It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do I need to say anymore?
Or this could be applied to the gods during the time of Israel like Baal, Dagon, Ra and Moloch. They had no power, yet there people trusted those gods to protect them, but because they only existed as statues there power was only a rallying point for worship, but it's faith was misplaced. Those statues got destroyed and there people with them. Thus proving Yahweh to be a God that had real power to actually do something.
You have no reason to believe in God, but you also have no reason to believe there is no God.
But I don’t believe there is no god; I just don’t believe there is one. It’s a subtle but very important difference.
4For the god of this world has blinded the unbelievers' minds [that they should not discern the truth], preventing them from seeing the illuminating light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ (the Messiah), Who is the Image and Likeness of God.
For example, we have no evidence that aliens exist. We have no evidence of ghosts.
It would also be foolish to assume before we have a way to get the evidence that all these things either don't exist or are not possible.
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by tinfoilman
In what I am saying you can hold the door open to possibilities and continue to explore the evidence and potentially come to a positive conclusion. But what are you saying? Should we believe everything or should we believe some things and not others based on a whim?
Going back to the original question, if you agree that you have no reasoning for believing that your god is the real god
You have a positive belief that a specific god exists, you are not saying that it’s a possibility that should be explored, you are skipping the exploration and investigation bit and going straight onto the belief.
Funding only comes into it when you’re trying to balance finite resources against the maximum gain. The LHC, SETI etc have defined methods and targets; they know what they’re looking for.
You can’t just say, maths and philosophy you have to elaborate on that.
Now if I didn't believe in something first why would I look for it? You have to have some kind of starting belief.
Just like scientists wanting to build faster than light space ships even though Einstein's work shows that it is impossible to do that. They basically have to have a blind faith here that Einstein was wrong because the evidence is already AGAINST them.
I wonder what it's like to be a married atheist or atheist with a girlfriend? You guys couldn't even believe your own GF loved you right?
Wouldn't you have to have some kind of trusting faith involved?
Okay, now here you're just being dishonest and moving the goal posts to keep God out and keep your pet theories in. Leprechauns might be possible. Should we go hunting for leprechauns as long as I know what I'm looking for? No, probably not because logically they're not likely. But that's not based on evidence. That's based on logic. Which is what I was saying. You don't always need evidence.
then when I point out other people are actually out there doing things based on the beliefs you turn around and say oh well, you don't always need evidence
Sometimes you don't need evidence to believe something is possible, but you disagreed
Now you say, well you don't really need evidence, you just need to know what you're looking for!
Believing that something might exist without evidence is still just a belief based on no evidence right?
You really can't figure out how a person would use math to form a belief with no evidence? Look at Einstein.
Only recently have we even had the technology to test his ideas, but very smart people believed he was right and accepted them long before science could test them and prove them correct.
Originally posted by Mike_A
Why is your god the real god?
He rose from the dead.
How do you pick out the truths from the false hoods? Well one method I would suggest is using the same methods that the math people who work on warp drive calculations used and I'm sure they used a few different methods.
Oh you only believe in the physical biological kind of love. You don't believe in abstract soul mate kind of love.
You only believe in, she likes me because her vajayjay told her to love me
She thinks she loves and cares about you, but she really doesn't.
But I wonder, if love is just a chemical reaction and people don't have any control over who they love and there is no free will then if one should still be mad or hurt because a person cheated on you?