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: 22
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
No it's a way of establishing a common base for communication.
What word?


earlier someone mentioned that they don't believe any of the old testament is valid because of things like talking snakes.

and i pointed out that the word for serpent in the text there is actually NACHASH, and that it meant he was a master of pharmacopeia, not a talking snake. i would really appreciate it if criticial texts written on the invalidity of the old world histories like the bible, would at least make an effort to do something other than parrot old catholic teachings/higher criticism as their rationale for their position.

snakes snakes everywhere snakes



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




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


what I'm describing is that a religion is something that is organized around a belief, if you believe in a god but don't follow the religion then I'd say you are not religious you just have a belief.

the religion is what is practiced. all religions believe in god but they are not all the same. they all practice different things and have different structures. there is none of that with atheism, it is just a belief there is no god and that's it, it is not a religion it is not something that is practiced or has a specific set of instructions you must do or any structure around it.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Your use of "enlightened" kinda bugs me though.
...
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.)
....

Sorry if I rambled. Lots of thought spilling out all at once
I can clarify if necessary.



No, thanks for the ramble. Valid insights.

And yes, I did think twice about using that word, but it fits the bill, as someone who has grappled with the great illusion and come out the other side. Most of us are on this side though, so maybe it's not relevant.
That process interests me, and it's probably best defined as I mean it in Jed Mckenna's Enlightenment trilogy (which is where 'no belief is true' comes from), or Stephen Jourdain's Radical Awakening; there's other stuff that's similar too, UG Krishnamuri perhaps. And of course classical vipassana budhhism, best described in Mastering The Core Teachings Of the Buddha by Daniel Ingram.
It's not for everyone though, it's a very deconstructionist approach.
There's other ways.
(edit... It just means to get rid of anything that's untrue, which can take a while. The greatest untruth (the hardest one to see) is the self. IMO. But let's not go there..
)

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
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.

Possibly, you could be right. Some might use the lack of a cohesive narrative for their life as an opportunity and reason to wreak havoc, very true.
But morality and meaning are not mutually inclusive, I can choose to have a strong ethical base without needing to justify it with a story of meaning - athough if I did it might make it easier to explain to others or convince them to adopt it too.

I think it's true that there is no real meaning, but maybe it's a necessary fiction?
edit on 4-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

You're saying historically

I think this might be my last response to you. This is getting silly.


no need in putting words in peoples mouths... atheist think they are professionals at doing that along with redefining the meanings of words.

if you think it out my man you will see the ruling is a recent event eh? does this imply "historically" no it does not...

the rest of your comment afterward is a strawman.

have a nice day



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


Actually I have been all around the world and frequently visit Central and South America I can also draw a lot of parallels between Islam and Christianity especially if you line up the relative ages of each religion to each other however that is for a whole other thread otherwise we would completely derail this one even further than we already have.

I had started thread not too long ago concerning the necessity of religion in this point in history. Several people tried to derail it however I managed to keep it on track and it came to a relative conclusion which should be a begging for a new thread but I haven’t been able to bring myself to gather the research materials or will myself to do so. Frankly the end proposal seems to daunting of a task however there is always time. You may want to look it over.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regarding earlier post atheism would be the default belief for all humanity which means atheism is older than all religion it would also depend on your faith what you believe but it is technically a chicken vs. egg question. When a person is first born they have 0 religion and belong to no faith so if you prescribe to man coming before religion then you also assume in the beginning he didn’t have a faith however if you prescribe to a faith each one claims to have come first.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: add



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
delusion



maybe it's a necessary fiction?


perhaps it's not a fiction. perhaps it's just ancient history with etymological issues related to generational layering and events like throwing out every accessible ancient history on the planet, and just making up your own



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Maybe



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
reply to post by undo
 


Maybe


thank you.

i mean science has done wondrous things, of that there is no doubt, but to insist we ignore the last 6000 years of written history, is pushing the envelope. i think they are talking about the same or similar things. one has been couched in archaic references and old languages, and the other uses modern language and modern references.

i read a section in the book of enoch, after watching a video on the subject of wormholes, that sounds just like the dude was witnessing a supermassive black hole of a quasar, or more precisely, a supermassive black hole of an active galaxy, complete with stars circling it because they were "imprisoned" in its gravity well. freaky stuff. could be the cover up of all time, that we think of ancient texts today as backwards gobbedly gook.

here are the stars currently circling the super massive black hole in the milky way galaxy

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



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
moved
edit on 4-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

no need in putting words in peoples mouths..

the rest of your comment afterward is a strawman.

have a nice day


Okay I will be more genuine to what you've said.

Currently religion isn't infringing on freedom of thought/speech as much as atheists, and they live and let live more than atheists.

Atheists are atheists because they want to look cool among their atheists friends, and they are satanic because the focus on Christianity.

