First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Atheism
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 9/8/08
in the U.S.A the most religious nation in the industrialized nation athiets make up less than 1% of the prison population

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm


also athiests and agnostics have the lower divorce rates than christians


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

watch and weep born again christian types are less moral than the rest of hell bound folks
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 9/8/08

mauz15 wrote:


shiro2142 wrote:

whoa whoa Im not here to do your quiz sir rather im trying to get crunchypoints so I can start my own thread.

Atheism is not believing in any doctrines of organized religion but putting their faith, an ironic word in this context, in scinetific reasoning only relying on imperical evidence on what can be solidly tested on or supported imperically, many people adhere to Darwinian theories like urvival of the fittest. The reason I call Agnosticism a sick joke is that in my opinion they are wurse than atheists in that they are lukewarm and God will spit them out, they have the gall to say they're is a higher s[iritual being yet they refuse to acknowledge the true savior despite being faced with his divince presence under their nose.

If you're such an expert give us some of your thoughts instead of just bashing others. Share your enlightened wisdom please!


You did not define Agnosticism nor morality or values, shows how much your post counts.

The many people you speak of who adhere to survival of the fittest are mainly a past generation who misinterpreted Darwin's theory.
Atheism does not involve belief.

"Atheism is not believing" like you said. That is a wrong definition. By that you are implying disbelief which is an action. While some atheist fit this, the grand majority (of actual Atheists, not wannabes) do not. Atheists are people without a belief in God. The word withouth makes a difference here. Denying something or "not believing in X thing" implies knowledge about what it is that you are being asked to affirm, in this case God.

To be without belief means the concept has no meaning or importance to you. Belief/disbelief in God is not a factor in the life of an Atheist.

Your reason for Agnosticism is nothing more than a baseless opinion.

Agnosticism is a position in regards to the existence of God, so you are missing the entire point by saying all agnostics say there is a spiritual being but refuse to acknowledge it.

here is why

There are Agnostics who are Atheistic and Agnostics who are theist.
The word lukewarm does not apply here, for Agnosticism is not a middle position between atheism and theism.
Agnosticism is not about belief is about knowledge. BIG difference, because knowledge is a separete but related issue to belief. I repeat, related to belief BUT separate.

"Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic."

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do know when to stop assuming things.


amen. (Y)
224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / M / philippines
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
some people just has to see it in order to believe. but not all none believers are bad just like not all believers are good.
1034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / new york
Offline
Posted 10/5/08
your gonna run into people like that either way just deal with it
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/5/08

Jorlwind wrote:



The truth is, like the attitude of Islam, you've probably been bred against it. If you're in America for instance, being Atheist is more detrimental to your political career than being Muslim or gay (citation: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm).
If the only things you think you know about atheism come from your church or the media, then you are ignorant on the subject. Many news, institutions, and law makers are discriminatory on the subject.
(examples, but don't make these articles discussion topics:



Opening up discussion, as its gotten quiet in here. Discuss criticism for/against, political and social impact Whatever your heart desires.


I enjoyed the link. I don’t think the study was conclusive of it’s claim, but there were interesting statistics. Pew Research center is a reliable source too. Well, just because people don’t want an atheist for president doesn’t mean they hate atheists. It just means that they consider an atheist more likely to hold certain characteristics undesirable in a leader. Like a lack of faith or loyalty to tradition.

This is certainly evidence of obvious prejudice-which nobody questions-but saying that atheists are America’s most despised minority is simply absurd.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/5/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

It just means that they consider an atheist more likely to hold certain characteristics undesirable in a leader. Like a lack of faith or loyalty to tradition.




is not simply a matter of consideration:

" * South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

* Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

* Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

* Maryland's Bill of Rights:
o Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
o Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."

Some state's constitutions do not have an explicit religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness but contain language that some have suggested implicitly discriminates against atheists. The states include:

* Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights (Article I, Section 4) reads "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." This debatably constitutes a provision that "den[ies] atheists the right to hold public office and/or testify in a court of law.
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 10/5/08
God is my imaginary friend.
40906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / All the way up in...
Offline
Posted 11/16/08
As an avid and non-antagonistic, life-long student of many of the world's religious systems, I've concluded that Atheism is the most empowering of all spiritual disciplines as it doesn't require the adept to abdicate or delegate any of his own agency to some mysterious or magical higher power, which I wonder why it would even concern itself with the petty, narcissistic, vain, and often trivial supplications of the pious.

