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.

 

Through the eyes of Atheism

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by DaveNorris

Originally posted by randyvs

A man made religion
that picks and chooses what the individual wants or is convenient to their chosen lifestyle.


sounds familiar, check this out

differant branches of christianity:

Catholic
Orthodox/Eastern Christian
African indigenous sects (AICs)
Pentecostal
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United
Anglican
Baptist
Methodist
Lutheran
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Adventist
Latter Day Saints
Apostolic/New Apostolic
Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement")
New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.)
Brethren (incl. Plymouth)
Mennonite
Friends (Quakers)
church of england

and i probably missed a few
edit on 25/8/2011 by DaveNorris because: (no reason given)

edit on 25/8/2011 by DaveNorris because: spelling

edit on 25/8/2011 by DaveNorris because: spelling


But those are established religions ( yuck ) by an authority. Although I admit that is about all being established says for them.


all religions are manmade, and they are all altered to suit the needs of the time




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

atheism.about.com...


Atheism is a form of faith all the same. One dogma is not better than another friend. We could sit here for years and debate the accidental vs intelligent design concepts, but at the end of the day we really have no clue. We can make all the things life is made of, but we cannot call them to action/life. Until we understand life, anyone who says they have the answer is very clearly full of it!

The rejection of religion is not atheism, and unless you know with all certainty that life is not inherently intelligent, or that intelligent design played no part in our evolution then you are basing your beliefs on an ideology that could be just as flawed as the religions you abhor.

edit on 26-8-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Atheism is a form of faith all the same.


No, it most certainly isn't. The worst part of being an atheist is dealing with all the people that have nothing but misconceptions.


The rejection of religion is not atheism, and unless you know with all certainty that life is not inherently intelligent, or that intelligent design played no part in our evolution then you are basing your beliefs on an ideology that could be just as flawed as the religions you abhor.


Um. No. You're conflating scientific questions with matters of belief.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I don't know how many times I have to say this. I'm only called an atheist because I reject the God concept. It's not a faith. It's like asking me if I believe in an invisible purple dragon. I say, "No, I don't." You then reply, "So, you have faith that the invisible purple dragon doesn't exist. You're an anti-dragon." I reply, "I'm just a primate." You answer, "You're an anti-dragon and proud to be a member of that religion." I reply with a blank stare and then ask, "Are you alright?"



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Once, but only just this once, then I am done here. Your post is the beginning of a conversation that will never end with an agreement between us.


Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Correct term = Disbelief


Originally posted by nenothtu

Disbelief is nothing more than negative belief. In both cases, it is a belief, whether a negative one or not.

Incorrect. Negatives have characteristics, whereas lacking does not. Lacking a belief, is not a 'negative belief.'


You will note, with a careful reading, that the term I responded to was "disbelief", not "lack of belief". You will also note that a commonality between both terms is "belief", meaning that it either can't be proven, one way or the other, or has not yet been proven. That's why it is only "belief", or "lack of belief". Neither is rooted in objective and verifiable evidence, nor are they ever likely to be.




Originally posted by nenothtu

It cannot be proven nor disproven.

Why would I want to though? I have absolutely no reason at all, to search for evidence, that disproves that which is nonexistent. That would be equivalent to searching for evidence, in order for me to prove to you, that there never actually was a flying elephant named Dumbo.


I honestly don't know. Why would you? I didn't address whether you would want to or not, and in fact that would seem a futile effort to me, not worthy of your time or talent. I only addressed the fact that it can't be proven or disproven, hence is a wasted effort in attempting to do so.



Originally posted by nenothtu

Therefore, atheism IS a religion.

nope.


Well, again that depends I suppose on how one defines "religion", which I note atheists tend to try to stack the definition so as to exclude atheism. The simplest fact is that either stance is rooted on belief, or lack thereof. Unverifiable or falsifiable, so I'm not sure why folks get so bent out of shape over it. You're right, this conversation will never end in agreement between us, so let's be friends instead. I really don't care, on a personal level, what your personal beliefs, or lack thereof, are. That's up to you, and either way it doesn't bother or affect me. Fun to discuss if one is so inclined, but not worth getting heated up over.




edit on 2011/8/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I'm not a Gnostic, since I cannot fathom how one can "know" something which is unobservable. "Wisdom of the ages" is nothing more than dogma or "tradition" as far as I can tell until it is directly observable by the individual, rather than relying upon what others, perhaps more ancient, perhaps not, make claims to.

