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 God Who Wasn't There.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
www.thegodmovie.com...

I don't know if this has been discussed before. I did a search for it, and came up short. But yeah, pretty messed up... This is the kind of crap that drives the right further right and the left further left. I'm still only about half sure that this is even real. They're using the same tactics of fear and brainwashing that they're accusing the Christians of using in this very movie. Notice all of the pictures of the "Crazy Christians" are old?

Thoughts?

Opinions?




posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman

They're using the same tactics of fear and brainwashing that they're accusing the Christians of using in this very movie.


And for the same reason. Theirs is a faith, just as Christianity is a faith. The anti-god forces have a dogma, they have evangelicals preaching the faith, they have scripture, they have legions of true believers and they have all of this, just as any other set of believers, in lieu of any actual evidence to support their faith. They simply, when faced with the unknown, pledge their faith to a different answer.

Personally, I find the anti-god believers to be even more shallow than the god believers, since theirs is an essentially reactionary belief. They don't even posit a cosmology-- they just point at someone else's and, with nothing beyond the arrogance of their blind faith, deem it to be wrong.

The religious wars of the past were between those who believed "this" and those who believed "that." The coming one is between those who believe "this" and those who believe "not this." The believers in "not this" are, to my mind, even more dangerous than any other type of believers. Believers in "that" could come to attack believers in "this," since to discredit the belief in "this" at least nominally tended to imply support for "that." For believers in "not this," attacking the belief in "this" is the entire basis and point of their faith. They aren't antagonistic sometimes-- they're antagonistic by definition.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
very well said bob. this is exactly the kind of religious fervor i see in the anti-jesus threads...from self-proclaimed atheists. they are just as radical as those of my fellow christians who preach hellfire and damnation.

regardless of whether or not you believe in god, the points we should all be agreeing on are peace, love, and understanding, a concept that a select few on all sides of the debate seem to be missing.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by Herman

They're using the same tactics of fear and brainwashing that they're accusing the Christians of using in this very movie.


And for the same reason. Theirs is a faith, just as Christianity is a faith. The anti-god forces have a dogma, they have evangelicals preaching the faith, they have scripture, they have legions of true believers and they have all of this, just as any other set of believers, in lieu of any actual evidence to support their faith. They simply, when faced with the unknown, pledge their faith to a different answer.

Personally, I find the anti-god believers to be even more shallow than the god believers, since theirs is an essentially reactionary belief. They don't even posit a cosmology-- they just point at someone else's and, with nothing beyond the arrogance of their blind faith, deem it to be wrong.

The religious wars of the past were between those who believed "this" and those who believed "that." The coming one is between those who believe "this" and those who believe "not this." The believers in "not this" are, to my mind, even more dangerous than any other type of believers. Believers in "that" could come to attack believers in "this," since to discredit the belief in "this" at least nominally tended to imply support for "that." For believers in "not this," attacking the belief in "this" is the entire basis and point of their faith. They aren't antagonistic sometimes-- they're antagonistic by definition.


Yeah the fact that religion has killed more people than most. Most wars are religiously justified (Bush and his talks with god to invade Iraq, Hitler and WW2 to nam but a few). Im a non believer but I dont want to kill so I think that your wrong in your assertion, I think that believers are more dangerous than non believers - JIHAD comes to mind.



G



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Peace, love and understanding indeed...

It really shouldn't matter what anyone believes-- all that matters is what they do. Those who focus on the beliefs of others, or for that matter on the actions of others (myself included, as I think about it), are looking in the wrong direction.


Peace, love and understanding indeed. Even-- no especially for those who have not earned it. Is my condemnation of those who attack Christians any better than their condemnation of Christians? Probably not, honestly.

It's interesting when one of my observations comes back to stare me in the face...



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Yeah the fact that religion has killed more people than most. Most wars are religiously justified (Bush and his talks with god to invade Iraq, Hitler and WW2 to nam but a few). Im a non believer but I dont want to kill so I think that your wrong in your assertion, I think that believers are more dangerous than non believers - JIHAD comes to mind.


G


dont take this the wrong way, but i think youre missing a major point here. religions dont cause the wars, they are the excuse people use to justify the war.

bush's beliefs didnt have anything to do with iraq....oil did.

hitler's beliefs didnt have anything to do with wwII...he only used them to rally the people to gain land and power.

islamic jihadists use religion to justify their thirst for blood. they use it to convince people to kill themselves in the name of their god in order for the jihadist leaders to make political gains.

most religions are peaceful in nature. it is man, who twists the message for his own profit, that is evil.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This was posted right after you started this thread, Herman.

