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.

 

Religious belief among scientists stable for eighty years

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I hear you guys claim to be atheists due to evidence.

In at least one case, you heard wrong.

The cause of my atheism is not the lamentable lack of evidence for God. The origin of my atheism lies in what philosophers call The Problem of Evil. As to the origins of my disenchantment with religion, it began when I realized as a boy that (1) religion was no fun and (2) religious people were lying to me.

As a matter of fact, you know this, because we discussed it in our very first ATS online conversation, and subsequently by u2u. Don't you remember?

My atheism is supported by the lack of scientific evidence for God, but is certainly not derived from it.




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I remember - you have a lot of anger toward God and religion. Have you ever heard CS Lewis talk about the problem of evil? He was an atheist for that same reason? His conversion took place when he asked himself the question "the world appears unjust as compared to what?" By what basis are you judging that the world is evil Astyanax? What is your proverbial measuring stick and what it is it's origin?

So you thought you were lied to? Join the club. But the existence of counterfeit money doesn't mean the real thing doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Someone else may not have verbally stated as you wish, that God is a portion of what you state. It is funny that when a personal relationship has been developed with the "omnipresent" being, there comes a realization that God is three fold just as the most basic element of His creation down to it's atom (positive, negative and neutral).

Yes, He is indeed energy. That which is in all, that which is in singular fashion (Yes He too is an actual and real person as He explained we were made in His image and likeness) and, that which is the collective body of spirit within in the living. While He is energy (the spirit) and while He is physical (existence of all singular and plural) and the collective conscious of us all, these are all different levels of energy.

The hardest thing of the dividing of the people because of individual free will and self choice to be of such nature, creating the division in the collective conscious and because of such turmoil helps to create the worlds animosity and contention which lead to acts of hate, the hardest thing of this is that if people were to choose as Jesus taught as the highest commandment of all commandments, to simply love, all of the harmful nature would be healed as both sides of the division are correct and thus should be equally accepted and loved for their faith and belief, and beyond this would be sought to be teachers in what they know in order that we may all grow in our understanding.

Seek to understand, not to judge where judgement is not anyones on this planet to be had, and the only condemnation we should use for our well being is in the recognition of where love does not reside so that we may learn and understand why, as to help readjust it to a better course of action through love, that love may abide.

Because of love, all wish to be understood and encouraged. You are correct. God is energy which is in all.

P.S. A voice of concern for "Christians": There is heavy room for concern at this time. Change your ways, because He is growing steadily less tolerant. Self righteousness and pride in your understanding lends to the acts of contentions and dams love flowing. If it be a continuance of such, i would say get thee out of thy churches and live righteously.
You know this to be true, and can not hide behind ignorance safety...

Love always first,
Michaelsannie

[edit on 16-6-2008 by michaelsannie]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I remember.

Well then, you shouldn't make sweeping statements you know are not true.


By what basis are you judging that the world is evil Astyanax?

When I was a boy, I found three golden chrysalises growing on a tree in the garden of my home. I picked them off and brought them indoors, still attached to the leaves from which they hung. I saved the leaves in jam-jars and waited for the chrysalises to hatch.

After a few days, one began showing signs of movement. I took it back out into the garden and watched patiently. Utter delight was my reward as at last the butterfly emerged, unfurled its big, white-dappled velvet-brown wings and flew off across the sunlit garden. I had never seen a new being enter the world before, and few births can be as enchanting as a butterfly's.

The remaining chrysalises didn't show signs of hatching that day, or the next. But on the third day, one began trembling with signs of inner life.

As I had with the first, I took it out into the garden. This time, the trembling seemed to be more agitated and went on for longer. The sun was beginning to set by the time a small hole appeared in the wall of the chrysalis, accompanied by a faint buzzing sound.

This was different from what had happened before, but I continued watching as the hole grew larger, still waiting eagerly for the butterfly to emerge.

When the little hole was about the diameter of a toothpick, something began to work its way out of it. There was a flurry of indistinct movement. I leaned closer just as the hole vomited a small cloud of busy, buzzing black flies, practically into my face. They swirled briefly around my head, then vanished. My skin crawled with revulsion. I wanted to be sick.

The third chrysalis never opened at all.

See also:

Ichneumon wasp

Viral reproduction

The whole of nature is aswarm with such horrors. If they evolved through chance and circumstance, well then, no matter. But if they were created by a God, then that God is a scoundrel and a pervert.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Good for you that you have come to recognize Gods spirit is not in the churches that try to place claim upon God...

Well Done.


However, i must let you know it is not through scientific reasoning that God may be made known, and this is literally on a scientific level.

