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.

 

I Converted A Catholic To Atheism

page: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Good thread. I would've taken it a step further and told him to leave religion altogether, but that's just me.


Its not just you... I am with you.

I think the issue is that atheism has specifically been formed as an inverse to something. To claim that they are similar to what they deny is akin to defeat. This is used, rather effectively, to continue the division that impedes *all* of our progress.


In every thread I have participated in on this topic, I am faced with the same rhetoric. It still seems to be filled with dishonesty, but I dont think its intentional.

edit: Maybe Ill just stay out of the whole mess and stick with the science and lakes I am used to

edit on 17-6-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


There's nothing wrong with chasing waterfalls. Just remember, it doesn't have to be your way or nothing at all...

edit on 17-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



Its not just you... I am with you.

I think the issue is that atheism has specifically been formed as an inverse to something. To claim that they are similar to what they deny is akin to defeat. This is used, rather effectively, to continue the division that impedes *all* of our progress.

In every thread I have participated in on this topic, I am faced with the same rhetoric. It still seems to be filled with dishonesty, but I dont think its intentional.

edit: Maybe Ill just stay out of the whole mess and stick with the science and lakes I am used to


It's the religion of double standards, my friend.

Rhetoric and dogmatism are necessary means to sell any ideal over another. That is why they are common to religious fundamentalism and politics. Rather than promote free thought, it promotes the opposite: that one must be an adherent to whatever system they are selling.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is aware of, and honest about, the glaring inconstancies here. As you probably realize, using rationality to convince the religious is a difficult task, more-so when they already believe they are being rational.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I feel that atheism offers certain freedoms and emotional benefits that religions tend to shy from for reasons that don't seem the justify the ends. Whatever rhetoric accompanies atheistic discourse, this does not change for me.

By the way...


I'd hate to say you were lying to this man, but maybe you can share a little proof of this for those that can't find this definition in any dictionary or encyclopedia. It usually requires a little dishonesty to convert one to our own way of thinking, so this is an understandable move on your part, but I'm hoping that you're not lying to yourself as well.


Here you go:


athe·ism noun ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


I also wanted to address this particular bit from Serdgiam (link to post):



I think the issue is that atheism has specifically been formed as an inverse to something. To claim that they are similar to what they deny is akin to defeat. This is used, rather effectively, to continue the division that impedes *all* of our progress.


Never thought I'd say this...but I'm inclined to attribute that behavior/character to organized atheism. See, it's not nearly so black and white for any of us, really.


Some of you may be familiar with the Atheist Monument thread, which demonstrates clearly that some atheists are not content with simply being recognized as a valid entity and broadcasting their own views, but actually wrestling with that same right as utilized by other similar entities. I do not agree with this. If you are an atheist, the worst thing you can do is try to silence or control the volume of other groups. The furthest you should go, in my opinion, is correcting that which you feel casts an erroneous light upon yourself or other atheists. Defend yourself, and broadcast yourself, but don't attack others.

Other atheists seem to miss this.
edit on 17-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


There's nothing wrong with chasing waterfalls.


Glad someone picked up on that!



Just remember, it doesn't have to be your way or nothing at all...


Agreed, but then what is the point of converting someone?

Either way, its the division that causes the issues, imo. We can address it as a team, or continue to tear each other down. I hold hope for the former, but expect the latter..



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I'm actually quite pleased to see that you will admit that the definition you provided in the OP was faulty and not in accordance with any actual definition. Good for you, sir. Congratulations on your conversion.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is aware of, and honest about, the glaring inconstancies here. As you probably realize, using rationality to convince the religious is a difficult task, more-so when they already believe they are being rational.


As a scientist, I also see this behavior in the scientific community. To me, it is a religious mindset regardless of what "title" is claimed. edit: perhaps not "religious" but "zealous."

I strongly feel that this is the most imperative issue when it comes to an actual "solution" to the negatives that this sort of behavior has, but I am still trying to learn ways to communicate my own ideas on the topic. What I say is nothing more than my opinion on the matter, but I dont feel that takes away its legitimacy.

