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.

 

You're too stupid to be an Athiest

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Thought I'd share this video, despite being slightly tongue in cheek, he does have a point.





Thoughts?




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



Good one.

The thing is Genesis Chapter 1 actually makes more scientific sense than the Big Bang theory does. If you look at Genesis chapter 1.. scientifically that is.
Genesis chapter 2 is a different story, when Lord God formed Adam from the dust on the Ground. Yeah, that's when you have to start to believe in magic. Or should i say! Have faith in magic.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


So... I'm too stupid to be an Atheist but also too smart to be a Christian?

Sounds about right.


I would love to get into an argument with someone and actually be able to hammer them with all of the facts, counter their every argument with a more rational and scientific approach. But honestly I can't, not yet anyway.

I'm sure that's how most Atheists are though, we have general points we can argue; Big Bang Theory, where's the proof, etc... But can we really go in depth? It might seem strange but in order to honestly fight pure ignorance you have to be at least twice as smart as they are. And as much as we would love to believe it as true, most of us aren't.

So what this means is that in order to counter a Theist, especially a Religious person, we must have a lot of solid facts or they can actually win with their ignorance.

Anyways... This guy is pretty correct in his analysis, even though like you said, it is quite tongue-in-cheek.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


That was pretty funny!


reply to post by spy66
 


There is no time frame given between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. It could be moments, days, months, or years. To assume a time frame (which many creationist do) is silly! To assume the Biblical creation is the first or only creation is even worse. Taking this into consideration, it still makes more sense to me than the big bang.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
That was funny OP!!

Even though I believe in God, I think that Genisis was written for the simple minded to understand. I could be mistaken, but I don't think people had a grasp on physics back then. "Created from the dust on the ground", well to me that means we came from the earth/stardust, which is correct imo.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Did I miss it?

Didn't see his tongue....except when he turned reptilian for a few seconds, it flicked out...


No, he doesn't seem tongue-in-cheek to me, but dead earnest...the last sentence, "Go to hell" sounded heartfelt...but, maybe that's just me. Will have to hold my nose and listen again..(Oh noes!! Mixing metaphors...yikes!)

Anyway, was offended with the crack about Stephen Hawking's book. I've read the whole thing --- twice.

BTW --- isn't this the same "Bible Code" guy, Chad? Or just an incredible facsimile?




EDIT: nvm....took a looky looky, see him. Get it. (Missed it first time 'round...) Well, I got some laughing to do, now ..






[edit on 21 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I know i posted this somewhere before, but I thought I should share it with some of you.

Has anyone ever read the The Science of God?

It's a very interesting book that touches on all the points, such as the age of the universe, evolution, the six days of Genesis (and their actual meaning)... all of it backed up by scientific and biblical facts.

Oh, and I'm sure if some of you read The Brief History of Time you can handle this book



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Falken
 


Not really....


...all of it backed up by scientific and biblical facts.


An (admittedly) quick glance at the online link, and the peeky-peeks (obviously they show more than in most books for sale online --- trying to pique interest) and I saw nothing that was "backed up" by science...it is the same old tired attempt to "fold" a religious dogma into a scientific mindset. That is known, in various iterations, as "peudo-science".

Commendable attempt, in that at LEAST it doesn't reject the concept of science altogether --- but it's still a decpetion. Because its basis for "argument" is the 'bible'. Not exactly a proper source for scientific inquiry.

Was never meant to be, either. It has its place merely as a record of parables, and the lore of the ancients, and their imaginings --- how they struggled to perceive their environments, in an age and era when SCIENCE was still an unknown entity.

Problem I have isn't with those who profess "faith" in a 'higher power'. Anyone is free to do so, no ill will ever intended. One could certainly argue for a so-called "Universal consciousness", and inter-connectivity of ALL things, if one wished. Could be true, who knows??

And, THAT is the point!

Most 'religions' want to impose a particular, and microscopic view of their perception of reality upon others. In that sense, the 'bible' has been but one instrument of domination, subversion, and control.

It is time for humanity to move on, grow up, and recognize that 'organized religions', of any flavor, are doing more harm than good, and holding back our growth and advancement as a sentient species.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I understand what you're saying, but did you even READ a few pages?


