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.

 

Creationists Will Destroy ATS

page: 19
43
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I dont think creationists will destroy ATS either. Neither will atheists.

If anything, you´re going to exhaust each other with your endless debate on this false dichotomy.





posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
it says on my list that skyfloating posted but i don't see the post, so i'm posting this so i can see sky's post. forum didn't page over.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by undo
 


I dont think creationists will destroy ATS either. Neither will atheists.

If anything, you´re going to exhaust each other with your endless debate on this false dichotomy.



i think the topic is actually reallllly relevant to our time frame. we can't possibly hope to weed threw the past and understand the present (or the future) without a better attempt than simply: it's all myth. I mean, that's scary. That's like having some group rise to power and declare all our history fake, no matter what heritage, political or religious flavor, and replacing it with their own and then forcing it on everyone whether it's true or not. it worries me greatly that the new position is that the ancient texts are all myths and metaphors. they want us to just forget what happened to our ancestors. that's not wise.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
it says on my list that skyfloating posted but i don't see the post, so i'm posting this so i can see sky's post. forum didn't page over.


When that happens (when the newest reply doesn't show up) just manually adjust the URL suffix to go to the next page.

Example:

pg18 = pg19. Press Enter. Problem solved.


At least that's what I do.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
i think the topic is actually reallllly relevant to our time frame. we can't possibly hope to weed threw the past and understand the present (or the future) without a better attempt than simply: it's all myth. I mean, that's scary. That's like having some group rise to power and declare all our history fake, no matter what heritage, political or religious flavor, and replacing it with their own and then forcing it on everyone whether it's true or not. it worries me greatly that the new position is that the ancient texts are all myths and metaphors. they want us to just forget what happened to our ancestors. that's not wise.


But what do you expect universities to do? They´ve been watching belief-wars since thousands of years. The obvious solution is not to believe anything anymore and only go by what can be seen and measured. That makes for some boring university studies but it relaxes the potential for international conflict.

If we allow belief back into the system we allow 100000000000000000 different beliefs and variations thereof back and the wars go on.

The reality is though, that some teachers and professors will welcome the ocassional discussion and consideration of creationism, intelligent design, etc.

This Forum might give you another impression, but there are a lot of people out there who are a bit more relaxed and will entertain any viewpoint.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Personal experience is not always the best way to gauge things, obviously. But I've had some doozees (sp?). Let's just suffice it to say, that it isn't just a matter of having no position, because they do strike a pose on each issue. as has been mentioned a kajillion times by people from all sides of the fence - history IS written by the victor. too bad we didn't know the war was in the colleges and that it would result in the historical tyranny we see now. You can't even discuss alternative viewpoints in class, where the topic is not "religion." What the freak? It's history too, ya know? It seems this was the only way to remove our ancient past from consideration - call it religion and then characterize religion as being only specific things, all of which the ancient texts qualify for. Sigh, what a mess.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


er, no, what you have is a history partially based on roman catholic interpretation and atheism, rolled up in a nice little package.

Surely the Catholics and the atheists must have their little differences? I'm surprised they manage to roll up so well together.

But then, what's a good conspiracy theory without an implausible alliance among evildoers?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


the catholic folks are great. it's the guys at the top that're the problem. silly astynax, surely you knew that already.


what happened is discussed in my thread, i linked earlier.
for 1500 or so years, the HRE (holy roman empire), specifically the
papacy, were the purveyors of truth. if something didn't agree with
their theories, well, you know what happened. when german higher
criticism got up a full head of steam, it just continued the tradition
from the polar opposite position on almost everything EXCEPT those
areas they weren't so sure about, in which case they'd defer to
the prior texts of the scholars of the papacy.

so yep, the enlightenment consisted of part papal truth and part
atheist truth and it leaked over into every aspect of learning.
when protestanism was in full swing, they incorporated a great
deal of the prior teachings and holidays of the HRE. same reason.

don't be so surprised. it's not like any of this is new data



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Surprised? No. It would take a stranger set of beliefs than yours to surprise me.

