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.

 

Riddle me this Athiests...

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




To always be negative towards others?

One more time could you explain this positive negative concept to me? I don't think I have just yet.

Oh I remember God = positive Sirnex = negative.
Here it comes everyone the last word!

By Sirnex of course. You see he has this hang-up about never allowing anyone the last word. Sirnex always has the last word. That's really awesome I think.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by randyvs]




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


I agree with you but there are other reasons people denounce God. Some have gone through the bible and seen all the strange inconsitancies, some have studied or tried all the religions only to find that they call on the bible for everything and yet rarely teach what is in it or follow what they find there.
They learn where the idea of God as we know it comes from and the fact that there were other virgin births and other saviors written of and many other writings and all of these writings seem to full of flaws and nonsense it be handed down by God as we think of god.
They find drunken pasters and priests handing out envelopes that tell you how much you must "donate" per week. They find that though the bible says not to judge they are being judged by their church leaders and followers ever day even in small matters of clothing they wear.
Many are aware that the religions hoard their tax free cash that is given them by hard working people instead of keeping a simple building and spending ALL of the rest on the poor and needy in as stated in the bible.
They look for god in all these religions and then they give up and decide there is no God.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



One more time could you explain this positive negative concept to me? I don't think I have just yet.


What do you mean "One more time"? I rechecked your posts and I hadn't seen the question asked before.


Oh I remember God = positive Sirnex = negative.
Here it comes everyone the last word!


What do you need explained in regards to negativity? Does your deity of choice teach you to be rude towards others? To be belligerent and arrogant? Does your god profess the wonders of simple mindedness with the inability to properly insult?


By Sirnex of course. You see he has this hang-up about never allowing anyone the last word. Sirnex always has the last word. That's really awesome I think.


You direct a statement and question towards me, of course I would respond. With all this negativity surrounding you, it clouds your ability to critically think. You attempt to insult me, but you failed immensely at such an attempt by asking me a direct question. I don't find this insulting at all. In fact, it makes me feel pity for you. Your so hung up on insulting others that you over looked your question directed towards me. This does nothing to me, but it does hurt you image others will perceive of you. You don't want people to think ill of you because you failed to think before you insulted, do you?

Why do you feel the need to insult so much? Does reality and truth frighten you that much where you need to lash out at others whilst pretending to be practicing a religion of peace and love? If anything, shame should be your main emotional response right now.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Great question, totally unanswerable, at least definitively.

I, too, am agnositc. Almost Mystic, really. Faith is good for when science and logic don't have the answers, and a lot of stuff I think about lacks empirical data.

I like my atheists friends, however, because of their need for evidence. This, too, is good and necessary.

I would encourage everyone to read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". This topic is a central theme and Mr. Dawkins command of the English language and rhetoric is top-notch. Since reading this book, I tend to shy away from such discussions with atheists. Solid arguments require solid evidence.

My only question to atheists is " Does the absence of evidence really make evidence of absence?" Has science discovered everything? No, of course not. So, then, is faith ALWAYS a bad thing, even if it is, technically, irrational?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The proper argument is "there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god" - Which can be shorthanded into "there is no god".


Those are two completely different statements. Both are based on personal opinion, but they are not interchangeable.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nyrossius Maxim
My only question to atheists is " Does the absence of evidence really make evidence of absence?" Has science discovered everything? No, of course not. So, then, is faith ALWAYS a bad thing, even if it is, technically, irrational?


Another problem is that it's a huge presumption to think that the explanation and truth of the universe has a rational, humanly comprehensible answer.

Atheists who cite a perceived lack of empirical evidence, have made an assumption formed on their personal belief that the answer to such a question is best acquired empirically. This is far from self-evident.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by Nyrossius Maxim
My only question to atheists is " Does the absence of evidence really make evidence of absence?" Has science discovered everything? No, of course not. So, then, is faith ALWAYS a bad thing, even if it is, technically, irrational?


Another problem is that it's a huge presumption to think that the explanation and truth of the universe has a rational, humanly comprehensible answer.

Atheists who cite a perceived lack of empirical evidence, have made an assumption formed on their personal belief that the answer to such a question is best acquired empirically. This is far from self-evident.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]


I could personally care less how something is proven, so long as it is proven. With that being said, Atheists and religious alike both don't praise Ra every morning for the same very reason, because it's mythology. Atheists take it that step further and place all deities into the realm of mythology as there is no more evidence for the Judaic-Christian God than there is for Ra.

