Religion Vs Atheism

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Religious people and Atheists are one and the same.
Both believe they are right.
Both have zero evidence and operate only on "faith".




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Dear AfterInfinity,

Thanks again for your contribution to the ATS headline thread. Very good, very funny.


Who says people are looking for the truth? Maybe they are just looking for a reason to live. These are not the same things.
Actually, I was saying it. My words were "If one is looking for the truth. . . " If you're not looking for the answer to a question, it's hardly surprising that it is not found.

You're saying there are only two choices. 1) Accept that there is only one possible conclusion to which the evidence points (Disbelief), or 2) Ignore all evidence and logic, and believe. I don't think that's an accurate description of the choices.

Then correct my description.
Your wish is my command. 1) See that the available evidence points in several directions, and by using appropriate scientific methods and reason, determine, at least to your own satisfaction, which conclusion is most likely. 2) look at your own feelings and decide they trump everything else, including available evidence. 3) Just as I am not an expert in physics, and have to rely on experts, why not rely on the thousands of people throughout history who have studied this and rely on their opinions.

I mentioned the Sherlock quote because. . .
I didn't reference that quote at all, never discussed it. What I said was "You change subjects drastically after your Sherlock Holmes quote."

But your claim that it is a reasonably sound method of deduction, while true in some cases, is destroyed here because of your method of application. You claim that there is no God, only a "frail imagining" (Nice phrase, by the way.), and you get there by claiming that all contradictory evidence is "impossible," and thus may be discarded. You're assuming the conclusion which you're trying to prove.

"The question of God's existence must be raised, it's importance pointed out, evidence bearing on the question must be gathered, and people must be encouraged to think about and weigh the evidence as thoroughly as they can to reach a decision."

I disagree.
What? What is there to disagree with? Do you believe the question must not be raised?

All the evidence was compiled from superstitious Bedouin sheepherders that lived and died thousands of years ago when objective observation was a myth and science was Satan's pet project.
Really? Why do you think they were superstitious? Because they believed in God? Sheepherders? The occupations of six of the Apostles are unknown, four were fishermen, one was a Nationalist leader (sort of like a community organizer who didn't mind a few deaths along the way), and one was a tax collector who held the contract for collection all the Roman taxes in a particular area.

Oh, let's not forget Paul and Luke.

Luke was a physician from a Greek city. "Science was Satan's pet project?" Sorry.

Paul was a Jewish Roman citizen, trained in Stoic philosophy. He received a broad and balanced education under Gamaliel, possibly the most famous Rabbi in history.

Now, if the mention of real places and events in fictional novels of today do not validate the legitimacy of the contents in those fictional novels, why should they validate the conversations purported to have taken place in the Bible?
Nobody is claiming that the existence of Jerusalem or Nazareth proves that the Bible is true.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FinalCountdown
Religious people and Atheists are one and the same.
Both believe they are right.
Both have zero evidence and operate only on "faith".


That's not true!
I'd call myself an unbeliever. That does not mean I'm MORE correct than someone who does believe. We all have a choice, mine is to not believe in supernatural beings.
I do not believe I operate on faith either, because I quite simply do not give religion any thought whatsoever.

I do agree with Jigger (above though) Children should be left alone to make up their own minds.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I couldn't say it much better than this site: WARNING: This url is safe, but others on this site may be NSFW!

Example:



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I find it to make sense to believe in neither.

I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in nothing!

God in my mind isn't a sentient being of absolute power that set things into motion.

God is a mechanism which gave the first spark that ignited the universe. God is the physics and the laws and the consequences of each individual action within the universe determining how time will unfold.

The only reason why people have ever believed in an all powerful god is because they needed a more simplistic and comfortable explanation for all the mysteries of the universe, life and death, and how reality itself came to be.

In essence, the christians are correct in their belief if you state that god isn't a definable entity other than the fact that god is just a representation of all that we as humans currently fail to understand.

For example, we honestly do not have any evidence of an afterlife yet for christians it is much simpler and comforting to believe that god exists and controls the outcome of what happens after our passing.