It was almost simultaneous, too--but I believe you were ahead by about 20 to 30 minutes.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

dont take this the wrong way, but i think youre missing a major point here. religions dont cause the wars, they are the excuse people use to justify the war......most religions are peaceful in nature. it is man, who twists the message for his own profit, that is evil.


That was the kind of point I was trying to make , Religious justification has been used for thousands of years and still is used for killing, rape and pillaging. But then again you could also blame the rise of civilisation and agriculture which was the main instigator of wars (land, wealth, food and people) and caused the rise in belief systems (religion) to the masses.

G



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
They simply, when faced with the unknown, pledge their faith to a different answer.

...
They don't even posit a cosmology-- they just point at someone else's and, with nothing beyond the arrogance of their blind faith, deem it to be wrong.


Which is it? Faith in an answer, or nonfaith in someone else's answer? I don't see how it can be considered faith in an answer to criticize someone else's answer without providing an alternative.

"I don't know" is often the only reasonable answer when information is scarce, and it isn't an act of faith to notice that others do not have more information and can not possibly have formed a valid conclusion based on what is known.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
They simply, when faced with the unknown, pledge their faith to a different answer.

...
They don't even posit a cosmology-- they just point at someone else's and, with nothing beyond the arrogance of their blind faith, deem it to be wrong.


Which is it? Faith in an answer, or nonfaith in someone else's answer? I don't see how it can be considered faith in an answer to criticize someone else's answer without providing an alternative.



Well done. Although that's not quite the contradiction it seems, I respect anyone who finds such things in much the same way as I respect anyone who can hit a curve ball.


Atheists-- "hard" atheists as they're known in some circles-- have faith in a specific belief. When faced with the question "Is/are there some manner of being(s) that might legitimately be termed 'god(s)'" they answer, "No." They don't only doubt or question or criticize someone else's belief, although a great deal of their energy is spent in that pursuit-- they actively believe in "not-god." They engage in criticism of other believers for much the same reason that many believers of many different faiths do so-- because they have no objective evidence to support their belief, so they seek to at least nominally support it by discrediting conflicting beliefs. However, they don't really offer a belief system in the traditional sense, since the focus of their belief is the non-existence of any manner of being(s) that might legitimately be termed god(s).



"I don't know" is often the only reasonable answer when information is scarce, and it isn't an act of faith to notice that others do not have more information and can not possibly have formed a valid conclusion based on what is known.


Absolutely, which is why I'm agnostic. For that matter, I would go so far as to say that everybody is agnostic, but only some of us admit it. When there's insufficient evidence, the only logically valid answer is "I don't know." However, that's not the answer that's posited by the anti-Christians that were the original topic of this thread and my post. Their answer is "No," and that answer is, since it's not demonstrable fact, a belief in which they must, if they are to continue to hold it, have faith.


Part of the complication of this whole issue is the varying definitions of the word "atheist." There are many who call themselves atheists who might more legitimately be termed agnostic, since the extent of their view on the issue is "I don't know." To me at least, the only people who should legitimately be termed atheist are the ones who actively believe that there is/are NOT any such thing(s) as god(s), and that's the way that I always use the term. And it was certainly my impression from the article that started this thread that the makers and promoters of this film were actively atheist rather than agnostic. Generally, those who admit that they simply don't know the truth don't particularly begrudge others their beliefs. It's most often only the believers in one thing that attack the believers in another.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Atheists-- "hard" atheists as they're known in some circles-- have faith in a specific belief. When faced with the question "Is/are there some manner of being(s) that might legitimately be termed 'god(s)'" they answer, "No."


By this reasoning, you do not have knowledge of gravity, but rather faith in it because you have never observed it to fail.

You're making the same mistake most people make, which is to assume that it isn't proper to draw negative conclusions. If we took such a standard in courts, no criminal could ever be convicted, and you would have to give serious consideration to every rediculous claim anyone made unless you could prove there were no possibility of it being true.

In everyday life, an assumption of 'false' is given to every claim anyone makes. We accept such claims when we deem the evidence to be comparable to the claim. Such a standard is axiomatic from a practical perspective as we will likely die if we fail to accept it.

