It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is negative atheism an intellectually untenable position?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:50 AM
a reply to: scorpio84

You certainly do deserve an answer, but since I'm tired right now, I'll leave you with this link to another thread

Thanks for this, I will read it with interest.

False dilemma. Maybe it isn't designed at all.

Complete randomness in everything without design? is this possible? The human body, by definition, is designed. Take for example the cascade of blood clotting, a dozen or so enzymes which are inert by themselves but are activated in the clotting cascade to produce a clot. Surely this is design, not randomness?

Incorrect. One is based on hypotheses, theories, repeated tests, and observations - the other is based on an ancient book.

Hypotheses and theories are beliefs. Repeated tests and observations can be inconclusive. Theism and religion (scripture) are not the same.

You thought I came to ATS to learn something? I don't remember asking for answers - just for opinions and some solid debate.

From what I remember you asked theists to show proof through scripture. You also stated

"Faith - interesting. But why faith in something intangible and for which zero evidence can be found, either physically or logically? We'll find out, I hope. "

Belief in non-intelligent design is also faith based. Science only has a hypothesis. In one of the arguments I presented it gave a valid explanation, in my opinion, as to why science cannot find the answer.

My current viewpoint is not from a theistic perspective. I am currently analysing both beliefs so I can have an informed opinion.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:43 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for the explanation but wouldn't distance and size also be in the equation eg if the moon was larger or closer to the earth we would not see the corona (it would be blotted out) and if the moon was smaller or further away we would only see a black circle smaller than the sun traversing its path?

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: deliberator

You are referring to the fact that the moon is sitting in the perfectly right spot and is the perfect size to block the sun out with an eclipse right? We are actually just living during a lucky time in the Earth's history. The Moon is moving away from our planet slowly each year.

Will we ever stop having solar eclipses because of the moon's motion away from the Earth? (Intermediate)

It won't happen for a long while, 500 million years or more as best I can tell!

The earth-moon and earth-sun orbits are both elliptical, so the distances between these objects change over the course of an orbit. The "best" possible time for a solar eclipse is when the earth and moon are as close as they possibly can be (so the moon appears large in the sky) while the earth and sun as as far away as they possibly can be (so the sun appears small in the sky). It turns out that at this point, the size of the moon in the sky is about 4.6 percent larger than the size of the sun.

This means that the average earth-moon distance will need to increase by 4.6 percent for there to be no more total solar eclipses - when this happens, the moon will always be smaller than the sun, even at the most favorable time for an eclipse.

4.6 percent of the earth-moon orbital distance is around 17,000 kilometers, and given the current rate at which the moon moves away from the earth (3.8 centimeters per year), it will be around 500 million years before the moon has reached the required distance.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:46 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for the explanation. Appreciated.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 05:24 PM
a reply to: deliberator

Your thread had some interesting arguments on both sides. You stated that you were agnostic but I felt your arguments stemmed from an anti-theism stance (just my opinion).

With regard to theism and religion not being the same, take a look at Philosophical theism. If my position changes to theism it would be this position.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 08:11 PM
a reply to: deliberator

No, I'm certainly not anti-theistic. I am anti-religion, however.

The short and sweet answer of why I hold agnosticism (negative atheism) to be the most logical conclusion is for the simple fact that we can not know either way whether or not God exists.

I have an idea that I'm still trying to come to terms with - and if my idea is correct, it would validate "god" to some and invalidate "god" to others.

If I ever figure out a way to make it make any sense in words, you'll see it in the philosophy forum.

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:04 AM
I will look out for this in the philosophy forum. I have messaged you with something you may find interesting.

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: deliberator

Oddly enough, I haven't received any messages.

posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 07:30 PM
Is there any active tool to experience and prove God for our minds? Because all of our senses are passive sensors.
Our eyes only see when there is a light comming into them. Logically if me-the creation want to use any tool, I have to make sure it's most passive towards the object of observation - in this case God.
I can call this positive atheist "an active atheist" with overactive mind yelling instead of listening.
Being passive and sensitive still doesn't guarantee that God will ring the bell. Especially when you are trying to see a taste. Mind is only good in recieving and processing informations from the senses. If the mind had some other way of obtaining informations about God or even from God it would still be only information. It's said "You can't aknowledge God not knowing yourself first." If you can use your mind you are not the mind.

For me a typical negative atheist is an animal. It's its natural state. An ant won't recognize and comprehend a human standing above it. It has no ability or need to build a social relationship with a human. A human won't try it either and will rather let it play its part in the wood.

What's so wrong with religions if you are given empirical experience of applied spiritual matters of many previous generations? You are free do disagree when you are unable to replicate the results and move on your own but you don't skip the elementary school nor you have to re-invent the wheel when your goal is to become an engineer. You go to the university to do learn it. Without your parents you wouldn't even be able to speak.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in