Atheist Sunday Assembly goes worldwide, the future is bright for non-believers

reply to post by skalla


Ahh, don't bother that funny response, but what's your opinion on my last response about ongoing "believer vs non-believers" arguments.

Peace

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by interupt42

 

The chicken:

metro.co.uk...

Thanks for the link. It might provide an adequate answer that fits into our current toolset (science) as of now, but it doesn't answer the bigger questions.

Who created the chicken and its initial ancestor, or the protein? Was the chicken born out of thin air, or was it a protein bacteria bath and evolution? So what was the initial catalyst?

Perhaps the same process that created the chicken could have as easily created the protein?

Who is to say that maybe our existing understanding of how things work might not break down the further we go back into looking at the initial catalyst of everything?

www.physlink.com...

The way out is to apply a new theory

Since we know the answer to the chicken, then maybe we can look at what came first "nothing" or "something"?

Originally posted by kennylee
I dont know how the future can be bright when there is no future for non-believers.

Thats a very apt comment.
But they dont know that apart from this life, there is a life to come
and only Jesus can give you that

Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
The problem I see here with this never ending arguments between the "believers" and the "non-believers" is the tendency to prove wrong contradicting ideologies...

Has one not considered that each of the ideas represented can be a part of a larger picture??? Or are we too afraid to wander past our comfort zones???

Peace

edit on 12-3-2013 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

most folk do want to be right, which i dont see as a major character flaw whatsoever, we'd rather not waste too much time after all.

however, on ats many people want others to be wrong... i get the impression you may see this too.

as to moving out side of our comfort zone and folksies not liking that..... well, we can hardly blame people for that, though there are many amongst us who will try to encourage them in one way or another, though mostly if we are honest, it just comes down to wanting to be right again.

if i really look at it, it just comes down to fallibility or ego, which is natural enough.

if i really really really look at it, none of it matters a whit

reply to post by interupt42


Psychokinesis / Telekinesis - Mind Over Matter

Perhaps this is what your after

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by interupt42

 

Atheism is not about "claiming God does not exist". Again, learn the definition. We do not know whether a higher power created the Universe or not, but without any actual evidence one did, we have no actual reason to believe in one.

If we have no good reason to believe in God, the only position to take is to lack belief in God, which is exactly what atheism is. Your post is a perfect argument in favour of atheism, you're simply confused about definitions.

You do realize that agnostics are atheists by definition too, right?

atheism.about.com...

What is an Atheist?

An atheist is anyone who doesn't happen to believe in any gods, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state this. Atheism is: the lack of belief in gods, the absence of belief in gods, disbelief in gods, not believing in gods.

What is an Agnostic?

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist. This is also a simple concept, but it may be as widely misunderstood as atheism is. One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal questions about the existence of gods, but whereas atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

Atheist vs. Agnostic: What's the Difference?

By now, the difference between being an atheist and being an agnostic should be pretty clear and pretty easy to remember. Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be.

reply to post by interupt42


it's totally the chicken, agreed (jim? i forget), always was for 100's of reasons, but i feel it diverts us off topic too far and indeed, someone could get mucho flags for starting a thead on that one.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Fromabove
Finally ! they admit it that atheism is a religion and can finally sit in their own buildings and think about nothing at all. Still, try as they may, saying and acting like God doesn't exist will never make it so. I wonder if evangelist Richard Dawkins had planned to attend the services.

Religion is "thinking about nothing at all" because it claims to have all the answers. Out of the two positions, atheism and theism, it is usually atheism that admits lack of absolute knowledge, and religion that supresses thought.

You have it backwards?

We Christians go to church to think about and worship God. These atheists go to their "church" to do nothing at all. Is it any wonder that it says in the Bible about what kind of people atheists are.

Originally posted by interupt42

Who created the chicken and its initial ancestor, or the protein? Was the chicken born out of thin air, or was it a protein bacteria bath and evolution? So what was the initial catalyst?

Evolution explains the existence of the chicken and all its ancestors right the way back to the point where we would not consider what existed "life" any more. Then we get into abiogenesis, and the important question becomes "How did the first organism that was able to replicate come into existence?".

That is a tough question, which we don't know the answer to, but my guess is that it was a freak random chance occurance, and an astronomically unlikely one, but due to the size of the Universe, also an inevitable one, given the right conditions.

reply to post by Fromabove


What makes you think they do nothing at all? It says quite clearly in the OP that is not the case.

Are you just outright lying now, or what?

reply to post by grainofsand

Just be sure NOT to have an epiphany or a conversion experience or you'll get tossed out on your ass!

reply to post by interupt42


Your link agrees with what I said completely. I fail to see your reasons for linking to it.

