It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by OmegaPoint

Actually, I found your post very interesting....but it's the kind of post that requires one to sit back when the room is quiet and really wrap one's head around that stuff....LOL.

In fact, I starred your posts, so your opinion is valuable here.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

That is exactly what I said several times alread.

Wrong. This is what you said:

Atheists reject God because they don't want to accept the idea

that a higher moral authority than themselves exists.

This is inherently different than one who does not explicitly believe in a god, period. Your adding the morality part according to your own personal beliefs which exist outside of the standard description of what an atheist is.

Own reasons hey???? Sounds pretty darn specific to me?

Wrong. Specific as implied that all atheists have the same reason, as you've postulated that reason being making up our own morals.

Own reasons as implied as I have a different reason than captaintyinknots and those two differing reasons are not in full agreement with each other.

Either you don't understand your vocabulary, or ... hell, you don't understand much.


results are self-evident. Just watch the evening news.

Please follow your own advice. LINK

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

Thank you. But it was cut and pasted for ease of posting. And wikipedia is sufficient for the case. I could launch into a essay but I don't really see the pointing in doing so....

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:30 PM
I don't understand the amount of flags your getting for
the numbers posting here. Good idea for a thread.
S&F from me.
To answer OPs question.
I myself could never make any compromise towards something
so ridiculous as atheism or evolution.
The two theories together don't carry the weight of one page of the Bible
and I will never be convinced of anything else. Just sayin.
Rock Solid in the belief "the good book" even predicts the
coming of this age of scoufers and non believers.
Most of the denying God and Christ is do to lifestyles.
Homosexuality is just one example.

BTW OP how is it you were able to come up with such a perfect title?
As Rocky would say,
Here's something we hope you'll really like.
above top secret

[edit on 8-10-2009 by randyvs]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix

That is exactly what I said several times alread.

Wrong. This is what you said:

Atheists reject God because they don't want to accept the idea

that a higher moral authority than themselves exists.

I said a lot more than that and you know it.

I said an atheist is a person that does not believe in the existence of God.

From this Post:

"The atheist believes God does not exists."

From this Post:

"The atheists do not accept God."

From this Post:

"The Atheists ultimate moral standard of right and wrong is themselves."

Which captaintyinknots said in his own words, but both my statement and his mean the same thing.

It's really offensive and ignorant to cherry pick through someone's post and pull out statements to support your argument by claiming "no you didn't say said this."

I said a lot of things. I hope the people on this thread see through your wicked tactics now that I have proven my point...which is...what captaintyinknots says on thos issues above, are exactly what I said.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

Well, accept my apology, I forgot about that post and I was in reference only to what was said between you and him in that context.

Regardless, lumping in most of everything else you are claiming about atheists is what is truly offensive and ignorant. Your implying that morality without your biblical God is not morality or not good enough. This is in complete disregard that what your bible holds as moral, we might hold as immoral. Stoning a child is just wrong, regardless of some invisible man decreeing it as a just act of discipline.

Arguing that atheists make their own morals against the morals of the bible is truly offensive. Is it wrong for me to say stoning a child is immoral? Is it wrong of me to say murdering another human being if God commands it is immoral? Get the hint?

You act as if we're immoral and evil for claiming there is no evidence of a god and thus no reason to believe in a god, any type of god. Not just your particular god. I don't believe in Odin just as equally as I don't believe in the biblical God. Yet, seeing as how the violent uprising of monotheistic beliefs destroyed almost every pagan religion on the face of the earth, us atheists are left with mostly you folks to argue against magical invisible deities.

If someone from a different religion with fifty gods came on this board, I would argue against every single one of those gods just as much as I do with yours. That is the huge piece of the puzzle your purposefully leaving out just so it appears that us atheists are out to get you poor little backward primitive thinking christians who violently destroy anything that opposes your beliefs.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

In moments of clarity and insight that I've had in the past, it occured to me that BOTH are correct, both sides. Now if I could only remember my precise train of thought, and how to describe it in words..

it had something to do with freedom, and the creative space of all possibity, where the non-existence of God IS God where God may be defined as a creative principal in the space, of the freedom to love - a gateway, of infinate possibility into the as yet unborn realm of all new possibility. It's like an invitation to particpate, woven right into the very fabric of reality and existence, an inclusion in a "kingfom of heaven". Also there is no conception of God which is capable of describing God or eliminating God from the equation.

