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.

 

Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 20
15
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by idmonster
 


in Islam they call non-believers or un-believers "Kafir" properly translated into English it means "Coward"


They probably have words for idiot, moron, imbecille, dunce, cretin, ignoramus, buffoon, gormless, numpty, dimwit, airhead, gullible, microphallus, pillock, half-wit, braindead, stolid, obtuse, numbskull, dullard, dunce and dumbass as well!

Whats your point?




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


I believe I made it...

(in the subsequent posts)


edit on 4-12-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





my religion is Heavy Metal... I practice it. my faith is in Jesus Christ, I believe in him.

there is no reason to have fear of God all in the name of looking cool amongst your peers... be not ashamed my brothers and sisters.



If I were to actually believe in a god I wouldn’t fear it I would be mad at it.

I could build a better universe than this if I had omnipotent power. This is a pretty messy place you know.

edit on 4-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
the word for serpent in the book of genesis is NACHASH. the nachash was a sorcerer, that is to say, a master of medicine or pharmacopeia and in this case "snake" medicine, from the symbol for dna. the serpent in the tree is DNA, the same as the rod of asclepius and other more ancient symbols. it's about DNA and medicine. look up the rod of asclepius for a well known example. asclepius was a doctor. look the sign for pharmacy. snakes wound around a pole (tree). the hints are every where. so obvious.

no reason now to say the book of genesis is talking about talking snakes. it isn't. not.talking.snakes. unless you're claiming your dna has a mouth of its own



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Which would presumably lead to the question: if the scientific knowledge indicating the brain does not perceive reality correctly is acquired via the human brain...is it correct?

And yes, we still manage to get through life, most of us. But I think it's pretty hard to get through life without belief in something.


But deliberate scientific data collection is very different to the way our everyday brain filters perception and fills in gaps to create meaning, so the conclusions of science are valid; it's a different sphere. (I know you're just playing though
)
It IS hard to get through life without a belief in something, although an enlightened person has no issue with it; they've seen through the illusion and dealt with the emotional need to believe in that illusion. They probably can stil invent things to believe in after that, but only as a form of play, without attachment.
The meaning we create to believe in is always arbitrary, and is as valid as it makes us feel like we have meaning.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I'll let Neil deGrasse Tyson do the talking.




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
I'll let Neil deGrasse Tyson do the talking.




yeah now that guy is right.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
randyvs

i'm sorry i didn't get to see what you wrote! you usually have interesting things to say. can you paraphrase or reword it so that it doesn't get removed?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

But deliberate scientific data collection is very different to the way our everyday brain filters perception and fills in gaps to create meaning, so the conclusions of science are valid; it's a different sphere. (I know you're just playing though
)


so do you think taking a word and assigning it its correct definition is an example of filling in gaps?

edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 





my religion is Heavy Metal... I practice it. my faith is in Jesus Christ, I believe in him.

there is no reason to have fear of God all in the name of looking cool amongst your peers... be not ashamed my brothers and sisters.



If I were to actually believe in a god I wouldn’t fear it I would be mad at it.


be mad? for what... freewill

Gen 3:22
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"

afterall you are the master of your own reality... if you can do a better job then why not just do it? show us... or do you need omniscient abilities that you do not acknowledge exist?

just by you saying you can do a better job disproves your atheism...


edit on 4-12-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


best mr Tyson video ever! watch him school the little spoiled man...


listen closely now



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


No I was referring to the mess and freewill is just a copout used by organized religion when something goes bad.

Me saying I could do a better job is an assertion based on a premise and if you had checked my earlier posts you would see I am an agnostic atheist I described if fairly well.


Why would I fear something like that as you proposed?
edit on 4-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
But deliberate scientific data collection is very different to the way our everyday brain filters perception and fills in gaps to create meaning, so the conclusions of science are valid; it's a different sphere. (I know you're just playing though
)
It IS hard to get through life without a belief in something, although an enlightened person has no issue with it; they've seen through the illusion and dealt with the emotional need to believe in that illusion. They probably can stil invent things to believe in after that, but only as a form of play, without attachment.
The meaning we create to believe in is always arbitrary, and is as valid as it makes us feel like we have meaning.


Yes, I'm playing
But I think that even scientific data is based off of the idea that we can have faith in our perceptions...that we're not just wired to some sort of Matrix.
Not that I think we are.