I have no reason to pick one over the other as being more plausible. Whilst true that science has *not* discovered everything, it's rather arrogant to blindly profess one's own deity of choice or indoctrination is more valid than Ra.

If I had a choice of deity to follow, I would resurrect Ancient Egyptian religion and convert as many people as I could.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




I find atheists that engage in disrespectful discourse do themselves a disservice. I'm not certain it's cowardice as much as it is arrogance. Even though you and I have differences I don't believe I've ridiculed you, and if I've insulted you it certainly wasn't intentional. It would be best if everyone here could operate in a spirit of respect for each other. After all, these are just ideas we're haggling over....

I wanted to come back here and acknowledge what you said drummer.
I get carried away on this sight. Not just in this thread, theres's a lot going on right now. I don't believe atheists are all cowards as I'm sure you know I didn't say that. I do think it's cowardly, you say arrogant.
When someone makes no attempt to explain existence. Then (this is where you are no longer are apart of what I'm saying) tries to make
those that do feel stupid. If Sirnex or you or who ever is all fine with not knowing. Good. Be happy don't expect everyone else to be happy with that though.

The Bible

I see a fantastic ancient text at the very least. Where people like Sir refuse to see even that.They get so wraped up and fearfull that there little world may fall apart. Because it might be the truth they hadn't bargained for.
How can you scouff at something that is so unique in a literary sense?
That's just pure ignorance and you know it Drummer. The Bible obviously has a
place in academia. So what is with this obvious hatred that people like Sirnex display? If it had not been with us for so long. If it just became a recent discovery. How big would it be? Even Sirnex would marvel.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I don't see sirnex displaying hatred. I may be wrong on this account, but sirnex is taking the world for what it is. He does not accept rewriting science to adjust it to match the bible. His position is firm, but I don't see being firm as hate.

I don't see that sirnex doesn't agree that this is one of the important surviving Bronze Age texts. That's a pretty important document in the sense that it describes ideas that people had a long time ago. It is given as history, but as some people have pointed out, me included, the given history does not appear to match the world we see. It's not just evolution, and the flood story, but exodus as well. The inconsistencies between the bible and the world we see can be studied. Maybe the claim that the Hebrews were prisoners of the Egyptians was done because it sounded better than being prisoners of another kingdom?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

When someone makes no attempt to explain existence. Then (this is where you are no longer are apart of what I'm saying) tries to make
those that do feel stupid. If Sirnex or you or who ever is all fine with not knowing. Good. Be happy don't expect everyone else to be happy with that though.


Fair enough. Humans require things to make sense to them, they require answers. This is why there are conspiracy theories discussed all over this site. To me the questions of origins and beginnings of the universe are too big to answer right now and I'm fine with not knowing and not providing a possibly errant explanation. But remember, anybody that claims they absolutely know this answer is setting themselves up for debate at least and ridicule at worst.



How can you scouff at something that is so unique in a literary sense?
That's just pure ignorance and you know it Drummer. The Bible obviously has a
place in academia.


If one consumes the bible as a literary text then I agree, it is unique and fascinating. If one consumes it as the inerrant word of god, they're setting themselves up for some cognitive dissonance. I don't believe that most christians take the fundamentalist approach to the bible.

Also, the bible is an absolute requirement for understanding the last 1000 years of history so it does have a place in academia. Without it we cannot understand certain works of Michaelangelo, Dante, Faust, Milton, etc. On this point we agree.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



I wanted to come back here and acknowledge what you said drummer.
I get carried away on this sight. Not just in this thread, theres's a lot going on right now. I don't believe atheists are all cowards as I'm sure you know I didn't say that. I do think it's cowardly, you say arrogant.


Randyvs, I've seen many of your posts in many other threads in regards to your opinions towards Atheists. In none have I ever seen you being respectful towards them.


When someone makes no attempt to explain existence. Then (this is where you are no longer are apart of what I'm saying) tries to make
those that do feel stupid. If Sirnex or you or who ever is all fine with not knowing. Good. Be happy don't expect everyone else to be happy with that though.


We are trying to explain existence, we just go about it differently than the religious. We don't arbitrarily make up an invisible explanation and pat ourselves on the back. Instead we've set up a method of discovery that forces us to do the opposite.


I see a fantastic ancient text at the very least. Where people like Sir refuse to see even that.They get so wraped up and fearfull that there little world may fall apart. Because it might be the truth they hadn't bargained for.


