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 is just plain stupid.

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by XJMatt
 





Amen mamaj,


While we are at it. Where did Amen come from and what does it mean? Ever wonder? Ever Ask?

I asked a nun in religion class, got no answer. Amen? Amen-Ra? Hmm? Only answer I can find.




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bwinwright
 


I think first you need to understand what Atheism is, it is the lack of belief in a/any deities (god/s). Other "Religions" share similar beliefs, Buddhism (which has been mentioned before), Jain, and Materialism (blanket term) all have no "god/s" in their belief system. Not all Atheists have the same beliefs but the do share one lack of belief in a god/s, it is just a convincing term to lump them under one term.

What is stupid is someone spatting about thing they do not understand. I am not an Atheist however I do feel their argument is much easier to stomach than organized religions explanations.....

God -One who Generates Observes Destroys look at all religions with deities and you can find this definition in their "actions". Organized Religion is nothing more than a method of controlling the masses always have been always will be.

What one believes in spiritually is a personal matter and does not require a special building or special instructions from an organization.


edit on 1-8-2011 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Doublemint
 



I don't know what type of hair you have so for me to make a choice I have to believe in the choice I'm making and I refuse to have a believe about something so silly.


Hang on a minute! You’ve just said that if you don’t know then all possibilities must be true yet now you refuse to belief either in the existence or nonexistence of my afro because it’s silly.

I take the same position on god.


where is the logic in not believing in some thing that does exist?


You don’t believe in my afro but it may very well exist.

The position of neither believing in the existence of something nor its nonexistence is the only logical position to take if one lacks any information that either case is true or false.


No, I didn't say that believing in your afro is silly I said believeing in the choice I would have to make about you haveing an afro or a skin head would be silly. or making the choice about something i don't know would be silly. Once you make the choice about something you don't know then you start to believe, if you don't make a choice then you don't believe. So, I geuss my question still stands why do you want to be known as an atheist and not an agnostic.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Atheists never say that. It is precisely because we believe in mans ability to find the answers that we will never say that. Science is an ongoing process about discovery, theory, test, re-think , re-measure etc etc. Round and round the cycles go but after each loop we know more and ironically we know more that is wrong.....like a belief in God!


To say humans know that a belief in god is wrong, so a disbelief in god would be right. As humans we punish people that do wrong things and if it is known the a belief in god is wrong where is mass world wide punishment of the believers in god. And if its wrong and humans are not able to remove this problem by themselves can we count on natruale selection to remove the believers in god? Religion has been around for a long time and I know natural selection is very slow but we could make a hypothisis about it and wait to see how it plays out.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


I am not sure of the origin of the word it seems to have translated the same through all early languages in meaning truly or for certain. One interesting thing is the god Horus (sun god) became Hour, Horizon (Horus rising), Set the god on night became Sun-Set. This would lend credence to you theory as these line up with Christian beliefs in the Risen Son. Google Astro-Theology to find out more about this stuff as it is a bit off topic



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
A man once said "questioning God is the first step to understanding God" that man was me



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Atheism is a choice...just like a belief. Its all about perception and experience.
I don't think so, I think for the vast majority of atheists, it's more of a realization. It's not choosing to believe in Atheism rather than Christianity, Islam, or whatever, a person basically realizes that all religion is BS. There is no proof for any of it, other than a book of impossible fairy tales that the majority of Americans believe in.

Why do they believe it? My guess is that they were born into a family of that religion, so they got absorbed into it. It's like a disease almost, a psychological disorder that makes people blindly believe the craziest, most unrealistic ideas as fact.


The spirit moves within me and is an awesome feeling...thats the belief "in" me. Some do not have it where it speaks of a God.
I always hear that, and what exactly do you mean by that? A spirit moves within you? What is a spirit? Your thoughts? Your personality? Your 5 senses? A wizard man has no control over those things.

Now being ingrained into a religion from birth can alter your thoughts and personality however, giving you delusions that a spirit, some form of belief-fueled energy flows within your bloodstream.
edit on 1-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bwinwright
 


This idiot is trolling, there is no point in arguing with him



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
oooo this is a toughie...

I personally class my self as an Atheist, because I dont beleive in the mainstream "Gods"..any of them. Its absurd to think 1 life form created everything...I mean what created that one life form?

But I also wonder how the first thing that ever existed came into existance? I think at first glance, scientificaly, it seems the universe was created by random reactions, and yet the more detailed we look everything is in order.

You Know, Phi and that.

Thats strange I think, What had the power to bring things into existance and order it all so perfectly?

I do beleive in some kind of divine however, for that which we can NEVER know, will always be divine.

But im still an "Athiest"
in the usual sence.

