Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 25
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo
 



ever read any of sitchin's work?


I have yes. Two books so far. I thought you might be drawing some of your knowledge from it. I am on the fence myself. Not strongly against like many here.



his main thesis is that enlil and enki are both called god in the old testament, and that they do not like each other at all, and that they both have offspring on the planet, and that this accounts for the slaughters you see in the old testament. enlil, doesn't like homo sapians, whereas enki does because he supposedly created the homo sapian version of our genetic line. in effect, we were created by enki, and later were upgraded from a prior state of clone-hood, to be self perpetuating. and that enki was the geneticist who the book of genesis identifies as the nachash (serpent) who gave us procreative ability.

i pondered that for awhile and wondered how sitchin could still view that as enki caring about us, if he knew that procreation would get us whacked upside with the lifespan nerf. i still don't know what to make of it. later, enki is the one who saves the sumerian-akkadian equivalent of noah and co., from the flood (the text is almost verbatim of the flood story in genesis). enki keeps rescuing us from enlil, who supposedly hates us. i just don't know.

edit on 5-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RoguePenguinScotland
 



Technically you can't call atheism a religion, as that would go against the whole purpose of inventing the English language.
All that you can say is that both sides can have similar dogmas.


Try to be as objective as possible.

Outline how atheism has a dogma similar to religion.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have long since been sold Abrahamic religions were borrowed from earlier civilizations. Not an insult to them just a realization one religion evolved into the next. I would expand on what you have been talking about but I don't wanna get too off topic. I have been penalized for it in the past


Thanks for your responses, and I enjoy reading your posts. I find them quite educational and if you can link some threads I'd be grateful. Or if you could suggest a few Sitchin books, which ones would you suggest?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Quite possibly the most irritating people to have around, especially when having a few barley pops at the pub or a party, are Evangelical Atheists. At least in my case, they never shut up and bang the same few notes over and over again. However, I don't think that means we need to label all atheists as a religion just because of the ones who are religious about it.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy


Religion stories, namely the Abrahamic religions, transmit packages that are more immoral than moral!

The amount of death and murder encouraged based on nothing but disagreement is absurd! Stoning your wife on your wedding bed if you find out she's not a virgin!? Beating your kids if they talk back!? Beating your slave to the point of near death so long as he lives (implying also slavery is condoned). Killing someone if they work on the wrong day?? Opposing anyone that is against your religion violently! Etc etc etc.
...


Ha! Yeah you're right about that. Bit of hole in my theory.
This is the dark side of morality and shows it can have an arbitrary, relative nature, and can be about control, and fear of going against the authorities, and creating strong group identities against rival groups (tribalism and hostility to outsiders is a kind of morality that protects the integrity of the group).
All these attempts to control can be 'justified' in evolutionary logic - but so can co-operation and freedom, etc.
There's some truths about our nature that are definitely uncomfortable.

While it's good to bring this up when anyone argues for the assumed morality of the Bible, there may be a difference between the recording of these events, and their endorsement as moral examples.
The interpretations of what the moral lesson was would be highly subject to change - a radical orthodox rabbi would have a different take to a more liberal one, and it would depend on what culture and at what time it was interpreted.

But their presence in a religious text does allow for some to attempt justify acts or attitudes we would consider immoral. I guess that's what the priests are for, to interpret the static text according to the changing needs of the society around it?
I bet the mahabarata has some pretty extreme stuff too.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
yes a very professional response... that coming from this seemingly intelligent rock-man?

it was very rude actually, his face was beet red and being he is a zoologist I am sure he grasps the concept of "preservation of the favored races" Dawkins is a racist on top f it all and you can tell by his demeanor.

poor little man...


Again, depends on your perspective. I am not always a fan of Dawkins style. I was on this particular occasion. Quite a great rebuttal to a disingenuous remark, thinly veiled in a bit of pre emptive but-kissing. deGrasse Tyson got put in his place, it seems.


got put in his place with a F-OFF ?

man the atheists are desperate tonight... Tyson told him how it is, and how he comes off amongst intellectuals in America despite his beliefs. Dawkins has a agenda, which you can get away with in the land of snobby liberalism England. It doesn't fly well here.

I don't believe Tyson is a religious man either that's the kicker...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


actually you do not have the right to call an atheist a satanist... there you go putting words in people mouths again.

I do understand you can't help yourself because you are reading all this like a book. I say something and you apply your thought processes to it in a response seemingly what you actually heard.

I say something and you respond exactly as predicted... you're too easy my man, dare I say weak minded?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
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'm from America... we are the world... and I don't have to travel very far to experience the flavors and the nuances of other cultures.


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.
every thread is a derail, I call it a discussion... otherwise not exploring all the components to any given subject and staying strictly in line with the OP's train of thought is more like a dictation. Individuals are different and they like to explain why they think differently,




Regarding earlier post atheism would be the default belief for all humanity
huh? you lost me here... regarding what earlier post? Theism was naturally first... as explained in part by Carl Jung and evidenced via archeology. Religion arose well after the advent of theism and that is what gave rise to atheism... which religion we may never know but it can easily be speculated as Christianity being the direct cause of atheism. (it is all atheists are concerned with apparently) either that or it is all they know?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

actually you do not have the right to call an atheist a satanist... there you go putting words in people mouths again.