Both sides I think are simultaneously right, and and wrong, but for the wrong reasons, and are missing something whereby there IS absolute commonality.

It's hard to describe, but at one time I had become convinced that both the atheists AND the believers were BOTH right, at the same time,. and that any God would have it no other way, being into sharing, and getting out of the way, so as to share.

For me it all comes down to gratitude, and a first cause. In other words, that I cannot be grateful to myself for all creation, since I did not create it, or me - in other words I must in the final analysis defer, to a "first father of creation" or an alpha and omega of existence. I cannot brag about my own existence, and I'm very grateful, so God for me is the inexpressible and unfathonable mystery, to which or to whom I am grateful, for my own inclusion in the whole of it all!

And like the sufi mystics, I am also convinced that love is at the foundation of existence, and that for there to BE love, there must always and forever be a lover, and a beloved other, a father/son type relationship, and so as a Christian mystic, this means that I am the adopted son of the King of the Universe! Hallelujah! I'm serious!

What I like about me in fact, is that I am imaginative and courageous enough, and passionate enough, to be a believer, and I am so glad that I am!

[edit on 8-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by John Matrix
I do not tell anyone what they think.

I tell others what atheists believe.....

What's the difference? How are you the authority on atheists?

Truth is, you can't tell me what I believe. It just doesn't work that way. You can tell me what YOU believe.

I made no personal relax your calm please!!

Relax my calm?

Atheists reject God because they don't want to accept the idea that a higher moral authority than themselves exists.

Sounds to me like you're saying what atheists think.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
In moments of clarity and insight that I've had in the past, it occured to me that BOTH are correct, both sides.

That is what I believe! Two people can disagree and both be right.
It is a bit difficult to grasp when we start bringing words into it, but it works great as an idea. It's something that I DO have faith in. It's a faith based belief, because I cannot prove it. But its something I strongly believe.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You get used to his hypocritical contradictory arguments after awhile. At first I just attacked him for every ounce it was worth till he finally stopped for the most part. Then I just ignored and argued in areas where he was purposefully lying and being ignorant.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:10 PM
If God is anything at all, then God is nothing, and the nothing out of which, through which and within which, everything exists and has it's being. The eternal formless beingness of being and non-being. And if this "plenum" or "akashic field" is fully informed, from beginning to end, outside of time, and space, then "God" is THE most daring and the most ingenious of all beings, utterly supreme, and inconquorable, most certainly not subject to any human conception, either for, or against.

Thus, both the atheist, and the tradional believer, are fools, who hold firm to a position, relative to something that is by it's very nature inscrutable, inexpressible, unfathonable, and without any comparison or distinction. The only proof which might be offered would be the existence of existence itself, when placed relative to the law of conservation of energy which states that you cannot get something from nothing.

So I say that "God's" existence, and non-existence, are both two sides of the same coin!

And either way, we're fools. I simply choose to be a willing fool for God because it gives me joy and ignites something deep within, and if that's nothing but a projection, then it's a very effective and powerful one, a love which loves us back for no reason except perhaps that we and everything and the field of all existence, share the same ground of being and the same source..?

Forgive me if this is a bit of a stereotype or a mischaracterization, but the atheists seem to appear, at least to me, to lack something fundamental, call it a mirth, playfullness, humour, or a warmth and lovingkindness (it's hard to put my finger on), most especially in relation to believers, and the believers make of themselves hypocrites in relation to the atheists, in so far as their most fundamanetal precept is to love others as self and as God.

In fact, loving others as self, being just as important as loving God above all (see the parable of The Good Samaritan for illumination) merely demonstrates, in it's pratical application, quite simply, that we are all one, and share the same ground of being, which IS God. Therefore, if the believer hates the atheist, then he is denying the very cornerstone of his faith. So my thing about atheists seeming to be uh rather deadish, cold, and lacking in warmth and lovingkindness, that's not a judgement, just an impression or an evaluation. I am sad for atheists, who may be deluded in thinking themselves to be smarter than believers, and for believers who are not in the least followers of the way of Christ, known for their fruit (hatred, bigotry and intollerance).

So shame on both sides, who are fools and hypocrites, myself included except maybe that I am a willing fool..