To solve these prejudicial issues, I am inclined to approach it scientifically. The only question I have to ask myself is; "Is what we are doing working?" I dont think it is, I think it is just shifting focus.
edit on 17-6-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Thank you! And thank you for participating in this thread. I have always enjoyed and valued your input, even (and sometimes especially) when we don't agree.

edit on 17-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


I think the issue is that atheism has specifically been formed as an inverse to something. To claim that they are similar to what they deny is akin to defeat. This is used, rather effectively, to continue the division that impedes *all* of our progress.


Never thought I'd say this...but I'm inclined to attribute that behavior/character to organized atheism. See, it's not nearly so black and white for any of us, really.


Agreed, but I think that when we force ourselves into titles and groups, it inherently shapes group perspective both for and against any given group.


Some of you may be familiar with the Atheist Monument thread, which demonstrates clearly that some atheists are not content with simply being recognized as a valid entity and broadcasting their own views, but actually wrestling with that same right as utilized by other similar entities. I do not agree with this. If you are an atheist, the worst thing you can do is try to silence or control the volume of other groups. The furthest you should go, in my opinion, is correcting that which you feel casts an erroneous light upon yourself or other atheists. Defend yourself, and broadcast yourself, but don't attack others.

Other atheists seem to miss this.


They definitely do miss it. Though, because I feel it is part of the human condition, it only seems a matter of course before such things happen with ANY group.

Addressing that part of "us" seems to me to be the best way to approach it. Instead of tearing each other apart to make ourselves feel like we are growing.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 



To solve these prejudicial issues, I am inclined to approach it scientifically. The only question I have to ask myself is; "Is what we are doing working?" I dont think it is, I think it is just shifting focus.


That is an excellent question to ask oneself. Also: "Will what we are doing continue to work? For how long?"

My feelings on the matter are that the more credit we give ourselves, and the more inclination to nurture such potential, and the more intent to deploy our capability in a meaningful manner, the more we are prepared to accomplish. Many religious mindsets remove the credit, stunting the inclination, and stalling the intent. This is what concerns me as we begin to take actions and shirk responsibility, talk more and work less, focusing on what we think we should have instead of acknowledging what we know we need. The more we "pass the buck" to a deity, the less we are inclined to do ourselves. And the world suffers as a result of our inaction and ignorance.

Atheism, such as I have described it throughout this thread, is but one small step in a long journey of self-discovery and recognition. I'm not saying it's a miracle procedure. I'm not saying it's the answer to everything. I am merely suggesting that it is a method of preparation for unleashing the full power of everything we could be that is great and good.

I could be wrong...but only time will tell.

edit on 17-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


Excellent observations. I agree that the points you have raised deserve a thorough investigation.


ETA: Interestingly, that is the only TLC song I listen to. What a coincidence!
edit on 17-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Irenaeus denounced Reincarnation, Origen supposedly believed in Reincarnation. He was wrong, the Church teaches Reincarnation is NOT true.

Yes, colbs, it is.
It IS true.

You don't have to like it, and you don't have to want to, you just have to reincarnate until you get it right. So, start now, and save yourself some grief.

BTW, not turning Catholic. Even if the new Pope is a nice guy.
Your Padre Pio was a fraud, and so are all your "channellers" giving you bizarre messages.

USE YOUR BRAIN!



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 




I strongly feel that this is the most imperative issue when it comes to an actual "solution" to the negatives that this sort of behavior has, but I am still trying to learn ways to communicate my own ideas on the topic. What I say is nothing more than my opinion on the matter, but I dont feel that takes away its legitimacy.


Absolutely. The way one expresses his opinions, his rhetoric, has a positive or negative impact on the listener. Only by understanding rhetoric itself can one both utilize it and defend against it.

The act of teaching rhetoric in early education might discourage dogmatism altogether.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


How utterly pointless... That person was never a true Catholic if he lost his faith from such a conversation.

Here's a bit of gold for the atheists out there - don't get too shaken up now.
Here it is.

- IF the universe created life as atheists believe; bacteria, plants and animals through the laws of nature wouldn't it be common sense that their is a consciousness to that same universe that created life? A sort of deity that all these animals and particles of matter are part of? We are all made of the same order of particles as the dirt in the ground so it is safe to assume we are all "one" in the loosest sense. All of this coherence in our universe is too ludicrous to attribute to mere chance.