I never called an atheist a satanist. However, you did. Are you trolling? Here is your quote.


personally I call it or consider it "soft-satanism" or weak-satanism" mainly because atheism's adherents focus on a sole practice of Christianity.



I say something and you respond exactly as predicted...

You said that already.


you're too easy my man, dare I say weak minded?


Dare whatever to your hearts content. Meanwhile I invite you to drop the pretentious attitude long enough to be civil for an intellectual discourse.
edit on 5-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by HabiruThorstein
 

I agree with this. Basically there are two types of atheists.. The first are the ones who have decided for themselves that they don't believe in God, and go on about their lives without trying to convince everyone. The second are the ones who are are crusading atheists, that try and 'convert' everyone to an atheist. They're basically the same as crusading religious people. The similarity is uncanny. Let me give some examples..

Strong atheists (A) and religious people (R):

R: The bible says so! (or any other book)
A: Science says so!

R: Go research the bible
A: Go research science articles

R: You don't understand the bible
A: You don't understand science

R: You're spreading hate!
A: You're spreading stupidity!

R: God is the only right path
A: Science is the only right path

R: I'm right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong
A: I'm right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong

R: Everything can be explained through God
A: Everything can be explained through science

R: Jesus was right
A: Darwin was right

R: You deserve to burn in hell!
A: You deserve to be ridiculed!

R: You people are satanic!
A: You people cause wars!

R: Everything is designed because the bible says so
A: Everything is random because science says so

R: You can't feel
A: You can't think

R: The bible has proven itself!
A: Science has proven itself!


They both rely on:

- Becoming angry when the other person questions them
- Insults when the other person does not follow them
- Repeating the same thing over and over
- Pretending they are superior to everyone else in terms of understanding and value to humanity



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



R: You deserve to burn in hell!
A: You deserve to be ridiculed!


Lets stop and appreciate those two. I feel that was a perfect extraction from your post to isolate to get a real sense of the differences


You deserve ridicule. Says the atheist.

You deserve to die forever for all of time in hellfire. Says the religious person.

Infer what you will



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


There's only an illusion of difference. They are both an initiation of violence towards someone else. The degree of violence is irrelevant. Sure. Shooting someone is worse than knocking someone out, but that does not mean that you're allowed to punch someone or justify it by pointing out something worse in the other party. And that's exactly what both parties also do the whole time, trying to make the other look worse, just like you're doing now, and it's the exact same mentality, the 'us vs them' mentality, which blinds you from seeing the actual similarities.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
I'm a little shy of private conversations, I'm more comfortable being a bit of hit and run poster.
But I think this is still relatively on-topic, as the claim that life has no meaning is often something associated with atheists, but is not neccessarily something they all would think true.
(if it turns out not to be on topic, then sure, I'll take the plunge into private messaging
)

I have to backtrack a little and qualify my position (damn that always happens when I have to back up my assertions) - there is real meaning to life. That meaning is the process of life itself. I don't think we as humans are neccessary to that process (of life), but we do exist as part of it; therefore, while we exist, we have meaning.
But there's no plan we have to fulfill. Life is totally happy for us to continue existing, but if we happen to get wiped out through our own stupidity or just random circumstance, life will continue the process through other species.

Those that do say life has no meaning are (usually) just reacting against the traditional meanings given (ones of super-natural origin, man's destiny as center of creation, etc) as not sufficient, and they reject them as grounds for meaning.

Evolution does provide meaning, although the religious (but not just them) don't agree because it takes away our established myths about ourselves.
Given the huge amount of myths about ourselves out there, we obviously have huge need to create meaning for our existence, specificallly one we can relate to. Some find the impersonal processes of the universe too hard to relate to, which is why humanising the universe through religion makes things much easier to process.

I think the idea that morality only comes with knowing that there is a purpose to your life isn't really true if you think carefully about it, it's just been associated with it for a long time.
We are social beings, we have self-consciousness, and we have things we like and things we don't that we can all pretty much agree on - survival, shelter, security, eating, comfort, love, children, health, entertainment and community are all good things universally to all, and things which threaten those are bad.*

We construct our morality around protecting those things, and stories are a great way to teach and pass on our values. Religion is a story that condenses all this into a readily transmittable package, generation to generation.
It uses story logic, which is big on meaningfulness, and is easy to remember because we can relate to it.
Science, logic, and evoution do provide meaning for those who are fine with it - it is a model that has logic to it, just not the story logic of religion.

In short, morality comes from our urge to provide the best circumstances for our success as a species.

Sorry for the long-windedness, it's a handicap I struggle with. I did delete lots of even more rambly sentences.
Not sure if I answered your quesion, but at least that's where I''m coming from for now, until new information comes to light.

*It's with reference to this that I would agree life has meaning, but I disagree there is any grand-plan underway other than our own well-being while we happen to exist; and if that well-being can coincide with the well-being of every other life-form, so much the better.


