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.

 

God Does Not Exist

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


My definition of God differs from the Bible, Quran, Torah or any other religious book.

Mysticism is the "science" of God. God is a personal experience that cannot be conveyed/formalized.

Have you had a mystic experience? I tend to think not. Because your river is dry you assume that there is no ocean ...

You are a smart person, but logic will not bring you closer to God. Everything that we say about Her is inaccurate and flawed. Yes, you will find circular logic and fallacies in every religion, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Would you consider the possibility that there is a reality that cannot be fully understood with our cognitive abilities? But our lacking is not proof of non-existence.

Let's say folks in a 2 dimensional reality encounter a 3-D object. Their description of the phenomenon wouldn't be accurate. Heck, most inhabitants of a 2-D world would never believe in an object outside of their reality.

I might be wrong, but I feel a certain sense of superiority in the way your digital ego manifests itself in your posts. It might play a part why your river runs dry.




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
At what point did "God" become the one who is responsible for everything?
When you ask christians/catholics if there's a god,they say yes.
Them you ask,how do you know?
And they say,because the bible says so.
Ok,that being said,does that prove "god" exists?NO.
And what makes the christians/catholics right?
I seem to recall many many civilizations that have come and gone,who believed in their own gods.
I.E, the Egyptians,the Greeks,etc.
And why are their gods not looked at as real?
Why are they dismissed as "myth" and "folklore"?
Their gods were every bit as real,as the one people pray to today.
The similarities are the same,even though,one civilization may have more than one god,the blue print is the same.
They all believed in an invisible being(s) that could never be proven or disproven.
That being said,their god(s) could very well be the true god,and not the one the bible talks about.
In order to prove their "gods" wrong,you would also have to apply the same to your bible god.
Which would cancel each other out and only prove that there are no gods,period.
What makes the biblical god any more real than all others?
Simple,nothing.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by Black_Fox]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 



Them you ask,how do you know?
And they say,because the bible says so.


No I had a life altering encounter with God. I studied th Bible in response to evidence.




They all believed in an invisible being(s) that could never be proven or disproven.


He is proven very easily when he chooses to reveal himself to you. If you seek you will find. But you can't do so with a demanding attitude as he owes you nothing and you are asking a King for a favor. When you approach a King for a favor take a gift not demands. The gifts acceptable to God are a broken spirit and a contrite heart. In other words humility.



I seem to recall many many civilizations that have come and gone,who believed in their own gods.
I.E, the Egyptians,the Greeks,etc.
And why a
re their gods not looked at as real?
Why are they dismissed as "myth" and "folklore"?


They were real. They are dismissed for the same reason you are dismissing the God that created all of them. The Bible does talk about them, the other "gods" were the angels see the Council Conspiracy

Its all there to be revealed, but you can't approach it with a demanding attitude.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Its all there to be revealed, but you can't approach it with a demanding attitude.


In other words, don't waste your time waiting for a fantasy and don't waste your time questioning something that cannot answer!

And thus the seed of this ignorance was planted when god began, religions are the remnants of an insecure animal in a constantly changing and threatening world, but we have EVOLVED to a point where I think some of us can come out of the cave now!

I won't be satisfied until I see god on youtube.


And well said BlackFox, good to hear straight, logical opinions, definately NOT in a cave



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


It's all well and good you think yourself "progressive".
But as I have said multiple times now.
Prove that your correct about the existence about such a being.

Especially considering the logic that is used to approach the statement that such does NOT exist is especially cracked, not to forget that you have absolutely no concrete proof, as a few of us have shown in our little debate that the OP wanted to be one sided.



[edit on 25-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


Wow i am not amongst the walking dead


Well said.

Talking about other gods lets examine further:

Just before that Jesus fella there was another god known as Mithras (or Mithra). Mithras has the same birth date as Jesus, but some 600 years earlier! Not only that, but he was also born of a virgin, with a few shepherds present. Mithras, a traveling teacher and master, had 12 disciples as he performed miracles. Just like Jesus, Mithras was buried in a tomb, died, and after three days was resurrected and rose again.

But wait theres more....

