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.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 32
31
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.


Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.


Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.


God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.


So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.


The Pope is not God.

No Pope has ever claimed that they are God.

There are some websites that claim that the Pope or the church has claimed magisterium for the Pope, usually by mistranslating or specifically omitting the word 'vicar' from Roman Catholic documents. The word is actually a secular medieval one. In medieval times, if a king were to leave his country, or otherwise be unavailable to rule temporarily, they would appoint a 'vicar' to occupy the throne in their absence. A vicar was not a king, they were representative of the king.


And yet there are many who claim to speak on behalf of god who ask for money, and there are many who speak on behalf of god who ask for lives. And many listen to them. And there are many others who perhaps know better, yet they say nothing.


So? That gives reason to atheism?


No, just pointing out some examples of the misuse of theology as a device for war profit. And the willingness of more reasonable theologians to just let it slide. I don't really need to defend atheism to you. Although it is fun to poke at your hypotheses and see if they hold up to scrutiny. I don't commit myself to atheism because it fails to really impart both the inadequate parameters of what is being debated and the irrelevance of the whole god question in general. You know, ignosticism and humanism. Why do gods matter at all? We don't need them for anything except ego polishing purposes. Gods are an unnecessary step in the naturalist breakdown. Because we do know it is impossible to prove or disprove a theological entity without a consistent definition supported by substantial falsifiable data. Hence this thread and dozens of other unsatisfying exchanges just like it.
edit on 4-10-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

True, if you know how they interact. So they are a theoretical particle at best



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
I keep capitalizing Atheism because it is an organized belief, with global conventions, key speakers, authors, apologists, churches in several nations, budgets, meeting leaders and significant representation in the media.

Okay, in that case I completely misunderstood you. You are using a completely different definition than I realized. So essentially you are talking to nobody on here, just referring to the small minority of extreme hardcore atheists that organize activities. I guess that makes it fair to define all theists based on the fundamentalists, right?

Your first post in this thread, eight pages in, was about definitions of faith and trust in regard to science. Perhaps you were the one going off topic?


No surprise, my first post in the topic is me pointing out a logical flaw.



You keep making statements that are assumptions without factual support. For instance, how could you know that everyone on ATS is not a 'capital A' Atheist?

Every person who is an Atheist is also an atheist. Every person who identifies as religious has a Religion (regardless of their attendance record).

In answer to your initial post, 'faith' and 'trust' interplay but have different meanings. One definition of faith goes like this: "It is the substance of things hoped for, it is the evidence of things unseen", faith is anticipatory and hopeful. One definition of 'trust' is 'belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc'. It is about confidence.

A person may have faith that someone wishes to do the right thing, but may lack trust in the person to actually do so. It is possible to have faith as an anticipation of good, or a pre-granted leniency in the hope that the person will do well, but to still be aware that the person may most likely fail that faith you have in them.

Another way of looking at it is that a person may have faith that their cancer is survivable but have doubt (less trust) that it will be so simple.

The "logical flaw" only exists by broadening parts of word definitions and avoiding other parts/definitions.

edit on 4/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.


Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.


Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.


God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.


So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.


The Pope is not God.

No Pope has ever claimed that they are God.

There are some websites that claim that the Pope or the church has claimed magisterium for the Pope, usually by mistranslating or specifically omitting the word 'vicar' from Roman Catholic documents. The word is actually a secular medieval one. In medieval times, if a king were to leave his country, or otherwise be unavailable to rule temporarily, they would appoint a 'vicar' to occupy the throne in their absence. A vicar was not a king, they were representative of the king.


And yet there are many who claim to speak on behalf of god who ask for money, and there are many who speak on behalf of god who ask for lives. And many listen to them. And there are many others who perhaps know better, yet they say nothing.


So? That gives reason to atheism?
No, just pointing out some examples of the misuse of theology as a device for war profit. And the willingness of more reasonable theologians to just let it slide. I don't really need to defend atheism to you. Although it is fun to poke at your hypotheses and see if they hold up to scrutiny. I don't commit myself to atheism because it fails to really impart both the inadequate parameters of what is being debated and the irrelevance of the whole god question in general. You know, ignosticism and humanism. Why do gods matter at all? We don't need them for anything except ego polishing purposes. Gods are an unnecessary step in the naturalist breakdown. Because we do know it is impossible to prove or disprove a theological entity without a consistent definition supported by substantial falsifiable data. Hence this thread and dozens of other unsatisfying exchanges just like it.

