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.

 

Why I try to disprove God.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid

Originally posted by blueorder
Like any sage follower you would not seek a static historical literal meaning of a biblical narrative, you look for it's deep philosophical principle.


If you look deep enough you'll find anything. How is the meaning meant to be kept over long periods of time if it's not meant to be taken literally? No one would know the real meaning. This excuse is used every time science proves part of the bible wrong.


Not at all, the philosphical view of the bible I am talking about was around over a thousand years ago, before some people tried to use science as some sort of evidence to disprove a literal bible.

Clearly the Bible is only a guide, not an exact user's handbook as to how the cosmos works, because such a book would be truly out of our comprehensions and would probably involve an infinite number of pages- imagine such a book being given to peasants one thousand plus years ago!

The understanding of God is intuitive not literal- to pretend otherwise is just egotistical.

We can glimpse the Word, the main point is that it exists, not how, we will never comprehend that.

I don't advocate that as "anti science"- science has improved our physical existence immeasurably

[edit on 26-11-2007 by blueorder]




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I hear where you are coming from on this subject. (original poster)

However it seems that others in higher shoes (or better well known) have and are trying to do what you are doing - with little success. (Dawkins, etc.)

I have pondered this as well. It would seem reason would override superstition.
But the issue is simply this - everyone comes from that perspective & view point.
This is why religious zealots will not convert other religious zealots (typically).

And it is the same reason why 'athiest' wont change a Christians mind, etc.

The point really comes down to both sides saying, "You dont want to understand my point."

We feel that the other side is not listening - we feel we are at the end of the stick, etc.
Both sides have a go at it, trying to convince the other that their version of the story is right. They are not trying to hear and understand and relate where the other is coming from...so inevitably things never really change.

Yes there is a change sometimes...of story.
A person goes from a Satanist to a Christian. (and a fanatical one taboot.)
Or vice-versa.

But there never seems to be the middle ground.

Perhaps instead of arguing what God is not - see if you can explore what God is.
And explore in such a way that you are speaking their language, in words that they get and relate to so that they are not automatically retaliating.

Truth is, many of times, groups are saying the same thing despite how different it seems on the surface. They just get caught up with the symbology of it all. They take the symbols and pointers as facts and believe the myth.

This takes one thing. Love.
In other words that are more readily understood it takes acceptance that they have the choice to believe what they believe, and that in trying to change their way of thinking, is really the same as them trying to convert you.

We go through different levels of understanding about this.
But as time wears on, it becomes more evident that 'others' are not a threat.
We treat them that way often times in our desire to persuade them of our version of truth. But when we see them for who they are, which is not the story that they have enwrapped around themselves, then it becomes more evident to them the futility of their own story.

They drop the useless defenses, perhaps slowly, and then communication happens.

I have said this many times before, here at ATS, on my old ATS blog, and new blog, but having been raised in a strong Christian milieu (even being a missionary), this is the experience and perspective I have to bring to the table on such a discussion.

For a Christian, it is just a matter of helping them to break down the barrier of fear that was built up over years of dogma handed them by the church, and not necessarily their own interpretation of the Bible. And it is sad, because in theory, fear is the one thing that is not supposed to characterize the Christian - but it so often does.

Peace

dAlen



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen

Perhaps instead of arguing what God is not - see if you can explore what God is.
And explore in such a way that you are speaking their language, in words that they get and relate to so that they are not automatically retaliating.

Truth is, many of times, groups are saying the same thing despite how different it seems on the surface. They just get caught up with the symbology of it all. They take the symbols and pointers as facts and believe the myth.

This takes one thing. Love.






Exactly, I am not what one would describe as a "christian" in terms of how I live my life (certain areas could do with improving) even though I attend church a couple of times a month.

I agree it is about the underlying deeper principles than the specifics of literal bible interpretation, namely Love, love of God/JC and your neighbour?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Wonderful to read that....when in doubt turn to LOVE....(that's our DAD)..........i'm not a converter, i'm a 'helper'....i understand the gift of 'free will'...i respect that...the horse has got to drink its own water...its good to share our own personal stories & learn from eachother...the prob. is we are all having our own 'dream'...unique to each...no wonder there is so many disputes...pretty hard to really understand anothers experiences...if u haven't experienced it....but surrounding all those individual dreams is one big dream called LOVE....thats the Creators Dream...that is the one that can bring us together....(& i don't mean religion
................GB

[edit on 26-11-2007 by dave7]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Perhaps someone already said this but allow me to say it too (in that case).
It doesn't matter the tyrant's ideology, whether it be religious ala Inquisition or scientific ala Nazi Germany (they were after all about "genetic purity" after all).

