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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It's very simple really, you have the brainwashed, controlled Christians, who go around spreading fantasy stories of invisible people and use their storybook as justification for discrimination and the spreading of hate. Atheists on the other hand, want to actually know how we came here, not through superstition and fairytales, but through provable, modern science.




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


What do you expect from people who believe that only that which can be experienced with the five senses is true?

For them it is the only source of truth. That doesn't mean they feel about it the same way a christian feels about christ.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I don't expect anything less really. The 5 senses are relative to who's experiencing them much like science is relative to who's observing it, when it's being observed, where it's being observed and how it's being observed. The outcome could be different every time. It could never be right, only probable, so why put blind faith into it?

You've convinced me already that atheism is merely an adjective, not a system of beliefs, yet I still feel that an atheist would source science just as easily as a christian would source the bible. It's only the hypocrisy and blind faith that scares me.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
I still feel that an atheist would source science just as easily as a christian would source the bible. It's only the hypocrisy and blind faith that scares me.


Of course they would. It is a tool and that is its main function.

You are right about blind faith. Many talk about the big bang as if it were a proven fact but it isn't. It is a theory but in order for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community it has to have merit so it is more than "just" a theory but a theory nonetheless.

Funny thing is that a while back I got into a discussion with someone who believed that, amongst other things, that the big bang was a fact and that it proved the bible to be true. That was a christian sourcing science and arguing that the big bang was a proven fact. So it isn't just an atheist thing.

One major difference between religion and science is that science is evolving while religions (major religions) are static.

There is a recent thread about particles traveling faster than the speed of light which was thought to be impossible according to the theory of relativity. So Einstein was wrong. Even he stated that he felt he had made a mistake when he used the speed of light as a constant. If he was wrong science has no problem with accepting it.

Religion on the other hand isn't willing to change. You have to accept without questioning. You will be given proof when god feels like it not when you ask for it and even then you will have to be alert to spot it and pure of heart to understand it.

Now which of the two sounds like a more reliable source?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Those that say that science proves the bible is correct, are just realizing that science has merit to it, and are trying to say that their book talked about it in an abstract way.
These people will try to say the bible talks about everything from the big bang to mountains under the ocean.
Well... if their book was so smart, what about all the other scientific facts that it got wrong? For instance... bats are birds, the earth is flat, the heavens are held up by pillars, you can cure skin ailments by killing a bird, sprinkling the blood upon another bird and then rubbing yourself with it.
Sorry... but if their book was so scientific, then it would contain all this other unscientific nonsense.
edit on 8-10-2011 by FreezingVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Atheist is a label given to those that live quite happily without the need for a god.

Some within the faiths use the label of atheist in a negative way simular to infidel which is another reason why I reject the label.

There are undoubtedly atheists but I class them as people that feel the need to challenege belief with an almost religous fever which I find strange as they are accepting a label given to them by religion.

If there was no religion the label of atheist would not exist and so, as I live my life without the need for a god or religion or the need to show others there is no god I do not accept the label of atheist and do not fit in the box that people try to put me in.

I live without a belief in a god and without the need for religion but I reject being labeled by those that do
edit on 8-10-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


This looks like an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by extrapolating a set of absurd conclusions based upon the premise that God doesn't exist. The issue is that as atheism is not a positive assertion/position and thus these conclusions cannot be drawn from it. Atheism is merely disbelief or the absence of belief in gods. There are atheists out there who believe in an afterlife or supernatural forces that are simply not divine, many Buddhists believe in reincarnation but hold no belief in deities. So the attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
I live without a belief in a god and without the need for religion but I reject being labeled by those that do


Well - let me not fight for your rights in this secular government - - pressured by those who still insist America is a Christian nation - - - while you happily go about your life incognito and label-less.

I'm sure there's a quote somewhere about the silent minority.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Who calls America a christian country, would it be christians?

I also see no need for you to fight for my right not to be labeled by groups I dont belong to.

This insane compulsion we humans have for catorgorizing and boxing people into groups puts us all in a cage that fits no one.

Why is it that our differences scare us so much we need to put each other in chains?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Agreed. Science is obviously the most reliable source because it's base on observation, reason and logic, which are skills that all humans share. However, I think it's a fatal mistake to put all of your trust in the observations and reasoning of others; hardly anyone accounts for chaos. It's the same with religion, followers trust in other peoples interpretations of truth and follow blindly, which is why I compared atheism to christianity. I'd say it's the lesser (much much lesser) of two evils to trust in science, but it's still an evil.

This is merely my opinion of course.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

Well at least someone "groks", what a relief that is, I cannot begin to tell you. Takes imagination and courage, to get to the table where dinner is served. Things will go well for you, and for me, and the fruit of the spirit will become increasingly actualized, through us. What are they again - I tiink i still remember, love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control (honest, I didn't have to look that up, having previously committing it to memory I thought it was so important at the time, while I was conducting my open minded investigation into these matters. That's all kind hearted stuff, the heart of Christ. Those who know him hear his voice (character), and blessed are we who did not even see, but who know him! Blessed, and given access to the spirit of the same person, alive in spirit! It's a real marvel, for those among us given to understand it, and take it in, and grok of it most fully.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Okay... science is evil?
Seriously?
It is one thing to say that it may not have a 100% accurate model for the universe. And I am sure most scientists would agree. They could be wrong.

It is quite another to say science is evil. Okay if that is true, stop using the internet (Product of science) turn off your computer (product of science) and throw it in the garbage. And make sure not to throw into anything containing plastic (product of science).

Next if have more than 2 kids, you should kill every 3rd one, because without science infant mortality should have claimed them.
If you catch the common cold or the flu, kill yourself because without science these things would be lethal.
If you are older than 40 or 50, go kill yourself because old age should have already claimed you.

