Ask An Atheist Anything

page: 65
25
<< 62  63  64    66  67 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
If people just realized earlier on and had a little more love in their hearts, instead of constantly searching for it , there would be a better way... the only way and the only truth I see is we are here but a limited time, why not enjoy it everyday and to the last breath.

in my opinion, those without morality are capable of doing great harm to others, especially if they are put into the position of great power.


I don't disagree with anything you've said here, really. I just don't see how this resides in the divide between atheists and theists. The difference for me is that I view love as just love, not "truth" or "god" or anything else. And as far as morals go I really don't know any atheists who do not have a high sense of morality.

I would "defend this truth" as you've defined it same as you would, yet I'm still an atheist.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
cool I can respect your outlook too, I have no problem with it... everything is in the eye of the beholder as I've heard.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And as far as morals go I really don't know any atheists who do not have a high sense of morality

I do...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
And as far as morals go I really don't know any atheists who do not have a high sense of morality



I do...


Fair enough. Certainly some exist, however, it's very likely that it's not atheism that is responsible for their moral deficit, but perhaps nihilism, narcissism, megalomania or psychopathy. There is not a ubiquitous lack of morality that accompanies atheism.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


ok explain the apparition of fatima for me kind sir. give me anything other than mass hysteria. mass hysteria is a scientific cop out... its like saying "idk but i'm not gonna call it God"

there is plenty of reports from secular newspapers everyone was eating this up because it was a prediction of a 10 yr old girl.. and guess what it came true. tens of thousands of people saw this skeptics newspaper photographers. plenty of evidence.

prove it's fake.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
majority rule establishes "fact"


????

explain...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stuncrazy
 



Originally posted by stuncrazy
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


ok explain the apparition of fatima for me kind sir. give me anything other than mass hysteria. mass hysteria is a scientific cop out... its like saying "idk but i'm not gonna call it God"


...so people who were gathered to witness what they thought was going to be an apparition from a deity who then happened to see it weren't prone to mass hysteria?

Secondly, eye witness reports aren't enough to prove anything.

Thirdly, it was mass hysteria.

Fourthly, people were looking at the sun for prolonged periods of time and then described a vision that is consistent with staring directly at the sun.



there is plenty of reports from secular newspapers everyone was eating this up because it was a prediction of a 10 yr old girl.. and guess what it came true. tens of thousands of people saw this skeptics newspaper photographers. plenty of evidence.


Have you seen any of the photographs? I have only seen one and it's not convincing in the least, it looks like a lens flare or other optical artifact that I could easily recreate with a film SLR camera and no post-processing trickery.



prove it's fake.


Prove it's real. The burden of the proof is on the claimant not on the skeptic.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


You won't get an answer, as Cosmic.Artifact has been banned from this website and never managed to provide an answer to this question previously.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


why does it seem that you think people in general are stupid? this was only 100 years ago.

but your gonna tell me that 30,000 - 100k people were starring at the sun and couldn't figure out that what they were seeing was because they were staring at the sun?

why wasn't it proven false when it happened? why couldn't they in their day and age prove this to be a farce?

people aren't idiots and the picture your painting is a mass group of people who couldn't understand that starring at the sun causes you to see things. mass hysteria is a cop out. i'm sorry it just is.

if 30k people saw a murder take place but there was no physical evidence none whatsoever guess what the person who killed will go to jail. in no way shape or form can i kill someone make sure there is no evidence and then go off and say oh all those people that saw me do it. oh yea that was mass hysteria. they tricked themselves into seeing me kill the person.
even in scientific terms 30k is a lot of people to fool.
i'll take anything other than mass hysteria. simply, because mass hysteria is simply saying idk what happened.
edit on 16-2-2011 by stuncrazy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by stuncrazy
 



Originally posted by stuncrazy
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


why does it seem that you think people in general are stupid? this was only 100 years ago.


