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.
Originally posted by QuietInsanity
reply to post by Annee
As far as I can see it, and as the article kind of implies, there are three places on this spectrum to be.
1. Having complete faith that there is a god.
2. Having complete faith that there is no god.
3. Being completely neutral and waiting for an answer, not assuming there is or isn't a god.
Originally posted by Annee
Debating Atheism would be off topic.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by Annee
Debating Atheism would be off topic.
I don't think so. Atheists side with scientific reasoning. To fully understand the topic of which is more dangerous, coming to a full understanding of what atheism stands for, or what religion stands for, and/or what is actually deemed dangerous as opposed to keeping the world safe, the topic is wide open.
Originally posted by rickymouse
Without belief in something there is no hope. Belief shall make you whole.
Originally posted by QuietInsanity
Then I ask the question, is there any more evidence that there isn't a god than evidence that there is a god? Neither claim has any proof to back it up. You say it is illogical to believe in things that aren't supported by evidence, yet there is no evidence that god doesn't exist. Therefore it is equally illogical to refuse to believe in god as it is to actually believe in god. Both viewpoints are completely illogical by your own statement.
I may have misused or misunderstood the literal definition of atheist. What I meant was, god not existing is a theory, just as god existing is also a theory. Neither can be completely proven true or false at this time. Man simply does not have the knowledge or understanding yet to figure it out.
As far as atheists relying on faith, they have faith in the theory that god doesn't exist when they can't prove it for themselves. You can say that have faith in their lack of faith. It is illogical to believe in anything that can't be proven, even if that anything is a lack of something.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by QuietInsanity
I have a question I hope you can answer. If my number 3 definition, the one many people define as agnostic, is the true definition of atheism
You are confusing me. How can you have "faith" there is no god? That doesn't even sound right.
A basic problem in understanding the meaning of atheism - - is dictionaries and other references haven't caught up yet to the correct definition. Its kind of a society evolving thing - - like the definition of marriage.
atheism is a noun/adjective - - it is not capitalized - - it is simply a descriptive: lack of belief in god (I capitalize Atheism for emphases - - that is incorrect)
I am not saying it is Ok to be atheist and have a belief there could be a god.
Atheist is "lack of belief in a god" - - - however as it can not be proven or dis-proven there can not be a 100% certainty. That's honest and realistic.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by underduck
They are equally dangerous in the wrong hands. Its like comparing a sword and a gun.
Right! Only it's more like comparing the difference between getting hit on the head with a rock or a ten ton meteor. lol
Asking proof for a negative is also a logical fallacy. Do you have proof that fairies do not exist? Bigfoot? Easter bunny? According to you it is equally logical to believe those creatures exist as to believe they do not exist, as their non-existence is not supported with evidence.
One more point, even though claiming god exist and claiming no god exists both require evidence, it does not mean that both positions require an equal amount of faith. To illustrate this with a well know example, I can claim that I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. Do you think it requires an equal amount of faith to say that this dragon indeed exists as to say that this dragon does not exist? Both lack any evidence as for now.
I hope that my explanation clarified why this is not correct
Originally posted by QuietInsanity
I'm trying to pin down the actual belief system you as atheists follow,
Originally posted by Jordan River
Originally posted by jiggerj
I am an atheist and I stand firmly on my position that there is no biblical god. But, there are atheists, like Richard Dawkins, that claim religion is dangerous, and that science is the way to the truth.
Well, religion didn't invent nuclear missiles; science did.
Religion didn't figure out how to make biological weapons; science did.
In the pre-technology era religious wars meant the killing of humans.
Today, through science and science alone we have the capability of destroying the entire planet in just one insane war.
Yes, I believe religion is downright stupid and for the weak-minded, but science is DANGEROUS!
I find it funny how the church once kept its silly, illogical secrets away from the common man, while science opened its doors wide so that now even a child can go online and learn how to make a chemical bomb. If you follow this youtube link, you'll find a kid making a bomb and warning other kids not to use this stuff in the house - because he tried it. Yeahhh, chemicals, science, and children. Isn't REAL knowledge just wonderful?!
www.youtube.com...
science has failed mankind in answering the question "where do we go when we die". Since that is not answered the collection of ancient text, psychics, prophets (now probably psychics) are all we have left . not so much as to the conformity of religious text (religion) turning religion in a billion dollar corporation (the original bank vatican). I am talking about a metaphysical/spiritual awakeningedit on 13-4-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by QuietInsanity
It is logical to believe that these creatures could possibly exist as there is no scientific proof that they don't or even can't for that matter. I base my life around the theory that nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. I'm not advocating their existance, but I don't outright dismiss it either. That's how I see logic.
Faith is the stubborn belief that you are correct even if there is no evidence. If I take either side of this argument and refuse to budge, I am asserting faith that I am right.
The scientific, non faith based answer here would be to investigate this dragon, and if I find no evidence note that I find no evidence, but at the same time, I can't say that there was no dragon. All I could say is just that I found no evidence of one. That would not mean that one didn't necessarily exist. Science is pure observation without jumping to conclusions. Assuming that because I found no evidence of a dragon that there was no dragon would be foolish and unscientific.
It did nothing of the kind, but it did clarify a few definitions for me so thank you for that. Star for your post for some interesting points.
Originally posted by jiggerj
I am an atheist and I stand firmly on my position that there is no biblical god. But, there are atheists, like Richard Dawkins, that claim religion is dangerous, and that science is the way to the truth.
Well, religion didn't invent nuclear missiles; science did.
Religion didn't figure out how to make biological weapons; science did.
In the pre-technology era religious wars meant the killing of humans.
Today, through science and science alone we have the capability of destroying the entire planet in just one insane war.
Yes, I believe religion is downright stupid and for the weak-minded, but science is DANGEROUS!
I find it funny how the church once kept its silly, illogical secrets away from the common man, while science opened its doors wide so that now even a child can go online and learn how to make a chemical bomb. If you follow this youtube link, you'll find a kid making a bomb and warning other kids not to use this stuff in the house - because he tried it. Yeahhh, chemicals, science, and children. Isn't REAL knowledge just wonderful?!
www.youtube.com...