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.
They don't believe in a deity. I have many times on these boards talked about my being an atheist with spiritual beliefs. So, it comes down to the fact that grar thinks atheists are people who lack any belief in spiritual connection or non-physical reality. His definition of the term is incorrect.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I admit, I read, "A true atheist ..... cannot possibly have a moral compass." And now that I look at the post, I see he put "true atheist" in quotes and then proceeded to define something that is NOT a true atheist.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"A type of religion" is a religion.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That does not satisfy the definition of a religion. A religion has both organized dogma and a deity.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I totally agree with your last paragraph. VERY well-said!
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I've heard that my version of atheism is incorrect before, but I don't understand it. By your definition, I would be an atheist, because I don't personify my God.
I had an uncle that was an atheist, and he believed in the Cosmic Accident, pure evolution, nothing more, nothing beyond the observable whatsoever. I have also seen atheists on TV described in that manner. For example, the TV show, "Bones."
So perhaps the big disconnect is assuming a "being" has to be personified in some way?
Perhaps. I don't think personification is necessary, because to me a supreme being indicates some central source figure, who is a creator and/or controlling force in the Universe. Something or someone aside from ourselves or our spirits that is powerful and aware of us and can communicate with us.
Originally posted by Frogs
My 2 cents is as long as whatever flavor of a "moral compass" they have fits with the overall norms of the world, and leads them to making decisions for the greater good, etc - then it doesn't matter if they are christian, muslim, buddhist, atheist, etc.
So 99.9% of the time it wouldn't matter... it would only really matter if their faith led their first thought to be, "Would these people make an acceptable sacrifice to my lord, Cthulhu?!"
Originally posted by Dasher
I understand. He defined a person who is aspiritual. I can see why that might be upsetting to a spiritual atheist
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
An atheist can possibly have religion, but not necessarily "a" religion.
An atheist who is truly aspiritual and discusses the very same matter is probably so unpleasant to deal with, it would not be of much use to engage them or their confusion beyond common civil courtesy or execution of "helps."
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
However, that doesn't change, by logic and common word meaning, that an atheist religion is not possible/consistent.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I challenge you to conisder:
If life is life, then it is alive. And just as our own bodies' cells operate within certain boundaries, we do also. As each cell is unaware of and lacks full communion with our own greater consciousness, please consider that the "cycle" is continued on "upwards" so that we should be seeking out communion with the greater consciousness.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I don't consider myself an atheist, but then again, I don't consider you an atheist either.
Yes, I do believe in a "creator," but I don't believe it is necessarily a "being" as one could possibly picture or attribute any characterizations to. I believe it is something far far beyond our comprehension, but I believe a piece of it is shared in each of us, and is recycled throughout all living things.
When I pray, and I receive answers, they might be coming from my own brain, or maybe from a collective consciousness, or maybe from a Socratic type of universal knowledge, I don't know, but I am certain it happens.
Well, as I said, it's not my position to say whether or not you are an atheist. That's for you to say. And I will respect that. I wish you would do the same for me, but it's not necessary.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I guess you'll have to define religion for me or tell me what you mean by "having religion" because I don't have religion or "a" religion. I have my own personal set of beliefs about life and death, but it is not religious in nature, so I call it my beliefs. You can call it religion if you wish.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't share your assumption about aspiritual atheists.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why do you assume that I have not considered that? And I haven't called anything dead.
Originally posted by Dasher
First response to a search for "religion def" on google
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Originally posted by Dasher
And I can only reiterate Daoism so many times to exemplify my point.
Further, in a loose, but accurate, definition, the "plain" or basic atheistic religion is easily defined by the common belief that there is no god.
Not believing in a godhead is part of the atheistic dogma,
Originally posted by Dasher
People who claim aspirituality are either willfully ignorant or in denial of what defines something as spiritual.
Originally posted by Dasher
... because of your lack of clarification.
Originally posted by Dasher
In the same light, if you are interested in civil exchange, you might offer your assessment or, at least, a gentle refusal to consider the idea/to share your findings
Originally posted by Dasher
Not communing with "Life"/god, by spiritual logic, is perfectly equal to saying within yourself that Life is not living, and therefore dead.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
It is odd though, that we are so close together in our beliefs and almost opposite in our labels?
I guess we are a perfect example of why so many labels are more destructive and divisive than descriptive.
But I will respect you by whatever you call your self, I was just joking anyhow.
But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.” I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises.
And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.