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.

 

The issue with atheism

page: 26
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme

No you got it. And you just answered your own
question. Our petty knowledge isn't comparable
to all the knowledge of the universe. And it's
delusional to believe in wild accusations that
represent conclusions to ultimate questions
based solely on absence and very weak and
very limited knowledge. It's just an easy out
to say heh no evidence, doesn't exist! And
try to pass that off as the truth? That isn't
even science. It's Politics.


So, when you get sick. Do you go to the doctor? Or do you have faith that god will heal your illness? It seems to me that even Christians rely on logic, reason, and evidence in EVERY endeavor in their lives except religion. Why is that? Our "limited knowledge is good enough for your heart transplant but isn't good enough to explain the natural world? That makes no sense to me. And again if I told you that I was a qualified heart surgeon and I could perform your operation would you take that on faith? I'm guessing not. Faith is just an excuse people use when they have no evidence.




posted on May, 12 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: RenderMan

No one who has done any studying of evolution believes humans are mutant chimpanzees.


We theoretically evolved from some Mutant-vague-monkey-resembling-creature*

Research will find that these theoretical missing links are missing.



That so reminds me of this.




posted on May, 12 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedyman

you keep running in circles trying to demonstrate how flawed other peoples approach to science is while ignoring critical aspects. How many different ways does it have to be laid out for you that Scientific Theories are based on a large body of provable FACTS and that they serve one purpose, to show HOW these verifiable, factual, observable and repeatable phenomena occur. Is it really that difficult to wrap your head around? The FACTS of evolution inform the Theory as to how evolution occurs. It's so simple that even an Aussie should be able to grasp it.





and I asked for proof and got crickets

Evolution has no facts, just stupid theories for gullible believers
Show me the large body of provable facts, then, open it up, go do a thread of this large body
Hell I will
edit on 12-5-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

What good would it do to talk to someone
who trys to explain animation with a molecule?

It is lunacy.

Unless you want to try'n explain your belief
that life doesn't have to come from life? Of
course extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
But if you can't do that it's okay.
You can still go on believe'n what you want.
But you can't say no one can explain their belief
to you. Because it didn't matter when they tried.



What you are referring to is called abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life can arise from non living materials in certain conditions. Talkorigins has (AFAIK) all current evidence on angiogenesis and evolution. Unless you're referring to the existence of
the universe itself which is a different matter altogether.

www.talkorigins.org...
edit on 5/12/1818 by Iwasneverhere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Just focusing on the Judeo-Christian God, he can't even keep his story straight in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Genesis 1:5
" 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

So he created day and night on the first day. But wait.

"14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

It wasn't until the 4th day that he created the sun, moon and stars. Roll back to 1:11 and you'll see he created plants before the sun.

Then in Genesis 1:20-25 he creates animals and finally man later in verses 26 & 27. But wait. Skip to chapter 2.

"5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Here it says God created Adam before there were any plants growing. So what did the animals eat?

They were created before Adam according to Genesis 1. But in Genesis 2 there was no plants growing before Adam. And in Genesis 1:29-30 animals were to only eat plants.

"29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so."

How is any thinking person supposed to take this account seriously?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I'm not sure where you heard what you posted but it's completely wrong. I myself am an atheist, I only found out I was one around 10 years ago. I didn't know there was a name for people who didn't believe that gods were real.

That's what atheist means by the way, it means only one thing, that you don't believe gods are real. That's it. The opposite of that is theist, which means you do believe a god or gods are real. To the question, do you believe a god is real, atheist = no, theist = yes. That is all.

Above you used the word "distantiation" but it is incorrect. It's meaning is "Distantiation is defined as to establish or create an mental or emotional distance. An example of distantiation is when you cannot let a friend get close because you don't trust him." If it was distantiation then the person would believe in a god or gods and thus not be atheist.

Atheism is not a religion, there is no such thing as a doctrine of atheism or anything like that. Atheists also do not think that they are gods, they do not believe that gods exist. I've never heard of or met any atheist before who considers themself any sort of supreme being. I don't know where you came up with such nonsense.

There is no issue with atheism, I think you might have an issue with understanding. Above I mentioned that I was atheist, lets just erase that. I am no longer an atheist.

Now ask me, Do you believe in a god or gods.
I will say no. I don't believe in a god or gods.

