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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Black,

No one is taking away the possibility that it's true to you, but what may be true to you isn't universaly true. You may see something and say yup, paranormal right there. You may not understand the event and it could appear to you to be a true paranormal event. That doesn't make it a true paranormal event. Many of these so called paranormal event's when scrutinized through scientific means are found to be hoax's or something very explainable and reproducible. It's only those people who don't look into these thing's who believe in them as paranormal/supernatural activities. It's perfectly fine with me if you consider it YOUR truth, but there's no need to sit all high and mighty when given the evidence against such thing's and say oh well MY experience's say that just isn't so. I could goto a good magic show and be completly ignorant of how the magic act's are performed and say, well from MY experience magical power's are true and then I could run off to become a practicing wiccan. Personal truth's aren't necessarily reality. When you limit yourself to these belief's you open yourself up for gullibility and that limit's your ability to learn about reality.

In fact, people's belief's in prayer working is just ... ridiculous. There have been numerous studies done that show prayer does not change a sick person's condition. It does not heal etc etc. While prayer may give one a sense of hope and well being and reduce stress, that in itself is not healing the sick. We already know less stress better's the odd for recovering from an operation or having less complication's. But those who have faith in prayer aren't willing to look at the evidence against it, so they claim such thing's as truth for them and then try to push that onto other's. Religous teaching's of jesus say any prayer will be answered ... Well, why haven't the big thing's been answered? Why haven't amputee's been given new flesh and bone leg's by god? Why haven't physically disabled people been cured? Why haven't mentally disabled people been cured? All through prayer alone. Religous teaching say god is all powerfull, yet god can't even bring about world peace through prayer alone despite the fact that people pray for it. The only prayer's that seemingly get answered are little thing's, nothing big. So Jesus was wrong, not all prayer's get answered.

news.bbc.co.uk...

And I still can't find any information about this human diversity thing or the gravity/tide theory pulling the ocean's up over land.




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
as for god its stil a theory and it will stay that way if they don't going to bring in some factial evidence ect which proofs otherwise.
for evolution is more evidence eventhough the scientist of the major religions are questioning this evidence.

we have 3 theories
theory of god and that he created everything
theory of evolution with help of mutations and selection ( survival of fitest)
theory of evolution with a predesigned plan which is a theory which tries to build a bridge between creatism and evolution saying there was somethings build and then after that there was evolution

saying that the first is more wrong we can get that to the dustbin and then we have intellegent design and evolution left.
with the main scientist which say that evolution has the awnser and
on the otherside the people of religion and there scientist .

intellegent design was introduced by religion as a succesor to creatism its creatism with a twist of evolution .



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

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?



And it's cute how you, like most folks who have decided to ridicule another person's faith, resort to accusing some one else of some strange tactic. A tactic, I might point out, that you didn't even enunciate, but implied was used.

Your question above - "What make's your faith more correct then any other faith through out history?" is a nonsense question. By definition my faith is my own personal faith - every single person's faith is inherently their "truth" or they wouldn't have the faith. If I didn't hold the belief in which I have faith as true, I wouldn't have faith in it. It's an absolutely retarded question. If you are implying that because I have faith in a particular belief I demand everyone else have faith in the same belief...I do not. In fact, I'm absolutely okie-dokie with anyone who wants to believe anything. But if you speak your "faith" to me - I'm of the assumption you think it is "the truest" or you wouldn't have chosen it.

????

Do you see how absolutely ridiculous a question that is?



Either your doctrine is true or it's not.


Apparently, by my confession of faith, I am stating "I believe it is true"...well, apparent in so much that I've decided not to be the type person to go around saying I have chosen to believe something because it is not true.

My decision to believe is my own personal free moral agency in action - as is yours to not believe, believe something else, or whatever. Why do you feel the need to ridicule some one because of their faith? Why can't you just let all us dumb superstitious apes do what we please within in our own hearts and minds?

I find your intolerance concerning.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Uh, I did say evasion didn't I? Evasion as in, you still haven't answered the question?

