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.

 

Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


More to the point, I think the message here is equality of expression. Your voice is as valuable as mine or any other. Let's keep the oppression to a minimum or this thread will be worthless.


100% agree.

God Bless,




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



That's quite admiral I must admit. Most atheists seem bent on spreading their fundamentalism, and holding that their beliefs are more special than the beliefs of others. You do atheism proud by not attacking, but defending, our religious friends.


I am uncertain as to the point you are making here. Are you saying that an honorable person will defend the opposite of what that person believes in? Or the ability to make that choice? Does that not ultimately undermine the beliefs that person had chosen to stand for?

If a pro-choice man chooses to defend the abortion a woman has undergone, does he not undermine his own stance in the matter? If a gun control advocate defends the freedom to bear arms, does he not discredit his own message? I ask this not to argue, but to hear your clarification in the matter. I am interested to know the complexities of your stance.


However, rhetoric isn't much of a defence against anything but one's own beliefs, but if it helps us sleep soundly at night, sure why not?


At the very least, it shows us the path by which one came to their decision, thereby allowing us to understand their general approach to life. And this, in many cases, can be a great advantage when it comes to understanding the emotional processes of those we are dealing with. The first step to compassion is understanding. This is why I continually engage in discussions with people I disagree with. My hopes are that they will walk away with a better understanding of why and what they disagree with, and I will walk away with an acceptance of that which I believe is a thriving detriment.

Just as I advocate the acceptance of our imperfection, I advocate the understanding of our disagreements. This is part of my approach as a spiritual atheist - an emotionally comprehensive investigation into our reality and our interactions with one another on both a physical and nonphysical level.
edit on 4-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

In that case, would you kindly explain the principles by which your spiritually "logical" methodology operates? Remember, in order to be described as "logical" in any fashion, it must follow the parameters described in the definition provided previously.


I cannot for it is by faith not scientific logic that the methodolgy of my belief operates. It is not physical so I cannot use your modern definition of scientific logic to explain it.

MY definition of logic is the one I was using in that post and explains perfectly reasonably my methodology.

Why should I be forced to use your expressed definition of logic (physical scientific), when my expressed definition is just as true and clear to understand. You nor webster own the word logic. I used it to express my self under my definition, just as you used it to express yourself under your definition.

The Logos I use to reveal knowledge/truth to my mind is the Word (logos) of God.
The Logos you use to reveal knowledge/truth to your mind is scientific logic as presented clearly by your posts.

That is the methodology you seek in truth.




I don't see the point in raising your children to be humble and contrite if you yourself are not humble and contrite. How many times has your god apologized or demonstrated humility, in all the cases where his children demonstrated their desire to be treated as equal or demonstrated the nature that both his omnipotence and omniscience determined that they would have?
edit on 4-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


God has made me very humble and contrite over time, this understanding of my mind is not something you are able to discern in spirit and in truth. Odd you would even attempt to claim to know the level of humilty in other human being.

I do not raise my family to believe anything. I share what is true with them and wait on a calling from God to bring them into His Church (ecclesia = called out ones). I cannot teach my children what is true, that is God's job to do as it was in my life before them.

In the end, when you have come to know all things according to the plan of God, your issues presented inthis response will be answered fully. But at this time, they are not to be given for your own good over TIME.

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



What questions are those? Remember, atheists don't claim there are no gods. that's gnostic stuff. no..an atheist simply is someone whom has no belief in gods..doesn't mean they don't exist..just no evidence provided. Ask a hundred atheists what the meaning of life is, you will get a hundred different answers perhaps.

which is why i left my definition of "beliefs" purposely vague. all religions have hundreds of different answers to the same question depending on who you ask.


Not following. The word has not changed. no belief in deity(s). That's consistant. its derived from the word theist..simply the reverse...not a system of belief, just a simple observation of no evidence. if 100$ of atheists thought sausage was the best pizza topping, sausage being the best pizza topping would not be part of atheism...just a coincidence. (and blasphemy..pepperoni is the best!)

above you said that atheists have many different beliefs on what the meaning of life is, these are "belief systems".
definition of atheism from merriam-webster:


2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

www.merriam-webster.com...


Why not put then the tenants of "My Pretty Pony". We can all be bronys..hooray. They are sensible, good, and morally correct tenants, and half of em about cutie marks and whatnot well, they can be ignored. Its not the rules that's objectionable, its the kowtowing to what is deemed imaginary beings. No different than having a ancient religions words there..

my pretty pony has nothing to do with the founding of our country. it has no historical significance to law. i see it as a nod to the philosophy that generated a revolution away from granting secular power to religious figures and vice versa.


