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: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

How is what I said out of context when I was answering the question you asked???

FYI this Non-Christian knows more than you think because in Catholic Doctrine it is a Mortal Sin. Catholics are considered Christians even though some Christians disagree and Christians aren't considered Catholic.

As far as highlighting how I don't know or should not have commented because it's not true, well it is true and there isn't some objective Truth to religion anyway. So there is nothing wrong with what I said.




Christian views on suicide

There has been much debate over the Christian view on suicide, with early Christians believing that suicide is sinful and an act of blasphemy. In modern times, some Christian churches reject this idea, although others still espouse and teach this view.
en.wikipedia.org...


I must not be too wrong since there is even a wiki page about exactly what I was saying.

and here's this...



In the sixth century AD, suicide became a secular crime and began to be viewed as sinful. In 1533, those who committed suicide while accused of a crime were denied a Christian Burial. In 1562, all suicides were punished in this way. In 1693, even attempted suicide became an ecclesiastical crime, which could be punished by excommunication, with civil consequences following. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas denounced suicide as an act against God and as a sin for which one could not repent.


So say what you want but I'm more right than you're willing to admit.




More right on what, Aquinas, the catholic church, bieng told whart to believe by others, a duck on a string, a follower of all those you see as the leaders
Though many Catholics think the pope is infallible I dont agree with them on that matter

The bible is the chief source, you will need to do more than assume as far as I am concerned to sway my opinion to that of the Papacies opinion. The bible is where you will have to argue with me from in relation to doctrinal matters, certainly not the Catholic churches. I would be paying them money to have my family released from purgatory if i accepted your understanding, more?
Not allowing men in ministry to marry, become deviouts and predator on children if I followed your reasoning, more ?
Maybe following a holy land crusade, hoarding billions of dollars as well as protecting paedophiles, should I go on...more?
The Spanish inquisition...condemning suicides to hell...

Yeah, you are great Mojo, great when you think you have a win, when you think you are right, when you hold the Catholic standards up as the valid standard

To me, its foolish

You should leave your christian teachings to christians
NOWHERE in the bible are people who take their own lives condemned to hell, nowhere, to say so is a lie

What bothers me is you know you dont know, you know you havnt studied christianity, you even have to ask the wife for an opinion, even then you are still arrogant enough to not admit you dont really know
You have to use a sects doctrine to justify your answer, a sect thats irrelevant to me, a sect that all dont believe what you demand I believe you are saying

Foolishness, preaching catholicism as christianity and not even a catholic or christian




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


I'm a person of a very different faith, and I manage to check that at the door to the lab everyday. Not every one can do it however. It also takes being open minded in BOTH directions.

Being (I suppose) an atheist, I come at this from the opposite direction but I fully agree with you. I am entirely willing to remove my Cowl of Godlessness and discuss religious ideas seriously. In fact, I sympathize with a great many of them.

The thing is, I don’t do faith. Belief, sure, especially when there’s something to believe in. But ‘faith’ on Above Top Secret is a badge of identity, not a commitment to anything greater than the faithhead himself or herself.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

May I help?

A mortal sin is one that you don’t want to be forgiven for.

You don’t care about forgiveness because you’re too angry, proud, envious, greedy, gluttonous or horny to stop yourself doing/saying/thinking the sinful deed/word/thought.

Very simple and very sensible, if you believe in that kind of thing.

A lot of people on this site belong to the Church of Troll, don’t you find?



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


NOWHERE in the bible are people who take their own lives condemned to hell, nowhere, to say so is a lie

The Bible is not the only source of Christian doctrine.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raggedyman


NOWHERE in the bible are people who take their own lives condemned to hell, nowhere, to say so is a lie

The Bible is not the only source of Christian doctrine.


That would be an opinion that I dont hold to

Enlighten me, I would be interested as to where you get your information from.

Joe Smith, Ellen White, the Papacy, special revelation, old books found in caves



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

well to me i find it hard to believe that in the beginning there were cells or what ever that created them selves or came into being from no where and had a brain of their own and each and every one of them decided to become a different life form, like this cell wanted to become a dinosaur and the other wanted to become a human and so on.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


That would be an opinion that I dont hold to

Who cares about your opinion? A fact is a fact.


edit on 30/8/16 by Astyanax because: of a troll.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr UAE

You don’t have to believe that. You can believe something sensible instead, like the theory of evolution.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

and what was i talking about



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raggedyman


That would be an opinion that I dont hold to

Who cares about your opinion? A fact is a fact.



Yours is an opinion and you think you can bully it on people

Doesnt work like that,



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Rapha

As an atheist I don't believe in Luciferianism so you are pushing a strawman onto me. Stop painting your beliefs onto me. I don't think the world is in anywhere close to a dire situation right now. In fact I think our world is doing better than it ever has in recorded history.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

Not much point discussing anything with you then, is there?

Check your faith at the door if you want to have a meaningful conversation on this topic.



I appreciate your reply.




posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."


But death is inevitable and the universe is amoral.

How could it be a sin? Such a thing could not exist.