Yes, you may believe to yourself that what YOU believe is true, BUT the question is WHY do you believe it's more true then anyother religion or god(s). What makes YOU think YOU are following the CORRECT faith? It's not an idiotic question, it's only idiotic when you choose to evade answering it because YOU CAN'T answer it, else you wouldn't need to play these stupid game's with those of us who asked this question. What YOU believe doesn't make that belief to be true. YOUR belief come's from lie's and plagerism of OTHER belief's, so why do YOU hold to yourself for it being truth? Simple question. WHY is it true to YOU above all other belief's.

Now be a good christian and punish me for my wicked sins of questioning YOUR belief. God commands you to do so ... Err, and to love thy neighbor. IDK, you PICK AND CHOOSE which command YOU believe pertains to this sinfull questioning.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Produkt, you are being an idiot... again, Might I add. From anyone's perspective, there is only one method to understanding personal truths.

There is the scientific method, which is based upon personal experience of experiments and outcomes. Most scientists do not practice all the science used to back up the worldview they are to understand as true... they accept that all those guys that went before were right and had evidence to back them up.

Then there is the personal experience model, which really is NO DIFFERENT from the scientific method. You either doubt what you experience, which of course throws everything you've experienced into doubt, or you accept what you experience as having happened. You can do both, but in the end you have to go with a decision about things that you can't repeat or experience at your leisure.

I've never met Skip Williams, who works for Wizards of the Coast. If I met him once, and then could not meet him again, that is not evidence that Skip Williams doesn't exist and that my experiences are flawedin their understanding. It is my personal experience that I would have met the person, and I can either accept that I did, or believe that since I can't reproduce the effect that it is a falseness of my senses.

Personal Experience is the ONLY explanation that people go on, personally. You cannot gauge the reality of anything but your own experiences, because you cannot perceive the perceptions of another person. You cannot know that person is anything more than something your senses detect, and if your senses lie, then it's possible that nobody exists. You have to accept on the face of things that people DO exist, because I am certain you would claim that even considering the possibility they don't is ludicrous.

For that, I dare you to prove I feel pain, or that I see.

Discounting personal experience is like saying "I don't believe in evidence."



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   


For that, I dare you to prove I feel pain, or that I see.


Challenge accepted.


Easily proven. I could administer an eye test, if you pass it then you can see and depending on how well you do we can also determin how well you see.


I could prick you with a needle, if you cry out then you obviously felt the pain from that needle. Or if you'd like we can go more extreme and use other more ... unpleasent method's of determing if you can feel pain.


As for personal experience, there's a difference. With scientific evidence, all are able to retest the validity of said evidence. Can faith in god be tested to the same degree? Nope. Using any of your five sense's alone you cannot prove god exist's. Using technology you cannot prove god exist's. It's ONLY by through having faith and turning away from scientific evidence for your experience's that god become's proven to you. Those of faith scoff at the idea that we evolved from something ... less sophisticated as us 'superior' human being's. Yet they don't even understand the basic concept's of what they're scoffing at. They scoff at all the evidence for the birth of the universe and yet again, they scoff at something they don't understand. Yet they believe that their new fangled religion is the one true religion despite it's recent and violent birth to claim that status. There's a HUGE difference (sorry to say it again) between scientific evidence and ... personal experience's.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
You have not proven that I see or feel pain. You have proven only that I *APPEAR* to... for you personally did not experience my sight or my pain. You must accept that what APPEARS to be is true.

Science involves just as much faith, whether you like to believe that or not.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Oh c'mon ... And you keep telling me to stop being an idiot!


If I point to a certain line and say what do you see on this line and you tell me what you see ... it's not that it appear's to me that you can see, you yourself are proving to me that you can see through the act of seeing alone and describing what it is your actually seeing! Same applies to pain. My turn to ask you to stop being idiotic. Science involve's no faith. Science doesn't claim absolute truth as religion does. Science is in a constant state of flux ... and hoestly, it's abit hard to have faith in something you know might change in 6 days or 60 years/ or even 600 years as we continually learn more and more about our universe and ourselve's. The only faith in this world is faith in religion. Or in some cases ... faith in stupidity.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Thank you BG, I just wish the rest of the world could do the same.


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword

For that, I dare you to prove I feel pain, or that I see.


I will try, but first you must establish what you mean by proof. I can logically "appear" to exist, becaue I doubt that I'm even doubting my existance. If you can too, logically I can assume theres no reason you wouldn't exist. I can feel pain, and can see. If you exist, and I believe you are telling the truth when telling me you can feel pain and see, then I think that's proof enough. Maybe that's the faith you're talking about.