Suppose it's summer and your friend tells you it's raining outside. You will probably accept it because rain is an everyday event and you trust your friend. Now suppose instead that he told you it was snowing (summer, remember). You would tell him he's full of it. If he insisted, you might expend the effort to go check for yourself just to find out what's up (although you still wouldn't believe it was really snow). What if you looked out the window and saw snow? You probably still wouldn't believe it even if you saw it yourself (unless you live significantly North or South). You would go outside. Only after you felt that it was cold, and you felt the snow hit your skin and melt, would you then accept such a fantastic claim.

Mind you, that's just snow in the summer - something that actually happens on very rare occasions. If it's proper to form a negative conclusion about something fantastic that we know can actually happen, why is it improper to form a negative conclusion about gods - something much more fantastic than snow in the summer, and supported with no credible evidence at all?

Personally, I know very few strong atheists (and I know many) who hold that the existence of gods is impossible. Most have merely used ordinary reason to form a conclusion, and many, like myself, have additionally noted that the word 'god' is universally defined in vague or inconsistent terms - an indication that those making such a claim have formed a spurious conclusion themselves.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Yes-- if somebody told me that it was snowing outside in the summer, I would assume that to be false. I would believe it to be false. And I would feel relatively confident in my belief However, I would not know it to be false until I had collected some manner of objective evidence to prove its falsity.

To make the example a bit more accurate, one would have to state that neither I nor my friend would be in any way able to actually observe whether it was snowing or not, but he would nonetheless insist that it was in fact snowing. I would, if pressed, feel compelled to point out to him that he doesn't actually know that it's snowing. If another person in the same room was to insist that it was not snowing, I would feel equally compelled to point out to him that he doesn't actually know that it's not snowing.

And to be most accurate, the two of them would then have to get in a shouting match with each other, each desperately trying to assert the validity of his view, while I sat back, content in and bemused by the knowledge that not only do I not know, but neither do they.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
www.thegodmovie.com...

I don't know if this has been discussed before. I did a search for it, and came up short. But yeah, pretty messed up... This is the kind of crap that drives the right further right and the left further left. I'm still only about half sure that this is even real. They're using the same tactics of fear and brainwashing that they're accusing the Christians of using in this very movie. Notice all of the pictures of the "Crazy Christians" are old?

Thoughts?

Opinions?


The point of that movie is not to divide the U.S. political spectrum even more than it already is. I don't see where it distinguishes a conservative Christian from a liberal Christian. That part was solely your subjective analysis. I've watched it several times; it's main purpose is to point out gaping inconsistencies in Christianity and the way Chistians observe their "faith".



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Most wars are religiously justified (Bush and his talks with god to invade Iraq, Hitler and WW2 to nam but a few).


Never knew the invasion of Poland was the result of religion
plus i didn't know that religion justified the Iraq war....blaming war on religion is a pathetic stereotype that has no grounds to it. Saying religion is to blame for war is like saying we are all geeks cause we use the internet.

*yawns*



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Yes-- if somebody told me that it was snowing outside in the summer, I would assume that to be false. I would believe it to be false. And I would feel relatively confident in my belief However, I would not know it to be false until I had collected some manner of objective evidence to prove its falsity.


If you take this approach, you can not properly claim to know anything at all, because there is always the possibility you are mistaken or decieved.

The word "know" does not imply the impossibility of error, it is merely a strong belief rooted in observation.

There is no such thing as knowledge in the sense you are trying to apply it. I see no reason to apply an impossible definition of "know" to religious topics, that we do not apply in any other usage.

I suspect those you claim have faith in the non-existence of gods are really just using ordinary language when they say things like "gods do not exist", and are simply not playing along with the games believers often use to try to justify their faith to themselves. Neither I nor anyone else is under any obligation to allow you to modify the meaning of language to suit a religious discussion.

If you want a word that means "belief that can not possibly be false", make up a new word for it, because that isn't what "know" means.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by spamandham]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
was there a lack of facts in this "movie"???

if there was, then i would support the original poster of this thread...

if not, then, you get the idea...





posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Yes-- if somebody told me that it was snowing outside in the summer, I would assume that to be false. I would believe it to be false. And I would feel relatively confident in my belief However, I would not know it to be false until I had collected some manner of objective evidence to prove its falsity.


