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 Explained

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
So there is no philosophical agreement between atheists, only a need to label oneself so others can easily fit one into a category? I think we'll have to agree to disagree because that is an awful reason to label oneself anything.


Maybe not trying to hard but your trying to make it seem more complex than what it is. Your username and avatar are just examples of labeles and how they don't define the person but by them I can identify that your into ninjas. Where i would be wrong is to come on here and paint you with whatever wide brush I have at hand because of your interest in ninjas.

Others are the ones sliping atheists into a catagory. This thread and your position being perfect examples. This doesn't not change the fact that atheist is what you call a person who doesn't believe in god.

Even if you don't label yourself when you tell some "I don't believe in god" they may answer "So, your an atheist?". What are you going to answer them?

"Yes" would not be a wrong answer because it is the truth but it doesn't mean you have to share anything with anyone else who also fits the description.




edit on 7-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Nicely put.



My beef is that atheists treat science as a deity and the source of truth, much like a christian would think god is the source of truth, which is hypocritical. It was wrong of me to assume that all atheists follow science as if it was omniscient, but it's safe to say that most do and thus it's a system of beliefs shared by more than one person, in my opinion.

Good discussion.




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip

My beef is that atheists treat science as a deity and the source of truth*
*The only way to produce useful models of reality.

, ... It was wrong of me to assume that all atheists follow science as if it was omniscient, but it's safe to say that most do
You're wrong.

and thus it's a system of beliefs shared by more than one person, in my opinion.
Science is not a system of beliefs. Actually it's more a system to vet beliefs, a way to identify which beliefs are useful and accurate reflections of the world we are interested in, and which are not.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
If seeking truth, it's important to bear in mind with science, that for every new "truth", there is a bifurcation of new hypothesis, and does dissecting reality really bring us any closer to the truth when the very act of measuring alters the very thing we're trying to measure? Isn't science now pointing in two directions, one to the Absolute formless potential, and two, to ourselves as observers, and isn't this the same idea as the wisdom of the ages encoded in the myths and religions of the world?


edit on 7-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
My beef is that atheists treat science as a deity and the source of truth, much like a christian would think god is the source of truth, which is hypocritical.


Do they? While, I will agree that many see it as the only ruler by which reality can be measured, I don't see someone looking to a man made filing system of knowledge being the same as believing in a deity.


It was wrong of me to assume that all atheists follow science as if it was omniscient, but it's safe to say that most do and thus it's a system of beliefs shared by more than one person, in my opinion.


Where would that put religious scentists? Does a christian scientist become an atheist because he also places his trust in science? At least as far as earthly matters are concerned.


edit on 7-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
Atheism is the belief that there is no deity. It is still a belief system, a religion, a dogma, a category or what-have-you. If it wasn't a belief system, then how can it have so many followers? Science isn't a deity, yet people follow it like one.


I don't agree.

Any concept of god is a void. Nothingness.

I do not consider Atheism a belief. I consider the belief how each individual defines themself.

Science is science.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


But since you are already something, that's hardly fair Annee don't you think?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Annee
 


But since you are already something, that's hardly fair Annee don't you think?


Really? And what am I?

For all I know - - I could be the result of an energy thought - - like a dream creation.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Would that mean that whatever we imagine exists because we exist?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Annee
 


But since you are already something, that's hardly fair Annee don't you think?


Really? And what am I?

For all I know - - I could be the result of an energy thought - - like a dream creation.

Well you're certainly asking the right question.

For me, from what I can tell, in the space of nothing is everything already, it's not "particularized" and so we cannot be said to be a "thing", our own experience denies this, although we cannot say just who and what we are both, at the same time, and then in the space of nothing that isn't nothing, and therefore everything already, we may find ourselves already emersed in eternity, without any possibility of escape, at least not the present moment, which is all there is, already, always.

In the space of this nothing, I think, that, we recognize that it's not no thing, and neither are we, but instead that who and what we are, represents an intrinsic aspect or integral part of an eternal process involving the evolution and the eventual involution of consciousness, but that still doesn't bring us to the experience, of the only thing that truly motivates and inspires us, within the or on the unconditioned ground of all being and becoming.

Therefore I would ask you Annee about precisely how you feel about your loved ones, at the most fundamental level, then extend that outwardly to the degree that it reflects back to you, and then by God you yourself have made love real, and that's the beauty of it, that space of freedom wherein resides the only possibility to really love since love to be love must be free. The unconditioned ground of being, is conditioned by this very freedom, and thus what we have is the possibility, maybe even the actuality, of unconditional love, and there we can't help but to love as we are loved. All I'm really saying here, is that you cannot really draw a distinction, and reserve your love exclusively for your own family, and that therefore it extends through the entire spectrum of the brotherhood and sisterhood of mankind.

You are that love, and you know it well. I like you very much. You are a very good mother and grandmother I do believe. And yes, It's absurd to think that once God (as love) is realized in eternity, that there is any reason to project "God" as a seperate entity of being, I'm with the atheists there, but we don't get to this point, imho, of inheriting such a thing and owning the whole field so to speak after much searching, without having a deeply felt appreciation, as to it's source, which is not "merely" ah transcendant, but also innerent, and thus immediately available to the qualia of our own unique personal spiritual experience.