AND if this higher power were to intervene EVER at all, why should it grant the greedy desires of the "blessed" and "chosen" while REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY ignoring the cries of starving children, women abducted into sexual slavery, and victims of rape, molestation, and incest?

Furthermore, if heaven is full of the self-righteous, moralistic, judgemental, prejudiced, intolerant, and puritanical, PLEASE send me to HELL, (I just hope the beer they serve there is cold!)
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/08 , edited 11/16/08

yella_fella wrote:

As an avid and non-antagonistic, life-long student of many of the world's religious systems, I've concluded that Atheism is the most empowering of all spiritual disciplines as it doesn't require the adept to abdicate or delegate any of his own agency to some mysterious or magical higher power, which I wonder why it would even concern itself with the petty, narcissistic, vain, and often trivial supplications of the pious.

AND if this higher power were to intervene EVER at all, why should it grant the greedy desires of the "blessed" and "chosen" while REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY ignoring the cries of starving children, women abducted into sexual slavery, and victims of rape, molestation, and incest?

Furthermore, if heaven is full of the self-righteous, moralistic, judgemental, prejudiced, intolerant, and puritanical, PLEASE send me to HELL, (I just hope the beer they serve there is cold!)


Can I ask what is your view of Buddhism then? Just as a topic of interest. It is a religious system after all.

On a different note I want to talk about how teaching evolution is not in any way promoting atheism. Evolutionary theory is not specifically trying to fight against any religious views. It's simply a scientific theory grounded in observation and scientific testing. Evolution being taught in schools simply means that it is the view that the scientific community find most acceptable or correct at this time. Teaching evolution is simply teaching science. Most people would agree that teaching science is not anti-theistic. Could teaching gravity be anti-theistic, for instance? Teaching evolution is no more anti-theistic than teaching gravity is. It irritates me to no end when religious people claim that teaching science is teaching people to be atheistic just because that part of science happens to disagree with their view of the world.

That 2nd part is in reply to this:


legolas133 wrote:

I don't think that's necessarily true...
u stated that America is mostly a Christian society and Atheisim, like muslims and gays, r minorities and r nto easily acceted others
in fact, every public school in america (not to mention most public schools around the world) r teaching kids how atheism is true, and they teach it again and again over the years
I have only been in America for 4 years and they have already teach us evolution twice
and u cannnot call the church ignorant
many churches shows videos of proofs how atheism is wrong and how it affects our community, for example, this site has a pretty good collections of videos on how evolution is wrong

http://drdino.com/downloads.php


And I refuse to argue whether evolution is correct because whatever you or I think, its the view most accepted by the scientific community. The part of the world which doesn't agree with you isn't out to get you. For the most part they are just trying to go their own way with their own beliefs.
40906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / All the way up in...
Offline
Posted 11/16/08
Yes. "original" buddhism, or Theravaden Buddhism (which is probably reliably a VERY close version of what Buddha actually taught his disciples) is technically atheistic. Buddha was very specific that one must (indeed CAN ONLY) rely on only themselves (indeed we have all the power and possibility w/in ourselves) to reach enlightenment. No one will help you. not the gods, in fact, he told them, NOT EVEN HIMSELF THE BUDDHA could be called on for aid. indeed no one COULD help you, since the power is there, within your own breath and your practice of intropection (vipassana) that will open up the inner worlds, from which will flow forth blessings, and healing, and ultimately (through many lifetimes, possibly this one) enlightenment, which means complete release from the cycles of birth and rebirth in this temporal realm, (moksa, you will be released from samsara.)