People are people and no matter what ideology they follow there will always be those that want to control others or want what the others have, or fear and (or) hate some different group.

The problems with this world is NOT religion, it is US (meaning the human race). We NEED to fix ourselves. Not some great placebo like you and those of your ilk keep preaching over and over and over again about ridding the world of the great "EVIL" of religion. That won't change the lesss savory parts of human nature, like his horrible predisposition towards brutality.
Neither science or religion is going to save us from ourselves. They are both after all just words that mankind made.

Your ideology is as flawed theirs are sir.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
First of all, Nazi Germany was as much about religion as a "master race." I seem to recall hearing something about 6 million Jewish people.

Second, I never said religion was the only divisive tool used to control people in the world. It is, however, the only one that that has been used since the dawn of written history. It is the only one that those in power can use on anyone, in any nation, at any time.

You preach a logical fallacy by arguing that because religion is not the only problem with mankind, it is not a problem at all. Rape is not the only crime. Should we stop trying to prevent rape from occurring?

I don't plan to address people arguing about what God is, this isn't a thread about semantics. God can be Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, "God" himself, Zeus, or Paris Hilton for all I care. Anything that lies to people to gain control over them is bad and can be done without. Period.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
First of all, Nazi Germany was as much about religion as a "master race." I seem to recall hearing something about 6 million Jewish people.
[/QUOTE]


It was not religiously inspired, ie, Hitler wasn't reciting the bible before issuing his orders the way some Islamist terrorists do. He also killed for numerous other reasons, he certainly despised Jews as he thought they controlled people and were the cause of Germany's problems, but he also despised homosexuals, gypsies, etc etc.



[QUOTE]Second, I never said religion was the only divisive tool used to control people in the world. It is, however, the only one that that has been used since the dawn of written history. It is the only one that those in power can use on anyone, in any nation, at any time.
[/QUOTE]

Racial & tribal divisions have been a part of division and control since God knows when. Also, certainly in the modern world, the people who are religious are the least likely to end up in jail, committing crimes etc etc- it is not to say that 100% they WONT, but by and large they ain't up to anti social behaviour



[QUOTE]
You preach a logical fallacy by arguing that because religion is not the only problem with mankind, it is not a problem at all. Rape is not the only crime. Should we stop trying to prevent rape from occurring?
[/QUOTE]

Religion itself is not a "problem" though, and certainly not equitable with rape. The problem, as I see it with religion, is when those who profess to follow it, try to move it from saving the soul and spiritual matters, into earhtly matters of governance



[QOUTE]I don't plan to address people arguing about what God is, this isn't a thread about semantics. God can be Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, "God" himself, Zeus, or Paris Hilton for all I care. Anything that lies to people to gain control over them is bad and can be done without. Period.


You can only guess that God does not exist, you cannot say "period"



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
Religion itself is not a "problem" though, and certainly not equitable with rape. The problem, as I see it with religion, is when those who profess to follow it, try to move it from saving the soul and spiritual matters, into earhtly matters of governance


I reckon it's worst than rape, all those killed just for not having the same stupid belief. How many wars have been raged in the name of religion and how many more have and will die?

Of course people in power play a big part in it, but most people are just following blindly without question.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
You try to disprove god..as you put it, Because you fear someone might be more powerful and smarter than you. it's an ego trip that wont let you move on. there is a god, he's all over the place and he's powerful. accept it son.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AncientVoid

I reckon it's worst than rape, all those killed just for not having the same stupid belief. How many wars have been raged in the name of religion and how many more have and will die?

[/QUOTE]

bit of an insult to rape victims there, welcome to the land of man, who can use, pervert any ideology to commit evil acts.

I can assure you that sittin on Church on Sunday last week was not even close to someone anally raping me


[QUOTE]
Of course people in power play a big part in it, but most people are just following blindly without question.



yes, "people", doing what people will always do, commit evil acts



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
You try to disprove god..as you put it, Because you fear someone might be more powerful and smarter than you. it's an ego trip that wont let you move on. there is a god, he's all over the place and he's powerful. accept it son.


another myth about atheists...
dammit, do i need to bump my old thread on the myths about atheists again?

grumble...