Don't drive your car (product of science) or ride the bus (product of science). Don't buy food from the grocery store, as most of the food there is either a product of science or got into that store by means of a product of science.

Basically... go live in an Amish paradise.

Its people like you who make me sick... you take for granted the very things science give you, and then have the audacity to call it evil.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
There is another mouth. It is not in the mind. Strangely, it too is capable of eating food, food of substance. There is no other way to desribe it. "The word" is not really IN any book anywhere, at best words can merely point to the thing but they are never the thing itself.

I think it's only fair if we are to explore "Atheism Explained" that the other side is given a voice, and allowed to speak. Plus if you're an atheist, it's only appropriate that you at least have had access, to a point of view or a frame of referenece involving the true understanding of God according to Christian gnosis, before dismissing it out of hand with contempt prior to investigation, which is only a surefire way to keep a person in everlasting ignorance, particularly in matters of "truth", divine wisdom and understanding with spiritual discernment. You have to know what you don't believe in, first, to be able to say what it is in which you do NOT believe. Right? All I'm saying here is that where your investigation ends, mine begins. And if you come this way, even a short distance, you might very well be suprised, even astonished. Heck it might be right before your very eyes, already. Who will see it, who will gloss over it and walk away?

It's interesting this conversation, between Atheism and Chrsitianity. I think it's a very important one, even vital, and I wholeheartedly disagree with Albert Pike (author of the Scott Rite of Freemasony), that these two "energies" of historical causation must eventually annihiliate one other (to be replaced by the Luciferians Doctrine, whatever that is), because in everything, there remains the possibility, I know, of reintegrationa and synthesis. The only thing at that point, getting in the way of process, would be the label of "atheism" and the word "God."


I don't believe in the absurdly ignorant views of the Bible either, or of the so-called Christian who holds to them, while still clinging, unbeknownst to himself, the tree of the duality of the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore never able to actually EAT, from the tree of life, and prevented from doing so by the "wedge" of inherited doctrine.

"Do you love me Peter?" (Jesus asked him)

"Of course I do. You know this already!"

"Feed my sheep." (three times, this repeated itself)

"My sheep know me and so they know my voice."

It's the wolf who scatters God's children, and the Shepherd who calls them together in reunification, and that principal, is simple love. This is the simplicity on the far side of all the complexity, right across the entire breadth of all being and becoming.


edit on 8-10-2011 by NewAgeMan because: To be unreasonably reasonable (and I made a typo)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FreezingVoid
 


You merely took me out of context to fit your views, so you can go about feeling sick for no reason. I was using a common saying (the lesser of two evils) to further outline my point, which you completely missed. So your reply was a waste of time.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


What makes science much different than "I heard from a guy that heard it from a guy that was there" is that it must be peer reviewed before it can be accepted as theory and proven through independent confirmation before something is labled a fact.

Now there are contradicting points of view in different fields but that is fine. It is a system of checks and balances which strives to keep the need for blind faith out.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


To say it is the lesser of two evils, you must first assume that all parties involved are evil.
Saying science is evil, is to me sickening.

Explain to me how science in and of itself is evil. Blame the person who wields the sword, not the sword itself.

Will science give us all the answers to universe? Possibly not. But that does not make it evil. Though I will admit those who believe science will reveal all, are possibly overestimating the limits of the scientific method.

Explain to me how, science in and of itself, can be viewed as evil.

And I will agree. There is a big difference between putting ones faith in the scientific method. And putting ones faith in scientists. Scientists just like everyone else, have a reputation to maintain and money to make.
edit on 9-10-2011 by FreezingVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Atheism as a disbelief in God is fine, but most atheists also believe in evolution - quite religiously - and so there is some major conflict here. Sure, all things evolve, but that doesn't explain anything really, and evolution does not explain the origin of things, only origins from a starting point. Darwin never sought to give an origin of life, this doesn't mean that creationism is right, either. It's a complicated structure, but an intentional deception, evolution and creationism are left/right paradigms.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


very interesting. They see it as nothing caused something, but they mention magic. I honestly believe that magic and magic explain alot, as opposed to the traditional god said. but i am open to the beliefs of the other gods and beings



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreezingVoid
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.


All I'm saying is that the everything already always can contain an infinite number of finite, particularized nothings, even if they generate anything in particular, no matter how big or small, so we are in agreement.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Atheism as a disbelief in God is fine, but most atheists also believe in evolution - quite religiously - and so there is some major conflict here. Sure, all things evolve, but that doesn't explain anything really, and evolution does not explain the origin of things, only origins from a starting point. Darwin never sought to give an origin of life, this doesn't mean that creationism is right, either. It's a complicated structure, but an intentional deception, evolution and creationism are left/right paradigms.


Evolution does not try to explain the origins of the universe or life. Evolution only explains how species change of time to become new species.
If you want to know the origins of the universe, no one knows. At least not for certain.
The big bang does not explain the origins of the universe. Only what happened a split second after the creation of the universe.
And for the origins of life. Pure random chance. Chemicals in a pool of acid simultaneously formed DNA and RNA to create the first single cell origins. From there, natural selection (evolution) took place, which is anything but random.

At least that is what scientists tell us. Is true? Possibly, but who knows.
I am certain evolution does occur though. I do have questions as to whether human beings came about due to evolution alone, but that is a different topic.

Besides evolution by itself is not in direct conflict with creationism. Only the literal interpretations of holy texts.
Who's to say an intelligent being didn't create the universe and the first lifeforms here on earth, and let evolution take over from there.
Its possible. But I have seen no reason to believe an intelligent creator exists. Thus I don't believe in one. Not to say I don't think one is possible... they just have never revealed themselves to me.



edit on 9-10-2011 by FreezingVoid because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2011 by FreezingVoid because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2011 by FreezingVoid because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join