- IF you believe in any religion that includes "God" then you would believe that a god created this "deity" which is the material universe. This is less obvious to the thinkers out there than is the idea of a universal consciousness but ponder on the miracle of human beings surviving to 2013 while countless species went extinct millions of years before humanity even evolved into what we are today. The chances should be considered too slim for atheists to be comfortable with. Humans are hardly more adept at survival in the wilderness than are a number of extinct species of rodents.

Of course I'm not trying to convert any atheists but instilling a little fear in you fools might not be a bad thing. But then again it is just as well you held your staunch belief in atheism than became a "skeptic believer in god" because that is just a waste of faith.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
That is an excellent question to ask oneself. Also: "Will what we are doing continue to work? For how long?"


Thats a great expansion on my own words. With the inevitable increase in technology, and the inherent increase in destructive capability of said technology.. I dont think it can be maintained for that long honestly. I think we are at an important junction in human history, and the way we approach it individually will determine whether we will succeed of fail as a team.


My feelings on the matter are that the more credit we give ourselves, and the more inclination to nurture such potential, and the more intent to deploy our capability in a meaningful manner, the more we are prepared to accomplish. Many religious mindsets remove the credit, stunting the inclination, and stalling the intent. This is what concerns me as we begin to take actions and shirk responsibility, talk more and work less, focusing on what we think we should have instead of acknowledging what we know we need. The more we "pass the buck" to a deity, the less we are inclined to do ourselves. And the world suffers as a result of our inaction and ignorance.


I agree, personal responsibility is seen as obsolete by most people regardless of idealogy. This one facet alone causes so many issues. Everyone is to blame except for "me." But.. when everyone is doing that, who can reasonably expect anything to change? I see this in atheism as well, where so much is blamed on religion. I see this in feminism, where so much is blamed on men. I see this in really any "ism," where everyone else is blamed except for those who claim the title of that specific "ism."


Atheism, such as I have described it throughout this thread, is but one small step in a long journey of self-discovery and recognition. I'm not saying it's a miracle procedure. I'm not saying it's the answer to everything. I am merely suggesting that it is a method of preparation for unleashing the full power of everything we could be that is great and good.

I could be wrong...but only time will tell.


I dont think atheism in and of itself is anything but an individual manifestation of the variety present in the universe. As such, I feel that on its own, it will do nothing except perpetuate the same cycles we have witnessed for thousands of years because the *core* issues still remain intact.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Absolutely. The way one expresses his opinions, his rhetoric, has a positive or negative impact on the listener. Only by understanding rhetoric itself can one both utilize it and defend against it.

The act of teaching rhetoric in early education might discourage dogmatism altogether.


I should have expected you to not correlate "rhetoric" with a negative.
Most do, as I am sure you are aware!

One of the things I think would help, much along the same lines as what you present, is education reform. I think that in the elementary/primary school years, we should be teaching our children *how* to learn and not *what* to learn. We dont even present the scientific method until much later.

My thought is this;

In the early school years, we present our children with the scientific method. It is simple, easily understood, and is one of the best methods we have for exploring the world around us. Basically, we give them that very simple and terse foundation, and let them take it where they will. Once they understand that learning is a constant process, we could just send them out onto the playground, the cafeteria, anywhere on the school grounds and have them EXPLORE the world around them. Let them come to their own conclusions, and then bring their findings back to the class for "peer review."

Once they have honed their skills of learning, then we can start to approach them with "what we currently know to be true." Doing it the other way around, as I have often said, is much more indicative of indoctrination than education.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Atheism and religion are both based upon the same idea, without which there is no point to either. Considering the contention between these extremes as a result of such an idea, I would like to pose a question to all participants of this thread:

What is a god?

What parameters, qualities, and attributes denote the status of god? What determines the godly nature of any being? These questions are an important part of atheism and religion, as one must know what one does or does not believe in in order to know why.

This, I think, is a very pertinent question to the topic. All answers are welcome, provided the ensuing debate is respectful and courteous.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Atheism and religion are both based upon the same idea, without which there is no point to either. Considering the contention between these extremes as a result of such an idea, I would like to pose a question to all participants of this thread:

What is a god?