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Racial & tribal divisions have been a part of division and control since God knows when.


Religion is a major factor in "tribal divisions," is it not?



Also, certainly in the modern world, the people who are religious are the least likely to end up in jail, committing crimes etc etc- it is not to say that 100% they WONT, but by and large they ain't up to anti social behaviour


Allow me to retract that lie for you.
source 1
source 2
source 3

If you're going to make claims that, research them so that you know they are a product of your prejudice and not something that's based in statistical knowledge.



Religion itself is not a "problem" though, and certainly not equitable with rape. The problem, as I see it with religion, is when those who profess to follow it, try to move it from saving the soul and spiritual matters, into earhtly matters of governance


Oh, but religion is a problem by itself. Even when not used for controlling people, it still stops the advancement of our race in the name of unproven superstitions.

Fear of death and unimportance, lack of knowledge of the scientific explanations of the universe, denial of the right of pride, and the desire to feel superior are all reasons why religion exists. This means that religion is not a solution to anything, but a method of avoiding reality.



You can only guess that God does not exist, you cannot say "period"


Unfortunately for those who wish to be something more than molecules, I can say period. The best and most irrefutable evidence against God is the fact that humanity predates monotheism by thousands upon thousands of years. The very concept of having just one god did not even emerge until the late Bronze Age. source

The stories of the Bible are not true because they tell us we have known about God since mankind was created. The Bible is what tells us there is a God, so if the Bible is not true, there is not a God. It's as simple as that... period.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
You try to disprove god..as you put it, Because you fear someone might be more powerful and smarter than you. it's an ego trip that wont let you move on. there is a god, he's all over the place and he's powerful. accept it son.


I have no ego trip here, jedimiller. I am well aware that there are millions of people, quite possibly billions, who are more powerful and smarter than me. I'm glad of it, too, because I wouldn't want the responsibility.

Some dream you had does not convince me, nor does it convince anyone whose consciousness is grounded in reality.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I do believe there is a God. I have no proof, as neither do any atheists have proof there is not a God. Anyone interested in science will surely know that it is extremely difficult to prove a negative.

I have seen a lot of ignorance in reading this thread. I have never seen a single verse in the Bible that stated or even implied the world was flat and at the center of 'everything'... yet I do remember one verse in the OT that mentions the 'orbit of the earth'. This can be interpreted using Strong's Concordance as actually meaning 'the circle of the earth'. Oh, yes, and I do know it does mention God. Want chapter and verse? It'll take up a couple dozen posts if you do.

But I am replying here because I want to explain why I believe in God. It has nothing to do with what some idiot in a pulpit says. It has nothing to do with dreams or visions. It has nothing to do with near-death experiences, or other testimonials about spirituality. It has to do with what has here been called 'science'.

I listen to the Evolution theory, and hear how everything alive is some sort of accident that happened billions of years ago and just happened to change into what we now know. Then I listen to Cellular Biology and how all the different systems in every cell have to work together perfectly in order for it to survive. Then I listen to Biology and hear how no one has ever documented a species change, much less an order or family change in living organisms. Yet, despite all of these contradictions, Evolution is the 'accepted scientific explanation' for how life originated.

Now let's listen to Creationalism. There's a lot of missing information there as well, but the thing that I see as different is that Creationalists appear to be trying to understand, rather than blindly claiming they do while ignoring their own contradictory evidence. A capricious argument? Perhaps, but read on.

A single blade of grass, the thing we typically walk on and cut to height without a care, is the most advanced chemical factory known to mankind, as well as the most resilient. It converts CO2 into O2 using nothing more than water and sunlight. As it executes this endothermic reaction, it manages to grow and reproduce. No one on the planet has ever devised a system that can accomplish this, much less one that can do it after being cut in half.

No manmade device can repair itself beyond simple expected maintenance. But every living thing on earth can. No doctor has ever healed a single disease in history, only aided the human body to heal itself. Yet we tend to believe anything the doctors say and ignore what our own bodies say. All in the name of science.

