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.

 

There are No Atheists

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
This said, I'm not "anti"-God. I'm Deist.
Lex


I understand that this definition of deism from dictionary.com could be fairly narrow:



The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.


So; You believe that there was a god; but now he's gone?




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Val,

I don't think he meant it in the manner you took it. I tend to agree that religous belief's are tied into primitive superstition's rather then logic and reason. No one exercising logic and reason alone would conclude that a ... satan possess' people and the only way to rid of him is through some elaborate ritualistic exorcism. Shaman's believed that demon's/bad spirits would possess a person and make them sick. It's all superstitous fears/belief's.

But rather then answer the question, it's rather cute how you, as do most folks of faith do, resort to the tactics of evasion you just displayed. What make's your faith more correct then any other faith through out history? Monotheistic belief's never existed even 6Kyrs ago. If I'm not mistaken, monotheism is roughly 3ish, maybe 3.5Kish yrs old. Nevermind the fact that you can't even find the polytheistic religion's even 10Kyrs ago. Religion and it's faith's have been in constant evolution for quiet some time now. Even today the monotheistic religion's are continuing to evolve through reinterpretation of their diety's word/commandments etc. New idea's thrown in, old idea's taken out. Either your doctrine is true or it's not. If it's true then there should be no need for you guy's to reinterpret and redefine your supposed one true god, who happens to be fairly new compared to human history.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
...one true god, who happens to be fairly new compared to human history.


Fairly new? I believe that Mesopotamia was the earliest human civilization found so far. If Mesopotamia existed about 6,000 years ago and the early Jewish religions started about 5,000 years ago, how is this "fairly new"?



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Civilization is still being pushed back furthur and furthur. India has had a civilization back roughly 7kyrs ago, maybe more. China goes back roughly 6.5kyrs ago, again, maybe more. Native american's have been in the americas for roughly 15kyrs now with their way of doing thing's and their own cration myth's that are nothing like the biblical accounts. Sumerian civilization is one of the oldest for that region. Also, human history isn't just civilization in and of itself. Our species has been on this planet without written language for thousand's of year's. When written language was finally developed, there was no mention of a monotheistic religion. Even the polytheistic religion's of the ancient greeks and romans share very similar stories and view's of each other's 'gods'. The chinese dragon mythology all started from a very succesful emporer who later became immortalized in dragon form and later through the year's 'miraculous' account's added to the story. It's very hard to pin point what people believed in prior to written language, but we can take a few clue's from those culture's that do exist today reletivly unchanged through out the year's. Nearly all tribal culture's follow either a polytheistic belief system or attribute mystical power's being from the earth itself. These are all culture's untouched by modern civilization's mind you. Judaism is only 4kyrs old, not 5k. That leave's a wide gap of roughly 2,000 year's of re-interpretation of older religion's, mythologies, and legend's.

Actually, I just got done watching a rather interesting documentary on the noah's flood mythology. The story is definately 'borrowed' from ancient sumerian legend's, notebly the epics of gilgamesh. But there's an even older account of this flood mythology... more like a record of history then a legend. I foget the name of the story, but it was another epic of "whoever they said". You got to remember, nothing get's retold the same. I'm sure your well aware of how that game telephone works. Now imagine that on the scale of 2,000 year's. The stories are going to get retold and changed so many time's. The people back then might have believed in a literal biblical flood, but there's no evidence for such. However, using the ancient sumerian account's for the flood story, there is evidence for the flood as told in those account's. But it was a local flood, not a world wide flood. The ancient sumerians believed their world to be all they saw, nothing more, nothing less. So, in their eye's, the whole world WAS flooded. The world as they knew it back then. This later evolve's into the noah flood mythology and the true meaning and history behind it become's so twisted beyond recognition that the early monotheistic culture's start believing that it literally meant the entire planet.

So, you can see, monotheism IS fairly new compared to human history. If monotheism, the belief in one god was the only true religion, we'd see account's for this supposed one true god world wide. As it stand's, monotheism started in the mesopotamia region 4,000 years ago. Only AFTER then did it start spreading outward's in a violent manner in an attempt to become the only religion in that region. Even to this day monotheism tries to spread itself to culture's and people who have neither heard of but also have no concept of monotheistic belief's.



