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.

 

A few questions I have(towards Atheists)

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



Erm I don't think Budhists actually have a god at all. Pretty sure they don't.




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   


I believe in some science....
reply to post by Equinox99
 


One doesn't "believe" in science. Science is based on observation and probability. In science you have a null hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (H1). For instance, let's assume that we think that Earth is flat. The H0: Earth is flat. The H1: Earth is not flat. We then gather evidence that will support the H1 that in fact it is not flat even though we are really looking for evidence of the HO that it is flat...if we are unable to do so, then we assume that we fail to find evidence to reject the H0. In other words with science you try to disprove what you suspect is true by collecting evidence that can be observed and may generalise in the field. Associated terminalogy includes type I & II errors but we can cover this in tomorrow's lecture...(lol)

Within the fraimwork of religion where "faith can move mountains", observations and data analysis are not relevant and at the very least, certainly not the cornerstone of the organizational structure. Nothing is questioned, you simply believe what you are told, or what someone wrote rather than looking at solid evidence to back up the claim. Excessive questioning is met with stern frowns and sometimes even a trip down to the office!

Thus, one "believes" (you either believe it or you don't) in religion, and finds support or lack there of based on observation, with science; as more and more studies pile up to support the theory, the efficacy of the particular theory is strengthened, but it must be falsafiable, that is people must be able to apply hypothesis testing to it somehow, thus a scientist will by nature of the trade be skeptical from the start lest he or she jump the gun, as it were, and make an error.

For someone not trained in statistics, it can sound confusing, but this method has been one of humanities greatest achievements, and is the crown jewel of science. Without it you would have to toss out many of our modern conveniences we often take forgranted. Anyway, I hope this helps some with the topic questions...

Cheers,
Sky...

[edit on 28-1-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon365
 


You get real and while your at it, get an education.

You know NOTHING of history. Religion taught Stalin how to be a vicious monster just as Hitler learned from the catholic religion. I also noticed you failed to comment on the millions of innocents butchered in the ‘holy inquisitions’ wherein men, women and children, including infants were tortured in the most heinous methods ever devised by human hands! All of that was done in the name of YOUR god. The so-called christian emperor Constantine was a brutal savage who killed most of his own family, including his wife after his ‘conversion’ to christianity.

Of course, you couldn’t address the issues I posted but tried to point in a different direction. Learn something before you post.
[Joseph Stalin] (1879-1953) was a Communist revolutionary and leader. He had originally studied to become an Eastern Orthodox priest in Tbilisi, Georgia in Russia.

The fact that it was a Church education helped to form the mind of a man who was to become known for his dogmatism and his propensity for seeing issues in absolute terms, in black and white. Anyone reading Stalin's speeches and writings will notice their catechistic structure, the use of question and answer, the reduction of complex questions to a set of simplified formulas, the quoting of text to support his arguments. The same Church influence has been noted by biographers in his style of speaking or writing Russian: "declamatory and repetitive, with liturgical overtones." -- Alan Bullock, "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" (1991)

How people stay so ignorant in this day and age just boggles the mind. With computers available on a daily basis to most of us, how do you jusfify knowing almost nothing?

I could get into the Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swagart, Jim Bakker, Paul and Jan Crouch, Ron Parsley, Bishop Long, Fred Price, Creflo Dollar, John Hagee and hundreds more 'christian teachers who are the scrapings from the barrels bottom you people follow after in droves.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sayso
reply to post by defcon365
 


You get real and while your at it, get an education.

You know NOTHING of history. Religion taught Stalin how to be a vicious monster just as Hitler learned from the catholic religion.


It is apparent the only education you have is that of your own ideas!!! Otherwise you may want to do some editing on Wikipedia my friend...

Hitler USED THE CHURCH, his foundation was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, eugenics, and social Darwinism.

