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.

 

Atheists are right...

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary? Much of what is in the Bible seems like made up fairy tales with no modern day evidence supporting it. So are atheists right? Since there's no evidence for God's existence and people who don't go to church behave just a moral as those who do go to church whats the point of believing in God?


The reason is that we are basically no better than monkey's. Monkey see, Monkey do mentality, so religion's give a foundation for people to fall back on and follow, unfortunately to many things have gotten twisted in religions.

Although I don't subscribe to any religion, or believe in one particular dogma I believe it helps many people keep their sanity in this chaotic world, however it's a double edged sword, and some bad people use religions for selfish reason's.

So in conclusion religions help to dictate a way of life, and provide a subjective moral compass.
edit on 3-12-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't thibk you understand why that is false.

Philosphically it's false.

QM wise it is false.

Therefore your statement is false.

If you mean once you observe reality then sure but your saying because the moon is there when you look again and can explain it through further observation and make predictions it must always be real.

I assure you there is sound theory, math, expirment, etc saying there may be another model and explanation.

The only thing you can prove is your observations of the universe. Can you explain how you report about something you didn't measure?

Again this argument has no support. The fact that things are the way they are is also perfectly explained within the Copenhagen and similar models.


in regard to your example of the moon, that is basically what i am saying. just because everyone on earth looks away for a day or so doesnt mean the moon stops existing or stops orbiting. you seem to be suggesting that if everyone ignored the contents of the sky and focused their attention on whatever is happening here on earth, everything in the sky would just wink out of existence. thats ridiculous. your laymans appreciation for quantum mechanics is underdeveloped and poorly informed. but that can be said for most people, including those who study it for a living. that's why it is still being studied. thats what makes it fun, discovering new things and turning old ideas on their head.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

luthier.

Calm down there dont get your panties in a knot. Talk a deep breath and realise that you can misinterpret a mood of a post due it it being words on a screen.

Question. Where have I been a strawman? Show me the posts dont just say it. Dont think you understand the definition.

I know you fail to actually say you believe that reality would not exist if there is no conscious observer, but your posts all imply that is your belief.

You have said time and again on this thread that reality would not exist if theres no conscious observer.


By luthier
The biggest issue for me is how can something exist without observers? This is more a thought expirment then some rigid belief.

My human weak Anthropic cosmic perspective sees no purpose in a cosmos without observation as a possibility.


Coomba98
edit on 3-12-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

All empty words. You have chose to not debate the content of any of my comments.

Also have not pointed out any falacy.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: luthier

luthier.

Calm down there dont get your panties in a knot. Talk a deep breath and realise that you can misinterpret a mood of a post due it it being words on a screen.

Question. Where have I been a strawman? Show me the posts dont just say it. Dont think you understand the definition.

I know you fail to actually say you believe that reality would not exist if there is no conscious observer, but your posts all imply that is your belief.

You have said time and again on this thread that reality would not exist if theres no conscious observer.


By luthier
The biggest issue for me is how can something exist without observers? This is more a thought expirment then some rigid belief.

My human weak Anthropic cosmic perspective sees no purpose in a cosmos without observation as a possibility.


Coomba98


The strawman everytime you say I believe this as in a religious belief.

You form an entire argument based on a premise I am not making and avoid to adress the topic.


The paragraph you chose is prime example of your lack of comprehension.

So you are saying superposition is impossible?

That Shoerdinger was right to question Copenhagen his expirment worked meaning he proved his point?

Or has new technology led us to new measurements and more information? Have they started to prove superposition is a real possibility?








edit on 3-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

All empty words. You have chose to not debate the content of any of my comments.

Also have not pointed out any falacy.




i have pointed out a couple different problems with your 'observers universe' but im not interested in discussing technical details because I know you are not here to have your mind changed. you are here to do the changing of minds and that wont happen either.
edit on 3-12-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
That is why we erect a six foot aluminum pole with high tensile strength, to remind us that any erection is good.







posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I am for sure. To be challenged. The fact that you can't debate facts just goes to show you have no idea what the topics even are.

Your stating things about QM that just are not true, your also expressing ideas that are not in line with actual scientific behaviour or knowledge.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

I am for sure. To be challenged. The fact that you can't debate facts just goes to show you have no idea what the topics even are.

