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 there are no ATHEISTS

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
It is time for us to recognize as a society that there is no such thing as an atheist. Let me help you understand why this is the case.

Do you believe in Leprechauns? Probably not, because Leprechauns are imaginary. Yes, there are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist.

We know that Leprechauns are imaginary. Why? Because there is no evidence for their existence. Despite all the publicity Leprechauns get, normal people dismiss storybook creatures like Leprechauns as myths, and rightly so.

If you do not believe in Leprechauns, what are you? Are you an aleprechaunist? Of course not. You are normal. People who do not believe in Leprechauns are completely normal.




There is no evidence for God's existence either:

* God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

* None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.

* God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

* The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.

* The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.

* When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."

* Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.

* And so on…




The new name is "Rational"
People who do not believe in God are the same as people who do not believe in Leprechauns. They are rational, objective observers of the world around them.

In just the same way that we don't use the word aleprechaunist to describe the people who do not believe in Leprechauns, we should not need the word atheist.




It is time to choose a new name for those of us who know that all human gods are imaginary.
There is no reason to define ourselves as the opposite of theists because theists are delusional. The word "atheist" gives theists way too much credit. The new name that I would like to propose is Rational Person. As in:



Chris: What religion are you?

Norm: I am a Rational Person. What are you?

Chris: I am a Christian. What do you mean, you are a Rational Person. What do you believe?

Norm: Rational People know that all human gods are imaginary.




The reason I think that Rational Person (or just Rational) is a good name for us to use is because of the dictionary definition of the word "rational":

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.


Rational People are of sound mind. We are sane. We have the ability to reason. We display logical, rational behavior. We are not delusional. Therefore, Rational is a very appropriate name.

I am a Rational Person. What are you?


Taken from: whywontgodhealamputees.com...


[edit on 12-6-2009 by Daniem]




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
You cannot say that there are no atheists, silly.

By doing that you are depriving those who believe in God of something they like to bicker about and scare their little children with



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

I am a Rational Person. What are you?




This guy seems RATIONAL...

Link: www.cnn.com...



By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN

Adjust font size:
Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 

Delusional, ey?

I've got to say, that is somewhat of an arrogant OP, is it not? But I guess that is the sort of response you were expecting?

Anyhow, most of your list of "Lack of evidences" aren't even valid, or aren't even true.

Besides, considering your list of what you claim is a lack of evidence, your definition of rational doesn't really fit.

Sorry for the somewhat reactionary post. I know you set up the entire post with that in mind, and I took it up hook, line and sinker, so perhaps it is not all my fault.

EDIT: Whoop...I just realised you lifted up your entire post from a website. Never mind, then


[edit on 13-6-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


This guy seems RATIONAL...

Link: www.cnn.com...



Fail. If you had read a bit further you'd see that he also says that:

"reason alone cannot prove the existence of God."
"Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."

He even reveals that he became a follower of Jezeus since science couldnt answer questions like "why we are here" and the "meaning of life" etc. He found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, so he turned to superstition.


Also he admits that: "Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true."


In fact, in his book (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) Collins examines and subsequently rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design.


Even if he thinks its ok to believe Yahweh made everything, he obviously cant know if everything was created by some other god, many gods, aliens, or whatever, therefore he is totaly irrational when he just picks one of the gods and claims that one did it.

He just wanted a quick answer for peace of mind, as he couldnt bare to not know. (or he didnt like that our lifes has no apparent meaning other than what meaning you give it yourself)

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

There is no evidence for God's existence either:
* God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.



There is archaeological evidence.


Originally posted by Daniem
* None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.


Paul the Apostle is physical evidence of one of Jesus miracles.


Originally posted by Daniem
* God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.


He choose the Bible to speak to us.


Originally posted by Daniem
* The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.


He appeared to lots of people. It's in the Bible and also Paul the Apostle.


Originally posted by Daniem
* The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.


The Bible is comprised of 66 books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents.
In all of that the main reoccurring theme is the salvation of mankind.