What do you call that?

It is called atheism, and that is all that it means. If you ever have a problem with the word atheism or atheist just stop using that word and replace it with "does not believe in gods". Problem solved.

Old example: John is an atheist. New Example: John does not believe in gods
Both of these things mean exactly the same thing but maybe the 2nd way is easier for you to understand.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

K I like all your answers.
The questions weren't really fair being so
indirect to the topic. I would've been super
impressed if you got even one. But at the
same time I couldn't even put it passed you.

You might agree that the most
sophisticated observable phenomena in
the universe by far ? Has been said to have
roughly the same number of neurons as
the universe has stars. How anyone could
postulate with such malice, that the complexity
of the human brain be the result of anything
but a design. It just really blows my mind.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iwasneverhere
What you are referring to is called abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life can arise from non living materials in certain conditions. Talkorigins has (AFAIK) all current evidence on angiogenesis and evolution. Unless you're referring to the existence of
the universe itself which is a different matter altogether.

www.talkorigins.org...

The classic Miller–Urey experiment did not produce life molecules. They created another dead matters, amino acids. Even Panspermia hypothesis has to rely on magical microscopic life from from outer space. Again, another scientific hypothesis trying to dodge answering the origin of life.

Magnet and iron interact with each other, does not meant they're alive.

Scientist successfully created artificial autonomous beating heart, yet this heart is useless to dead person.

There is no repeatable scientific evidences that we can revive clinical dead brain patient complete with all his biological system, let alone trying to create life out of inorganic matter. We have better chance of creating robots than artificial biological life.

All this Abiogenesis hypothesises only making guesses with "could be", "possible" etc.. Yet zero on how to actually make it real.




edit on 13-5-2018 by EasternShadow because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: Iwasneverhere
What you are referring to is called abiogenesis. The hypothesis that life can arise from non living materials in certain conditions. Talkorigins has (AFAIK) all current evidence on angiogenesis and evolution. Unless you're referring to the existence of
the universe itself which is a different matter altogether.

www.talkorigins.org...

The classic Miller–Urey experiment did not produce life molecules. They created another dead matters, amino acids. Even Panspermia hypothesis has to rely on magical microscopic life from from outer space. Again, another scientific hypothesis trying to dodge answering the origin of life.

Magnet and iron interact with each other, does not meant they're alive.

Scientist successfully created artificial autonomous beating heart, yet this heart is useless to dead person.

There is no repeatable scientific evidences that we can revive clinical dead brain patient complete with all his biological system, let alone trying to create life out of inorganic matter. We have better chance of creating robots than artificial biological life.

All this Abiogenesis hypothesises only making guesses with "could be", "possible" etc.. Yet zero on how to actually make it real.





I'd rather scientist research and get closer on how to make it real than throw up their arms and say God did it. If we relied upon faith and prayer instead of science many health conditions would not be treatable or preventable.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Also Einstien said the single most important
decision we can make is weather we live in
a friendly or hostile universe.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: RenderMan




I'd rather scientist research and get closer on how to make it real than throw up their arms and say God did it. If we relied upon faith and prayer instead of science many health conditions would not be treatable or preventable.


Maybe if we did have faith and prayed more?
Maybe if we were closer to our Creator? We
wouldn't have health issues. May be we would
live to be 1000 yrs old.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Atheism has many forms, and ideologies.

Some are benign, some are diabolical.

Today, I see much more of becoming the latter case.... sadly.

Science has become a platform for promoting such types of atheism.

We are not created, we do not exist in another form. We came from apes. Life was created out of nothing more than slimy heaps of crap, over 5 billion years, give or take a billion, all by random 'chance'.

That's atheism at it's worst.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

Also Einstien said the single most important
decision we can make is weather we live in
a friendly or hostile universe.


Actually, despite it being all over the internet, there isn't a single primary source that supports this as a quote from Einstein. That doesn't make it any less salient of a question.

Personally, a couple of my favorite Einstein quotes are-

No man can visualize four dimensions, except mathematically … I think in four dimensions, but only abstractly. The human mind can picture these dimensions no more than it can envisage electricity. Nevertheless, they are no less real than electro-magnetism, the force which controls our universe, within, and by which we have our being.