I think biblical scripture is a wonderful mythology, on par with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yet, I don't subscribe to either as being any more valid than the other. There is no evidence to accept biblical mythology over Sumerian mythology.


How can you scouff at something that is so unique in a literary sense?


It's far from unique as many of it's stories and characters closely parallel those of older mythologies. It's nothing more than another zodiacal mythology.


The Bible obviously has a place in academia.


I agree, the bible does have a place in academia, and if I'm not mistaken, it is taught in comparative religion courses. Biblical mythology has no place in academia as being taught as truth any more than the Book of the Dead does.


So what is with this obvious hatred that people like Sirnex display?


What obvious hatred? There is no need to spread rumors and lies. If you have a problem with my views of the numerous ancient mythologies, then please be mature enough to say it to me rather than deceitfully about me in the third party. I have nothing against biblical scripture, just as much as I have nothing against Moby Dick, both are great books.


If it had not been with us for so long. If it just became a recent discovery. How big would it be? Even Sirnex would marvel.


Scientology is the newest religion we have today, yet claiming one would marvel at comparative age is akin to claiming one would 'jump on the band wagon'. I wouldn't subscribe to biblical mythology even if it were new for the very same reasons I don't subscribe to Scientology.

You claim belief in your deity of choice, but you fail to act as a representative of that deities teachings.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Yes, something [aka god] can exist & leave no evidence.

But if there is no evidence it is virtually impossible that there is any effect.

A god without any effect?

What would be the point? A pointless god?

does that even make any sense?

Certainly no practical sense.

Get over yourselves. Get past your psychologically addicted vanity/paranoia.
Nobody cares, . . . with the possible exception of ourselves.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





What obvious hatred? There is no need to spread rumors and lies. If you have a problem with my views of the numerous ancient mythologies, then please be mature enough to say it to me rather than deceitfully about me in the third party. I have nothing against biblical scripture, just as much as I have nothing against Moby Dick, both are great books.


Sirnex please, it seems we may actually be reaching a common ground here at least. You know for a fact the last thing I'm interested in is spreading rumors and lies even about you.
Though I find your tongue in cheeck sarcasm as ocasionally dry humored. It's usually more insulting
than anything else. I won't dig up the past or put anything on display to
prove a point. I'm sure you already know and that's my only real interest.
I will admit however I might have taken your certain uses of terminology as an insult in the past where possibly none was meant.

I've been reading some of your posts that arn't directed at me. I see a completely different person. I suggest on your behalf, that you actually do the leg work, go back and read some of your own posts, Read one to me. Then read one to someone else. Do this more than once or twice.If you don't see a giant loss of integrity, in yours directed at me. My foot is in a size 10 Redwing filled with dog chit.

Anyways I conceade, I may have taken your slack use of certain terminologies concerning Gods roll in history the wrong way.
I won't ask, but I will hope that in the future you might be more sensitive to the way you word your posts. If not well, from now on it might be best if I limit any retort to an under the breath murmer.

So reguard this as just an honest attempt, to step forward and look out for the both of us.

If you hav'n't seen me speak in a respectful way with other atheists.
You just have to look harder. They are out there I gaurantee that. You must agree that there are many atheists that go out of there way not to insult a persons beliefs. If I have spoken to them, do you think it could sink to the level of our posts. See Oz the Weatherman, Benevilant Heretic to name a few.

Perhaps if you will agree, we can find some respect for each other. I'm a
crazy mother flocker. I don't just give away respect. It's earned, but in the slightest of ways. Manners and decor are one of them. Display such things and with me, respect knows no bounds. It can belong to anyone.




You claim belief in your deity of choice, but you fail to act as a representative of that deities teachings

I can explain this very simply Sir. I will take the time to explain only in the slightest way.

The time of the Gentiles has recently ended. The rules as you know them,
have changed 180 degrees. This is a time I was meant for in more ways than one. Very soon now no one will have the slightest doubt. God is real.
The oil in the gulf is major indicator.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Perhaps if you will agree, we can find some respect for each other. I'm a
crazy mother flocker. I don't just give away respect. It's earned, but in slightest of ways. Manners and decor are one of them. Display such things
and and with me respect knows no bounds. It can belong to anyone.


I won't deny our past spats, but my current attempts of being reasonable with you have been met with the usual negative remarks I'm used to seeing. I still fail to see how a man of faith with belief in the teaching of the biblical scripture can defy those teachings so openly.

