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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Could a compromise be possible? This New York Times Op Ed guy seems to think so:

"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."

More at source:
www.nytimes.com...


I am a believer and don't need to "roll back" my conception of God's role in creation and I allow my brain to wrap around scientific thought -I don't see the two things as in conflict but maybe I'm wierd - and I have no problem with atheists - they are free to believe whatever they want as I am - I don't see a problem - I do see people who love to argue for its own sake and I normally stay out of theological arguments with non believers - unless its a peaceful discussion free of recrimination - some of my best friends are atheists
...no really!
We seem to be able to discuss these issues without rancor.
Once in a while I may opine if I see someone getting nailed for no other reason than they are a believer but usually folk can handle themselves - lot of Catholic bashing going around lately- not here necessarily but have seen it of late at Salon.com and in the UK papers...there are atheists lite and atheists militant and the same goes for believers - so let them go at each other if they want and I figure they enjoy it or they wouldn't waste their time.


edit to say: its the atheist job to run from absolutes and my job to love him/her - everything else I leave to God


[edit on 9-10-2009 by realshanti]




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 





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.
The Lord said,"I AM THAT I AM therefor I AM" not, I am that I could be or I was gonna be but I flipped a coin.
All the highly intellectual bombastic bs is more than unnecessary
and the last thing I need to define my God is an Imagination that could take me anywhere. (The LORD SAID, is all I need not what you said for sure).
Although I admit it would never be anywhere even close to where you've gone.
Next time your chewing on some gum.
Take it out of your mouth and stretch it both ways. Two different directions

realshanti



my brain to wrap around scientific thought -I don't see the two things as in conflict but maybe I'm wierd - and I have no problem with atheists - they are free to believe whatever they want

You are absolutly correct, they aren't in conflict, peoples perceptions are.




[edit on 9-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 





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?

I know someone just made a thread about 2+2 really adds up to five.

Was that you?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


ahh yeah , Omega, I suppose thats true... I know for instance that some folks perceptions of Catholicism are truly twisted
They think they know what we believe but actually have not a clue...

I would love to see someone like Christopher Hitchens take on St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas - some of the greatest minds in the world were and ARE believers - instead he debates people like Al Sharpton???...please....that's a set up


[edit to correct Hitchens name]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by realshanti]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by realshanti
 





Al Sharpton???...please....that's a set up

lmao If you we're looking to send someone into a belly laugh.
You have achieved your goal


Anyways do you see any differences between Cathalocism and Christianity
Or do you feel they follow the same road close enough.
Trying to stay on topic here.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by realshanti
 





Al Sharpton???...please....that's a set up

lmao If you we're looking to send someone into a belly laugh.
You have achieved your goal


Anyways do you see any differences between Cathalocism and Christianity
Or do you feel they follow the same road close enough.
Trying to stay on topic here.



hehehe ...yeah I watched that debate - talk about side splitting - I was rooting for Hitchens and I'm not an atheist


In answer to your question - yes they are certainly on the same path - Catholicism is the original church - it comes down to us in direct apostolic succession from the early church fathers as does the bible - the books that were cannonized during the early councils were simply the books that had already been in use among the faithful for three hundred years and Martin Luther left out the ones that did not agree with his theology - to be fair, the church at the time of the reformation was in sorry shape - he wanted to leave out Hebrews, Timothy and James as well and he wasn't crazy about Revelation either..hehehe - I guess someone talked him out of that..

The main disagreements are on the issue of Sola Sriptura versus Scripture AND oral tradition, the intercession of and communion with Mary and the Saints, and the role of the priest and the Eucharist - but the Catholic church recognizes as valid the baptism of any major denomination that holds to the diety of Christ and the the concept of the Trinity..I was born into a Protestant family and have only come to the Catholic church recently -

[edit on 9-10-2009 by realshanti]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



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


You were already called out in this thread alone and I'm quiet sure you haven't forgotten all the examples from another thread that I've pointed out to you. You also seem to have forgotten how I pleaded with you to not argue so contradictorily.

Your lying about Hitler's beliefs, or at least purposefully being ignorant of them. We have actual audio, video and his own book all in his own words spoken by his own person on what his beliefs were and yet your trying to pass his wrong doings off on to us. Screw you.


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.


Correct, when someone is outright wrong, contradictory or lying about something, I will attack those faults. Again, this is something we've discussed before in another thread, so please don't try and paint a negative picture of me in hopes that no one here has seen our previous dealings. It's quiet upsetting to see you act as if your all of sudden in shock and horror that I am talking to you like this.


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 system.


No, I am militant about correcting you where you are wrong, there is a difference. You have this special knack of seeing and hearing only what benefits your belief structure, anything out side of that seemingly doesn't exist for you alone.

