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.

 

Definite Proof: (The) God (of the Bibles) DOESN’T EXIST! Part1

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Project_USA
 
I think I understand your points.

The descriptions of God's omnipotence and omniscience are contradicted and/or undermined by the actions of that God as represented by the writers of the Bible. In that sense, the writers must be mistaken or inaccurate...leading to the conclusion the Bible isn't the 'Word of God.' Otherwise, the Bible is accurate and the God within is not omniscient or omnipotent.

I think many have drawn the same conclusions down the centuries without impeding or castrating church institutions. Longevity and survival seems assured so far!




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by Project_USA
 


A little touchy are we? Well just so you know, I did read the thread before I posted. You changed the title of the thread which in essence has changed your thesis. Hey, I'll be the first one to say that most of the mainstream religions appear to be a way to pacify the masses. The scriptures, many of which carry contradictions throughout the texts, are often compilations and modifications of older texts/ religions. Hey stating that is a far cry from your original title in which you stated you could prove there is no God. Try taking a deep breath.


That was a catchy title but nonetheless true as Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the God ("ALAPAK") I presented. For them is no other possibility.
And after 3 lines of reading you can be confused by the title as I explain immediately that I speak of the God of the Bibles (ALAPAK).

But, still, you're right... That's me breathing right now...

Peace...



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Project_USA
 
I disagree. God guided me to the same room my wife was in with her X under the covers. I prayed I would catch her in the act so that my misery would end and God granted me that wish. Say what you want, this isn't the first time I reached what seemed like my wits end with a big problem and ALAKAZAM, the big guy stepped in. I can't prove it, it's just one of those things where you have to be in my shoes to know. Kinda like how I probably would've had to be in your shoes to believe you ever got laid, or something like that.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Project_USA
 


counter arguments? lol your opening statement said we have to agree on "alakap", and then you defined that.

i did the same, only put it in a much simpler and solid context. if you use my definition in your own context, the problem no longer exists.

thus proving, the rest of your post brought you to the conclusion that it did from an incorrect original basis (or specifically, your definition of ALAPAK...as thats what everything else you said was structured around)

and as another poster said, you do seem a bit touchy...a clearer mind would allow you to see that subjective logic can bring you to whatever end you want it to, that doesn't make you right.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Project_USA
 
I think I understand your points.

The descriptions of God's omnipotence and omniscience are contradicted and/or undermined by the actions of that God as represented by the writers of the Bible. In that sense, the writers must be mistaken or inaccurate...leading to the conclusion the Bible isn't the 'Word of God.' Otherwise, the Bible is accurate and the God within is not omniscient or omnipotent.

I think many have drawn the same conclusions down the centuries without impeding or castrating church institutions. Longevity and survival seems assured so far!



You got it.
Maybe not with that abundant argumentation, but yes, some have certainly reached the same conclusion.

As for the lifespan of the churches and priests/imam/rabbi there many reasons. I can give you some:

In the off chance they're right, it's "better" for people to SHOW some obedience if they want to have a chance to go to Heaven.
Also, once their base is solid (in number) they succeed in scaring people they could very well end up in Hell and/or undergo God's anger as we are a gregarious species and if that many people believe it's true they think wise to also believe.
Plus priests (generic term here) use concepts like "blasphemy" to stop all kind of critical thinking from within their ranks, and "Satan minions" from outside threats to their monopoly on truth.

But the most important is that faithers CHOOSE to believe because they feel the need for meaning (as delusional as it may, in fact through analysis, be), justification of the injustices/difficulties of life and, ABOVE ALL, the promise of eternal life!
Again, we are so scared, and so vain that we cant accept there could be nothing more than the life we know about. No, us humans CANNOT cease to exist, we are to beautiful of a species for that. The soul MUST exist... And there you go.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Project_USA]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by Project_USA
 


counter arguments? lol your opening statement said we have to agree on "alakap", and then you defined that.

i did the same, only put it in a much simpler and solid context. if you use my definition in your own context, the problem no longer exists.

thus proving, the rest of your post brought you to the conclusion that it did from an incorrect original basis (or specifically, your definition of ALAPAK...as thats what everything else you said was structured around)

and as another poster said, you do seem a bit touchy...a clearer mind would allow you to see that subjective logic can bring you to whatever end you want it to, that doesn't make you right.



I'm not the one making the definition of God.
Pick up a dictionnary...
What would be the point to believe in a being that you call God if he is not ALAKAP???

You sincerely prefer to lower the representation that you have of God than reevaluating its existence or the truthfulness of the concept developped in the Bibles... I'm not surprised... But it's sad.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Project_USA]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by Project_USA
 

a clearer mind would allow you to see that subjective logic can bring you to whatever end you want it to, that doesn't make you right.



