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.
Originally posted by Submersible
I undestand your logic in this, but since so many people believe in GOD, how can the belief be true if He were to somehow prove His existence..
wouldn't it automatically eliminate His existence?
there is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence means.
Originally posted by Submersible
"Contrary to the desires of certain individuals, proof or confirmation of christian dogma cannot by defintion be proven. The reason for this is based in the notion of faith and thus belief. Where belief transends the desire or need for proof. Therefore, the request for proof, categorically cannot by definition be supplied ... for that in itself would cast away god."
I undestand your logic in this, but since so many people believe in GOD, how can the belief be true if He were to somehow prove His existence..
wouldn't it automatically eliminate His existence?
It's such a 'catch 22' , no matter how you approach this matter, especially when there is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence means.
thank you for your patience.
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Jesus was imaginary!!!
Originally posted by OneGodJesus
www.timesonline.co.uk...
This is going to be good. If the vatican cannot prove using catholic documents from thier libraries to lend credibility to what we as Christians believe and know to be true from an experiential stand point then where does that leave us? If they do prove it, will a militant atheist believe anyway. It is like a sick joke you already know the punchline to but cannot stop listening to just because it is that morbid. NO FOAM AT THE MOUTH ATHEIST is going to believe no matter what you say. See what I am saying here? It is really funny.
Atheist to his "non-religion" that really is a religion of hate and doubt.
to :bnghd:
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if atheisism is a religion, then bald is a color.
also, i'm pretty sure many atheists will believe if provided with proper proof. the atheists i know are atheists because they don't see any proof of the divine. give them proof and they'd be theists.
[edit on 10-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]
Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if atheisism is a religion, then bald is a color.
also, i'm pretty sure many atheists will believe if provided with proper proof. the atheists i know are atheists because they don't see any proof of the divine. give them proof and they'd be theists.
[edit on 10-1-2006 by madnessinmysoul]
Thought this was interesting:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
You might too.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also, you haven't apologized for your mean spirited attack on atheism. calling it a religion of hatred and whatnot.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
also, you haven't apologized for your mean spirited attack on atheism. calling it a religion of hatred and whatnot.
also, i agree with LCkob, that article is only proof if you are already a Christian. There is nothing objective or neutral about it.
Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Actually if you had read from the beginning you'd see that I did indeed apologized for a potion of the remarks.
The whatnots, you mention are the parts I do not apologize for mentioning. Maybe Atheism isn't a religion of hate per se but it is militant in regards to attacking any form of Christianity as evidenced by the fact that atheists are on this post right now.
Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I would have to hate my brother cuase he is in with that crowd too, and I don't. I just do not like being called out in the way these folks were "he has a hidden agenda" and "he is evangelizing". I am not doing this. I was stating a simple truth as I know it from personal experience in another thread and all of a sudden I am evangelizing because I tell someone that they must be filled with the Holy Ghost to truely understand the scriptures.
Originally posted by riley
Which portion?
Sweetie.. the atheists on this thread entered the thread because YOU ATTACKED THEM [and still are]. You tried the victim thing before.. it's still not working. We are not being militant.. we are merely defending ourselves and debating. I usually don't give a fizz if someone is christian.. and I only care about my 'label' of atheism when someone tries to put it or me down for it, makes judgements about my charactor based on it or tells me I'm wrong and should change.. that is simply foolish to say the least.
Read carefully:
It simply means "I do not believe in god." It does not mean "I hate god". Big difference there.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by riley]
Originally posted by LCKob
LCKob:
Just to clarify (and I am not automatically assuming you meant me in your reply) ... but I am an agnostic ... and while I agree with your statement that the first article was interesting, informative and entertaining ... I would argue on its specious quality in regards to "indisputable truth" ... (first article) this has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with promoting a sound argument with appropriate terminiology ... for after all ... if someone asserts that something is "indisputable truth" ... would it not be reasonable to ask for the how and why?
Especially given the apparent intent of the article ... now if someone labels something "proofs" ... I expect "proofs" ... in particular for an "indisputable truth".
... as in ...
Proof
Pronunciation: 'prüf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove
... : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
... : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
... : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
LCKob
[edit on 11-1-2006 by LCKob]
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'm not an atheist, nor am i an agnostic. i'm a buddhist, a religion older than christianity. i've done nothing but point out that in the VERY FIRST post you made you attacked the atheist worldview. you claimed atheism to be a religion, and called it hateful, and now you call it militant because they defended their views.
i'll say it again
if atheism is a religion, then bald is a color.
also, if you were to provide me with proof, evidence, something substantial and not philosophical that god exists, i would say okay, because my belief doesn't exclude the existence of any deities. but i wouldn't convert to christianity until you proved that jesus was divine, and that the only possible way to please god is to follow the conservative evangelical form of christianity.