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: 19
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Are you really that naive/stupid?


First, you imply that someone is stupid or naive based on your own ignorance.


Let me guess....your an anarcho-communist?


Your guessing games, and your assumptions about my politican position are wrong. Seems your displaying naivity here.

You just dislike people who think differently to you. That much is blindingly obvious in your posts.


You can make it as complicated as your imagination allows but in reality there are three positions to label people:

1)Theist-believes in dieties 2)Agnostic-don't know 3)Atheist-don't believe in dieties


Have you studied any aspect of Philosophy of Religion? I don't think you'd be so keane to offer 3 options to one question.
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


It is amazing how many arguments there are about what a particular label means.
Labels will only ever cause arguments.
Let us forget the labels and unite.
Labels separate, fragment.
How can we chop something that is complete into bits?

There are many on here who will continue to be arrogant and ignorant.
I say leave them with their arrogance and ignorance.
Their anger says it all.
They have to live with it.


With all due respect I see nothing wrong with labeling people. I am a market socialist and agnostic when it comes to religion despite the fact I was born to an orthodox christian family. I don't renounce jesus as my saviour, I simply despise organised religion with its dogmatic *do's and don'ts*. I also question why our religious forefathers had the tenacity to decide what material should be acceptable and what should not be acceptable.

To be honest, I think the koptic church of ethiopia is much closer to the truth then all the other sects/divisions.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Correct me if I'm wrong, but atheists also seem to have a general disdain for any proverb, allegory, fable, or parable from the past....

as a cultural anthropologist this seems ludicrous to me, but I see it daily... atheists don't see any value in the allegories contained within ancient texts, which just befuddles me to no end...

The one thing Atheists do believe though... is that they are right...
edit on 11-6-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Are you really that naive/stupid?


First, you imply that someone is stupid or naive based on your own ignorance.


Let me guess....your an anarcho-communist?


Your guessing games, and your assumptions about my politican position are wrong. Seems your displaying naivity here.

You just dislike people who think differently to you. That much is blindingly obvious in your posts.


You can make it as complicated as your imagination allows but in reality there are three positions to label people:

1)Theist-believes in dieties 2)Agnostic-don't know 3)Atheist-don't believe in dieties


Have you studied any aspect of Philosophy of Religion? I don't think you'd be so keane to offer 3 options to one question.
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


I am starting to think you have numerous accounts on ATS to agree with yourself and give "each other" stars and flags. You accuse me of being rude when you are one of the first to attack anyone that disagrees with you.


Many of these posts do not make sense. In other words disagreeing for the sake of being difficult and mean!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



I am starting to think you have numerous accounts on ATS to agree with yourself and give "each other" stars and flags


I wouldn't be so pathetic. Just speculation on your part.

I argue not to be difficult but because i disagree. Simple as that.
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Not at all, i've heard Atheists use chinese proverbs and or poetic anologies.

Generalising atheists as having a disdain for anything is just speculation, and frankly not true of Atheism. It's a simple lack fo belief in a deity, nothing more. There is no mandatory disdain for anything, infact, some atheists actually wish a deity existed, but can't bring themselves to believe it.


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



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Aren't you generalizing when you say they wish a diety existed?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



some atheists actually wish a deity existed


No, i said said "some".



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


So you know a lot of atheists that appreciate wisdom in allegories found in religious texts?

I can't name one....



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


"seek and ye shall find"?

I personally appreciate that. What's your game anyway, are you SURE all atheists don't appreciate SOME verses within the bible? Are you absolutely sure? Have you done your research?

Or are you attempting to demonise atheism with false conjecture?
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I'm talking about allegories.... you know like the Garden of Eden etc



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


An allegory is just "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one."

I'm sure you can extract meaning from the religious allegories, in the same way that you can extract meaning from Shakespeare's allegories.

Much of the bible, and the garden of Eden is open to interpretation, many of the allegories are ambivalent so i guess some atheists could use the allegories to their own advantage, or refuse all possible meanings.

Many of the allegories are immoral.

For example, take this one quoted the by "Olise":-


And Judas asked, "Lord, how will our garments be brought to us?" And the answer to him was, "Some will bring them to you and others will receive them: for there are those who are ordained to bring them to you." He that has an ear, let him hear!


MY response:-


Purpose of this tale? Is it to higlight two types of character; those who will seek to cloth others, and those who expect to be clothed by others? And what do you mean by "ordained?" I'm guessing you mean commanded? Quite sure of it.


I havn't had a reply yet, and perhaps the allegory is ambivilent, but i think i understood the meaning.
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I don't know any atheists who would find it worthwhile to explore an allegory for it's meaning... even if it's not hidden but overt and obvious.

Do you?


edit on 11-6-2011 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I disagree.

I've offered my thoughts and comments regarding it above. I've heard my friends quote chinese proverbs, and "seek and ye shall find" which is a vague religious allegory that can be applied in the scientific sense.
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Can you name any public atheists? Anyone besides your friends?

I can't... I can't name any public atheist who reflects on the wisdom of ancient texts...



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


There are many academics and historians who have no faith, or are atheists. Their knowledge of the bible is no more "wiser" than the priests that insist upon the metaphysical claims of the bible.

Christopher Hitchens is a public atheist, he's read the bible and can quote it better than most; he understands that it comes from an early age in evolution, never mind social evolution,he undestands that it was an "attempt" at trying to explain everything, and much of the ethical and moral teaching is abhorrent, and much of the scientific claims are less accurate, and less than amazing.

Sam Harris is a public atheist involved with Project Reason, he does vast ammounts of scripture analysis.

www.project-reason.org... - "scripture Project"

Check out this infographic that was produced by Project Reason:-

sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com...

Dawkins is a well-read evolutionary micro-biogist who can quote the bible well too.
edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Dawkins doesn't seem to have a grasp on the bible... though he can quote it....



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Perhaps you should read his book, before forming an unmitigated opinion.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by UB2120
 


...I'm quite sure it's not a matter of not understanding more than understanding that it's unrelated. Babies are born atheists. They're also born a-bicyclists. They're unfamiliar with the concept and thus are unable to believe in it. The uninformed are, by necessity, those in unbelief.


I was trying to show how children naturally start the foundations for religious faith. You don't have to put a name to God to believe in the existance of something bigger than yourself, nor do you have to belong to a religion.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by UB2120
 


It had to start of with somone thinking in that way.

So i guess i agree. Someone would have had to assume it in the first place. Like how children anthropomorphise inanimate objects such as volcanoes, earthquakes or tornadoes; it's that basic kind of thinking, where with little educational infrastructure, and scientific knowledge; you make assumptions based on perceptions and subjective thought.

Thankfully, we know better now, so we don't have to listen to what the preists say. And human decency doesn't come from religion, it precedes it




top topics



 
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join