Happy?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I find your statement very interesting and some of what you said I have wondered about. I am also in the opinion that thousands of years’ worth of information shouldn’t just be thrown out but I do have the opinion that it should be put into context. You have mentioned the catholic church several times which my main gripe with that organization is how they have horded so much information and it is not available to world especially in this day when all the information could be digitized for all to view. It makes me wonder what they are hiding.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

no need in putting words in peoples mouths..

the rest of your comment afterward is a strawman.

have a nice day


Okay I will be more genuine to what you've said.

Currently religion isn't infringing on freedom of thought/speech as much as atheists, and they live and let live more than atheists.

Atheists are atheists because they want to look cool among their atheists friends, and they are satanic because the focus on Christianity.

Happy?


well you have to admit, our public school textbooks certainly don't read like religious books by any stretch of the imagination, yet our children are required to learn them by law or else we must pay for private education. not that learning science and math is bad, just pointing out the obvious that is indeed well represented in the populace and just as involved in pushing its doctrinal positions.
i think of it as catholicism II: the next adventure in friendly tyranny.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


Atheism is undoubtedly the religion that denies religion and oddly enough, when I compared atheism to religion, a couple of atheists CONFIRMED that it is. No Christian has seen the beginning. No atheist has seen the beginning. Both rely on writings and theologies that claim certain beliefs. Christians have preachers and atheists have scientists. Atheists think science is truth, although it is only mere opinion of man. HOWEVER, the final nail in the coffin that IS ATHEISM, is that atheism DENIES meaning and purpose. Thus, truth and lies do not exist. Everything is an accident, even our thoughts. If atheists can see their brightly held hypocrisy, they would see that what they believe does not exist, nor has meaning, but they LOVE mocking God don't they? I want to meet an atheist, that will after the murder of their family, losing their house, car and job, say "Oh, it doesn't matter, because nothing exists nor has purpose." They won't. *gasp* WHY DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACIES?! WHY ARE THEY ON THIS SITE? THE ELITE AND NWO DON'T EXIST! OH MAH BRAIN IS SPLODIN! Oh yeah, how will you atheist's feel, when you fulfill your role, by aiding in the murders of God's true people? At that point, will you look upon yourselves and see the monsters that they have made you? Honestly, I don't think so. You see, atheist's already harbor hate for God's people and God Himself, so within these next several months, the SPIRITUAL push will be given and laws will be deduced, that will allow pure atheism to run amok upon the world and at THAT point.....
edit on 4-12-2012 by scmoG because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



not that learning science and math is bad, just pointing out the obvious that is indeed well represented in the populace and just as involved in pushing its doctrinal positions.


That's pushing science and math not atheism. If someone concludes from science and or math that atheism is true that still doesn't mean that's what is being pushed at schools......



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by scmoG
 


what is a religion? is it the belief in god?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo
 



not that learning science and math is bad, just pointing out the obvious that is indeed well represented in the populace and just as involved in pushing its doctrinal positions.


That's pushing science and math not atheism. If someone concludes from science and or math that atheism is true that still doesn't mean that's what is being pushed at schools......
God's Word teaches math. In fact, God's Word was the foundation of school to begin with, however once "they" caught wind of the influence they could have via the schooling system, they took it over. Thus, Bibles were replaced with atheism books, most students were forced to pledge allegiance to the god of America and most schools, suspending students for even talking about God.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by scmoG
 


I think you need to get to a hospital because I think it exploded before you posted. You have taken some serious leaps in logic and you need to talk to your atheist friends to bridge those gaps.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo
 


I find your statement very interesting and some of what you said I have wondered about. I am also in the opinion that thousands of years’ worth of information shouldn’t just be thrown out but I do have the opinion that it should be put into context. You have mentioned the catholic church several times which my main gripe with that organization is how they have horded so much information and it is not available to world especially in this day when all the information could be digitized for all to view. It makes me wonder what they are hiding.


the vatican has started releasing digitized versions of the reading materials in their vault contents but it's not likely to ring anybody's bells, if they've been actively hiding stuff. i dunno. all i know is they use to actively hide stuff. there is some measure of rationale for that, for example, the bibles had to be written out by hand. so copies were rare. in fact so rare, martin luther found one chained to the wall of a basement in a catholic church and read what it actually said. he was like, okay this is not what i was taught. lol

people are frequently surprised that have studied it all their lives when they start checking the original words of the text. one day i was reading, looking for passages that might have some relation to pyramids. i came upon the word "images" in a passage about egypt. it was in king james english version of the bible. i looked up what the original word was there, that they translated to mean images and it was the word "mastaba". i had to do a double take. a mastaba and an image, are quite a bit different in overall implication. a mastaba is a burial chamber. a pyramid is essentially a mastaba on top of a mastaba on top of a mastaba. was then i realized i was gonna have to check every single word. lol



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by scmoG
 


I think you need to get to a hospital because I think it exploded before you posted. You have taken some serious leaps in logic and you need to talk to your atheist friends to bridge those gaps.
Hmmm, insults with no information to prove how to prove them? Yup, I'm crazy alright.

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



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by scmoG
 



You see, atheist's already harbor hate for God's people and God Himself,


Atheists harbor hate for a being they don't believe exists.

That's an impressive feat.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join