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.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Serdgiam
"A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently."
What BS.
Atheism means one thing only: lack of belief in a god.
How and what each individual atheist things or believes beyond that is their own personal philosophy.
Remain silent? For what purpose?
LOL!
A good atheist, like a good woman, remains silent!
Yeah right!
Originally posted by windword
First of all, just to be clear, I'm not an atheist, as I do believe in a spiritual hierarchy and in reincarnation.
That being said, Christians and other evangelical persuasions are committed to "spreading the word" and converting followers. Atheists have no such mantra.
Atheists, as rule and in my opinion, only speak up when confronted with a religious proclamation, which they then reject. There is first a claim that gods exist, followed by a rejection of that claim.
As a non-believer in the Christian and biblical versions of god, I came to my conclusions through the rejection of what I'd been told was true and embraced what I perceived to be true.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Serdgiam
"A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently."
What BS.
Atheism means one thing only: lack of belief in a god.
How and what each individual atheist things or believes beyond that is their own personal philosophy.
Remain silent? For what purpose?
If you would mind, in that quote where it says "remain silent," what do you perceive that to mean?
Would you mind not getting defensive or emotional about it? I dont mean any disrespect with that, it just makes logical discourse difficult.
Originally posted by windword
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Serdgiam
"A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently."
What BS.
Atheism means one thing only: lack of belief in a god.
How and what each individual atheist things or believes beyond that is their own personal philosophy.
Remain silent? For what purpose?
LOL!
A good atheist, like a good woman, remains silent!
Yeah right!
A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently
1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam
More in defense of it than anything else. Whenever I speak of it, I speak to enlighten others as to the specifics of what atheism entails for myself. Not all atheists are the same, just as with any group. I want them to formulate an educated opinion regarding me in particular, which will hopefully give them pause when ready to judge any atheists they meet down the road.
Originally posted by Annee
I'm going to answer it this way. American Atheists are increasing their media awareness campaign (billboards, bus signage, etc) in a similar campaign as gay rights. In other words, they want atheists to feel comfortable to "come out of the non-believer closet" and be recognized. They want them to speak up and be publicly/socially visible.
If you mean, as a rule, atheists are not vocally confrontational -- I agree.
Originally posted by windword
As a non-believer in the Christian and biblical versions of god, I came to my conclusions through the rejection of what I'd been told was true and embraced what I perceived to be true.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by Annee
I'm going to answer it this way. American Atheists are increasing their media awareness campaign (billboards, bus signage, etc) in a similar campaign as gay rights. In other words, they want atheists to feel comfortable to "come out of the non-believer closet" and be recognized. They want them to speak up and be publicly/socially visible.
To be blunt, I feel that those monies could be better invested back into humanity.
If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?
The other idealogies that you may have would make perfect sense to me logically, but the active defense of something which is claimed to not exist is difficult for me to understand. Do you see where I am coming from on this?
I can see all sorts of discussion taking place on our belief systems, but when we invoke the term "atheist," it insinuates a null value. What discussion can rationally take place on something which is said to not exist?
Gosh, I know this is a difficult thing to communicate as I have been trying to understand it for quite some time. I appreciate your candor and openness to actually speak on it without perceiving it as an attack. 99% of the discussions ARE just attack after attack from all sides, and it makes fruitful discussion very difficult.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by windword
That being said, Christians and other evangelical persuasions are committed to "spreading the word" and converting followers. Atheists have no such mantra.
I agree with the first part of that, and used to agree on the latter. For the past few years though, I am starting to have some sincere doubts about it as evidenced by threads that claim a conversion to atheism, as well as the topic of this thread. It seems the same parties are involved with both discussions, so there might be some cross-over.
While it may not be directly stated (well, usually not), the actions of many modern atheists seem to show a completely different story than their words. It seems that this dichotomy may be part of the human condition, shown through zealotry of different sorts, and as such is independent of belief or lack there-of.
How is someone "outside" of all the religious mess supposed to take it when atheist are claiming proudly to have converted someone much in the same way as the religious? The words and mantras they speak have differences, but the actions seem exactly the same (with the everpresent exceptions, on all sides, of course!).
Atheists, as rule and in my opinion, only speak up when confronted with a religious proclamation, which they then reject. There is first a claim that gods exist, followed by a rejection of that claim.
As a non-believer in the Christian and biblical versions of god, I came to my conclusions through the rejection of what I'd been told was true and embraced what I perceived to be true.
If the given religion is the one that "starts" it, it would seem that atheism may be under the control of it much in the same way as its adherents, just inversely. In math, the "absolute value" of -1 and 1 are both 1. Obviously a massive simplification, but I hope it makes sense.
FWIW, I feel any human vision of a "god," biblical or otherwise, would not be accurate. Pushing ones individual perception of the "truth" is where I start to have issue. Obviously, this puts me in opposition to most religions, but I have also found that in the past years, it also puts me at odds with the atheist community. My individual treatment from both is indistinguishable. What misunderstanding do you feel might be taking place?edit on 15-6-2013 by Serdgiam because: changed word for clarity
Originally posted by Serdgiam
If you mean, as a rule, atheists are not vocally confrontational -- I agree.
I would not agree with that statement at all. The evidence is in the OP, as well as the constant battles between the religious and non-religious. Both sides seem incredibly vocal.
Originally posted by Annee
So, you don't support the gay rights movement?
You don't support full equality in being who you are without bullying and discrimination?
Originally posted by Serdgiam
The two questions you ask are not related in everyones perspective, though you have asked them in a way that forces me into a corner. You seem more interested in making assumptions about my stance than truly understanding where another being is coming from.
.
If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam
If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?
There are those who believe that meaning can only be present in a universe presided over by a divine power. An intelligent cosmic entity must give us purpose in order for us to have purpose. That is the impression I have received, many times.
I defend the possibility of having an autonomous directive: a mind that gives itself a meaning. We give ourselves a reason to exist, and then act upon that reason. That's one of my tenets as a gnostic spiritual atheist.
I do not defend the existence of a god, only the right to believe in one. In turn, I also defend the validity of atheism, but not the need to eradicate religion. Religion has its purpose, and when that purpose is no longer necessary, the rest will take care of itself. Obviously, the birth of atheism is a sign of this.
Why invent the digit known as zero? So as to express an idea. Zero has its place in all sorts of equations and mathematical functions. Without the zero, where would the ten be? The twenty? The thirty? Where would a hundred or a thousand be? Without zero, how are we to numerically express the absence of value?
Just because you are unable to comprehend the value of an expression, does not mean it has no value. It is good that you ask instead of assuming that this is the case. I respect that in you.
I thank you for the civil exchange. This is how understanding is formed.
Originally posted by Annee
Absolutely they are related.
That you can't see they are the same is the problem.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Serdgiam
If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?
In my experience an atheist HAS to defend their right to existence, their morality, their sanity and their science.