God.

There, I said it!


Thou art that.

But there's no need surely, from this frame of reference, to discard the original author of this love, even as a possibility, and cast it into the void, or into nowhere at all, and neither can we put it anywhere in particular, as I've pointed out. We are left with it, by God. Because that's just the way it had to be.

This represents a meaningful and inspired, and purposeful, and FUN life, and imho, it's much much better experienced while maintaining a permament loving relationship, not simply with self and a few others around us, but with the very whole of it all, and being nowhere in particular, by extension that extends to God, and this is what it means then to love God above all, with all our hearts, minds, soul and strengh (courage) AND "no less vital" - love our neighbor as ourself.

It's a phi ratio golden rule of love, testable by personal experience, and then applied for no other reason that it's a joy, because it's the right and best thing to do. To be obediant to this love, requires of us no submission.

I preach the non-ceorcive love of the lord, as the living spirit of this love, which is already here, right here in me and in you, God bless you, I love you.

I don't know about you, but as a little glod of selfish complaints, I'm a bit of a jerk. But this is something else, like finding buried treasure I was always wanting to find, but didn't even have a CLUE existed in the first place, let along in little old me.

"I havfe only one commandment. Love one another, as I have loved you."

When we get present to this, we know. Same guy. But rest assured I didn't start out like this!


What's been done in me has been done in God - I can't claim anything special of myself, only brag about the lord, if needed as a fool for the lord, what choice do I have if I actually believe the things I say.

Best to leave the question of God open, and get busy living, but never without God as a possibility, maybe even something actualized or realized, through us, as intended, from the beginning to the end, from the first, to the last, the very Alpha and Omega.

There's some beautiful and magnificent prophecy at the END of the Bible, I'd like you all to consider that, if we want to get to the end of religion's value and import to us. We must become it, the very thing it points to. And nothing less will really do, once you get a taste for it, because therein, in this new awareness, our joy, our laughter and our peace is restored, and we can freely laugh at ourselves, for all the nonsense outside of the most fundamental truth in existence and in our own existence.

It's a family framework. What I like to call the "relativity of human being". There is nothing higher. God is like this type of love, and all we need is the courage to imagine it and receive it, appropriate it, and then extended, and there will know we are desciples of Jesus Christ, whether we ever even bother to mention his name or not.


edit on 7-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I don't understand on why you insist on calling it god when it doesn't really fit the description of god/gods in most religious texts or myths.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


There is no "it" and I'm certain that God is ok if we don't talk about him anymore, just so long as we never forget him and what he's all about, and who he is and what he stands for on our behalf.

I have a new voice here for Christianity. Some day I hope to really give it to them and I don't mean hell, just a whole lot of trouble, for something so obvious, and plainly in our face, and from the very mouth of Jesus himself.

We messed up really bad, and so, not without tears, I would like to take on some responsibility here and say sorry, so deeply sorry that things went so horribly wrong, which started out so right. Then again, must I apologize for this on behalf of God, or did it happen, simply due to the ignorance of people, and the mere convenience of would be rulers.

Christianity, the one that I've come to understand, clearly as if for the first time, isn't that at all, and doesn't even reside within the frame of a strained glass window. The spirit is moving, it moves us.

And when I do "preach that word" to Christians, I'm pretty sure somebody is going to get tossed from the building, and I can tell you right now, based on what I am saying and the spirit that moves me, it won't be me! Maybe, just maybe we'll let them back in when they give their . a shake and get their frigging $hit together!

So I'm with you guys, up to a point. Me I just want to see it realized in the fullness of time and history. The seed, grown to fruition. It'll happen some day. Because it's based entirely in reason, like a sword through the ignorance and all manner of absurd injustices, the coming of this great holy truth is absolutely inevitable, but DAMN it's sure taking a long time, eh? (as a Canadian I like to say eh sometimes, feels good)

I'm a wrecking ball, but a loving one, and I do nothing of myself, truly, I only do what I see him do, nothing more. I'm just a bright lad with a big heart, and as the "prodigcal son" a bit of a screwup in a past life! We all have our #, our crosses to bear, something we're working on or working out. Pick up your crosses then, but carry it lightly!, and follow me (him working in me as a work in progress).

So I'm not pointing here to me or to you, or in any particular direction then. Cool.

But an "it" "it" most certainly is not.

Are you an it?

"What is man that thou art mindful of him?"


edit on 7-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I'm not an it but if what you goked is what I goked then it is an it.

Then again maybe we goked different things.


edit on 7-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I don't care as long as it's funny!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
It was not a lead in.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Firstly, when you speak of space and say it is empty or nothing, you are not entirely correct. Scientists have found out that space the void is really filled with virtual particles. I don't really understand it, but basically at slow intervals of time, this nothing, actually creates particles that exist for split seconds and then disappear just as fast as they are created.

Secondly, I do not understand how people can call abstract things like love "God".
What about people are unable to love? What about people with severe autism or schizoidism, that make it impossible to care about another human being? Are they devoid of god?

