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.

 

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

God gave us free will. That free will applies to the right to believe or disbelieve in said God.

Atheists don't bother me, they only bother me when they evangelize their way of living, same as when a religious person evangelizes. I believe in certain things, I don't need someone telling me to believe or disbelieve if they don't want to be told too.




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

I understand. Thanks for the view-point. It seems like our preference of semantics is quite different. I was thinking about this actually when I was typing my post.

The thing is, the term 'atheist' is actually very loose by general usage (although it does have a strict definition).

Since the term atheist is used in a manner of ways, naturally the term 'God' will follow. So, I completely understand why as an 'atheist' you believe there is no 'God/Gods', but are open to a general 'creator'.

But, this is not the original meaning of atheism and therefore the principle focus of the decision should not lie on the 'God' portrayed in the holy books - a 'God' that desires submission and worship.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. A deity by definition is a supernatural entity, but not necessarily something that requires worshipping. I believe that is what we'd call an 'idol'.

In the broadest sense, atheism can then be defined as the belief of the non-existence of supernatural intelligence.

I honestly believe that is the best definition of atheism. I think by expanding it to include a 'supernatural intelligence which desires worship' you commit the crime that I tried to highlight in my original post - which is labelling yourself as an atheist purely in relation to the holy books.

Though, I do completely understand that this is what a large majority of people use it as today and that was actually part of my original point.

You, personally, have the capability to still consider a creator after refuting the idea of bowing to a 'God', but many do not, rashly label themselves an atheist and take that to the grave without ever giving the idea of creation another thought.

I'd more likely describe you as an agnostic rather than an atheist, for you are evidently open to the idea of supernatural intelligence.

You are effectively saying that you believe a creator to be a possibility but you do not believe worship or reverence should occur as a result of that.

That stance doesn't even have a term lol. Anti-religious is a way of putting it I guess. Perhaps agnostic atheist but you've accepted the possibility which means you can't be holding a complete disbelief. Is this the stance you've based your label of an 'atheist' on?

The way you speak of 'Gods' is interesting however. Re-engineered us? Well, there is the growing belief that the actual holy stories originate from an interaction with an advanced race that we perceived as 'Gods'. Could entirely be the case, who really knows our true history on this Earth.

Regarding semantics, 'God' as an individual word simply means the supreme deity, and 'Gods' as a plural denotes deities. Deity does not even have to apply to a humanoid figure - it simply is supernatural intelligence.

The act of creation, in this context, would require supernatural intelligence, and hence 'God' and 'Creator' become synonymous.

Therefore 'God' simply means the one original creator as opposed to several creators. At least that's the way I tend to see it. God and Gods are not mutually exclusive however, since the original creator could've spawned our creators and so forth.

Now, it seems to me that what you are talking about goes further than the word 'God'. You are talking specifically about iterations of God, such as YHWH and Allah.

The scary thing is, the world would make a lot of sense if aspects of the 'God' described as in the core ancient texts (Enlil -> Marduk -> YHWH -> Allah) were real. The constant struggle for survival and warring between humanity, the idea of 'coming out on top'.

Some men like to watch their dogs fight, even if they raised them both as a child.

As much as you may dislike that possibility and hence refute it - based on the principle that you would not worship such an entity even if it did exist, the fact is that we could also be living in the world of a vindictive and hierachal type 'God' who IS actually judging us on subservience. A scary thought indeed.

This topic becomes all the more interesting when you consider the thought experiments we can currently conduct regarding virtual reality and artificial consciousness. If we prove consciousness to be programmable, we effectively end up back at the start and logically have to consider that we are not the 'original universe'.

This is partly why Occam's razor goes entirely blunt after a certain point.

Peace
edit on 5-11-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

Oh man! That's a lot of words just to say this!



In the broadest sense, atheism can then be defined as the belief of the non-existence of supernatural intelligence.


LOL. No. That would define believers of gods.

I don't believe in a creator god. PERIOD. I don't believe that the "supernatural" exists. I DO believe that what we deem supernatural IS natural, just not understood.


edit on 5-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: TinfoilTP

God gave us free will. That free will applies to the right to believe or disbelieve in said God.

Atheists don't bother me, they only bother me when they evangelize their way of living, same as when a religious person evangelizes. I believe in certain things, I don't need someone telling me to believe or disbelieve if they don't want to be told too.


Free will is an asinine concept. Explain how an all-knowing, all-seeing creator doesn't know what his creations will do before he creates them? He's all-knowing and all-seeing. Duh. Explain how an all-powerful creator creates creations that will do anything other than that which he created them to do? He's all-powerful. Duh.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Pauligirl

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
On the flip side what does it hurt to acknowledge God in case there is an afterlife? By not acknowledging God you throw away a possibility, even science postulates there are infinite universes with infinite possibilities, one of which has to be a universe with a God.


