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.

 

Chimpanzees, Blades of Grass and the Atheist Argument

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: BlueMule
Are you able or willing to provide those source references to a study or such like supporting your 'strong psi in a lab' claims yet? I'm still interested in discovering more about this lab and reading the paper/s.



Yes, I'm sure you're very anxious to debunk it all, one way or another.

Maybe now you're ready to read the book I linked you to earlier.




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
Actually, the only commonality between "atheists" is a lack of belief in a diety.


As opposed to what I said?


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The only belief atheists have is that there is no deity.


Is there a difference between a "lack of belief in a deity" and a "belief that there isn't a deity"? If so, can you explain it?



Case in point, I am a agnostic atheist.


So am I.


Meaning I don't know if a diety exists or not.


No one does. That's the agnostic part of "agnostic atheist". The atheist part is the "lack of belief" or the "belief that there isn't".


edit on 6/29/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
there is a difference between rejecting a belief and claiming a belief.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I have a lot of respect for you, nevertheless I'm surprised and disappointed at your glib treatment of the word gnostic.

Just so we're on the same page.
This what you mean?

glib
/glib/
adjective
adjective: glib; comparative adjective: glibber; superlative adjective: glibbest
(of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow.


So, you're claiming not attaching special meaning to a word is glib?
The word serves it's intended purpose nicely thank you very much.


And that really isn't the only parapsychological line of experimentation that has produced impressive results.


The evidence is abundant.


Then point me in a direction of where ot find these studies.
Give me something to mull over.


There really is no excuse for a worldview that excludes psi.


A good excuse, no proof.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

And what is that difference? What's the difference between saying "I reject a belief in a god" , I don't believe in a god" and "I believe there is no god"?

I mean, there are only two choices... Do you BELIEVE in a god? Yes or no.
edit on 6/29/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Read a little further down the thread.

edit on 29-6-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: BlueMule
Are you able or willing to provide those source references to a study or such like supporting your 'strong psi in a lab' claims yet? I'm still interested in discovering more about this lab and reading the paper/s.



Yes, I'm sure you're very anxious to debunk it all, one way or another.

Maybe now you're ready to read the book I linked you to earlier.


Nope, you made claims about 'psi in a lab' and I would specifically like to read the paper/s which support your assertions. Maybe if you are generous enough to share the supporting work regarding your psi in a lab claims I may be further interested in reading the couple of books you have referred to in this topic so far.
Now, do you wish to share that information or not?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
well

rejecting a god claim doesn't discredit all other god claims

asserting there are no gods means you absolutely know there is no god.

theism is easy to discredit using logic but deism seems to me like an unfalsifiable claim.

as to what i believe... no theist claims or deist claims seem reasonably true in my opinion (agnostic atheist)
edit on 29-6-2014 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I've read the whole thing. Even your definition of atheist seems to agree with me:


originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēˌist/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic;


Gnosticism is about KNOWING.
Theism is about BELIEF.

I don't KNOW if there's a God or not (agnostic), but I BELIEVE there isn't (atheist). Watch that video I posted.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There was a disagreement between us?
When was this?

Notice, I have said everything that's in your video.

edit on 29-6-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There was a disagreement between us?


That's what I was asking. I posted on page two and you replied to me with this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I asked if what you said was any different than what I said (thinking they were the same). Basically, I didn't understand your response and was asking for clarification. That's when you told me to read more of the thread.

So, we don't disagree, then?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I don't KNOW if there's a God or not (agnostic), but I BELIEVE there isn't (atheist).

I don't know if there are any gods (agnostic), and I have seen nothing in my life to draw me towards a belief that there are any gods (atheist).
There is a subtle difference yet we share the same labels regardless.

*Edit*
Never have I said 'I believe there are no gods' or 'there are no gods' though...due to the same evidence requirement standards I have before making such an assertion. I think gods have as much evidence as ghosts, souls, pixies and all the rest of it, but I am not able to assert 'there are no pixies' for the same 'evidence' reasons.
edit on 29-6-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Nope.
We sure don't.
But we can argue anyway if you'd like.
XD

It'll be fun.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I'm saying your treatment of the word is shallow, with all due respect.

Give you something to mull over, you say? If I give you too much, I risk making you feel swamped. If I don't give you enough, I risk leaving you with the feeling that there really isn't much after all.

Approaching a branch of science should start with the college textbook, imo. Have you read the parapsychology textbook?

Let's say for the sake of argument that psi is real. Connecting the dots between psi and religion is an easy task. This sheds a whole new light on mysticism, which then sheds a whole new light on religion, which in turn sheds a whole new light on atheism.

It makes atheism a category of thought, a pattern of thought, which does not accomodate reality. It makes agnosticism a stop on the way to gnosis.


edit on 990Sunday000000America/ChicagoJun000000SundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
Let's say for the sake of argument that psi is real.

Why for the sake of argument now? You claimed 'psi in a lab' in this thread but still refrain from providing source links to papers and/or details of the institution/company/government/non-profit/university/individual who found such startling results of 'psi in a lab' when I politely requested it.

...without such evidence I shall dismiss your claims as unsubstantiated personal assertions, but you can of course change that assessment at any time by enlightening me.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule
Shallow you say?
I use the word for its intended purpose and that's it.
It's a label, a concept, a mental construct made to serve a cognitive purpose.
Nothing more, nothing less.

But, if you want my honest opinion, gnosticism is a fool's quest.
"The only knowing is in knowing that you know nothing."

I'm sorry sir but it sounds like you are making excuses.
Provide the information and let me decide.
But, given that I have not come across any such studies as you claim.
I am inclined to believe you're just not willing to back up your claims because quite simply, you cannot.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I don't respond well to goading, bud. I most certainly could give you many, many links to parapsychological evidence, so much that it would take you weeks or months to do it justice.

You are interested in doing the evidence justice, aren't you?

I don't get the impression you are a debunker, unlike others in this thread.

You've earned my respect, I would hate to see you lose it by failing to give evidence a fair day in court, like a common debunker on JREF.

You've already shown me one error in your knowledge of parapsychological evidence. Our psychic responce to future stimulus is not a matter of mere milliseconds.

But even if it was, that in and of itself would be astounding.

If you really want to mull something over, why not simply take my advice and read the parapsychology college textbook? There is a wealth of information in it, enough to mull over for months. I should know, it's on my bookshelf.


edit on 008SundayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule
Oh dear, still just a refusal to provide any supporting links to claims of 'psi in a lab' as asserted earlier. Why do you not wish to help others discover more about this 'psi in a lab' as you proclaimed?
Perhaps now is the time I dismiss the claims as unsubstantiated personal assertions?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: BlueMule
Why do you not wish to help others discover more about this 'psi in a lab' as you proclaimed?


Isn't it obvious? I consider you a debunker. I don't respect debunkers, so I'm not going to engage you further.

I've already given you more than enough to go on, if indeed your desire for knowledge was genuine.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to have a pleasant conversation with my friend HarbingerofShadows.




edit on 019SundayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule
Ah, so my lack of belief in your assertions due to lack of evidence indicates I am a 'debunker' now?
Perhaps your new friend will ask similar questions regarding your claims of 'psi in a lab' with any luck.
I shall cease to engage with you if you wish, but I shall retain the right to feel entertained and amused by your posts.

*Edit*
I am also glad that other people will read our exchange here and reach their own conclusions regarding the validity of your 'psi in a lab' claims.


edit on 29-6-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join