It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


300 proofs to GODs existance

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 12:18 AM

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 12:27 AM
........I find it humorous the sheer number of people who discount GOD'S existence, yet find so many creative ways to deny and denigrate said non-existence

If there was a person who said to you he believed the world was flat, you would laugh at him and walk away, not wanting to waste your time refuting him- thinking him a fool.

Why so much effort to disprove a concept/Person you have no belief in then??

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 12:31 AM
Well how original - again a skeptic is quoting a web site - yet no response to my charges that you just buy most of the stuff you see on those web sites just because it agrees with what you want to believe. I totaly thrashed your concept of "copy cat religions", I have ridiculed one of your favorite web sites and yet not one of you have attempted to refute any of my thesis. So far all I have gotten is basically silence.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 12:40 AM
That's the worst possible way to prove the existence of God.

I believe in God but even I won't believe the things that website had to say.

[Edited on 8-5-2003 by Illmatic67]

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 12:41 AM
...the deafening silence is Golden.....

Enjoy it.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 12:45 AM
I keep hearing crickets - where is the thundering roar of the skeptics refutations to my postings in the Unskeptical Skeptic Revised and the Unskeptical Skeptic Part 1?

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 01:09 AM
Jag -

Your basic thesis is correct. The anti-theist must show just as much faith in God's non-existence, as a thiest shows in God's existence. This, you have properly called the Unskeptical Skeptic.

However, understand that what you accuse these people of - quoting other sources, websites, and basically not thinking; many theists are guilty of the same - quoting scripture, their pastors, etc.

These people, the believers who don't know anything about their own faith, are a cause of this unskeptical skeptic phenomenon - it is these 'blind followers' who enrage the anti-theists and cause them to lash out at religion. Of course, they fail to see how they themselves have become 'blind followers' of a different faith. The theists become offended, the anti-theists become offended in return, and the cycle of attacks goes on forever.

So in this sense, as Tyriffic said, "the deafening silence is Golden". Because otherwise we'd just have insults flying and no one wants that.

The true skeptics understand that to have blind faith in God's non-existence is as pointless(ignorant) as having blind faith in His existence. They have nothing to debate you about, for they would agree with your thesis - as I do. Those people you are trying to reach, the Unskeptical Skeptics, are perhaps smart enough to see that you are well-armed and ready for battle - perhaps they are not so ignorant as it seems.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 01:27 AM
quango - Indeed there are believers who do not think, but a skeptic is supposed to examining every thing even his own assertions. As an example of my thesis I examined the "copy cat religion" thesis of the skeptics - this is a tenet which they like to flout. One of the statements of the original article (which was copied word for word on several different web sites was the statement "Sakya Buddha was crucified for a sin atonement". Now any Buddhist will tell you that Sakya Buddha died at the age of 80 of natural causes. Yet many skeptics have put forth the same article containing that statement time after time. They did not question the validity of the article, but these skeptics should have known better.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 07:15 AM
Look all around. Proof of God's existence is everywhere.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 03:58 PM
Jag an atheist is a skeptic.

People who do not accept something is real are in general skeptical of the validity of concept (i.e... Santa Claus).

If is were not for that the term skeptic would not exist.....

You argument is that those who not believe God exist are skeptical that is correct so where is the debatable material?

To say that an article or conclusion drawn at a website or book is inaccurate is one thing, To claim that atheism as far as a philosophy or for that matter other faiths are incorrect because they do not believe what you believe is quite another.

All you have really said is that there are those who do not believe what you believe because they think you are wrong.

It does not make you correct except to say that all can agree you believe what you believe.

One could even say that your simply expressing skeptisism with respect to things you do not beleive.

Sound like your applying this concept to express your faith but, out side that you not offerning any other valid argument for why its invalid. Excpet to say you feel two sites presented in the internet are flawed.


Any Thoughts?

[Edited on 5-8-2003 by Toltec]

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 05:32 PM
I think this guy says it well concerning God's exsitance, yes the guy is Christian..

[Edited on 8-5-2003 by subalterna]

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 06:23 PM
In viewing the site I was pleasantly surprised by:

* the range and depth of the 'proofs' and the labels applied
* the no-BS nature and style of what the author wrote
* the educational value.

It hasn't proved to me that there is a God or there isn't a God, it's not meant to (nor are we necessarily meant to, God is just a diversionary tactic) but it has brought out some good reactions.

I commend this posting, which I would never have seen otherwise.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 06:34 PM

My spiritual path and reason lead me to consider the human and planetary condition with more priority and importance than the denial of God's existence.

I am not an anti-theist, an atheist, or an agnostic. But I despise many of the organized religions for their low moral integrity and the fact that they are just tools for lawmaking, evil, oppression and social control.

I don't consider anyone engaging in those religious debates (with good purpose in heart and mind) to be foolish or negative, but they will not provide the solutions to imminent catastrophic human developments.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 06:37 PM
That site doesn't work for me.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 06:43 PM
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded".

It has had a surge of interest in its contents. Try again later. A good selection with more about illogicality and irony than about God.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 07:13 PM
No one can force another to believe in God. It is a freewill thing to believe or not to believe in him. So to me there is no way to 'prove' his existance - by humans anyways. I am a Roman Catholic myself and Faith is the keyword in the religion.


posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 07:20 PM
I really want to believe in God but I just don't think he's (she) is there. Think about it, if God exists why are so many people afraid to die (including myself)? Also, why are people so distraught when someone close dies if they know one day they will see them in heaven? You are deeply upset because you know deep down you'll never see them again, otherwise why be upset? There is no after-life.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 07:22 PM
Well on that note, my guess is people THINK they might not see them again, because they have not been there themselves. Say if your closest uncle dies, you would be mad/sad/etc right? I believe this is because humans do not what the afterlife might be like because they have not been there.

If that didn't make sense I am tired and cannot think straight.


posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 07:24 PM
Interesting website indeed, thank you.

posted on Aug, 5 2003 @ 07:46 PM
I am beginning to believe that NO ONE has really read my two postings and comprehended the thesis (except for one or two people). I was commenting on a phenomenon which I labeled the unskeptical skeptic (as opposed to the skeptical skeptic). I defined that as being a person who accepts any statement as fact as long as it criticizes Christianity. I stated a few statements or assertions made by these people which are questionable to say the least. The one example I examined was the "copy cat religion" thesis often put forth by the skeptics and their web sites. I showed how most of their assertions seem to be misconceptions. As an example (there are many others), these articles which advocate the plagiarism in Christianity assertions ("copy cat religion") contain the statement "Sakya Buddha was crucified as a sin atonement". Now Toltec I am asking you. WAS SAKYA BUDDHA CRUCIFIED? - YES OR NO.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in