within a hundred years the Mahayana texts were "discovered" as the "secret" teachings of Buddha, so powerful and dangerous, that the Nagas (snake gods that look like giant cobras) kept them hidden under the earth. Then once the world was ready they were revealed. in these teachings there are boddhisattvas who are buddhas who out of their compassion for the world, vow to not release themselves until all souls are saved from suffereing (rebirth). so now you can pray to a bodhisattva to "help" you or "save" you. then later, you see othe Mahayana sects develope: Zen (a mix of Taoist philosophy and buddhist meditation practices, taoist meditation practices are often different, more "active"), and even Pure Land Buddha, which is a Buddha who creates the Pure Land (like a Buddhist "heaven" or paradise, where the Pure Land Buddha dwells) and to whom if you pray the "Amitabh Buddha" chant (that you hear Shaolin monks chant in the kung fu movies, cuz Pure Land made its way into nearly every Zen and Chinese/ Korean Buddhist sect) then you are basically guaranteed to be reincarnated into the Pure Land to spend an eternity there w/ the Pure Land Buddha. As you can see these are distinctly theistic, yet more "marketable" and easier, less demanding than Theravadan, which monks will continually admit and remind you is very difficult and takes, "great effort."

So that's what "Mahayana" means the "Greater Vehicle" and they pejoratively called older, "original" Theravadan Buddhims "Hinayana" or "Lesser or Smaller Vehicle". The analogy is, if Mahayana is a bus that can take you along your journey (available to anyone, even non-monks), then Theravadan (available really to those who dedicate a TREMENDOUS amount of time to non-chanting, silent, day-long mediations) is a motorcyle!!!!

Again, Mahayana while much more accessible (suggesting concepts such as "sudden enlightenment" where one can while doing daily activites-- what they called Fetching Water and Chopping Wood-- anyone can suddenly "remember" that they are already in fact an enlightened being, without the years and multiple lifetimes of prolonged and concentrated effort of the Theravadans), relies on powers outside of oneself to a certain degree (except for sudden enlightenment which is due to every sentient being having "buddha nature" already in his heart.) Theravadan being more demanding is not as "sexy" or accessible to the average idiot. praying and having everything solved by some outside higher power is much easier for the scoundrel within us.

in short, theravadan buddhism it can be argued is atheistic. (but the story is a little more complex than that...)
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/16/08

mauz15 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

It just means that they consider an atheist more likely to hold certain characteristics undesirable in a leader. Like a lack of faith or loyalty to tradition.




is not simply a matter of consideration:

" * South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

* Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

* Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

* Maryland's Bill of Rights:
o Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
o Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."

Some state's constitutions do not have an explicit religious test as a qualification for holding public office or being a witness but contain language that some have suggested implicitly discriminates against atheists. The states include:

* Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights (Article I, Section 4) reads "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." This debatably constitutes a provision that "den[ies] atheists the right to hold public office and/or testify in a court of law.


'Did you see the new billboards on the public transit vehicles. "
About time the atheist starded speaking up and letting the Americans know its ok to be Atheist. Hell the top 3 rated countries in the world are mostly atheist. Top three rated in Health care, education, and Low Crime rates.
5561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Neverland
Offline
Posted 11/16/08 , edited 11/16/08
Honestly, when it comes to religion, i tend to hate whoever is talking about it. When people ask "what religion are u?" I answer simply that I'm agnostic. Now, lol, i either get this look like what the hell is this little girl thinking? or what is that? or even "oh ur an atheist." at which this point so that I don't hit someone I just walk away.
People need to learn that there is a difference between agnostic & atheist. Atheists know that there is no god. Agnostics however think that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or one who doesn't think there is a god but doesn't practice true atheism. Anyone else have this problem with people confusing Atheism and agnosticism? What do you do about it?
4769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/16/08
god can kiss the fattest part of my ass, o wait he cant even my ass denied his existence.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/16/08

lonely_devil wrote:

Honestly, when it comes to religion, i tend to hate whoever is talking about it. When people ask "what religion are u?" I answer simply that I'm agnostic. Now, lol, i either get this look like what the hell is this little girl thinking? or what is that? or even "oh ur an atheist." at which this point so that I don't hit someone I just walk away.
People need to learn that there is a difference between agnostic & atheist. Atheists know that there is no god. Agnostics however think that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or one who doesn't think there is a god but doesn't practice true atheism. Anyone else have this problem with people confusing Atheism and agnosticism? What do you do about it?


