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: 31
25
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
part 3 of 3

This theory approaches the perspective of Vedanta, where Brahman the all-inclusive consciousness is the self-interacting dynamic of observer, observed and process of observation. This process of self-interaction gives rise to all diversity and phenomenon while it remains unaffected by it. As science continues to probe the exotic and extreme reaches of physics we can take some comfort that we are actually coming closer to understanding what is most intimate to us, our own consciousness, our self. The tangible springs from the intangible, and that intangible is what we are and what we call God.

www. huffingtonpost.com
Article by Deepak Chopra




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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

Answer this:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.


So you're saying that individual DNA molecules have a "consciousness"?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vannatrieu
 


No. Read it again. This time sloowwwwlly. I'm answering for him because I dont think poster is online.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vannatrieu

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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

Answer this:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you've toppled my proof. All you need is one.


So you're saying that individual DNA molecules have a "consciousness"?


That's exactly what he is saying. Read the article "Consciousness Comes From DNA", by Carl Sagan.

richarddawkins.net...



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Is it your belief that if anything is created, everything must be created? That the existence of Option A, in any form, negates the possibility of Option B?


If the universe was created, something larger and more complex than it should be expected to have been responsible. What created that? And so on. I don't believe that "if anything is created, everything must be created", but if we're invoking a creator as a primary cause the recursion comes in to play.

In short, we simply don't need a creator to understand the universe. Do you suppose it possible that the entity/deity that you know of may have come into being after the suspected primary event? Do you suppose it's theoretically possible for the universe to operate without deities? Just curious as to your opinion.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by earthdude

I was told by a Franciscan monk that you cannot bargain with God.


Agreed. You can't bargain with a rock either.

But the rock actually exists.

It is hard to define the word "exists". So we have God for that.


This is another "god of the gaps" invocation. Certainly we possess the ability to discern whether something exists or not. Yet it seems people love to place their deity just outside the realms of our knowledge.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptmckiou

Article by Deepak Chopra


And there you have it.

It would be far more educational to read about the Higgs boson from a physics scientist rather than a new age mystic charlatan who told the world a few years ago, amongst other things, that we can "make our molecules happy".



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptmckiou
That's exactly what he is saying. Read the article "Consciousness Comes From DNA", by Carl Sagan.

richarddawkins.net...


No, he's not saying that individual DNA molecules have consciousness, only that DNA provides the instructions for species to become conscious and self-aware.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Is it your belief that if anything is created, everything must be created? That the existence of Option A, in any form, negates the possibility of Option B?


If the universe was created, something larger and more complex than it should be expected to have been responsible. What created that? And so on. I don't believe that "if anything is created, everything must be created", but if we're invoking a creator as a primary cause the recursion comes in to play.


Isn't that a thinly veiled invocation of the Watchmaker Analogy? Though it sounds like it, I must be drawing the wrong conclusion there.

I still don't understand why you take the stand that the Universe can be eternal, but in the instance where it is not, something else can't be eternal, but since I've asked you a number of times to clarify that error in logic and you've chosen not to, I guess that we move on.


In short, we simply don't need a creator to understand the universe.


Hey, another point of agreement! But if there is a creator, it colours what the Universe is, eh? In which case, understanding the creator probably provides insights into the Universe.


Do you suppose it possible that the entity/deity that you know of may have come into being after the suspected primary event? Do you suppose it's theoretically possible for the universe to operate without deities? Just curious as to your opinion.


Possible? Sure, why not? I do think it incredibly unlikely that this moment, me writing this and you reading it, comes to us courtesy of nothing but a nearly infinite number of random chances that just happened to wind up in our favour, but, sure, I think that is possible.

But do I think that it's possible that the God that I believe to exist lied to everyone and misrepresented himself? That, when he said that he was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, that he was talking about something other than his existence, and that he's allowed (through arrogance, no doubt... I actually saw someone claim that Christ just had a big ego and let people call him God because he liked the delusion!) everyone to get it wrong through the ages? No, I don't believe that.

I do, however, allow for the possibility that I am wrong in my belief and that we have randomness to thank for our existence.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Hello all, I am new to this forum. This is my personal video response refuting the basic notion of atheism, from a Luciferian perspective. Let me know what you think if you are interested. I hope that it provides a unique perspective of things for anyone.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mhorndisk
 


Science is not a religion, and even if it was, it would not invalidate atheism. Science is a systematic method of data collection and analysis used to understand the world and universe. Religion is a system of beliefs and practices concerning deities, higher powers, spiritual enlightenment, ect.

With that being said, all atheism needs is a lack of belief in the existance of deities. And no, atheism itself is not a religion. We have already beat that horse.


Welcome to the forum.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by C09JayLT]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mhorndisk
 


You're kind of all over the map there, sorry. You seem like a bright fellow, but sticking to a more limited scope would probably help. In addition, humourous Monty Python reference aside, it is my experience that if you treat your audience with respect, they are more likely to do the same for you. Belittling a persons beliefs or nonbeliefs will generally not elicit a favourable response.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
When it comes to philosophy, i believe everybody has their own way of thinking and beliefs. But when it comes to scientific fact, thats a different thing. So since i understand both sides of the argument, I guess ill ask a hypothetical question for you...