Originally posted by Daniem
* When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."


Have you ever heard of George Mueller. The Bristol Times said he was a man of miracles. He would pray in his closet to God alone for his orphans that he was taking care of. By the time he died, he was running a multi-million dollar operation through answered prayers by God.


Originally posted by Daniem
* Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.


God gave man free will and man sins. Without God man chooses poorly.

Thanks,
TT


[edit on 6/13/2009 by texastig]

[edit on 6/13/2009 by texastig]

[edit on 6/13/2009 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

Originally posted by OldThinker


This guy seems RATIONAL...

Link: www.cnn.com...



Fail.

not trying to WIN my friend....just giving you info...free will and all..

OT
Romans 1:20



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

There is archaeological evidence.


Like what? Archaeology does not support anything about creation or the Flood. So tell me, and i'll debunk it.



Paul the Apostle is physical evidence of one of Jesus miracles.


Can you be more specific?



He choose the Bible to speak to us.


Hahaha i'd like to see you prove THAT.



He appeared to lots of people. It's in the Bible and also Paul the Apostle.


So? Just because its in that book doesnt make it true.



The Bible is comprised of 66 books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors


Claiming divine inspiration does not mean having it. I could easily claim divine inspiration even for typing this.



he was running a multi-million dollar operation through answered prayers by God.


hogwash



God gave man free will and man sins. Without God man chooses poorly.


Do raped women and children choose to get aids?

Do all believers in god that brak the law choose well? You seem to imply that with god you choose well... so u support criminals.

Do mean to say that all atheists chooses poorly? Thats like racism, and definitly NOT true.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

Originally posted by texastig

There is archaeological evidence.


Like what?



www.christiananswers.net...

Here are some examples:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 



D, I thought the writing was interesting...www.garyhabermas.com...

and this short vid... www.youtube.com...


OT



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Arch...evidence for the NT....

link:
www.faithfacts.org...


•The New Testament mentions specific individuals, places, and various official titles of local authorities, confirmed by recent archeology. Luke sites exact titles of officials. (Titles varied from city to city so they are easily checked for accuracy.) Lysanias the Tetrarch in Abilene (Luke 3:1)—verified by inscription dated 14-29 A.D. Erastus, city treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23)—verified by pavement inscription. Gallio—proconsul of Achaia (Greece) in A.D. 51 (Acts 18:12). Politarchs ("city ruler") in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Chief Man of the Island on Malta (Acts 28:7). Stone Pavement at Pilate's headquarters (John 19:13)—discovered recently. Pool at Bethesda— discovered in 1888. Many examples of silver shrines to Artemis found (Acts 19:28). Inscription confirms the title of the city as "Temple Warden of Artemis". Account of Paul's sea voyage in Acts is "one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship."
•Census of Luke 1. Census began under Augustus approximately every 14 years: 23-22 B.C., 9-8 B.C., 6 A.D. There is evidence of enrollment in 11-8 B.C. in Egyptian papyri.
◦Problem: Historian Josephus puts Quirinius as governor in Syria at 6 A.D. Solution: Recent inscription confirms that Quirinius served as governor in 7 B. C. (in extraordinary, military capacity).
◦Problem: Herod's kingdom was not part of the Roman Empire at the time, so there would not have been a census. Solution: it was a client kingdom. Augustus treated Herod as subject (Josephus). Parallel—a census took place in the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor under Tiberius.
◦Enrollment in hometown? Confirmed by edict of Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, in 104 A.D. "...it is necessary for all who are for any cause whatsoever way from their administrative divisions to return home to comply with the customary ordinance of enrollment."
•Opinion of Sir William Ramsay, one of the outstanding Near Eastern archeologists: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length...In short, this author should be placed among the very greatest of historians."
•Diggers recently uncovered an ossuary (repository for bones) with the inscription "Joseph Son of Caiaphas." This marked the first archaeological evidence that the high priest Caiaphas was a real person. According to the gospels, Caiaphas presided at the Sanhedrin's trial of Jesus.