[edit on 8-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by OmegaPoint

If God is anything at all, then God is nothing, and the nothing out of which, through which and within which, everything exists and has it's being. The eternal formless beingness of being and

All the switchin, whichin, twitchen in the world won't make this true.
As for Satanists, even the ones very high or low (whatever you prefer)
know they are doomed.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by silent thunder

"Believers could scale back their conception of God's role in creation, and atheists could accept that some notions of 'higher purpose' are compatible with scientific materialism. And the two might learn to get along."

OK dad...

well, sure - sounds simple

I'm unclear - how is it that the atheists are "militant"?

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by sirnex

You see are the one that does not understand what Christianity is.

Jesus rebuked the pharasees for thinking that by keeping all their old testamnet laws they would win God's favor.

Jesus rebuked the pharasees who were religious about keeping the law and placed them on an equal playing field with everyone else.

Christianity is not about keeping laws, or practicing rites, rituals, etc.
Christianity is about a rebirth of the Spirit and living a life that is set free from the law. The entire book of Romans, which was written to explain this to mostly new jewish converts explains the life of faith and living by the spirit vs. living under the law.

Romans 8: 1 to 17 NIV version.
Life Through the Spirit

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[g] And by him we cry, "Abba,[h] Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

You can also check the Opening Post on this thread:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:24 PM

You get frustrated and attack me.....but it's your own self that's the problem.

You are an atheist and the God of confusion has blinded you.

I know what an atheist is, but you have no clue what a Christian is.

Benevolent Heretic:

You are an told us I can say that you are an

atheist. But, I never said I could tell you what you beleive....that claim is

utter nonsense. You are also confused.

Now Stop knit picking and move on already.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You get used to his hypocritical contradictory arguments after awhile. At first I just attacked him for every ounce it was worth till he finally stopped for the most part. Then I just ignored and argued in areas where he was purposefully lying and being ignorant.

I'm calling you out on this sirnex.

Show me where I was being a hypocrite, giving contradictory arguments, and where I purposely lied and was ignorant.

Note: you said you attacked me "for all it was worth" and you did it to shut

me down. That's by your own words.

So why should anyone take you seriously after this post and the two posts

before this one?

One would think that the atheist's god is the god of confusion.

You are militant about pushing your beliefs when you attack Christians,

God, and the Bible. You are militant in the way you defend your belief


The title of this thread is right on the money.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by randyvs

Some things are true, whether you believe in them or not.

You see, if there is a God, or a supreme being, then such a being would even transcend the duality of being and non-being. Such a being could die, and yet never die, could be obliterated, and yet retain perfect integrity and wholeness, could cease to exist, yet remain, have no thought, yet be completely aware from every angle and perspective.

You just lack the imagination to grasp what I was pointing to when I said that God was nothing, because in nothing is everything, and there is nothing that is not, only what is.

The beauty of this, is there is nothing to conform to, be compelled by, or rebel against, there is only freedom, and we are free for the sake of freedom. We were freed already, for freedom's sake, and perfect freedom, is the freedom to love.

God exists most fully when we no longer need for God to exist, and when he dies, He lives on, forever, since nothing can kill the very spirit of life which inhabits all life. God does not need for us to believe in and worship God. He only needs for us to love as He loves, so that his love will be made known and redeem the creation, and reconcile it to it's source.

As a mystical type of believer, I'm almost more for the atheists, than the believers, who would take pleasure in knowing that others will be condemned to hell. What a disgrace for a believer THAT is, who's own sense of belonging to an exclusive clud and entitlement to everlasting life, REQUIRES, that those without suffer eternal damnation. How devilish! The snarling dog is all teeth, but it has no bite.

"I ask for mercy, not sacrifice!"

[edit on 8-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:27 PM

If you think of white 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 out 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.

~ from "The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch

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.

From what I gather here, what Haisch is implying, is that God as absolute perfection has introduced a flaw, or a limitation, and through a process of intelligent subtraction, manifests our own existence, in order, I suppose, so that there can be something, instead of a nothing-everything that is nothing in particular. God - creating a manifest experience, perhaps even willingly being torn apart and broken down, to SHARE in his eternal kingdom, while inviting us, as subjective experiencers, to have a relationship, with the absolute, in the process of which God is rediscovered, and reanimated, through us, who can then enjoy a share in the glory and in the inheritance, of eternal life WITH God in the here and now through which forever springs the eternal life. This to me makes sense, and, incidentially, bears an uncanny similarity, in a micro-human sense, to the passion, of Jesus Christ.