There are different levels of understanding. Scientific is literally a lesser form of understanding because it does not encompass all of the necessary elements to understand; it does not include the spirit. The spirit can be seen even recognized physically through energy, and this can be an opening to understanding Gods existence. But according to as i have been told during conversations with Him regarding those of Atheist nature, and my concern for their well being because of my understanding and love for all, He has made it clear that only through the experience of life and the opening of ones heart through self choice may the experience required to know God reveal Gods existence. Experience is literally a higher level of understanding than science. In other words it is through living that one finds God.

You are right. Church is no fun.
Find that which makes you happy and you begin to find God. But know even in this, there are different levels of happiness, love and being in which stepping through each level of such, experiencing Love deeper, the more understanding begins to depart as we begin to understand through experience that His design, our learning of His natural design of all that which is around you is essentially a teacher of what will bring us the most joy - He wants you happy and He is showing you how to do so by the experience of your life and experiencing all that he created around you as your guide.

And yes, if you will observe life on this planet, sex has a lot to do with it... LoL. Responsible sex which is love, but none the less procreation in order to create...

And this is to prepare eternal beings for eternal work... To Become Like Him. We are already in His image, but this life is meant to help us become in His likeness.

love always



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
But if they were created by a God, then that God is a scoundrel and a pervert.


Sounds like the god of some priests, heh.

I suppose the problem of evil is still evidentially based in a way. For example, if nature was full of fluffy love-ins between cats and dogs, all eating grass in some literalist's Edenic utopia, then the evidence would be different, and the argument's conclusions perhaps different.

Moreover, it doesn't preclude a scoundrel perverted god. Just the god that many people like to imagine. Indeed, it's fairly easy to see the abrahamic god as a perverted scoundrel...

But it's a killer against the notion of the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent class of deity (which many buy into). Readily leads to many juicy inherent contradictions. Perhaps not so much the petulant ant-farm child type of deity. If we allow god to be the author of evil, and therefore either evil good or god capable of evil, then the Epicurus issue helps determine its potential features, IMO. But we also have theists attempt to claim we can never know the 'greater good' that their magic-man is aiming for - a utilitarian deity, heh - I allow the eyeballs of children to be consumed by parasites for their long-term well-being.

But it's a good point, worth clearly higlighting. Atheists come to and justify atheism for various reasons. However, Flew was one of those who thought the lack of evidence alone was sufficient to presume atheism (which is probably what whammy has picked up on).

And it also highlights what Last pinpointed earlier. What god do these scientists believe in? The philosopher's Oom? Or a personal Santa-like god? I know Francis Collins talks to his 'friend' via the telepaphone. In academia the forms of religious belief tend to be, IMO, very different than in the wider population, even in theology (see Hector Avalos and his experience of biblical studies).

But we shouldn't ask such questions in this thread I guess.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelsannie
both sides of the division are correct


This is not true. The division we are experiencing is because one side is incorrect and has lost touch with physical reality and God.


Seek to understand, not to judge where judgement is not anyones on this planet to be had


You must judge to understand. You have quite a few judgements in your post. There is nothing wrong with judging to understand, the fault occurs when we assumingly judge, wehn we make judgements with presumtions and ignorance. I can place the definition of judgement on here if you'd like.


and the only condemnation we should use for our well being is in the recognition of where love does not reside so that we may learn and understand why, as to help readjust it to a better course of action through love, that love may abide.


To attain logicality one must judge. To attain understanding of another, one must inquire to understand. It's obvious to me that the schackles of religious dogma still hold you.


Because of love, all wish to be understood and encouraged. You are correct. God is energy which is in all.


Not true. People wish to be treated differently and some people actually like being discouraged and misunderstood. Everyone's engine isn't the same, and some of us use different fuel.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

I find that the great biologist J.B.S. Haldane had the same thoughts as I, but expressed them far more elegantly than I ever could:


Blake asked somewhat doubtfully of the tiger, 'did he who made the lamb make thee?' The same question applies with equal force to the tapeworm, and an affirmative answer would clearly postulate a creator whose sense of values would not commend him to the admiration of humanity.

J.B.S. Haldane, 'Darwinism Today', Possible Worlds

I imagine many scientists, having learnt about the cruelty of the world from their studies, must have come to the same conclusion. Obviously, not all do so. Perhaps some are swayed by the catchall justification for all these repulsive and abhorrent facts of life, the doctrine of Original Sin. It doesn't work for me and obviously it didn't work for Haldane, either.

To J. Phish and Google Books, my thanks.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Astyanax]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join