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 WeaponsOfMassDistraction
Just stop by www.atheists.org/ and see how many times the word Christianity appears on every page. It's everywhere,
Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Anyway, all children are born atheists.
Now I see this thread isn't meant to be anything other than skeptic bashing -- and in particular, atheist bashing -- as that is where it has ended up.
I'm sure someone else will no doubt still like to dance with you a bit. But I prefer to have discussions with people who are not so obviously out to get points for cattiness.
Have fun. I'm off to more interesting conversation.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Reply to Jazzerman
Excellent post. You make a good case for the other side. I would never suggest getting rid of science though. I acknolwedge the importance of science. What I am proposing is that purely materialistic science focussed on studying mainly physical objects is limited and needs improvement. Improvement to what? The study of consciousness (the part of us observing the objects). Rather than only looking at what is studied and has been studied, I would look at the one studying and also at what could be studied.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Originally posted by Astyanax
Hurry up throw out your challenge, whatever it is. I can't wait to take you up on it.
OK, the challenge in simple words, the theory, my theory: Because of a few experiences of spiritual nature I have... tumty tumty tumty... "hard physical evidence".
chal·lenge /ˈtʃælɪndʒ / -- noun
-- Dictionary.com, Unabridged (v 1.1)
- a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc.
- something that by its nature or character serves as a call to battle, contest, special effort, etc.: Space exploration offers a challenge to humankind.
- a call to fight, as a battle, a duel, etc.
- a demand to explain, justify, etc.: a challenge to the treasurer to itemize expenditures.
- difficulty in a job or undertaking that is stimulating to one engaged in it.
- Military. the demand of a sentry for identification or a countersign.
- Law. a formal objection to the qualifications of a particular juror, to his or her serving, or to the legality of an entire jury.
- the assertion that a vote is invalid or that a voter is not legally qualified.
- Biology. the process of inducing or assessing physiological or immunological activity by exposing an organism to a specific substance.
- Hunting. the crying of a hound on finding a scent.
To be frank, I am SADDENED by looking at experiencers who come to ATS full of life, juice and enthusiasm, willing to spill their hearts out to others, and are then beaten with the cold and robotic response "wheres the evidence?" And this is my original motivation for opening the thread. So while skeptics have their validity, this thread goes against hardcore-sceptics.
Originally posted by jpm1602
You are very very egocentric and quite quite full of yourself.
Originally posted by Redge777
I am very skeptical of even my own skeptism, so I live in a constant state of confusion.
A dog perceives more sound-frequencies and an intuitive person may perceive more energy-frequencies. The motto of the "sceptic" is that anything that cannot be physically perceived and demonstrated must be untrue. From this vantage point, anything that doesnt fit into the limited confines of this view, must be distorted to fit. Sceptics will go to ridiculous lengths to prove that there are no paranormal and spiritual phenomena so that everything remains safe for them.
In my view, these types of sceptics use their philosophy to mask and supress insecurity. They feel insecure and fearful in life and, similar to the people who hold on to a religion, they hold on to the view that they know what most things mean, that physical reality is the prime reality and so forth. You have to be courageous to say "I really dont know whats true".
I will close in saying, that I am sceptical myself....but I am not sceptical towards paranormal and spiritual realities, I am sceptical towards the worldview spoon-fed by some scientists and "sceptics" posing as authorities.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
I will go further to annoy Major Malfunction: Atheism is a product of Christianity. (explanation see response to scientist above)
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12) on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as "[those who are] without God".