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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh




I have to agree with the others. You baited with the title. I thought you had absolute proof. Here's me.. Science is able to explain away a lot. Big bang.. well what banged? Where was this bang able to take place? If this is the only universe... well what does it reside in? And if this universe resides inside of a universe..... where does that universe reside... I can go onnnnnnn! So what can't be explained is god... Where does he/she reside? Certainly you can't have something out of nothing? God lives somewhere right? Allah lives somewhere right?( for the ME crowd or Vishnu or whatever your flavor...) In order for something to exist... you need a containment unit of a sort.. Where does it end? And I will sleep at night!


God exist in eternity. Can I describe that dimension to you know. However, eternity doesn't have a beginning nor end it just is, and is that which contains all that is. But once again just as the other people on the thread you are attempting to use logic, as if you are an atheist you have only a materialistic view of the world which means you are nothing more than matter and chemicals which cannot produce truth so why should I even listen?




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: daaskapital

Once again you are ignoring eyewitness testimony. Paul claims to have met Jesus, and I'll ask again on what Historical basis do you reject his claim of seeing Jesus. Second, do you think that James the brother of the Lord couldn't have told Paul somethings about Jesus as well?

You get on here and preach that all the doctrines are of Paul, but if you research the Bible and actually attempt to understand it you'd see that everything Paul teaches can be traced all the back to OT times.

PS Luke is not an eyewitness but he interviewed eye witnesses.


The problem here is that you are using the bible as a historical document, as if it is a legitimate book portraying legitimate history.

Paul had a vision of Jesus, some time after his death. Having a vision is entirely different to seeing someone face-to-face, and actually physically learning doctrine from them.

Don't you think it is a bit odd that the bible has little text from Jesus' original disciples, or from the man himself? Instead, more than half of the new testament can be attributed to Paul, who claims that he had a vision of the Christ.

Not to offend you, but the 14 books attributed to Paul should be a cause of concern. Especially considering the fact that a lot of Christianity's teachings are based on his writings, words and visions, after the death of its messiah. If i were to worship a messiah such as Jesus, i would want to absorb his teachings. Not those espoused by some guy that had a vision after the death of a messiah, and then went on to disseminate his version of events independently, and separate, of the original disciples.
edit on 28-10-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


You aren't making any sense.

Faith does not provide truth. It provides solace for those who chose to be told what "truth" is.

You also misquoted me. I never said I wasn't spiritual. Only that I dont believe in any monotheism.

About my questions on page one? Care to answer them since they were posed by you?

And it seems to be that you are the one upset that I fizz different than you. Otherwise, you'd have no need to try and "destroy atheism".

-Tenth



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because if promotes ignorant lies such as your title to be made by its adherents.

Oh hey, when I saw that my post popped up well down the third page here I wanted to get back to you and tell you not to bother getting back to me with your active responses as you will most likely be busy with others and by the time you get down to me I will most likely have forgotten about this thread.
edit on 31America/ChicagoTue, 28 Oct 2014 00:40:03 -0500Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:40:03 -050014102014-10-28T00:40:03-05:0012u40 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Agreed!



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bigburgh




I have to agree with the others. You baited with the title. I thought you had absolute proof. Here's me.. Science is able to explain away a lot. Big bang.. well what banged? Where was this bang able to take place? If this is the only universe... well what does it reside in? And if this universe resides inside of a universe..... where does that universe reside... I can go onnnnnnn! So what can't be explained is god... Where does he/she reside? Certainly you can't have something out of nothing? God lives somewhere right? Allah lives somewhere right?( for the ME crowd or Vishnu or whatever your flavor...) In order for something to exist... you need a containment unit of a sort.. Where does it end? And I will sleep at night!


God exist in eternity. Can I describe that dimension to you know. However, eternity doesn't have a beginning nor end it just is, and is that which contains all that is. But once again just as the other people on the thread you are attempting to use logic, as if you are an atheist you have only a materialistic view of the world which means you are nothing more than matter and chemicals which cannot produce truth so why should I even listen?


Sorry.. ask a question.
And slammed again by a believer..
I believe.. but those who claim..

Still..answer many others after me...

You are not helping my mind...

OK thread on..


Eta: Right, energy is not created or destroyed... it just is..
edit on 28-10-2014 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2014 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

well said




many points i brought up go hand in hand with what you say here
high five.




posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Why the need to "destroy" atheism/ other's beliefs if your Christianity is so rock solid? We all fizz differently!

(I'm never going to get that fizzing imagery out of my head

edit on 28-10-2014 by igloo because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

I'll tell you what I have already told someone else. The Biography of Alexander the great was written 400 years after his death, and yet you would have no problem accepting it as historically accurate. The book of John was written completed around 94 AD(the last gospel to be completed) and we have copies from 125 AD.