Another shortcut to just place a sticker with the word "GOD" over something in science we do not understand.
edit on 8-5-2013 by RothchildRancor because: Atrocious spelling.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Aaaand your wrong.
An atheist didn't conclude there are no gods. Atheists do not conclude anything..they simply remain in disbelief until facts and proof is given.


Actually, Atheists do conclude that there is no god, from their beliefs and faith in their idea.

It's the Agnostics that stay open minded and don't conclude any sides of the argument.

I don't know where you picked up that misconception about Atheists.


the·ism
/ˈTHēizəm/
Noun
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal...

the A in front of Theism = the opposite, no belief in the existence of a god or gods.
the -misconception- of atheism is that it is a belief, based on potatoes, that there is no god..because the potato knows all (potato taking place in the form of supernatural knowledge).

A Atheist does not know if there are or are not deities, but unlike a gnostic, they will not proceed to believe in one just for kicks. Proof or there is no belief.
I do not believe in faster than light travel, however, future understandings of physics may change my view on that. For now, there is nothing showing such a thing is possible (even if I really want it to be).


Now, lets look at the word Agnostic:

gnos·tic
Adjective
Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

Noun
An adherent of Gnosticism.


By definition, the only relation of spiritual knowledge is as an adjective..however look closely at gnostic as an adj. it doesn't say "of god" at the end..just knowledge..
Gnostic means to have (mystical) knowledge....of....because the of bit makes it an adjective...in the case of deities, we are then discussing theism...god

Agnostic is absolutely meaningless unless there is a following.

Agnostic Atheist (someone whom has no mystical knowledge of deities, and therefore does not believe in deities

Agnostic Theist (Someone whom has no myst know of deities, but believes in one because of personal desires?)

Gnostic Atheist (Someone whom has knowledge of no deities, They know magically through the power of potato)

Gnostic Theist (Someone whom has knowledge of Deities, Their holy book is of course the one true one)

No...No no no. Agnostics, as they call themselves in modern society are simply agnostic -atheists- whom don't feel like weighing in during a debate because they are either too damn lazy to commit to their actual thoughts for fear of being not liked by some, or really haven't put much thought into it.

Now, can you find some modern day definitions that are -WRONG- about what atheism is? of course. Why? because clearly some dictionary twits have no concept about words and meanings.

Saying Agnostics believe in no god is like saying Atypical means strange bowties (it could mean it if your discussing bowties, but atypical doesn't actually relate to bowties as just a word.


There is no faith or belief in atheism, it is simply a state of understanding until evidence supports the claim...
same with light speed travel, elves, etc..however, a atheist can totally believe in elves in light speed crafts...atheism simply is a focused question on deities and a finding for lacking any evidence to warrant belief



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FinalCountdown
Religious people and Atheists are one and the same.
Both believe they are right.
Both have zero evidence and operate only on "faith".

Erm, a atheist is pointing out there is zero evidence. Sort of their thing.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Agnostic Atheist (someone whom has no mystical knowledge of deities, and therefore does not believe in deities
...
No...No no no. Agnostics, as they call themselves in modern society are simply agnostic -atheists- whom don't feel like weighing in during a debate because they are either too damn lazy to commit to their actual thoughts for fear of being not liked by some, or really haven't put much thought into it.



Have any clear idea what "mystical knowledge of deities" is?
It just doesn't sound right at all.

Me, for instance, being Agnostic has nothing to do with laziness, acceptance or lack of debating measures.

It's quite simple, Atheist BELIEVE there is no god(s) and Theist BELIEVE in god(s).
Both are unprovable and rely on faith in order to be true belief.
To be 100% sure gods don't exist requires the same amount of faith than to be 100% sure there are gods.

Agnostics just don't see any clear proof about which side is the truth and stay open minded.

You we're debating on the significance of "Gnostic" while "Agnostic" is the complete contrary.
Well : Theologicalpositions

So with this graph showing both on each extremities, we can ALSO see that being only Agnostic is surely possible.