Your use of "enlightened" kinda bugs me though. See, I once believed that once a person accepted so-and-so truths as true, and did such and such, that XY and Z logical conclusion would follow. While I continue to believe in objective truth, I'm not as sanguine about that idea any more. I don't think that people who have the idea that there is no ultimate meaning in life are any more enlightened than anyone else. But perhaps you're thinking of it in a specific sense? (That word rings either of New-Agey stuff to me or a sort of "atheism superiority" kind of attitude, and you're probably not trying to use it in either sense.)
One more thing, while we're discussing this. I'm a bit worried by the idea that there is no objective meaning in life; that belief in God is a sham. (I think this is why a lot of people are conspiracy theorists--they have to believe in something controlling life.) I think even atheists form their own beliefs, which is why it is reasonable to consider atheism a religion (though here it depends on the strict definition of religion. I think there are a lot of religious people that don't have an organized church, so that definition goes out the window. Since atheists have certain beliefs and their moral views stem from them, it's reasonable to consider atheism as some sort of a belief system, although atheists are so ideologically fragmented that it might be a sort of an each-to-his own religion.) I am afraid though, that having lost an objective meaning in life (traditionally brought about by religion) that people will begin to formulate their own meanings (as you mentioned.) This is dangerously close, IMHO, to everyone formulating their own morality.
Sorry if I rambled. Lots of thought spilling out all at once
I can clarify if necessary.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 



Yeah sort of. A true agnostic believes there is some all-powerful force behind it all just that humankind has no way to perceive it. In other words they do not believe any religion has it right and most agnostics will reject any dogma related to religions.


That's a deist.

A deist believes there is some all-powerful force behind it all just that humankind has no way to perceive it. In other words they do not believe any religion has it right and most deists will reject any dogma related to religions.

Deism

If someone makes the claim 'God' exists (all powerful force behind it all) is that compatible with agnosticism? You sure? Everyone seems to have different opinions on how agnosticism relates to "God" and atheism.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



btw the United States Supreme Court (government) recognizes atheism as a religion.


Is this an appeal to authority?

Yes this has been mentioned multiply times already.

And I am slightly puzzled as to the significance.

For one USA is not the end all for atheists throughout the world.

Secondly when did the US Supreme Court become experts in the field of philosophy and theology?

The Court 'recognizes' it for their own reasons, and those reasons are hardly pertinent to this discussion IMO.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by vasaga
 


best mr Tyson video ever! watch him school the little spoiled man...


listen closely now


yeah he's making the case that dawkins is not after converts, he's more interested in making himself look good to other atheists, at the expense of people he doesn't agree with. but sometimes, not often, but sometimes, you have to mention the guy that's got it wrong in order to show that there's more room for thought necessary. so just on the principle of delivery method, i am not sure there's one right way to do it. if he feels that sincerely that non-atheists are wrong, he has to have some way to express that. true, it would be better if he didn't have such big teeth about it, but if his audience already shares his views on it anyway, he's just entertaining them at the point -- et.al, kinda like a men's club sitting around making wife jokes lol

in effect, he's not writing his material to convert the unconverted but to bolster his fellow atheists.
edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 



there is no reason to have fear of God all in the name of looking cool amongst your peers..


Looking cool is why people pickup smoking not why they become atheists


Let's give what you said some credence though, and say some people claim atheism to look cool amongst peers.. Considering there is much much much more community in religion, it would make sense a lot more religious people would be doing it just to be cool and fit in



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Looking cool is why people pickup smoking not why they become atheists


Let's give what you said some credence though, and say some people claim atheism to look cool amongst peers.. Considering there is much much much more community in religion, it would make sense a lot more religious people would be doing it just to be cool and fit in


dunno what planet you're living on but when i was a young adult and mentioned to some of my partying buddies that i had had a change of view and become a believer, some of them acted like i had suddenly contracted a horrible disease, insulted me and never talked to me again lol

in "cool" circles, it was the least cool thing you could do to yourself. i don't think you could claim, very convincingly, that sitting in a building with grannies and old guys and little kids and screaming babies, and reading 2000-6000 year old books, is exactly the cutting edge of cool. maybe bordering on nerd cool, but not quite.

edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
And I am slightly puzzled as to the significance.

For one USA is not the end all for atheists throughout the world.

Secondly when did the US Supreme Court become experts in the field of philosophy and theology?


does it matter? this just means a think tank was on it... a think tank which provides rulings which most of the other civilized nations on this planet look to when writing their laws (a known fact)... we know how it is looked upon in the muslim world so there is no need to go there.

atheism has a history which hasn't gone anywhere... some even claim it is older than most religions but i digress, I say it rose from the advent thereof.

Law is what matters in this world we currently occupy, there need be no experts on anything such as philosophy and theology when making Law. Philosophy can justify murder if you take it to the limits of any given subject... it will never negate the fact that it is wrong.

from a historical perspective looking at the gene pool as a whole, using my natural gestalt psyche technology it easily appears that atheism is a disease, a curable corruption of otherwise normal healthy cells. Considering of course that 98% of the rest of the planet do not think like atheists do.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join