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.

 

When was atheism founded?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Atheism was born right along side believers. Some did, some still dont. And you TOO will be judged...for judging.




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
'Atheism' is not a religion or a belief... Rather, it is the parabol to religion - it is the lack of belief, the rejection of religion, which I suppose in a sense it is a belief in itself. But if the world was mostly athiest, I don't think we'd be calling it a belief. Heck, I don't even think the word would exist... Rather, we would have a collective adjective that describes all those who follow religion - Believers?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 


It is wrong of you to bring about a religious conversation in the light of an intelligent community. Atheism was not "founded" and it is not a "belief", it is evident that religious people generally seem to have trouble realizing that just because it contains the expression "theism" does not entail anything religious. What is very surprising is the degree of rationale required to acknowledge the fact that it is an ABSENCE of belief in a religion.

Just from the tone of your comment it would be an intelligent assumption to make that you were probably born into religion, and therefore any opinions you have on the matter will always be bias, in addition to this, your mind will always be tainted in such a way that considering no belief is not an option for you. It is the simple behaviour science behind the matter, I am sorry if it sounds offensive but it is how the brain functions following intense and prolonged exposure to a belief which brings happiness, something that feels good to you, because it makes you feel this way, your brain will naturally make connections complimenting your religion as everything you do in done for the purpose of happiness (or it should be at least!) and so your brain has been trained to behave in such ways.

And before making a blind and fruitless statement such as you have, it would probably be best to educate yourself in the mechanics of the universe and our environment before believing in an idea that could have very well been created as a means of political influence in an age where communication was nil and therefore a method of controlling the masses was devised. It is definitely a good idea if I may say, though it has reached a threshold where it is hurting productivity on a global scale.

And if I may say, I'd encourage you to be more open minded in your thoughts, being passionate about something is great, but being passionate about something that is not definite can ultimately lead to a wasted lifetime. I am an atheist, I believe when I die, I will decompose into the dirt and one day end up as oil due to the carbon nature of human molecular composition and animals. Take dinosaurs for example, your car is running of off molecules that once made up T-rexs due to the carbon based nature of the biological materials under extreme pressure and time of exposure.

I believe religion jumping to a conclusion. We do not understand the mechanics of our environment, therefore it is impossible to understand the meaning if life. We have passed a threshold of intelligence at which we can reason, though we have not yet reached a threshold of intelligence where to which we have the ability to understand the nature of the universe. I respect the morales taught in religious texts, though they are just lessons being described in such a way that a child can understand them, almost like a child's picture book (as people were very dumb during the time when the bible was originated), I will never take them seriously as the things that are described in the Bible/Quran are scientifically and logistically unsound. I am a scientist, and most of us scientists are atheists, with exception to those who perhaps were born into religion (which I would say is a sin due to the lack of the child's ability to make a decision for themselves), we are atheists because we understand the world better then the uneducated, we know better than to believe in dogmatic poisonous blither.

It is not us that will pay for anything. You are the one paying, your paying right now by wasting the only life you have (as we know it). And you know what, I think if there was a supreme being, they would respect the fact that there are people who make decisions based on intelligence, considering the commandments are teachings of social intelligence, and we would be the ones rewarded. The people that spend their entire lives believing in something they aren't even sure about would be the ones who are looked down upon for their ignorance. Just enjoy your life while you have it, your only provoking the conductivity of negativity by asking these questions, and that is the only thing that makes life less positive.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
Since when do people go against people who tell the truth? Maybe there needed to be more tact from the side of the believers or atheists just don't understand the true nature of people. Atheism is a delusion, a forced mental disease worse than you may expect. It's root is hate, confusion and oppression.

First we had menslaughterers, now there is atheism.

You will be judged. I hope you realise your end is near.


LMAO... Oh my google! That is the funniest post I have read in ages! Never let the truth get in the way of an ignorant rant etherical waterwave! Very ironic post indeed!

Thanks for the giggle!