I have seen no contradictions in the Bible. I have heard many people in my life try to show me such, but they invariably turn out to be either a mis-reading or a contradiction between statements by the idiots in the pulpit. I have seen contradictions in science. If the Law of Entropy states that a system cannot decrease in entropy (increase in order) unless intelligent work is added to it, how did Evolution manage to do exactly that?

My two cents... I'll stick with the path that has the least contradictions.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
yes, "people", doing what people will always do, commit evil acts


In the name of religion...
If those people even thought about the crap they're being fed then no lives would need to be lost.

It's not much different from teaching a child to kill and obey a head figure or they'll go to 'hell' or get punished. But in this case it's adults and not children's.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, actually, and it only applies to things in an isolated system. In other words, once energy sources from outside are factored in, it no longer applies.

Christians trying to understand? Ha, don't make me laugh. Their theory was written in the Bible thousands of years ago and it hasn't budged an inch since, regardless of what new information has been handed to them.

At least the theory of evolution has changed and adapted over time as more evidence has been introduced. We only have the corners of the puzzle. We'd like to complete the picture, but unfortunately the religious folk are looking at the cover of the wrong box.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 

Actually, no, the Law of Entropy is different from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You're getting the two confused, but that's not too uncommon. The former applies to organization in general, i.e. if you walked out of your house today and returned to it in ten years, it would be in a state of disrepair unless someone had maintained it. It cannot be in better shape than you left it otherwise. The latter is somewhat a law of conservation of energy, and is used primarily to determine energy levels when there is no other way to work out the dynamics of a system.

You have the corner pieces of the puzzle, eh? I really wish I could see the puzzle as a whole by looking at the corners...

And as for the part about Christians not having an open mind, that's an unwinnable and subjective argument that I'm not going to get drawn into. Believe as you will, only allow me to do the same.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




if you've read the bible, you'd realize there's some conflict on that whole "live by the golden rule" thing as god really doesn't treat others how god would want to be treated..


You are probably trying to point out the differences between the God of the Old Testament (eye for an eye) and the God of the New Testament (turn the other cheek) but you still didn't answer the basic question: whether you believe in God or not, what would be so wrong about living by the Golden Rule or other teachings of the Bible, regardless?
Seems the World would be in a lot better shape.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I fail to see where a belief in God and a love of science have to be mutually exclusive. And you did raise some pretty good points on areas where the believers hold science back to a degree, but did you hesitate to think that there is a reasonability that goes with it? When it comes to and as it pretains to Embryonic Stem Cell Research, at this time it does require that a fetus be destroyed, and this is the issue Christians have with it. There is very little outrage over Adult Stem Cell Research and rightly so there is no fetal destruction and has a great many potential benefits. On cloning and genetic manipulation, yes some Christians are not going to like it, wether you like it or not there may in fact be a great many repercussions of such activities and we shouldn't just proceed at will without considering them.

Advancing civilization and planetary well-being through science is not a bad or inappropriate goal, it is hardly a surefire means of improving society. The one thing you failed to look at is how many of our scientific endeavours have already scarred this planet because we failed to ask what happens next, in this regard science often times is just as blinded as the followers of any given faith are.

To argue that taking a slower and more measured look at what we are attempting to do as being a hinderance to the world at large is as a fallacy. How often has science given us the next big thing only to find out many years later they were wrong, that the risks of use far outweigh the benefits? Now don't get me wrong these are great tools that we can use to our advantage, but what happens when your genetically altered plant causes an insect that is resistant to insecticides and ends up carrying the next plague?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


*sigh*


The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics.

entropylaw.com

--


Contrary to what many laymen think, there is no Law of Entropy which states that order must always decrease. That is a layman's fiction, although born from a small kernel of reality. The actual Law of Entropy is better known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

hopefully not some terrorist site, judging by the domain name

--


The law of entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is one of the bedrocks on which modern theoretical physics is based.

bbc article with some expanation

--



Search
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You searched for law of entropy [Index]

.....

No page with that title exists.

Result of Wikipedia search on "Law of Entropy"

--


The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Wiki article on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

--

Forgive my confusion on the difference between the supposed "Law of Entropy" and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It probably came from the fact that every single source I found suggests that there is no such thing as a Law of Entropy, and that what people often say this law is, is actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thanks though for correcting the entire Internet on this one. You might want to let everyone know they goofed.

Edit: Fixing URL tags

[edit on 28-11-2007 by mattifikation]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join