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.

 

Atheist and Agnostic...Please read this Thread !!!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I remembered that you were. Was just trying to point out what you could have possibly meant by the phrasing in that sentence. Generally the best Christians at "being Christian" I've met are either those who were previously Atheist or those how have had serious enough doubts to cause them to walk away for a period of their lifetime.

But I have met some Atheists who were really open to debating Christianity, and had no problem with giving people the chance to change their mind--and were even cordial. I think it was 2 (fact) out of roughly 30 (guess) I've come across that stick out in my mind. Those two, they were really enthusiastic.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I have never heard it put quite that way...Thanks

My question is,

On the very worst day of your life, Did you pray?

Most Atheists admit they did pray.

That to me speaks for itself.


Myself I sat down and tried to think it all out, where it went wrong and why. I asked for help from people who knew what had transpired, I took their input and advice. And I know when a day worse than that will come again, and then I'll seek advice once more. It is hard to keep a clear and open mind when one has been wronged in a way that makes them do and say all sorts of things.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere

You can make your anti-religion arguments without insulting the Deity...


But what if you want to insult the deity, who in my opinion, doesn't exist. Therefore if I say "god is an arse" I'm not insulting anyone, although some may think I'm stepping on their beliefs. I'm also not believing what I say because I believe there in no deity/.creator/god and so I'm using empty words on an imaginary being. No harm done...and given the 'track record' in so-called books of direction, my words would be quite appropriate.

I have no regrets for my position, but most of the time don't even try to sway people's minds as most seem to be sheep/unthinking consumers blinded by flights of faerie fancy.

Good for you, I guess. I'm sorry you've been swept up into the great machine, but please don't preach (under the guise of a thread of repentance) to me and I will leave you alone.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


I didn't start the thread to preach or argue.

I respect your opinion.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Then why did you start it?
The OP does come across as preachy...sort of a parable and a placation at the same time.

Don't worry, I get it, I was brought up in a Christian household for the first fifteen years of my life.

Life's too short to worry about "what if's". It's what one does every day that counts, not worrying about whether or not there is or isn't some measles in the sky who makes certain things happen and laughs with a blootlust grimace at others that are allowed to occur.


So, again, why did you make this thread, if not to preach, given the title and all?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 



You Mad Bro ?




I love Rhodesian Ridgebacks....Is that yours?
edit on 25-9-2011 by whyamIhere because: add friendly dog comment



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
lol, not mad, just indignant



Yeah, she's a Ridgeback X Rottweliier, about 10 years old now. She's a beauty!
edit on 25-9-2011 by aorAki because: X



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Then why did you start it?
Can you find other reasons to do this? Out of respect for people who formerly believed as I did at one time, I'd prefer to warn them as early as possible that I'm not the same as they are. All sorts of motivations could be read into it, but what's the point?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


I'm terribly confused,
Where do you get the presumption my intention is to convert people, my intention is to educate people on who I am rather than allow them to continue viewing me as what they perceive me to be.
When they say that I can't doeth no good without religion, I'll tell them that I do not need religion to be good.
When they say, "the fool has said in their heart 'there is no god'", I'll ask them why they have said that all other gods besides theirs are non-existent.
When they say, "your beliefs have caused mass murders", I will say that being white has caused more murders.
When they say, "you must be suicidal, are you letting your health go?", I'll tell them that I enjoy life and that I intend to live it to the fullest.

There are plenty of things they say about who I am and who we are that I will not sit back and tolerate.

I will not sit back and allow prejudice to fester into violence,

I will try to create understanding.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Why do people even feel the need to believe, that's the question I ask myself. I am what you can call an agnostic. I don't feel the need to believe. I can live with all those questions without answers, I don't need to force the answer. I am humble enough to accept the fact that I am ignorant, that we are all ignorant regarding the question of "god" and the origins of the universe.

