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.

 

Why does our creator want us to hate each other?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
People who won't believe or disbelieve either way for the sake of just that. Is that what you meant by 'true' neutrality?


Yep. You forget there are no purely yes or no questions. It's always yes, no, or maybe. But not disbelieving or believing purely for the sake of not doing it is rather defeating the point. Choosing not to believe or disbelieve is a neutral standpoint and an acknowledgement of our limitations.


I'm not generalizing, I'm ... specificalizing. Agnostic is to general, so it makes all sense to introduce more specific bands therein. And I'm not talking about groups of people but philosophies, which are attributes of people.


I am sorry but you are generalizing. There is a middleground, only extremists pretend otherwise *classic us and them mentality*. And like I said I look at it like a spectrum for example: *imagine it like a gauge if you would please*
etc====agnostic-atheist====Agnostic====agnostic-theist====etc

Hope that helps.



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


There is a middleground, only extremists pretend otherwise


I never said there wasn't! What could have possibly have made you think that?

The spectrum is good but incomplete. A lot of people are in the very middle ground but still adhere to different philosophies pertaining to their belief nor unbelief, which is were you get categories and subdivisions. All of which are more specific.

I am not generalising, I was making a point against generalising.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Please don't take my comments so personally. If you are in fact not a extremist then the comment does not apply. But allow me to improve my "gauge" into a chart. For the sake of accuracy, I took the simplistic route, my bad. And I think we may be saying the same thing somewhat.

militiancy/evangellacy
=
=
=
=
etc====Agnostic-Atheist====Agnostic====Agnostic-Theist====etc
=
=
=
=
level of doubt


And each most likely opens up into further charts but this is the best illustration I could come up with.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Ah sou desu neh.

No, I'm not an extremest and tend find myself arguing against generalisation when it springs up.

You're concept of things reminds me of the good/neutral/bad x lawful/neutral/chaotic concept alignment system from dungeons and dragons.

If I had to define my self, I'd be a chaotic-neutral neutral-atheist.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Too bad atheist isn't an alignment.
And no that is not what I base my idea off of. And saying you lean in one direction then saying you're neutral doesn't work. Which is what you are saying when you say neutral-atheist.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Welfhard
 

Too bad atheist isn't an alignment.
And no that is not what I base my idea off of.

I wouldn't have thought so, I was saying it reminded me off...


And saying you lean in one direction then saying you're neutral doesn't work. Which is what you are saying when you say neutral-atheist.


Sure it does, on the atheist side of neutral, in the same way northeast works, east of north.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Human beings have two choices, regardless of all of the 'new age' "religions" in the world today. We can serve Jesus Christ, or we can serve satan.

Make no mistake, satan is extremely intelligent and resourceful in the ways he will find to steer people away from God and towards hell.

The Bible is chocked full of warnings given to us to be alert to satan's tactics, and his ultimate goal.
If you believe and serve Christ, then you are on God's side.
If you believe and serve anything else, you are serving satan.

People like Oprah try to put a flashy spiffy spin on an age old blasphemy. She calls her "new religion" 'New Age'. But no matter the fancy name, it still serves satan.

Understand that satan is using celebs, laws, common folk, govt, etc., to further his agenda and goal. He has no shame in how he gets people to choose anything but Christ - his only goal is just that - to sway people away from Christ.

Sounds like he is doing a great job with most folks.






posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Ah ok, I see now, you place the center at atheism where as I place the center at agnosticism to put it in mental imagery. Which is really to be expected we do analyse tend to analyse and term the world from our persepective. I disagree with your motives for and doing such but I am by no means perfect so I cannot dictate to you how you should do something.

But it should be noted that I am not agnostic either.
Though what I am is not important.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 


I had to go back to work out what you were responding to so I could understand your point.

Anyway, If you are responding to freewill stuff then I'll just say this; Psychology and wider science is NOT "new-age". So what your saying is purely out of fear of difference.


And yes there are more choices than that, you can buy into the Jesus story on faith alone, or you can think rationally, or you could be one of those people who never heard of Jesus so you just keep doing what you always did.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Ah ok, I see now, you place the center at atheism where as I place the center at agnosticism to put it in mental imagery.



... huh? O, you mean the term order I put down was the variant first - extreme second.

