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 damwel
No I am afraid he is correct. Under the rules of logic a negative cannot be proven and does not have to be. If you believe in a creator it is up to you to prove it. He doesn't have to prove there isn't one. Have you ever taken a course in logic. This is like the first thing you learn. Look it up before you makes claims that he is wrong.
I don't think so. The belief of a human-like creator came about when ancient man developed enough brain function to start wondering about it.
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I've already illustrated how Science, not Atheism, establishes a portrait of random occurrence.
Originally posted by Conclusion
So listen to the video. Then argue against the validity of the speakers thoughts,
By natural means. The sciences are working towards the details.
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by faceoff85
WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god
Not believing in deities is not a claim that there is no god. Maybe there is. It's up to those claiming there is one to supply the evidence.
There is a difference between not believing in god, and claiming god doesn't exist. -- Once you assert, as fast, that a creator does not exist, you must prove that a creator does not exist.
As for faith. I've said it before. Faith cannot accurately be perceived by science which tends to ignore certain variables of faith, certain variables that make up what faith is.
-------------
Like, people that try to explain the bible without the presence of God. (I know we clashed on another thread over this, lol.) As far as anything goes, you cannot remove God from the bible and expect it to make sense. Much like you can't remove the Sun from Evolution and expect it to make sense.
Science asserts what is already in place.
Faith deals in, as someone above noted, the why.
I don't believe that championing just one side will yield any fruits.
--------
Faith can't express itself SCIENTIFICALLY.
Science can't make indefinite conclusions on the WHY of the universe.
-------------
I personally believe that a mixture of faith and science is needed. More so spirituality, as in embracing the glorious potential of man and becoming better than we are now with every passing moment.
Originally posted by Conclusion
Interesting. What is an atheist's view on how life began then?
Ok, as for the honesty of people in reporting changes and conflicting facts about existing theories... sure - that is up in the air. And sure, scientific theories are based upon belief, but a belief in a tangeable, empircally testable idea. If the experiments lead the tester to the conclusion that belief A is invalid or wrong then they say yes, it's wrong. In a perfect world.. As for the previous notion of cars and air - when you say creator, are you speaking just in the basic idea of "something that creates" or are you referring to God as the creator? Because in the former instance I will say of course, cars were created by people. And the componets of the car, like air, was created by various chemical and physical interactions between atoms and molecules, resulting in the materials used. The earth spins due to left of forces of when the planets and solar system were formed, etc. I won't dispute that at all. But if you meant "creator" with a capital C - then I'd disagree.
Originally posted by Conclusion
Then how do you think life began? It had to have been created. For anything to be created there has to be a creator.
Atheists don't hold any common views but ONE. Disbelief in a deity. That's it. We don't hold ANY other common beliefs. So each atheist has his own beliefs about our beginnings or they don't. It's possible NOT to hold a belief about it.
Originally posted by Conclusion
Lol. So they don't know? Working out the details? lol
Natural means? Could you explain that so as it is not so vague?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
I've already illustrated how Science, not Atheism, establishes a portrait of random occurrence.
You didn't illustrate it, you assumed it was implied. It's not. Although randomness and chaos are factors throughout many sciences, science as a whole does not assume random chance as primary causation.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Conclusion
Then how do you think life began? It had to have been created. For anything to be created there has to be a creator.
That's an assumption. And it cannot be proven out.
So far, no discovery throughout the universe has required the need for a creator;
Originally posted by BlankSlate
reply to post by Conclusion
How about god?
My understanding is that in most belief systems god was not created.