[edit on 26-2-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
'The stories are going to get retold and changed so many time's. The people back then might have believed in a literal biblical flood, but there's no evidence for such. However, using the ancient sumerian account's for the flood story, there is evidence for the flood as told in those account's. But it was a local flood, not a world wide flood. ' Produkt
That is not what I have found. I've seen copious hard, scientific, global, catalogued evidence. Besides the 300 plus oral traditions worldwide, which alone must be considered, there is ample modern day research that has come up with abundant evidence of a global extinction level event. Since I have posted all of the links, etc. many times in many threads, some of them specifically for your perusal, I will leave it at that.
To me saying there is no evidence is like saying there is no evidence Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
No, there is no evidence for a world wide flood. The whole concept of a world wide flood in biblical text's come's from the reinterpretation of ancient sumerian text's. And all these so called account's world wide are from culture's that have dealt with local flooding's. Those who have not, never developed a flood myth. A world wide flood is impossible anyways. There is nowhere enough water on this planet for such an event. You guy's really gotta stop kidding yourselve's. This isn't kindergarten anymore.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The book I referred you to more than once is full of good scientific evidence pointing to an event around 11 500 years ago that would account for the ancient traditions. It would even account for oceans washing over the continents, no more water needed. And of course the geneticists findings that suggest a 'pinching' of our population down to very few individuals is another telling finding. These two modern sources offer lots of evidence, and by coincidence it matches the ancient accounts........
For me, good enough.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
A world wide flood would have left very undeniable tell tale signs. There exist's none. There does exist evidence for a major flood event as told in the epics of gilgamesh in the biblical region's and the noah flood myth is nothing more then a retelling of this story. There is no way I can concieve for how the ocean's would was over the entire continent's without destroying all life on land and fresh water fish ash the salt water mix's with the fresh waters. Nor can I concieve for how the ocean's would cover land above sea level, especially the tallest mountains as told in biblical text's when the ocean's DO NOT contain enough water to do so, hence the reason we have land. Not to mention there's no feasible way 'noah' would have been able to collect two of every species of animals on this planet withing the time frame given in the bible. Nor would a wooden boat that large even survive a cataclysmic flood. Just the sheer weight alone would have buckled the hull. I'd suggest you do abit more research on WHERE this flood mythology come's from.

If you could post a couple website's with information from that book, or a few quote's from the book, I'd be more then happy to check it out. I'm not as willing to waste my money on the book itself.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Just because you can't conceive how, then it didn't happen? Okay, I won't debate that level of knowledge, I can't even conceive of how gravity works. I just know it does, and how strong it is. I can't conceive lots of stuff, still I read, then look for supporting information, and if it is feasible, and a better explanation than any others I have heard, I will take it as my current favourite. Until a better one comes along, of course.
The books name is "Cataclysm: The day the earth nearly died." by Allen and Delair. You can find it, either by going back to the posts I left for you with links to it, or on any good search engine. I suggest reading the whole book, before dismissing it. And what of the 'pinching'? How much research into that have you done?
Cheers



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Lol, I'm not saying it didn't happen cuz I can't concieve of how, I'm asking for more source's to check because I'm not about to waste my money on some crackpot book.
I was hoping for atleast an explanation for the ocean idea ... I mean, even you must know there isn't enough water in the ocean's to go OVER the sea level. Let alone over the tallest mountain... Simply is not enough water on this planet to flood the entire planet, especially without leaving traces for such. And this population pinching ... I can't find anything on google about it, perhaps you can help there? If the world was down to a few individual's, it would have been a few individuals in EACH country/location for where there are human's today. There would be definatly more mythologies about such an event, which there isn't, as I pointed out, people who DID NOT deal with flooding event's DID NOT create flood mythologies. Not to mention how unlikely it would be that a few individuals on EACH landmass would survive this equally unlikely not enough water in the ocean flooding event. The odd's for such a crackpot idea are just astronomical. If your really buying into this garbage ... I feel sorry for you. Definate step down on the path of learning there.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
'The odd's for such a crackpot idea are just astronomical. If your really buying into this garbage ... I feel sorry for you. Definate step down on the path of learning there.' Produkt

I don't want you to feel sorry for me. In a way I feel the same about you, as it appears that you have difficulty finding info. online that took me about five minutes to find.
Regarding the flood, I'll give you a clue, it has to do with gravity and tides.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Ok, finally found something in regards to a tidal flood caused by a cometary nucleus. Not sure if this is what your book is talking about ...

In any case however, a global flood would have left undeniable tell tale signs for it's occurance, and we do not have any such signs. A global flood would have wiped out nearly all life on this planet, which obviously is not the case here. Noah's ark, would not have survived such a cataclysmic flood. The whole population pinching thing, which I still can't find anything on, would have had to apply to ALL landmass' that human's lived on during those time's. And seeing as how such an event is astronomical and unlikely, beyond all that there does not exist mythologies amongst all the people on this planet for such an event. All these isolated cases for flood mythologies are from area's that DEAL with floods, and those who don't NEVER came up with a flood mythology. I don't understand why you refuse to add all these factor's into your belief's. There was no biblical global flood, the story is STOLEN from the ancient sumerians.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
'All these isolated cases for flood mythologies are from area's that DEAL with floods, and those who don't NEVER came up with a flood mythology. I don't understand why you refuse to add all these factor's into your belief's. There was no biblical global flood, the story is STOLEN from the ancient sumerians.' Produkt
First, I agree that the origins of the Noah's Ark story does seem to have been taken from the Sumerians, likely during the captivity. As for the flood stories, Tibet has them, and being that they are at over 10 000 feet elevation, it is hard to think of a less likely source of the flood story. It is possible that any of these accounts could be borrowed, so the locality of the source really proves nothing to me. If you search online for the pinching information, try entering 'genetic diversity, humans, bonobos' and you should find some. There is more diversity in one extended family unit of 50 or so Bonobos monkeys than there is in the whole human race.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Welcome to the BlackguardXIII-Produkt debate forum where you'll see an endless debate on issues completely unrelated to the topic.


