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.

 

Ask An Atheist Anything

page: 11
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
All too often I see remarks lodged against atheists in general. Very rarely do I find anyone asking an atheist for opinions and facts about their non-beliefs.

Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs. This can only help, as an overwhelming majority of negative comments about atheists and atheism are tragically incorrect.

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.


i dont have any questions i can think of at the moment but i wanted to chime in anyway to say thank you for the way you presented the thread.

the majority of these threads start off rude and condescending from the start, closing the door to any productive thought or discussion and opening one for arguing, name calling, and various other forms of ignorance.

may this thread live long and prosper.




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I myself am an atheist-leaning agnostic, but I find many atheists quite repulsive.

I fully, 100% am one of the "closed-minded science pushers" that people on this forum hate... I can't take meditative, demonological, esoteric, etc. learning seriously. However, there's a serious problem with people like Richard Dawkins who believe that science and critical thinking leads naturally to the conclusion of atheism.

Nowhere in my studies of science have I ever encountered anything that even remotely negates the possibility or likelihood of a creator being. As for creationism w.r.t. the whole "6000 year old Earth", well yeah, that's bullocks, but atheism is the disbelief in any god, and science absolutely does not support that. As stupid as this argument is most of the time: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I say, "there is no god," then that is a leap of faith as ill-founded as if I had said, "there is at least one god". Science has given no evidence for either case.

Essentially: saying, "There is no god because I have seen no evidence of a god," is an argument founded upon the false premise, "I am capable enough to see anything that exists." Saying, "There is a god because I see evidence of a god," is similarly founded on a falsehood: "Everything I see I interpret correctly."

People on both sides of the spectrum need to wake up, smell the stupidity, and realize they aren't as freaking intelligent as they think they are. We are very finite, restricted beings... we're limited to sensing chemicals, mechanical properties, and vibration/electromagnetic waves with very poor resolution, frequency range, and signal-to-noise ratio. And our brains work so damn slow that what seems a short time for us (a mere day) allows a full rotation of a PLANET (and its how many quadrillions of atoms?).

Science tells us nothing about god... not that we could understand it anyway.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ptmckiou


These are just a few books by physicists studying the quantum world and how it ties to the Soul and a higher source in the universe..which many would call God. At some point...don't be too surprised if our scientist prove their is an "intelligent energy"...which means they have found God.


Such books are a typical fad employed by charlatans who exploit the mysteries of quantum physics to usher in any manner of metaphysical and pseudoscientific new age nonsense they choose to dream up. To date there remains no evidence of souls or gods and those who blind others with science to pass off these concepts are frauds. New age ideology/theology is just as abhorrent as ancient theologies.



Excuse me? A Nobel Peace Prize winner in Physics is a charlatan? People also thought at one time the study of unseen living entities, too small to be seen by the naked eye, that cause disease to be witchcraft/metaphysical and a pseudoscience. However, as our technology progressed bacteria and viruses were proven.

Let me give you a new concept of God to think about. God is not a separate being that casts judgment on the world. Everything in the universe...ALL this is... is God. There is nothing but God. WE are God...collectively. WE are all chips off the ole block. When God (intelligent energy) subdivided himself in the big bang, splinters of energy went out in the universe and that energy is inside you...inside everything. When you die, that energy still exists. You can't kill energy. Collectively, all the energy in the universe is God, and consequently, you are a co-creator of your reality. That energy exists on various dimensions and since it is not in the 3rd dimension a body is not needed. Why do we incarnate? To experience that which we already know. To all omni-potent, all wise, to know all... is different from experience. To know everything there is to know to be an astronaut, is different from experiencing being an astronaut. Experiencing in a 3D form allows for an infinite amount of variables to exist in your experience, thereby gaining knowledge in an infinitely possible structure for learning. We are conduits for learning more of what we already know (in the other dimensional planes) through experience. When we "die" we shed the 3D vessel that housed our energy and we go back to the other dimensional existence where a body is not needed. Collectively, WE are God. Looking into the eyes of another is only YOU staring back at yourself. All Is One. Consequently, the idea of "judgment" and a heaven and hell is a moot point. There is no judgment when you "die" from the 3D form, except you judging yourself....whether you accomplished in that life those things that you wanted to experience to gain more knowledge.

Another way of putting it--living in a all perfect world (some call heaven) in another dimension does not afford you the knowledge of "bad" things as a reference towards "good". The 3D world allows you to experience "bad"...so you can see how "good" really is. If you only ate your favorite food...let's say filet mignon, your entire life...nothing else, morning, noon, and night...you would have no comparison, thereby how would you know mignon was good? You would have the concept...but experiencing something worse than filet mignon, gives you the actual knowledge of just how good it really is. It's no different than what we are doing here in 3D form on the earth (or any other planet).