Which do you think your God would prefer? An honest disbeliever or a hypocrite?


The true definition of an atheist is one who hates God so utterly that they hate any notion of a God. An honest disbeliever would see that there is no harm in leaving the possibility open. Only a fool rushes in to discard all other options.


I don’t know where you’re getting that definition from, but it is not true. I don’t think your God exists, so why would I bother to hate it? It would be a waste of time and energy, like hating the Easter bunny or unicorns.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Pauligirl

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
On the flip side what does it hurt to acknowledge God in case there is an afterlife? By not acknowledging God you throw away a possibility, even science postulates there are infinite universes with infinite possibilities, one of which has to be a universe with a God.


Which do you think your God would prefer? An honest disbeliever or a hypocrite?


The true definition of an atheist is one who hates God so utterly that they hate any notion of a God. An honest disbeliever would see that there is no harm in leaving the possibility open. Only a fool rushes in to discard all other options.
Anything an atheist proposes to counter God, God trumps.
Evolution? Naw, just observing God's way.
Big Bang? Naw, it is finite so what came before it?
Multiverse? Naw, just a series of big bangs
Infinite Universes? Naw, it allows for all possibilities, one being a God which by definition is infinite and all powerful so would therefore be all powerful over all infinite universes.

But then all is possible with God, so God made the impossible....the atheist. The best proof of God is the existence of the atheist.


You're confusing yourself with God and God is apparently addled.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

How do you know what God created us for? Nobody knows. Free will is the ultimate right to personally deny or confirm ones own beliefs, religion is covered by this right.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Tangerine

How do you know what God created us for? Nobody knows. Free will is the ultimate right to personally deny or confirm ones own beliefs, religion is covered by this right.


I don't. I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in any of this silliness except for the part about you thinking you're God and being addled. I'll stick to that. There is no such thing as free will.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm not God. No one is. I'm like everybody. And that is as insignificant as specks of dust when compared to all that exists.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

What are you on about lol?

How does the belief of the non-existence of supernatural intelligence equate to the belief in God? That's all you took from my post and you even understood that wrong.

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

What's your point about 'supernatural'. You're arguing about the semantics rather than the actual meaningful concept.

When we say natural, we mean the world we can observe and interact with based on the interactable universe - a product of our senses and the fundamental laws. If intelligence exists outside this framework, it is 'supernatural' by all logical means.

This is the form of the word 'supernatural' that atheism refers to.

The actual definition of the word supernatural means by virtue that you cannot make the words 'natural' and 'supernatural' synonymous, for the very idea of supernatural depends on it being outside our allowable range of interaction, making it impossible for us to confirm the existence of the 'supernatural' through science. It goes without saying.

Once again, can you please clear up what you're actually trying to say to me. And why do you seem angry at my definition of atheism? Here's a nice summary of the modern usage of the word atheist:

"With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism.[38]"

All those ideas depend on the core idea of some form of supernatural intelligence (due to the attached meaning) hence the definition of atheism I derived.

If you disbelieve in IDOLS then therefore you disbelieve in RELIGION. Disbelieving religion is NOT necessarily atheism, as isn't disbelieving in a creator, for crying out loud. Deities are not necessarily creators. At the very least, that's not the definition atheism holds today. Read all my posts in this thread please.

Why are you saying to me 'I don't believe in a creator God'? If that's your definition of 'atheist', then let it be. I don't care. It's an illogical stance anyway as I first mentioned. The only sensible stance is a form of agnosticism. That's my opinion.

Now if you said there was absolutely no meaningful intelligence beyond the universe in any way shape or form - then I would define you as a modern atheist.

Your current view seems to leave room open for what we'd define as non-creator supernatural deities - by definition. Even if you don't believe personally in the definition of supernatural, it would not change the fact that entities operating outside our universe would be by definition supernatural.

What it seems you're truly saying is: even if I find out we have souls and we reincarnate (purely for example), I will still take it to be a natural self-arising event with no external influence of intelligence and hence meaning attached. So, you're basically saying nothing will ever convince you of a 'creator god' because everything is self-arising no matter what. You're entitled to that.

Peace
edit on 6-11-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

I'm not angry with you. Your post amused me and I took a stab addressing, what I considered, irony and some serious semantic gymnastics on your part.

It gets tedious continually explaining that atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of known beliefs. For example, a believer expresses their belief, complete with reasons, and the atheist rejects that postulate based on their own inner moral and logical compass.



Why are you saying to me 'I don't believe in a creator God'? If that's your definition of 'atheist', then let it be. I don't care. It's an illogical stance anyway as I first mentioned.


That's why I said so. "A Creator God" is an illogical stance. Who created the creator? If there is "A" creator, why not multiple creators. It never ends, even though you claim it ends with "your" god. It can't, not logically.

