Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Abrahamic Confinement Of Atheism

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I feel left out. Ignored and neglected. I can’t find an atheist to debate the finer points of Taoism with me. Or any Dharmic religion for that matter. None of them seem to know anything about it. All they want to talk about is Christianity. And many of them do know a lot about Christianity, albeit academically and not experientially. I’ll give them that.

But if they’re going to make sweeping and convicted claims about how material (physically observable, definable, etc.) reality is the only reality, and therefore that all religion and spirituality is hogwash, shouldn't they… well, shouldn't they know what they’re talking about? It seems to me that invalidating all religious/spiritual belief systems (or any associated concept) based on the criticism of almost exclusively Abrahamic religions is about as unscientific as you can get. Not to mention dripping with ignorance.

So refute Theravada Buddhism. Go ahead, do it. We’ll wait. How is karmic causation scientifically invalid? And please don’t try the little trick you guys like to pull—redefine Buddhism as a “non-religion” so you don’t have to talk about it. We can see through that one.

Or Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. Any Dharmic religion will do. Try to convince me that Krishna never counseled Arjuna on the battlefield as recorded in the Bhagavad Gita—that someone made it all up, and you have irrefutable “scientific” evidence.




posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


burden of evidence falls on you [ or anyone else who posits that the religions you cite are true ]

so - to take your first example :

the evidence for " karmic causation " is ??????????????????????



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   

ignorant_ape
burden of evidence falls on you [ or anyone else who posits that the religions you cite are true ]

so - to take your first example :

the evidence for " karmic causation " is ??????????????????????

I'm not trying to convince anyone of the truth (or untruth) of karma, or any other religious concept. That's impossible anyway and you know that. My point is that I think it's foolish to dismiss an entire class of belief systems based on the examination of only a few of them.

You apparently disagree?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


I cannot speak for anyone but myself - but why should I accept any concept that cannot be evidenced ?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


Hello
I am an atheist and I believe in the laws of Karma > (causation)

We DON'T believe in a god/gods/goddesses



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

ignorant_ape
I cannot speak for anyone but myself - but why should I accept any concept that cannot be evidenced ?

I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that rejecting the concept outright, based on a select few examples, is a little ignorant.

And I'd like to suggest that our conception of what we call "evidence" may be flawed, or grossly incomplete. It's possible. So why would you trust that either?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

VioletKarma
Hello
I am an atheist and I believe in the laws of Karma > (causation)

We DON'T believe in a god/gods/goddesses


I'm not really addressing the "Webster's Dictionary Atheist" here. I should've clarified that I'm addressing the rabid atheist, the type who starts frothing at the mouth when the Circle K cashier says "Merry Christmas". The ones who believe that science is the end-all-be-all of human understanding and that all spiritual concepts are worthless products of superstition and manipulation, treated with utter contempt; the people who believe in them attacked and ridiculed.

Those people.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   

NthOther

VioletKarma
Hello
I am an atheist and I believe in the laws of Karma > (causation)

We DON'T believe in a god/gods/goddesses


I'm not really addressing the "Webster's Dictionary Atheist" here. I should've clarified that I'm addressing the rabid atheist, the type who starts frothing at the mouth when the Circle K cashier says "Merry Christmas". The ones who believe that science is the end-all-be-all of human understanding and that all spiritual concepts are worthless products of superstition and manipulation, treated with utter contempt; the people who believe in them attacked and ridiculed.

Those people.


Ah! Yes, I know some like that - Extremists are embarrassing - I am bothered by the atheist who is 'blinded by science' and to my mind they have just replaced one god by another with another name - But to be fair, I am sure you are embarrassed by extreme fundamentalist Christians (as neither of us are Muslim/Hindi/etc we can't comment on their extremisms, so I've only written about Christianity and atheism) < I don't need a capital 'a' as atheism doesn't have a 'god', and isn't a religion demanding respect, but I grant you your capital 'c'



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


how do you feel about Taoist alchemy?