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Some more....


link: www.bibletopics.com...


Pontius Pilate's historical authenticity was in doubt until 1961, when an inscription was found "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans", thus proving his existence. An interesting archaeological discovery appears to document a Roman governor's reaction to the resurrection of the dead. Matthew 28:11-15 describes the reaction of the chief priests and elders when the guards around Jesus' tomb told them about the resurrection: "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." The governor must have heard the report and it must have upset him, because he issued a decree instituting capital punishment for the crime of violation of sepulcher, a crime which had never previously had such a severe penalty. A white marble slab inscribed with this decree was found in Nazareth in 1878.

In the Old Testament, Joshua followed the Lord's instructions and the walls of Jericho collapsed with a shout from the people, allowing Joshua to take the city c.1400 BC, (Joshua 6:5, 6:20). Archaeological evidence found the walls of Jericho, fallen outward, even though they were 15 ft. high and 10 ft. thick. From pottery and ceramic evidence, the city was destroyed c. 1400 BC.




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
D, fairly exhaustive list here...


1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2) The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3) The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.

There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as:

4) The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.

5) Joseph's price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive.

6) Joseph's Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem, as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence?

7) Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

8) David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, Davidic and New Testament periods, but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl (in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and Joseph's original tomb and home. There remain many 'tells' yet to uncover.

Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best dubious and at worst in error.

9) Paul's reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name.

It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance:

10) Luke's use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a "district" of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.

11) Luke's mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.

12) Luke's usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.

13) Luke's usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies.

14) Luke's usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio's true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, "As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia..." Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.

It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, "Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."

In light of archaeological evidence, books such as Luke and Acts reflect the topography and conditions of the second half of the first century A.D. and do not reflect the conditions of any later date. Thus it is because Luke, as a historian has been held to a higher accountability then the other writers, and because it has been historical data which has validated his accounts, we can rest assured that the New Testament can be held in high regard as a reliable historical document.

We have no reason to fear archaeology. In fact it is this very science which has done more to authenticate our scriptures than any other. Thus we encourage the secular archaeologists to dig, for as they dig we know they will only come closer to that which our scriptures have long considered to be the truth, and give us reason to claim that indeed our Bible has the right to claim true authority as the only historically verified Word of God. This is why so many eminent archaeologists are standing resolutely behind the Biblical accounts. Listen to what they say (taken from McDowell's Evidences 1972:65-67):

G.E. Wright states,"We shall probably never prove that Abram really existed...but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period."

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting."

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record."

Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."




link for more: debate.org.uk...



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Here are some examples:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. BLABLABLA


This doesnt prove that Yahweh ever existed. This isnt archaeological evidence of Yahwehs existence.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 




I think Atheism is fine.

It's just the opposite of Theism.

Theism is just the belief that a God exists, it doesn't prove one does...but it's just a term for those that do.
There's no point in saying those that believe in god are "irrational" and those who believe in no god are "rational"

What about Aliens....

People could say that those who believe in Aliens are irrational...are there is no Proof they exist.... no physical evidence anyway.


I think the terminology for both is fine.

Theism and Atheism.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem

Archaeology does not support anything about creation or the Flood. So tell me, and i'll debunk it.



Originally posted by OldThinker

Here are some examples:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.


quote]

This doesnt prove that Yahweh ever existed. This isnt archaeological evidence of Yahwehs existence. BLABLABLA[/



?????

Not meaning to offend you....


is blabla, your official debunking...? Not very academic:shk:



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
There is no evidence for God's existence either:

* God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.


One could easily say the universe itself is physical evidence. Afterall, how does something come from nothing.




* None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.


So? Who cares about that stuff. If that is what you are focusing on, then all I can say is "sorry about your luck". Even so, I'm sure you can think of many things that have happened to you, which you are know are true but have no physical evidence to prove it, nor do you have anyway of proving it happened. There are things which have happened to me, which are perfectly normal and I couldn't prove they happened.