I'm fairly sure that altruism must appear irrational to a psychopath. That does not mean that it is irrational.

Nearly the entire planet believes in some sort of religion (admittedly, not all believe in a god), something must be convincing them, perhaps it is simply something that eludes the very small group that eschews religion?

It has been suggested by Atheists (like Dawkins) that Theism is a result of cognitive disfunction. Have you considered that, based upon actual measured population statistics (empirical evidence), the reverse case is more likely?



edit on 5/10/2016 by chr0naut because: I'm obviously baiting for a reasoned response!



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I have never heard Dawkins say that Theism is a result of cognitive disfunction.

Can you point me to that.

What you said about the opposite to that is incorrect. Atheism is the rejection of god claims.

If you assert a god exists the burden of proof is on you.

If you actually succeed expect a noble prize. Or does science only matter when it supports your view/claims?

No really! If your the one who proves the existence of god/s beyond a shadow of a doubt then you would have done something nobody has done. And wed all be Theists.

And id still reject the worship of the Christian god. Who is evil, murderous, slaver, woman basher, lying, tyrant of a god. (The list could go on).

If god/s exist i would pick a truly loving and just god. Not one that points a gun to your head and say believe me or suffer eternity in torment.

Coomba98
edit on 5-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Which invalidates much of your argument. No war has been started because of atheism. Several were over religion.


Since the desired outcomes of the combattants in what you are calling "religious wars" has been for aquisition of wealth and/or for political power and/or for the deaths of their opponents and/or for ethnic reasons, not for religious conversion of the populace, one might, by removing the true factors from the cause of all wars, suggest that every war that is not explicitly a 'religious war' is an 'atheist war'.

The majority of wars have NOT been religiously motivated and therefore, if one ignores the actual reasons for war, they must have been started because of un-religiousness.


Some kill for money, and some kill for god. God makes money, and money pleases god.


God has no need for money. God neither makes money nor is God pleased by money. Such ideas are the direct antithesis to Theist ideas about wealth.

"But why should I want your blue-ribbon bull, or more and more goats from your herds? Every creature in the forest is mine, the wild animals on all the mountains. I know every mountain bird by name; the scampering field mice are my friends. If I get hungry, do you think I’d tell you? All creation and its bounty are mine". Psalm 50:9-12.

Jesus said: "Sell everything you own and give it away to the poor. You will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22.

However, the statement that: 'some atheists kill for money, some atheists kill because they like the feeling of power and control. Atheists make money. Atheists are pleased by money', is true.


So the pope is a fraud. Good to know you agree.


The Pope is not God.

No Pope has ever claimed that they are God.

There are some websites that claim that the Pope or the church has claimed magisterium for the Pope, usually by mistranslating or specifically omitting the word 'vicar' from Roman Catholic documents. The word is actually a secular medieval one. In medieval times, if a king were to leave his country, or otherwise be unavailable to rule temporarily, they would appoint a 'vicar' to occupy the throne in their absence. A vicar was not a king, they were representative of the king.


And yet there are many who claim to speak on behalf of god who ask for money, and there are many who speak on behalf of god who ask for lives. And many listen to them. And there are many others who perhaps know better, yet they say nothing.


So? That gives reason to atheism?
No, just pointing out some examples of the misuse of theology as a device for war profit. And the willingness of more reasonable theologians to just let it slide. I don't really need to defend atheism to you. Although it is fun to poke at your hypotheses and see if they hold up to scrutiny. I don't commit myself to atheism because it fails to really impart both the inadequate parameters of what is being debated and the irrelevance of the whole god question in general. You know, ignosticism and humanism. Why do gods matter at all? We don't need them for anything except ego polishing purposes. Gods are an unnecessary step in the naturalist breakdown. Because we do know it is impossible to prove or disprove a theological entity without a consistent definition supported by substantial falsifiable data. Hence this thread and dozens of other unsatisfying exchanges just like it.

I'm fairly sure that altruism must appear irrational to a psychopath. That does not mean that it is irrational.

Nearly the entire planet believes in some sort of religion (admittedly, not all believe in a god), something must be convincing them, perhaps it is simply something that eludes the very small group that eschews religion?