1 john 1:1-3 claiming eye witness testimony

2 peter 1
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

On what basis should I reject these claims of eye witness testimony. They are all over the Bible, and easy to find if you look so I am not going to spend a lot of time on this but you have to give a reason as to why I should reject these documents as historically accurate.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
If you can't prove it, you can't know. There is always room for doubt if things aren't proven. Delusion is believing things that aren't true. Believing things that you can't prove to be true is foolishness and leaves you vulnerable to delusion. Delusion is a mental health issue not to be taken lightly.

I've explored all sorts of philosophical and religious beliefs and I'd come on ATS and share my beliefs. Then, I realized that I don't really know what is going on in this world. Contradicting philosophies can each make logical sense. So, there's no way of knowing the truth.

I'm agnostic. I believe that if there is a supreme being in this universe, he, she, or it doesn't care if I go blindly believing if it exists or not. I think that if there is a God, God would want me to use logic and math to explore the world and learn by examining facts- not fairy tales.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Lol..
Ya know.. years on my ears and born mostly deaf..
I responded better to deep tones and written words..



But religious folks still do what they can to hate me..
And I try...



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

why is it so hard that believing in something other than yourself. AND THAT EXACTLY WHAT UR PROBLEM IS : YOU HAVE NO FAITH IN ANYTHING OR PLAUSIBILITY OF TRUSTING NO ONE NOT EVEN IN YOURSELF. JUST KNOW THAT I HAVE FAITH IN GOD TO HELP YOU THE DAY U REALIZE THERE IS A GOD U WONT . YOU WILL BE IN SO MUCH DISBELIEF THEN U WILL REALIZE THERE IS A GOD AND WELL I WILL PRAY FOR YOU EVEN IF U DONT WANT ME TO



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

THANK YOU



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
First of all a believer in any of the main religious ideologies cannot really "destroy" atheism with arguments that are strictly doctrinal- arguments which are made from the religious texts themselves. To have an actual debate of this nature requires that the source material be the same for both sides. So a believer will accept the Bible as evidence which they can use to argue from, while an atheist or non-Christian will not accept that doctrine. Does that make sense? The supporting "facts" taken from the Bible that could be used to justify certain positions are not known to be facts. A believer will believe them to be facts, but that is called faith, not universal fact. The majority of scientific beliefs are more readily termed facts than religious points about God or Jesus that are made in the Bible, so on the one hand you will have a believer claiming that the world must have been made in 7 days, since they are arguing from Genesis, while an atheist will probably say that the earth formed billions of years after the creation of the universe, etc...

The only reason I bring any of this up has to do with your thread title, "Atheism Destroyed," which coupled with your opening post implies to me that you are going to be making religious arguments to "destroy" atheism, when this is not possible. If I am wrong about your intentions I apologize, but truthfully there are not really any solid arguments in existence that will destroy atheism. Even the complexity of the universe and life itself does not prove a Creator. Of course it is logical to conclude that something must have existed, in one form or another, before the universe came into existence, since it is difficult to understand how matter could have sprung into existence without either a creator, or something to cause creation- but this does not mean that there is proof of a Creator.

As far as my own personal beliefs, I believe in a Creator, but not because it has been proven as fact. Faith would be unnecessary in religion if God were a fact. Even though I believe in God, and was raised as a Christian, I do not feel that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I know people too well, and I do not think ancient peoples would have differed all that much where human nature is concerned, therefore I believe that some of what was written was done with good intentions, but for all intents and purposes is simply fabricated. Or perhaps the writer believed that what they were writing was fact, but the superstitious/religious nature of ancient religious individuals was such that everything involved God, and things we can explain today were attributed to divine intervention in these times. So something could have appeared to them as proof in God at the time, and they could have taken an occurrence which in our modern eyes is explainable, and they could have attributed it to a sign from God. I think that writings of this nature definitely were included when the Christian canonical books were selected.

Anyway my point is simply this: if these faults were not present in the Bible, and if we knew that everything that was written was accurate and properly interpreted, then I would have no problem accepting the religion wholeheartedly...But as things stand now it is difficult to place absolute faith in the writings themselves. This is why I believe in a God, but why I am not secular, or do not subscribe to an absolute and rigid religious belief system. There are also too many of them in existence. And the Jewish God presented in the Old Testament surely would have retained some of the same qualities in the Christian religion, even though with the arrival of Jesus the majority of the Jewish laws and beliefs were improved upon, and I must admit that sometimes the way God was portrayed in the Jewish system was completely at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Sometimes these Jewish writings, the Christian Old Testament, presents a God that is vindictive and spiteful, and I believe that a Creator would be altruistic, loving, and forgiving, without any of the negative qualities. And I think that these more negative qualities are a manmade addition resulting from numerous things, which is what I meant earlier when I talked about misinterpretation by humans.