This book is NOT made to prove the existence of God, it was written to get rid of the common misconceptions that the earth is 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve lived amongst dinosaurs, i was showing this link for the sake of people who did believe that




[edit on 21-7-2010 by Falken]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yup this is the bible code guy.

Glad you got it..finally..


Another one for you:




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Falken
 


OK...fair dinkum....


... to get rid of the common misconceptions that the earth is 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve lived amongst dinosaurs...


Like I said, THAT part is admirable (sorta) but, did it not in a kinda-sorta way suggest and lend credence to the "Adam & Eve" fable??

If not, sorry I took it wrongly. Perhaps you're right, IF it is written with those sorts of "literal" creationists in mind, it has to be couched in language they can relate to?

Like explaining to five-year-olds, methinks....

However valiant the effort, I fear it will still be pointless to many people's closed minds. Far too many....



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Like I said, THAT part is admirable (sorta) but, did it not in a kinda-sorta way suggest and lend credence to the "Adam & Eve" fable??


The book states that Adam and Eve are not literal, but metaphorical, so that it would be easier to understand.



Like explaining to five-year-olds, methinks....


Exactly!





However valiant the effort, I fear it will still be pointless to many people's closed minds. Far too many....


Unfortunately, that is true. As a believer I commonly run in to the extremely hard-headed types that still think everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
why wouldn't adam and eve be literal. does it make sense. so lets create a fake story about two fake people to portray the real two people who started our existence who were NEVER MENTIONED

WTH.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

why wouldn't adam and eve be literal. does it make sense. so lets create a fake story about two fake people to portray the real two people who started our existence who were NEVER MENTIONED




It actually makes alot of sense, and it would save me alot of explaining time if people quit asking me questions and actually tried reading a few pages of the book i linked to



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
well i do believe adam and eve are literal. we had to start somewhere.

and i do believe the earth by population alone is around 6,000 years old.


we had 1 billion people in 1802.

we have now about 7 billion in 2010.


thats a 208 year differnece we times 7 our population


so like i said we learned how to have sex in about 1802.


because for the first million years we didn't even accumlate one 7th that number than we did in 208 years.

it's impossible imo for earth to bebillions let alone millions let alone 100,000 years old.

plus i believe all this water was from the flood we have on earth.

btw your avatar if off the hook. i love it.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by JesusisTruth]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
You know, this thread points out a very interesting fact that I've been noticing for a while.
Being an atheist doesn't automatically mean you are smarter than all the theists.

Now this may seem a very obvious thing, but considering the number of people who seem to assume otherwise, it is worth mentioning.

There are several atheists I know who's main reason for becoming atheist was some sort of rebellion phase in their teenage years. They say stuff like "I'm an atheist because we came from monkeys!".

There are several very foolish atheists. And theists. Atheists are people who don't believe in god(s). That is it. Nothing else.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


The thing is, I don't believe in any religion, yet I wouldn't call myself an atheist either.

Do I need help?




posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I don't get the video. I'm an atheist, and have read, completely, the king james version of the bible, the quran, sam harris's letter to a christian nation, dawkins' the god delusion and river out of eden, and christopher hitchen's god is not great. I've also read more anthropology books than you can count on both hands.

I may not be able to explain (as well as a physicist) the big bang theory. But I can run with the pros on just about anything else.

I'm not conceited, but I don't consider myself stupid.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by JesusisTruth
 


You believe the Earth's population is only 6,000 years old...based on that fallacious reasoning?? ( AND, totally ignoring the science that PROVES otherwise??? :shk: )


You are making Jean Luc cry....I fear for our future as a sentient species, if that sort of "thinking" prevails in future....sad.





At least it does show that maybe the bloke in the video has a point...at least "atheists" exist in a word of reason and rationality, not fantasy and dogmatic "belief"....



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
no weedwacker it aint fantasy and time will do my talking after WW 3..

come on even if the world were billions of years old which is bull s.....

then that means 7 people are born a year and then out of freaking nowhere i 1802 we sprout to seven times that in 208 years.

no your reasoning is insane to think we should only have 7 billion peoplby now most of which came in the last 300 years.

its common sense even though you did a good job tryingto make me look insane ith he little face palm star treck and sad face deal.


it aint working. readers aresmart enough to think things through for themselves.

and science also explains the ecuharistic miracles in my sig.

science is good for some things but it cannot prove wherewe come from. mny saints seen god and you will too after death.


peace.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join