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ptmckiou]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Evidence supporting any religious claims

Evidence is also relative. You make your definitions of concepts so absolute and concrete, but if you only further investigated relativism then you would see that your position holds just as much or just as wlittle weight as the views you are opposed to.

What if proof for the existence of God required you to sit in meditation for 5 years and you haven't done so yet? That would mean your whole stance is sitting on subjective incomplete relativism.


Then you can make any non-falsifiable and unsupportable claim and believe in its validity. Anything goes under this premise.

Yes!!! Thats my point ...pretty much anything can go which also the case for atheism. Im just sayin tho


The standards of evidence are not relative. There either is evidence or not.

Of course they are! One atheist I spoke with literally told me the proof he needs is he needs to see God with his own eyes, Another one told me, he's willing to wait and see what happens at death. A different one argued that if the theoretical premise holds that it would require 5 years of meditation to finally experience God, and since he hadn't done so, then he would have to give it a try himself to test the premise.

You see, in your own camp ...everyone has a different idea of what constitutes evidence.


It's fairly clear that non-belief is not a belief. Beliefs are formed when you have hypotheses you cannot prove. That tends to be the province of theists.

Ok, prove to my old man, who lives in Europe, that you exist! Right now, for all he knows, there is no such thing as you. So he believes that you dont exist and to him its true.


Beliefs are formed when you have hypotheses you cannot prove.

SO you are saying you can prove that the hypothesis of Atheism is true? Because from where I'm standing, it sure does look like a hypothesis you cannot prove.

Any philosopher, Phd, theologian, any extremely intelligent scholar will tell you that atheism is a belief system. Right now its your word against a whole gang of scholars.

You are basically choosing to believe that God doesn't exist, therefore its a belief system. You cant ever say you know God doesnt exist, because that would require you to test every premise including meditation for 5 years, looking within, reading every book ...it would require you knowing everything and that surely isn't the case.

That is why the only philosophical stance that would be most suitable to you would be Agnosticism, because at least then you can say that "You know that you don't know"

You've had at least a dozen or so members on this board argue that atheism is a belief system and yet you continue to be in denile.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Edit: Misread, please ignore.

[edit on 15/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ptmckiou
 


Nobel Prize winners are just as human as the rest of us and their opinions are worth no more. The fact of the matter is that all of these theories of quantum consciousness are based primarily off the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Many Worlds Interpretation. There are many other interpretations that have just as much going for them. In fact Einstein wasn't even a supporter of either of these interpretations, he was pushing for one that would show the universe to be mechanistic once again. Just to show that Nobel Prize winners can be wrong here is a rather entertaining article.

4 Nobel Prize Winners Who Were Clearly Insane



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Romans 10:9

Could you please define 'some'?
I am curious as to what you have read that you find remarkably unconvincing.
Thanks.


With all due respect I have no interest in indulging Lewis' arguments and listing my objections. This is roughly akin to me describing all the potential mates I rejected before I chose my wife and explaining the purpose for rejecting the others.

However, if there's some apologetic point you find particularly irrefutable I'd have no problem providing my opinion on it.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]


It's really of no use. You and i are separated by a chasm that personal choice and experience has established. I see things in an objective self evident light. You see things in a subjective chemical-based light.

Things like an objective moral law, the validity of reason, and the existence of an absolute truth will always be an ongoing argument between us until we both die and see.
Thanks.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by pepsi78
I guess some people don't see it, should I be upset by it ?
Think of it like this, all the great minds history provided beilived in a higher being, into god. It's not logical to assume that there is nothing, it is absurde to think in this sort of manner.


Plenty of great minds did and do believe in gods. The appeal to authority is irrelevant. Only evidence of these higher beings or gods is relevant.

Atheists do not necessarily presume "there is nothing". They simply see no logic in forming a belief in deities without evidence.


Yes, great minds are nearly as susceptible to brainwashing as their less intelligent counterparts.

Question: Do you think you would believe in a diety if you grew up with a few other people on a desert island with no external knowledge? Theists can answer this one too.


[edit on 15/7/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
What do you think "you" are?

Are you the energy running through your brain, or are you the brain itself?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ptmckiou
Excuse me? A Nobel Peace Prize winner in Physics is a charlatan?


Sure. Why not?


Let me give you a new concept of God to think about.


Okay, thank you. Almost none of that is compliant with the observable world and most of it originates from those new age pseudoscientific charlatans I had referred to. I have very little interest in such unproven metaphysical conjecture, but thank you.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
What if proof for the existence of God required you to sit in meditation for 5 years and you haven't done so yet?


