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.

 

Atheist Chat

page: 22
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Yes, that forum is open to everyone - just like this one.


You make it very clear that you don't believe in prayer and then you proceeded to tell him his beliefs are wrong - the exact same thing you get upset at religious people for doing.

I'm glad to see that you get my point.




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Odd ... the Recent Posts lists shows you posted last, Duzey, but when I try to access the post, only my last post came up.

So I don't know what you said/asked.

[edit to add]

That fixed it.

There IS a difference. His thread asks if the novena is proof of god. This thread is titled Atheist Chat.

One is a question, and one is a statement. That is the difference.

One quick question before I go nap while my son is out:

Is this an official exercise, or are we sparring as one regular person to another? Out of curiosity, I'm trying to figure out if I'm being reprimanded in a roundabout way or if this is just a debate. Either way, I'm tired, so I'll be back later.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


well, i jumped into "calling all angels" for a second to share what i believed in (nothing), phrased it politely, without argument or confrontation, and left. then i posted a belief from islam that i prefer (love for scholars).

if there's a thread for pure theological discussion within the tenants of a belief system, i will discuss it as such for the exercise of such a discussion

there was a thread a while back in which someone argued that christianity is only about salvation through faith, i argued that it is salvation through works.
it was clearly a thread for theological discussion, i participated as such.

reply to post by Duzey
 



well, i responded to it as well. the question is if something is proof of god. i think an atheist would probably be the best person to judge if something is proof of god... seeing as aforementioned atheist would be objective and readily accept a proven deity (that's kind of what atheism is about, evidence). so, i think MM and i are actually quite on topic in there.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
you know what needs to happen?
a big gathering of atheist near churches. they preach stupidity we'll shout truth.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   


Is this an official exercise, or are we sparring as one regular person to another? Out of curiosity, I'm trying to figure out if I'm being reprimanded in a roundabout way or if this is just a debate.

This isn't an official exercise - this is me trying to understand 'do as I say, not as I do'. You may see a fine line here, I don't.


edited to elaborate:

Yes, if someone is asking if something is 'proof' is God, telling them you are an athiest and don't believe in the power of prayer is on topic. What I'm questioning is the need to add to that and 'preach' your beliefs - the same thing you hate about religious people.

For the record, I don't believe you can prove God's existence and it's silly to try.



[edit on 25-9-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I think where we're getting hung up here is this:

By preaching and proselytizing, I mean, if someone comes on here and posts something and we say, not the point of the thread and it continues, and gets argumentative, the way some threads around here can, and do.

When someone goes into a thread, posts their point of view and then leaves without shouting about it over and over again, it's not crossing the line.

Naturally some threads are more open ended and the arguing can and does go on. The threads I usually end up arguing for a while in are the ones that are designed to provoke such a response. Just a f'rinstance.

This being atheist chat, getting onto a tangent about how Jesus loves us and died for our presumed sins is derailing the thread.

Asking if a novena is proof of god can't be answered without a statement of why not in the poster's estimation.

I DO see a line here obviously. And it can't be my bifocals because I got progressive lenses.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Hokay then, I wanted to try and understand the reasoning and it appears to be a matter of personal perception. As for those who try and save your souls with all their Jesus talk, I just try and remember that they do it because they care. They worry about us and their hearts are usually in the right place.


I did have a little story to share, which made me think of this thread in the first place. My sister had a baby shower this weekend and some ladies she works with were invited. When my sisiter opened the gift she had brought, there was a tiny (obviously, it was for a baby) gold cross on a chain in the box. The moment my sister pulled it out, the woman realized this might not have been the best possible gift and, looking very concerned and embarrassed, asked if it was alright that she had bought a cross and offered to have it exchanged. My sister told her it was fine (she didn't want to hurt her feelings), but I bet that cross gets replaced with something else.