So really, please cut the utter nonsense and BS, stop trying to paint a negative picture here for your own benefit. If I have to or am forced I can play your game as well and show these folks who might have not seen the other thread where you and I had previous dealings, quote for quote. It'll be fun really, so maybe you should keep playing games with me in this thread!



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


I thought you and a few others might enjoy this video:




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


The video is a false statement/assumption that energy existed prior to the big bang. The law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed is only a law as it exists within the boundaries of our own universe and says nothing of anything that may possibly exist outside of the universe.

Thus, the entire video is built upon an assumption to prove another assumption as being true, which in essence means it proves nothing.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


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 do not tell anyone what they think.

I tell others what atheists believe.....I never said I know what they think.

I know what an atheist is....and that doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I made no personal attack....so relax your calm please!!

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

that a higher moral authority than themselves exists.

Like it or not, the atheist places faith in a belief that says there is no God.

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

If you disagree, tell me what your moral standard is, and from whence it

came?



This is pure nonesense. Basically you are saying all atheists are simply too proud to believe in God. Sounds like rubbish to me - its the lack of physical evidence of God that atheists will point out as proof that God doesn't exist.

Both sides are going to have a lot of fun - because trying to find ultimate proof that either a fantasy construct either exists or doesn't tends to strike me as fairly much impossible - unless you have some way of observing and measuring fantasies.

I was an extremely devout Christian when I was younger - but I have grown and expanded beyond what I consider a small fraction of a larger picture - and also a very constrained way of thinking. All belief constrains the mind - and you can have powerful experiences that many would say are religious - even when you don't believe in God.

I say I don't believe in God - but then again, I don't disbelieve either - belief is flawed concept.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You keep telling me I'm wrong and that I am lying but you fail to give specific examples. Prove it!!

With regard to my stand that Hitler was NOT a Christian....you call me a liar....yet...you ignore all the evidence I provided.....You also ignore a rather lengthy quote in support of my position by Watcher-in-the-Shadows who very eloquently made you eat your words.

You don't know what a Christian is, or what they believe. Your view of Christianity comes by way of the undergoround "brattling" anti-Christian media, anarchists, atheist propagandists, innuendo, your own imagination, and the mind of Satan himself.

It was prophesied that in the end times God would send a strong delusion to the unbelievers. You are living proof that prophecy is fulfilled.

YOU are the one spreading lies and disinfo:





[edit on 9/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



You keep telling me I'm wrong and that I am lying but you fail to give specific examples. Prove it!!


I have, you just ignore it. You whine and complain about your own faults placing the blame upon others.

You just posted a video and I responded to it telling you why it's wrong, why haven't you debated against that? Because you can't, because you know it's wrong and stupid to use assumptions to prove assumptions because you and I have already gone over this in another thread, in which your quietly pretending in this thread that it never happened.


With regard to my stand that Hitler was NOT a Christian....you call me a liar....yet...you ignore all the evidence I provided.....You also ignore a rather lengthy quote in support of my position by Watcher-in-the-Shadows who very eloquently made you eat your words.


I've dropped that line of argument in favor of generalizing that Hitler was a follower of God and believed in God and has made statements concerning that what he was doing was God's work. I was under the previous thought that he was indeed a christian, now that I know more about Hitler, I know better, but I also do know that he was still a believer in God and committed his crimes accordingly to his beliefs in the almighty by his own words as recorded in audio, video and his own book.


You don't know what a Christian is, or what they believe. Your view of Christianity comes by way of the media, innuendo, and your own imagination.


No, it comes from the bible which is why I postulate that there is no such thing as a christian today as not a single one of you follow the words of Jesus.


It was prophesied that in the end times God would send a strong delusion to the unbelievers. You are living proof that prophecy is fulfilled.


Which only goes to show the contradictory nature of the biblical God. Not only are we given two Gods of the bible, but we are also given examples of a God who is not all loving and all forgiving. Seeing as how you don't explicitly follow the word of God letter for letter as he commands you too do so, you are also proof of the delusional nature described in the bible. Your views and interpretations do not supersede those of your biblical God. You for some reason deem yourself and your views as being above those of the Lord, you are in essence a non-believer. Welcome to hell.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


The video is right to the point when it equates the unknown energy source with god or started to antropomorphise it and give it properties like "mind" and "intelligence".
The only reason for this is the complexity of the universe. But as I showed earlier in the other threads, complexity (low entropy) does not imply design or designer. Many complex systems arise naturally without intelligence from simple laws, given enough resources, energy and time.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

You have no sensible, reasonable, or logical argument so all you can do is attack the poster.

I'm not whining about it sirnex. I'm embarrassed for you.

You have no idea how ignorant you are making yourself look.