The people attribute everything to God in one way or another, therefore when terrible things happen then all of the sudden you assume that God has these negative qualities, because He must have if the acts were truly caused by God. An instance that comes to mind off the top of my head is the destruction of Sodom. What if there was a natural explanation for such, say a meteor strike that destroyed numerous towns in the vicinity, which I believe to be the case...Contemporary religious individuals, knowing the reputation of the town for wickedness, would attribute the city's destruction to a God who destroyed the sinners, telling us that they had to believe that God was willing to take the very life He created. What else could they conclude, since they attributed everything to God? My point is that such incorrect interpretations were bound to find their way into the Biblical writings, and what we are left with today is a view of God that is very likely to be off the mark where the true Creator is concerned. Those are my beliefs anyway. The last thing I want to say is that I believe that being open to or believing in a Creator and being a good person is likely enough to put you on the right track if there is life after death. Therefore I think that the religious bickering and infighting that exists across the globe is likely to be counter-productive, and at odds with what a True God would want people to do.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bigburgh

I'll tell you what I have already told someone else. The Biography of Alexander the great was written 400 years after his death, and yet you would have no problem accepting it as historically accurate. The book of John was written completed around 94 AD(the last gospel to be completed) and we have copies from 125 AD.

1 john 1:1-3 claiming eye witness testimony

2 peter 1
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

On what basis should I reject these claims of eye witness testimony. They are all over the Bible, and easy to find if you look so I am not going to spend a lot of time on this but you have to give a reason as to why I should reject these documents as historically accurate.


I don't reject..
Thanks for giving that info..
I will log off and go get my books..

Yes I have quite a collection..
Sorry for being a problem child..

My upbringing as a Catholic... and becoming an RN.. has clashed and joined..

By the way... I gave your every response a star...

So suck it!



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I would answer your claims, but they you are attempting to use the laws of logic, and thats not consistent with your atheistic world view but rather consistent with the theistic world view. You borrow from my world view to make your case. You don't seem to understand the argument I am making. I am saying that you have no ultimate justification for how you can recognize truth. You by your own words are nothing but evolved star dust fizzing. Now many of your points are asking me for proof of God. In order to ask for proof you must believe that the past is going to be like the future, and that there is uniformity in nature, but that goes against an atheistic world view as you are just matter moving through a time and chance universe. The very fact that you ask for proof shows that you know God exist friend.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: igloo




Why the need to "destroy" atheism/ other's beliefs if your Christianity is so rock solid? We all fizz differently!


I am not really here to destroy atheism, but I wanted to make sure to attract atheist honestly. If your a fisherman looking for fish its always good to have nice bait, and I don't do it out of hatred I do it because I love all humans and I don't want anyone to go to hell.

As for fizzing that is an atheistic view of the world, I personally believe every person has intrinsic worth.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Because the bible is an idol for the real thing not making it all the way home to the real thing hiding behind the veil. The thing people call god works on a level that is higher than people who read the words in the bible and believe they are gods words do not understand.

Jesus left a message that is a first step only and even said it but people choose to ignore Jesus own teachings and listen to others in the bible making the religion a doctrine that is anti "Jesus message of seeking the one behind the veil" instead of seeking a clothing of faith to wear that is ego based and not what Jesus taught. Nobody else dies for my sins and can fix the scales but myself with guidance. I will take responsibility just like Jesus/Buddha/Krishna/Rumi/Nanak taught we should.

The christian faith is too small minded/limited for me who have seen to much even if their are a lot of spiritual information in the bible that most Christian have never found. Many Christians know the words of things but have never experienced the real thing judging people who have experienced the real thing as deceiving because they do not follow the view of Christian faith they have showing their ignorance instead of listening to those who have experienced.

To say it clearly I do not follow Christian dogma since it does not follow Jesus teachings and have become an idol of the real thing. Paul was the first Anti Jesus messenger from my point of view. I think the Christian faith should be called Paulism instead if Christian.
edit on 28-10-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

HAY ISNT ANTI-ATHEIST AN OXYMORON . SO HE DOESNT BELIEVE IN ANYTHING THAT IS ATHEIST . SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS OVER GOOD JOB (SERVENT



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: igloo




Why the need to "destroy" atheism/ other's beliefs if your Christianity is so rock solid? We all fizz differently!


I am not really here to destroy atheism, but I wanted to make sure to attract atheist honestly. If your a fisherman looking for fish its always good to have nice bait, and I don't do it out of hatred I do it because I love all humans and I don't want anyone to go to hell.

As for fizzing that is an atheistic view of the world, I personally believe every person has intrinsic worth.


Right..



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join