Then again, what if there are no deities?



Of course they are! One atheist I spoke with literally told me the proof he needs is he needs to see God with his own eyes, Another one told me, he's willing to wait and see what happens at death. A different one argued that if the theoretical premise holds that it would require 5 years of meditation to finally experience God, and since he hadn't done so, then he would have to give it a try himself to test the premise.


Those are subjective requirements dreamed up due to the lack of objective evidence.


Ok, prove to my old man, who lives in Europe, that you exist! Right now, for all he knows, there is no such thing as you. So he believes that you dont exist and to him its true.


Ask him to come to this thread.


SO you are saying you can prove that the hypothesis of Atheism is true? Because from where I'm standing, it sure does look like a hypothesis you cannot prove.


Atheism is not a hypothesis. It's only a certitude formed from the lack of evidence. It appears you have a desperate need to itemize it as a belief because your entire argument against atheism rests on that premise. Non-beliefs are not beliefs, they are the lack thereof.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
I see things in an objective self evident light.


Things that are "self-evident" are subjective, not objective. And I tend to rely on objective evidence to form my opinion, not subjective experience. Thanks for your discussion. I have enjoyed it.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Also, do you believe scientific laws are discovered or invented?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Question: Do you think you would believe in a diety if you grew up with a few other people on a desert island with no external knowledge? Theists can answer this one too.


Without external knowledge it is entirely possible. However, I'd believe it would be much more likely without critical skills of observation and thinking. Deities still remain a convenient explanation for unknowns.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I couldnt have cared less what the Atheist believe or do not believe in. The general Atheist is narrowminded and closes off some of some of the parts of his brain.

They are a futuristic version of our ancestors cavemen, less-intelligent.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
What do you think "you" are?

Are you the energy running through your brain, or are you the brain itself?


I believe my consciousness is the product of millions of synaptic pulses and impulses. "Who I am" is a subjective opinion made by myself and others.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
After i have talked to about over 100 different Atheists through a psychology project the only thing i am feeling confident of is that ,being an Atheist is a form of weak mental sickness.

How it works, is still a mystery for me. Perhaps trust related problems earlier in life that in later years evolves to an Atheist way of thinking.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Perhaps I can help clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions you may have about people without beliefs. This can only help, as an overwhelming majority of negative comments about atheists and atheism are tragically incorrect.

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks for your time and have a great day.


First, thank you for this thread and your thoughtful and civil answers.

The question that I have you may not be able to answer, as I don't know your perspective, but I have no doubt that someone else will.

As with another questioner, my experience with atheists has been fairly negative, with arrogance, intolerance and anger seeming to be much of their motivation. However, I don't believe that to be universal, so I have long wondered.

What is an atheist's motivation in "converting" a person of faith, whether through reasoned logic, or simple belittlement (or anything in between, I've heard a lot of it)? I would hope that an atheist can see why a Christian would want to convert an atheist, because it's a core part of our beliefs, but I have a tough time seeing the other side of it.

The number of people who one can cite as using religion to do harm (assuming that we're both mature enough to agree that "being annoying" isn't harmful) is laughingly small, compared to the millions who quietly practice their faith, contributing to their communities, and living a reasonably moral existence.

Ultimately, the end game of all of this is death. If you are right, *poof*, oblivion, not even the opportunity for a quick "Ha! See, I was right!" If you are wrong, at least in the Christian view, you will face the creator of the Universe, and not only have to deal with the fact that you personally rejected him, but that you tried to turn others against him.

I just don't see any upside to that. Again, this is nothing to do with what an atheist believes, or practices, but why they would want to convince others of the same. All I'm left with is that sense of arrogance, or a belief that if one can convince others, it vindicates one's own position, but even that falls short.

If there is nothing beyond this, my simple faith has led me to lead a life that is less self-serving and more considerate of those around me. Telling me I'm an idiot for doing so benefits neither me, you, or society at large.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Also, do you believe scientific laws are discovered or invented?


Scientific laws appear to simply be our explanations of predictable behavior in the universe. We discover the behavior and invent the tautology which explains it.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by damastadamind
please explain your belief of imagination, and whether or not u believe in a subconsious link between physical reality and ideas/mind/imagination


Imagination is a consequence of thought. There is a link between the physical brain and modes of thought since this is what the brain does. If you're asking whether I suspect that the mind alone can affect the physical world without the use of bodily action I would say no.


If you believe it's possible for thought to be an entity (the left-over energy after someone dies usually known as a soul) then isn't it also possible that thought can affect the physical world without bodily action?

PS. Thank you for the thread!



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join