Your stating things about QM that just are not true, your also expressing ideas that are not in line with actual scientific behaviour or knowledge.


you are here to be challenged so you can prove your ideas are not easily refuted. which is to say, that your mind is not easily changed. you have demonstrated that, well done. i am not attempting to refute QM i was pointing out flaws in your reasoning as far as observers affecting reality. in any case, the op is about the moral basis for theology vs atheism, do you have anything to say about that?
edit on 3-12-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

luthier,

When you say things like:


By luthier
The biggest issue for me is how can something exist without observers?


Or


By luthier
If zero conscious observers exist reality no longer exists. Period. Reality is a construct of consciousness.


You kind of imply that is your belief.

But then you confuse things with things like 'it seems' or 'possibility' which contradict your above quotes.

How about being alittle more intellectually honest with us. And you call me a strawman! (incorrectly)

Superposition has been proven in some form or another, im pretty sure. From my understanding this applies to QM not macro physics which is what the context of this discussion is about.

Coomba98



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary? Much of what is in the Bible seems like made up fairy tales with no modern day evidence supporting it. So are atheists right? Since there's no evidence for God's existence and people who don't go to church behave just a moral as those who do go to church whats the point of believing in God?


I don't know. Growing up in East Germany where there was no God mentioned ever, I do remember how I immediately took to the idea of God when I saw a little girl once pray in a movie. I was little back then, too and the idea of someone being there detached from this world and maybe with a good heart made me feel very soothed.
I have never studied the bible, but I do find it hard to believe that there should be no higher power at all considering how the world in it's perfect natural state is. I often think if everything that is only existed for a purpose, lets say the flower is there so the bees can get honey ... then the flower didn't have to be beautiful. It could just as well be a square little box. Ugly. Animals could be ugly too if it was all just about function, trees. But the world (without most things the human adds to it) is so beautiful.
I do believe that there had to be some conscience and heart to create all that. But to believe in a God that judges ... that is hard for me because then everyone who is doing bad stuff would have to be punished right away (because only that would sound justly to me) and that is not the case. So I can only think that the image of God that many have might not be the right one. There seems to be creative energy but not a judge.

Also ... the point of believing ... I guess it depends on what you believe in. If you believe in good hearts (of people, not even God) it might just give you a nicer feeling everyday than thinking the entire world is bad, bad, bad. It's about you.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: dfnj2015



Religion is not necessary if you don't believe it's necessary. It's a choice.

If you think the bible is made up fairy tales then don't read the bible. No one that I know forces you to read the bible. It's a choice.

Believing God is a choice.


Not all religions are a choice. Some religions believe that if you do not believe, you should be killed. In the middle ages, Christianity practiced in this manner. In the current day and age, another major religion has radical followers that practice that. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor religions, not just christianity, to ensure that they do not trample on the rights of others.

I grew up in a strict Christian family. I believed, I wanted to believe, I studied the bible and many religions intensely. Then, after realizing the madness of it all, I just stopped. For those that want to believe, please do so. If it gives you comfort, great. But, the moment that any one starts imposing their religion on others, it needs to stop. Imposing religion includes but is not limited to; stopping gay marriage, stopping early term abortions, forcing genders to wear specific clothing, preventing genders from intermingling, killing apostates, imposing sharia law, burning nonbelievers at the stake, invoking war in the name of god and on and on and on. I am against abortion. Notice I said early term abortion. At some point, a choice has been made.

Religion has been used to explain the unexplainable. It has been used to provide guidance on how to live a good life. These are all positives. It has also been used to control the masses and pacify the insubordinate. The divinity of Christ was voted on at the Council of Nicaea. Many early Christians believed that Jesus the Son of God, was something less than the Father, the true almighty god. Via a vote, Jesus was given equal status and doctrine was put in place and the world has never been the same. Then, Islam came along with a competing message that inspired millions. Judaism sprang up in the same part of the world prior to that. Coincidence? Not, just a bunch of fanatics in that part of the world and everyone believed them. Its not more complicated than that, no matter how much anyone wants it to be so.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesusXst
a reply to: dfnj2015

People feel compelled to Govern each other.


