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.

 

Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 



You of all people talk about smart ass answers?
Well better a smart ass than a dumb ass I guess.


We'll get to that in a second.



I did read it. I found no flaw in it. Please explain this flaw.


Hm, did you really read it, or are you being a dumb ass?


So, out of six tests, two had to be discarded, one showed an immediate drop in weight (and nothing more), two showed an immediate drop in weight which increased with the passage of time, and one showed an immediate drop in weight which reversed itself but later recurred. And even these results cannot be accepted at face value as the potential for experimental error was extremely high, especially since MacDougall and his colleagues often had difficulty in determining the precise moment of death, one of the key factors in their experiments. (MacDougall later attempted to explain away the timing discrepancies by concluding that "the soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament it may remain in the body for a full minute.")



I don't know that answer. That is a good question though. For him not to have a creator but to always have been there does seem incomprehensible for me at least. Maybe the clue is in I AM .


If a creator requires a creator, then we're left with infinite regression. If a creator could exist infinitely, then it is no more less reasonable to assume an infinite universe where natural processes take place.

In either case, we're left without a definitive answer. Yet in the case for a creator, we're left with an illogical assumption that a universe needs to be intelligently created without any evidence that this must be so.


Well what you did was read another article about it that disputes it. I read the article that I posted for you to read. Now read the article and dispute that article. I would copy and paste it but for some reason it will not let me.

I did not say the creator required a creator. I said I did not know. Everything in this universe is created. How can one deny that. Now if you want to get into how God came to be I can only offer speculation. I personally think that he would be of something similar to what we call a fractal.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Also just to add. Doesn't life seem to be an intelligent design? I mean it is amazing. Not just life, but the vessel designed to carry it.


No, life doesn't appear to be an intelligent design. It appears to me that life evolved in a symbiotic relationship of sorts with predators at the top and bacterium at the bottom. With each species adapting to it's particular niche and role as it fights for survival and reproduction.

As amazing as the process of life is, there does not seem to be anything indicative of an intelligence behind it all.


Then how did life come to exist? Not these machines we live in, i.e. our bodies. But life. And that is just the beginning.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Just because something is created does not mean it requires a "creator",


LMAO!!


Please explain that part to me.


For example, mountains could be created by the actions of plate tectonics: doesn't require a "creator". A crevasse could be created in the earth as a result of an earthquake: doesn't require a "creator".

It's amazing that this must be pointed out to you.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Well what you did was read another article about it that disputes it. I read the article that I posted for you to read. Now read the article and dispute that article. I would copy and paste it but for some reason it will not let me.


Well, you answered my question! It appears your either a dumb ass or you initially out right lied about reading the entire article. That quote is directly from the article. They have some kind of copy protection thing in place, so what you need to do is open the source code and find the block of text you want to quote.


I did not say the creator required a creator. I said I did not know.


I'm well aware of that, and I was simply pointing out that if a creator requires a creator then your left with infinite regression and that if you assume an infinite creator then it is no less reasonable to assume an infinite universe.


Everything in this universe is created.


From all observation, all natural things are created by natural processes. All man made things are made by man. All ant hills are made by ants, etc.

This says nothing about the universe or natural processes requiring an intelligent creator that you ascribe to a two thousand year old man made mythology of creation.


How can one deny that.


The only thing I am denying here is the assumption that the universe requires an intelligent creator. All other processes within that universe are bound by the workings of that universe.


Now if you want to get into how God came to be I can only offer speculation. I personally think that he would be of something similar to what we call a fractal.


And this move's God outside the realm of the Judaic-Christian deity first concocted two thousand years ago. What this shows is that the concept of deity is ever evolving and often times can and does borrow from other belief structures. Just as your borrowing the concept of fractalism and applying it to your deity, thus creating a new conceptual deity that caters more to your own personal beliefs and tastes.


Then how did life come to exist? Not these machines we live in, i.e. our bodies. But life. And that is just the beginning.


Science is still working to answer the question of abiogenesis. I am truly sorry if your patience is near non-existent that you require an answer NOW on how life arose, to such a degree that a lack of an immediate answer would cause you to become intellectually lazy to a point of ascribing the answer to some man made mythology mixed with your own personal beliefs.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Hadrian

She's got a point. Those that don't believe in god are just as much in the "faith" field as anyone else. Sorry guys. I'll see you on the other side and we can talk then. If there is another side.


I disagree! The old argument that an atheist has the same faith as a believer is an oldie, not so much a goodie. Atheists make no claim in the belief of a deity!!! Therefore, there is no required faith for them to have!

Atheists' position is there is no evidence for a deity.

The end.


How do you KNOW though? You don't. You can't. THAT is why it's as much a faith as anything else.


One can be certain that without objective evidence of an all-powerful invisible creator-tyrant that there is no need to operate as though one exists.

This is not a matter of faith but of logical reasoning.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Then how did life come to exist? Not these machines we live in, i.e. our bodies. But life. And that is just the beginning.


Life came to exist as a result of a confluence of natural, physical forces. Same as all else in the universe.

Nothing in the observable universe requires a "creator", and if there was one he/she did an incredibly rotten job.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well you guys think you know and that is good enough for me. I know what I know. I am ok with that. Good luck in your endeavors.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Well you guys think you know and that is good enough for me. I know what I know. I am ok with that. Good luck in your endeavors.


Ahhh yes. The patented Cut And Run strategy.