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Discounting personal experience is like saying "I don't believe in evidence."


Personal experiences are open to human interpretation, and therefore not as credible as evidence. Evidence, such as physical things, can be felt or sensed rather than from memory. If the time you had the experience you mistaken something for what it wasn't, such as a spirtual experience , when really it you are getting high of gas then you would take it as proof?. You don't have to believe everything people tell you, just think logicall. Which is more likely?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
If I point to a certain line and say what do you see on this line and you tell me what you see ... it's not that it appear's to me that you can see, you yourself are proving to me that you can see through the act of seeing alone and describing what it is your actually seeing!


Or it is just as possible that I have been informed what you will ask me about, or that I somehow know the answer to your questions without "SEEING". Answering your questions is meaningless, as it is not proof of my being able to see.

And as for pain, you cannot experience my pain so you can never be certain I am feeling pain. I could be pretending to feel pain, such as when I knock my head and say"Ow" even though it does not hurt in the least.

All ofyour science MUST be filtered through your senses... and if your senses lie, then your SCIENCE IS JUST FAITH.

Why is this relevant? Because you are criticizing Blackguard for claiming to have experienced with his senses things that support his belief. He doesn't need to explain it or expect you to believe him, but that does NOT make him WRONG.

You are the vehicle for your consciousness, and only through your consciousness can you perceive science... and if your perceptions can be a lie (Because if BLACKGUARDS perceptions can lie to him in your opinion, then SO CAN YOURS), then all you have to go on is faith that what you know is true.

In the end, nobody knows anything... they only believe.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Uh, I did say evasion didn't I? Evasion as in, you still haven't answered the question?

Yes, you may believe to yourself that what YOU believe is true, BUT the question is WHY do you believe it's more true then anyother religion or god(s). What makes YOU think YOU are following the CORRECT faith?


It's not a matter of what I think; it's a matter of what I believe. It's a faith-based decision. Why is my decision so important to you? Why do you need my justification when it has no relevance to your life? The only justification that matters in your life is yours - not mine.



It's not an idiotic question, it's only idiotic when you choose to evade answering it because YOU CAN'T answer it, else you wouldn't need to play these stupid game's with those of us who asked this question. What YOU believe doesn't make that belief to be true. YOUR belief come's from lie's and plagerism of OTHER belief's, so why do YOU hold to yourself for it being truth? Simple question. WHY is it true to YOU above all other belief's.


I'm not playing any games. I'm answering your questions. My spiritual choice is a faith-based decision. I have placed my faith in a certain set of beliefs. It is only you who seems to have a problem with what that means and who seems to have a problem with the fact that "What YOU believe doesn't make that belief to be true" is an idiotic statement. It makes it true for me. It is a necessary outcome of my believing. It doesn't make it true for anyone else - but luckily my free moral agency applies to only my reality - not yours.




Now be a good christian and punish me for my wicked sins of questioning YOUR belief. God commands you to do so ... Err, and to love thy neighbor. IDK, you PICK AND CHOOSE which command YOU believe pertains to this sinfull questioning.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Produkt]


God does not command I punish anyone. My spiritual books (the words of Christ) tell me that I am supposed to love you as I love myself. So I'm going to. In fact, for you, I'm going to love just a little bit more, because your intolerance leaves a void that needs to be filled. I choose to fill it with my love.

[edit on 2-28-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   


It's not a matter of what I think; it's a matter of what I believe. It's a faith-based decision. Why is my decision so important to you? Why do you need my justification when it has no relevance to your life? The only justification that matters in your life is yours - not mine


I understand it's faith based. The question is why do you put so much faith into that particular religion over any other? No it doesn't have an relevance to my life, but it does help people like me understand why people believe in the thing's they believe. For example, if you were born in india you'd probably be practicing hinduism or such like that.




I'm not playing any games. I'm answering your questions. My spiritual choice is a faith-based decision. I have placed my faith in a certain set of beliefs. It is only you who seems to have a problem with what that means and who seems to have a problem with the fact that "What YOU believe doesn't make that belief to be true" is an idiotic statement. It makes it true for me. It is a necessary outcome of my believing. It doesn't make it true for anyone else - but luckily my free moral agency applies to only my reality - not yours.


