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: 33
25
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Global "warming" or "cooling" isn't a theory either. It means stuff gets hot or cold. Stuff falls because of gravity. They're just words. Stuff does stuff... so what?!


Again, you appear to not understand the definition of a scientific theory. I'll leave it to you to look it up.


Of course there are benefits to applied science, but look at the religion of the Dogon tribe, who found Sirius was a binary star system thousands of years ago before science did.


That claim has been long-debunked.


Man is God, not some invisible guy floating around in the clouds laughing at you saying I told you so. Psalms 82 says Ye are Gods, but ye shall die as men. Both atheists and Christians have the exact same brainwashed concept of God, who is simply: the most enlightened being (alien if you want) in the universe. The top of the scientific food chain, its all the same.


So how are your unsupported inventions and interpretations of god any more valid or accurate than anybody else's unsupported inventions and interpretations of god? What I see above are simply highly debatable presumptions and assumptions.




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Quote: Simply because there exists unethical people employing scientific data and discoveries for their own purposes does not make science inherently dogmatic.

Then by that assumption:
Simply because there exists unethical people employing religious beliefs and discoveries for their own purposes does not make religion inherently dogmatic.


Familiarity with the definition of the word "Dogma" might help you out here.


2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church


Religion is inherently dogmatic by definition. Why do so many people come to these religion/atheism threads to argue that words do not mean what they actually mean? In an hour I have been told "truth, love, dogma, atheism, and evolution" all mean something else than the standard English definition. I guess God gives out the real meanings when you meet him?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
You call it the food chain, religion calls it the pyramid. It's the same thing. Then there is the ark of the covenant. This "arch" of electrical energy was capable of turning solid gold into powdered gold, and it would kill anyone who touched it. It was a weapon and people wrote about it because it killed people.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Quote: Simply because there exists unethical people employing scientific data and discoveries for their own purposes does not make science inherently dogmatic.

Then by that assumption:
Simply because there exists unethical people employing religious beliefs and discoveries for their own purposes does not make religion inherently dogmatic.


No, as I've already explained to you many religions have precise moral and ethical instructions which therefore makes religion inherently dogmatic.


Everyone has their own religious beliefs. Everyone creates God in their own image. Just because most priests are dogmatic doesn't mean that all religious people are dogmatic. It's people as well as their institutions who are dogmatic. Religion itself, just as science itself, is not dogmatic. Yes a particular type of religion may be dogmatic, but not all religion is dogmatic.


I agree: everyone creates gods in their image. I did not claim all religious people are dogmatic; they're not, but their religion most likely is (particularly the Abrahamic religions). Those who aren't dogmatic have picked and chosen which religious mandates to follow and which to ignore.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Some religions have churches, some don't. That definition doesn't apply to all religion. Picking and choosing?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
You call it the food chain, religion calls it the pyramid. It's the same thing. Then there is the ark of the covenant. This "arch" of electrical energy was capable of turning solid gold into powdered gold, and it would kill anyone who touched it. It was a weapon and people wrote about it because it killed people.


Huh? What is the parallel between food chain and pyramids?

The ark of the covenant is simply a religious story about a magic machine. There is no evidence of the existence of such a device, that it was a weapon, nor that it could perform miracles of alchemy.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Some religions have churches, some don't. That definition doesn't apply to all religion. Picking and choosing?


Since you perpetually refer to the bible I tend to respond in terms of the Abrahamic religions and qualify my statements by referring to them. I have not picked and chosen so much as I have remained within context.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
The Bible says in Genesis 1:26 Let US make man in OUR image according to our likeness. Man was already here. That's why evolutionary "theory" as you put it can provide no link between man and ape, and the Bible's explanation makes much more sense.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The star gods came from heaven (the stars), and genetically modified hominid man, made him according to their likeness. Man just appears MAGICALLY in the evolutionary theory.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
The Bible says in Genesis 1:26 Let US make man in OUR image according to our likeness. Man was already here. That's why evolutionary "theory" as you put it can provide no link between man and ape, and the Bible's explanation makes much more sense.


Review of all religion indicates the opposite: man makes gods in their own image. Additionally, religions have evolved in similar manners as organisms.

Evolutionary theory most indeed links mankind to primates and makes far more sense than a supernatural deity poofing everything into existence.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
The star gods came from heaven (the stars), and genetically modified hominid man, made him according to their likeness. Man just appears MAGICALLY in the evolutionary theory.


Ancient alien hypothesis is not backed by any substantial evidence: mostly just faulty interpretation of a handful of artifacts.

Homo sapiens sapiens' DNA is traceable back through the lineage of a series of transitional hominids and shows no evidence of "alien tampering" whatsoever. Homo sapiens sapiens also did not just "magically appear".

No offense, but it would benefit you greatly to acquire even a rudimentary level of scientific literacy. Maybe there is something to your hypotheses but you should at least rule out that they cannot be so easily refuted before taking a stand on them.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Well I agree with what you say about religion, but personally I don't have a religion, though I believe the story of Gen Isis, the genes of Isis, that man was already here and these "alien" beings came here and genetically modified apes to be like them, as servants to these "gods." The evolutionary theory skips from Lucy to us. Where is the evidence of anything in between?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
That's what they call, the missing link...



