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.

 

Atheism

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrFake
 


"I'm going to believe in it unless you can prove it DOESN'T exist" seems a lot more idiotic than "I'm not going to believe in it unless you can prove it DOES exist"
edit on 8-6-2011 by Perplexity because: caps for emphasis...




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrFake
 





I did not mean atheism is a religion in a literal sense. I was simply implying that as annoying as theists are about spreading their faith, atheists are just as annoying in the same way.


I've yet to hear of an atheist knocking doors on a Saturday morning offering to save christians from their stupidity



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by testtubebaby

Originally posted by MrFake
Here's the thing:

Religious people believe in God.
Atheists believe there is no god.
Neither side has the facts to prove what they say is true.
Therefore, it all comes down to faith.
Atheism is a religion whether the atheists want to admit it or not.
In the end, we're all the same. We just have faith in different beliefs.



See this is the kind of unintelligent mumbo Jumbo that has people laughing.

IF you claim something in a court of law the burden of proof lies with you.

YOU can not claim you were raped without proof. Even the police have to have evidence in their cases for the prosecution to try and prove it in court. COURT where the whole thing relies on PROOF.


Beliefs require neither proof, nor a court of law.


NEver has there been proof of any god EVER. NEVER EVER EVER.


Many people will disagree with you because both proof and evidence can be subjective rather than objective.


So therefore an atheist does not have to prove a negative. Its the religious freaks that want their BS intruding in our lives not the atheist.


And neither does a religious freak have to prove a positive because of his BELIEFS!


ITs the religious nuts who want rules change to accommodate their "god". Read any of the holy scripts "original" scritp that is not the man made changed versions and you will see that god is a rapist, murderer and sadist.


Deuteronomy? How would you know what the original scripts contained if they have been altered and are no longer available?


If anything its the devil who fairs pretty well in the original texts.


I happen to agree that the devil/satan/lucifer has taken an elohim project and converted it to a nephelim project through clever manipulation. In fact pagans of all cultures, especially central and south america, used to perform ritual sacrifice with animals and humans. Judge him/her by her deads......


But you religious people will forever be of weak mind and character for needing something so trivial to keep you motivated in life.


No need to make fun of victims and besides all religions have kernels of truth to them. Some are a bit more honest than others but none put everything together in a respectable alien way. What are angels, demons, god and satan if not aliens? What are spirits?


There is NO god. You prove it. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the outrageous claims.


I see nothing outrageous with people believing what they want to believe.


I AM god. You could not prove I am not. I am Jesus. You could not prove I am not.

But it would be ME who has to prove it to the world. People would not take my word for it. Why NOT? You are all so quick to defend you religion yet have had not proof of ANYTHING.

Also, why in court could I not use the "god told me to" excuse for murder. After all, reading the Old Testament god loved a bit of Murder and pedophilia.


SILLY



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Agnostic Atheism


Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such.


It's very easy to move to Gnostic Atheism when a specific definition of God has been declared or claimed. Some definitions of God are so absurd, unscientific and contradictory that they can be falsified with ease.

In regards to a creator "deity" or "GOD" - I guess i would have to remain agnostic, as i am agnostic in regards to Santa Claus - (i.e. according to the theory he comes when you are asleep) so there is no way to prove it wrong or right.
edit on 8/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Proof santa don't exist, your parents have reciepts for all the gifts.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
So here is my take... You don't need religion to have faith in a God or spirit but religion needs people to keep the lies going strong. Religion regardless of which ever flavor, has been the cause for more wars and conflicts than any other reason in history and still continues today in the middle east. If you believe in God, your suppose to fear him, make sacrifices for him, give money, ect. So to me fear seems to be the longest running motivational tool in history. Our governments around the world use the same fear tactic to get us to believe and support whatever theme they draw up. 9/11 and the patriot act sure showcased that tactic. If you are the creator and father of man, why would you want your children fearing you? If a so called God created Earth and man, he must enjoy torturing his creation because their is far more suffering and evil in the world than happiness and love. People are quick to give praise and thanks to God when something amazing happens to them, yet he isn't to blame when something tragic happens.

Common sense suggests that this just may be the biggest lie ever told and how interesting it is to see people have faith in something that they cannot touch, see, smell, or hear, but then to deny evidence suggesting an alternate theory regarding what really took place on 9/11/2001. People can see with their own eyes what took place that day but yet most believe the governments version of the events that day. Why, because it is much easier for the human psyche to accept this lie as truth out of fear that if the leaders of their once great nation were responsible for the deaths of thousands, and they may not be as safe or as free as they once thought they were.