Really, are you serious??
I dont even know what subjective logic means...
Wait, I know why... It's an oxymoron...



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

I will use simple words and reasoning to express «my» ideas.


your entire conclusion is based on this premise. somehow you squeezed a subjective definition in there and later took it as known fact. (AKALAP)

i dont think i need to point out the key word here, you did it for us.

but if your just going to get asshurt at every reply that doesnt agree with you i guess theres no point in even further discussing this.

good thing i didnt waste any time reading the rest of your rant, my only regret is that i didnt have a box of tissues for you :'(

[edit on 2-7-2010 by LurkerMan]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
How can you be so much in denial to outright lie?!

As I said look up a definition of God:
www.thefreedictionary.com...

That's proof enough for you that it's NOT MY definition but the commonly accepted one?!

That's my ideas, yes. But not my definition. Clear enough?

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Project_USA]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
yes, i see that your constantly citing the dictionary. but essentially all your saying after that is your own version of what the dictionary says. then because you draw an abstract connection between the two, suddenly now your idea is the new reality and/or definition.

just because you have a concept of "akalap", and the dictionary says God is "akalap", does not mean God is your concept of "akalap". i dont know how simpler to put it.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
yes, i see that your constantly citing the dictionary. but essentially all your saying after that is your own version of what the dictionary says. then because you draw an abstract connection between the two, suddenly now your idea is the new reality and/or definition.

just because you have a concept of "akalap", and the dictionary says God is "akalap", does not mean God is your concept of "akalap". i dont know how simpler to put it.


You desperately try to discredit something than YOU "confess" you didnt even read... That's telling.

If you still dont want to understand there is only ONE definition of omnipotent, only ONE definition of omniscient or omnipresent...
I cant do anything for you.

I'm simply comparing the definition of these concepts with what is said about God in the Bibles and evaluate if it "fits the bill".

Dont even read it, you obviously cannot be convinced... You're not brainwashed, you have been lobotomized, my friend...
Dont even want to give it a try to prove me how wrong I am with actual arguments? Your choice. If you cant find any you can still pretend that you didnt read it, or even ignore me... You got nothing to loose... Or maybe the little credibility you got left (on this thread at least).
See you.. Or not...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
C'mon Atheists.
So what if some Christians may seem "pushy", they're just trying to do what they think is right, however some twist that because...we're only human, we're flawed.
But, I respect you, so why can't you respect me?
Atheism is putting human's logic to a God-like rank, which in itself is flawed. Words may seem genius, but we don't know everything. So how can you place words to be so high? That may as well be your version of God.
And if you don't believe or like it, why do you constantly speak of and try to disprove it? I don't like a lot of things, but I don't constantly talk about them or try to make them seem bad/nonexistent/defame them/etc.
You don't believe in our Christian God, fine. Then enjoy your life instead of dwelling on something you don't believe in.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Project_USA
 


im not desporately trying anything. it seems your the one desporately trying to defend your failure of a thread. i thinks its rather obvious why your joindate was yesterday.

all that nonsense aside, i stopped reading your garbage due to a flaw in your own chronological presentation. you can cry about it for the rest of the week it wont change anything

everything your saying is based off the definition you recreated AFTER you cited the dictionary. yet you keep pretending your useing the dictionaries definition, which your not...

not that either are absolute truth, but if you fail to see your own bias from the get-go, what is the point in reading the rest of your "absolute proof", let alone trying to discuss it with you.

that is why your thread, is a complete failure.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I read the first two posts and then I realized that there was not going to be any evidence. Opinion cannot be presented as proof. Just because you don't understand God doesn't mean you have proof he doesn't exist. I highly doubt you have ever read the Bible, or the Quran. Your title should read:"Why I don't believe the God of x, y, z exists" But even then you would have a hard time explaining why you don't know that the Bible and the Quran paint very different picture of God from eachother. Now I am not claiming to be an expert or smarter than anyone, but I'm sure even some athiests can agree that this kind of rant makes you look like a fool.

Free Will
Without it we wouldn't have the capacity to love God, only to be robots

Evil
Without it there wouldn't be a choice. With evil we can Choose God and reject it.

Just because God know what will be in the future, how do you know he doesn't know both futures of the choices we make. Maybe he knows both consequences yet he allows us to use our free will.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_USA


More garbage by those who have misrepresented God.
We are the clay and He is the potter. He can do what He wants.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigen Shift
 


That I like Him or not is irrelevant. I try to show you that He cannot exist the way you see Him.
Or if He does (exist) He's not the All-Loving, All-Powerful, All KNowing as you believe him to be.