Also, I don't think that we're on the same page when it comes to what "supernatural" means. Can you give me an example of something that you consider to be supernatural?

Personally, I believe in a spiritual hierarchy, just as we live in a physical hierarchy. But I don't think that what we call spiritual phenomena is supernatural at all. I think that science will discover that there is "life" outside of our myopic carbon based awareness, and that we're evolving, more and more, into a means of participation in that realm of our influence. Just as science will soon explain extra sensory perception, too.

The presence of intelligence outside of sphere of our influence isn't evidence of a "God", in my opinion. But perhaps that's another definition that we aren't in agreement with. After all, who can define "God"?

If I MUST settle on a definition of "GOD", for argument and civility's sake, then my definition of "God" is everything that is, was, will be, wasn't, isn't and won't be. Which means, that we are all part of God and that God isn't anything that is outside of ourselves, but is the collective of all that is. The universe is equally as creative as I am, relatively speaking. Nothing supernatural about that, is there?



edit on 6-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
You see, if you had provided me a decent reply like that in the first place, I would've understood your points much better. Thank you.


It gets tedious continually explaining that atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of known beliefs. For example, a believer expresses their belief, complete with reasons, and the atheist rejects that postulate based on their own inner moral and logical compass.


Now, that my friend, is some serious semantic gymast



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Ignore previous post, don't know what the hell happened lol.

a reply to: windword

Thanks for the more detailed explaination.

Why are you constantly referring to a creator god as a justification of your stance as an atheist?
What is a spiritual hierarchy? If we can explain it via science, how can it be spiritual? Surely, it's physical?


It gets tedious continually explaining that atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of known beliefs. For example, a believer expresses their belief, complete with reasons, and the atheist rejects that postulate based on their own inner moral and logical compass.


Those are semantic gymanstics lol. Atheism is not the rejection of 'known beliefs', but the rejection of theism. Can we agree on that?

Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists. Therefore, atheism is the 'rejection of the belief' in deities. Not a creator god, but DEITIES. A deity is a supernatural entity. These are different concepts. Not all deities are creators but all creators are automatically deities.

Am I wrong?

Let's tackle the word 'supernatural'.


Also, I don't think that we're on the same page when it comes to what "supernatural" means. Can you give me an example of something that you consider to be supernatural?


The word natural means a product of the universe's rules and platform - nature. It is self-arising due to this - no conscious influence, yet some people extend this definition to include things made by humans, since we are defined as natural.

Supernatural would then follow to mean something external to our universe and it's laws - but even that is too vague. If something apparently external to the universe arises from the universe's laws in a provable way (e.g your example of ESP) - whether discovered by us or not - it is natural. I agree with you on that.

I guess the best analogy I can give of this concept is Mario, the video game character, gaining consciousness within the virtual Mario world we've created or a random quantum computer code generator within our universe did.

We, and our universe, are completely supernatural in relation to Mario. He cannot perceive our world through the rules of his, unless we intended it.

In that sense, supernatural means unprovable in the rawest form. That is because our definition of proof depends on repeatable validation through the senses under definable and also testable rules (senses extend to the instruments we use).

Even if both us and conscious Mario are products of uniform processes external to both our subjective natural experiences - we are still supernatural deities from the aspect of Mario.

The reason I believe agnosticism to be the more logical choice than atheism is that, in this thought experiment, he cannot by principle ever correctly deduce FACTS about our plane of existence. It's impossible.

However, it doesn't invalidate our plane of existence. Does that make sense? Therefore I can't possibly give you an example of a 'supernatural' thing, but only explain the concept. This is also why we can't apply Occam's razor with intellectual honesty to the question.

Now, if parallel universes exist, and all these universes interact in ways we don't understand yet, giving birth to effects within our actual perceivable universe - does this become a supernatural thing by definition?

No, because if we can truly understand it, it means we can prove it in terms of the sub-atomic and therefore it is natural. This was your point actually.

The reason I said atheism is the 'rejection of belief' of supernatural intelligence is because atheism 'rejects the belief' of the supernatural creator and supernatural entities.

In essence, I think atheism is probably better described as the 'rejection of the belief' of the supernatural. I think both you and the quote in my last reply exemplify this.

Or to avoid confusion - you believe everything that exists, can be explained through our interaction with the universe (and hence science), and therefore the empirically understandable world is the only thing that exists. Am I fair in saying that? This seems to be the core point of your last post.

That is your 'belief', right? Are you explaining two beliefs (oops, one belief and one rejection of belief) to me, or one? Perhaps I should be saying OPINIONS. Bloody words.

Back to the Mario example of supernatural. Why did I use such a silly example? I may as well have said imagine us and 'God', right? And if the supernatural is unprovable, what's the flipping point of entertaining the concept?