Back up your atheist views and your slanderous allegations against

Christianity, if you think you can.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by John Matrix
 


The video is right to the point when it equates the unknown energy source with god or started to antropomorphise it and give it properties like "mind" and "intelligence".
The only reason for this is the complexity of the universe. But as I showed earlier in the other threads, complexity (low entropy) does not imply design or designer. Many complex systems arise naturally without intelligence from simple laws, given enough resources, energy and time.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...


Where did those laws come from?
How do you know they arise naturally?
Can you say for certain that unseen forces yet to be discovered are not at work?
Can you say those possible unseen forces are not God, the designer and creator?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
OmegaPoint:

Maybe this explanation of One and Nothing will help you out:




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by John Matrix
 


The video is right to the point when it equates the unknown energy source with god or started to antropomorphise it and give it properties like "mind" and "intelligence".
The only reason for this is the complexity of the universe. But as I showed earlier in the other threads, complexity (low entropy) does not imply design or designer. Many complex systems arise naturally without intelligence from simple laws, given enough resources, energy and time.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...


Where did those laws come from?
How do you know they arise naturally?
Can you say for certain that unseen forces yet to be discovered are not at work?
Can you say those possible unseen forces are not God, the designer and creator?


I dont know.. Thats the only honest answer any intelligent person can give you without making biased assumptions. In the absence of any evidence to distinguish between two explanations of the same phenomena, the only correct stand is agnostic.

BUT..
"We dont know" doesnt equate to "It must have been god/creator".

Thats what was biased and unscientific in the video. I am not absolutely 100% sure the universe wasnt created, simply because we know almost nothing about it, so it would be unscientific to say it absolutely could not be that way.
But in the video, they talked like if the creator was 100% proven and obvious, when he certainly isnt, thats what I mean... That certainly wasnt unbiased, and therefore not scientifically correct.

Are you familiar with the "god of the gaps" concept? The creators of the video obviously werent..

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Maslo:
[qoute]
I asked you;
Where did those laws come from?
How do you know they arise naturally?
Can you say for certain that unseen forces yet to be discovered are not at work?
Can you say those possible unseen forces are not God, the designer and creator?

Your response was:


I dont know.. Thats the only honest answer any intelligent person can give you without making biased assumptions. In the absence of any evidence to distinguish between two explanations of the same phenomena, the only correct stand is agnostic.

BUT..
"We dont know" doesnt equate to "It must have been god/creator".

Thats what was biased and unscientific in the video. I am not absolutely 100% sure the universe wasnt created, simply because we know almost nothing about it, so it would be unscientific to say it absolutely could not be that way.
But in the video, they talked like if the creator was 100% proven and obvious, when he certainly isnt, thats what I mean... That certainly wasnt unbiased, and therefore not scientifically correct.

Are you familiar with the "god of the gaps" concept? The creators of the video obviously werent..

en.wikipedia.org...


My answer back is best explained by the molecular biologists and bio chemists featured in this video.




[edit on 9/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.


Clearly a better clue then yourself. I find no need to argue with hypocritical contradictions such as yourself.


You have no sensible, reasonable, or logical argument so all you can do is attack the poster.


I attack where you are wrong. I attack where you use disused terminology to argue against modern theory. I attack where you use assumptions to prove assumptions.

I postulate that there is no biblical God as a real entity as there is no evidence. That is a logical and reasonable argument as God of the bible is not observed as a real entity. It is also sensible to assume through common sense that lack of knowledge is not proof of an invisible deity.


I'm not whining about it sirnex.


Oh the joy's of watching one ignore previous arguments. You so readily forget the other thread in where I have had my first dealings with you. The first thread in where I've gotten on your case for your hypocritical arguments and where you complained that I was insulting you for pointing out your own faults in argument and logic. That is the very definition of whining.


You have no idea how ignorant you are making yourself look.


Quiet the contrary my little simple minded one. You'd be surprised the amount of U2U's I've received in concern to your own ineptitude. Since I won't divulge the specific nature or from whom or how many, I'm sure it would be disregarded by yourself. Truth is, your not winning as much as you think you are.


Back up your atheist views and your slanderous allegations against
Christianity, if you think you can.


Read your bible. Hell, start with the first true word of God, the Hebrew bible! If that doesn't teach you anything about Christianity and the falsehoods it preaches in the name of God, then your one sorry individual incapable of learning.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Maslo: I have no beef with science. The Bible was never meant to be a catalogue for scientists. It's a great work of ancient literature covering such topics as creation, history, theology, genealogy, philosophy, psychology, prophecy, moral absolutes, Spiritual Truth, Faith, Fairness, Justice, Grace, Mercy, Forgiveness, Humility, Compassion, Love, etc.

Also: I see nothing wrong with saying God is behind (1)what we cannot explain or (2) what we don't no for certain. Taking this position does not stop the process of discovery and learning. In fact, if one believes God is behind it, there is a greater impetus for discovery and learning than there is if one only believes in naturalism.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join