Before Mithras there was Krishna in India - 1200 BC. Krishna was born of the Virgin Mother Devaki after being visited by spirits to announce the impending birth of an immaculately conceived child who is God’s Sun and the “son of God.” His birth was attended by wise men, as well as shepherds. Krishna was presented at birth with frankincense, myrrh, and gold. Krishna worked miracles, restored sight, cast out devils, and raised the dead.

Many hundreds of years before both Mithras AND Jesus, Krishna was baptized in the River Ganges, crucified between two thieves, died, buried, and resurrected in three days and worshipped as the “savior of men.” He proclaimed himself the “Resurrection” and the “way to the Father.”

He was said to be without sin, of royal descent, and raised by a human father that was . . . a carpenter. He preached of a great and final day of judgment and used parables to teach the people about charity and love. In death he stood transfigured in front of his disciples. Krishna was called the ”Shepherd God”, “Lord of lords”, “the Redeemer,” and the “Universal Word.” He was considered, “Alpha and Omega” as well as being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

He was prophesized to return to battle evil forces in a second coming. His disciples bestowed on him a word that means “pure essence.” That word is “Jezeus.”

But guess what.... thats not all....

Thousands of years before Krishna, Mithras, and Jesus is the sun god Horus.

The god Horus goes back to ancient Egypt - 3000 BC. Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. In the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis. Horus taught in the temple when he was a child. He was baptized when he was 30 years old by “Anup the Baptizer.” Horus performed miracles and raised a man named El-Azar-us, from the dead. Not only did Horus walk on water, he was also crucified, buried in a tomb, and then resurrected.

It must be the way gods did things back then.

THATS A WHOLE ALOT OF DAMN COINCIDENCES I MUST SAY.....

Ah the hoax of religion.



“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

Peace

CR



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Don't you think you should at least know what your talking about if we are to believe you?

1) Horus was not a virgin birth. He was a by product of necrophilia apparently.



[h]Conception[/h]
Isis had Osiris' body returned to Egypt after his death; Set had retrieved the body of Osiris and dismembered it into 14 pieces which he scattered all over Egypt. Thus Isis went out to search for each piece which she then buried. This is why there are many tombs to Osiris. The only part she did not find in her search was the phallus of Osiris which were thrown into a river by Set. She fashioned a golden phallus after seeing the condition it was in once she had found it and proceeded to have intercourse with the dead Osiris which resulted in the conception of Horus the child.

Source: Horus @ Wikipedia.com

2) Neither was Krishna. Though he is similar in that he was supposed to have been a teacher. And supposedly run from someone who wanted to kill him.


Birth

Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami, as either 19th or 21st July 3228 BCE.[16]

Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. Mathura was the capital of the closely linked clans of Vrishni, Andhaka, and Bhoja. They are generally known as Yadavs after their eponymous ancestor Yadu, and sometimes as Surasenas after another famed ancestor. Vasudeva and Devaki belonged to these clans. The king Kamsa, Devaki's brother, had ascended the throne by imprisoning his father, King Ugrasena. Afraid of a prophecy that predicted his death at the hands of Devaki's eighth son, he had locked the couple into a prison cell, planning to kill all of Devaki's children at their birth. After killing the first six children, and Devaki's apparent miscarriage of the seventh, Krishna took birth. Since he believed Krishna's life was in danger, Krishna was secretly taken out of the prison cell to be raised by his foster parents, Yasoda and Nanda in Gokul, Mahavana. Two of his siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki's seventh child, transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva's first wife) and Subhadra (daughter of Vasudeva and Rohini, born much later than Balarama and Krishna).

The place believed by worshippers to mark Krishna's birth is now known as Krishnajanmabhoomi, where a temple is raised in his honour.

Gaudiya Vaishnava scholars identify the form of Krishna who appeared in Mathura as Vasudeva Krishna of the first quadrupal expansion. In this form Krishna appeared before Vasudeva and Devaki without a natural birth, fully grown, with four arms and full paraphernalia.

Source: Krishna @ wikipedia.com

3) Even with Mithras your close but not completely correct. But there is a relationship there, Mithraism most likely influenced early Christianity. Oh and incidently, J.C. wasn't born on Christmas a great many Christian acknowledge the fact they don't know when their "messiah" was born. Christmas was ripped off from pagans.



