called a straw man. So in the future I'll have to demand a lot more precision from you so nothing can be redefined on the fly.


You do realize that the Christian religion is absent a concept of morality, right? Sin is a system that doesn't respect morality, it respects the idea of offending the most powerful being in the universe. It is a 'might makes right' system.

You do realize that God, as a personal being, has as much right to justice as his creatures, right? Or are you saying it's fine to bash, mock, flame, irritate, or otherwise flip God off and he can't say anything about it, but if somebody does anything to you then that's a terrible thing?

Anyway, the statement "sin is a system that doesn't respect morality" is nonsensical, because sin is not a system. And if God can't define right and wrong, why do you think you can? Maybe I'd like to define it instead and impose my views on you, and claim that if you're bigger than me then you have nothing to say about it or you're guilty of "might makes right". Sorry, but your reasoning here is poorly defined and illogical.


Now, there are all sorts of horrible things you can do that are not sins. You can prevent non-Christians from voting. You can prevent women from having any power in society. You can install a theocracy. You can prevent education.

You're an authority on the definition of sin? There is a LOT the Bible doesn't talk about specifically, but the general principles are clear enough.

In contrast, if there is no God then there is nothing but popular opinion and the majority rules... aka "might makes right". Some people feel that they should have the right to kill and eat other people, but who are you to say that's wrong or immoral or horrible? Survival of the fittest doesn't care whether others survive, even if it means eventual extinction of the means of one's own life support, because it can't think ahead. Who is to say that the earth should be cared for, or that the human race should survive, or any other life form for that matter? If the whole planet blows up, so what?

Point being, that anti-theism is not morally superior to theism when you take its relativistic morals to their logical conclusions. Pot, meet kettle.



I'm not referring to sin, I'm referring to bad actions.

Define "bad". And make sure it isn't based on "might makes right". Surely if you're consistent you'll agree that incarcerating criminals is just "might makes right" on a larger scale. You can claim that it's for the good of the majority as some kind of moralistic statement, but it still boils down to "might makes right". Very much like the point of the movie "I Am Legend".

Rest assured I could pick apart the rest of your rants, but clearly you make up definitions as you go along and don't seem the least bit interested in discussing the Christian faith rationally. I give a mocker one chance and then move on. If you ever want to read up on these things instead of getting all your religious views from infidels.org, just click on the links in my sig. Buh-bye!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I didn't actually say 'sin', I said "do whatever it is you feel you must".

You added, "and then feel bad about it later..." We're supposed to feel bad about non-sins? It looks to me like you're backpedalling from your original claim, just so it can't be called a straw man. So in the future I'll have to demand a lot more precision from you so nothing can be redefined on the fly.


Well, I feel bad about being quick to anger, treating women poorly, and many other things that aren't defined as sins.




You do realize that the Christian religion is absent a concept of morality, right? Sin is a system that doesn't respect morality, it respects the idea of offending the most powerful being in the universe. It is a 'might makes right' system.

You do realize that God, as a personal being, has as much right to justice as his creatures, right?


In what system of justice can an all-powerful being actually be wronged? It has all the power, it can do whatever it wants, right? And what can we do to harm it? How can an all-wise being be offended? The idea that an all-powerful being even fits in to the concept of 'justice' is a bit ridiculous.



Or are you saying it's fine to bash, mock, flame, irritate, or otherwise flip God off and he can't say anything about it, but if somebody does anything to you then that's a terrible thing?


Well, I don't do any of those things...because I don't believe in your deity. It could say whatever it wants if it's all powerful.



Anyway, the statement "sin is a system that doesn't respect morality" is nonsensical, because sin is not a system.


I meant to use the word concept. My bad. But the concept of sin and the system built around it is a system devoid of morality.



And if God can't define right and wrong, why do you think you can?


Because my existence is verifiable. Oh, and because I'm not. Because that, right there, is a straw man. I'm saying that objective standards can be derived from empathy, not that I can define right and wrong.



Maybe I'd like to define it instead and impose my views on you, and claim that if you're bigger than me then you have nothing to say about it or you're guilty of "might makes right". Sorry, but your reasoning here is poorly defined and illogical.