If we came to understand this, as an intentionality of fated history, then the bottled up doctrine of Christianity would come alive and be revivified, and the spiritual genie released from the prison of the stained glass bottle of the institutional Church, and we would then return to the allegorical garden of Eden, and eat freely of the tree of life, and drink from the living water of eternal life, in the here and now, at the end of time.

And this type of argument, would be moot, and cast aside as fruitless and useless.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:18 PM
One other thing to consider, which also serves as a bridge I think between the two sides, and that is this.

Modern science has now proven, with Bell's Theorem, that we live within an acausally interconnected, non-local, holographic universe, and when we look as the cosmic evolutionary process, we can or should be able to easily see and recognize that we ourselves, the human being, being the most recent evolutionary phenomenon, are indeed at the apex of it all, where "the last shall be first, and the first, last."

It is my contention, therefore, that the human being was made by intelligent design, with intentionality, from the beginning, and beginning with the end in mind (see Haisch's and Laszlo's views), to contain nothing less than the spirit of the universe, the spirit of the living God (in consciousness)

Which might suggest, and does, that there is more to the historical person of Jesus than we may think, and by extension, our own selves as brothers of Jesus... it's worth considering from the contextual frame of reference that I've just offered.

This would mean that on a certain day, approximately 2000 years ago, on a hill called "Golgotha", was rendered, an image of God performing a "Great Work", at the very apex, of the entire spectrum of all being and becoming, no matter how solipsistic that may seem, because if meaninful, then by extension it means everything.

And so the fundamentalist Christians are ALSO 100% right in their view and analysis!

I have seen the gift, recognized it as such, and who would refuse it, IF they fully understood it for what it is and signifies?

The problem with us Christians for the most part, is an error regarding a false exclusivity of what amounts to an all inclusive proposition, and a total breakdown in communication. It is as if the devil found his way into the church, and there lives, guarding the secret from it's final appropriation, but once he's been overcome, the strongman bound, why then his house can be pilfered, leaving nothing behind!

It's all for me and for you, and the treasure resides in a place that is untouchable, by design.

Your crown..? Do you have the courage to wear it? That's the only question remaining. Who is courageous enough to actually recieve what God has freely given? Very few. We are so afraid, so unworthy - but that's not true.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:57 AM

Originally posted by blujay
reply to post by sirnex

Like I said, everyone will get there eventually.

Many like you, may take several more lifetimes. Keeping such a closed mind must be so drab.

I enjoy the smug self satisfaction. Some atheists or agnostics were previously religious - and I for one, had extremely powerful religious and spiritual experiences - deep, cosmic - hand of God experiences (and still do). That I now understand are nothing to do with God or any such thing.

So personal experience is just that - personal - and nothing to do with higher powers. Don't be so sure that your revelations have not been fully explored well before you - by agnostics, and/or atheists as well.

The power of forgiveness, of infinite power over our own destiny and reality - over chance, misfortune and eternal existence does not lie outside of ourselves - but rather is within. I approach it as purely natural, not spiritual or divine - it is obvious that no-one else commands such power over a person, as that person commands over themselves. To create their own reality by virtue of their perceptions - to forgive themselves - and to conquer death and fear.

I am agnostic by definition - because I disavow universal truth - holding that we are so limited within this reality that we cannot know the difference between a universal truth, and a complete falsehood. Most would say I am an atheist - because I certainly don't believe in God - however, I don't not believe in him either - I simply believe nothing - and hold that belief is a state of mind that has no foundation, because we are incapable of knowing truth.

Some would say that 1+1=2 is a universal truth. But if I buy an apple, then another (being hungry), and when I go to eat them - I find one to be rotten inside, filled with parasites - so I cannot eat it. In this case then, 1+1=1. If we cannot tell the difference between 1 and 0, how can we ascribe the virtue of universal truth to anything?

Understanding something might be considered akin to knowing, or believing. However understanding from my view requires practical application where results align with expected outcomes. In other words - if you can imagine it, then apply it and get an expected outcome you understand that thing within that context. If you expect certain evidence to appear within a model at a certain point and it does, then you have an understanding of that concept. This does not constitute belief, nor knowing - and past results do not predict future outcomes with certainty.

We don't know - but we can try to understand - if I know something, it is this - that I know nothing, which is a great deal more than most people know.

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in