Plus, I think Aliens created humans, If you have accepted that they are real and that they are here, I think its a perfectly logical solution. Why are all (reported) Aliens Humanoid? How come lots of our DNA is unnacounted for?...we are nothing but stupid beings in the grand scale of things, but I think, even the aliens may have a hard time getting to the answer of "Divine".

If there is any truth to the Plaedian stories, then they are probly on the right track to finding it all out, harmony with the universe and all that, but the universe is infinate,

And the number of universes infinate. so maybe its somethings thats not meant to ever be known?

I hate having the brain power to ask the questions and yet not answer them :|



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GMan420
 



Atheists actively believe there is no god.


You’re ignoring the definition given by your own source.

Atheism can simply be the disbelief in a supreme being; disbelief does not necessarily imply an active belief that there is no god.

If I take no position as to god’s existence or non existence then is it not the case that I must refuse to believe in his existence? If so then I am an atheist by the second definition.


Ahh... but you are also unable to accept the truth of god's NON-existence


Yes but that does not preclude one from being an atheist. Atheism only describes one’s belief, or lack of belief, with regard to gods existence not non existence.

You are only going by the first definition while refusing to consider the second. There is no requirement to believe that there is no god.

I repeat, if I take no position as to god’s existence or non existence, is it not the case that I must refuse to believe in his existence? If so then I am an atheist by the second definition because I exhibit a disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

My position is properly described as agnostic atheism; agnostic describing the fact that I claim not to know and atheism describing the fact that I lack any belief in the existence of any god or gods.

reply to post by Doublemint
 



No, I didn't say that believing in your afro is silly I said believeing in the choice I would have to make about you haveing an afro or a skin head would be silly. or making the choice about something i don't know would be silly.


That’s what I was referring to.

You said that if you don’t know then all possibilities must be true yet now you refuse to belief either in the existence or nonexistence of my afro because to make a choice about something you don’t know would be silly.

And that is my position on god.


So, I geuss my question still stands why do you want to be known as an atheist and not an agnostic.


Because I lack a belief in a supreme being and that is all that is required to be described as an atheist. It is not necessary to believe that god does not exist to lack the belief that one does.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Doublemint
 



No, I didn't say that believing in your afro is silly I said believeing in the choice I would have to make about you haveing an afro or a skin head would be silly. or making the choice about something i don't know would be silly.


That’s what I was referring to.

You said that if you don’t know then all possibilities must be true yet now you refuse to belief either in the existence or nonexistence of my afro because to make a choice about something you don’t know would be silly.

And that is my position on god.


So, I geuss my question still stands why do you want to be known as an atheist and not an agnostic.


Because I lack a belief in a supreme being and that is all that is required to be described as an atheist. It is not necessary to believe that god does not exist to lack the belief that one does.


By not making a choice is the only way to have all possibilities avaliable. If you are to make a choice you start to close possibilities.

You say that you think it is silly to make a choice about god, but you have made a choice by chooseing to not believe in god. To leave all the possibilities open you can't choose anything.

Why, I asked why you wanted to be called atheist and not agnostic is because they are very similliar well all three of them are. Agnostics say that they don't know whether they believe in god or not, and atheist say that they don't beleive in god. So, atheist made a choice and started to close off possibilities, but they couldn't win the arguement that way so they went back to their agnostic roots and said we are agnostic atheist. Now you can kinda hide behind the I don't know agnostic point of veiw, but there is still the question of why you are not believing in a god that does exist, that seems silly only because you wanted to make a choice that started to close off possibilities but you are not 100% sure about this choice so why make it?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 



You say that you think it is silly to make a choice about god, but you have made a choice by chooseing to not believe in god.


No, not believing is just the default position of someone who makes no choice.

Not believing in something’s existence is not the same as believing that that something does not exist.

You seem to think that if I say I don’t believing in something then I am saying that thing doesn’t exist. Logically and semantically I am not.

With any given postulate one must either believe or not believe; if one says that they cannot determine the truth of something then it is logically incorrect to say that they believe because this would negate their first statement that the truth cannot be determined.

Since it is true that if one cannot be said to believe then they must be said to not believe; thus if one cannot determine the truth of a given postulate it is perfectly correct to say that they do not believe in the truth of that postulate. This is correct because not believing only describes the lack of belief and not a positive decision as to the validity of the first postulate.

As I have said in my replies to Gman, as atheism can be defined as the lack of belief in a supreme being or beings someone who says that they neither believe in the existence of a god/s nor such a being’s nonexistence then they are correctly described as an atheist.

One is not either a theist, agnostic or atheist; it is perfectly legitimate that one be described as an agnostic atheist describing both their lack of belief in the existence of god and their openness to the possibility of one.


Agnostics say that they don't know whether they believe in god or not, and atheist say that they don't beleive in god.


For the reasons above these two positions are not mutually exclusive.