We've discussed them before, undo. And honestly, I don't have the heart to discuss them with you again. I only replied to your earlier post because it illustrated so clearly the irrationality of the creationist position.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You win.


Wasn't that easy? didn't change my mind but you win this argument.
I'm not invested in arguing how you feel about my personal position. I'm more interested in salvaging the ancient history of our ancestors. It's been annihilated, and I'm thinking there's something wrong with that.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well Astyanax. I couldn't agree more with your O.P.

It doesn't take an incredible amount of arrogance to disprove God, all it takes is logic, intellect, science and reason, those combine delete the need for faith in anything.

If one was to call God anything, it would be to call God everything, which would equate God into energy. God being everything then becomes not only the acts of the immoral and unjust, and God being within everyone and everything becomes Him not only an Athiest and a scientist, but also a sinner and a liar.

It takes an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance to believe in a God that is omnipresent and within all things and to deny the message of this God from another Human body.

See kiddies? This is logic, this is critical thinking.

Christians: You believe in a talking snake, you believe you telepathically communicate with a Masculine entity named God, and that this God talks back to you.

You go to church and worship the murderous Father of the only child of God, yet we're all his children, whose Mother gave forth a virgin birth in collusion with one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated onto Humanity so that she was not murdered for cheating on her husband or having sex before marriage, and this child Jesus that you refer to as the prince of peace very clearly states that he came to bring the sword and NOT peace.

It takes an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance (faith) to believe in God.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


hi lastoutfinitevoiceeternal,

how're you? it'd be nice if you agreed with me, but i'm not going to freak if you don't. i'm just trying to salvage the ancient past so we can see the whole picture and not just bits and pieces of it. i do disagree with your argument regarding jesus, because it mischaracterizes the text as far as i'm aware, but this is not the place to debate that and frankly, if i've learned nothing else since being here, i have learned that people don't change their minds on these forums about much of anything. the only examples of such incidents are usually regarding ufos and faked ufos.
but anyway....have a nice one.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Saying something more along the lines of "I come to bring the sword of peace" would be more fitting for a moral guru.

Either way you cut that passage he clearely states he comes to not bring peace.

Sorry, I don't worship that guy nor his Father and I'd rather not salvage him or his teachings. I apologize only because I realize that the faithfull are emotionally imbalanced and weak.

By the way, in its original texts of aramic and hebrew among others, God is not referred to as a man, but rather an it, an is and the ofness. It is the Translation from these languages to Western languages that the masculine pronoun that in no way represents a male figure, became known as "Him", the man God.

Just as the languages of French and Spanish have pronouns such as Le and La, or Les and Las, etc. The pronouns, although referred to as masculine and feminine do not in anyway mean such when in reference to non-sexual objects. God, on the other, would still be being misinterpretted, as if God is everything, then God is a bi-sexual hermaphrodite; both male and female and having sex with itself.

And in fact, that is exactly what God is, the universe, energy, everything.

I'm expecting the modern day Jesus to tell us that he brings the machine gun and not serenity. Sounds enticing, huh?

[edit on 10-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
It doesn't take an incredible amount of arrogance to disprove God, all it takes is logic, intellect, science and reason, those combine delete the need for faith in anything.


You're right, it doesn't take an incredible amount of arrogance to disprove G*d. This is so, because it is impossible to disprove G*d at all . . . The existence of such a being is not only un-falsifiable but would also be outside of our mental capacity to understand.

You need to have "faith" in science for its endeavors to be realized. A.C. Clarke said that the idea that something is possible is half the battle. (paraphrased, i forget the actual quote)


If one was to call God anything, it would be to call God everything, which would equate God into energy.


G*d would most certainly have to be "equated" to all energy and all matter. (I believe that energy and matter are the same thing, the only thing that makes a discernible difference between the two is their respective acceleration or drag within the aether(gravity) of space.)


God being everything then becomes not only the acts of the immoral and unjust, and God being within everyone and everything becomes Him not only an Athiest and a scientist, but also a sinner and a liar.


I personally do not believe this to be true. G*d would be incapable of sin by definition.