IRM



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
This is a Hate thread and should be closed Mods!




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 


But you just said ALL things are possible with faith. So, if I can't run 200mph, can I run at least 50mph? That's only one quarter of what I originally asked for. I think that's a pretty fair compromise on my part. Actually, I'll settle for 45mph without getting tired. Gas is getting expensive.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MJZoo
 


Lol i know what you are saying however, the passage you refer to in the bible, you are misinterpretating.all thingsacording to gods law.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Theophorus because: smart phone fumble



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 


LOL.

Academic: "Bible doesn't make sense, it has many scientific innaccuacies, and unmistakable contradictions"

Theist: "you're reading it wrong, you've misinterpreting it, you're taking it literally instead of metaphorically"

It was slightly different when they WERE frightening children with hellfire, or threatening homosexuals or children with God, they used their dogma to the highest potential when knowledge was little, or in theocratic countries where "GOD rules".

Now (some) of those type of Preists have been silenced (or restricted) the "moderates" have to claim we're mistinterpretting the bible's sinister, pseudo-intellectual dogma.

I just love it.
edit on 6/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


There are three criteria for interpreting scripture in accordance with the Holy Spirit, who inspired it.
1) to be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole scripture. Individual passages cannot be isolated from the overall message of scripture.
2) To read the scripture within the living tradition of the whole church.
3) Be attentive to the analogy of faith. ( the coherence of truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation).

See, there is more to it than cherry picking verses then adding ones own ideological mumbojumbo philosophic hog wash BS.

The academic would agree.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 



1) to be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole scripture. Individual passages cannot be isolated from the overall message of scripture.


Then the Holy Spirit is a homophobe, and a preacher of Hellfire.


2) To read the scripture within the living tradition of the whole church.


There's tradition and there's "ritual" based on fascist scisms like the Catholic church that have been at the forefront of right-wing fascist movements for centuries! The Pope praised Hitler at the time, he is declared as the annointed one! "GOD's will" doesn't seem to be all so perfect.

Many Christian demoninations consider the Eucharist very important, and believe in drinking and eating the body and blood of Christ. A celebration of human sacrifice, coupled with paganist blood rituals....nice tradition...hmmm, more inclined to say religious cerimony, linked with the dogma of Scripture, ritualistic.

...not so much a tradition.


3) Be attentive to the analogy of faith. ( the coherence of truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation).


Name me a truth that any Christian or any member of any other religion posses that any non-religious person couldn't possess?

Faith is blind, that's why it's never been a cogent argument in any debate between a believer and a non-believer.

Faith is just loyalty to what's written in religious doctrine. It's like me having faith that wizardry and magic after reading Harry Potter; i can't prove it doesn't, but it's a pretty unfounded conclusion to reach based on some writing, written a while back. So far no scientist, theologian, historian or any other academic has never been able to conclusively prove the existence of magic.



A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
Friedrich Nietzsche



Faith: not wanting to know what is true.


Perhaps in 2000 years, they'll practice Scientologist rituals for the sake of "tradition".
edit on 6/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
If you bred a human in isolation, would he have a natural sense of a god, or would he just act like every other animal?

im pretty confident when i say its the later.

religions (for the most part) came hand in hand with communication and a need to stop simple humans holding themselfs back and guide them to a end goal of working together and reducing 'bad things' like murder, theft and rape.

"if we work together and we can overcome the beasts we fear" that worked for the cave men, until one got smart enough to realise he could trick the team and have more for himself, this is where religion came in. Somthing to fear, somthing to want, with no proof im shocked it worked, yet it had the desired effect at the time.

Some need hope and guidence and some dont, you could say an atheist does not need these as he has the intelligence to see beyond his own actions and therefore knows automaticly what is right and wrong for himself and others.

Some athesits are evil and greedy (thanks capitalism for speeding this up.../sarcasm/), others, sceintists or teachers etc seek only to better the race in exchange for a modest living.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 



Some athesits are evil and greedy


So are some Christians.