I don't. I think they were mistaken and hoping to see something. Again, you have to actually prove the evidence. Please, show me a photo of the incident that shows exactly what was described.



but your gonna tell me that 30,000 - 100k people were starring at the sun and couldn't figure out that what they were seeing was because they were staring at the sun?


No, that's an oversimplified straw man. There were a variety of factors at play. All of the people present (and I'd like to see how you got a range in the crowd that has a 180% margin of error) were expecting to see something. There weren't devoted skeptics at the site, there were devoted Catholics making pilgrimages.



why wasn't it proven false when it happened? why couldn't they in their day and age prove this to be a farce?


Things aren't supposed to be proven false, they're supposed to be proven true. And why? Well, that sort of story sells papers and increases tourism, doesn't it?



people aren't idiots and the picture your painting is a mass group of people who couldn't understand that starring at the sun causes you to see things. mass hysteria is a cop out. i'm sorry it just is.


And saying "You can't disprove it didn't happen so it was a miraculous apparition of a specific religious figure" is an actual cop out. The idea that a large crowd of people who came to a place expecting to see an apparition saw one due to hysteria isn't a cop out.

I'd like to see your photos though. You said there are photos that prove it.

Of course, I'd also like to see that the witness testimony direct at the event is entirely consistent.



if 30k people saw a murder take place but there was no physical evidence none whatsoever guess what the person who killed will go to jail.


Well, the legal system isn't what we use for proof of reality. And it would only happen if the defense lawyer was crap and didn't know anything about observer bias.



in no way shape or form can i kill someone make sure there is no evidence and then go off and say oh all those people that saw me do it. oh yea that was mass hysteria. they tricked themselves into seeing me kill the person.
even in scientific terms 30k is a lot of people to fool.


Not if those 30,000 people are all expecting to see something. Hell, magicians do it all the time. Fooling people is actually quite easy due to how our neurology is wired.



i'll take anything other than mass hysteria. simply, because mass hysteria is simply saying idk what happened.


I'll take mass hysteria over an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence.

Please, provide the evidence rather than attacking me for being unable to disprove the claim. You have no proof beyond witness testimony that you have not provided. You merely claimed that 30,000-100,0000 people all saw the same thing when you didn't even provide a single testimony.

To use witness testimony, you'd have to provide not only a more accurate number of witnesses, but at the very least a majority of their testimonies. You cannot simply claim that all present viewed the same event.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


ok seeing as how that one's not gonna get ya.

i'll let you in on a secret, i believe the Fatima apparitions and any apparitions are a great deception myself, but simply because i know the Catholic church plays for the bad guys.

OK i'll give you a series of findings.

these have been proven and can be proven time and time and time and time again. and the overwhelming odds of these being mere luck is astonishing. i am a man of reason just as yourself my friend. i question everything and everybody it's the analytics of my mind. I've had my experiences in life where i know without a question in my mind that there is a God.
the only reason i push others to meet him, well he's my best friend. he's a great listener, his wise words are very important to me in this life we trek. he is the ruler (guide stick) by which i judge myself and hold myself accountable. i love knowing God, and i wish it on absolutely everyone. i'm not trying to be pushy i respect the views and perspectives of everyone. i just love spreading the love.

1. Google Heptadic structures in the bible there's plenty of them. it's a task Sir Isaac Newton first tried to tackle and prove, but seeing as he didn't have the luxury of a computer he could never fully see the grand scheme of it. (this has nothing to do with bible codes if that is what you are thinking.)

