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.

 

Is compromise possible between militant atheists and religious believers?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


For some reason that video would not play. However I watched part two. I don't think the miss quotes are all that significant or that it was done deliberately. He seems rather respectful in his critical analysis of Dawkins.

HOWEVER: Dawkins clearly attacks and attempts to belittle John Lennox by stating he is:

1. a scientist that believes Jesus turned water into whine,
2. a scientist the believes Jesus walked on water,

Then he goes on to criticise God and those who believe in God's way of dealing with sin through the life, crucifixion, death, burial of Christ. Dawkin's concludes his rant by calling Christians small minded
(which includes 2000 years of scholarship, many world renowned scientists, doctors, researchers, biologists, chemists, archeologists, geologists, historians, geneticists, etc)


Dawkins knows nothing about Christianity. He is criticising the spiritual from a purely physical and earthly perspective.


Why do evolutionists and atheists always feel a need to attack Christians?


Could it be a lack of sound arguments?


The mind of man is at enmity to God and cannot understand Spiritual things. It is only when man has a rebirth of the Spirit that he can begin to comprehend the mind of God.

Dawkins made himself look like a whiner in Part 2. I'll review the rest when part 3 is working.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Atheists and the religious cannot compromise, however. A compromise is to take two ideas and require that each "give up" some of theirs and accept some of the other to come together to form a single belief. I don't believe that is possible nor desirable. Their beliefs are diametrically opposed to one another. And both beliefs are fine as they are.

But they can get along WITHOUT compromise, stop expecting the other to change their beliefs. Stop expecting a compromise.


You are welcome for the sermon...... whether you liked it or not.


What I quote from your post above is well said. I'm impressed.

I don't agree with your criticisms concerning my understanding of what an atheist believes, doesn't believe, is, or isn't.

I don't pretend to speak for atheists, although the Bible has plenty to say about those unbelievers.

I was once an atheist too...as were most believers.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


You really have to stop ignoring history. Personally, I don't know anything of those quotes or the accuracy of those quotes due to the claimed source. Yet, Hitler is recorded as having faith in God and having stated that he was doing God's work. All your doing is looking at one source for all your information, please look up any refutations to those sources. Watch translated videos of his speeches. Read his book.


I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2


Hitler was a devout follower of God, doing God's work as he saw it.

LINK

Yes, I understand that you other follower's of God don't want to believe for one second that another of your kind could commit such horrible acts, but look at your own bible! It's riddled with commands from God to commit those same very crimes against humanity! You espouse that your religion is one of peace, but your God commands death and strife to all those that oppose him. Some of you act accordingly to God's will and law, some of you don't. The one's who don't complain that those who do aren't real follower's of God. Truth is, those who don't listen to God's word aren't the true follower's. You let your earthly man made moral code supersede the moral conduct and commands that God issued to you. Well, good for you! Doesn't change the history of your believer's one tiny infinitesimal bit.

Ignoring history doesn't change history. It just makes you one ignorant person pushing their beliefs on how history really should be told. So go ahead, post more videos from other christian sites without doing ANY fact checking on your own behalf. Have other people tell you about how all those bad bible thumpers were really atheists and used the evil evolutionary theory to commit those crimes. Don't bother checking those claims, because any follower of God *MUST* be telling the truth!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Pay close attention this this video.....sadly, the debate ended with nearly two thirds of the vote in favor of the position that society would be better off without religion.

What people do not realise is that atheism is in fact a religion because to be anti-God involves faith in the belief that there is no God.

Anti-religion, is in fact a "religion".

You can't suck and blow at the same time friends.

To say that we would be better off without religion, one must include that we would also be better off without atheism.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
I don't agree with your criticisms concerning my understanding of what an atheist believes, doesn't believe, is, or isn't.


Clearly. You wouldn't agree with my understanding of what believers believe, don't believe, are or are not, either.



I don't pretend to speak for atheists...


No, you don't pretend. You come right out and do it.
You tell us what we think and believe. You are wrong.




I was once an atheist too...as were most believers.


And I was once a believer.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Atheism is a religion itself... These are just the kinds of arguments that are annoying. Atheism is not a type of religion...
"to be anti-God involves faith in the belief that there is no God."
Therefore its a religion? This is just gymnastics with words.