What parameters, qualities, and attributes denote the status of god? What determines the godly nature of any being? These questions are an important part of atheism and religion, as one must know what one does or does not believe in in order to know why.

This, I think, is a very pertinent question to the topic. All answers are welcome, provided the ensuing debate is respectful and courteous.


This is a great post, with some fantastic points.

Most define god in a way that will suit their bias, and this goes all ways. Whether it is to deny existence, or fervently claim existence, the process is the same.

When I pursued this line of thinking honestly, I found that I could define god to either exist, or not exist. Leading me to believe I have no effing clue. I also thought that the way I carry myself and treat others has zero relevance to whether or not a god exists. I decided the best option was to carry myself in the way I feel would enable growth and progress for everyone around me, and myself. Ironically, what I eventually settled on was already stated by Jesus. Summing up my entire belief system, at least what drives my actions, is "teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime" and "love one another."



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 



Here's a bit of gold for the atheists out there - don't get too shaken up now.
Here it is.


I am fairly confident my jimmies shall remain unrustled.



- IF the universe created life as atheists believe; bacteria, plants and animals through the laws of nature wouldn't it be common sense that their is a consciousness to that same universe that created life? A sort of deity that all these animals and particles of matter are part of? We are all made of the same order of particles as the dirt in the ground so it is safe to assume we are all "one" in the loosest sense. All of this coherence in our universe is too ludicrous to attribute to mere chance.


Thank you for this question. My "random code generator" theory states that this universe was born as a result of random values and segments being thrown together in the "Big Bang" (loosely used). This is but one of an infinite range of such instances, meaning that this is a phenomenal experiment in an infinite range of phenomenal experiments, all of which succeed before failing or fail right away. Given our rather limited perception, there is no way we can say that this universe is not, in fact, a failure waiting to culminate. A tiny blip on the radar of existence. An instant of creation in an eternity of possibilities.

So yes, every chance will have its moment when there's an infinite amount of possibilities all being realized autonomously. Theoretically, infinity guarantees every possibility.


- IF you believe in any religion that includes "God" then you would believe that a god created this "deity" which is the material universe. This is less obvious to the thinkers out there than is the idea of a universal consciousness but ponder on the miracle of human beings surviving to 2013 while countless species went extinct millions of years before humanity even evolved into what we are today. The chances should be considered too slim for atheists to be comfortable with. Humans are hardly more adept at survival in the wilderness than are a number of extinct species of rodents.


We haven't even been alive a million years. Our species, in its current form, has existed for approximately 500,000 years. The dinosaurs were much, much older than us when they went extinct. It should also be noted that many species have gone extinct because of us. Their extinction wasn't natural. We're just brutal hunters who take more than we need and view death as a sport.

By your thinking, cockroaches can be considered a more advanced/evolved species than ourselves since they both survived the meteor that killed the dinosaurs and have demonstrated an endurance that surpasses radioactive fallout. Not to mention that they can live for hours after being beheaded. We're not so lucky.



Of course I'm not trying to convert any atheists but instilling a little fear in you fools might not be a bad thing. But then again it is just as well you held your staunch belief in atheism than became a "skeptic believer in god" because that is just a waste of faith.


You'll have to try harder than that, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your concern.

edit on 17-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane
 




- IF you believe in any religion that includes "God" then you would believe that a god created this "deity" which is the material universe. This is less obvious to the thinkers out there than is the idea of a universal consciousness but ponder on the miracle of human beings surviving to 2013 while countless species went extinct millions of years before humanity even evolved into what we are today. The chances should be considered too slim for atheists to be comfortable with. Humans are hardly more adept at survival in the wilderness than are a number of extinct species of rodents.


Who created God? Or does logic and a questioning spirit just stop there, at that answer, "God did it."? Are you saying that humanity couldn't have evolved but other life forms did?


Of course I'm not trying to convert any atheists but instilling a little fear in you fools might not be a bad thing. But then again it is just as well you held your staunch belief in atheism than became a "skeptic believer in god" because that is just a waste of faith.


Fear of what? Can faith be wasted? I guess so.




edit on 17-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join