(thanks capitalism for speeding this up.../sarcasm/),


Many Atheists deteste the fractional reserve monetary system. Atheism has no position on it.

I wonder where the some religions might be if people wern't so "charitable" towards them. I wonder the differences in the"collection plates" if they should stop preaching Hellfire, that mother's un-baptised babies would go to purgotory or that "God is infallable" and you must obey!


othersrs, sceintists or teachers etc seek only to better the race in exchange for a modest living.


And what's wrong with seeking to better the race in exchange for a modest living? There are easier ways to make a living.

There are many VOLUNTARY secular charity groups. Best leave them out of your argument, yes?

Stop trying to demonise atheists; they only have one thing in common; a lack of belief in a deity.

Deal with it.
edit on 6/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferumbra
    Originally posted by etherical waterwave
    Since when do people go against people who tell the truth? Maybe there needed to be more tact from the side of the believers or atheists just don't understand the true nature of people. Atheism is a delusion, a forced mental disease worse than you may expect. It's root is hate, confusion and oppression.

    First we had menslaughterers, now there is atheism.

    You will be judged. I hope you realise your end is near.


You can't say that atheism is people go against people who tell truth. That implies that believers tell truth, and that is not logic or true. I believe most of atheists are agnostics, they believe in something, not god as you say it.

To say that they will be judged implies that god or nature itself asks for revenge. That is just selfish human thinking.

At the end, it is not worth of writing at this thread, im aware of that but i dont know why i did it.
edit on 5-6-2011 by ferumbra because: (no reason given)




Well, it is a fact that atheists do get disturbed with the existence of God as maker of everything that is not God Himself.

Since that truth, namely, that there is God maker of everything that is not God Himself, is obvious in their heart and mind, instead of being rational they resort to stubborn outright denial, or to routine mockery and parody of God.

That is in essence all the arguments or fake arguments from atheists against God, mockery and parody.


Pachomius



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
If you bred a human in isolation, would he have a natural sense of a god, or would he just act like every other animal?

im pretty confident when i say its the later.

religions (for the most part) came hand in hand with communication and a need to stop simple humans holding themselfs back and guide them to a end goal of working together and reducing 'bad things' like murder, theft and rape.

"if we work together and we can overcome the beasts we fear" that worked for the cave men, until one got smart enough to realise he could trick the team and have more for himself, this is where religion came in. Somthing to fear, somthing to want, with no proof im shocked it worked, yet it had the desired effect at the time.

Some need hope and guidence and some dont, you could say an atheist does not need these as he has the intelligence to see beyond his own actions and therefore knows automaticly what is right and wrong for himself and others.

Some athesits are evil and greedy (thanks capitalism for speeding this up.../sarcasm/), others, sceintists or teachers etc seek only to better the race in exchange for a modest living.




"If you bred a human in isolation, would he have a natural sense of a god, or would he just act like every other animal?'

That is a very good question.

We have to find a most primitive tribe that has absolutely no contacts with missionaries of any kinds, whether from the West, or from the East like for example Buddhist monks preaching Gautama's teachings in the East, in particular South East Asia.

Anyway I think historical anthropologists investigating the origin of God, gods, divinities, deities, and associated entities in mankind from the earliest available records might be able to tell us something.

Now, mankind is an animal that establishes society which thrives on institutions.

Once the concept of God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities and associated entities get to become common in a human group, it becomes an institution with the maintainers conserving it for the sake of the society and also of course for their own personal or class interests.

If you ask me, at no time in human history is mankind in a position to pursue God without any allegiance to any religion as an institution; so we all humans might be better off if we do seek God today, without belonging stringently to any institutionalized collectivity called a religion, a faith, a church, whatever.

And religion would be like couture or fashion, coiffure or hairstyle, and cuisine or food menu preference.

You see, couture and coiffure and cuisine are all good but we don't quarrel about them do we? at least not in a multicultural world.



Pachomius



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join