The chuch of satan is not represented.

constitutional law doesn't require them to be, furthermore they have no historical significance to our current system of laws.


It makes far more sense to build a hospital than a church..wouldn't you agree? Does a person with cancer need a priest to talk about a book, or treatment for cancer? Which one has a higher percent chance of keeping that person alive?

notwithstanding the fact that they aren't mutually exclusive (both can be built), do hospitals hand out food to the local poor? a poor man will die in a hospital.


Explain the bashing? give me specific quotes that bash a religion verses show an alternative way of thinking?

i thought i demonstrated the hypocrisy of telling people "better" ways to spend their private funds...while spending lots of money to do so. my second issue would be with the history of the matter. how the protestant revolution in europe influenced our current laws.


There are a number of secular charities

yes, and they choose to use their money to point out that another belief system doesn't use their money wisely. that is the LEAST wise way to use money. i've been to different parts of the country and seen churches with 100-200 members all give up their free time to try and make their city a better place, i've been to different countries and seen american churches help with the building of schools, offer free medical services, and construct homes for those less fortunate. churchgoers give money and time to these things. i would not deem this a "waste", and i find it very hypocritical for a group to spend private money criticizing churches on how to spend money with a monument when churches didn't even put the original monument up.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 



Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

In that case, would you kindly explain the principles by which your spiritually "logical" methodology operates? Remember, in order to be described as "logical" in any fashion, it must follow the parameters described in the definition provided previously.


I cannot for it is by faith not scientific logic that the methodolgy of my belief operates. It is not physical so I cannot use your modern definition of scientific logic to explain it.


If it does not operate by the logic by which we have successfully defined the most relevant aspects of our world (those aspects which can be logically determined to be relevant) then it is be definition illogical. Irrational. Unreliable.


1faith
noun \ˈfāth\
plural faiths
Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust


I want to make it clear that I am not berating or persecuting any followers of Christianity in any way here. I am merely defending my unwillingness, as an atheist, to condone the irrational nature of the Christian approach to our reality as we are familiar with it.

As shown above - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" - faith is irrational in that it can be defined as a reason to believe without reason. It is an emotional mechanism which encourages one to ignore the facts and state their hopes with the justification that the risk makes such a tradeoff entirely worthwhile. Call it "cognitive dissonance in the employ of emotional insecurity". It is a two pronged approach that both comforts our insecurity as a result of our flawed nature and grants us a thematic layout by which to develop a personal sense of meaning.

Atheist argument states that such a tradeoff cannot be proven through objective (and therefore realistic) measures to be worthwhile and is hence invalid in light of the reality with which we are familiar.

I cannot make this any clearer. There are further layers to be explored and discussed, which flesh out the context of this essential argument, but those are for a different thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Good reply and correct for a mind thinking physically.

Your methodology is far more natural and expected as it is rooted in scientific logic and can be observed by you in the physical realm.

I understand your methodology and I respect your freedom to follow it and embrace it fully in this age.

According to current definitions utilized by you in your replies, faith is illogical when logic is defined with science backing; although the original word (logos) is far more specific and beautiful when properly understood, but it appears that definition is not worth pursuing in this thread.

It never was the plan for mankind to come to know God in this age, except a very small number for a very specific purpose, so please understand I acknowledge your methodology is the normal, natural, expected and currently logical methodology for human beings... but it doesn't make it true, only natural.

God Bless,



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 



It never was the plan for mankind to come to know God in this age, except a very small number for a very specific purpose, so please understand I acknowledge your methodology is the normal, natural, expected and currently logical methodology for human beings... but it doesn't make it true, only natural.


May I ask how you've come to this conclusion? And thank you for the respect.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ElohimJD
 



It never was the plan for mankind to come to know God in this age, except a very small number for a very specific purpose, so please understand I acknowledge your methodology is the normal, natural, expected and currently logical methodology for human beings... but it doesn't make it true, only natural.


May I ask how you've come to this conclusion? And thank you for the respect.


God called me out of this world into His Church by nothing I qualified for, but for His great purpose. Before my calling, I used the same scientific methodology you currently utilize in personal logic for the aquisition of personal truth.

God reveals these spiritual truths to His people by them faithfully keeping the commandments of God in spirit and in truth, the fruits of which resulted in aquiring the knowledge of the plan of God for the salvation of all mankind.