I actually felt bad for the woman, she seemed so upset that she might have offended my sister with her gift.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysouli think an atheist would probably be the best person to judge if something is proof of god... seeing as aforementioned atheist would be objective and readily accept a proven deity

Sorry I missed this before. I actually think that an agnostic would be a better judge because they allow for the possibility, where an atheist doesn't. I honestly don't see atheists as any more objective than theists, both groups hold beliefs that they can't prove.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Duzey
 


I can only speak for myself on this matter.
Personally I wouldn't want a believers to come along and hijack this thread with posts about Atheists going to hell e.t.c . If a believer was to come along and ask intelligent questions I would be quiet happy to answer them . But that isnt the way of religions.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I wouldn't want people to come onto this thread saying all atheists are going to hell either. That's a really crappy thing to say to someone.

I want to tell those kind of people that they are making all people of faith look bad and sowing seeds of discord. But then I wonder if saying those things to them puts me in conflict with my personal beliefs because if I said that, wouldn't I be thinking that my beliefs are superior to theirs and doing the very same thing I detest? That's been a problem for me ever since I joined ATS, and is why I don't post in the religious forums normally. Anyone want to take a shot at helping me with my dilemma?

So, umm, yeah - I don't think you should get told you're going to hell, but I don't think that all people of faith are insane conversion monsters either.






[edit on 25-9-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I wouldn't want people to come onto this thread saying all atheists are going to hell either. That's a really crappy thing to say to someone.


Yeah although I wouldn't exactly be bothered by such an accusation.



I want to tell those kind of people that they are making all people of faith look bad


Well there is no need for me to do that religious people do that perfectly well by themselves.


But then I wonder if saying those things to them puts me in conflict with my personal beliefs because if I said that, wouldn't I be thinking that my beliefs are superior to theirs and doing the very same thing I detest? That's been a problem for me ever since


IMO your missing the mark . Its not about who's beliefs are superior instead it comes down to a choice between rational and logic where the evidence leads you to your conclusions or pure speculation fantasy.
Let me put it this way just think what it would be like if your countries Justice system was based on faith. You could be thrown into jail on a whim without there ever being a thread of evidence against you.



but I don't think that all people of faith are insane conversion monsters either.


All expect for the ones that crash planes into buildings and the ones that don't the separation of the Church and the State.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
We saved your soul. Now we own your body


Originally posted by Duzey
As for those who try and save your souls with all their Jesus talk, I just try and remember that they do it because they care.

I'm sorry, Duzey, but that won't wash with me.

I'm what you might call a product of colonialism. I wouldn't be here today if my country had not been overrun by successive waves of European colonists and their respective versions of Christianity. Colonialism had massively traumatic and destructive effects on the local complex of cultures, destroying much and metamorphosizing the rest into something very different. Certain people, including some of my grandparents and great-grandparents, did very well out of this, and their descendants (such as myself) still do, by and large. But the same cannot be said for the majority of my fellow-countrymen.

I know the history of my country and of imperialism in general. In fact, history is a hobby of mine. And I know all too well how the mission of saving souls was used as a cover for the most unspeakable atrocities and acts of wholesale exploitation.

Have you ever heard the phrase conquista espiritual? Would you like me to send you references to some accounts of what the savers of souls did to whom they saved? All too often the deal went like this: 'we saved your soul, so we own your body.'

Communications theorists like to point out that all communications are for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver. 'Jesus talk' is no different. Not one bit.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Thanks Duzey for the debate. It's been very interesting.

I think there is a misperception you're having about atheists. Though on the boards we say there is no god, most of us (MIMS and myself I know for certain) would be open to actual objective evidence if any were to make an appearance. If the evidence showed that there WAS a god, then we would have to re-think our own personal cosmologies.

Yes, I am very vehement in my statements that there is no god. That doesn't mean my mind is closed to the possibility IF there were real evidence for it. I'm talking real, objective, empiric evidence. The kind that would hold up in a scientific study.

Rather than go through all of that in every post, I stick with the simplistic view. As far as I'm concerned, right now, with the evidence I have (technically, the lack thereof), there is no such thing as god -- or anything supernatural.

I think this is a common perception of atheists, and it is also mistaken. I'm sure there are some that say there is NO god and wouldn't accept ANY evidence no matter what its quality. But I think that most of the atheists that speak out strongly about the subject are de facto atheists.