Mithraism and Christianity

Further information: Christianity and Paganism, Christianised rituals, and Jesus and comparative mythology

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians.[20] This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan summarized in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic."[21] This characterization of Mithraism and Christianity as "deadly rivals" became mainstream in the early 20th century with Cumont's endorsement, but was later criticized as too sweeping.[citation needed] Martin (1989) characterizes the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.[22]

Iconographical similarities with Early Christian art

Franz Cumont was the first scholar to suggest that Early Christian art had borrowed iconographic themes from Mithraism, pointing out that Mithraic images of the Heavens, the Earth, the Ocean, the Sun, the Moon, the Planets, signs of the Zodiac, the Winds, the Seasons, and the Elements are found on Christian sarcophagi, mosaics, and miniatures from the third to the fifth centuries. According to Cumont the Church was opposed to the pagan practice of worshipping the cosmic cycle, but these images were nevertheless incorporated into Christian artworks, in which "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture".

The Jewish faith provided no precendent of pictorial representation on which the Early Christians could base their imagery. According to Cumont, Early Christian imagery drew upon Mithraic traditions. Depictions of the biblical story of Moses striking Mount Horeb with his staff to release drinking water were, according to Cumont, inspired by Mithraic representation of Mithras shooting arrows at rocks causing fountains to spring up.[23]

M. J. Vermaseren claimed that the scene of Mithras ascending into the heavens was similarly incorporated into Christian art: after Mithras had accomplished a series of miraculous deeds, he ascended into the heavens in a chariot, which in various depictions is drawn by horses being controlled by Helios-Sol, the pagan sun god. In other depictions a chariot of fire belonging to Helios is led into the water, surrounded by the god Oceanus and sea nymphs. Vermaseren argues that Christian portrayals on sarcophagi of the soul’s ascension into heaven, though ostensibly referencing the biblical scene of Elijah being led into heaven by fiery chariots and horses, were in fact inspired by representations of Mithras' ascent into the heavens in Helios’ chariot. The sun god, Vermaseren claims, provided inspiration for the flames on Elijah’s chariot and the Jordan River is personified by a figure resembling the god Oceanus.[24] Some scholars have also used similar language to describe the circumstances of Mithras' and Jesus' birth: Joseph Campbell described it as a virgin birth,[25] and Martin A. Larson noted that Mithras was said to have been born on December 25th, or winter solstice.[26]

Source: Mithras @ wikipedia.com

Now this is where you say something about Wikipedia in an attempt to hide, right?

[edit on 25-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

It's all well and good you think yourself "progressive".


Do I? A little arrogant to presume what I think, and who mentioned "progressive"?! (laughs loudly!)


Prove that your correct about the existence about such a being.


What on earth are you on about, did you actually read my post properly. And by the way, I want you to prove to me the existance of a two headed, purple people eater!


Especially considering the logic that is used to approach the statement that such does NOT exist is especially cracked, not to forget that you have absolutely no concrete proof


You are obviously a person who thinks you know things! So what on earth do your comments have to do with mine? happy fingers I guess



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 



In other words, don't waste your time waiting for a fantasy and don't waste your time questioning something that cannot answer!



Not at all. He can and will answer. But there are requirements. In other words, if you are asking a favor from a King you do not do it in a demanding arrogant manner as he owes you nothing. You bring a gift and ask humbly.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


You keep mentioning "onus of proof". Since you claim to be an atheist and therefore do not believe in the existence of God, what is YOUR definition of God?

I.e. when I say I don't believe in racism I should have a pretty good understanding of the concept. It would be funny to state that I don't want to define the word as I understand it.

Do you have a problem with the Abrahamic concept of God, or the "supernatural" in general?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Arrogance huh? Seems to me that you might not know the meaning of said word.
Saw how I didn't make my views know on the question of a higher power known and thought you'd ape me huh?
Its soo funny when that happens. Especially in a half baked sort of way that a lot try to do it with. Doesn't work when your a outspoken Atheist that has already made his stance clear man repeatedly.

Here is what you said:


And thus the seed of this ignorance was planted when god began, religions are the remnants of an insecure animal in a constantly changing and threatening world, but we have EVOLVED to a point where I think some of us can come out of the cave now!


