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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: dfnj2015



whats the point of believing in God?

Does there need to be a point ??

Why can't people just enjoy the things that give them joy without others feeling the need to question it ?

You wanna ban questions now?
Why are you on a discussion forum then, are you advocating that people should not question religions now?
You know, from Abrahamic to Zoroastrian and every conflicting belief in between?
ATS is not the place for you if you are seeking an echo chamber.
edit on 4.12.2016 by grainofsand because: tag issues fixed




posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
It may appear so in your current atheist life. May be you will get a near death experience that will convince you otherwise. Not all NDEs are convincing enough.

Anyway, hopefully all will be revealed for you after you die in the distant future. Why i say hopefully, because some are trapped in this dimension (by their earthly desires, unbelief or violent/sudden death) or even the dark grey void.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: everyonedies
because some are trapped in this dimension (by their earthly desires, unbelief or violent/sudden death) or even the dark grey void.


You got any verifiable evidence to support such an assertion?
No you have nothing but unsubstantiated belief/faith, perhaps stop asserting it as fact?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Coomba when I say it seems as if.

You seriously have no idea how to read or comprehend words.

It's because it does seem as if.

It's not my fault you are not up to date on science.

It's not my fault you ignored any links to actual papers or historic and well respected scientists.

What i get out of this is you don't understand how to be agnostic. It has to be all or nothing.

You have a lot of reading to do if you want to have an honest debate and not use highschool level science to back up your arguments

You singled me out and attacked my statements but I proved you wrong several times over. You just chose to ignore the links, the concepts, and the discussion.

This is literally a field I have studied for decades. Certainly not the technical aspect but from the philosphical standpoint. I did so in academia, my wife is a research scientist at a university, my brother was a 2 doctorate particle physicist who went to UT, Mcgill, and U of Chicago for free on his brain. He also worked in Fermi lab before becoming a weather modellor.

Literally sourounded by academics.

I could point you to hundreds of peer reviewed papers and journals and actually already started to your just too busy to read them.

I am sorry if your relaity may be different then you thought but, don't say your being scientific by calling it bS. Everything I have mentioned can being found for real, in real journals, by real science.

Again the reason you say possibly an may be in science is because its a theory.

And if you don't understand that reality is a constrcut of consciousness you need to go to 101.

How would reality be observed without observations?

What you don't get is science can not make predictions without measurements.

If no one is there to measure anything how would you know of its existence?

If you need help figuring out try ever existed. If no consciousness ever existed who would consider what reality is?

Reality is unknowable by the way.

We can only know what our senses report and mind can understand. We don't understand the object of study as they are.

This is what Kant calls Neomena and phenomena
edit on 4-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: coomba98

I could point you two hundreds of peer reviewed papers and journals and actually already started to your just too busy to read them.


Bahahaha!
You got peer reviewed papers to support claims of gods???
Go on, share them with ATS lol, you have nothing but unverifiable belief/faith.
Oh my gosh, thanks for the laugh though!



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

You need to keep up with my comments. I haven't mentioned gods at all.

Just that a creator is possible. Like one that made a simulation.

I did mention the concept of God in its philsophical arguments.

If you would like to debate somwthing I actually said then go right on.


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



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: grainofsand

You need to keep up with my comments. I haven't mentioned gods at all.

Just that a creator is possible. Like one that made a simulation.

I did mention the concept of God in its philsophical arguments.

If you would like to debate somwthing I actually said then go right on.



just because you are avoiding using the word god doesnt mean you arent talking about a god. splitting hairs...

a reply to: luthier

and have you asked them about how philosophy is studied in an actual lab? have they informed you as to the practical testing, measuring, and recording of philosophical implications and confirming or refuting them? what were their comments on the whole observers universe thing, did they agree with you in explicit terms? did they say it was possible, or did they say probable? and what are their views on moral basis in theology vs atheism?
edit on 4-12-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Because it's very possible there is a designer. Science has not been any closer to disproving this. In fact many scientists think we are in a simulation

And I am not so scarred by religeon that I confuse a logical argument for a designer vs a magick man or beast.

Also I keep saying it is a possibility. Which indicates not a belief.

Hey since you guys who have no reference at all to your argument,...how do you explain superposition in objects you can see?


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



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Oh okay, just that consideration of God claims is absolutely required in a thread discussing atheists.
I'll leave you to your 'simulation' beliefs.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Oh okay, just that consideration of God claims is absolutely required in a thread discussing atheists.
I'll leave you to your 'simulation' beliefs.


You can write words but when they are meaningless well they have no meaning

It's funny that you discredit science that scares your beliefs.

