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.

 

Atheism destroyed.

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why is it not possible for absolute truths to exist independently of the existence of God?

If your supporting premise is such that "God is the source of of objective truth," then why can we not claim, in the absence of a God, that "absolute truth" itself is a thing that exists? Either claim requires evidence.

IF, in the instance that no God exists, but there are absolute truths, why are atheists left with a reductionist world-view? Such a world-view would be counter to what is.
edit on 29-10-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

'logic' gives it a more philosophical feel when really your just observing the laws of reality. like mathematical hypothesis this and this equals this except we see it in physics and biology and chemistry every day so we know its true. still I had not known of logicism. thanks for sharing.


edit on 29-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




You need to look at the Bible in its own context. The slavery the Bible talks about is something people willingly entered into as a form of paying off debt


CONTEXT? What about the non-consensual slaves who were the trophies of the hebrew conquests?

I think your time is up. You carry on without having offfered much except word games.



Never dones the Bible condone slavery it only puts guidelines on it


Guidelines?? hahahaha....so it does condones it (with guidelines) ....wow...are you really this closeminded?


edit on 29-10-2014 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

In order to reason anything, a person must first start with God as He is the objective standard of Truth.



This explains everything about this user.
If this is his square one and ultimate source of reason then nothing said that does not start there will go to deaf ears.
This was said in his second thread that SO closed and rightfully so.



edit on 10/29/2014 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)



When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


It's quite clear that the OP does not take his holy book seriously.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Op.. Here is how I see it..

Throughout time the minds of men have been evolving with each day that goes by.

There are many beliefs. And.. There are many books that have men's thoughts about a "God" or Supreme Being.

It's all just a "state of mind". Mind is literally the builder and creating force.

Believe what you want... just remember....you will become it.

Christianity (imo) will need to be "updated" before long if it wants to continue to stay a leading cult within the next 100 years.

People are waking up and reading different meanings within the Big Book. No longer are we sitting in church believing every opinion of our preacher.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb




. So, you're basing your world view on something that has no proof to support it.


Without God there is no ultimate basis for the process(logic) by which we derive Truth. You say your view is based on evidence but you have yet to explain to me how your world view accounts for Logical Absolutes.(Remember I am not asking how you know Logical absolutes thats a given or we couldn't have this discussion, but rather I am asking how does your world view account for the transcendent existence of Logical Absolutes? )Logical absolutes exist independently of both people and the material world, yet Logic is a process of minds. Thoughts come from the mind of the individual. An irrational mind will produce irrational thoughts, and a rational mind produces rational thoughts. Since Logical absolutes are transcendent, perfectly unchanging, absolute, perfect and independent of the universe it seems correct to say they reflect a transcendent, perfect, unchanging, absolute, and independent mind.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The OP is attempting to use the Transcendental Argument.



Special Pleading: 7.1-4

The final conclusion of the TAG argument is also logically invalid.

7. Thoughts reflect the mind

1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

Even ignoring all the major fallacies up until this point, and accepting the false premise that the logical absolutes are purely conceptual, the final conclusion also makes a case of special pleading. The fact that human minds are capable of conceiving of the logical absolutes to make this very argument, is proof that these concepts are not dependent on an absolutely perfect supreme transcendent mind.

This section of the argument is also related to the ontological argument. Just because you semantically define something transcendent perfect and magical as existing doesn't mean it actually exists.

edit on 29-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Finally



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
There is no merit in arguing with blind faith.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The existence of matter itself accounts for logical absolutes. Without matter, their can be no logic or mathematics. There has to be something to count before 1+2=3

For your argument to make any sense, you will have to prove the existence of a god and then you will have to show in detail, with logic and mathematics, how that god created anything. Without this causal explanation, your entire world view is a meaningless fantasy that cannot be explained.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
If god were the source for objective truth, then god would be the same for everyone. Since there is absolutely no consensus of what god is,this plainly puts it in the category of subjective opinion.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Without God there is no ultimate basis for the process(logic) by which we derive Truth.


It is not god, but matter, which supplies objective truth.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
If god were the source for objective truth, then god would be the same for everyone. Since there is absolutely no consensus of what god is,this plainly puts it in the category of subjective opinion.

God IS the same for everyone...

The simple fact that all religions contradict one another is all the evidence one needs to figure out that God has NOTHING to do with that mess.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
god is most certainly not the same for everybody. this is painfully obvious.

well... how can you reconcile that god is the same for everyone while claiming that no one understands the true nature of a deity, and all religions are wrong?

Thats a complete contradiction within the same sentence.



a reply to: Murgatroid


edit on 29-10-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb

Logic is the basis for math, so you cannot justify the existence of abstract mathematical absolutes without first having some form of justification for the existence of its basis, Logic.



Logic is logic. It is self explanatory. It doesn't need justification. It is what it is. Something is either logical or it isn't.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: smithjustinb




. So, you're basing your world view on something that has no proof to support it.


Without God there is no ultimate basis for the process(logic) by which we derive Truth.


Logic justifies itself by proving to be a successful way to predict the future.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




My view is just a belief yes, but it logical and coherent.


How can you claim that a belief in a scary guy up in the sky, who has a nice son, with an army of flying creatures who ......... How can you possibly claim Logic and Coherence?

What you believe in defies logic. There is not one single shred of proof.

If you want to apply logic and a coherent view, just view all religions from the perspective of an agency configured to control a population with scare tactics and to bleed wealth from the community.

With that filter in place, religions do become logical and coherent.

P



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Faith, belief and reasoning of the truth will never be self-evident until it is. Nature is self-evident. Truth is found in nature. Why has mankind not found the truth then? Why is truth not self-evident to some, but is to others? The answer is the animal nature. We all have it. Overcoming the animal requires the intellect. Emotion wars against intellect from the very beginning of life as a child. We fight this our whole lives until we finally sufficiently strengthen intellect enough to control the animal urges. Once a person gets to this place, they develop pathos. Pathos is empathy and sympathy over apathy (animal nature).

Why do some see but others go blindly on their way? The animal nature is too strong and the intellect is too weak. Pathos has not been developed. Until it is, they are in a locked state of animal behavior.

Can we then say that all unbelievers are animals? No. All of us are unbelievers to a degree. The standard was set. None of us follow it. Why? We are plagued by the animal nature and the beast inside. We are not capable of overcoming. In essence, all of us are at some degree of unbelief. If we believed, we would follow to the letter. Since we don't, there is no reason to say we are believers. Have we been saved? Is death still active? Are we in paradise? Is entropy still at work on our life force? Then we are not saved yet. Being saved is being changed. No animal nature is possible once we are changed into what we will be.

Belief is in degrees, just like temperature. Some are hot and some are cold. Truth is evident. Our view of it is not. Perspective changes as the animal is overcome. Some do not even try. Love overcomes. Hatred divides. We are all divided.

edit on 29-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

and thats the whole point isnt it? to no longer be human. no longer organic, no longer material, no longer bound by the rules of physics. it is the ultimate demonstration that we are more than the sum of our atoms. but by the same token that we exalt ascension, we degrade humanity. will we still possess that humanity when we are no longer human? will the same ideas and sensations matter when you no longer have a brain and a heart to associate them with? will we retain our morality when society reshapes itself beneath the weight of a changing species and becomes something beyond anything we've ever experienced before?

i always find it funny that the people who talk about transcending matter are the ones who still rely on it to communicate with the world about transcending it.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join