So, atheist made a choice and started to close off possibilities


This is not true, I don’t believe in your pet wolf because I have no information to suggest that you have one. However it would be incorrect to say that I believe you don’t have a pet wolf again because I simply have no information to suggest you don’t. As far as I am concerned you may have one or you may not; my lack of belief in one case does not equate to a belief in the opposite and no possibilities are closed off.


but they couldn't win the arguement that way so they went back to their agnostic roots and said we are agnostic atheist.


What argument? If someone describes themselves as an agnostic atheist then they can neither be arguing that god exists or does not exist. If they were trying to prove either then they have lost by calling themselves agnostic anything.


Now you can kinda hide behind the I don't know agnostic point of veiw, but there is still the question of why you are not believing in a god that does exist,


It’s not a case of not believing something that does exist, it’s a case of not believing in something whose existence cannot be determined.

Since it would be illogical to either believe that it exists or believe that it does not exist I am left with one option, believing in neither its existence nor its nonexistence.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Doublemint
 




yes, zero does exist i think the better question is does nothing exist.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Doublemint because: (no reason given)



signature:




That is a good question. This is the heart of the debate. Does nothing exist?

I'm not here to argue that with you. I am merely trying to explain the concept of one stating both, god is and god is not.

Edit; The argument doesn't end here. It goes on to question the supposition that nothing is the total of everything. Just as black is the absense of light and white is the combination of all light. The argument continues. Is god everything or nothing?

Edit to expand: Back to argument of the existence (mispelled by me thoughout this thread, sorry), the existEnce of zero.

If zero is the sum total of all that exists, then the number one is a fraction of all of creation, and God resides within that creation, as the whole. God is everywhere and everything. He is the clouds and the snail in the garden. Christains don't believe this. This Animism.

If zero is nothing, then the number one is a whole interger, the opposite of nothing, and god does not exist within the existence. He does not walk among us. Which is why Christains believe it was necessary for god to send an incarnate representative, Jesus, to intervene. This is the crux of the Jewish/Christain arguement.

Before Abraham, Jews were animistic. The idea of good and evil, black and white, is and is not, comes from Zoroaster, Persia, and was adopted by Abraham.





edit on 31-7-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)


I geuss christians dont believe god is everything in my interaction with them some do some don't. It is a personal choice, I believe god is everything if he was to exist. and thats just that my belief everyone elses can be differnt.

I think your zero examples are really great, but when you read the bible differnt people get differnt things out of it so it comes down to what has influced the readers previously in thier life it is possible to get both outcomes from the bible.

I was under the impression Abraham created Judisim and he came from the area of Persia. So this lead me to think that Abraham would be fimilair with Zoratrisim and then god comes and says no do it this way which lead to the creation of Judisim or something influcend him to break away from Zoratrisim.

It sounds like to me you don't think this. I'm curois to what you do think about Abraham.

to me zero does not equal nothing. I don't believe the human mind can understand nothing.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


While I agree with alot of what you say,I disagree that Christianity is a spin off of Catholicism. Christianity was started in the name of christ and his teachings. It was formed by the gentiles so called because they CHOSE to follow Christs teachings freely and of their own free will.

I agree that through the ages the Bible has been touched by mans hands to many times to base it as fact and a literal translation of the teachings of christ.

But by your logic and belief that it is a spin off of Catholicism, would one assume Buddhism is also? Buddhism and Christianity have many things in common so it must be a reworked version of Catholicism like Christianity supposedly is in your opinion.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


Thank you for this post, I truthfully have never thought about it.....

I honestly do not know nor has it ever occurred to me. I will start researching and see what I find. Star for you friend.

Matt



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ParanoidAmerican
 


I completely agree with you about organized religion being a way to control the masses. Religion is a personal choice as such it should be practiced in a personal way which cannot be found in Mega churches and mosques and temples.

It can only be found in ones self imho



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I have a question for people who believe in the Bible: Why didn't Jesus do all of his awesome miracles during the technological age? If there are cameras to videotape them, internet to share them across the world, media to tell millions of people, why not wait a few thousand more years? Hell, it took life billions of years to evolve into humans, and it took Earth billions of years to form after the Big Bang, so if God was just chilling for several billion years waiting for the right time, why couldn't he just wait a measly 2,000 more years and make it obvious to everybody that he exists? He's the omnipotent one, not me, so you'd think he'd be intelligent enough to figure that out for himself.
edit on 1-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I see what you are saying.

In my opinion it wouldn't have mattered it would still be faith based. Have you seen any footage of a UFO or ghost? Did you instantly try to debunk it to see if it was real or not?

Regardless of whether there was video evidence or not or even flat out proof that God exists many people would still not believe and the outcome would be the same.

Humans have free will and can choose to believe or not its part of being human thus no amount of evidence will ever change some peoples minds.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by XJMatt
 





Amen mamaj,


While we are at it. Where did Amen come from and what does it mean? Ever wonder? Ever Ask?