2. when the genealogy from Adam to Noah is presented in Genesis 5 when each name is put by it's original Hebrew meaning. it gives a short synopsis of the story of christ i'll put it down here for ya

adam = man
seth = appointed
enosh = mortal
kenan (cainan bad translation) = sorrow
mahalalel = the blessed God
jared = shall come down
enoch = teaching
methuselah = his death shall bring
lamech = despairing
noah = comfort, or rest

so from adam to noah their names literally mean. man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching(.) his death shall bring (the) despairing comfort/rest.

i can go all days with the miracles the bible has within it. but i'll just give you these for now.

as for the second question though i know your going to say that these names can be translated differently which is absolutely true, but the fact remains that these names can be translated this way as well.

if just a single one of these names were different then it would ruin it all. so explain this one away as coincidence. i've got plenty more.

the word coincidence can only hold so much value. like how people claim that the big bang created the universe.

i'll give you a science experiment get a rock put some TNT in it, and blow it up you can do this as many times as you want. post a picture when you get a perfectly round rock.
edit on 16-2-2011 by stuncrazy because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-2-2011 by stuncrazy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stuncrazy
 



Originally posted by stuncrazy
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


ok seeing as how that one's not gonna get ya.

i'll let you in on a secret, i believe the Fatima apparitions and any apparitions are a great deception myself, but simply because i know the Catholic church plays for the bad guys.


Lying for Jesus are we?



OK i'll give you a series of findings.


Conjectures...



these have been proven and can be proven time and time and time and time again.


Alright, I'm going to ask for the proof.



and the overwhelming odds of these being mere luck is astonishing.


Are they greater than the odds of a deck of cards that I have under my bookshelf being in the order they're currently in? What about the combined odds of all of the decks of cards (maybe half a dozen) being in the order they're currently in?

(52!)^6 = (8 x 10^67) ^6 = 4 x 10^407

This is why I made a thread about probabilities for Origins and Creationism.

Also, how do you calculate these odds? What's the equation used and how did you come about it?




i am a man of reason just as yourself my friend. i question everything and everybody it's the analytics of my mind. I've had my experiences in life where i know without a question in my mind that there is a God.


Experience isn't a reasonable basis for anything unless the experience can be recreated under controlled conditions by several others.



the only reason i push others to meet him, well he's my best friend. he's a great listener, his wise words are very important to me in this life we trek. he is the ruler (guide stick) by which i judge myself and hold myself accountable. i love knowing God, and i wish it on absolutely everyone. i'm not trying to be pushy i respect the views and perspectives of everyone. i just love spreading the love.


Well, I'm sure you're quite sincere. I'm not going to say otherwise. Of course, I still don't think you're correct.



1. Google Heptadic structures in the bible there's plenty of them. it's a task Sir Isaac Newton first tried to tackle and prove, but seeing as he didn't have the luxury of a computer he could never fully see the grand scheme of it. (this has nothing to do with bible codes if that is what you are thinking.)


If only Newton had devoted the time he spent on the Bible to the natural world...

Heptadic structures are mathematical wizardry based around deceitful inputs. Of course, if you'd like to prove it to me, I'll gladly listen.

(By the way "Google _____" isn't something you say on this or any other discussion forum when you're trying to prove something.)



2. when the genealogy from Adam to Noah is presented in Genesis 5 when each name is put by it's original Hebrew meaning. it gives a short synopsis of the story of christ i'll put it down here for ya


Time to break out a translator...



adam = man


No argument here.



seth = appointed


...I didn't find that one...Strong's doesn't even list that meaning.

From Strong's Concordance


Seth = "compensation"


It can also mean 'buttock'



enosh = mortal


Man

So now we have: "Man compensation/buttock man"...

...this is sounding dirty.



kenan (cainan bad translation) = sorrow


Actually, it means possesion

Where are you getting your translations from?

"Man/blush compensation/buttock man possession"



mahalalel = the blessed God


Nope, praise of God is a more appropriate translation.



jared = shall come down


Close, but it means descent, so you're adding unnecessary grammatical baggage.



enoch = teaching


Completely off, as the translation means dedicated



methuselah = his death shall bring


That's not even close! It meansman of the dart!



lamech = despairing


What? It means powerful.



noah = comfort, or rest


This one is a-ok.



so from adam to noah their names literally mean. man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching(.) his death shall bring (the) despairing comfort/rest.