It has been suggested by Atheists (like Dawkins) that Theism is a result of cognitive disfunction. Have you considered that, based upon actual measured population statistics (empirical evidence), the reverse case is more likely?




A sense of significance and infutility? I don't think that's a word, but I'm making it a word. If I were to hazard a guess, that's what I would say compels people to theism. I have considered the 'reverse case' and that is my current opinion. Everyone wants to feel worthwhile, it is part of human psychology.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: SLAYER69

Sadly science doesn't do supernatural unless its dark matter or anti-matter but then its only to make their math fit .
science is required to reach dirt.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

First off, let me ask you a couple questions of my own to help me out personally:

• How are you so able to believe that there is in fact a Supreme Being, or entity or Great Spirit or whatever you want to call "it"?

• Is it because of faith? And if so, how does one obtain the kind of faith needed for any religion, almost.

• OR is it more of a feeling you have about the CREATOR?

• If that's the case then how can you be sure that feeling is pointing towards a Supreme Being who is like us and not just a gut instinct that's leading you to consider that life is just intelligent in general?

These are just questions that have been bothering me for quite some time and WILL bother me until I'm finally satisfied with an answer..

PS: I was in the 7th grade when I asked my Grandpa/youth pastor a question that made me really start questioning everything. That question was:

If God is a man, and capable of having thoughts and feelings to create such a place here with all there is, then does that mean God might have a brother? A sister? And they're creating little world or UNIVERSES as well? Why would he be the only GOD capable of creating A wonderful intelligent place such as earth? Idk
edit on 5-10-2016 by PageLC14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: PageLC14

Which, THEN, leads me to wonder if we aren't the only universe he has created. What if he has created many before this one but the humans or whatever species or creations He chose for the previous ones have just repeatedly failed at whatever reason he gave them to exist in the first place? What if we're failing too...

Being raised Baptist for nearly the first 17 years of my life, I know quite a bit when it comes to the Bible and what comes with Being a Christian. But once my mind starting wondering PAST the short, to the point, "accept this or else" kind of question/answer discussions I couldn't accept putting all my energy into HAVING FAITH in something that really not a single person can give me a legitimate 2+2=4 kind of answer...

It's just too hard for me, unfortunately...

edit on 5-10-2016 by PageLC14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

I have never heard Dawkins say that Theism is a result of cognitive disfunction.

Can you point me to that.

What you said about the opposite to that is incorrect. Atheism is the rejection of god claims.

If you assert a god exists the burden of proof is on you.

If you actually succeed expect a noble prize. Or does science only matter when it supports your view/claims?

No really! If your the one who proves the existence of god/s beyond a shadow of a doubt then you would have done something nobody has done. And wed all be Theists.

And id still reject the worship of the Christian god. Who is evil, murderous, slaver, woman basher, lying, tyrant of a god. (The list could go on).

If god/s exist i would pick a truly loving and just god. Not one that points a gun to your head and say believe me or suffer eternity in torment.

Coomba98


Dawkins frequently says that religion is a form of mental illness. He is somewhat repetetive in everything he says so it is surprising to me that you haven't heard of it.

Here's a few quotes:

"Faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness" Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene' (New edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 198. Dawkins was referring to religious faith, specifically.

Also, here are a number of very similar Tweets by Dawkins: twitter.com...

Also, Wikipedia on "Viruses of the mind by Dawkins.

Like I said, repetetive.

edit on 5/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Got anything more recent than a 1976 quote.

People like Dawkins is a scientist whos opinions evolve with advances with science.

Surly you know Darwins theory has evolved since its conception?

Find it hard to believe this is his current stance given Sam Harris is a good friend of his.

Im sure you know Sam Harris?

I certainly dont believe in all the things in my youth.

Never heard Dawkins say that this century.

Coomba98
edit on 5-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Got anything more recent than a 1976 quote.

People like Dawkins is a scientist whos opinions evolve with advances with science.

Surly you know Darwins theory has evolved since its conception?

Find it hard to believe this is his current stance given Sam Harris is a good friend of his.

Im sure you know Sam Harris?

I certainly dont believe in all the things in my youth.

Never heard Dawkins say that this century.

Coomba98


Viruses of the Mind was first published in 1993. The Tweets were from 2014 (I fixed the link, should work now).

So, Dawkins is a scientist?

E.O. Wilson (who does have scientific pedigree - A Fellow of the Royal Society and retired Oxford Professor among other credentials) described Dawkins as an “eloquent science journalist”.