I asked a nun in religion class, got no answer. Amen? Amen-Ra? Hmm? Only answer I can find.


I said I would research and so I did, This is what I found out about Amen and why we say it and the meaning behind it.




Amen, meaning "so be it", is of Hebrew origin.[5][6] The word was imported into the Greek of the early Church from Judaism.[1][7] From Greek, amen entered the other Western languages. According to a standard dictionary etymology, amen passed from Greek into Late Latin, and thence into English.[8]


You can read the entire article here.
Source for quote

I hope you learn some more about why we say amen from it, I know I did.

also thanks again for asking that question.

Matt



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Doublemint
 



You say that you think it is silly to make a choice about god, but you have made a choice by chooseing to not believe in god.


No, not believing is just the default position of someone who makes no choice.


yes, I already said that. It is odd how it works, when you claim to not believe in god you are not taking the default position. The person that takes the default position does not make a claim, therefore they have not chosen not to believe they just don't by not chooseing. Thats the differnce coming out and saying you don't believe is a choice. Saying you don't know and taking a default position you have not chosen to come out and say you don't believe you just don't by default.

And this is why I keep asking you why do you want to be called an atheist and not an agnostic because they are so very similiar but the diffrence is huge.

I see alot of atheist give theist a hard time about making a positive claim, yet to the agnostic both sides are making a positive claim.


Originally posted by Mike_A
Not believing in something’s existence is not the same as believing that that something does not exist.

You seem to think that if I say I don’t believing in something then I am saying that thing doesn’t exist. Logically and semantically I am not.


In the normal world what you say is true, but we are not talking about that we are talking about something noone can prove so all you have is your belief. Either you believe in god which makes him real for you or you don't believe in god which makes him not real for you. Where does the default position fall in place?


Originally posted by Mike_A
With any given postulate one must either believe or not believe; if one says that they cannot determine the truth of something then it is logically incorrect to say that they believe because this would negate their first statement that the truth cannot be determined.

Since it is true that if one cannot be said to believe then they must be said to not believe; thus if one cannot determine the truth of a given postulate it is perfectly correct to say that they do not believe in the truth of that postulate. This is correct because not believing only describes the lack of belief and not a positive decision as to the validity of the first postulate.


I take this as another default position example? As long as they do not claim to not believe yes the default position holds. It is when they decide to make a claim then they have made a choice and once they have made a choice they start to believe. If you don't make a choice then you don't believe. So, they believe in the lack of a belief if they make a claim.


Originally posted by Mike_A
As I have said in my replies to Gman, as atheism can be defined as the lack of belief in a supreme being or beings someone who says that they neither believe in the existence of a god/s nor such a being’s nonexistence then they are correctly described as an atheist.

One is not either a theist, agnostic or atheist; it is perfectly legitimate that one be described as an agnostic atheist describing both their lack of belief in the existence of god and their openness to the possibility of one.


atheist make a claim agnostics don't


Originally posted by Mike_A

Agnostics say that they don't know whether they believe in god or not, and atheist say that they don't beleive in god.


For the reasons above these two positions are not mutually exclusive.


so agnostic atheist think like this: I don't know but still don't believe? But if you don't believe then god is imaginary to you? So,how does the possibility of god existing fit into the train of thought that god is imaginary?


Originally posted by Mike_A

So, atheist made a choice and started to close off possibilities


This is not true, I don’t believe in your pet wolf because I have no information to suggest that you have one. However it would be incorrect to say that I believe you don’t have a pet wolf again because I simply have no information to suggest you don’t. As far as I am concerned you may have one or you may not; my lack of belief in one case does not equate to a belief in the opposite and no possibilities are closed off.


As before this type of thinking works with real items but not with unprovable items because all god is is your belief in god or not. Your belief either creats or destroys god.


Originally posted by Mike_A

but they couldn't win the arguement that way so they went back to their agnostic roots and said we are agnostic atheist.


What argument? If someone describes themselves as an agnostic atheist then they can neither be arguing that god exists or does not exist. If they were trying to prove either then they have lost by calling themselves agnostic anything.


Now you can kinda hide behind the I don't know agnostic point of veiw, but there is still the question of why you are not believing in a god that does exist,


It’s not a case of not believing something that does exist, it’s a case of not believing in something whose existence cannot be determined.

Since it would be illogical to either believe that it exists or believe that it does not exist I am left with one option, believing in neither its existence nor its nonexistence.


ex·is·tence (g-zstns)
n.
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.
Synonyms: existence, actuality, being
These nouns denote the fact or state of existing: laws in existence for centuries; an idea progressing from possibility to actuality; a point of view gradually coming into being.
Antonym: nonexistence

ex·ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).


Can you point out the differnces between the two more clearly for me?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join