Through that understanding, God can mold His spiritual character in the mind of one called out of this age, and over a lifetime of changing how one thinks (repentance) from "my logic" (what I think is right) to "God's logic" (what God says is right) He will transform the mind into unity and oneness with His (atonement); which is the purpose of a calling in this age.

By this understanding does the scripture in Genesis come to life:

"Let Elohim (God's family title) create over time mankind in the image (spiritual character) of Elohim (God's family title)"

This one sentance explains the entire purpose for the physical time of mankind upon the Earth, this present age is only one part of that timly purpose.

Only a mind fully atoned to the mind of God (in total agreement that His way of thinking will lead to everlasting peace), can be righteously judged capible of receiving the inheritance of Elohim (all things placed in subjection to Elohim), set aside for us since before the angelic realm was created.

We were created physical to eventually become Elohim after God's plan has succesfully created His character (way of thinking) in free moral agents found in the whole of mankind, for the most part over 2 physical lifetimes.

The Annual Holy Days summarize this plan from begining to end, keeping them every year, helps to solidify the understanding thereof.

It does not come from my logic, but from God's logos (word).

I do not want to risk de-railing this thread, but I want to thank you for constructive excahnges of ideas, and keeping the replies civil and engaging.

God Bless,
edit on 4-6-2013 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Unibomber.
ELF
Jeff Dahmer
and the biggest genocidal dictators in the 20th century.

I think there is enough asshattery to go around.


So you've got some evidence that these people were killing because of their atheism and not just atheists who were killing people, right? Can you understand the difference here?


Of course, however, if lump any and all theists who kill as "killing for their faith" then teh same game can be played with athiests.

One can argue that ELF does its terror because of their belief in the sanctity of the planet above all...I'd say that counts as terrorism for their belief's

The Unibomber in his manifesto said that killing would lead people

Jim Jones said he“took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism”. He was an athiest and he stated that he used his "People's Temple" with intent to spread socialism and atheism.

Pol Pot specifically wanted to eradicate theism and went out of his way to kill religious people because they were religious people.

Kazinski, certainly stated he ahd basis in his rabid environmentalism in his athiesm.

Atheist thinkers like Sanger have also supported racial eugenics and like Pianka have supported genocide as a means to save the environment.

I know that it is human nature to think that people you agree with are pure as the shriven snow and that people you disagree with are evil and must be "done away with," but honestly, on this subject, there is plenty of badness to go around.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. Just remember - faith doesn't fill an empty stomach.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


You make some good points. Good debate.
I will only hit on a single point given the point by point is getting extensive.

Historical relevance supporting Judeo-Christian monuments:
This means little. If history trumps law, then we should also have great memorials of pro-slavery and anti-native people (plague blanket handing to Indians with quotes by racists monument?). To say that there is no relevance towards historical considerations.

This country was founded by religious radicals, and murderers. We have since grown up. Not to say there shouldn't be historical monuments that are religious by nature kept through tax payer dollars..but this instance of the monument doesn't fall under that guideline..its a new statue, not some 300 year old stone.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I guess the thread kinda lost steam. I'll be back when it picks up.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


You make some good points. Good debate.
I will only hit on a single point given the point by point is getting extensive.

Historical relevance supporting Judeo-Christian monuments:
This means little. If history trumps law, then we should also have great memorials of pro-slavery and anti-native people (plague blanket handing to Indians with quotes by racists monument?). To say that there is no relevance towards historical considerations.

This country was founded by religious radicals, and murderers. We have since grown up. Not to say there shouldn't be historical monuments that are religious by nature kept through tax payer dollars..but this instance of the monument doesn't fall under that guideline..its a new statue, not some 300 year old stone.

yes...i was wondering how the monument came to be in the first place.

history and law are two separate things. for one to claim that the legal traditions of our nation weren't touched by the protestant reformation that occurred in europe would be naive, and i honestly don't see anything overtly harmful or offensive in the nature of the monument, but perhaps this is not the place for such a monument.

sadly i don't believe we have grown up as a nation, it's just that we do our "nation pruning" on foreign soil.

if the monument causes division (even if that division/repulsion is unfounded), even if completely legal, then perhaps it is better to forgo the monument in favor of unity. regrettably the removal of the monument will not lessen the derision between belief systems, neither will adding another of any school of thought. all parties are acting like children.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

i may be able to give you some points to consider and discuss.