Wilson specifically said of Dawkins, in print: “What else is he? I mean journalism is a high and influential profession. But he’s not a scientist, he’s never done scientific research. My definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: ‘he or she has shown that…’, ... I don’t want to go on about this because he and I were friends. There is no debate between us because he’s not in the arena".

Please also have a look at what Dawkins has claimed are "Academic Papers" that he authored and co-authored. They are listed here, many listed in the "Academic Papers" section are actually 'letters to the editor' sent to various science publications. As such, they are not peer reviewed or conformant to the selection critera which an academic paper must go through. So he, or someone close to him would appear to be stretching the truth.

edit on 5/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So your saying his not a scientist?

What is the definition of scientist in your mind?

Besides you brought him up digger, not that it matters in terms of biology.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

So your saying his not a scientist?

What is the definition of scientist in your mind?

Besides you brought him up digger, not that it matters in terms of biology.

Coomba98


He is an Atheist (with a capital A). We were talking about Atheists, that is why I mentioned him.

My definition of a scientist would be similar to E.O. Wilson's. At a minimum, a scientist would conduct research using the scientific method (by my definition).

edit on 5/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What is your definition of a scientist?

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
You keep making statements that are assumptions without factual support. For instance, how could you know that everyone on ATS is not a 'capital A' Atheist?


I have not heard anybody in this thread make the claim that "there is no god", and that is the reason you are putting burden of proof on atheism, so you are improperly using burden of proof. If nobody makes that claim, you can't hold them to burden of proof. In fact many of us have explained to you that we simply lack belief. Also I can't find your definition for atheist with a capital A anywhere. Sounds to me like an assumption without factual support that you made up. The vast majority of atheists are not the ones you mentioned, so why pigeonhole all atheists into that category? That's like capitalizing the word Scientist and generalizing them all because a small minority of them turn it into a religion.


Every person who is an Atheist is also an atheist. Every person who identifies as religious has a Religion (regardless of their attendance record).


Every Truck is an automobile and every car is an automobile but every truck is not a car. I'm not saying atheists like that don't exist, but they are rare in the grand scheme of things, so asking them for burden of proof is silly. It's like asking a rational Christian to prove the literal story of genesis, when they don't take it literally.


In answer to your initial post, 'faith' and 'trust' interplay but have different meanings. One definition of faith goes like this: "It is the substance of things hoped for, it is the evidence of things unseen", faith is anticipatory and hopeful. One definition of 'trust' is 'belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc'. It is about confidence.

A person may have faith that someone wishes to do the right thing, but may lack trust in the person to actually do so. It is possible to have faith as an anticipation of good, or a pre-granted leniency in the hope that the person will do well, but to still be aware that the person may most likely fail that faith you have in them.

Another way of looking at it is that a person may have faith that their cancer is survivable but have doubt (less trust) that it will be so simple.


Yes, that was my exact point about the word faith, and it was in response to somebody claiming that religious faith is needed to believe science. The 2 definitions are not created equal. One means trust, one means belief. They can't be interchanged on a whim. Science requires trust, religion requires belief.


The "logical flaw" only exists by broadening parts of word definitions and avoiding other parts/definitions.


Now this simply isn't true. It's not about broadening definitions, it's about using the proper definition in the proper context. The 2 definitions do not mean the same thing and can't be used interchangeably. Doing so is equivocation. There could be situations when both definitions apply, but that doesn't mean you can just use the word out of context to imply science requires blind belief, because that was obviously what the person I responded to was trying to do.


edit on 10 5 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

What is your definition of a scientist?

Coomba98


After some consideration, my definition of a 'scientist' would be:

"A qualified person (who has training and certification in science) and performs research using the Scientific Method to add to the body of knowledge discovered by that method (this implies that the scientist passes the information discovered on to relevant parties, which must ALWAYS include other scientists in the same field of study; i.e: their scientific peers)".

edit on 5/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Neigbhbour that looks like a cut and paste. Now that could well be your definition, but I feel you were asked for it in your own words



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So only scientists can be atheist. I know you did not say this. I am asking for clarification.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Neigbhbour that looks like a cut and paste. Now that could well be your definition, but I feel you were asked for it in your own words


But it wasn't, as is evidenced by my redefining and subsequent editing of the post.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join