I studied it for about 6 years both moving and seated meditation and I actually got quite far in my Qi Gong studies

I used binaural beats to reach altered states of consciousness and travelled to many worlds and had adventures and guess what it proved nothing – I realised there is no way to know if I actually did go ‘else where’ or if my brain produced the whole thing

I had great fun doing it and I still use tai chi zhan zhuang to get though the long winter months here but I am no closer to any answers about life the universe and everything



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

ignorant_ape
reply to post by NthOther
 


burden of evidence falls on you [ or anyone else who posits that the religions you cite are true ]

so - to take your first example :

the evidence for " karmic causation " is ??????????????????????



hm, well I will say this in defense of the OP and I am a Christian, the OP kind of did prove it, because the OP made a post with a philosophical statement, and you, a poster, commented on it.

Karmic causation, the OP posits a statement physically, because you can see it, albeit from an intellectual place that you can't see, and you, physically countered with a statement from your intellect, that can only be seen from the computer screen.

And since Taoism embraces the concept of positive and negative residing in the same sphere, then by your negative comment, you have proven a tenet of Taoism, thereby providing the necessary evidence or burden of proof.

I'm a Christian and even I caught that one.

I would think you should learn Taoism and what it believes before trying to negate it. And the OP did say that. So twice now you have proven karmic causation. And karmic causation is kind of like "you reap what you sow", then from a purely philosophical point of view, you have proven it.

Let me tell you how you have twice proven it, first the OP posits a point from non-believers about how non-believers attempt to disprove it by scientific means and by using veiled tricks in their attempts. You then fell back on the old argument "burden of proof" as though this were a court of law, and thinking that your attempt is clever in the statement. However, what you have proven by karmic causation is that you have an inward motivation to disprove an intellectual statement. The OP made an hypothesis, tested the hypothesis,which is scientific method, is it not? And like Pavlov's dog, you foamed at the mouth to bite at a nugget of something to make your conscience feel better and quiet your cravings.

The second proof lies in that you didn't know the tenets of Taoism and through your negativity to a positive challenge, you have verified that karmic causation is provable.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


The concept of reincarnation and infinite cycles appears to be disproved by models of cosmology as outlined by their limits by Alexander Vilenkin at Cambridge last year.




posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
@ NthOther ......... The reason why atheists mostly go after christianity is because atheism is most strongly expessed in countries where christianity once dominatd. Which is why the atheists you are thinking of are of a christian background and are therefore somewhat well acquainted with the bible.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
What a lovely, well thought out post full of potential and greater meaning. I apologize for what I am about to do, but it was the first thing that popped into my head:

edit on 10-11-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 



I feel left out.

Don't. When it comes to intolerance and stereotyping those who don't share your faith, you seem very much part of the fanatic herd with ejaculations like these:


sweeping and convicted claims... about as unscientific as you can get... dripping with ignorance... starts frothing at the mouth when the Circle K cashier says "Merry Christmas"...

Have you met any people like that? I haven't.

I'm an atheist. I know a fair bit about Theravada Buddhism. Many of the Theravada Buddhists I know consider theirs an atheistical religion; some will, indeed, offer you the line that Buddhism is not really a religion, but a philosophy. I disagree; there is no place for faith in philosophy, and Buddhism demands faith in the principle of rebirth.

Rebirth is necessary because karma seems to act very selectively and often in opposition to its own supposed principles. We see men and women of wisdom and detachment consigned to lives of suffering and painful deaths; we see evildoers flourish and die comfortably in their beds at the end of long lives. To rectify this disagreement between theory and fact, the concept of rebirth is introduced and the operations of accumulated karma extended into future lives. The transparency of this device is patent, which is why the Buddha cautioned his disciples that the operations of karma are a mystery that cannot easily be explained or understood. Clearly he was a little embarrassed by his own stratagem.

The idea of rebirth is very hard to support by appeals to reason, utility or evidence*. It is also very hard to make clear; the Buddha and his interpreters have struggled to explain exactly what it is that is reborn. This suggests the artificialty of the concept; it does not arise organically from any human experience, and can only be accepted on dogma.

That is why Buddhism is faith.

 

*You may spare me the usual catalogue of instances of children remembering their past lives, etc; you hear that sort of thing all the time in my country, and nothing ever comes of it.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by NthOther
 



I feel left out.

Don't. When it comes to intolerance and stereotyping those who don't share your faith, you seem very much part of the fanatic herd with ejaculations like these:


sweeping and convicted claims... about as unscientific as you can get... dripping with ignorance... starts frothing at the mouth when the Circle K cashier says "Merry Christmas"...