If everything in revelation came true (the end-times prophecies), what you think? I mean if it came true as in the war broke out, somebody declared themselves as god on the throne in the 3rd temple, natural disasters, and something put on our right hands or foreheads, what would you think? Please dont get mad at me for anything, its just a hypothetical question. And i am not saying im an atheist or a believer either.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Hey, another point of agreement! But if there is a creator, it colours what the Universe is, eh? In which case, understanding the creator probably provides insights into the Universe.


Perhaps, yet I still believe having a creator complicates matters.


Possible? Sure, why not? I do think it incredibly unlikely that this moment, me writing this and you reading it, comes to us courtesy of nothing but a nearly infinite number of random chances that just happened to wind up in our favour, but, sure, I think that is possible.


I don't believe random chances lead to humans in any way. Nor do I believe in "creators".


But do I think that it's possible that the God that I believe to exist lied to everyone and misrepresented himself? That, when he said that he was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, that he was talking about something other than his existence


Interesting concept, but this too is at odds with the concept of eternity.


I do, however, allow for the possibility that I am wrong in my belief and that we have randomness to thank for our existence.


Randomness plays only a marginal part in the operations of nature.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Hello all, I am new to this forum. This is my personal video response refuting the basic notion of atheism, from a Luciferian perspective. Let me know what you think if you are interested. I hope that it provides a unique perspective of things for anyone.


www.youtube.com...


Jeez. First he tells us everyone assumes too much.

Then he tells us scientific theories are just wacky philosophies about how the universe works and that observation of evidence is dogma. Then he tells us god is an alien from another star system. Then he makes a series of bad interpretations culminating in evolution denial and how NASA was named after the nazis. Thanks for the vid but this guy is psychotic and fails to see his own irony



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyMe777
If everything in revelation came true (the end-times prophecies), what you think? I mean if it came true as in the war broke out, somebody declared themselves as god on the throne in the 3rd temple, natural disasters, and something put on our right hands or foreheads, what would you think?


I find nothing unusual about that. Firstly, because devout believers have great incentive to assure such things happen and actively work towards it. Secondly, because "prophecies" are so vague that any number of events can be shoehorned into them to make them appear to be accurate.

In the end, "prophecies" work by assuming people can see the future thousands of years out and by current people retrofitting current events in them to lend them credence. Also, Thomas Paine revealed to us that a "prophet" in ancient times was not a seer of the future, but no more than a poet and musician. Our current interpretation of a prophet is at odds with the ancient definition.

In short, I'm not worried about it.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
You are making the assumption that I must be belittling everyone's beliefs because you must believe that Luciferians do that naturally. I didn't belittle anyone's beliefs. Science is no different that religion.

Religion comes along and tries to explain the creation of the universe.
Science comes along and tries to explain the creation of the universe.
Religion comes along and tries to explain how the solar system works.
Science comes along and tries to explain how the solar system works.
Religion comes along and tries to explain how man got on earth.
Science comes along and tries to explain how man got on earth.

Etc Etc. What is belittling about this? Science is doing the same thing as religion. Just because you believe the earth is moving because science told you so doesn't make it so if you don't understand how it even works. Does it even feel like the earth is moving? How do you know the stars are not lights put there like in a Hollywood gameshow? The redshift theory of the big bang has plenty of evidence against it. What if I came along and said the sun is a cube, and it's just spinning around so fast it looks like a sphere folks. Prove me wrong!

Science comes along and says there's no soul it's just chemicals and here's some drugs we want to sell you to deal with it. That's dogma, not belittling other's beliefs, because science has just as much potential to harm humanity as religion, just look at what those drugs they want to sell you have done to society!



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Even the atheist symbol of the atom is taken from the star of Rephaim.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
You are making the assumption that I must be belittling everyone's beliefs because you must believe that Luciferians do that naturally.


I made no such assumption. Are you Adam, the one who made that video? If so, it's not surprising you made another bizarre assumption.


Science is doing the same thing as religion.


No. Science follows observations and evidence and is ever-changing. Religion codifies their assumptions and resists change at all costs.


Just because you believe the earth is moving because science told you so doesn't make it so if you don't understand how it even works. Does it even feel like the earth is moving? How do you know the stars are not lights put there like in a Hollywood gameshow? The redshift theory of the big bang has plenty of evidence against it. What if I came along and said the sun is a cube, and it's just spinning around so fast it looks like a sphere folks. Prove me wrong!


I don't believe such things because "science told me so". It's because the evidence for certain scientific theories can be observed from many branches of investigation, and experiments can be done personally to verify the findings of science. We understand things about the universe because we rely on the convergence of multiple lines of inquiry which render the same results.


Science comes along and says there's no soul it's just chemicals and here's some drugs we want to sell you to deal with it. That's dogma, not belittling other's beliefs, because science has just as much potential to harm humanity as religion, just look at what those drugs they want to sell you have done to society!


Science is ethically ambiguous. Science in the hands of good people benefits society, science in the hands of evil people can harm the masses. This does not invalidate science as the best tool we have to understand the universe nor does it qualify science as a dogma.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Even the atheist symbol of the atom is taken from the star of Rephaim.


Sure.

And the middle where the "A" is is the All-Seeing Eye.

\m/



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join