Belief that there is no god does not require faith. Faith is jumping to a conclusion without evidence. There is alot of evidence out there that an all powerful creator is unnecessary as a hand in creation, and the various stories make no sense at all or contradict each other. Or have been proven to tell a tale of an event which simply did not happen.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by alpha-erectus
Atheism is a religion itself... These are just the kinds of arguments that are annoying. Atheism is not a type of religion...
"to be anti-God involves faith in the belief that there is no God."
Therefore its a religion? This is just gymnastics with words.


I admit one must stretch their mind to comprehend what I said, but it doesn't require one to learn mental gymnastics. The plain truth is hard to comprehend these days isn't it?



Belief that there is no god does not require faith. Faith is jumping to a conclusion without evidence. There is alot of evidence out there that an all powerful creator is unnecessary as a hand in creation, and the various stories make no sense at all or contradict each other. Or have been proven to tell a tale of an event which simply did not happen.


The atheists faith is in his own conclusions that are not based on the evidence....specifically the intelligent design that biologists and geneticists are discovering each day.....the 3 billion letter instructions encoded in the DNA of each living cell.

Shall I post the videos again?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sirnex. You know very well that anyone can claim what they are doing is in the name of God. It doesn't mean the Christian God. You know there are many Gods...so don't play us for suckers here.

The first thing that should come to your mind by a simple reading of your quote from Hitler is that Hitler had a perverted unbiblical perception of God.

Also, the source for those quotes I posted is clearly stated at the bottom of the page....and you can do the research....so don't just come on here and try to discredit them as if it's impossible to verify.

Do you deny the Holocaust happened too?


C'mon man!!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Pardon me-i didnt read all of the replies, so I hope no one has said this already;

The title of this article gives it away from the start.

"militant atheists" and "religious believers"

Gee, which one has the negative connotation to it? I don't suppose the author is christian, is he.....

Propaganda masked as compromise.

Also, I do not think a true compromise is possible, at least not as the author would have us believe. Atheists dont believe in god. So what you are truly asking is for atheists to soften their beliefs. But we only need believers to not be so in your face about it.

Atheists, you have to change. Believers, you just have to quiet down a little.

Not much of a real compromise there.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I will as soon as i get the chance in a few hours, but first, what would you say to 'design' that does not appear to be all that intelligent? Like gods specially created earth being made up of plates that happen to shift against each other causing earthquakes and thus misery to his specially created people. And the creation of animals that do not serve humans any purpose but are actually dangerous to us?

Besides, all of this is a bit off topic, but in turn does prove that there will most likely never be any compromise.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
Pay close attention this this video.....sadly, the debate ended with nearly two thirds of the vote in favor of the position that society would be better off without religion.

What people do not realise is that atheism is in fact a religion because to be anti-God involves faith in the belief that there is no God.



And what you apparently have missed is that to be atheist does not mean one is 'anti-religion', it means they dont believe in it. Big difference.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
And its not mental gymnastics, its word gymnastics.
The method of writing in a way that appears to give credability to an argument, when it really doesnt.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I dont think any compromise is possible between these two distinct groups. Militant/fundamentalist fraction of believers and atheists are mutualy exclusive, by definition. They are the "hardcore" ones, but in minority.

But Id like to point out that a compromise is already reached, by majority of people, between these groups. Most of Christians, and people in general, believe in God-guided, but mostly naturalistic creation.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

I'm not sure sure that's right, depending on the context and whether you subscribe to the studies and postulations of some modern scientists.

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt



If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound. If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters our parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:



[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything



Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.

a liitle more to follow, so that people can get the whole picture of the new paradigm of sicentific inquiry and why it involves the "mind of God"

------

In discussing the metaphysical implications of the identification of the zero-point field, Laszlo specifically notes the fact that it can contain an infinite number of "waves" of information:


This conception corresponds to a perennial intuition also articulated in Hindu Cosmology. There the almost infinitely varied things and forms of the manifest world are united in an essential oneness at a deeper level. At the fundamental level of reality the forms of existing things dissolve into formlessness, living organisms exist in a state of pure potentiality, and dynamic functions condense into static stillness. All attributes of the manifest world merge into a state beyond attributes. Time, space, and causality, are transcended in a state of pure being; the state of Brahman. Absolute reality is the reality of Brahman; the manifest world enjoys but a derived, secondary reality - mistaking it for the real, is the illusion of maya.