And-

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: RenderMan




I'd rather scientist research and get closer on how to make it real than throw up their arms and say God did it. If we relied upon faith and prayer instead of science many health conditions would not be treatable or preventable.


Maybe if we did have faith and prayed more?
Maybe if we were closer to our Creator? We
wouldn't have health issues. May be we would
live to be 1000 yrs old.


You must not have faith and pray enough. Or your whole notion is false.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: RenderMan

I don't get sick no claims to why but I don't.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




Actually, despite it being all over the internet, there isn't a single primary source that supports this as a quote from Einstein. That doesn't make it any less salient of a question.


I really hate that

edit on Ram51318v55201800000038 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme




No. I believe that life can come from the random arrangement of molecules over billions of years. There is zero evidence to suggest that all life originated from any sentient or otherwise organic being. 


So you do believe something.
And it can be said according to what you
described. You believe life can come from
nothing. At some point by some miracle
inanimate molecules are just suddenly alive.

WOW

Looks like you believe in nothing.
Not even the scientific observable evidence.
Because you have none for your belief.

How can you even post something so
obsurd? And have the gual to criticize me?

I put my belief on the table and you
mock it like some little girl. And at
the same time you offer something
only more ridiculous.

Life just happens despite the lack of
evidence.

Quack esse!


The existence of life only proves that life exists. It does NOTHING to explain how it got here. You are too pigheaded to see that. All you can say is "well here's life so god did it". And according to you our options are god or nothing. Either you believe god did it or you believe nothing. That is a logical fallacy used PURPOSEFULLY by people like you all the time because you simply cannot and will not concede that there may a natural solution. No, we haven't found it yet. YET. But 1000 years ago we couldn't explain the germ theory of disease and illness. As our understanding grew through scientific efforts now we can explain these things. But if we'd have just said "well these people are clearly cursed, or god made them sick" we wouldn't have have the medicines we have today that pretty much everyone relies on Including religious people. And if you said today that god is making people sick and not germs people would think you were nuts. And rightly so! Someday it may be the same for abiogenesis.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Next one here who dies has to go up to God, and tell him he needs to go down to Earth, pronto, and finally prove, once and for all, that he really DOES exists.... deal?



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Science is merely the same thing, or more accurately, a parody of Religion.
Georges Bataille outlines this in his book The Solar Anus.


Most materialists, even though they may have wanted to do away with all spiritual entities, ended up positing an order of things whose hierarchical relations mark it as specifically idealist. They situated dead matter at the summit of a conventional hierarchy of diverse facts, without perceiving that in this way they gave in to an obsession with the ideal form of matter, with a form that was closer than any other to what matter should be. Dead matter, the pure idea, and God in fact answer a question in the same way (in other words perfectly , and as flatly as the docile student in a classroom)-a question that can only be posed by philosophers, the question of the essence of things, precisely of the idea by which things become intelligible. Classical materialists did not really even substitute causation for the must be (the quare for the quamobrem, or, in other words, determinism for destiny, the past for the future). Their need for external authority in fact placed the must be of all appearance in the functional role they unconsciously assigned the idea of science. If the principle of things they defined is precisely the stable element that permitted science to constitute an apparently unshakeable position, a veritable divine eternity, this choice cannot be attributed to chance. The conformity of dead matter to the idea of science is, among most materialists, substituted for the religious relations earlier established between the divinity and his creatures, the one being the idea of the others.
Materialism will be seen as a senile idealism to the extent that it is not immediately based on psychological or social facts, instead of on artificially isolated physical phenomena. Thus it is from Freud, among others-rather than from long-dead physicists, whose ideas today have no meaning-that a representation of matter must be taken. It is of little importance that the fear of psychological complications (a fear that only bears witness to intellectual weakness) causes timid souls to see in this attitude an aversion or a return to spiritual values. When the word materialism is used , it is time to designate the direct interpretation, excluding all idealism, of raw phenomena, and not a system founded on the fragmentary elements of an ideological analysis, elaborated under the sign of religious relations.

edit on 13 5 1818 by Ruiner1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   
So ironic, isn't it?

Science is largely based on authority figures, speaking about what it true, what is false, and all the scientists have faith in what their authorities say as true, or false, and will refuse to believe anyone who disputes their 'Gods' of science..



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join