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.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I personally believe that a mixture of faith and science is needed.
Faith is simply believing things without evidence. If faith is accepted somehow as a scientific principle, then essentially any unsupported hypothesis would have to be considered equally as valid as evidence-based theory.
What scientific method reveals to us is that the universe operates just fine without our concepts of creators/deities/gods. This is often seen as an existential threat to the devout believer, and we end up with all manners of foolish science-deniers.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.
Originally posted by unityemissions
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.
This is a common myth, and a logical fallacy. Lawyers and people of reason are constantly proving negatives. The fact of the matter is that both theists and atheists are biased. The most logical stance is agnosticism.
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
Originally posted by faceoff85
Well I cant agree with you here... my faith is based on quite a bit of tangible evidence in the form of historical accounts, geological excavations and fullfillments of prophecy's... the complete picture actually gives a nice foundation for the rest of my belief wich is from then built on (yes you're partialy right) faith.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I personally believe that a mixture of faith and science is needed.
Faith is simply believing things without evidence. If faith is accepted somehow as a scientific principle, then essentially any unsupported hypothesis would have to be considered equally as valid as evidence-based theory.
What scientific method reveals to us is that the universe operates just fine without our concepts of creators/deities/gods. This is often seen as an existential threat to the devout believer, and we end up with all manners of foolish science-deniers.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by faceoff85
Well I cant agree with you here... my faith is based on quite a bit of tangible evidence in the form of historical accounts, geological excavations and fullfillments of prophecy's... the complete picture actually gives a nice foundation for the rest of my belief wich is from then built on (yes you're partialy right) faith.
Accounts and prophecies are not tangible evidence, although items from excavations are. None of these, however, establishes indisputable evidence for deities. It provides a basis for one's reasoning if one were so inclined to believe in such things (confirmation bias).
Originally posted by unityemissions
This is a common myth, and a logical fallacy. Lawyers and people of reason are constantly proving negatives. The fact of the matter is that both theists and atheists are biased. The most logical stance is agnosticism.
Originally posted by webpirate
Unfortunately this whole discussion can not be debated rationally by most people because they let their beliefs get in the way of fact.
We once believed the Earth was flat too. Where would be still be if that was still believed to be true?
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
Science has only revealed to us dimensions and mechanics. It isn't the place of science to assert a why.
Science has not made it clear that things can function without the aid of a prime creator because up until now we have not come to know everything.
Originally posted by faceoff85
If everything checks out I find it reasonable to belief the rest of the story is true as well...
Originally posted by faceoff85
Originally posted by webpirate
Unfortunately this whole discussion can not be debated rationally by most people because they let their beliefs get in the way of fact.
We once believed the Earth was flat too. Where would be still be if that was still believed to be true?
the bible (written 2000 years ago) said the earth was round and hanging from nothing... kinda funny ey?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
So where is your undeniable truth that a Creator does not exist?
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that claim invisible and/or absent entities exist.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you have sufficiently convinced yourself of the veracity of some religious claims then so be it. To those more critical there exists much else to find such claims falsifiable. The hard truth is that there exits no indisputable evidence in favor of any religious claims we know of.