Or, for accuracy: "Man compensation man possesion praise of God descent dedicated 'man of the dart' powerful rest."

Hmm...doesn't seem to have the same meaning there.



i can go all days with the miracles the bible has within it. but i'll just give you these for now.


That's not a miracle, whoever gave you that clearly didn't bother to do their research and you never bothered to check it out for yourself. I knew it was wrong because I was already aware of the meaning of Methuselah



as for the second question though i know your going to say that these names can be translated differently which is absolutely true, but the fact remains that these names can be translated this way as well.


Well, I didn't actually find the translations for most of them. Can you please source your translations? Mine come straight from Strong's concordance.



if just a single one of these names were different then it would ruin it all. so explain this one away as coincidence. i've got plenty more.


Well, I've yet to see the source for where you got those erroneous translations. And correlation doesn't equal causation.



the word coincidence can only hold so much value. like how people claim that the big bang created the universe.


...no, it just ushered it into its present form. And we have evidence for it. It's not a coincidence, we actually have evidence that it happened. The universe is entirely consistent with the Big Bang theory.



i'll give you a science experiment get a rock put some TNT in it, and blow it up you can do this as many times as you want. post a picture when you get a perfectly round rock.


And here you said you were a man of reason, instead you're someone who speaks about what they don't understand. The Big Bang wasn't actually an explosion of something, it was the expansion of both matter and the fabric of our universe simultaneously. For a great period of time our universe was essentially liquidish debris until the fundamental forces of the universe acted upon what was there.

You just presented a Straw Man argument which shows that you're either ignorant of the Big Bang theory due to a lack of education on the subject or being deceived by others or you're simply being deceived yourself.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
As an athiest, are you open to the idea of a deity if one could be proved to you? Or say, if one "spoke" to you?

I understand if it would be a dependant situation



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
As an athiest, are you open to the idea of a deity if one could be proved to you?


Absolutely


Or say, if one "spoke" to you?


That would be different. Subjective experiences aren't always trustworthy. There would have to be objective evidence to support it.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Seconded.

Hell, I'm open to the possibility of any deity existing, even ones I've not been informed of or ones that are no longer or never were worshiped.

Were there a deity whose only purpose was the safeguarding of rectums during defecation and its existence were proven to me, I'd definitively have to agree with its existence.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Haha, good point, thanks


By the way, dont you dare say lord rectumsly is fake! Or is it lord Uranus.....



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by stuncrazy
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


ok explain the apparition of fatima for me kind sir. give me anything other than mass hysteria.


If you want to discover what happened at Fatima why would you exclude a possible explanation? Just because an explanation seems implausible to you doesn't mean it's false.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
To say that the universe was created by chance and that there was no guardian over it to control the course of events is like saying there was an explosion at a printing press and a dictionary was formed as the result of it. It is absolutely impossible. We accept that a master piece of literature cannot be produced without an intelligent writer how then can we accept that the universe was created without God?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LulzCode6
To say that the universe was created by chance and that there was no guardian over it to control the course of events is like saying there was an explosion at a printing press and a dictionary was formed as the result of it. It is absolutely impossible. We accept that a master piece of literature cannot be produced without an intelligent writer how then can we accept that the universe was created without God?


Personally I do not see the correlation at all between a dictionary and living things.

Nice try - - but No.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Your hot



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LulzCode6
To say that the universe was created by chance and that there was no guardian over it to control the course of events is like saying there was an explosion at a printing press and a dictionary was formed as the result of it. It is absolutely impossible. We accept that a master piece of literature cannot be produced without an intelligent writer how then can we accept that the universe was created without God?


Personally I do not see the correlation at all between a dictionary and living things.

Nice try - - but No.


YOU..Personally do not see the correlation at all between a dictionary and living things.

I tryed Nice but You said NO...OK





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 62  63  64    66  67 >>

log in

join