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.

 

Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Do you understand why Jesus is driving the money changers out of "the temple" saying, this is supposed to be a house of prayer for all nations, but you have turned it into a den of thieves"?


So what does jesus then say about the gold gilded halls of the Vatican? Or the 'Prey On Guilt" collection baskets handed around at Sunday service so their temple may be built bigger than the next mans?

IRM




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think it is all just a way 'controlling' the masses.
Creator(s), yes, I do belive they did , and the story is twisted and rewritten to suit some one else than them.. If you get my drift !!!!!

Its like I'm telling an new employee at work that I am the boss, and he will believe that until the boss comes and say otherwise...

Not much harder than that...



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gregor100
www.youtube.com...

If you cant be bothered going to youtube the video says this:

"The god of the bible is claimed to be omnipotent and omniscient.

If you can change the future you are not omniscient.

If you cannot you are not omnipotent.

Myth busted"

Pretty hard evidence right there....



[edit on 19/2/09 by Gregor100]


If the Bible is 'hard evidence', you need to do some more research. And seeing as how everyone's idea of what 'God' is , is different, I would say this thread has a higher probability of being fake then God.

The fact that you believe God could only exist or not exist within the pages of a Book...well...



[edit on 20-2-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by crmanager
 


well said friend, well said!



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I don't believe in god but dare I say it, I do believe in aliens. There is more evidence to come up with a theory that aliens created man than there is of a person sitting around and creating huge suns and galaxies for no apparent reason.

We're not born to believe in god, unfortunately we are taught religion in school as soon as we are old enough to read. You don't even get taught Darwinism. We don't get a choice at all. Why?

Religion was created to simply keep the peasants in check, to keep a mental stronghold of fear over them, to stop them going insane from the fear of death.

I'm sorry but IMO anyone who is religious, deeply or otherwise is a nutter and shouldn't be taken seriously.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I posted some replies earlier in this thread from a stand of neutrality towards the OP.

I haven't posted much more recently for the following.

You have created a thread to disprove the existence of God.

Several issues.

First, you have to be able to define "God" and the devout followers of most religions can't define God and study about it their ENTIRE life.
Intersting thought here, most reseachers of science can't explain events and theories and study about it their ENTIRE life.

Until you present proof that science has an exact 100% layout of how EVERYTHING works you can't use science OR logic to back your disproval OR proving of the concept of God. Logic IS THE SCIENCE of studying reliability. This should speak for itself.

Don't get me wrong friend, I'm not against you in this discussion. I try not to make you look bad. I am presenting facts against your current argument that cannot stand up in your topic of discussion. I do applaud you for taking this discussion up as it's better than being content and it shows that you do indeed question yourself by the mere posting of this.

In closing as I remove myself from this "debate" I need to give you this advice: Until you are one with my consciousness, can see, feel and taste my emotions and actions.. it's ignorant of me to try to persuade you of what I feel and believe. However it's just as ignorant for you to attempt to the do the same against me when your argument is based off of your own consciouness.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The Bible and the Creations he have made are all the proof people need. Scientists need proof for everything yet its already there. He is not bound by the laws of time or space so for a human being to try to comprehend what kind of being could be like that is useless since we ARE bound by time and space.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lastxdance
The Bible and the Creations he have made are all the proof people need. Scientists need proof for everything yet its already there. He is not bound by the laws of time or space so for a human being to try to comprehend what kind of being could be like that is useless since we ARE bound by time and space.



Hey I believe you are talking about this verse.

Isaiah 55: 8-9
8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


Or at least that's what popped in my mind when I read your post.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


That is hilarious, because EVERY tenet of the modern scientific paradigm is based on circular reasoning and logic, you my friend are a fool...haha

by the way.

the person starting this thread is basing this premise on the assumtion that God lives within space time, outside of space time the future is a singular entity and being omnipotent does not mean changing the future because there is no past present or future. There fore being omniscient also has NOTHING to do with the past present or future because God is not encumbered with space/time like humanity is....

This argument can go on till infinity for us beings that are mostly existing within space time, so give it up, you, i and anyone else can prove absolutely NOTHING about anything.

As descartes most famous quote portrays, the only thing you can know for certain is that you EXIST, nothing else can be known or proven with certainty.

jaden



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


lol I wasn't being a politician at all.
I was just pointing out that what you see as flaws specifically associated with Occam's Razor can also bee seen in Christianity.
You were not portraying a fair outlook on all who use Occam's Razor.