Yes I probably shouldn't have said neutral atheist. So lets say I'm agnostic atheist. Although it'll work well both ways.

Theist ------ Agnostic Theist ------ theistic Agnostic ------ "True Agnostic" ------ Atheistic Agnostic ------ Agnostic Atheist ------ Atheist.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 



And yes there are more choices than that, you can buy into the Jesus story on faith alone, or you can think rationally, or you could be one of those people who never heard of Jesus so you just keep doing what you always did.


Faith.

You hit the nail on the head.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
I have been inspired by a recent post about bullying to question my belief in a loving God/creator.

Why are we born with the natural desire to bully and kill our fellowman?

If God is Love, surely he would have created us without these evil instincts.

And they definitely are instincts. Even little kids love it if someone is embarrassed and humiliated.



I don't belive it. I was a victim of hillbilly trash harassment when I was young. I have *never* identified this behavior as normal or natural.




Then they grow up and think it is ok to kill people (some of them do, I mean).

I am seriously questioning my belief now. I really thought that I believed in a loving creator, but now I think I believe in one who likes to set us against each other, and to play games. Maybe he/she is bored.




If there is a God, we don't know anything factual about them. Man's concept of religion is "bent" to whatever benefits organized religion. Organized religion is an organized shell game. Nothing more.

I wish I could determine the facts behind our existance - evolution or intelligence driven? Sadly, we will not find the facts in man's teachings.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

And yes there are more choices than that, you can buy into the Jesus story on faith alone, or you can think rationally, or you could be one of those people who never heard of Jesus so you just keep doing what you always did.


Faith.

You hit the nail on the head.



Faith is defined by belief without evidence. What astounds me is that so may would claim this purposeful ignorance and be proud if it for some reason.

Basing your perception of the world on a precomposed accretion based on nothing is a poor rationale.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Ah but in that description you put atheist as the modifier not the base as if you were an agnostic before an atheist, despite your declarations that by your analysis there is no god or any sort.
Sorry just being a pain in the butt now.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Actually it's a question of what one accepts as "evidence". To call someone ignorant because they do not have "evidence" you accept is silly at best.
But also asking for physical evidence of a spiritual being also seems to me as silly as well. Considering that if such a thing as spiritual whatever exists it would quite naturally be something other than physical by it's very nature.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Ah but in that description you put atheist as the modifier not the base as if you were an agnostic before an atheist, despite your declarations that by your analysis there is no god or any sort.
Sorry just being a pain in the butt now.


Now that's just not fair, you know what I mean.


Actually it's a question of what one accepts as "evidence". To call someone ignorant because they do not have "evidence" you accept is silly at best.


Well sure but (s)he was declaring faith, not evidence as motive for believing.



But also asking for physical evidence of a spiritual being also seems to me as silly as well.

I never said physical evidence, I said evidence.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Sorry that comment was meant purely tongue in cheek.


Well sure but (s)he was declaring faith, not evidence as motive for believing.


I editted and added more to that. Do you not have faith in those people called scientists that provide you with information are not lying to you or getting something wrong?


I never said physical evidence, I said evidence.


What other sort of "evidence" do you accept?

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Well sure but (s)he was declaring faith, not evidence as motive for believing.


I editted and added more to that. Do you not have faith in those people called scientists that provide you with information are not lying to you or getting something wrong?


That's a different form of faith, one that is synonymous with trust in a relationship. Plus it's not the scientists, it the science. Why because science give us our technology, the methodology proves it's usefulness.

Plus I know they will get it wrong, and you'll keep getting it wrong until you get it right.



I never said physical evidence, I said evidence.


What other sort of "evidence" do you accept?


I accept evidence, demonstrable evidence. Suppose there is a God, surely it'd be willing to humour those wanting evidence, surely if it want to be known, it'd do this.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Perhaps it does not care if we acknowledge it or not? Just an idea. The judeo-christian theological standpoint is not the be all end all of course.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Perhaps it does not care if we acknowledge it or not? Just an idea. The judeo-christian theological standpoint is not the be all end all of course.


That is certainly something I've considered. Perhaps we matter to the agenda of a deity as much as the pebbles that don't get caught in our shoes matter to us.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join