I'm using the word "sin" there as more of a wrong hood than an actual affront to nature like Christianity suggests. Something like "murder is wrong" as well. There are very good reasons not to do these things. Thus it makes them wrong. True the universe is truly amoral and we all die, but that doesn't mean we can't make the place a bit more pleasant for everyone while they are here.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.


The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.
edit on 30-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Since there is no after life, and "We" were just the result of some random cosmic genetic lottery. Are you comfortable with the concept that our consciousness came from nothing before we were born and that after our Deaths we will simply blink out and nothing more?

No, and i really do wish there was more to it than this -- I hope there is. But logically, rationally and scientifically there is no evidence to suggest there is.


If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

Abso-f**king-lutely it is!! Life is precious and that's why people should STOP killing each other in the name of their made up God of faith, and believe in themselves and humanity.


You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

Quite possibly. But not in my lifetime. The human species will evolve into something like that, if we don't kill ourselves first.


If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

No, because you're creating a falsehood in how people of faith explain the origins of God. They say, God "always was and always is". There is not start or end. WIth your example, there is a start for us. So we are not the 'Creators' in the same way you believe in God.

Just my opinion. Cthulhu be praised.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69




If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?


From your OP - Yes we would be creators.



Expand your thoughts in an open and cooperative forum? What, IF YOU WERE THE CREATIVE FORCE WOULD YOU CREATE?


But I already create and certain cells regenerate and are recreated in my body all the time.

I can create any thing I set my mind to. Your questions may be eqaully addressed to atheists or beleivers.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




THIS is why gravitational waves being detected were massive for Physicists.


So until they were detected you were swimming with the philophers? I can see why that would be massive. Hang on, you better not use such a loose descriptor as "massive"




In your mind sure. Peoples uninformed minds are however not what science is based on.


What is a scientist - a convention, a word, a descriptor that has evolved over time.

en.wikipedia.org...


Whewell proposed the word again more seriously (and not anonymously) in his 1840[13] "The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: As we cannot use physician for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a physicist. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist. He also proposed the term physicist at the same time, as a counterpart to the French word physicien. Neither term gained wide acceptance until decades later; scientist became a common term in the late 19th century in the United States and around the turn of the 20th century in Great Britain.[11][14][15] By the twentieth century, the modern notion of science as a special brand of information about the world, practiced by a distinct group and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place. "No one in the history of civilization has shaped our understanding of science and natural philosophy more than the great Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle (384-322 BC), who exerted a profound and pervasive influence for more than two thousand years" —Gary B. Ferngren[16] Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), a pioneer of the scientific method who is considered to be the "Father of Modern Optics, Experimental physics and Scientific methodology"[17] and arguably one of the first scientists.[18][19][20] Alessandro Volta, the inventor of the electrical battery and discoverer of methane, is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists in history. Francesco Redi, referred as the Father of modern parasitology, is the founder of experimental biology. Physicist Albert Einstein developed the general theory of relativity and made many substantial contributions to physics Physicist Enrico Fermi is credited with the creation of the world's first atomic bomb and nuclear reactor. Atomic physicist Niels Bohr, made fundamental contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory Marine Biologist Rachel Carson launched the 20th century environmental movement. The social roles of "scientists", and their predecessors before the emergence of modern scientific disciplines, have evolved considerably over time. Scientists of different eras (and before them, natural philosophers, mathematicians, natural historians, natural theologians, engineers, and other who contributed to the development of science) have had widely different places in society, and the social norms, ethical values, and epistemic virtues associated with scientists—and expected of them—have changed over time as well. Accordingly, many different historical figures can be identified as early scientists, depending on which elements of modern science are taken to be essential. Some historians point to the 17th century as the period when science in a recognizably modern form developed (what is popularly called the Scientific Revolution). It wasn't until the 19th century that sufficient socioeconomic changes occurred for scientists to emerge as a major profession.[21]



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF




Do you live forever by genetic manipulation? Upload your conscience to a computer? Clone yourself? So toss out the question about "which tech" and wonder, "am I worthy of this?". Honesty can be a harsh mistress. That is the time you need to know yourself.


Well it seems "the purpose of life is life" Why wouldnt a creator continue with immortality. There comes a time where through boredom such a creator would wish to forget. The veil of forgetfulness as described in the Kabbalah.

We are gods having a temporary "human experience"
edit on 30-8-2016 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: spell



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




Shouldn't atheists and secular academics and scientists in general, be somewhat uneasy with what they see everyday in their own chosen occupation? I mean it seems to me that's the ultimate goal of science. Mans attempt to replace the creator.


Why would that be a concern - dont forget the creator/s of this existence were people of science - just a science that we havent acheived as yet.
The creators were conveniently replaced often in you Old Testament, depending on the success of warring tribes.



posted on Aug, 30 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




Besides cloning, stem cell research and genetic manipulation off the top. All having been described countless times, by other scientists even. As man playing God. I mean come on.


Why is it alright for one and not the other? God plays favourites - man job is to replace the gods of old.

Based on 15th century thinking you probaly play god everytime you get in a car or take a flu shot.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join