So believing and having faith seems like a defense mechanism. It's far easier to get by in life with all the issues we face in hopes that one day when your time is up your going to heaven instead of the lights just going off.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Religion has been debated for thousands of years, even before Jesus. It is a never ending debate.
Both sides have valid points, and both agree about peace and love. People need to quit taking the radicals from either side and looking at them as the entire group, but sadly, this will never happen. When some humans do evil things, and it is found that they are in a certain religion, that religion is blamed.

Just take the Greek gods for example, this was debated for quite a long time until Christian emperor Theodosius made it a criminal offense to worship them.

Both sides needs to come to an agreement at some point in time, otherwise we will never move on and constantly be in a struggle.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


If they don't, i'll have to remain agnostic



edit on 8/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perplexity
reply to post by MrFake
 


"I'm going to believe in it unless you can prove it DOESN'T exist" seems a lot more idiotic than "I'm not going to believe in it unless you can prove it DOES exist"
edit on 8-6-2011 by Perplexity because: caps for emphasis...


You sound as ignorant as I sound idiotic. Just FYI.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by blujasper
And THEY call you a supermod ??? Seems to me, someone in your position should have a little more compassion for all being said and have more discernment.??!!

I'm just sayin....



Is this be rude to moderators month or something? Not only was that uncalled for. She made more sense than you just did, and she was on topic. What is this trend I keep seeing lately of members blasting and attacking moderators? Anytime a moderator takes part in a discussion, they are acting as members, and not moderators. To use her standing as a moderator to insult her was a personal attack.

Looks like we can add a third group OP. Those who pop into a thread to attack the contributinng mod.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrFake
 


Well i disagree.

I think the point was completely valid, it's a point that's alluded to in "Russell's Teapot":-


Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

edit on 8/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrFake
 


Can you please explain why you think my post exuded any sort of ignorance? I provided a point with my posts, please show me the same courtesy.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Perplexity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inkedscorp
So here is my take... You don't need religion to have faith in a God or spirit but religion needs people to keep the lies going strong. Religion regardless of which ever flavor, has been the cause for more wars and conflicts than any other reason in history and still continues today in the middle east. If you believe in God, your suppose to fear him, make sacrifices for him, give money, ect. So to me fear seems to be the longest running motivational tool in history. Our governments around the world use the same fear tactic to get us to believe and support whatever theme they draw up. 9/11 and the patriot act sure showcased that tactic. If you are the creator and father of man, why would you want your children fearing you? If a so called God created Earth and man, he must enjoy torturing his creation because their is far more suffering and evil in the world than happiness and love. People are quick to give praise and thanks to God when something amazing happens to them, yet he isn't to blame when something tragic happens.

Common sense suggests that this just may be the biggest lie ever told and how interesting it is to see people have faith in something that they cannot touch, see, smell, or hear, but then to deny evidence suggesting an alternate theory regarding what really took place on 9/11/2001. People can see with their own eyes what took place that day but yet most believe the governments version of the events that day. Why, because it is much easier for the human psyche to accept this lie as truth out of fear that if the leaders of their once great nation were responsible for the deaths of thousands, and they may not be as safe or as free as they once thought they were.

So believing and having faith seems like a defense mechanism. It's far easier to get by in life with all the issues we face in hopes that one day when your time is up your going to heaven instead of the lights just going off.


Thats why faith/spiritualism should not necessarily be mixed-up with organised religion. The illuminati controls governments by installing corrupt politicians to do the exact opposite of what they supposedly intended to do with their endless campaign promises, and then we have religious figures preaching the word of god as taught to them by the interpretations of our corrupt religious forefathers.

Humans are very imperfect creatures and this can be no accident. What may have started out as legitimate millenia ago could easily be misinterpretated and/or intentionally distorted by the PTB to keep people reliant on government and the church. The catholic church in particular has a terrible legacy of human rights abuses in the way of child molestations, gay priests, riddance of indulgences by financial payments, refusal of second marriage and divorce, strict observation of mass every sunday and many other questionable at best ethics.

Who said we should fear god? Respect and fear are not synonymous, although a certain amount of fear is probably necessary to maintain discipline and order in society, otherwise there would be chaos. Like I said, satan has infiltrated all mainstream religions through the weakness of man.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Just so you know - - I believe along the lines of the Terra Papers. It seems possible/probable to me.

Atheism means non-believe in a Deity. That is me. It does not preclude me having my own beliefs - - beyond that.

There is what is called "Hard Atheism". They are the hard core science group that claims in so many words "If it can't be proven it doesn't exist".

However - - - No law says I have to be a "Hard Atheist".

The "Hard Atheists" are not particularly congenial to us more "liberal" Atheists - in my online experience (by the way - I consider Liberal to be the "Catch All" bucket for anything Conservatives/Hard Core - - don't agree with).

So just like the Religious have different sects - - - Atheism is not a "one come all".



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Just so you know - - I believe along the lines of the Terra Papers. It seems possible/probable to me.