If that is true, wouldn't it be true that people also feel compelled to be governed?
edit on 3-12-2016 by 3daysgone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

One can't understand God unless one is touched by God, plain and simple. I would propose that the majority of the religious in the world were inculcated into their religion. They do not actually understand "why" they believe, but they do "because".

Lack of knowledge or perception of something does not negate the "thing" - in this case, a Creator. To state "Atheists are right..." means to implicate that one understands the breadth of God and has decided that God does not exist. In a sense, to say that God does not exist, implicates that one can somehow fathom that which is outside ones conceivable reality.

Now that the logic is laid out, let's make clear that Atheism is not the belief that a God does not exist, but an understanding that one does not have enough information to say "God exists". Again, no one can make the claim that God does not exist as we are confined to the limits of our conceptualization, which is temporal-bound.

Now, about morality...define it for me... If you look up the actual definition, it's quite ambiguous and relative to certain ideals.

Who decides what is "right conduct" or "acceptable behavior"?

I've been around long enough to see the world slowly dip into depravity, not because suddenly people lost their morals, but because morality has been redefined by each successive generation. Morality is a set of invisible rules that one invents for oneself as what is inherently "good" or "bad". You could say an immoral act is an act that one could not do under any circumstances because it goes against the grain of ones being. The problem with this statement, is that it assumes we are all cut from the same stone. We are individuals and as such, our "grain" is very much different.

What one person considers amoral, another person considers normal. Let that sink in for a bit, because that's the world we live in and these are the people around us.

Religion confines its church to a single moral standard, not because it's the "right" way, but because it prevents chaos; there is no infighting about what is "right" or "wrong", only who did what and why. That being said, the nature of modern religion breeds plenty of its own chaos, regardless of its moral standards, but that's another topic entirely. It is a control mechanism and nothing more.

Mankind will continue down this path of depravity until all our lives are whims, deprived of any meaning or substance; our Father will prevent this demise, but not before things get much worse.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum

which father? horus? shangdi? Zeus? odin? allah? these are all equally viable figures and historically momentous. i left a few names out for the sake of brevity, but you get the point.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
atheism is just another belief system, it's a belief that nothingness exist... but you cannot prove nothingness exist, it's a logical paradox



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary?

Morality?
From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!

You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"


Much of what is in the Bible seems like made up fairy tales with no modern day evidence supporting it. So are atheists right? Since there's no evidence for God's existence and people who don't go to church behave just a moral as those who do go to church whats the point of believing in God?

The sinsanity/vanity of 'morality' transcends churches and creeds and beliefs... and speaks straight to man's basic nature, his 'identity', his 'ego/thoughts' with which he identifies (unless Enlightened/unconditionally Loving)!
And 'believing' is the same insanity, an egoic malware.
In the Xtian tradition, Jesus taught that 'belief' was of no account, but the experiencing/Knowing of unconditional Love identified his followers!

'Ethics', on the other hand, is not born of conditional duality, like 'morality', but of unconditional Love!
An 'ethic' would be;
"Do not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you!"

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

No judgment involved.

And the vast majority of 'atheists' will tell you that "God does not exist"!
That is the same logically/scientifically unsupportable, belief ridden, assertion as "God does exist", which at least has some logic in support.
The only intellectually honest position, barring actual mystical experience, is Agnosticism, an open mind waiting for what it is willing to consider as 'evidence', one way or another.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

namelesss,

Your changing the definitions there. You made the definition of Agnosticism what the definition of Atheism is and then totally forgot the word Gnostic.

Definitions of knowledge:
1. Gnostic: Has knowledge of god/s.
2. Agnostic: Without the knowledge of god/s.

Definitions of god beliefs:
1. Theism: Has a belief in god or gods.
2. Atheism: Without the belief in god or gods. Pending demonstrable evidence.

Gnostic and Agnostic do not deal with beliefs but knowledge.

So when you use the correct definitions the only intellectually honest position, is Atheism, an open mind waiting for what it is willing to consider as 'evidence', one way or another.

Hope that helps.

