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.

 

Athiests vs The Religious Conspiracy... Explain to Me Why Believers Believe.

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5

originally posted by: wmd_2008 forced to learn at school, then forced to go to church


this was my early experience of religion and no doubt helped me decide to junk the whole concept.

not my bag.


Same here. My parents dragged me to church a lot and then made me go through Confirmation classes. Not long afterwards I took my Scripture O-Level. The resulting research for both events made me an atheist, a position that further research over the next 30 years has only deepened.




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Why do christians use their beliefs to push legislation through our government?


Why are you asking me,I can't explain 90% of the stuff people do??
Ask them.

That is a perfect example of people not living and letting others live though.
People push their stuff outwardly onto people...doesn't that say something about them not allowing or respecting others right to have their own opinions?

People are busy looking at others instead of themselves,that is the problem.
Don't worry about other's afterlife experiences or beliefs are....worry about yours.

Its a personal thing.

To be fair...other religions do it too,so don't be banging on just one religious group.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I would like to see someone explain the fine tuning problem ie: Higgs Boson mass, cosmological constant etc, without invoking the unscientific strong anthropic principal and infinite universes to "explain" it.

Fine tuning in order so that this life we experience is made possible?

Must be a far flung throw the dice at the top of an infinite number of universes that didn't make it or that exist with different laws of physics but that remain forever hidden away.

Yeah, right.

Has anyone pointed out that to avoid the implication of an Architect, murdering science and scientific inquiry isn't the most rational thing to do?

edit on 27-11-2017 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I believe in an omniscient, omnipotent system and I don't have much issue calling it "God." I think that label has some nuances that are applicable.

I think that as humans, or maybe just life forms with a certain level of intelligence, it is necessary to understand the "world" through abstractions and representative constructs.

Historically, God and Gods tended to be used to point to behavior and events that were actually "there." In modern times, we do pretty much the same thing and even though our abstractions have greater predictive ability, we are still limited. In thousands of years, it may even be that the things we hold as self-evident, complete "truth" now will be seen much as we view ancient pantheons of Gods.

Yet, theyare all systems to explain and ideally gain useful, predictive understanding of existence. In the context of each paradigms cultural context, we even see many of the same attitudes ranging from zealotry, to condescending dismissal, to condescending acceptance, to acceptance of the notion that "now, we've got it all down and understood!"

Pretty interesting cycle, really, and one we seem incapable of growing beyond.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Why would you accept those axioms though? Especially since many of the claims in the bible cannot be tested or can simply be shown to be impossible. Talking animals, jesus healing the blind and leperous? Walking on water, the dead rising from their graves. Amidst these claims, we know to be impossible, why would you accept them as true?

Humans also have words for things we know do not exist.

I can accept the moral implications of Aesop's stories without having to accept that these animals were actually running around playing out these stories. Just as i can accept some of the moral lessons that the character of jesus was meant to portray, without accepting that he was a magician or that he could perform miracles and raise the dead.

If you remove the claims that are obviously absurd, you are left with a moral interpretation that matches the beliefs of the people of the time and place of the supposed events.

These morals can all be found in previous cultures and in far more detail than what is depicted as being given to Moses on the mountain by god. If these ideas were available to the people before this time then that directly opposes the stories of the old testament claims that these ideas were divine.
edit on 27-11-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think the idea of whether or not a Supreme Creator exists needs to be separated from the idea of organized religion.

Organized religion is a human construct, and as such organized religion could exist even if a "God" (or some form of Supreme Being) does NOT exist.

On the other hand, hypothetically we could live in a world that is totally devoid of organized religion; i.e., all 7 billion of us could be atheists... but a Supreme Being could still exist.

So people could shoot all of the arrows they want into Christianity or Hinduism or Judism or whatever other organized religions are out there, but even the best arguments against organized religions doesn't mean there isn't a God. Conversely, nor does support of organized religion mean there is a God.

