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 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
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.
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 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.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Irenaeus denounced Reincarnation, Origen supposedly believed in Reincarnation. He was wrong, the Church teaches Reincarnation is NOT true.
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.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.