Beliefs are an archaic concept, we need to enter the era of real science, where beliefs are regarded as hypotheses with probabilities attached to them. The existence or the non-existence of god, the nature of the universe and all those questions that have haunted the minds of human beings since immemorial times are ultimately questions of science. We need to be mature about those things and we need to use the scientific method when we look at those questions. And just like in science, when something is not known, it should be expressively labelled as "unknown" until further knowledge, and then hypotheses should be used and expressively labelled as "hypotheses".

If i had to give my appreciation of the christian god hypothesis, i would say that the probabilities for it to be true is not far from zero. The christian god, or the islamic god or jewish god (they are practically the same) is nothing else than the projection of the human mind. Heaven and hell are the representation of the ultimate hopes and fears of the human mind. This god is nothing else than a man/king who wants you to kneel before him, a god who can be very furious about what you did or didn't do, or what you said. This god can also be very generous and loveable, just like a man. Furthermore, there is nothing in the nature that could make us think that a god like that exists. The universe doesn't work with values like good and evil, because those values does not exist, they are the products of the human mind. This god and the religions that are representing him are the work of the human vanity, the human pride. Because the man found himself as superior to all other animals on earth, he thought that he was the chosen, he thought that a god created all of this just for him, and the religion he created is reflecting that. We are not the center of the universe, we are a small planet, lost in an ordinary galaxy between billions of other galaxies. Nothing has been made for us. We are just an emergent life form that has a lot more to learn.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 

Have you ever had a dog or a cat?
Did you ever have one get sick or injured, or get in a bad situation where they need help?
They call to you and look at you, asking for help because they believe, whether you can or not, that you can help them.
We don't really have someone here we look at every day who we can act like that to.
So, that means we only have one option, which is to look up into the sky and believe that will somehow help.
That's just normal.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


You wrote:

["You can make a valid and coherent argument without personally attacking Jesus or God."]

That certainly depends on WHAT Jesus or 'god' you are presented with. In the case of the insane OT pretender-god Jahveh, where the main pro-argumentation rests on his character, whims, self-proclaimed authority and paranoia/megalomaina schizoid syndrom, there is nothing left for neutral, rational approaches. As with similar sociopathic characters such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao it's a choice of acceptance or rejection on a 'person-cult' basis.

And unfortunately the (in many respects) sympathetic character Jesus has been drawn into to this OT ideological fascism and has been hijacked to give pseudo-credibility to the absurdities at the beginning of OT, especially the bizzare doctrine of 'original sin'.

The pauline Jesus' allegedly redemptive role 'supports' original sin, and original sin 'supports' the pauline redemptive Jesus.

Why does such a circular scam deserve any respect or special lenient/tolerant treatment, basically being an irrational and sugarcoated lie ('lie' as from a rational perspective)?

Quote: ["Let's be totally honest...Nobody knows for sure what waits for us in death."]

Which doesn't prevent fanatical religionists from cramming their fantasies down peoples' throats. And if you hadn't noticed, it's mainly against such invasive evangelists the atheist/agnostic sharp criticism is directed (admittedly there are also some general anti-religionist attitudes against non-invasive religion manifested on this forum occasionally, but it's mainly academic and considerably more civil than what's the case with invasive evangelists).

Quote: [" I do not belong to a religion. I have a relationship."]

We have on this forum a handful of religionists (~individuals relating to some transcendent principles), who in an excellent, convincing and non-invasive way present their message of a 'god' (or similar). These individuals are generally respected by most 'camps' and they come across as well-meaning and non-interfering (whether one agrees with their theological positions or not).

Personally I'm not so sure about your intentions; there DO seem to be something 'preachy' about your attitudes (as already has been mentioned). Maybe you need to reconsider your presentation and whatever agendas it could contain.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by gosseyn
 

Have you ever had a dog or a cat?
Did you ever have one get sick or injured, or get in a bad situation where they need help?
They call to you and look at you, asking for help because they believe, whether you can or not, that you can help them.
We don't really have someone here we look at every day who we can act like that to.
So, that means we only have one option, which is to look up into the sky and believe that will somehow help.
That's just normal.