On the mind and the human being


A comparatively evolved system, such as the human, has a comparatively evolved brain and thus a correspondingly articulated mental potential. The endows the human brain with a highly evolved capacity for recieving sensory signals from the manifest domain, and nonsensory in-formation from the virtual domain [ie: the zero-point field]. In regard to the latter, the brain is genetically informed by the wave function of the universe and specifically in-formed by the wave function of the social and ecological systems in which the individual participates. Sensory information constitutes the familiar contents of everyday experience, whereas nonsensory information, in modern societies generally repressed, comes to light mainly in the form of intuitions, images, archetypes, and the seemingly anomalous contents of altered-state experience.

He goes on to state that


The altered-state interconnection of human consciousness with the world at large is of crucial importance for our times (atheists take note). It exhibits a fact that both mainstream science and mainstream public opinion has long disregarded; that our mind is spontaneously linked with other minds, and even with the cosmos as a whole.

On evolution, consciousness, and God


Evolution, we should note, realizes a twofold potential in the cosmos; a physical potential for the progressive, although intermittent and non-linear, complexification of manifest entitites; and a mental potential for the intermittent yet progressive evolution of consciousness. These potentials were encoded in the primordial virtual-energy domain. In the maximum concept that domain constitutes [b]the primordial nature of God.
Upon the termination of the evolutionary process - following the "evaporation" of the last remnants of supergalactic structures in the space and time of the last universe - the potentials encoded in the primordial virtual domain achieve final realzation. For the maximum concept the completely in-formed virtual-energy domain constitutes the consequent nature of God.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Until finally, as Laszlo mystically envisages it:


In the course of innumerable universes, the pulsating Metaverse realizes all that the primeval plenum held in potential. The plenum is no longer formless; its surface is of unimaginable complexity and coherence; its depth is FULLY IN-FORMED (caps by me ie: infinite intelligence). The cosmic proto-consciousness that endowed the primeval plenum with its universe-creative potentials becomes a fully articulated self aware cosmic consciousness - it becomes, and thenceforth eternally is, the self-realized mind of God.

In the words of Paul Davies, "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World" 1992, we read


I belong to a group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing than I cannot accept it merely as brute fact. THere must, it seems to me, be a deeper explanation. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind - ie: conscious awareness of the world - is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
atheists don't rail against common god believers. it when god believers try and make laws and rules for the rest of us to live our lives by. having a religous belief and forcing a religous belief are 2 different things.


Wrong. Atheist's religion is science. No proof, no belief. Yet time after time, science is proven wrong. Which was first, science or religion? I suggest religion, and science was the practice of seeking God.

But now, darwin is the god of atheists. And yes, I purposefully didn't capitalize the name of your god.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by antiopression

Originally posted by jimmyx
atheists don't rail against common god believers. it when god believers try and make laws and rules for the rest of us to live our lives by. having a religous belief and forcing a religous belief are 2 different things.


Wrong. Atheist's religion is science. No proof, no belief. Yet time after time, science is proven wrong. Which was first, science or religion? I suggest religion, and science was the practice of seeking God.

But now, darwin is the god of atheists. And yes, I purposefully didn't capitalize the name of your god.


Science was simply written off as alchemy back in the day. Because it wasnt called science, doesnt mean it didnt exist.

To speak this way about atheists is to show you now nothing of what you speak.

Sorry about your luck.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


Science was simply written off as alchemy back in the day. Because it wasnt called science, doesnt mean it didnt exist.



Really? Prove it scientifically.

Line # 2



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
A good question was asked by the OP but this thread is turning into just another "I'm right! No! I'm right!" thread between atheists and believers. It doesn't, in that context, belong in this forum, IMO. If you want to argue about atheism vs religion, it should be in a religion forum.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by antiopression

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


Science was simply written off as alchemy back in the day. Because it wasnt called science, doesnt mean it didnt exist.




Really? Prove it scientifically.

Line # 2

Nice strawman. your agenda is exposed. Take the rhetoric elsewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join