let is differentiate between blind faith and reasoned faith. you may see the latter as a contradiction of terms, but humor me.

blind faith is what you would call "faith", reasoned faith could be termed "true justified belief".

my problem with the argument "there is no quantifiable proof of god" has several facets. humans are limited to our perception of reality. what i mean by this is that you could get a microscope and look at bacterium, see them with your eyes and recognize them using knowledge, HOWEVER, what proof have you that this is not all a delusion within your own mind, or a similar construct?

could you offer evidence outside the scope of what you perceive that this is actually real? no. no one can.

humans take a lot of knowledge for granted, and our understanding of things is based on assumptions that cannot be identified as real.

i could deny what everyone perceives to be "real" until someone can prove to me that it is actually real using empirical, quantifiable evidence, but that evidence would never come. it doesn't exist inside the box.

this is to demonstrate that no matter what belief someone holds as true, they could not reach that conclusion without blind faith that the building blocks they used to construct their hypothesis are real.

therefore arguing "your ideas are built on blind faith" is not a fair point because it is the common ground all ideas share.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



blind faith is what you would call "faith", reasoned faith could be termed "true justified belief".


Do I need to post the definition of 'justification' again?


my problem with the argument "there is no quantifiable proof of god" has several facets. humans are limited to our perception of reality. what i mean by this is that you could get a microscope and look at bacterium, see them with your eyes and recognize them using knowledge, HOWEVER, what proof have you that this is not all a delusion within your own mind, or a similar construct?

could you offer evidence outside the scope of what you perceive that this is actually real? no. no one can.

humans take a lot of knowledge for granted, and our understanding of things is based on assumptions that cannot be identified as real.

i could deny what everyone perceives to be "real" until someone can prove to me that it is actually real using empirical, quantifiable evidence, but that evidence would never come. it doesn't exist inside the box.

this is to demonstrate that no matter what belief someone holds as true, they could not reach that conclusion without blind faith that the building blocks they used to construct their hypothesis are real.


I suppose this is the part you feel I may not have considered. You're wrong. I have considered it. But there's this little thing called probability - there's certain acts of faith that are more necessary or reasonable than others, based on the mechanisms driving them and the elements composing them.

Probability comes into play when you measure the reliability of each of these mechanisms and elements according to their track record, their nature, the influences they operate under, and precedent cases outlining their specific behavioral patterns. It's complicated, but it's verymuch worthwhile to learn. As an Aspie, I have made a point to hone my skills in this regard - it enables me to pick up on social cues I might otherwise miss, as well as securing a certain degree of emotional stability by establishing a logical framework to anchor it with.

So naturally, in such emotionally centric topics as this one, I automatically employ these skills in order to best determine true nature of the subject in question. Ergo, I have found that my atheist approach is fair more "justified" than any theist approach. Why? Because science, that's why. We have science, theists do not. They just borrow our science because we have prove it works. But just because fire responds well to gasoline doesn't mean gasoline will put it out. And just so, theism cannot be resolved through logic because theism cancels out logic.

It all comes back to faith. Either you believe, or you don't. If you believe, that's enough for you. If you don't believe, it will never be enough for you. I don't believe in a god, and I am fairly certain that the closest thing we will ever have to a god is a nonsentient force of nature or a highly evolved life form.

Because magic doesn't exist. Only science. And science doesn't support the ideas Christians claim to believe in. You offered your thoughts, I answered them. Thank you and good day.

edit on 5-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

statistics do not apply to a unique situation (indeed, those statistics may be a product of delusion). perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps you are sidestepping, but i'm asking for evidence that proves this reality isn't a mental delusion on your part.

there isn't anything you can provide to refute this.

therefore you are asserting, on blind faith, that this is reality. the same characteristic you criticize theists for possessing.

this last is in jest, please do not take it as an insult:



edit on 5-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



statistics do not apply to a unique situation. perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps you are sidestepping, but i'm asking for evidence that proves this reality isn't a mental delusion on your part.

therefore you are asserting, on blind faith, that this is reality. the same characteristic you criticize theists for possessing.


Whether this is reality or a delusion, it is a consistent delusion that doesn't support the existence of a deity. And until you can provide evidence suggesting this isn't reality, then I can safely assume that it is.

Statistics apply to any situations. Clearly, you aren't familiar with the functonality and applicable potential of statistics or you would realize that we have laws of physics for a reason. They don't just change.