Agreed.

But then whether it helps in any way (having a 'real' or possibly a placebo effect) is another matter. But as long as the choice is individual and free, with no intentions of interference in general, it's no better nor worse than most of the choices mankind makes.

The above statement apparently having a chronic white spot on the map of the evangelist mind, who doesn't even recognize the concept of non-interference.
edit on 22-10-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Not sure what you mean there, that asking for interference should only be for a localized effect, as opposed to affecting others who would rather not resort to desiring an interference?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil
 


Not sure what you mean there, that asking for interference should only be for a localized effect, as opposed to affecting others who would rather not resort to desiring an interference?


Sorry, possibly my bad from imprecise language.

When I referred to "the above statement", I meant MY statement, not anything in your post. And as concerns 'interference', there's not an inkling of such in your attitudes, so no critcism was intended towards you.

Hopefully this clarifies my post.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 
I understood all that. Maybe I just don't get the terminology you are using.
I think there is more than just a placebo effect.

What is the meaning of the expression, "Ye shall surely die?". The death of the good is the beginning of another life; for life is a twofold thing, one life being in the body, corruptible; the other without the body, incorruptible. Therefore one wicked man surely dies the death, who while still breathing and among the living is in reality long since buried, so as to retain in himself no single spark of real life, which is perfect virtue. But a good man, who deserves so high a title, does not surely die, but has his life prolonged, and so attains to an eternal end.
Philo of Alexandria

This sort of philosophy motivates people to be virtuous toward others.
I think the dangerous type of belief is in thinking one must be virtuous by satisfying a bloodthirsty deity.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


You wrote:

["You can make a valid and coherent argument without personally attacking Jesus or God."]

That certainly depends on WHAT Jesus or 'god' you are presented with. In the case of the insane OT pretender-god Jahveh, where the main pro-argumentation rests on his character, whims, self-proclaimed authority and paranoia/megalomaina schizoid syndrom, there is nothing left for neutral, rational approaches. As with similar sociopathic characters such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao it's a choice of acceptance or rejection on a 'person-cult' basis.

And unfortunately the (in many respects) sympathetic character Jesus has been drawn into to this OT ideological fascism and has been hijacked to give pseudo-credibility to the absurdities at the beginning of OT, especially the bizzare doctrine of 'original sin'.

The pauline Jesus' allegedly redemptive role 'supports' original sin, and original sin 'supports' the pauline redemptive Jesus.

Why does such a circular scam deserve any respect or special lenient/tolerant treatment, basically being an irrational and sugarcoated lie ('lie' as from a rational perspective)?

Quote: ["Let's be totally honest...Nobody knows for sure what waits for us in death."]

Which doesn't prevent fanatical religionists from cramming their fantasies down peoples' throats. And if you hadn't noticed, it's mainly against such invasive evangelists the atheist/agnostic sharp criticism is directed (admittedly there are also some general anti-religionist attitudes against non-invasive religion manifested on this forum occasionally, but it's mainly academic and considerably more civil than what's the case with invasive evangelists).

Quote: [" I do not belong to a religion. I have a relationship."]

We have on this forum a handful of religionists (~individuals relating to some transcendent principles), who in an excellent, convincing and non-invasive way present their message of a 'god' (or similar). These individuals are generally respected by most 'camps' and they come across as well-meaning and non-interfering (whether one agrees with their theological positions or not).

Personally I'm not so sure about your intentions; there DO seem to be something 'preachy' about your attitudes (as already has been mentioned). Maybe you need to reconsider your presentation and whatever agendas it could contain.



Or is it possible I meant exactly what I wrote?

The truth is there were many threads personally insulting God.

I wished (where I am now) I would of chose different words when I was younger.

I have regret for my words. Looking back I could of made the same arguments without insults.

*Please Note: I could seriously care less what anyone chooses to believe.

So can we please stop with the "Agenda" stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join