If you take this approach, you can not properly claim to know anything at all, because there is always the possibility you are mistaken or decieved.


This is a straw man argument. My use of the word "know" involved empirical evidence. I never stated nor implied that there was a requirement of absolute certainty-- only that one must have empirical evidence in order to claim to "know" something. In the absence of empirical evidence, one simply cannot claim to "know" something. Earlier, you posted:

"Now suppose instead that he told you it was snowing (summer, remember). You would tell him he's full of it. If he insisted, you might expend the effort to go check for yourself just to find out what's up (although you still wouldn't believe it was really snow). What if you looked out the window and saw snow? You probably still wouldn't believe it even if you saw it yourself (unless you live significantly North or South). You would go outside. Only after you felt that it was cold, and you felt the snow hit your skin and melt, would you then accept such a fantastic claim."

Clearly you understand and agree(d) with the distinction I was making. You say that, even if you saw it snowing, "you probably still wouldn't believe it," and that "only after you felt that it was cold and you felt the snow hit your skin and melt, would you then accept such a fantastic claim." Only after you had gathered empirical evidence would you KNOW that it was indeed snowing. Just as I said.



The word "know" does not imply the impossibility of error, it is merely a strong belief rooted in observation.


Straw man. I never said that it implied "the impossibility of error," merely that to "know" something one must have empirical evidence to support one's claim to knowledge. Additionally, knowledge is much more than "strong belief." Ask any scientist.



There is no such thing as knowledge in the sense you are trying to apply it.


No, there is no such thing as knowledge in the sense that YOU are crediting me with trying to apply it. Again, I never made any claim to "impossibility of error," merely that knowledge must be supported with empirical evidence.



I suspect those you claim have faith in the non-existence of gods are really just using ordinary language when they say things like "gods do not exist", and are simply not playing along with the games believers often use to try to justify their faith to themselves. Neither I nor anyone else is under any obligation to allow you to modify the meaning of language to suit a religious discussion.


"Gods do not exist" is a simple declarative statement. There is no need for me to "modify the meaning" of it in order to demonstrate that it is unproven. There is no empirical evidence to support it, therefore it is not proven. If it is not proven, yet is presented as a simple declarative statement with no provisos (as far as I know..., I believe..., it seems to me..., etc.), then it's a statement of belief, since, in the absence of empirical evidence, it cannot be a statement of fact. It's as simple as that.



If you want a word that means "belief that can not possibly be false", make up a new word for it, because that isn't what "know" means.


And we return for one final visit with the straw man. Again-- I never made the statement that "know" means "belief that can not possibly be false." I made no assertions regarding absolute truth or falsehood, but rather I used the word "know" in what IS its accepted definition-- that which is supported by empirical evidence.





[edit on 3-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
My use of the word "know" involved empirical evidence.


Ok, as long as we're using the same language, there certainly is empirical evidence for the nonexistence of gods.

1. We know that the concept of gods evolved out of using astronomy to determine the seasons. We can trace that history from its primitive origins all the way to modern monotheism.

2. Those who claim gods exist can not provide anything from which to substantiate that claim - meaning they had no rational basis for making the claim in the first place.

3. The word "god" is almost universally undefined.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by shihulud
Most wars are religiously justified (Bush and his talks with god to invade Iraq, Hitler and WW2 to nam but a few).


Never knew the invasion of Poland was the result of religion
plus i didn't know that religion justified the Iraq war....blaming war on religion is a pathetic stereotype that has no grounds to it. Saying religion is to blame for war is like saying we are all geeks cause we use the internet.

*yawns*


hitler rallied the troops and his country by ways of religion...and bush openly said that god had sent him a vision that he needed to invade iraq that america was to do jesus's will..............
wow after writing that i see an even bigger comparison between the two...



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
My use of the word "know" involved empirical evidence.


Ok, as long as we're using the same language, there certainly is empirical evidence for the nonexistence of gods.

1. We know that the concept of gods evolved out of using astronomy to determine the seasons. We can trace that history from its primitive origins all the way to modern monotheism.

2. Those who claim gods exist can not provide anything from which to substantiate that claim - meaning they had no rational basis for making the claim in the first place.

3. The word "god" is almost universally undefined.


You do better to prove that by arguing from noncognitivism, spamandham. Good post though.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join