On Dawkins's scale of atheism/agnosticism, a de facto atheist is one who does not and cannot know for certain but believes that god is very improbable, so they live on the assumption that god is not there.

Were the probabilities to shift, as I said, I would be willing to reevaluate my stance. until then, I remain a de facto atheist and will speak and post from that position.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Can you not use the universe as a type of evidence for an all encompassing "intelligence"? I don't believe in the supernatural. All that exists, be it in alternate dimensions or otherwise, it still exists. Every thing is. It all forms one.

Predicament is altered through observation. To myself, this can explain in part, the science of free will. (I don't agree with "free will does not exist")

I am not typing to change your life, I am trying to understand where you believe the fineness of this construct originated from.

A self-replicating, self-observing fractal, This universe contains all knowledge, since it is from our observation and personal computation of information derived from it, that we gain understanding of not only all that is around us, but also of all that is in us.

Maths is all that exist. Where did they come from. What form could've produced such an amazing entity, Mathematic.

when I ponder, I arrive at love. A building force, replicative force, a prolonging force, an adding force, it is better build something good, it is better to tear down a bad thing.

God is love, man is himself. The self cannot handle itself.

Some folks see "God" as a cop-out answer. I see it as the only logical answer with which to build all other conclusions upon.

As Lao Tzu wrote,

The highest good is like water.
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.
In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In business, be competent.
In action, watch the timing.
No fight: No blame.

What he writes about, many men have discovered, it is there to find, not there to create.

It is a science in itself, the truth. Jesus, Yeshua, whatever you'd like to call him, brought with him a scientific method with which to surpass death I believe.

Think, what ye may think.

Life is but a wisp of smoke, soon passing, in the breeze of death.

Good Luck.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The existence of the universe is not proof of a higher being. The more we learn about it scientifically, the more improbable the concept of god becomes.

Faith is not a science, Depth Om. Science relies on actual evidence that lies in the natural world. Faith relies on belief despite LACK of evidence.

Saying that Jesus brought science to the world is a contradiction in terms, and therefore it is nonsensical.

But thanks for trying to understand.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Not "Jesus brought science". He brought with him the method, the science of faith and the way to life.

Now, how does science, the record of observation, negate the existence of a thinking being that holds more wisdom and knowledge than ourselves? We are the zenith of the universe? We mold and shape, but we cannot truly create.

All that surrounds is not ordered? There is no chaos, only finer vibration.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
Not "Jesus brought science". He brought with him the method, the science of faith and the way to life.


actually, i believe it was aristotle that developed the scientific method



Now, how does science, the record of observation, negate the existence of a thinking being that holds more wisdom and knowledge than ourselves?


it doesn't negate it, it just doesn't show that there is one. the more and more we learn, the less and less room there is for that being in the gaps of knowledge



We are the zenith of the universe? We mold and shape, but we cannot truly create.


nobody ever said we were the zenith of the universe...
and nothing can create. you'd break a law of physics to do so



All that surrounds is not ordered? There is no chaos, only finer vibration.


it is regular, there is cause and effect, but there isn't order in the sense of a being made it this way.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


These answers are anchored by your own belief, as are mine.

It seems... we either believe one thing or another. As for Jesus inventing the scientific method... I didn't say that anywhere!

I said Christ brought with him the method and precepts with which to defeat death.

As for the more we know, the less room there is for God...

Man has recently discovered evidence supporting the infinite parallel universe theories. No room for God? Look at how little we actually know.



[edit on 26-9-2007 by depth om]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
These answers are anchored by your own belief, as are mine.





It seems... we either believe one thing or another. As for Jesus inventing the scientific method... I didn't say that anywhere!

I said Christ brought with him the method and precepts with which to defeat death.


ah, but you put forth that jesus brought the way to life
i'm just saying that the scientific method is the real way ot life.



As for the more we know, the less room there is for God...

Man has recently discovered evidence supporting the infinite parallel universe theories. No room for God? Look at how little we actually know.


...where does god fit in there without being cut out by occam's razor?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



My foolhardy reply is, God cannot be cut.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join