One of my goal is to prove that Faith itself is stupid:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In regard of the importance of religion in the world and its influence over it and MANKIND itself, I think it's overwhelming...

So, if I can make people understand the fallacy of religions, that would be a first step on the scale of evolution of mankind.
Because what I know is that our world is ill, full of injustice, violence, (mass)murders. I also see billions of faitherswho claim to put love above everything else...
Well, it (Religions) AINT WORKING!!!

So we MUST find REAL soloutions.
Thus, as I see the number of people who base their life/behavior/ideas/choices on illogical/childish/delusional concepts, I TRY to make them realize it.

IF WE WANT TO EVOLVE, the only way is rational thinking/reasoning.
If we want to evolve of course.
You're entitled to your belief that everything is fine or that Religions are the solution...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkerMan
 


Again, you lie.

I did not think that I would need to post the definition of All-knowing (omniscient) nor All-Powerfull (omnipotent), as these concepts are self-evident.
I did not think that you would try to state that the concept of God is not defined by being ALAKAP... This was a good one.

I only posted a link afterwards because YOU PRETENDED that the concepts I discuss about in my thread were not the true definition of God!
You lied (or was mistaken) then and you still try to lie now.

THE FIRST SENTENCE of my thread define God as ALAKAP, as the dictionnary does!

So, it's NOT MY conception of God, nor that there was any kind of fallacious statement about the chronology of my reasoning.

I hope this time you will stop polluting this thread with PETTY FALLACIOUS arguments, and LIES.

See you... Or not...

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Project_USA]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Project_USA]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilw85
I read the first two posts and then I realized that there was not going to be any evidence. Opinion cannot be presented as proof. Just because you don't understand God doesn't mean you have proof he doesn't exist. I highly doubt you have ever read the Bible, or the Quran. Your title should read:"Why I don't believe the God of x, y, z exists" But even then you would have a hard time explaining why you don't know that the Bible and the Quran paint very different picture of God from eachother. Now I am not claiming to be an expert or smarter than anyone, but I'm sure even some athiests can agree that this kind of rant makes you look like a fool.

Free Will
Without it we wouldn't have the capacity to love God, only to be robots

Evil
Without it there wouldn't be a choice. With evil we can Choose God and reject it.

Just because God know what will be in the future, how do you know he doesn't know both futures of the choices we make. Maybe he knows both consequences yet he allows us to use our free will.


Define evidence.
As methaphysics/Philosophy is based on concepts, words, evidence in this instance would be to compare concepts between them and judge them with logic/rational reasoning and... your brain...

As for your 2 statements, I dont say that free-will doesnt exist, I say that from God point of you it's a joke as He knows EVERYTHING. But I guess that you didnt read this part or it's too difficult to understand for you, pity.
And if your free-will is only destined to melt in your faith...

For Evil, if you're only capable of dealing in absolute:
Or something, anything is Evil by nature, or it's Good... Well, I understant now why you cant apprehend the subtility of logic and reasonning...

Thanks to participate anyway.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by KrispyB
 


So you base your belief in god because you prayed to catch a cheating someone and you did. Why did you pray for world peace or cure for cancer or something good to the world? That would be a miracle, and something people can see for years to come. "God sends cure from the heavens!" Now, that's a headline. Has it ever happen? . . . NO. No miracle from god has ever been seen and fruitful by the world. Thus prayer can't be used as an argument. And there has ben studies to prove it. Which seems to be another contradiction, "Ask and you shall recieve," but like I said nothing to show for. And to go further, you can say, "well cure for cancer or whatever wasn't in god's will," then you don't have to pray in the first place because it's already in god's will if it is meant to be. Which "ask and you shall recieve" becomes a useless statement.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Now I may not be stepping in to address the rest of this thread...but...


Originally posted by LurkerMan
all loveing - he created you
[absolute act of love]


How is that absolute love? Things can be created for any variety of reasons.



all powerful - he can destroy you
[absolute act of power]


So can a gun, a knife, a tsunami, a bear, a particularly aggressive ferret, falling rocks, monkeys, razors, lasers, two magnets in my intestines, a pretzel etc etc

That's not exactly absolute power when there are so many things that can do it.



all knowing - he is in a greater state of awareness than you
[absolute state of being]


....lot's of people are probably at a greater state of awareness than me. There's actually a saying that goes "If you think you're good, there's always someone better" or something of that sort. Being greater than me doesn't prove anything. Being supernatural is an entirely different set of criteria.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join