* God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.


And this is the truth here. You look for god out there. You are blinded to what "you" are, as well as what the father is because you do not look inside yourself. If you found out who you are, then you would know god.

In fact, there is no physical event which can happen that will prove god exists. In the example you give, how would you know it wasn't just someone hacking the system and doing it, etc. You wouldn't. There is nothing "out there" that can prove god to you. Go ahead and name and event that you think would "prove god", and I will make up a way to dismiss it.



* The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.


At most you could only say the story is false, or what men say about god is false. Which many things are. This does not in anyway disprove god.



* The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.


Same as above. At best you can only prove that something is false about god, you could never prove otherwise.



* When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."


Cool, so if I call you and you do not answer, does that mean I can assume you do not exist and then take your stuff for myself? For someone trying to claim a more "rational" state of mind, I surely find your logic "irrational". As it turns out, claiming something doesn't make it true. That goes for both "sides".



* Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.

* And so on…


Again, you aren't even really addressing the topic. You are drawing in things which aren't even really relevant to the topic. All that you could say about this is - god doesn't do anything about those kinds of things. Again it does not at all prove or disprove god.

Furthermore, you have 0 understanding of things. If you realized what you truly are and that death is not real, then you don't get so upset about things.

You think you are flesh, you think you are apart of this creation. You are blind to the truth, you do not know yourself and you are not rational. The only thing you are trying to do is justify your beliefs. But that is all it is, just more blind beliefs without any real understanding.

The only honest thing you could say at this point is - "I DO NOT KNOW". Take the first step to wisdom and repeat after me - "I DO NOT KNOW". See, feels good too be honest.

Now that you realize you do not know, maybe take the next step and start seeking. And when you get tired someday of "looking out there", maybe you will start to think about what you are. Maybe you will start to think about what it means "to be", how you are able to "observe" in a universe that is nothing but action and reaction. How you are able to have free will in a universe that is action and reaction.

Really, I'd love to know. How do you get a free will, choice, the ability to be, the ability to feel and so forth from actions and reactions. Sure, we can see where actions and reactions can cause a feeling, but exactly what is it that is "feeling"?

What is the chemical compound of consciousness? I've been waiting to here about this "observitatinum" and "feelium" elements for quite some time.

If the eyes collect light, turn that into electrical signals which travel to the back of the brain, and then they are converted into the images in which "you" see, to what are those images presented too? What is it that "feels".

If you are your body, then why is addressed as a possession? Your arm, your leg, your brain. Possessions? Since when is it a good idea to define ourselves based on our possessions? How can you be a possession? Even when we talk about our souls and consciousness, we talk about them in the form of possessions. So what is it that possesses these things?

Oh yes, keep looking out there blind to the reality within. Tell the world you are rational, maybe they will believe you. But in the end you are only fooling yourself.

I am god, and I am arguing with myself.

or as Jesus might say:

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Btw, I am not a christian, I actually know what Jesus is talking about and follow it.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I never said i would debunk your evidence for biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs beeing viable.

I said i would debunk your evidence for yahwehs existance.

BLABLABLA is just to sum up that your list is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with proving a surtain god exists. So show me scientific evidence of god, then we'll talk.


To your other post, about your evidence for NT:



The New Testament mentions specific individuals, places, and various official titles of local authorities, confirmed by recent archeology.


How very nice, but totaly irrelevant. Did you ever read Gone with the wind? Plenty of places named, and they too have been found to exist. This does not prove that any gods at all are, or were, real.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
One could easily say the universe itself is physical evidence. Afterall, how does something come from nothing.


Im sure plenty of people say the easy thing, god did it. But you dont know that. I can make up plenty of creation stories that are just as believable as "my god did it."



So? Who cares about that stuff.


Well obviously not christians, they surtainly just believe he did miracles.
But those who think its stupid and dangerous to believe in everything you hear or read care.

Those who think its impossible to do those things, and those who want hard truth surtainly care.