No, your imposition of what you predicted my reasoning to be is illogical because that's what you intended it to be.

And to compare the situation of an infinitely powerful being vs anyone to the situation of someone who just happens to be bigger than another person is beyond ridiculous.




Now, there are all sorts of horrible things you can do that are not sins. You can prevent non-Christians from voting. You can prevent women from having any power in society. You can install a theocracy. You can prevent education.

You're an authority on the definition of sin? There is a LOT the Bible doesn't talk about specifically, but the general principles are clear enough.


Yep. Treat women like crap. Commit genocide. Punish rape victims. Be internally contradictory on whether or not Christians should follow OT laws.



In contrast, if there is no God then there is nothing but popular opinion and the majority rules... aka "might makes right".


Nope, that's a straw man.



Some people feel that they should have the right to kill and eat other people, but who are you to say that's wrong or immoral or horrible?


Because any society that functions in that way will crumble.



Survival of the fittest doesn't care whether others survive, even if it means eventual extinction of the means of one's own life support, because it can't think ahead.


No, it really does. Natural selection selects against certain behaviors such as eventual extinction. That's why animal populations tend to remain relatively stable in a stable environment.



Who is to say that the earth should be cared for, or that the human race should survive, or any other life form for that matter? If the whole planet blows up, so what?


*sigh* Why are you deriving nihlism from atheism?

My question for you is: What if God decides to give up and go play a new game? Then what?



Point being, that anti-theism is not morally superior to theism when you take its relativistic morals to their logical conclusions. Pot, meet kettle.
[/quoet]

I don't believe in relativistic morals. There are objective moral standards separate from divine thinking. So..yeah. Ironic that you complained about straw men and then proceeded to whip out the 'atheist nihlism' straw man as the bottom of the slippery slope from the 'relativistic morals' straw man.





I'm not referring to sin, I'm referring to bad actions.

Define "bad". And make sure it isn't based on "might makes right".


Things that inhibit human flourishing or cause preventable suffering.



Surely if you're consistent you'll agree that incarcerating criminals is just "might makes right" on a larger scale.


No, incarcerating criminals is punishing actions that cause suffering and preventing those actions from occurring again while hopefully (and I am all about rehabilitation when it comes to criminals) assisting in the flourishing of the human beings within the prison and making them people who will not cause suffering in that manner again.



You can claim that it's for the good of the majority as some kind of moralistic statement, but it still boils down to "might makes right". Very much like the point of the movie "I Am Legend".


No, what makes the right is that suffering is necessarily worse than not suffering.



Rest assured I could pick apart the rest of your rants, but clearly you make up definitions as you go along and don't seem the least bit interested in discussing the Christian faith rationally.


Clearly you don't know anything about me.




I give a mocker one chance and then move on. If you ever want to read up on these things instead of getting all your religious views from infidels.org, just click on the links in my sig. Buh-bye!


What's ironic is that you're claiming that I'm not interested in discussing things when you're clearly the one that doesn't like having your viewpoint challenged. I don't even think I've ever been to infidels.org, nor do I really plan to.

Where do I get my views on religion from? Apologists. I read apologetics. I listen to their seminars. I've bothered to read up on 'creation science'. I've read Islamic, Christian, Jewish, and Hindu apologetics. I've studied theology. I am actually studying philosophy as a part of my university education.

I even watch debates. I've seen so many debates from William Lane Craig that I could probably stand in for him since his arguments have hardly changed since I was born.

Going to your links I've found that you somehow think that the concept of an omniscient deity still allows for free will...I ask you how such a being itself can have free will. If you can actually answer that question, I'll be more than suprised.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 

Is this, like, a joke? Someone calling themselves a 'real American patriot' asking whether atheists are cowards? It's like a cartoon in the New Yorker.

You're just poking fun at dumb old Religious Republicans with that name and that attitude, aren't you? No real real American patriot would make himself into such a laughing-stock.