If there is a supreme creator, that creator exists above and beyond organized religion (and I don't know if there is a supreme creator or not; if I did "Know" then that would make me that one special person in all of human history who does "Know").


edit on 27/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BStoltman

I'm not an atheist per se, but I would expect that what I believe regarding "God" is a far leap from any religion, which makes me quite happy. That being said, why would I care what reasons anyone has to be a follower of any religion, of no religion, or is of the belief that there is no God? When it comes to religion, you do you, and I'll keep on doing what I'm doing.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: BStoltman
I began my personal journey in this life, believing in the "God" of the Bible. I read every word of the Bible, and took it so seriously that I even attained a mediocre ability to read the text in its original Hebrew & Greek Language. My journey into this turned me into an Atheist. Let me make this clear, The reading of the Bible literally turned me Atheist.

I have always wondered, if people who claim to be of a professed religious ideal actually read their own text. What makes you believe in a God if you do? I am honestly curious about it. An interesting video I saw that made me ponder this question again now was:



Do you believe in good and evil? And why? If there is no moral authority, then there is no such thing as an evil act.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The "Golden Rule" does not depend on the existence of God. There is a clear Humanistic morality that exists with or without God.

I don't need to believe that God exists for me to know that humans should treat each other with respect and to value life.



edit on 27/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
I would like to see someone explain the fine tuning problem ie: Higgs Boson mass, cosmological constant etc, without invoking the unscientific strong anthropic principal and infinite universes to "explain" it.

Fine tuning in order so that this life we experience is made possible?

Must be a far flung throw the dice at the top of an infinite number of universes that didn't make it or that exist with different laws of physics but that remain forever hidden away.

Yeah, right.

Has anyone pointed out that to avoid the implication of an Architect, murdering science and scientific inquiry isn't the most rational thing to do?
These notions are barely understood by the people who study them. The work that goes into the observations that become the theories, is mathematical formulas. The formulas are the theory. Not the explanations of what those theory may imply. This is a huge problem with trying to explain these formulas to lay people. It turns into metaphors and similes which do not properly describe the formulas. Therefor much of what people believe that science claims is simply a bad interpretation of the raw data, or just an attempt to get people interested in the ideas.

Words like dark matter and quantum mechanics are merely place holders for an observation that we do not really understand. Lay people then use these terms to push ideas that are very far from the actual observations.

The only way to understand these highly complex ideas, is to study them for a lifetime, knowing that these ideas will change as more information is observed.

The entire notion of fine-tuning is one of these problems. However if you think about it, if the "tuning" were any different, The universe would simply look different than it does now. It just so happens that it looks the way it does to us because that is the way it happened. If it happened any other way it would simply look different. our way of life may have never occurred, but who's to say that another way of life isn't possible.
edit on 27-11-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
a reply to: BStoltman

I'm not an atheist per se, but I would expect that what I believe regarding "God" is a far leap from any religion, which makes me quite happy. That being said, why would I care what reasons anyone has to be a follower of any religion, of no religion, or is of the belief that there is no God? When it comes to religion, you do you, and I'll keep on doing what I'm doing.
Because religious people use their beliefs to enact legislation which becomes laws that you have to live by. A lot of their beliefs are based on untestable claims. Wouldn't you rather your laws be based on testable and repeatable observations? In my town I can't buy alcohol on Sundays, pawnshops are not allowed to be open on Sundays, religious groups petition our government to change the laws on abortion or free speech every year
edit on 27-11-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I disagree that any untestable claim can be inserted, there has to be something at stake for the wager to have a point to it, at the very least. If we take Russel's Teapot for example, that doesn't work here. I have nothing to loose or gain by believing or disbelieving in the teapot.

Honestly, I'd say Pascal's Wager absolutely requires this asymmetry between risks and rewards; you've got the eternal reward and earthly sacrifices of believing, and the earthly gains but eternal loss of not believing. Of course it doesn't have to be a specific God, I never said that and AFAIK Pascal never specified any particular God, but there are some assumptions made about his nature. Also, if you have many, jealous Gods then it invalidates Pascal's Wager to some extent.

I'm just saying; Pascal's Wager doesn't prove God. And it's kind of really specific, so I think you can't apply it to the original comment that started this subtopic.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Well I don't have any knowledge of God or faith in him, so can't really help you there. To be fair I'm agnostic, but I'd say I'm still off the hook for this one.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I'm glad someone actual read and thought about my post!