Atheism means non-believe in a Deity. That is me. It does not preclude me having my own beliefs - - beyond that.

There is what is called "Hard Atheism". They are the hard core science group that claims in so many words "If it can't be proven it doesn't exist".

However - - - No law says I have to be a "Hard Atheist".

The "Hard Atheists" are not particularly congenial to us more "liberal" Atheists - in my online experience (by the way - I consider Liberal to be the "Catch All" bucket for anything Conservatives/Hard Core - - don't agree with).

So just like the Religious have different sects - - - Atheism is not a "one come all".






Hi Annee!!


I agree with you. I'm on your side.

Terra Papers/AAT = same idea.

The most plausible theory of human and Earth history.

I definatley know that athiests can't be clumped into one group. I. for example, do not believe in a supreme
deity either, but I do believe that extraterrestrials were once called gods.....



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by digitalbluco
Religion has been debated for thousands of years, even before Jesus. It is a never ending debate.
Both sides have valid points, and both agree about peace and love. People need to quit taking the radicals from either side and looking at them as the entire group, but sadly, this will never happen. When some humans do evil things, and it is found that they are in a certain religion, that religion is blamed.

Just take the Greek gods for example, this was debated for quite a long time until Christian emperor Theodosius made it a criminal offense to worship them.

Both sides needs to come to an agreement at some point in time, otherwise we will never move on and constantly be in a struggle.

Just my 2 cents.


I agree. The result is called the AAT.

There were such entities called gods. This was the name ancient man called extraterrstrials.

Humans did worship the gods....Worship (in Hebrew) means to 'work for'....aka slavery

The gods (ET's) did create mankind to worship (slave) for them.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by confreak
 



Originally posted by confreak
FACT
There is no such thing as random


Falsehood. What do you call genetic mutations?



EVIDENCE FOR GOD
There is no such thing as random


How is that evidence for a deity?

DEFINE EVIDENCE
facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.



If nothing is random in this Universe (evidence says nothing random), then that proves the existence of a creator.


How?



If the Universe was to be restarted like a computer, a different Universe will not be created (everything will be exactly 100% the same), because it is designed.


Where's your evidence of this? I'm sorry, but 'ideas extracted from the sphincter' don't count as something that is a fact.



I realize you are attempting to sound rational and intelligent but...

Definition of Random
ran·dom
   [ran-duhm]
–adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.



opposite of random would be deliberate and it's definition

de·lib·er·ate
   [adj. dih-lib-er-it; v. dih-lib-uh-reyt] adjective, verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
–adjective
1.
carefully weighed or considered; studied; intentional: a deliberate lie.

It would seem you do not disagree that there is no such thing as random, so you must believe the opposite.
Now if something was made intentionally, does that not mean it has a creator.


I am not religious and have no clue as to what I believe but you make a pretty good argument for a God..


PS you asked for examples of what I said....another poster asked the same question and got his reply...just look for it...I give a few examples of Atheists popping in a thread to troll.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I do believe that extraterrestrials were once called gods.....


As do I.

I do believe - - it is logically not far fetched to believe there are beings far more advanced then humans.

I have no problem with believing advanced beings were part of Human creation.

I of course - do not claim it as - absolute fact or "truth" or anything like that.

I also take full responsibility for myself - - my contributions to humanity - - etc. I do not believe in doing good for a reward.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I do believe that extraterrestrials were once called gods.....


As do I.

I do believe - - it is logically not far fetched to believe there are beings far more advanced then humans.

I have no problem with believing advanced beings were part of Human creation.

I of course - do not claim it as - absolute fact or "truth" or anything like that.

I also take full responsibility for myself - - my contributions to humanity - - etc. I do not believe in doing good for a reward.




I also agree. Again. And star for your post.

I also do not belie in doing good for a reward, and I also do not give credit to any deity when good things happen, and do not look at an 'evil' entity as being the reason something bad happens.

I am responsible for my own actions and do not feel that a 'god' has my best interest in mind.

Therefore I am an atheist.

However I do believe in the 'term' god, as describing extraterrestrials.

What does that actually make me????

edit on 8-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


If there is no reward for doing good, then there is no incentive for being good.

If there is no punishment for doing bad, then there is no discentive for being bad.

Basically you believe in mediocracy by default.

I think aliens do play a part in our decision making process at a subconcious level through telepathy. Good aliens are called angels and bad aliens are called demons. God either rules the good angels or rules both and we all know satan/lucifer rules the bad aliens.

The Cosmic Conflict series by branton. A must read but complicated if your new to ufology and alternative topics in general. Stan Deyo has written a book with a similar theme, but unlike branton, his work is highely priced and difficult to find.

I honestly do not have answers to all the questions. Life could be an experiment, it could be that humans are caught up in a cosmic struggle or perhaps a little of both.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join