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 have no answers

page: 33
23
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Lol no silly, just Hindu and Christian teachings are vastly in conflict of idea and equally unverifiable.
They can't both be the truth as you call it lol




posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

The ride getting a little bumby sand?



Answer the five ?




They can't both be the truth as you call it lol


Oh that isn't how I call it which is why the question is among five.
edit on Rpm51417v15201700000051 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

No.
I toy with you like my cat does with a mouse that hasn't realised it's #ed yet, but everyone else knows lol



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: randyvs

No.
I toy with you like my cat does with a mouse that hasn't realised it's #ed yet, but everyone else knows lol


Well your nervous lols are only making you seem more upset. And the use of
profanity? Is that not an indicator? Really?

Oh and this is you and I. It has nothing to do with everyone else.
edit on Rpm51417v25201700000001 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on Rpm51417v26201700000011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Unfortunately your amateur psychology fails, I am calm, relaxed, and entertained.
I use profanity and don't attempt to circumnavigate the censor, I break no rules, but remember you can always alert mods if you wish me to stop.
Whining about my profanity is off topic though.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: randyvs

Unfortunately your amateur psychology fails, I am calm, relaxed, and entertained.
I use profanity and don't attempt to circumnavigate the censor, I break no rules, but remember you can always alert mods if you wish me to stop.
Whining about my profanity is off topic though.


Everyone else is off topic and sorry pal but I'm not going
to rat you off. I guess I'm just not feeling toyed with or
#ed yet? Can we get to that part please?



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You've got nothing though, aside from blind faith in a 2000 year old book, basically nothing.

I did have some time for you but your arguments are lame, you have no way of verifying your beliefs to me or anyone else, and you seem to make it up as you go along.

At least I'm consistent.
I do not assert there are no gods.
I have seen nothing in my life to draw me towards believing in any gods.

...and I think our definitions of reasoned and logical discussion differ so wildly that continuing further would be fruitless.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs
Let's get this shaking like a disco ball.... This is your last warning a courtesy call

edit on 14-5-2017 by Observationalist because: Added lyrics



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand




..and I think our definitions of reasoned and logical discussion differ so wildly that continuing further would be fruitless.


Alright sand that's fine.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist




posted on May, 18 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




However I suspect a part of why Churches are flawed is because God gave unclear instructions on how to set them up. I would think if he were a genius that he'd be able to express himself more clearly.


But don't you think he should get credit to his intellect for DNA genome sequencing?
All the coded information? I'm no biologist but it seems like a really awesome
accomplishment for anyone if it's considered in certain terms outside of scientific
parameters. Maybe that's just me?


That is exactly what the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy describes.

You take something that's already there, like DNA, and say "God did this. He is a genius!!!" But there is no evidence that god did it. It could just so happen to be there.

However, when I look at the Bible, which theists just about unanimously attribute to God's intellect, I can search it to see if it looks like the work of a great genius. If it does, then that is evidence in gods favor. If it doesn't, then that is evidence against.



originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: imwilliam

Which silly point?
My lack of belief in gods being dependent on theism? Lol absolutely ridiculous.
I don't believe in pixies, does my lack of belief depend on others believing in them, is my lack of belief a position of faith?
Ridiculous, and you theists almost shame yourselves with your desperation to equate a lack of belief with a faith that gods don't exist.

I don't believe in any gods.
I do not assert gods do not exist just there is nothing to draw me towards believing they do.
My position requires zero faith, but a theists position absolutely requires faith.


What probability do you assign to the existence of Pixies?

If you want to discuss people who are truly absolutely 100% certain there is a god, then you're just talking nonsense. (The number of people in that position who exist is probably the same as the number of pixies that exist.)

People claim to believe in god are people who have faith that god exists. People who assign a greater than 50% probability to the existence of god. Nobody in that group can assign a 100% probability. Just a probability greater than 50%, but less than 100%.

The same goes for Athiests. The number of people who can say with perfect 100% certainty that there is no all powerful creator god out there is also about equal to the number of pixies.


But in order to be truthful when you say you "hold no opinion", you must therefore assign exactly 50% probability to the question. Not 51%. Not 49%.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Lol, you don't know any of that, thanks for sharing your beliefs though.



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Even God can't say god exists with 100% probability. Maybe he's just dreaming that he's god?

It is a scientific fallacy to claim that anything can be known with 100% certainty.

That is why no scientific belief ever gets past the point of being called a "theory".



posted on May, 18 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs


Does anyone know the origin of the word: "atheist"?
Does it have any other meaning, than to describe a person whom is not a theist?
Is there any other relative meaning to the word: "atheist"; that could stand alone without theism?
And why does it get to break the rule: "i before e, except after c"?
Hmmm: same question for the word: "theist"? (Thanks to spellchecker, because keep spelling them wrong. LoL)
Why is any of it important?

Peace.
edit on 18-5-2017 by Nothin because: Punctuation



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I think the word probably was invented at a time when not believing in a god or gods was considered extraordinary.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Theists, you choose faith instead of rational thought. There's no rationality in this and you're simply brainwashed (from a young age) or have desperately looked for anything that'd fill a void in your lives after some sort of tragedy. If it wasn't for the fact that religion's pushed onto children at an impressionable age there'd hardly be anyone who believes in it.

Imagine going through life without hearing anything of religion until you're 20 yrs old and then someone coming along and telling you about the x-men powers that Moses and God had, and that it's definitely all true because there's a book written by man about it, the preacher would be laughed at, rightly so.

Also, I see brainwashing kids into believing in religion as child abuse, I think it's okay to teach kids ''about'' religion maybe, but not to believe in it. It should at least be illegal to teach children to believe in religion until they can really think for themselves. Will we see that happen? Nope. Do we know why? Yep. Get em' when they're young hey? Because most sane adults wouldn't believe it unless it was instilled into them from a very young age, I'm just glad the kiddy brainwashing doesn't work on all of us, just on those that are susceptible to brainwashing, cult fodder. Okay, some people start believing when they're adults but the seed was already planted and it's usually after some kind of highly traumatic experience. Also, if you don't question your faith, you're a blind believer, I often question my beliefs, it's healthy, you should try it but you won't because of blind faith, which is so unhealthy because it leaves you no room to grow. You're all happy to stay in your little faith boxes but to never question is to remain stagnant in thought.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 0rbital

What constitutes brainwashing?

How would a Sunday morning with untrained volunteers compete with this Saturday morning, fully funded and expertly trained mind f# programing, like this.





edit on 20-5-2017 by Observationalist because: Forgot to add "like this". To eager to post that vid I guess.




top topics



 
23
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join