Yes I do. You are being a politician now. Point out what a democrat does, and the democrat points at the republican and say's he does it too! Well both are wrong.


Wow. Now your being a hypocrite.
You were pointing out the flaws of Occam's Razor by portraying how an ignorant person might use it to appear right. Not everyone uses it that way.
And then I point out that I see the same flaws in Christianity, and you call me a politician for not acknowlodging the obvious which is that all Christians are not that way...
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I have no desire to go any further.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Read more of my stuff I guess. I'm extremely hard on Christians as well. Especially Christians who also read things literally. Probably doesn't seem that way due to the nature of this thread, which was proving god to be fake, not proving the Christian version of god to be fake. Of Christians, I really only get along with gnostic Christians, who don't read things so literally. So I don't see how Christians who use it as well applies here.

I used it earlier when I told NJ I didn't know for sure he had a soul, but I thought it was a safe bet that he did. But I'm not using it as a way to debunk 1 theory over another, it's an area where I honestly do not know either way, and because of that I think it is a safe bet he does have a soul. Big difference in that and trying to use it to debunk another theory.

But pointing out others do it, like you did with Christians is a political answer. It's the same thing people do all the time when you point out a politician who does something, people from that party point fingers at someone from the other party who does it as well, as if that suddenly makes it ok. So yes, political answer.

I don't care who does it, I don't care what your beliefs are. It's a low level thinking process and it's just not a legitimate way of debating IMO. You are calling me a hypocrite not because of my own actions, but because "Christians do it as well". Well, you are both wrong.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by dbates
God is in the 10th dimension. The Universe is an unchanging static image for him. Imagine yourself looking at a picture of a maze from above with a line drawn to every possible outcome. Changing the outcome is irrelevant since all possible outcomes exist at the same time for God. The attributes omnipotent and omniscient are simply given to help our point of view since that is what they relate to.


Hey Dbates! haven't seen you in a while!

anyway, this 10th dimensional god sounds dangerously like apologetics to me... More "moving the goalposts"...

God was supposed to be in the sky.... but when we achieved flight, and found out he wasn't there... they put him up higher... like in space...

When we made it to space... then things get funky... oh, he's invisible, or 10/11th dimension...

What happens if string theory fails (again, it did in the 90's too). String Theory/M-theory are the ideas that propose all these alternative dimensions...

Will god move somewhere else? or will there always be a fictional dimension somewhere for him to exist in?

On top of that... where are your sources for claiming the 11th dimension? I dont' see it in the bible anywhere...

Oh, I forgot, the bible describes heaven as being in the sky, above the Earth, being supported by giant pillars...




Personally I was going to follow you on this one just to see where it went. I no longer consider myself a Catholic, in otherwords I just don't know what the truth is. In any case you just lost the argument right there in my eyes.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Please do a study on the subject of religion. I am not talking about the various sects of religion but the social aspect of religion.

Totemism, Animism, Deity, etc. Religion is something that grows up in parallel with a culture. It is not something that is imposed from the outside, nor it is a control mechanism.

Once you study Totemism and Animism and understand their various manifestations. Then go and watch some children and you will see that they develop their own totemism and animism, independent of others and sometimes in sharp contrast to the culture around them.

It is also very interesting how different cultures around the world that were isolated from other cultures, develop religion. The Cargo Cults are a great example of an ancient type of religion that developed in modern times, and whose origins we know.

Your statements reflect a very modern view of religion and I might ad a Marxist view. You think this way because you were taught to think this way. The truth is that the PTB want you to shun religion and they do not teach you religion in public school.

I can remember being scolded several times in school for making a reference to the Bible, Moses, or to my personal religion. Even though, the separation of Church and State as it relates to schools prohibits the teacher from instucting in these matters. It does not limit the right of the student to express his/her faith.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Consciousness doesn't matter.
No thought or action we form is void of a source.
We ARE 'artificial' intelligence and that would be quite obvious to an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Our thoughts are formed by numerous variables which all play a role in our decision making process - we are an equation.
We mistake ourselves for something more, because the variables that effect us are far more complicated than artificial intelligence we create now.
We can look down on AI and see the choices it will make based off the variables and the program.
Any God could likewise look down at us and see all the variables he created and exactly how it would effect us.