I'm not promoting a particular dogma. The one you have is just fine.

The purpose of religion is to provide a map on how to live one's life. And to provide answers to the four great existential unanswerable questions:

1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die?

As I was saying I was not trying to promote a particular dogma. But religion provides axioms, or concrete answers, to the four great unanswerable existential questions. People are uncomfortable with uncertainty. People want certainty. That is why people create dogma.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Rhodin

And many of us who have had our experiences over the years, the ones that convince He is there, have felt that feeling. Mine was several years ago, and I still get choked up thinking about that feeling you describe.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
OK!
humans got intelligent.
"this was the biggest mistak the humans Ever make"
so they had the bigest question Ever. WHY?
why am I here. why dose the sun/moon come up why does that hurt?
they blame the first person they see and hit them!

but they began to see this was not so.
but that never did stop them hiting each other!
they came up with imps fairies small gods and other things
to put the blame on for all that happens.

they put gifts/food out for them.
it seemed to work! suggestion is very poweful.
and if you think some one will Make your life beter.
you Will be happier. so they belived even more.

they then came up with big gods. sighs.
then that thire god was the Best god! sighs.
then that they must kill other people who dont follow thire god.
"knew that was coming. so much for intelligent!

they now use God as the reson they are here.
and give him credit for All the good.
and a Anti god for all the bad!!!
forgeting God made it all? sighs.
..........

Man can not cope with with a word that they can not understand.
They Still Need a Father to look to. or a Mother.
The Nothingness scears the hell out of them.

Humans need to start Beliveing in them selfs.
the Aliens never did want to be look't at as Gods.
They had to learn the hard way. now its are turn.

Next its the Dogs! then cats. They see us as Gods.
One day They will tell tails about the Human Gods!
Dogs will say WE made them. sighs.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: dfnj2015
Why would you accept those axioms though? Especially since many of the claims in the bible cannot be tested or can simply be shown to be impossible. Talking animals, jesus healing the blind and leperous? Walking on water, the dead rising from their graves. Amidst these claims, we know to be impossible, why would you accept them as true?


People do accept those claims are being axioms to their dogma.

There are many types of dogma. For example, some scientists believe the word "time" is imaginary just like the word "God":

There Is No Such Thing As Time



"If you try to get your hands on time, it's always slipping through your fingers," says Barbour. "People are sure time is there, but they can't get hold of it. My feeling is that they can't get hold of it because it isn't there at all."


Time is a lot of like the world God. You can't touch God. You can't touch Time. Religion as God as the one eternal everlasting concept. Science as Time as the one eternal everlasting concept. Which dogma is right? Just choose.

Choice as a distinction from decision is a very interesting idea. If you make a choice based on a reason it's not a choice. It is a decision. Decisions are based on reasons. Choices are made without reason. People choose axioms of their dogmas not based on reasons. This is why everyone else seems insane and why you are the only person tho has it right.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What you experienced is your vagus nerves getting bunched up.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neutronflux

The "Golden Rule" does not depend on the existence of God. There is a clear Humanistic morality that exists with or without God.

I don't need to believe that God exists for me to know that humans should treat each other with respect and to value life.




That did not answer the question. Do you believe in good or evil. Without a morale authority, there is not a “way” person should treat each other? Why would child labor be wrong? Especially in a culture that promotes child labor?

In a purely evolutionary context, was Hitler wrong to put himself in a position of dominance? In the context of evolution, how is what Hilter did evil? Or wrong? With no God, why does it even matter?

The question is; “not you know how to treat people”, but “Why does it matter how you treat people?”



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Do they?

At what point would you consider a religious person's religion as sufficiently separated from their morals when it comes to forming a foundation for a law? Is it only at the point where you personally begin to agree with the legislation they are proposing?

If so, then perhaps the religion isn't the problem so much as your excuse for why you don't like it.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If man is only a product of nature: what is the difference if the world is destroyed by a comet vs a man made bomb?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join