Yeah there is a Agnostic theist and a Agnostic Atheist.
For you ether believe that there is a god out there of some type but you don't know what kind it is.
Or
You have yet to see evidence for a god, so to keep open minded so you say there could be one so once real evidence shows it self you will join in.

The fact is your ether Atheist or Theist there really is no middle ground. Ether there is a god or you don't think the is a god. Being that Atheist have nothing to do with religion just a belief there is no god, even some religious people can be atheist.
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/08 , edited 11/17/08

yella_fella wrote:

Yes. "original" buddhism, or Theravaden Buddhism (which is probably reliably a VERY close version of what Buddha actually taught his disciples) is technically atheistic. Buddha was very specific that one must (indeed CAN ONLY) rely on only themselves (indeed we have all the power and possibility w/in ourselves) to reach enlightenment. No one will help you. not the gods, in fact, he told them, NOT EVEN HIMSELF THE BUDDHA could be called on for aid. indeed no one COULD help you, since the power is there, within your own breath and your practice of intropection (vipassana) that will open up the inner worlds, from which will flow forth blessings, and healing, and ultimately (through many lifetimes, possibly this one) enlightenment, which means complete release from the cycles of birth and rebirth in this temporal realm, (moksa, you will be released from samsara.)

within a hundred years the Mahayana texts were "discovered" as the "secret" teachings of Buddha, so powerful and dangerous, that the Nagas (snake gods that look like giant cobras) kept them hidden under the earth. Then once the world was ready they were revealed. in these teachings there are boddhisattvas who are buddhas who out of their compassion for the world, vow to not release themselves until all souls are saved from suffereing (rebirth). so now you can pray to a bodhisattva to "help" you or "save" you. then later, you see othe Mahayana sects develope: Zen (a mix of Taoist philosophy and buddhist meditation practices, taoist meditation practices are often different, more "active"), and even Pure Land Buddha, which is a Buddha who creates the Pure Land (like a Buddhist "heaven" or paradise, where the Pure Land Buddha dwells) and to whom if you pray the "Amitabh Buddha" chant (that you hear Shaolin monks chant in the kung fu movies, cuz Pure Land made its way into nearly every Zen and Chinese/ Korean Buddhist sect) then you are basically guaranteed to be reincarnated into the Pure Land to spend an eternity there w/ the Pure Land Buddha. As you can see these are distinctly theistic, yet more "marketable" and easier, less demanding than Theravadan, which monks will continually admit and remind you is very difficult and takes, "great effort."

So that's what "Mahayana" means the "Greater Vehicle" and they pejoratively called older, "original" Theravadan Buddhims "Hinayana" or "Lesser or Smaller Vehicle". The analogy is, if Mahayana is a bus that can take you along your journey (available to anyone, even non-monks), then Theravadan (available really to those who dedicate a TREMENDOUS amount of time to non-chanting, silent, day-long mediations) is a motorcyle!!!!

Again, Mahayana while much more accessible (suggesting concepts such as "sudden enlightenment" where one can while doing daily activites-- what they called Fetching Water and Chopping Wood-- anyone can suddenly "remember" that they are already in fact an enlightened being, without the years and multiple lifetimes of prolonged and concentrated effort of the Theravadans), relies on powers outside of oneself to a certain degree (except for sudden enlightenment which is due to every sentient being having "buddha nature" already in his heart.) Theravadan being more demanding is not as "sexy" or accessible to the average idiot. praying and having everything solved by some outside higher power is much easier for the scoundrel within us.

in short, theravadan buddhism it can be argued is atheistic. (but the story is a little more complex than that...)


Yup that was what I was looking for. Quite detailed. Thanks.

Actually I have a different question and its for agnostics. Since the only thing that you're sure about (okay we since I'm also an agnostic), isn't it also ok to make the stand that "since the existence or non-existence of God is impossible to know, when asked about God I've decided that the answer is I don't know". That would be an agnostic stand but its really neither theistic nor atheistic, right?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.