You clever old funpoker, you.


edit on 19/5/11 by Astyanax because: there is no such magazine as



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Seriously?

Well, I have an answer for your question. Though, before I give it I have one that has been bothering me since I started reading this one thread.

"Are all Christians ass holes?"

I am just asking based off of my small experience regarding Christians. The very few I have met HAVE to be the exact representation of all Christians everywhere. So, I guess I have just answered my own question, YES! All Christians are ass holes!

See, you answered your question already too, didn't you? All athiests must be cowards, because the two you have met are.


Now, onto breaking the rules. You are attacking athiesim, and I will attack Christianity! Jesus is not real, you know this right? There is not ONE document or eye witness (That's right, NOT ONE eye witness to JC.) Do you know what a "hero" is?

A hero is a person whom is not real. Like Obama! Except they put a real person to the pattern with him...Anyway, Jesus was not real. I have a thread on it somewhere around here, "The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus be Fake?)" I believe is the title. No one has been able to refute my observations, so I have made them my belief. Jesus is a fake thing, a story book character.

(You are not god, your word is not law. The topic of this thread is "attacking others beliefs" therefore I may attack yours.)

PS I am an Agnostic Discordian (HA!)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


Atheists are cowards? By refusing to be submissive bitches AND STILL acting like decent human beings?

I don't think so.

"Pascal's Wager"


Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics


Compare Pascal's Wager to that of the "Atheist's Wager":-


The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Blaise Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.


Which wager is the more moral?
Whch is the more honest?
Which is the more courageous?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Name one moral or ethical action or behaviour committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist.


Originally posed by Hitchens.

An interesting challenge for any believer, or anyone else.


edit on 20/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Here is my analogy about God and various religions:

God is like a big huge mountain....and standing at the base of this mountain are people from every religion, race, color, creed, spiritual beliefs and country......holding hands.....encircling this mountain....and...they are all looking at the same mountain.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


My anology:-

God is what people don't understand. God is an answer to the unanswerable questions. God is meaning to some people, and meaningless to others. God is reality, is existence, and for most people, it's an easy answer to the "meaning of life"
edit on 20/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wow, you must be unaware of a recent move in the courts to make Shariah law supercede civil law...right here...in the good ol' USA...

Oh, and even suggesting that Christianity is a greater threat to you than Islam is absurd. Go to a church and say your an atheist, someone will probably debate you. Go to a mosque and say there is no Allah, you are a dead man! Even if you walked around Times Square shouting there is no Allah, you'd be lucky to survive the day...literally.

No...sorry...you gave your TRUE colors away with that comment...



i live in NYC, and i always debate with people saying theres no God for ALL RELIGIONS
im still here typing on this forum

so your "literally" isn't literal at all



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


You wrote:

["And if God can't define right and wrong, why do you think you can?"]

Maybe you should get your basic assumptions in order, before you start building new ones on top of the first.

Quote: ["Maybe I'd like to define it instead and impose my views on you, and claim that if you're bigger than me then you have nothing to say about it or you're guilty of "might makes right"."]

By reversing an argument and disclaiming the inverted version, you're not 'proving' anything except a tendency to twisted semantics. 'Might make right' does not imply, that all big people make use of the option of violence. Correspondingly are not all big people bad guys, and thus they have a right to an opinion like everybody else.

Quote: ["Sorry, but your reasoning here is poorly defined and illogical."]

Oh dearie, not only a semantic gymnast. A scholastic; something usually giving me headaches, as I can't bring myself to the level of transforming language into a meaningless mass of words.

Quote: ["In contrast, if there is no God then there is nothing but popular opinion and the majority rules... aka "might makes right"]

Do you have ANY idea of the principles of secular, egalitarian, liberal democracy whatsoever?

Quote: ["Some people feel that they should have the right to kill and eat other people, but who are you to say that's wrong or immoral or horrible?"]

On the same lines of other people, who feel they are in posssion of some alleged divine truths, so they have the right to create theocracies and kill 'heretics' for the heretics' own sake.

