It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If Religion was somehow discredited...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler
reply to post by superhappy

Perfect video to suggest, star for that, mate!!.

Thanks! When I saw this movie, I immediately made my husband watch it. We both had a "Ah-hah" moment! I later tried to explain it to my "bible pushing" friend and she didn't want to discuss it at all. I asked her, "If I was wanting to discuss how Jesus is our savior, you would be willing to talk about that, I suppose?" She didn't have much of a reply! Imagine that!

Closed minded people suck!!!

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 03:55 AM
reply to post by Nohup

See interested observer's post.
Oh. And probly could debate you to a standstill and you probly have been debated to a stand still before, or you haven't dealt with someone who thought it through much. But either way. Allow me to throw this out there.

What if we were meant to 100% know without a doubt that there is a "higher power" out there?
Which is much different than just believing.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:50 AM
reply to post by InterestedObserver

No, as reality is infinitely measurable. "God", an intrinsically abstract concept, is not.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by dave420

Ah, it is measurable?
Seeing as to how we don't know everything, beyond an attempt to back up your equally flimsy stance (both sides have large amounts of unsubstantiated belief and little real facts to back their belief) , why do you say that?

We cannot by the very nature of what we are, cannot dissect the universe so, HOW, pray tell is reality infinitely measurable?

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by dave420

That statement is equally as unsubstantiated as stating that "the works of God are infinitely measurable". Neither reality or God can be proven (through scientific means, at least). I find it humorous that you think you can measure and define reality when it has been the subject of centuries upon centuries of philosophical debate.

I am not saying that I don't believe in reality, of course I do, but it requires FAITH to fully accept the concept. The same goes for God.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:53 PM

Originally posted by InterestedObserver

Originally posted by Nohup
My standard argument that disproves the existence of "God" is that there's no need (or way) to disprove something that is essentially undefined and undefinable. The question itself is irrelevant, because we can't agree on the definition of the basic terms.

Then I guess we can throw out Reality as well since it's essentially undefinable.

Sure, why not? The discussions of both basically end in the same place, with nothing being clarified or decided. You can believe in reality if you want, but there's really no good basis for proof, since you can only seek that proof from your own limited point-of-view. Things appear to be real to me, and I treat them as if they had real consequences, so even if it's just an illusion, at least the illusion seems real. But that's about as "real" as it gets for me. Having a point-of-view. I have no other basis of proof. When I'm unconscious during surgery, there's oblivion, and no time that passes for me. When I die, I expect that timeless oblivion to be my complete reality, and my universe will no longer exist. Good luck with your own.

As for the separate, individual aspects of what I perceive to be reality, particularly some undefinable and incomprehensible aspect (such as "God") within the overall undefinable context of reality, I can't make a claim one way or another. That's why I don't even consider myself to be an atheist, since I see myself outside the "exists/doesn't exist" debate. I can't debate the existence of something incomprehensible.

Good point, though. How can anyone hope to define an incomprehensible thing like God as a kind of subset of reality, when reality itself is essentially incomprehensible? Not only define it, but anthropomorphize it and worship it? Completely ridiculous.

People do though, by blindly skipping over the glaring, brain-snapping contradictions and paradoxes. Which is why I said that "discrediting" religion is essentially impossible, since it doesn't rest on anything provable in the first place. The question is moot.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Nohup]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
What if we were meant to 100% know without a doubt that there is a "higher power" out there? Which is much different than just believing.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Are you hypothesizing about there actually being some kind of intelligent creating/guiding entity in the universe that allows its existence to be objectively verified? If I understand you correctly, then all I can say is that within that limited definition, belief wouldn't be a question, since the entity itself would provide proof that could be reasoned and verified with our limited abilities.

As for the consequences of something being revealed to never have existed thats existence had been proven to us in the past, then that would certainly take stronger evidence and proof than of existence. For instance, if somebody showed up tomorrow and said that the Eiffel Tower doesn't really exist, and never existed, we'd all want to know how that was possible. But if somebody showed us how all the photos were faked, and a holographic projector was demonstrated that created the illusion, and the Parisians were all paid to lie, and so on, then one would eventually have to agree that it was just an illusion, and maybe cancel plans to visit.

Obviously, though, the Eiffel Tower is not quite the same as a fundamentally undefinable, paradoxically intimate / incomprehensible, infinite / boundaried, humanlike / non-humanlike entity / thing / concept / force of some kind.

But since the people who believe in that ------ ? ------ don't do so for any rational reason, but rather base their belief on "feelings" and trust in millionth-hand stories, then presenting evidence that their "Eiffel Tower" never really existed wouldn't really have much of an impact. They'd just keep on believing.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by Nohup

No that is not what I meant at all. I typoed and apparently didn't catch it as it was late when I typed my response.
The question was:
"What if we were not meant to 100% know without a doubt that there is a "higher power" out there? Which is much different than just believing."

Which, of course, would be the case should such a being exist given current conditions.

I could go into what I think and explain it further but I rather think your uninterested in hearing that. But if you want?

But I will say this, life is a class room.
And what do you truly learn if you cheat on the test?

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by lostineuphoria

" If Religion was somehow discredited...

What would happen to the world, if somehow religion was completely discredited, and proven not to be true? Would we break out into mas chaos, and eventually wipe each other off the earth? "

That is satans plan, and it is going quite well for him.

Haven't you noticed? Or have you just assumed all those evangelists you see on television are the "real thing"?

Do you recall those "Christians" who protested at U.S. soldiers funerals, did you think those were real Christians? Do you now?

We all need to keep it in mind, that we must observe their actions and compare them to the claims of who they are. [Ye shall know them by their fruits ] I know of no real Christian, who would do such a thing, but I do know, the forces of darkness would want you to think Christians would

Why do I say that? Well, "the church" has bee infiltrated [just observe their symbols and traditions ] as are most other churches who celebrate traditions of men instead of those of God, and who do not address the forces of darkness, but choose instead to just preach the gospel, but without any backbone, no politics are allowed. One should also ask, why is this catholic president kowtowing to the pope ? And why did JFK not kowtow to the pope and made a point of it as well? If you don't know, you should dig around and ask questions.

So, pretty much the churches are de-balled IMO and are no longer a rallying point to oppose darkness on all the levels needed to keep it in check.

Any question?

For those who would like to know more about "the church" and some of what it has done could start here;ALBERTO

[edit on 19-4-2008 by toasted]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in