Have you met any people like that? I haven't.

I'm an atheist. I know a fair bit about Theravada Buddhism. Many of the Theravada Buddhists I know consider theirs an atheistical religion; some will, indeed, offer you the line that Buddhism is not really a religion, but a philosophy. I disagree; there is no place for faith in philosophy, and Buddhism demands faith in the principle of rebirth.

Rebirth is necessary because karma seems to act very selectively and often in opposition to its own supposed principles. We see men and women of wisdom and detachment consigned to lives of suffering and painful deaths; we see evildoers flourish and die comfortably in their beds at the end of long lives. To rectify this disagreement between theory and fact, the concept of rebirth is introduced and the operations of accumulated karma extended into future lives. The transparency of this device is patent, which is why the Buddha cautioned his disciples that the operations of karma are a mystery that cannot easily be explained or understood. Clearly he was a little embarrassed by his own stratagem.

The idea of rebirth is very hard to support by appeals to reason, utility or evidence*. It is also very hard to make clear; the Buddha and his interpreters have struggled to explain exactly what it is that is reborn. This suggests the artificialty of the concept; it does not arise organically from any human experience, and can only be accepted on dogma.

That is why Buddhism is faith.

 

*You may spare me the usual catalogue of instances of children remembering their past lives, etc; you hear that sort of thing all the time in my country, and nothing ever comes of it.


I've been censored in the past for criticizing atheist's for "participating in a celebratory circle jerk". I'm curious if you will meet the same fate for "ejaculating".

Good luck, and God speed



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
@ NthOther ......... The reason why atheists mostly go after christianity is because atheism is most strongly expessed in countries where christianity once dominatd. Which is why the atheists you are thinking of are of a christian background and are therefore somewhat well acquainted with the bible.


Skorp

You and I may disagree on many things, but I am sure you were drawn to this thread simply by the title as I was. I believe the OP is saying the atheists have contained the debate solely against Abrahamic faiths. I thought the title meant that the Abrahamic faiths had contained atheism...lol.

Well, yes, most atheists do come from Christianized backgrounds. But I think Taoism is a fairly intellectualist system. I would have to say that even though Taoism explains everything through positive and negative, then some parts of science would fall under that.

We know about the protons, neutrons and electrons within the atomic structure. And positive and negative are drawn to each other in magnetism. So I think someone saw how positive and negative attract each other and began a thought system of why this happens, and then applied to it everything.


ETA: If this were a point debate...then this Christian gives 2 points to the Taoist, 1 point to the person with the video.....

And a billion points to the person with the picture of the guy from ancient aliens...that picture made me laugh. I saw that and thought "How could our stupid ancestors figure out how to build things, they were so stoooopid the aliens came down to show them how to make pyramids and Baalbek, but only in the Stone Age, and haven't come back since".....You know how that guy says that? LOL. Thank you for the laugh today.
edit on 11/10/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
@WarminIndy ....... The outspoken atheists almost always operate in first world regions that were once christian. In those same regions, we see pockets of christians (minorities) complain of moral degeneration. Again, in those same regions we find that the mass media promotes godlessness... And it is in those regions that the masses absorb decadence willfully. Do you know of Taoist communites where taoists openly proclaim that taoisim is all lies?....or demand scientific proof for taoisim? You wont..... Refer to my previous post.
edit on 10-11-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Did you really need to quote my entire post just to say that?

The word 'ejaculate' has more than one meaning.


ejaculate

1. to utter suddenly and briefly; exclaim.

2. to eject (semen).

3. to eject suddenly and swiftly; discharge.

Source



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Did you really need to quote my entire post just to say that?

The word 'ejaculate' has more than one meaning.


ejaculate

1. to utter suddenly and briefly; exclaim.

2. to eject (semen).

3. to eject suddenly and swiftly; discharge.

Source



I didn't. Did you really need to point out that the word ejaculate has more than one meaning and then follow it up with a dictionary quotation?



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


They're not trying to kill those gods, only trying to kill ours. You would figure they would "evolve" and move on to something else since they have been trying to kill him for 3000 years or more and have failed constantly.






top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join