Quote X: ["Survival of the fittest doesn't care whether others survive, even if it means eventual extinction of the means of one's own life support,"]

Quote Y: ["Who is to say that the earth should be cared for, or that the human race should survive, or any other life form for that matter? If the whole planet blows up, so what?"]

QuoteZ: ["Point being, that anti-theism is not morally superior to theism when you take its relativistic morals to their logical conclusions."]

How did you get from X and Y to Z? What kind of anti-theism are you talking about, and what kind of theism? And what's the problem with relativism, when the alternative is invasive 'absolutes' taken out of thin air (as most religious extremism consists of).

Quote: ["Define "bad". And make sure it isn't based on "might makes right". Surely if you're consistent you'll agree that incarcerating criminals is just "might makes right" on a larger scale."]

You seem to be totally confused in your anti-liberal/anti-democracy crusade. You're confusing liberal democracy with some pipe-dream of anarchistic utopia.

Quote: ["You can claim that it's for the good of the majority as some kind of moralistic statement, but it still boils down to "might makes right".]

You mix your own ignorance of political ideology and practise with what you BELIEVE your opposition would have to say. I don't know of anyone idiotic enough to define liberal democracy the way you do in your propagandistic rhetoric.

Quote: [" Rest assured I could pick apart the rest of your rants, but clearly you make up definitions as you go along and don't seem the least bit interested in discussing the Christian faith rationally."]

First of all you seem to suffer from the common christian extreme-extremist megalomania syndrom. Secondly discussing 'christian faith' rationally is something quite a few atheists here could do (I can also though not being an atheist), while it's questionable if YOU will be able to do it (time will show).

Quote: ["I give a mocker one chance and then move on."]

It would maybe be a wiser move on your part to move on immediately. Your kind isn't so hard to deal with, it only takes some time before anything gets through your one-way filters and white noise.

Quote: ["If you ever want to read up on these things instead of getting all your religious views from infidels.org, just click on the links in my sig."]

Is infidels.org the anti-theist equalent of the site where you pick your 'arguments' from? In that case I think, I will stay with the academic standard version of using sources I have used for 45 years.

PS This could be a hit and run. The frothers around the mouth usually hang around longer and reach to the 'Satan, get behind me' level (which always is an experience to a european).



edit on 20-5-2011 by bogomil because: grammar, clarification



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


But i thought it was Jesus who died for our sins? Isn't that what Vicarious redemption is pushing at?

Many ancient tribes believed that scapegoating the "sins" of the tribe onto an animal and sending it off into the wild to die of starvation would absolve the "sins" of the people, would absolve responsibility, of guilt - Pretty stupid, right?

Well Christianity's claim is that one person was sacrified to absolve an entire species of responsbility (he died for us) - What nonsense, what brutality. What kind of basis for morality is this?

And this was some hundred thousands years down the evolutionary line. I guess it's pretty imaginative fiction but It doesn't even make for consistent read, nor does it deserve the respect of a historian or any other thinking person.

Forgiveness provided in such a dispensary fashion dilutes the idea of personal responsibility, and thus i believe the essense of morality.
edit on 20/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   


So I ask, are all the atheists on ATS cowards


I looked up the definition of coward.

cow·ard   /ˈkaʊərd/ Show Spelled

[kou-erd] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
–adjective
2. lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3. proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.

dictionary.reference.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> dictionary.reference.com...


The way the deifinition of coward is laid out, i believe that people thet believe in religion are cowards. The wat i see it, an Atheist is willing to take the chance of facing the maker, because there is no maker.

The true coward are those who are afraid of "hell" or the unknown. So...you give in to a belief that has not been proven, just passed down generation to generation of fearmongering, worshiper"s of a man's agenda. So you go along with the flow. If everyone is doing it, you can do it too. Blindly with no logical questions about "faith".

Yeah, I know who the true "coward" is. Calling me a coward for standing up against the popular belief. And then all of thew straw man comments. You religous people rally are confused, trying to find your meaning of a follower's life.

Don't make any sense and I truly do not know why I bother with brainwashed religous propaganda that is outdated by a thousand years or more.(I know that religion is older than that)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join