It make's it true for you, yes. But, why do some feel the need to push faith based truth's on other's as factual truth's? Do I really need to be saved just because those of faith believe in some mythical god? People talk about intollerance against their religion and yet many are intollerant against what other believe. Even god himself with his first commandment is intollerant to what other's believe.




God does not command I punish anyone. My spiritual books (the words of Christ) tell me that I am supposed to love you as I love myself. So I'm going to. In fact, for you, I'm going to love just a little bit more, because your intolerance leaves a void that needs to be filled. I choose to fill it with my love.


So... Does this mean we're going steady now.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

It make's it true for you, yes. But, why do some feel the need to push faith based truth's on other's as factual truth's? Do I really need to be saved just because those of faith believe in some mythical god? People talk about intollerance against their religion and yet many are intollerant against what other believe. Even god himself with his first commandment is intollerant to what other's believe.


Okay, I can answer these questions for the beliefs I have accepted for myself and only from my own position. First I would like to answer your question about why I made the free moral agency decision I made. I made it because after years of studying the various religions of the world, my spirit told me that my truth lay in the words of Christ. That the truth was in the mission of Christ and what his life, death, resurrection and return mean for me.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   


Okay, I can answer these questions for the beliefs I have accepted for myself and only from my own position. First I would like to answer your question about why I made the free moral agency decision I made. I made it because after years of studying the various religions of the world, my spirit told me that my truth lay in the words of Christ. That the truth was in the mission of Christ and what his life, death, resurrection and return mean for me.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
If scientific method is what you are refering to, Produkt, I have years of intensively looking at it from your side. It is hard to believe that you could think anyone who is not an athest has not. These folks are not stupid. Some of the brightest minds in history were fascinated by the reality of paranormal phenomena. Isaac Newton was no fool. I do not understand how anyone can ascribe to one particular, specific, church or religion, but I do not find anything wrong with those who do. I more easily understand those who believe that paranormal stuff doesn't exist. Honestly, without personal experience over decades, I likely would too. I scored very well in my science courses, though only up to second year university level, which was as far as I went. If the links I posted for prayer experiments that were a success are not acceptable to you, I have nothing else to offer. It is surprising to me that these studies even succeeded, since these kinds of things usually seems to evade scientific statistically significant proof.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I understand the whole personal experience issue. But like I said, I could remain completely unknowledgable about how a magic act is performed ... say an island native, never told, never heard, and never realized that a really good illusionist performing a magic act was really just a regular human being. He would literal think this guy had supernatural power's. He would go back to his tribe and tell the story of how this guy did this or that. Walked on water, levitated, turned water into wine, seemingly rose from the dead (you can appear dead through meditation, biofeedback). A few of today's magicians can perform all these so called miracle's of christ, yet we don't worship them. Why? Is it because we know they're not performing miracle's and we know it's just an illusion? But what of the island native who wasn't told and didn't know of all this? Through his personal experience of NOT knowing how something worked, it did seem like a miracle ... just saying ...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
This is so simple it hurts

If one is an Atheist (as I am) I do not aftering listening to others and reading certain old books believe that there is a god

I have no faith in a god

I have no religious beliefs.

I have SOME beliefs ...... like my name, my age, scientific facts that I BELIEVE to be true.

Based on my OWN thoughts ...... I believe there is no god, no higher being.

That is the meaning of Atheist

I have a brain (a very good one) and I worked out for MYSELF there is no god. I dont have to read a book of fiction or listen every Sunday to someone who claims they know something I do not.

Please first understand what the meaning of Atheist is before you start to babble on about the concept of the word being about ANY beliefs at all.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by snatchypaws]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I believe your name here on ATS is snatchypaws. Based upon the observation of you posting under this name and responding to post's directed to this name, the belief I hold in that it being the name you use is founded with evidence dictating that this is your name on ATS. I don't have faith that it's the name you use, I have verifiable evidence to believe and know that it's a fact that it's the name you use.

No one of faith has that same of god or supernatural occurance's.

Just using you as an example snatchypaws



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
So long as your senses don't lie, you mean.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Excellent counter arguement.







 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join