Gentlemen (or ladies as it were); might I suggest a new thread with an appropriate title? How about: Flood insurance: Did Noah really need it?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Unless the global flood, and all the evidence of the flood, got washed out into the ocean as the tides receded.

In which case, most of it should be destroyed by now, as ocean water is unforgiving to artifacts.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Atheism exists. It is not very common, percentage wise, but it is a real faith. It has the same blind adherence exhibited in any other faith. In my view, it has an especially self-righteous certainty that they are correct. It may be so that they are, but I don't know, and if I had to guess I would say I am leaning towards theism. I only say that because of all the paranormal things I have seen, things that both atheists and theists generally disbelieve.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Atheism exists. It is not very common, percentage wise, but it is a real faith. In my view, it has an especially self-righteous certainty that they are correct.... only say that because of all the paranormal things I have seen, things that both atheists and theists generally disbelieve.


BlackGaurd what leads you to believe atheist's are so much more sure of themselves than anyone else? Is it that there always starting wars with other religions fueled by self doubt, manifesting itself into aggression? Or maybe it is all the atheistic fundamentalists constantly shoving their ideas into everyone elses face's, right?


These paranormal experiences would most certantly affect what you believe, and I think whatever you believe is fine. Just know thats all it is, what you believe. Not more right or wrong, just truth to you. An atheist does not feel the are more correct, it's just truth to them.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
If not believing in a diety of any kind will get me labeled as an athiest and that be called a form of religion ... well then so be it. I don't claim to be any more superior then any other human being on this planet. I do claim that I don't need a book written by man nor a religion created by man to be moral and good. I don't need to limit myself and the action's of myself based upon the belief system of some supernatural diety. I don't need to make believe that when I die I goto my happy place. I don't have that fear of my own mortality, death is a natural process that all living being's are subject to and there's no need to play it up and make it appear to be something it's not. I don't have any form of faith in science, atleast not in the same way those who believe in a diety. What I learn from science I know isn't an absolute truth and IS subject to constant change. I don't know how one could have faith in something that constantly change's. Science has never claimed absolute truth in the way religion has. When I follow a certain theory based upon the evidence's for that theory, if that theory were to change or be dropped, my belief in the validity of that theory would likewise change. This is something you can not do while having faith in religion without compromising the religion. Once it's the word of god, you can not change god's word. If you choose to reinterpret your diety's word your then picking and choosing what to believe in within your religion. Why do you think the early christian's dropped the book of enoch when they started picking and choosing what to have as the 'official' word of god? It was an embarresment to the discoveries going on in that time. Enoch paint's a flat earth cosmology, this is what early biblical people believed in as did most culture's back then. Anyway's ... I think it's rather pathetic how religous people want to label those who don't follow any form of faith as being a religion of itself. We 'atheists' DO NOT worship anything nor hold faith in anything, nor do we claim absolute truth's as religious folk are so quick to do.

Came across this. First time I've seen it.

www.atheists.org...



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
This particular part on the site stands out for me alot. My sister in law had to deal with this herself. Her doctor is christian and my sister in law asked about birth control, she said the doctor went basicly nuts over this. Needless to say, she didn't get the birth control as a result of this stupidity. She may have been only 16 at the time, but she was making the right choice in protecting herself against an early pregnancy, something that doctor should have been thinking about rather then what her retarded book and god says.



Any logical individual reaching the stage of physical adulthood should realize the consequences of the sex act. Yet, in this nation, we have been prohibited from gaining free access to information regarding human sexuality, especially with respect to birth control. Organized religion has been a major opponent of the distribution of birth control information, the lack of which has led to the increased incidence of child neglect, child abuse, and above all, the use of abortion *as a birth control measure.* We are animals. We are part of the primate group, and as such, our sexuality is an important part of our social structure. Denial or limitation of the availability of information regarding human sexuality and the birth process fosters degeneracy. Information regarding these physical processes has nothing to do with religion, morality, or ethics. They are simple facts that should be available to all.


[EDIT] Daaamn.... I could start a whole new thread based on what that site is saying along with the experiences I've had dealing with religous people both on and off this site!


[edit on 27-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Zodiac
These paranormal experiences would most certantly affect what you believe, and I think whatever you believe is fine. Just know thats all it is, what you believe. Not more right or wrong, just truth to you. An atheist does not feel the are more correct, it's just truth to them.


You have voted The Zodiac for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

My fiance is an atheist, and she has the same view as you, which is also very similar to mine. It is rare to hear anyone, theist, atheist, or otherwise who will grant me the possibility that my truth is true for me. I agree, you said it exactly.
I have found that agnostics are more often accepting of the chance that I am not wrong, whereas both theists and atheists generally proclaim with definitive certainty that I am wrong.
Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join