And if we are arbitrarily going to call forces of nature god, why love? Why not gravity? Why not disease? Why not death? Could death not be god?

In any case, one is at best advocating Deism and not any form of religion.
Its possibly a step up from organized religion, but I don't see how it can help us gain a better understanding of the universe.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Faith in nonfaith... belief in disbelief. I guess some people are just not wired in their mind to understand why some have to label themself atheistic. It isnt an active choice! You dont suddenly come to the conclusion "Screw this, what have god done for me!". I never think that some things that happens in my life have a bigger meaning. Things happen as result of happenings that came before it. So no if all my familymembers die I dont suddenly curse whatever ´divine" figures who might or might not exist. In my opinion everything that happens in life is inherently meaningless, it is only in the beholder they get meaning.

One of the things in life I had to do is to accept what I cant understand. I will never know how a beliver thinks every day, how they see reality. I will never understand why some think that believing in Divine forces makes more sense for them in their life. I know that that is the case, so even if I cant understand their way of thinking I accept it.

It is the same way for me when I think about how our reality is made up. How it all began, if there really was a beginning, or an end. As I start to think about these things it feels like all the things that we know are like a spiders web, interacting to a bigger unknown spidersweb that is in itself part of an even bigger one, Everything that happens is a result of happenings that came before it, by forces seen or unseen. In this case I dont think I will ever be able to understand reality, but I will accept it.

You may label me as something that makes the world easier to grasp for you but it wont change my nature, who I am.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Observer99
 

Hello, Observer. It’s been two days now since I asked you to post links to some of those ‘abusive, rude and unprovoked’ (as you described them) comments made by atheists on the internet. You haven’t replied.

I guess you didn’t find it as easy to produce them as you thought you would. That’s pretty much what I expected. But I hope you tried, because it would have taught you something. Not that atheists are angels – we certainly aren’t – but that the case you are trying to make for a widespread atheist movement, or even a widespread sense of group affiliation among atheists, is simply hollow. You’ll find ten or twenty rude, abusive comments by religious believers on the internet, in particular from Christians and Muslims, for every one you will find by an atheist. Don’t forget that atheists are relatively few in number worldwide.

Look: I am an atheist, as you would define it. I have some atheist friends – quite a few, actually. We never discuss our beliefs when we meet. One another’s atheism is of no interest to us. Nor do we wish to spread the infection. I also have a great many believing friends, whose faith is of no interest to me whatsoever. Unless it is faith in something actively deleterious, like quack remedies or cults that want their money, I couldn’t care less what they believe.

The same goes for the other people I interact with in my life, as well as for the great mass of the human race. They can believe Steven Tyler is the new Messiah as long as they don’t bother me with their belief.

You seem to be angry with atheists. In all cases, anger is a response to a perceived threat. In what way do you feel threatened by atheism, or atheists?

There are angry atheists too (I used to be one). But the source of their anger is easy to identify; in fact, they’ll tell you what it is themselves: they feel threatened by religion, which they once felt oppressed by. They believe they have found liberation from this oppression through atheism, and they feel threatened because they know all too well that the religious – of nearly all outlooks – actively desire and hope to bring about the eradication of unbelief, and thus of their liberty. Regardless whether the anger is justified or not, the fear certainly is reasonable.

But how does atheism threaten you?

Nobody’s asking you to join the ranks of the Godless.

Are you afraid society will collapse without faith? That seems a bit of an abstract motivation for such an obviously personal animus. Anyway, society does not seem to have collapsed in Western Europe or Japan – societies where the grip of religion has faltered – so why should you fear it will happen where you live?

Are you afraid that your children may be converted to atheism? Perhaps that if they are taught about evolution and the scientific view of the world, they may lose their faith? Yes, this could well happen, because the scientific view of things is... well, I won’t offend you by saying ‘firmly founded’, so let’s just say it is presented very plausibly. But if it is merely a question of relative plausibility, shouldn’t the truth, whatever it is, ultimately win out? What could be more plausible than the truth – because it is true?

Or – whisper it soft – is it that are you afraid you will lose your own faith? That means you already doubt, and that your outburst against us who do not believe is really an attack on your own developing apostasy. Is it?

If you are still reading this thread, please consider what I have said carefully before posting another angry rant. Your earlier accusations notwithstanding, I have treated you with courtesy and consideration in this thread, and have done my best to keep the discussion cool and reasonable. If you choose to reply this time, please try to cooperate.


edit on 8/10/11 by Astyanax because: it needed improvement.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 





*The only way to produce useful models of reality.


Assuming that they're correct, but we know how far assumptions will get us. Personally I will not put my faith in anything that isn't absolute, which is obviously nothing. Science, no matter how probable it may be, isn't absolute.




You're wrong.


Could you please enlighten me? Because every atheist I've talked to turns to science for it's answers, much like a christian would to god.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


The concept of god fills a void. People need something to account for all of the unanswerable questions. If you don't believe in god, you turn to science to fill that void.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I didn't say science was a deity, I said there are people who treat it as if it was the only source of truth, much like a deity. I think science is probably the most likely answer, but I cannot blindly follow it without question.
edit on 8-10-2011 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join