Go ahead and name and event that you think would "prove god", and I will make up a way to dismiss it.


First you need the definition of your god. Then we'd know what to look for. Just because you "look inside yourself", and FEEL that there is a god doesnt mean its true. I can make up several things of what i think it could be you're feeling.




At most you could only say the story is false, or what men say about god is false. Which many things are. This does not in anyway disprove god.


What? I never said it disproves god. Noone can disprove god.



Cool, so if I call you and you do not answer, does that mean I can assume you do not exist and then take your stuff for myself?


Are you kidding now? I hope you're joking... seriously. Otherwise you are thinking completely backwards.




Again, you aren't even really addressing the topic.


I dont think you have the slightest clue what the topic is here.. you seem to think that i have brought evidence that disproves god.




Take the first step to wisdom and repeat after me - "I DO NOT KNOW".


I DO NOT KNOW! There might be an invicible pink unicorn for all i know. I never ever said anything else. Now can you repeat this - "I dont know what I'm talking about" Cause you have surtainly got it wrong.




Really, I'd love to know. How do you get a free will, choice, the ability to be, the ability to feel and so forth...


Nonsence, if you wanted to know you dont read a book men wrote in the bronze age. Thats believing in stories MEN wrote. If you wanted to know how the bible god's creation works then you'd study science.



What is the chemical compound of consciousness? I've been waiting to here about this "observitatinum" and "feelium" elements for quite some time.


Argument from ignorance WARNING. Since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.

Many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality.

There is much evidence --
from genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, from brain injury studies, from brain imaging of healthy people
-- that consciousness is naturalistic now.



Btw, I am not a christian, I actually know what Jesus is talking about and follow it.


Good for you i also like and follow many things christians do. In fact christians adopted much of the rules that were in society before the bible was written. (hence they put it in their bible) So we all agree on something at least.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
Im sure plenty of people say the easy thing, god did it. But you dont know that. I can make up plenty of creation stories that are just as believable as "my god did it."


You stated as fact that god was imaginary, and insulted anyone who doesn't agree that god is not real all in your post. If you understood the creation stories, then you would know they don't actually disagree with science that much. Only people who take it literally would think such things, and obviously as you what you are disagreeing with is that literal version then you are one of them.



Well obviously not christians, they surtainly just believe he did miracles.
But those who think its stupid and dangerous to believe in everything you hear or read care.

Those who think its impossible to do those things, and those who want hard truth surtainly care.


Ahhh, "christians". Basically, your entire argument against "god" is just based on "what christians say and do". I'd say that is pretty "stupid and dangerous" to base your opinions off what others say, in either direction. It's about like equating GWB to freedom and liberty, just because he claims to be of that.

But just so I get this straight, you think it's all a fairy tale, but then your opinion of it is based only on the fairy tell and what people who claim to believe in it do?

Do you have any idea what Christians would do to Jesus? Ever heard the expression - history repeats itself? As such, don't you think it is a bit silly to be basing judgments off what those people do and say, rather than what he says and does? I don't care about the miracles, go ahead and take them out, doesn't matter at all with the important things.

Lets say one day people think you are special. And so they turn you into an idol. And then all these people go around and do things in your name. Would it be fair if people judged you based on what they do in your name?

And btw, Jesus even warns about such people. So exactly what else do you expect/want?

www.biblegateway.com...



Matthew 7

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


Starts out saying - look at their fruits(actions and what they do/bring), rather than looking at what they claim to be.

Goes on to say, just because someone says they do things in his name, doesn't mean anything. He says they do it in his name, but they do it in sin(iniquity = sin). Meaning, if they are like killing people in his name, then they are doing things in sin. He knows them not.

See the very last 2 verses, who is the authority? Not the scribes(scribes write scripture), but the people themselves. Not the bible, but peoples own understanding.

It says and warns of these things specifically. Those things are just "beliefs", they are useful understandings for determining the truth about things in this world. Again, what more do you expect him to say/do?