Coomba98
edit on 4-12-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: namelesss

namelesss,

Your changing the definitions there. You made the definition of Agnosticism what the definition of Atheism is and then totally forgot the word Gnostic.

In the world of a 'believer' being a theist, and 'atheists' being just as belief dependent on their claim that there is no God, the exact other side of the theist mirror, again, the agnostic is as I said, open minded and awaiting his 'evidence'.
There is the occasional 'atheist' who will not claim that there is no God, and that he is just waiting for evidence, but then he is an agnostic.
Gnostic is irrelevant in this. There is the believers, and the belief free agnostic.


Definitions of knowledge:
1. Gnostic: Has knowledge of god/s.
2. Agnostic: Without the knowledge of god/s.

Those are not definitions of Knowledge, they are sentences using the word.
Knowledge = experience.


Definitions of god beliefs:
1. Theism: Has a belief in god or gods.
2. Atheism: Without the belief in god or gods. Pending demonstrable evidence.

And the reality of atheism is that the vast majority of self described atheists claims that there is no God.
That is the expression of a belief, not a lack of belief!


Gnostic and Agnostic do not deal with beliefs but knowledge.

Sorry, you err.
Agnosticism deals with lack of Knowledge.
The agnostic patiently awaits Knowledge/experience!
With it, he is a theist.
As far as Gnosticism, I have read the Gnostic gospels many years ago. I'm not sure how much Knowledge/experience one gains from intellectualism/books.
I do not see Gnosticism in the equation.
It is your 'definitions' that fall short.

Hope that helps.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary? Much of what is in the Bible seems like made up fairy tales with no modern day evidence supporting it. So are atheists right? Since there's no evidence for God's existence and people who don't go to church behave just a moral as those who do go to church whats the point of believing in God?


Bruh is not the content of one specific religion that matters if religion is needed to have civilizations obey laws. Which you you can assume points basic guidelines to what's morally acceptable and not acceptable.

Anything that isn't acceptable is supposed to be illegal because people get angry over things they find unacceptable and therefore punishable.

The fact that you even have to try to pin such a non obligatory... but mandatory process to have a functioning society on the validity of religions existence and the populations tolerance of it is your inability to understand that as i mentioned, the content is irrelevant. What's important is that you have the right, under wide spread belief and mutual understanding of these beliefs. That you as an individual, are entitled to believe what ever you want to believe so long as it does not breach the ground of something unacceptable and punishable.

What you are asking in essence, by bringing up such an example. Is if religion is necessary, yes it is absolutely necessary. More so, it is more necessary to believe in what you want to believe in.
Even if you outlawed all religion, the enforcing laws/its economy/its identity and social taboos and rituals/ are all part of an underlining doctrain some written some unwritten, of its very own religion which requires faithful followers in order to function. Money is a religion as they say, which it totally is. As there are other economies that exist and be used on a global scale that functions differently from the monetary system.

The monetary system itself is an organized religion, requiring billions of people to put their faith in credits that hold no real intrinsic value, except that it's followers put faith in digital and ink numbers printed on paper and plastic.

But regardless, do you understand what this all means OP?
Your freedom to believe is important. If you choose to believe in a God, multipul Gods, no gods, concepts like greed, vanity, creationism, nihilism, ect are all up to you. So long as you live in a country that allowed to have your own beliefs within an acceptable boundary.

So what though if the bible god dosn't exist. You don't have to not be a christian to believe in a creator, or creators.
Hell, by definition, humanity is a species of creators. All we do is create, from art to writing, to engineering, putting our concepts into manipulation of the universe around us. We are even artificially creating life, what does it mean to be an atheist, if humans create another humanlike species that calls us their Gods?
I mean, how much closer do you want to get to meeting god when us as a species would be indirectly doing such a beings will.

What if another species created us? and so they would be our Gods, and what if something created that species? what if the chain of creations being created by creators creating more creations just keeps on going?
Wouldn't it just be as simple to say if such a thing happens, that there is some great plan in effect?
You can believe in not believing that one entity created the entire universe, but you can't ignore that science has proven that creationism is very much a thing, so is evolution. Both things can and do happen in the universe and can be easily found.




edit on am120000003116Sun, 04 Dec 2016 06:22:17 -0600 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join