So yeah a creator is just as possible as any other theory.

You don't need magick wands to create.

Can you honestly say humans will never have the knowledge to create a solor system?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Because it's very possible there is a designer. Science has not been any closer to disproving this. In fact many scientists think we are in a simulation

And I am not so scarred by religeon that I confuse a logical argument for a designer vs a magick man or beast.

Also I keep saying it is a possibility. Which indicates not a belief.

Hey since you guys who have no reference at all to your argument,...how do you explain superposition in objects you can see?



you are again splitting hairs. arguing for the possibility of a designer vs defending belief in a theological entity. the two are very similar ideas, semantic quibbling aside. possibility is not probability.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I just have fun posting things that scare rigid beliefs like there is no God or there is only God.

Most of you don't even study this stuff they are completely just opinions based on some religeon life scar. :

Also not similar ideas.

This is why they have the basic areas for arguments for god. None of them are the same and are all different then because my mom told me Jesus is real.

Again the fact you don't see the difference of intent points to your lack of scientific analysis.
edit on 4-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Ya reply to: luthier

What is a solor system?
And who is disputing science?
Not me, now quit inventing silliness to the conversation if you wish me to respond.
Your debating style appears childlike.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Maybe read the past comments.

Speaking of childish your first post to me didn't even relate to anything I posted.

Sorry of you don't like being called out.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


I just have fun posting things that scare rigid beliefs like there is no God or there is only God.


ah, trolling then. posting things you dont really believe to get reactions out of people. can we get back to the topic as outlined in the op?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yeah, you banging on about a designer instead of a god. I don't disagree the possibility of either, but with no verifiable evidence to support such claims I don't believe in either.

And on topic, my lack of belief in gods gives me the default label of atheist. I'm not sure what my lack of belief in a designer would be labelled...perhaps you could enlighten me?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

It would be just somwthing you don't feel is true regardless of hundreds of expirment and observations.

Now this is not a slight. There are plenty of peer reviewed things that don't require believing.


My point (and I am technically an agnostic atheist who ponders spinoza and thinks about pantheism and deism) is that the tone of atheist acting superior or vice versus is absolutley vile. Quatum Mechanics leaves a lot of room for deviating what we think reality is. Ontology has changed with physics. They still work closely together because the scientists don't have the same training in reading falsifiability as data oriented technical lab workers. The way cosmology and ontology work is those two fields exchange info and theories. Philospher have an important job decerning the meaning of the data which leads the scientists to design new tests. Some great achievers are both. Like sam harris.

What I am saying is atheists and theists shold be humble because reality is becoming measured in a whole new way. Last year for instance a visable object was created in superposition. For me this causes months of thinking what that means.

Then come in here and listen to people chide each over middle school topics. I get attacked for pointing out be careful what you say.

God has logical arguments, meaning it makes sense even if you call the necessary being a banana and it peels every six years. Because it's a model that explains how somwthing could always exist or somwthing has to always exist to have say pushed the big bang or squeezed the big squeeze. Maybe a little god in the gaps but that is no reason to say it's illogical.

This how guys working at CERN smashing atoms can be atheist or theist and still design an expirment.
edit on 4-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Cool, I'm agnostic with designer claims then, what's your argument?
Anyone who states there is no god or designer is lying as much as one who states there is.
Neither claim can be verified.
We appear to be in agreement yet I perceive you as agitated in your reply.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Well I am sorry lots of coffee and really having people use science like the bible. The myths and legends are more important than the messages, history, or observations.

Science unlike the bible changes rapidly. Lots of applied science minded people can be "religeous" about the quantum world being separate completely. Segregation if you will. I would think Hiroshima changed that but, doesnt seem so.


I guess my point is the "there is no God because of science" isnt a good one.

Science isnt interested with God unless it's a human based expirment in psychology perhaps.

But,..sound philospher who may also be sound scientists may interpret the information and wonder if that means there could be a god, or the opposite like well I guess that explains that supernatural event.
edit on 4-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Not trolling just pointing out science doesn't make claims about God and a theist can use it the same way an atheist would to make claims.

The truth of the matter is if you have asked for proof from a theist from a god claim (that isn't purely design based) your accepting a metaphysical debate and you can very well loose( by some one like William Lane Craig who is a master at catching your logical mistakes, especially if you get flustered by what I consider nonsense). Metaphysics is a gentleman's debate. There are no clear winners just falacy. Science doesn't always hold up because of the nature of metaphysics. That doesn't make science superior from a mental or social standpoint.

Morality ultimately comes from either authority or the social contract.

I pick the social contract.
edit on 4-12-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join