From wikipedia:

"Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles (over three million casualties), alleged communists or political opposition, members of resistance groups, Catholic and Protestant opponents, homosexuals, Roma, the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war (possibly as many as three million), Jehovah's Witnesses, anti-Nazi clergy, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed"

In regards to Stalin, once again, check your sources.

From wikipedia:
"Stalin received his education at Theological Seminary at Tiflis (Tbilisi), where his mother sent him to become a priest, but he became a closet atheist."



I could get into the Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swagart, Jim Bakker, Paul and Jan Crouch, Ron Parsley, Bishop Long, Fred Price, Creflo Dollar, John Hagee and hundreds more 'christian teachers who are the scrapings from the barrels bottom you people follow after in droves.


I like how you quote us as "you people" that's mature...

83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. I will state that some of the above preachers you mentioned, I personally do not like, especially the "Prosperity Theologists". I prefer the teachings of Charles Stanley, Gene Scott, and Adrian Rogers.

As for religous wars caused by fanatics, they are not my wars, just as much as wars caused by athiest fanatics are not yours. I just find it ironic how some athiests try to pin them on the average Bible Believing Christians...



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon365
It is apparent the only education you have is that of your own ideas!!! Otherwise you may want to do some editing on Wikipedia my friend...

Hitler USED THE CHURCH, his foundation was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, eugenics, and social Darwinism.


Martin Luther?

Or was Kristallnacht on Luther's birthday by pure coincidence? Was the idea for jews being marked in public an original Nazi idea?

Anyway, on the 'atheist fanatics', I think its more correct to say 'communist fanatics', as atheist =/= communist. I wouldn't call Hitler a theistic fanatic, just a genocidal fascist maniac.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon365
 



Nevermind! Anyone who depends on Wikipedia for acurate information is someone who will believe anything! That explained a lot. YOU PEOPLE are all clones of one another and you can only repeat, like a trained parrot, what you have been taught. sad sad sad..................Charles Stanley???? The divorced preacher who stated a few years ago if he should ever be divorced he would leave the ministry as he would no longer biblically be qualified?!!!! Gene Scot?!!! LOL, OMG, what a nut case that one was. He would drink and curse on tv and people like you still listened to him and sent him money. Don't ever address my again. I don't waste my time on YOU PEOPLE.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sayso
 


Charles Stanley's wife left HIM. There is a difference. You can't make people stay with you against their will!
I don't know Gene Scott.
You Do need to read the T&C of ATS. Us People.

Also, Our God didn't carry out the inquisition. That was Satan as the head of Mystery Babylon.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


I think such people are better relegated to the ignore list, Hon. They know nothing of intelligent debate and have to constantly resort to attacking the person and not the argument. "THOSE PEOPLE" are not worthy of your time. You can't argue someone guided by emotions or debate someone whose reality was created in their own mind. Ignore Lists: It's where the party's at.

To the Original Poster: Probably, as others have stated, Christianity has been the dominating religion for a while especially in the West. Most of their gripes have to do with the Catholic system and their history and Protestant embarrassments like Fred Phelps. Unfortunately, they might see all of us as being clones of Fred Phelps like we might see them all as being clones of Madalyn Murray O'Hair. It doesn't make it right but it is human nature to stereotype. Common sense would tell us there are different people in different groups. Especially a group consisting of over 2 billion people. You're bound to have some nuts mixed in with the fruit.

[edit on 1/31/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 
The reason why atheists attack Christians is that Christians are the most likely to attack evolution. They are also the most likely to speak English on an English speaking site.

Notwithstanding this, and highlighting the first point, atheists don't need to defend their beliefs but Christians do. Atheist beliefs are a threat to and are killing off Christianity. On the other hand, Christianity has no effect on being an atheist, we are not an organised group seeking communion with each other or a reward for being here. As a result of this most of the debates are Christian initiated.

Look at some of the totally dumb comments in these posts opening with warnings to atheists and letters from the devil, a direct challenge to atheists.

How many direct challenges do you see to theists?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join