Something "known" should be observable or experienceable by all comers, and should be neither esoteric nor hidden and mysterious.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Atheism is a form of faith all the same.


No, it most certainly isn't. The worst part of being an atheist is dealing with all the people that have nothing but misconceptions.


If it isn't based solely on faith, then it must be based on proof. Where is that proof?

To produce such proof, you could destroy all religions in a single day. have at it.

Otherwise, it's just faith.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
I don't know how many times I have to say this. I'm only called an atheist because I reject the God concept. It's not a faith. It's like asking me if I believe in an invisible purple dragon. I say, "No, I don't." You then reply, "So, you have faith that the invisible purple dragon doesn't exist. You're an anti-dragon." I reply, "I'm just a primate." You answer, "You're an anti-dragon and proud to be a member of that religion." I reply with a blank stare and then ask, "Are you alright?"


I'm with you. I'm an anti-dragon, and don't believe in the existence of an invisible purple dragon. I have no proof that such doesn't exist, however, so it IS faith. Welcome to the anti-dragonist camp. You can be the high priest of anti-dragonism, since I'm otherwise occupied.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Um. No. You're conflating scientific questions with matters of belief.


Not really, any intelligence in the equation would be interpreted by many as some type of deity or God. To say you know for certain that life is not inherently intelligent or that you know unequivocally that no intelligence was involved in our evolution is just as flawed as the Judeo Christian beliefs. There is no scientific consensus and no scientific method to either disprove or prove this. Some day we may know but as of now we do not.

You may be right or you may be wrong and if it was not a matter of faith you would concede to such.


edit on 26-8-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

If it isn't based solely on faith, then it must be based on proof. Where is that proof?


Atheism isn't based on faith or proof. It's an answer to a single question. Do you believe in god(s)? If you answer no, you're an atheist.


To produce such proof, you could destroy all religions in a single day. have at it.

Otherwise, it's just faith.


Destroying all the religions wouldn't prove anything. And besides, it's the job of religions to prove their own claims.

Again, atheism is not faith. It's the utter absence of it.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Not really, any intelligence in the equation would be interpreted by many as some type of deity or God. To say you know for certain that life is not inherently intelligent or that you know unequivocally that no intelligence was involved in our evolution is just as flawed as the Judeo Christian beliefs. There is no scientific consensus and no scientific method to either disprove or prove this. Some day we may know but as of now we do not.

Do you have the answers friend? No you do not, you may be right and you may be wrong it is a matter of faith.


Sorry. I don't need proof or answers about anything, nor does any atheist need to provide any - especially about cosmological mysteries which have nothing to do with atheism.

Not believing someone's claim that a god(s) exist is not a form of faith in anyway. Rejecting an unsupported, unproven claim of any kind is not faith. I'm not sure why you're unable to recognize this, nor why you believe atheism has anything to do with science.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Did I ask you to prove something?

I said that collectively we do not currently have an understanding of this, and that as such intelligent design is a possibility. To dismiss this fact is a matter of faith on your part friend!


edit on 26-8-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
I said that collectively we do not currently have an understanding of this, and that as such intelligent design is a possibility. To dismiss this fact is a matter of faith on your part friend!


Accepting or dismissing "intelligent design" has nothing to do with atheism or faith.

Let's suppose I do reject "intelligent design" - an unproven claim - I am exercising reason, not faith.

For some reason you want atheism to be a kind of faith. It just isn't, no matter how many unfalsifiable claims you inject into your argument.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Did I ask you to prove something?

I said that collectively we do not currently have an understanding of this, and that as such intelligent design is a possibility. To dismiss this fact is a matter of faith on your part friend!


Fact = possibility


That just jumped out at me

edit on 26-8-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

If it isn't based solely on faith, then it must be based on proof. Where is that proof?


Atheism isn't based on faith or proof. It's an answer to a single question. Do you believe in god(s)? If you answer no, you're an atheist.


Ah, I see. Your job is done here then, you have successfully destroyed all religions. They do not exist, since it is ALL the answer to the question of "do you believe..." in the absence of evidence. Good job there.



To produce such proof, you could destroy all religions in a single day. have at it.

Otherwise, it's just faith.


Destroying all the religions wouldn't prove anything. And besides, it's the job of religions to prove their own claims.

Again, atheism is not faith. It's the utter absence of it.