We are very different. You employ faith, I employ reason. Just as I cannot PROVE that this is not a delusion, you cannot PROVE that your religion is not a delusion.
edit on 5-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Whether this is reality or a delusion, it is a consistent delusion that doesn't support the existence of a deity

i would disagree.


And until you can provide evidence suggesting this isn't reality, then I can safely assume that it is.

i thought scientists questioned everything instead of holding assumptions as true until they are proven wrong


Statistics apply to any situations.

statistics cannot apply to the scenario i laid out. assuming for a moment that this is all a delusion, you would have no knowledge of the rate of those suffering similar delusions, nor would any statistics from your delusion hold any relevance to whether or not you are deluded.


Clearly, you aren't familiar with the functonality and applicable potential of statistics or you would realize that we have laws of physics for a reason. They don't just change.

i'm studying theoretical physics, and hope to make a living working in the field.


We are very different. You employ faith, I employ reason. Just as I cannot PROVE that this is not a delusion, you cannot PROVE that your religion is not a delusion.

the last sentence was the point i was trying to lead you to. you ask for concrete evidence, but are unable to give any, then suppose that your position is the "reasoned" one.

there are currently no functional theories as to how the universe came to be without resorting to an infinite chain of causalities that have existed forever. i obviously can't claim to have viewed them all, but things like quantum fluctuations and an infinite chain of colliding universes causing others to be born all require things from before this universe was created to be. in the case of quantum fluctuations it requires space, time, and energy. this merely delays an answer to the question of a finite beginning.

entropy points to a finite beginning with increased order, beginnings must be caused, and order does not result from chaos in a closed system.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



i would disagree.


Then explain to me two things:

1) How do the established scientific principles of this universe as we know it concretely proof that there must be a deity in existence?

2) What qualifies you as an expert on the subject, considering the most renowned scientific research facilities in the world cannot say for a fact that there is a deity?


i thought scientists questioned everything instead of holding assumptions as true until they are proven wrong


You are correct. That's why I'm questioning you, because you are questioning established science that has been tested and proven far more than you ever thought about subjecting your beliefs to.


statistics cannot apply to the scenario i laid out. assuming for a moment that this is all a delusion, you would have no knowledge of the rate of those suffering similar delusions, nor would any statistics from your delusion hold any relevance to whether or not you are deluded.


The observable scientific principles of my "delusion" match precisely with the observable scientific principles of your "delusion", suggesting that we share the same delusion. This means that the entire process by which I determined my informed approximations can arguably be replicated in the reality with which you are familiar - you just prefer to make a different set of assumptions for reasons that are more personal than logical.

You cannot implicate my reality without implicating your own.


i'm studying theoretical physics, and hope to make a living working in the field.


Oh. So you study physics. Sweet. That makes me feel somuch better about your experience and education in the area. I'm studying medicine, mind if I perform surgery on you?


the last sentence was the point i was trying to lead you to. you ask for concrete evidence, but are unable to give any, then suppose that your position is the "reasoned" one.


That's because you're the one questioning the legitimacy of this reality. I'm questioning the likelihood of a cosmic power according to the parameters exhibited by this reality, whether it's "real" or not. And as I have explained before, implicating my reality implicates yours as well.

Which leaves us at an impasse. So which one of us will admit the possibility of being incorrect?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Then explain to me two things: 1) How do the established scientific principles of this universe as we know it concretely proof that there must be a deity in existence?

it is interesting that my scientific reasons for believing something beyond the universe had a hand in it's creation is the only point you did not address.


2) What qualifies you as an expert on the subject, considering the most renowned scientific research facilities in the world cannot say for a fact that there is a deity?

the first bit of this sentence is a logical fallacy of the ad hominem variety, the second fallacy is an argument from ignorance.


The observable scientific principles of my "delusion" match precisely with the observable scientific principles of your "delusion", suggesting that we share the same delusion.

in my thought experiment there is no "we", only you. obviously a product of your delusion would fit within the parameters of your delusion.

the end result is that you will have to accept that you cannot prove whether this is real or a personal delusion. you take it on blind faith, no evidence supports either assumption, an act you criticize theists for. i do not mean this as an insult in any way, i'm just pointing out how you consider this acceptable when the question of whether this is a delusion is brought up, but unacceptable when the question of a god is brought up. i've already given a few of my reasons for believing in a god/higher power/prime mover, those reasons include, but are not limited to, a lack of known physics properties to explain the universe's existence without intervention.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join