You speak of manner and decorum, yet recently I've had to report you twice for that very same breach of respect. Your incessant desire to insult those who don't uphold your beliefs or other explanations for existence from the scientific community is rather puzzling to me and I'm sure to other Atheists.

You speak of gaining your respect, well respect is a two way street. You can't begin to expect respect if you can't freely give respect yourself. If all you can do is display negativity towards Atheists, then no respect will be given towards you. You can't demand respect without giving respect. You can' discuss manners and decorum whilst hypocritically insulting others.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




I won't deny our past spats, but my current attempts of being reasonable with you have been met with the usual negative remarks I'm used to seeing. I still fail to see how a man of faith with belief in the teaching of the biblical scripture can defy those teachings so openly.

I always have more to add once I post something I don't know why.
Did you read the rest I lay down?
I didn't feel any effects from your reports




You speak of gaining your respect, well respect is a two way street. You can't begin to expect respect if you can't freely give respect yourself. If all you can do is display negativity towards Atheists, then no respect will be given towards you. You can't demand respect without giving respect. You can' discuss manners and decorum whilst hypocritically insulting others.

I'm old enough to know the same things you know about respect. I was only indicating how it is earned in the slightest of ways. To explain something of the way I've seen your posts wheather with intent or not. Do you see?
Not at all as if my respect is something to be had.
When you take something I've said to mean something arrogant , either my word is fowl or you have taken it wrong.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Very soon now no one will have the slightest doubt. God is real.
The oil in the gulf is major indicator.


The oil in the gulf is nothing more than yet another oil spill caused by man. I see no reason to attribute it to the Judaic-Christian deity. Why not attribute it to the Hopi Indians as there mythology talks of the sea turning black?

Where does mythology stop and plausibility begin?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





The oil in the gulf is nothing more than yet another oil spill caused by man. I see no reason to attribute it to the Judaic-Christian deity. Why not attribute it to the Hopi Indians as there mythology talks of the sea turning


Well Sirnex Have I indicated that I don't or I wouldn't also attribute it to the hopis?
I don't think I've ever said anything like only Bible prophecy is note worthy.
Prophecy does exist in the world other wise there would be no terminology for it.




Where does mythology stop and plausibility begin?

Did you just mix prophecy with mythology?

Hello? ok I'm done.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Well Sirnex Have I indicated that I don't or I wouldn't also attribute it to the hopis?
I don't think I've ever said anything like only Bible prophecy is note worthy.
Prophecy does exist in the world other wise there would be no terminology for it.



If you attribute it to the Hopi mythology then you break your deity of choice commandments of no Gods before me. Hopi mythology is not biblical mythology and both depict different deities.


Did you just mix prophecy with mythology?


Not at all; Prophecies exist within mythologies, such as Hopi mythology and biblical mythology.

My question still stands unmet, even in another thread.

Where does mythology end and plausibility begin?

Why believe in your deity of choice/indoctrination rather than thanking Ra every morning?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   


Why believe in your deity of choice/indoctrination rather than thanking Ra every morning?
reply to post by sirnex
 


For me and a billion others THE BIBLE of course.




Not at all; Prophecies exist within mythologies, such as Hopi mythology and biblical mythology.

Casey?

You believe prophecy has boundaries? Because I see a prophecy as being true dosn't at all indicate worship of any other diety. I mean cmon.
truth is truth no matter the source. Hearing of other prophecies in no way offends God. Although how you react to hearing them just might.


Man I'm starting to understand the full scope of why we don't get along. We but heads at every turn.
stop.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



For me and a billion others THE BIBLE of course.


So, indoctrination or popularity derived from past bloodshed?


Casey?


What?


You believe prophecy has boundaries because I see a prophecy as being true dosn't at all indicate worship of anyother diety. I mean cmon.
truth is truth no matter the source. Hearing of other prophecies in no way offends God. Although how you react to hearing them just might.


Prophecy derived from other deities are not prophecies from your deity. Your particular deity explicitly forbids following anything derived from other deities. Following such prophecies would be following false prophets, a direct sin according to your deity.

Your deity also does not allow you to pick and choose what parts of his word to follow and which to dismiss. He never says follow false prophets if you agree with what they are saying is true. Unless you can quote scripture to back up your personal beliefs, then you are committing a sin against your deity of choice/indoctrination.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join