If you don't believe this is the case, you might want to reread it. An agnostic atheist (someone who is both an agnostic, and an atheist), for instance would be someone who does not believe in God, but also does not claim absolute knowledge of God's existence either way (what the vast majority of atheists are).

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by Fromabove
Finally ! they admit it that atheism is a religion and can finally sit in their own buildings and think about nothing at all. Still, try as they may, saying and acting like God doesn't exist will never make it so. I wonder if evangelist Richard Dawkins had planned to attend the services.

Nobody has admitted that at all, in fact the very idea is continuously ridiculed by everyone apart from people of faith.
I'm curious as to why religious types appear so desperate to make a lack of belief in gods a religion?
This is a gathering of likeminded folk in a religion-free environment, the specific term anyone wishes to call it is just semantics and frankly rather irrelevant.

Check back through my many replies here and you will understand the many reasons why such a group is attractive to me and many others. If you want to call people hooking up with a shared lack of faith a religion, then go for it, but it doesn't add support to any claims that gods or other invisible entities exist.

We understand what a religion is. Atheists want to mimic religion because they have jealousy for the religious people. What this shows is that they really do what to believe but that they just don't want to have to admit it..

btw, I haven't had a go around with the atheists on the ATS for quite some time because it was getting so old, with the same old arguments of superior thinking etc. But I must say that this has an amusing component to it.

reply to post by grainofsand


Ok, I'm sorry, but think this is very bizarre. Have Atheists fallen victim to the "divide and conquer" paradigm? What I mean is, creating defined groups such as atheists Catholics, Muslims, Democrats, republicans, etc, etc to divide the masses making them most easily controllable. This is how it seems to me. Once you have them all joined you can indoctrinate them in mass. Maybe I'm paranoid I dunno. It's just weird to me.

Originally posted by Fromabove

We understand what a religion is. Atheists want to mimic religion because they have jealousy for the religious people. What this shows is that they really do what to believe but that they just don't want to have to admit it.

No, they (just a few of them, by the way) want to take the nice parts of religion, such as the emotional support, the sense of community, and the love and friendship, and then throw away the crap, which is the God part.

What this shows is that humans are social creatures by nature, if it was all about wanting to believe don't you think it would be silly to remove the only part that actual has anything to do with belief - the God part?

Why do you cling so religiously to such an obviously flawed position?

reply to post by kennylee


It's times like this I thank God I'm an atheist.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by Fromabove

 

What makes you think they do nothing at all? It says quite clearly in the OP that is not the case.

Are you just outright lying now, or what?

It's like a group of tea makers gathering together in a room to discuss the intricacies of rocket science based upon the theories of Einstein and Hawkins as it relates to quantum mechanics. No, I'm not lying, they really have no reason to gather together except to admit that there's nothing going on and no real purpose for it. I find it amusing really.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Fromabove

We understand what a religion is. Atheists want to mimic religion because they have jealousy for the religious people. What this shows is that they really do what to believe but that they just don't want to have to admit it.

No, they (just a few of them, by the way) want to take the nice parts of religion, such as the emotional support, the sense of community, and the love and friendship, and then throw away the crap, which is the God part.

What this shows is that humans are social creatures by nature, if it was all about wanting to believe don't you think it would be silly to remove the only part that actual has anything to do with belief - the God part?

Why do you cling so religiously to such an obviously flawed position?

edit on 12-3-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

I so love it when you prove my point exactly. Thanks, I appreciate it.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by interupt42

Who created the chicken and its initial ancestor, or the protein? Was the chicken born out of thin air, or was it a protein bacteria bath and evolution? So what was the initial catalyst?

Evolution explains the existence of the chicken and all its ancestors right the way back to the point where we would not consider what existed "life" any more. Then we get into abiogenesis, and the important question becomes "How did the first organism that was able to replicate come into existence?".

That is a tough question, which we don't know the answer to, but my guess is that it was a freak random chance occurance, and an astronomically unlikely one, but given then size of the Universe, also an inevitable one, given the right conditions.

Agreed that was where I was heading. We hit speed bumps when we look into the initial catalyst of everything (not just our universe).

We can't comprehend how something came out of nothing. Even if it started as a random chance of occurrence as you state above, something must have existed in order for the random chances or occurrence to have occurred, right?

Common sense and science tells us nothing interacting with nothing , should produce nothing. So at one point in time and beyond our comprehension or our understanding of science, an initial something must have appeared. Since we can't comprehend how such a thing could occur , I can't honestly tell myself that some higher being couldn't have been involved. Of course, then we could get into who created that Higher being?

reply to post by grainofsand


Why is the necessary in the first place? I'm Christian and I have a hand full of Atheist friends. My little brother even has his doubts but is this really necessary? Okay, you don't believe in God, but why do this? Why have a giant assembly just to bash the billions who devote their life to their beliefs?