First you need the definition of your god. Then we'd know what to look for. Just because you "look inside yourself", and FEEL that there is a god doesnt mean its true. I can make up several things of what i think it could be you're feeling.


What is your definition of you? Best to play with Lincoln logs before trying to build a cabin. If you can't understand your own existence and what you are, then how do you expect to grasp anything beyond that?


What? I never said it disproves god. Noone can disprove god.


So, you think it is rational to believe that anything which has not come across your own perception is by default "false" and "untrue"? Take a look out at the known universe. Just a Hubble picture. Do you realize how tiny your perspective is on all that is out there? And yet, I am supposed to consider it to be "rational" to take the position that anything which hasn't crossed that tiny perspective is false, and then go even further to say if it hasn't crossed that tiny perspective then it can't be true of other peoples perspective either?



Are you kidding now? I hope you're joking... seriously. Otherwise you are thinking completely backwards.


Called a hyperbole, an exaggeration in order to make a point. The premise in your logic was that because god did not do a certain thing, he does not exist. I was using an exaggerated example in order to show the fallacy in the logic. If we apply the same logic in other ways, the absurdity of it shines. It would of course be flawed for me to do such a thing, that was the point.





I dont think you have the slightest clue what the topic is here.. you seem to think that i have brought evidence that disproves god.


Pretty sure the gist of it was - you are rational for not believing in god, and everyone else is irrational. Do you not realize what you imply when you say the things you do? Well I am your huckleberry. I am here to show you just how irrational your beliefs and assumptions are.






I DO NOT KNOW! There might be an invicible pink unicorn for all i know. I never ever said anything else. Now can you repeat this - "I dont know what I'm talking about" Cause you have surtainly got it wrong.


You don't know, but yet you say you are rational because you base things on reason. So from what part of not knowing do you find the balls to claim that everyone else is irrational and not sane?

Is it now "rational" to in one moment say "I don't know", and then in the next moment list reasons on why others must be wrong?

Just because you think or what to be thought of as "rational" doesn't mean you actually are.

You didn't just say "I disagree", or "I don't know, I'm not sure if that is true". You took it to a whole other level that all those people are not sane and that you are somehow better than them. And yet, now you say you do not know?




Nonsence, if you wanted to know you dont read a book men wrote in the bronze age. Thats believing in stories MEN wrote. If you wanted to know how the bible god's creation works then you'd study science.


I didn't learn what I know from the bible. I know the father, I learned from what is called "the holy spirit". It didn't have christian labels attached, and in fact I was very anti-religious when I first experienced it(still am against organized religion). You assume that anyone who talks about god or agrees with things someone like Jesus says got their information from the bible? But a few months later, I read a few quotes from Jesus, and I see the exact same teachings I got directly. He tells the truth, gives deep understanding and is an example of the proper way for people to act.



Since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.

Many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality.

There is much evidence --
from genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, from brain injury studies, from brain imaging of healthy people
-- that consciousness is naturalistic now.


lol, since "we"? Who is "we"? Science ignores it. Why? Because it is not a part of this universe. It does not follow action and reaction, and thus it is not repeatable in a lab over and over. Science is by default unequipped to deal with it. The only thing they can do is study behavioral patterns, and ways of manipulating those behavioral patterns.

There is some progress in this area, but it's been slow and is mostly mocked in the scientific community.

There is no logic that can describe consciousness. If you could do that, you would be the richest man in the world. No joke. It is beyond logic. Logic comes from consciousness, consciousness does not come from logic.

In genesis, it says - in the beginning there was the word. What do you think that word is that created everything? All programs contain words that create things. This forum is created by such "words". It's called logic.

And then the spirit of god filled creation. AKA, consciousness, that which creates logic.

Create a video game. Until there is consciousness to observe it, it's just a bunch of patterns running over and over. In order for it to come to "life", it must be observed by consciousness.

Here are 2 posts that continue these things much further.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess i'm just "insane and irrational though".




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join