Firstly - I cannot deduce beyond the interactable universe through science, therefore I must accept the supernatural to be a possibility by the very virtue of my finite existence.

I cannot claim with 100% certainty, and therefore have true confidence.

Now, to openly say you don't 'believe' in arguably the most important concept throughout history, and even to go as far as to label yourself a specific title due to this, would logically require a strong belief that the 'belief in question' has practically a 0% chance of being the case - otherwise it wouldn't be a very smart thing to do, right?

Secondly, mainstream science, and consequently most atheists and agnostics, 'believe' as fact that our human existence is completely reducible to the sub-atomic. It has to be, for our definition of natural to hold, otherwise we become supernatural lol.

That logically means that at any point, you could deduce your entire experience, including consciousness, to a mathematical formula explaining the entirety of sub-atomic interaction at time, t. Therefore, we can recreate our experience through virtual, computable realities. Do I need to explain this?

If that is the case, then it is entirely a significant possibility that we aren't the original and only plane of existence. The original plane of existence is supernatural to us because even though we can speculate through our personal observation of this universe, we cannot test it.

Applying Occam's razor at this point is ridiculous, whether its to argue 'logically' against or for any supernatural concepts. Trying to 'logically' deduce the answer is absurd, period.

If we want to get 'logical answers' I could equally argue to you that if consciousness can be virtually created, the amount of virtual universes and hence virtual entities will exponentially outnumber the 'original', self-arising universe, if all begin to recreate consciousness within their own existences.

That means I could spin human logic to suggest very probable odds for at least supernatural platforms. But these are just guesses still - leaps of faith.

The only logical stance, as a result of EVERYTHING I've just said, is to believe you can't know. You seem to believe the concept of the 'supernatural' isn't true, where as I believe that belief cannot be proved either true or false. The difference sounds non-existent, but its huge...

# me, I don't even want to imagine how long this turned out lol. I'm hoping I've covered as much as possible so my views are clear. Peace!
edit on 6-11-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing




I'm hoping I've covered as much as possible so my views are clear. Peace!


Peace back atcha.

What I think that you've made clear is your confusion, at least to me. First and foremost, you need to understand that atheists DO have beliefs, all kinds of them. Atheists are ordinary people who merely reject yours and every definition that they've heard of a god.



Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists. Therefore, atheism is the 'rejection of the belief' in deities. Not a creator god, but DEITIES. A deity is a supernatural entity. These are different concepts. Not all deities are creators but all creators are automatically deities.

Am I wrong?


Yes, you're wrong. Atheists have no belief in a god or gods. I have no problem believing in the existence of "deities". I don't even have a problem believing in deities that want to convince me that I should fear or worship them. But I do have a problem worshiping any deity or entity and calling it god.

I don't believe in a god. Now, you're unable to provide an example of the supernatural, but insist that God must exist.

Let me reach across the aisle and give you a few examples of the "supernatural", maybe you'll agree: Love, memory, self awareness, intelligence and the ability to take an idea or thought and manifest in the physical world. Would you agree that these things appear to originate in the supernatural?

But they aren't and they don't. And, their existence doesn't prove the existence of a god. If it did, it would prove that we are as much god as the imaginary person the believer holds in his mind as God.



Secondly, mainstream science, and consequently most atheists and agnostics, 'believe' as fact that our human existence is completely reducible to the sub-atomic. It has to be, for our definition of natural to hold, otherwise we become supernatural lol.


Yes. We become the observer, supernaturally speaking. Consciousness needn't be defined by spacial boundaries.



That logically means that at any point, you could deduce your entire experience, including consciousness, to a mathematical formula explaining the entirety of sub-atomic interaction at time, t. Therefore, we can recreate our experience through virtual, computable realities. Do I need to explain this?



Water can sit in a liquid state, or it can fly off the ground and gather in the clouds. It can rain down on the hard earth and invoke a chemical reaction in the earth that softens the rock and allows for life to take hold. Does water have intent? Is it conscious? Is water inter dimensional? Is it supernatural? Is water proof of a god?

It all depends on ones inner compass and how one personally translates the world.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Let me reach across the aisle and give you a few examples of the "supernatural", maybe you'll agree: Love, memory, self awareness, intelligence and the ability to take an idea or thought and manifest in the physical world. Would you agree that these things appear to originate in the supernatural?

But they aren't and they don't. And, their existence doesn't prove the existence of a god. If it did, it would prove that we are as much god as the imaginary person the believer holds in his mind as God.


This is the concept of "new thought" religious philosophy. It says that there is no separation between God and any of us, that God exists in the subconsciousness. It's a pretty interesting idea and I choose to believe it.

And to be honest, I am pretty convinced that it is true because ever since I learned about it I started noticing things which in my opinion are too weird to be coincidences.
edit on 7-11-2014 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join