I think you will have to review your knowledge on the definition of Agnostic, you had me doubt my own knowledge for a while there. I could have very well been wrong.
edit on 8-5-2013 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
If there was an all loving god, do you really think he would have provided a small book, with all the answers to rot the brains of those who read it and live their life by it. Surely an all loving god, would trust his creations to use their own brains to explore the world and universe, without the infallible guide.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Look how many gods in Hinduism. We no longer worship Zeus. We put human traits on these gods we worship. God may be a whole different thing that we have no idea of. Just like a fish in a fish bowl we have no concept really what is outside the bowl.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Agnostic Atheist (someone whom has no mystical knowledge of deities, and therefore does not believe in deities
...
No...No no no. Agnostics, as they call themselves in modern society are simply agnostic -atheists- whom don't feel like weighing in during a debate because they are either too damn lazy to commit to their actual thoughts for fear of being not liked by some, or really haven't put much thought into it.



Have any clear idea what "mystical knowledge of deities" is?
It just doesn't sound right at all.

Me, for instance, being Agnostic has nothing to do with laziness, acceptance or lack of debating measures.

It's quite simple, Atheist BELIEVE there is no god(s) and Theist BELIEVE in god(s).
Both are unprovable and rely on faith in order to be true belief.
To be 100% sure gods don't exist requires the same amount of faith than to be 100% sure there are gods.

Agnostics just don't see any clear proof about which side is the truth and stay open minded.

You we're debating on the significance of "Gnostic" while "Agnostic" is the complete contrary.
Well : Theologicalpositions

So with this graph showing both on each extremities, we can ALSO see that being only Agnostic is surely possible.

I think you will have to review your knowledge on the definition of Agnostic, you had me doubt my own knowledge for a while there. I could have very well been wrong.
edit on 8-5-2013 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



Do you believe in unicorns? No? That's exactly what atheists are towards God(s).

Atheists don't believe there is no God. They have a lack of a belief in a God. Big difference.
edit on 8/5/2013 by Dondylion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dondylion
 



Atheists don't believe there is no God. They have a lack of a belief in a God. Big difference.


Could you explain this big difference? Lack of belief in one thing generally constitutes a belief in the opposite, especially when the character profile of the thing they don't believe in could easily explain a number of ways in which it could exist and simply escape their scrutiny, resulting in a lack of awareness rather than a presence of conclusive evidence.

While I have my reasons for disagreeing with the existence of a sentient higher power, the atheist movement hasn't proven that none exists. They have only proven that the most vocal and active groups of theists don't understand their deities nearly as well as they claim - at least, to the point that they can successfully argue the possibility without looking like idiots.
edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator
It's quite simple, Atheist BELIEVE there is no god(s) and Theist BELIEVE in god(s).
Both are unprovable and rely on faith in order to be true belief.
To be 100% sure gods don't exist requires the same amount of faith than to be 100% sure there are gods.


ok, going to try a different approach to you considering you (understandably) are not grasping the difference between an adjective and a noun.

I believe evidence and proof.

There is no evidence or proof of a deity..
I believe that
Therefore I do not believe in deities.

A theist has no evidence or proof of deities
They therefore believe in deities.

One is made from observation of evidence (in this case, lack of evidence) and bases their universal observation on existing evidence. Atheists have 100% evidence to back them up in this case

Theists have no evidence, and believe in deities. They are at 0% evidence.


If a deity appears, a atheist will change his view accordingly based on newest evidence, as it is -not- a faith..it is a observation of what is currently fact.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Dondylion
 



Atheists don't believe there is no God. They have a lack of a belief in a God. Big difference.


Could you explain this big difference? Lack of belief in one thing generally constitutes a belief in the opposite,


I can explain.
I do not believe aliens are visiting earth. (agnostic-atheist reference)
Why: Because there is no evidence supporting it at the moment
No belief, just an observation of the evidence at hand

But that doesn't mean

I believe aliens are not visiting earth. (gnostic-atheist reference)
Why: Because I refuse to accept life outside of the earth exists and will deny any possibility of it no matter how valid a concept.
Total belief system because their worldview rejects the notion due to personal bias


See the difference?



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I do not believe aliens are visiting earth.