Meaning you believe your beliefs are "evolved" in other words advanced compared to theirs.
I'm arrogant huh?

And here is what progressive means:


–adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7. of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
8. Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
9. Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.
–noun
10. a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
11. (initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.
12. Grammar.
a. the progressive aspect.
b. a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

Source: Progressive @ dictionary.com

Doesn't arrogance generally have to deal with a superior feeling? Ah what the heck I will look it up too.


–noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

Source: Arrogance @ dictionary.com

What have I said that shows any sort of overbearing pride? Because I used the actual word that is the descriptive word for the theme of your rant?

Seems like someone calling their beliefs evolved as compared to someone else's is a tad arrogant.



What on earth are you on about, did you actually read my post properly. And by the way, I want you to prove to me the existance of a two headed, purple people eater!


LoL! More aping followed with an blaring and obvious statement as to your stance. You know pretending to not have a stance then making statements in support of a stance, kinda defeats the purpose.



You are obviously a person who thinks you know things! So what on earth do your comments have to do with mine? happy fingers I guess


Really? I do?
Gee, oh great oracle, tell me more things about myself. Considering the fact an individual should know more about themselves as opposed to some yayhoo troll on the net.

And sure you may have missed the point doesn't mean it isn't there little one. Sounds like you were too busy wanking your ego to notice either way.



So, are you going to continue blowing ad hom hot air at me or actually show your proof?



[edit on 25-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Guys, we're starting to spin a bit out of control, here. I think you've all been here long enough to know attacking, insulting or degrading a member is bad. Please discuss the topic and not the person.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Its all there to be revealed, but you can't approach it with a demanding attitude.


In other words, don't waste your time waiting for a fantasy and don't waste your time questioning something that cannot answer!



Would you consider the possibility that the answer is not external, but lies within you?

What about a colorblind person claiming that the world exists only in shades of grey? For her that statement is 100% accurate, but would every other assumption be delusional?

There is no right or wrong. It's a personal, maybe even genetic, predisposition. Theism is as valid as atheism. Note: theism doesn't equal organized religion IMHO.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It's gotten quiet around here ...



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
If you believe in science read my signature. I always had a terrible time with the whole god thing, but as I learned more I opened up. There might not be a god like Christians think, but I believe there is something.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Draves]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


Have you lost interest in your own post? Care to reply as to your definition of God? Just curious ...



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

According to the belief of the believers all that is happening is nothing more but what God has planned. God is Omniscient, meaning he knows past, present, and future and possesses all knowledge, so logically God DID know absolutely that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit and have "sin" and death enter the world. So ultimately, God is responsible; he put the tree there AND the snake with the fruit to begin with.


It makes sense if there is an agenda behind the scenes! If we are an experiment and there is a game going on in heavenly congress, it would all make sense. We have egos that don't want to accept that we are not as important as we would like to believe, except as far as "survival of the spiritually fittest" and how we fit the game. If you want check out my threads, this one in particular; www.abovetopsecret.com...'.

If I am even remotely right, we have an interesting time before us!



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
God is Omniscient, meaning he knows past, present, and future


If you can tell me the origin of this statement and its meaning, perhaps you would gain wisdom. Its not in your Bible in the same phrasing, and its not in any book.

In the beginning, there was the Word
The Word in the beginning was time
Time began and the Word was begun

Ill let you answer it in your own words.


Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist
God is Omniscient, meaning he knows past, present, and future


A man made made of mostly water, swims in mostly water.
Without the water, there is neither.

Peace



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


Correct it doesnt exactly write in the bible those exact words i used, but if you read between the lines in essence it does say god is ALL KNOWING meaning Omniscient.


Omniscient -
–adjective
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
–noun
2. an omniscient being.
3. the Omniscient, God.


It is written in the Bible that god is all knowing:

1 John 3:20 - For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Psalm 139:1-5, 15-16, 6, 17 - O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. You hem me in - behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me.

My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!


All knowing would mean God would know everything, past, present and future hence the term ALL KNOWING.

If god is not Omniscient then god is not all knowing.

Peace

CR



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


:shk: Still not able to define the term as you see it. Hiding behind wiki entries is just weak IMHO.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join