If the biblical Adam had killed a man before eating from the forbidden tree, it would not have been a sin. Why? Because sin is not measured by your acts, but by your guilt. If Adam did not know that killing was wrong; he would feel no guilt. What do most people agree is sinful? Whatever is against G*ds' will. If G*d does it, it is obviously G*ds' will. Incapable of sin.

A being such as G*d would never have to lie. Why? Because the act of lying is an act committed to compensate for lack of control. G*d is omnipotent and is in essence, always in control. G*d does not need to lie



It takes an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance to believe in a God that is omnipresent and within all things and to deny the message of this God from another Human body.


That appears to be cyclical argument and a poor one at that . . .


See kiddies? This is logic, this is critical thinking.


This is certainly not logic . . . because a logical person would never claim to be able to disprove something that is concurrently impossible to verify or refute.

this is actually not critical thinking. You are asserting that someone is wrong and you are right. What exactly do you believe critical thinking is?


Christians: You believe in a talking snake, you believe you telepathically communicate with a Masculine entity named God, and that this God talks back to you.


I'm not even saying that this is true . . . but can you disprove any of this?


You go to church and worship the murderous Father of the only child of God, yet we're all his children, whose Mother gave forth a virgin birth in collusion with one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated onto Humanity so that she was not murdered for cheating on her husband or having sex before marriage, and this child Jesus that you refer to as the prince of peace very clearly states that he came to bring the sword and NOT peace. Specualtion


Sounds like you're reaching here. I like to call this "postdestination". Let me explain . . .

You enter a room and you see a cracked vase on the floor next to a table. You also see a cat on the table. You can say to yourself, logically, that the cat more than likely knocked the vase off the table. You'd be using information acquired ex post facto to form a logical conjecture.

Now predestination of course, is if before you enter the room, you know that an earthquake will tremble the house and knock the vase to the floor, also scaring the cat into jumping onto the table (a high place)! And when you enter, or before you enter the room, it happens.

Postdestination is logical and it works within reality, but it is not always accurate. The entire theory of evolution is based on "postdestination".


It takes an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance (faith) to believe in God.


Intellectual humbleness is often mistaken for ignorance.

Arrogance is an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions; but more than anything it is the haughty belief in ones self.

You appear to be far from intellectually humble if you see yourself to judge others . . so perhaps you are being ignorant? Presumptuous claims seem to spew from your tongue in overabundance as well . . .

Evolution is based on postdestination. Postdestination requires faith, faith in the possibility that something unknown can be realized. Science also requires the same faith. You believe in science. You have faith in something . . .

Applying mathematical logic, if we use the transitive property with your "proof" . . .


It takes an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance (faith) to believe in God.


If all the explicit assumptions, and previously proved propositions I have presented are correct . . .

You must believe in G*d

OR

Your proof is incorrect

[edit on 6/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
The existence of such a being is not only un-falsifiable but would also be outside of our mental capacity to understand.


This is all I need to show your ignorance. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post.

If it's outside of our mental capacity to understand and you're sitting here telling me about how it's true and how it is unfalsifiable, then in this BLARING contradiction it is already falsifiable.

So, since we don't have the mental capacity to understand such a being, please tell me how you know it exists and how you are able to defend it and its position.


Save me the regurgitation, please.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by JPhish
The existence of such a being is not only un-falsifiable but would also be outside of our mental capacity to understand.


This is all I need to show your ignorance. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post.
(first time you claim i've said G*d exists when i haven't)

perhaps your lack of knowledge can be explained because you never actually read anything? In my post i say flat out that you can not prove the existence of G*d.


Originally posted by JPhish concurrently impossible to verify or refute.


I'll be sure to use smaller words next time . . .


If it's outside of our mental capacity to understand and you're sitting here telling me about how its true and how it is unfalsifiable, then in this BLARING contradiction it is already falsifiable.
(sceond time you claim i've said G*d exists when i haven't)

I never said anything was true. Something being unfalsifiable does not make it true. You can not prove that you have a biased blindespot. It doesn't mean you have one.