I believe aliens are not visiting earth.


For simplicity's sake, I have isolated these two excerpts from your post in order to state that these two sentences as quoted above are essentially one and the same.

"I would like a hot dog with ketchup."

"A hot dog and ketchup, if you would."

While the arrangement and style differ in small ways, the general sentiment is precisely the same. The reasons and explanations you listed for each are easily interchangeable due to the nature of their expressions, as quoted above. As such, I would have to disagree with the "big difference" you attempted to illustrate for me. If you would like to try again, I'm still listening.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Jepic
Both ways of thinking are equally as arrogant. Exhibit A says that there is a god and exhibit B says that there is no God.


When the truth is all we really know is that we know nothing.


Not really.

Person A says: "There is a God and "HE" is like this, according to this book I read."

Person B says: "Okay, I hear you, but, I don't believe that is true."


That's good. Unfortunately most times person B goes: "That is BS. The bible is a fairytale book."
Which leaves him as arrogant as person A.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I believe evidence and proof.

There is no evidence or proof of a deity..
I believe that
Therefore I do not believe in deities.

A theist has no evidence or proof of deities
They therefore believe in deities.


Are you familiar with the "clockmaker" theory? That all the pieces of the universe, from the largest galaxy to the smallest particle interact so precisely as to be inherently designed? There is enough perfection to be labeled as intentional. Hence theism. However, science is not satisfied with the poorly-written plot of the theistic realm, and believes there is an alternative explanation. Hence, atheism.

Where theists see a reason to worship gods, atheists see a reason to admire the universe. One is a business, the other is purely accidental art. I myself hang somewhere in the middle, but I lean more towards experiential ballet. Dancing for the fun of it. Motion for motion's sake.

Moments like this make me wish there was a third camp. I don't like atheism because it is often expressed as an indifference to the significance of existential motion. I don't like theism because, in many cases, it applies significance for entirely the wrong sorts of reasons and demands entirely the wrong sort of exchange as a result. One ignores the message being spoken, the other misinterprets it.

That's why I like simple spirituality.
edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I do not believe aliens are visiting earth.

I believe aliens are not visiting earth.


For simplicity's sake, I have isolated these two excerpts from your post in order to state that these two sentences as quoted above are essentially one and the same.

"I would like a hot dog with ketchup."

"A hot dog and ketchup, if you would."

While the arrangement and style differ in small ways, the general sentiment is precisely the same. The reasons and explanations you listed for each are easily interchangeable due to the nature of their expressions, as quoted above. As such, I would have to disagree with the "big difference" you attempted to illustrate for me. If you would like to try again, I'm still listening.


Punctuation and how things are said matter: Consider the next to very similar sentences

1) Lets go eat, Grandpa.

2) Lets go eat Grandpa.

same words, slight variation, huge world of difference.
the first sentence drums up a small child holding their grandfathers hand lovingly tugging him to the dinner table to share a lovely meal
the second..the kids are cannibals conspiring with one another about how to best serve grandfather.

Words matter, context matters, sentence structure matters.

I do not believe is not the same as I believe

I do not believe in gods
is not
I believe there are no gods.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I do not believe in gods
is not
I believe there are no gods.


I'm not following. Perhaps you should explain in the style of the grandfather example. I'm sorry if I seem dense, but I sincerely read those two sentences as exactly the same message in different wrappings.

Like this:

1+2+5+7 = 15

5+2+1+7 = 15

edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I do not believe in gods
is not
I believe there are no gods.


I'm not following. Perhaps you should explain in the style of the grandfather example. I'm sorry if I seem dense, but I sincerely read those two sentences as exactly the same message in different wrappings.

Like this:

1+2+5+7 = 15

5+2+1+7 = 15

edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


When you believe in something, you act on faith that this is how it is regardless of any opposing facts. if I believe my mother hates me, even if she is hugging me, I ignore the evidence of love because my belief is that she hates me for reasons known to me.

if I don't believe in something, you act on lack of evidence. If I don't believe mother loves me, then gives me a hug, I may reevaluate my lack of belief.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join