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.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Annee
How does a spiritual atheist explain the theoretical existence of souls?
I have thought about it before and came up with: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only changed and one's life creates an energy which forms into what one can call a soul which can continue on.
I am not saying I believe that, but I find it plausible.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Annee
How does a spiritual atheist explain the theoretical existence of souls?
I have thought about it before and came up with: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed only changed and one's life creates an energy which forms into what one can call a soul which can continue on.
I am not saying I believe that, but I find it plausible.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Subnatural
An atheist that believes in an afterlife, now that is ironic.
So let me get this straight, he doesn't think anything got him here to start, but something will allow his soul to continue after his physical body dies ???
originally posted by: JRCrowley
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
atheists don't own the discussions on ATS, they just think they should.
If you were intellectually honest you could admit that the same could be said of the religious people on ATS.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TzarChasm
A soul may be nothing but an imprint or an after image seeing as there are so many reports of repeat hauntings. I think there would have to be some specific circumstances for an energy signature to have an actual consciousness.
That is all hypothetical.
originally posted by: Subnatural
This thread is just a horrible train wreck, isn't it?
I think many Buddhists are atheists, yet they still believe in an afterlife. Eh? What do you say to that, smartypants?
originally posted by: arimass101
Over the years I came to the conclusion that the knowledge that there exists a creator to the world (with all the details below. Scroll down to see what I mean) is extremely simple and any thinking human whose brain is functioning normally will come to that very conclusion.
The obvious question is why does such a large quantity of people in the world, so many people of all generations among them genius minds of big scientists and philosophers deny that fact?
The answer is bias.
A persons intellect is distorted by his desires, preconceived notions, and society.
The knowledge that there exists a creator to the world threatens a persons comfort and desires because if there is a creator then he must a purpose for his creation, which might include things required of a person that threatens his comfort.
A person does not like to do things that are uncomfortable to him, refrain for doing as he pleases, or be looked upon as unusual from his society.
So a person tries to find all kinds of things illogical as they may be to rely upon so he can have a clear conscious while continuing to do as he desires.
Many people don't even think for themselves they just blindly follow the herd of people of who are influenced by those big bias leaders of thought.
Only an unbiased person who's only purpose is to find the truth no matter how uncomfortable it may be can see the clear truth that shouts itself out to the world.
Now this this knowledge is best found by contemplating to root question which is the following and nothing else. All other subjects such as morality, religion, and so forth can only be discussed after this root question is answered: Either the universe had a creator or the universe had always existed.
Which is more logical?
This question will lead the truly unbiased person....
.... to the inevitable truth of the existence of a creator with the following conclusions:
There exists a being, who is the master of everything that exists and who brought all things into being at the time he desired. He sustains them as long as he so desires, and rules over them with complete authority. This Being is perfect in every way, having absolutely no imperfection whatsoever. He does not depend on anything else, and is not affected by anything whatsoever.
Gods existence is absolutely without beginning or end. That is, He did not pass from nonexistence into existence, and will absolutely never pass into nonexistence. He therefore always was, and always will be, and it is impossible for him to cease to exist.
God is the cause of all that is,...
but He himself is not the result of any cause. Rather, His existence is necessary, intrinsic to his nature. He has absolutely no structure, nor does He have any element of multiplicity. Rather, He is structureless and ultimately simple. Nothing that applies to the physical relates to God at all. He is divorced from any boundary or limit, from every association, and from every natural law.
The true essence and nature of God cannot be grasped at all.
It has no analogy, neither with any concept that exists among created things, nor with any idea that the imagination can conceive or the intellect comprehend. There are no words or descriptions which are truly fitting and proper to use in relation to God.
When we speak of God, we make use of words, but we do so only in borrowed or metaphorical terms, so that we should understand what we must regarding Him. Our vocabulary contains only words pertaining to natural concepts, bound by the limitations of created things, and it it
therefore impossible for us to say anything at all without these words. But all who seek God and speak about Him must clearly realize that any descriptions or words used in relation to God do not truly relate to Him. They can apply only as borrowed terms, and in no other sense.
Lets together debate the existence of god from the the question that I wrote above: "Either the universe had a creator or the universe had always existed. Which is more logical?"
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Anyways a Buddhist that is also an atheist is certainly possible, the philosophy seems to allow for that, but based on what I was reading I think they would be in the minority.