That's fine; I don't mind posting here

That's an interesting and, IMHO, cohesive view of life. I especially liked your perspective on morality (not that I agree with it, but I think it was well explained.) The problem I have with it is that I have a hard time condemning the aberrant people who have an entirely different perspective on life. I'm not sure if you've read Crime and Punishment but the villain in the story, Svidrigaïlov, rejects societal norms and morals. As a result, he's completely unshackled--I would almost use the term enlightened. It's amazing how much power one can gain from the simple strength of not caring, and that's where I worry that the kind of morality you described may fall short. How can we condemn someone for simply doing what makes him or her happiest, even if it is destructive? I suppose we can, but in the end doesn't that simply mean that the world is composed of lots of people, all of them trying to make themselves happy? Or should people instead think, not about what would make them happy, but about the benefit of the species?

Also, if morality "our urge to provide the best circumstances for our success as a species," isn't it a bit of a handicap? Perhaps I'm thinking in purely Darwinistic terms, but if one accepts an evolutionary paradigm, doesn't it seem we are stymying our progress as a species by having some sort of system (morals) that encourages us to protect the weak?

Thanks for the thoughtful answers



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


trolling??? ha looks like you're hitting the bottom of the bottle...

keywords in my statement were "personally" and "I" it doesn't speak for the christian community.

I don't believe you understand where I am coming from with the statement...some people (not all or even necessarily christians) can easily view atheists as satanist. In the christian lexicon a deceiver could be viewed as under the spell of satan.

but you don't believe in all that silly stuff so I don't expect you to be able to switch your views from an atheist to a christian perspective when it suits you or your needs.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrGod
Yes it could.
Atheists "believe" there is no god.
Atheists have "faith" that they are right.
Since god can never be proven, then this is just another kind of religion.


This^ I would have also said that religion is composed of a group of people sharing similar in not the exact same beliefs. Atheism is just that. The belief that there is no God so.. yes
edit on 5-12-2012 by Edgar806 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo
 

Or if you could suggest a few Sitchin books, which ones would you suggest?


i just read the earth chronicles series. i haven't read any of his other stuff. i have a few disagreements with him, particularly on some of the finer details, such as his belief that nibiru was another planet. from what i can tell, enlil's city on the euphrates was called nibiru/nibru (modern day nippur). i'd be more inclined to believe it was the name of this planet as well, at the time, because earth was not the name of this planet back then. earth just meant solid ground.

i reached that theoretical conclusion because the babylonian astronomers/astrologers, would call planets nibiru when they were directly above us (zenith?) on the meridian of the sky. at least two instances, once when mercury was directly over us and once when jupiter was, both times the babs called them "nibiru" in the text in question. the theory then being that it meant they were crossing our planet's meridian in the sky, so came to be known as crossing place.

anyway, sitchin is like a mediator between atheism and religion in his texts. although he is obviously an atheist, he views the gods, as it were, as extra-terrestrials with no super powers, just a great deal of advanced scientific knowledge. i am not sure on that, however, as i think advanced scientific knowledge would also apply to super powers lol that argument is so wiggly.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by vasaga
 



R: You deserve to burn in hell!
A: You deserve to be ridiculed!


Lets stop and appreciate those two. I feel that was a perfect extraction from your post to isolate to get a real sense of the differences


You deserve ridicule. Says the atheist.

You deserve to die forever for all of time in hellfire. Says the religious person.

Infer what you will


i think vasaga was going easy on atheism, if using real life comparison. cause we know of several real life examples where believing in god, ended up as the rationale for killing the person. you can even read well educated people claiming that people who have faith in anything other than man, are missing some necessary intellectual component and should be eradicated to further the evolution of the species.

that suggests to me, it would be incredibly easy for them to reintroduce the worship of the god king, like hard core pharaohs (perhaps the equivalent of an atheistic pope), since your whole existence would be totally meaningless and of no value, other than your slavery for the pharaoh's benefit while alive. to suggest we only believe in man and man's potential, is like intellectual tyranny.

edit on 5-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I'm used to my posts being dismissed. Since I don't really take a side but show common ground, pretty much no one likes that. People don't like to see that they have something in common with the 'enemy' they love to fight and hate so much. Resentment is the first thing that arises and inevitably, they'll wanna kill the messenger. It's pretty obvious here, if you look at which posts are getting the most stars. If you dislike something about someone else, the first place to look is to yourself. The crusading atheist has become the exact thing they are pretending to fight against.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalebRight14

Originally posted by HIWATT
HERE YOU GO


/ END THREAD


Please don't do that, you are not a moderator.



The question was to whether Atheism could be considered a religion.

I provided evidence that the answer is undoubtedly YES.

Hence, there is nothing more to discuss unless the topic is to be changed.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


There's a thread for that! www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the meantime, there are people who still wish to debate that, in this opinion driven, debate forum.

EDIT to add: Your link was created in the spirit of sarcasm and spite, and is not the definitive agreement of proof that atheism is a religion.
edit on 5-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join