If the temperature in the room is 85 degrees instead of 50, I guarantee you that you will say something differently than you would have, either in meaning or in tone. That would just be another variable, but any all knowing and all powerful being could see that and know the result.
And if such a being created the universe, it would be safe to say that he would also see the domino effect that all the factors involved in our universe would later become - thus making him responsible for our very actions by creating it to be no other way than what it is.


Oh, and if you don't buy that, there are several verses in the Bible which talk about predestination, choosing the elect, God creating the evil to be evil, etc. - which is directly backing what I'm saying.

This trumps all other arguments in my opinion, because why does judgment, tests, tribulations, etc matter when dealing with such a being. If such a being exists, than this is just a play and we are the actors.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
But pointing out others do it, like you did with Christians is a political answer. It's the same thing people do all the time when you point out a politician who does something, people from that party point fingers at someone from the other party who does it as well, as if that suddenly makes it ok. So yes, political answer.

I don't care who does it, I don't care what your beliefs are. It's a low level thinking process and it's just not a legitimate way of debating IMO. You are calling me a hypocrite not because of my own actions, but because "Christians do it as well". Well, you are both wrong.


No, I'm calling you a hypocrite because you portrayed everyone who uses Occam's Razor to be ignorant, and then you got onto me for portraying Christians as using the same tactics.
My point was simple: You likewise did not give an accurate account of all that use Occam's Razor, and were being just as much of a "politician" as I was.
Seriously, reread my last post, I don't think you got the point I was making.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by smokingmonkey
 


A * 4 U!

Thank you! You support my beliefs here completely. Now I will add to it, posts I had on other threads:

The atheists use their guru's to back them up also. As a matter of fact, it is always humorous to me when I hear a Dawkins follower. Very easy on ATS! I have read his book, "The God Delusion" and find all his parishioners doing the Dawkins talk.

As a matter of fact; he is called Pope Dawkins by many, for a reason. He said in his book...


"My dream is that this book may help people come out...the easier it will be for others to join them. There may be a critical mass for the initiation of a chain reaction." Preface



"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Page 5


Now, isn't that a piece of evangelism, and proselytizing???


There are many boxes that people reside in. Academia is one, along with religion. Rarely is it as cut and dried as we like to think.

Religion has many definitions one being the belief in a God, but there is more...



Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...something a person believes in and follows devotedly..." - Webster's



Almost anything can fit into this definition, including atheism. But atheists including Dawkins are very confused about religion, yet, most meet the criteria of being dogmatic and narrow.

Once an individual leaves off labels..."I am a Christian, I am an atheist, Buddhist," etc., then one may not be boxed, or considered religious in the true sense of the word.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I have always said that if God is so large, so omnipotent, etc. How is it that all (HIS) knowledge and love and guidance, can be put into one book?

Heck, we need an entire cyclopedia just to cover the basics.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarminer
 



Originally posted by lunarminer
If Supreme Beings exist, then they exist. If they don't, well then they don't. We simply don't have enough information yet, to prove one way or the other.


But we DO have enough information!
Just read your Bible!
This is the God we are debating, and there is enough information in the Bible to disprove his existence numerous times over!
This is because the descriptions of God are contradictory in almost every way imaginable.

We can't disprove that God exists, but we can (and have) disprove that the God of the Bible exists. Either his description in the Bible is false or he does not exist.
Just read my signature.

He is given the attributes of:
omnipotent
omniscient
all loving, merciful

All can not be true.
That is one example of many. The pieces don't fit.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
No, I'm calling you a hypocrite because you portrayed everyone who uses Occam's Razor to be ignorant, and then you got onto me for portraying Christians as using the same tactics.
My point was simple: You likewise did not give an accurate account of all that use Occam's Razor, and were being just as much of a "politician" as I was.
Seriously, reread my last post, I don't think you got the point I was making.


No, I portrayed anyone who uses Occam's Razor in a certain way as being such. As I said before, when you are using it as a tool for "debunking", then you are being and promoting ignorance. And I see alot of it. And when the term is being mentioned like it is in this thread, then that is because it is being used as a tool for debunking. If he was just using it, then he would just base things he says off it. But when you bring it up, and then you are using it as a way of saying you are right, and that is ignorant.

I showed you a time when I used it as well. But I wasn't using it as a way of debunking another idea.

I probably wouldn't have said anything, but I keep seeing the phrase thrown around on these forums a good bit, and I just think it is a way of promoting ignorance and avoiding things. It's completely subjective and so on.

Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree, because it's starting to get to personal things rather than the topic, and our posts will just get edited if we keep going(and i hate being edited
).



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join