I suppose it is better to duck out of a conversation involving thought processes which are out of one's league.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Hadrian

She's got a point. Those that don't believe in god are just as much in the "faith" field as anyone else. Sorry guys. I'll see you on the other side and we can talk then. If there is another side.


I disagree! The old argument that an atheist has the same faith as a believer is an oldie, not so much a goodie. Atheists make no claim in the belief of a deity!!! Therefore, there is no required faith for them to have!

Atheists' position is there is no evidence for a deity.

The end.


How do you KNOW though? You don't. You can't. THAT is why it's as much a faith as anything else.


How do I know what? That there is no evidence for a deity? Because I've never seen any. I'm not using faith to say there is no evidence in existence anywhere in the universe. I have simply seen none. When I see evidence of a deity, I will believe the entity exists ... because it does. Otherwise, there's no need to ask the question of whether there's a deity. Why would one think there is? Got me.

You're incorrect. My stance on the availability of evidence of a deity in my life is not a statement of emotion or value. It is an empirical observation. I do not have faith that there is no evidence of a deity. There is no evidence.

I don't know why I keep coming into these infantile threads about god. Love embracin' that ignorance.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 


You seem to think I'm some sort of Deist. I'm not. I am simply pointing out that this issue is unknowable. You have to be dead to know for sure. Thus it IS a matter of faith. Or belief if you like that word better. You're right, there is no evidence of god imo BUT there's no evidence against him either.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You're right, there is no evidence of god imo BUT there's no evidence against him either.


Or for any claim that someone brings forward that is accompanied by no proof.

A giant cheesecake in the Oort Cloud that belches fire.

A pair of frozen testicles that causes all the wind on Jupiter.

A statue of Mrs. Butterworth on Europa that answers the prayers of only paunchy Asian men.

The sky is the limit for those things we must have "faith" for or against.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Is that supposed to be a serious retort?



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Well you guys think you know and that is good enough for me. I know what I know. I am ok with that. Good luck in your endeavors.


Think we know what? That your deity of choice/indoctrination/addition of attributes is simply made up mythology?

You don't even believe in the biblical deity and you've admitted that your deity of choice is contrived from the biblical deity with your own addition of various attributes to suit your personal beliefs and opinions.

Essentially, you've single handily proven what we've suspected this whole time. Deities are man made mythologies. If your own admission and acknowledgment to what we've been saying this whole time causes you to shut your eyes and block your ears so you can continue to hold onto your personal deity of invention, then so be it. Your only further proving our standpoint.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Exactly. And I vote that the OP stops begging the question. Didn't realize this was Prove God Doesn't Exist the Sequel.

Accept that God exists for you and not for others. This argument won't be won until you meet or don't meet God.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Is that supposed to be a serious retort?



The point is quiet clear. A claim of something with no evidence is not a reason to believe the claim to be true.

A claim that there is a giant cheesecake in the Oort cloud that belches fire is a claim without evidence. There might be one, there might not. Yet there is no evidence to assume there is one.

Now take out giant cheesecake in the Oort cloud that belches fire and insert God.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Quite ridiculous argument. I don't know why I bother. Atheists are just the flip side to the Theists on this coin.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by sirnex
 


Quite ridiculous argument. I don't know why I bother. Atheists are just the flip side to the Theists on this coin.



What amazes me is that both replies you've made did nothing to refute the argument made. A scoff is not a rebuttal, it's simply an evasion tactic.

Do you even have a rebuttal to the argument? Or are you simply posing a question that you knew you would scoff at all answers to?

Why do you not believe in Zeus? I do not believe in Zeus for the same reasons you don't. We're both Atheistic to Zeus.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
What amazes me is that both replies you've made did nothing to refute the argument made. A scoff is not a rebuttal, it's simply an evasion tactic.

Do you even have a rebuttal to the argument? Or are you simply posing a question that you knew you would scoff at all answers to?


I've already stated that this is UNKNOWABLE at this time. That is a FACT. Have you died and realized that there is no god? No. All I get are stupid arguments about cheesecake.


Why do you not believe in Zeus? I do not believe in Zeus for the same reasons you don't. We're both Atheistic to Zeus.


Once again, how do you know Zeus didn't exist? You're making assumptions. I'll leave you guys to your pointless argument. No one's taking anything anyone says seriously anyways. Just a ethereal pissing contest. Only logical one here, me, is out. Good luck people.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



I've already stated that this is UNKNOWABLE at this time. That is a FACT. Have you died and realized that there is no god? No. All I get are stupid arguments about cheesecake.


Which 'God'? Are you talking about any of the man made mythologies? If that be the case, then there has been an argument against such. A man made mythology is a man made mythology. What it is not is something more believable than cosmic fire belching cheesecakes.


Once again, how do you know Zeus didn't exist? You're making assumptions. I'll leave you guys to your pointless argument. No one's taking anything anyone says seriously anyways. Just a ethereal pissing contest. Only logical one here, me, is out. Good luck people.


Scoffing and running is not showing your 'logical'. You've done nothing more than pose a question and scoff at the answers. If any pissing need be done, it need be done on what you consider as 'logic'. Why pose a question, then say it's unknowable and then scoff without rebuttal? That's not a sign of logic, that you trying to fuel the fire and hypocritically calling it a pointless pissing contest. Right, it's so pointless that you decided to jump in, interject a question answer for everyone so you could later save face when your ousted for evading any rebuttals.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Ok sparky. I'm an agnostic. I need PROOF that god exists. I also need proof that he DOESN'T exist. Can you prove that to me without any culinary references that he doesn't exist? THAT'S the bottom line you all are missing.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join