Why would it fall to religion to "prove" their claims, when the honest ones will tell you flat out that it's beyond the realm of proof? Why would it fall to religion to provide proof, but not fall to "not-religion" to do the same - provide proof of their claims?

Why does one belief get to skate while the other is held to standards?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Ah, I see. Your job is done here then, you have successfully destroyed all religions. They do not exist, since it is ALL the answer to the question of "do you believe..." in the absence of evidence. Good job there.


I never said a single thing about religions. I simply pointed out that atheism is an answer to a single question.


Why would it fall to religion to "prove" their claims, when the honest ones will tell you flat out that it's beyond the realm of proof? Why would it fall to religion to provide proof, but not fall to "not-religion" to do the same - provide proof of their claims?

Why does one belief get to skate while the other is held to standards?



Sorry, but claiming that religious assertions are beyond the realm of proof does not excuse them from having the burden of proof.

I'm not sure what an atheist has to prove. That he/she doesn't believe in someone god(s)?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
@nenothtu

You seem to consider atheism to be refuting the belief in a deity rather than simply answering that they personally do not believe in such a thing.

Consider this, a man travels to a distant island which is entirely cut off from the modern world. They have no particular religion and no particular sense of a God. The man asks them "why don't you believe in God? You have no proof he doesn't exist either" and they reply "believe in a what?". They would have no comprehension of the idea of a God therefore they cannot possibly believe in its existence- it is irrelevant to the truth of what exists but they cannot possibly believe in it.

Should they be battered into agnosticism because they have no proof such a thing doesn't exist?

Also, Bertrand's teapot is a pretty obvious answer to all this.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

I never said a single thing about religions. I simply pointed out that atheism is an answer to a single question.


As is religion at the most basic level. All the baggage is just window dressing.




Sorry, but claiming that religious assertions are beyond the realm of proof does not excuse them from having the burden of proof.


Any claim of fact has the burden of proof, whether religion or anti religion.



I'm not sure what an atheist has to prove. That he/she doesn't believe in someone god(s)?


Atheists have precisely the same burden of proof as theists - which is to say none. What we have here is a tacit admission that atheism is is a belief, a personally held conviction, unsupportable by evidence, as is theism.

As you say, it's based in belief, or lack thereof if you prefer.

That was sort of my entire point.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
@nenothtu

You seem to consider atheism to be refuting the belief in a deity rather than simply answering that they personally do not believe in such a thing.


No, I don't think it's a refutation (except in some novel and entertaining cases), only that it is a belief, and as such has no appreciable difference from a religion. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding.



Consider this, a man travels to a distant island which is entirely cut off from the modern world. They have no particular religion and no particular sense of a God. The man asks them "why don't you believe in God? You have no proof he doesn't exist either" and they reply "believe in a what?". They would have no comprehension of the idea of a God therefore they cannot possibly believe in its existence- it is irrelevant to the truth of what exists but they cannot possibly believe in it.


I'm unaware of ANY primitive societies entirely lacking in the concept of some deity or another, but am willing to entertain the notion that such may exist somewhere. Two things you say here do seem to have direct bearing on the differences of opinion - that there is a lack of comprehension of the idea of a god is self-evident, I would think, and that the faith, belief, or lack of belief of either side is irrelevant to the truth of what does or does not exist.



Should they be battered into agnosticism because they have no proof such a thing doesn't exist?


No. They should only be battered into agnosticism if they claim that their lack of proof is somehow proof itself.


Also, Bertrand's teapot is a pretty obvious answer to all this.


Who's what? I'm sort of new to this debate, and haven't quite captured all the nuances of it yet.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Any claim of fact has the burden of proof, whether religion or anti religion.


Atheists generally don't make any claim other than they don't believe in deities. Some may claim there are no deities but they place the burden of proof upon themselves when they do.



Atheists have precisely the same burden of proof as theists - which is to say none. What we have here is a tacit admission that atheism is is a belief, a personally held conviction, unsupportable by evidence, as is theism.

As you say, it's based in belief, or lack thereof if you prefer.

That was sort of my entire point.



Well, apparently you continue to misunderstand atheism as well as burden of proof. The theist makes claims & has the burden of proof to support those claims, yet cannot satisfy that burden to establish the claim. The atheist simply rejects those unproven claims. A rejection of an unsupported, unproven claim is not a claim. A lack of faith is not a faith. "Not X" does not equal "X". I'm not sure how else to say it.
edit on 26-8-2011 by traditionaldrummer because: itchy balls



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join