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
All of a sudden, poof a pyramid is there. And no one can seem to explain how it was built. Same with all the ancient monuments out there, that we couldn't recreate with modern science. The most logical explanation is as the Bible says, "God" put it there, "as a sign and a witness." A sign of what? Maybe as we refer to the zodiac (stars), as your "sign." The pyramids are aligned with the belt of Orion, and all the pyramids of lower Egypt are aligned with the outer edge of the Milky Way. I think that not religion, but the Bible's explanation of how those things got there is more logical than science's nonexplanation. Occam's razor.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Well I agree with what you say about religion, but personally I don't have a religion, though I believe the story of Gen Isis, the genes of Isis, that man was already here and these "alien" beings came here and genetically modified apes to be like them, as servants to these "gods." The evolutionary theory skips from Lucy to us. Where is the evidence of anything in between?


No, "Lucy" is one of the earliest hominids discovered: an Australopithecine. Other extant hominids include Gigantopithecus, Sivapithecus, Lufengpithecus, Ankarapithecus, Ouranopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo cepranensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon), Homo floresiensis, Oreopithecus, Paranthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus.

There is a clear line of evolutionary history leading to modern homo sapiens sapiens: none of which involve alien intervention. A trip to a museum of natural history will give you clear examples of transitional hominids that you can actually view.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Religion codifies their assumptions and resists change at all costs.

Most people would describe the Anglican Communion as a religion.

www.anglicancommunion.org...

I hope that we can agree that Anglicanism is a religion, and so agree that the Anglican Church of England is within the scope of your quoted statement. That way, we can proceed to see whether they have changed any of their assumptions over time.

Bishop Samuel Wilberforce argued against evolution by natural selection, based on his teaching of the Bible, within the territory of his see. (In other words, his position was "official" at the time he said it.)

users.ox.ac.uk...

That is no loger the Anglican position. The church now features an extensive web section on Darwin, including an acknowkedgment of the basic truth of his core theory,

www.cofe.anglican.org...

Of course, a similar story could be told about the Roman Church's changing views both on Galileo's science, and Galileo's standing as a faithful Catholic. That, too, would fairly be called change, and the Roman Catholic Church is usually described as a religion.

But back to the Anglicans, their acceptance of evolution by natural selection is not merely an agreement to a boundary between temporal and secular concerns. Their acceptance of this scientific theory now informs their internal debate about another subject, unambiguously a question of faith and morals, the permissibility of homosexuality,

www.anglicancommunion.org...

And, of course, we are watching change unfold on the subject of Anglican acceptance of homosexuality even as we speak. It isn't smooth and isn't decorous, but it is change. There is exquisite awareness of the costs of resistance to change, and conscious consideration of those costs, starkly contrary to your claim.

Is this another occasion when you may need to clarify your statements about other religions, this time about the capacity of other religions to change their views?


religion inherently dogmatic.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the more liberal branch of the Society of Friends is a "non-credal" faith. So, too, are the Unitarian Universlists,

www.uua.org...

(who actually invite atheists to join them; I don't know how successful they are in that, but I believe that some agnostics do feel comfortable attending UU services and other events.)

Same basic question, "Is this another occasion when you may need to clarify your statements about other religions, ...?" (Yes, I realize that the quoted block is a non-sequitur from the argument it concludes, This is not exactly a reason to refrain from asking you to expain what you did mean.)

I think it is worth noting that this illustrates how important was our discussion about the meaning of the word religion. So long as you habitually make universally quantified pronouncements about "religion," which is apparently a daily event, then the only hope of understanding what you are saying is to know what you mean by the word religion.



[edit on 22-7-2010 by eight bits]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mhorndisk
All of a sudden, poof a pyramid is there. And no one can seem to explain how it was built. Same with all the ancient monuments out there, that we couldn't recreate with modern science. The most logical explanation is as the Bible says, "God" put it there, "as a sign and a witness." A sign of what? Maybe as we refer to the zodiac (stars), as your "sign." The pyramids are aligned with the belt of Orion, and all the pyramids of lower Egypt are aligned with the outer edge of the Milky Way. I think that not religion, but the Bible's explanation of how those things got there is more logical than science's nonexplanation. Occam's razor.


Presuming that a god created things that we may not have discovered yet is far from Occam's razor. In fact, it's the most difficult and problematic argument there is. It's an old argument called "the god of the gaps". This argument has proven to be a spectacular failure whenever it is invoked.

While the techniques involved in construction of the pyramids may be up for speculation there is no mystery as to how such a structure could be aligned nor no indication that it was built by anything but human beings.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
How does your evolutionary link provide an explanation for how the pyramids were built?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
What I'm saying is, God IS man. So if man built the pyramids, then God built it.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
It says in the Bible, the Lord is a MAN of war.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join