So, since we don't have the mental capacity to understand such a being, please tell me how you know it exists.
(third time you claim i've said G*d exists when i haven't)

So when do you think i said i knew G*d exists exactly? Because that's 3 times now . . .


Save me the regurgitation, please.


Seems as if my efforts to be original and concise go unappreciated once again.


[edit on 6/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Are you serious right now? Are you this dull witted?

You just told me that God is unfalsifiable and that we are unable to have the mental capacity to understand it. That is a self-contradicting statement. Do you NOT see that?! Something that is beyond our mental capacity to understand is not unfalsfiable, it is completely false! Why you might ask? Keep reading. (esp the italicized and underlined text)

You then follow those statements by defending God and God's position with statements of likes of; paraphrased: "God is not associated with sin". How can you know these things about God if God is beyond our mental capacity? You CAN'T. Your logic is bunk.

It is your logic that lacks. You are completely clueless and you are a prime example of the O.P.'s explanation.

Something that can eternally not be proven to exist is completely irrelevant. By default of that line of logic we can conclude that this thing will never suffice evidence, ever, therefore it does not exist.

SIMPLE LOGIC. Follow along.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
By the way, Jphish.

Your religious heritage is shining through. We all judge each other and everything that we do is a judgement. To sit here and talk about my judgements and my ability only further reveals your judgement of me.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal Are you serious right now? Are you this dull witted?

You just told me that God is unfalsifiable and that we are unable to have the mental capacity to understand it. That is a self-contradicting statement. Do you NOT see that?! Something that is beyond our mental capacity to understand is not unfalsfiable, it is completely false! Why you might ask? Keep reading. (esp the italicized and underlined text)


The only things that are un-falsifiable are intangible. It appears you are mistaken.


You then follow those statements by defending God and God's position with statements of likes of; paraphrased: "God is not associated with sin". How can you know these things about God if God is beyond our mental capacity? You CAN'T. Your logic is bunk.


I never claimed to know anything, nor did I defend G*d. I clearly said before my inference “

Originally posted by JPhish I personally do not believe this to be true.


Do you think that what i personally believe means anything??? because i certainly don't. . . .


It is your logic that lacks. You are completely clueless and you are a prime example of the O.P.'s explanation.


It’s actually quite impossible for me to be a prime example of the OP’s explanation. You’ll find out in a moment


Something that can eternally not be proven to exist is completely irrelevant. By default of that line of logic we can conclude that this thing will never suffice evidence, ever, therefore it does not exist.


Wait a minute. .. this sounds familiar!


Originally posted by JPhish concurrently impossible to verify or refute.


Oh, that’s right . . . because I already said it . . . twice!

Only apparent fault, is with your last assumption that lack of evidence is proof of somethings non existence. Lack of evidence is only weight added to its impracticality. However intangible things . . . unlike camels, have no back to break.


SIMPLE LOGIC. Follow along.


There’s nothing to follow, I’ve been quite ahead for some time now, I’m waiting for you to catch up . . . take your time.


By the way, Jphish.

Your religious heritage is shining through. We all judge each other and everything that we do is a judgement. To sit here and talk about my judgements and my ability only further reveals your judgement of me.



Well guess what? My family is atheist and I was raised atheist. I suppose I should have made my name DevilsAdvocate instead of JPhish?

I have not judged you. I've always maintained that the only person who can judge someone is themselves. I even gave you that opportunity at the end of my first post.

[edit on 6/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Do you NOT see that?! Something that is beyond our mental capacity to understand is not unfalsfiable, it is completely false! Why you might ask? Keep reading. (esp the italicized and underlined text)


Currently there are many, many aspects of life on earth and the universe that are beyond our understanding. Currently, You fail to understand Jphish. Is the ability to understand something from a human perspective a pre-requisite for G*D's existence. Does not the G*D many accept, exist on G*D's terms and not yours, mine, science or religions.
Also, if the OP believes that unsupported creationist ranting and personal opinion is destroying ATS and the Creationist conspiracy forum, how is your personal opinion, or Atheist Ranting supporting his view?

Can you prove G*D does not exist? Can Science?




top topics



 
43
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join