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.

 

the Origin of Atheism

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source ?


...um...of course not. It's a rejection of theistic claims, it requires no source. It's a single lack of belief.

Just like you won't find the original source for theism. We have no way of knowing when humans first started believing in any deity, though we're pretty sure it started out with sun worship. We also have no way of knowing who first came up with the belief in an afterlife, who first came up with the idea of the soul, etc.

It's a single lack of belief. It's not really all that surprising that there isn't a single author, as it's something many people can come up with. And it's more than reasonable enough to say that atheism predated theism, as all people before human conceptions of deities were implicitly atheists.



Not even the most "educated" atheists, particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated.


Again, it probably predates theism. It's a single nonbelief that doesn't require a specific author. It has no doctrines, no dogmas, etc. It's just a skeptical position to a claim.



They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures, but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.


Because it isn't anything more than a skeptical view on religious claims. Can't you wrap your bigoted head around that?



The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon...


Atheism is not a philosophy. It is a single skeptical view.



But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time.


Oh wow...you're seriously going to go there?
No, what's highly indicative is that you don't understand that single skeptical claims don't tend to have authors.

Can you trace back the first kid who didn't believe in Santa Claus? The first person to say that faeries weren't real? The first child to tell their parents that monsters don't live under their bed?



Atheism is not a man made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons.


Yay, bigotry!
Seriously, mods, why haven't you shut down the cascade of fecal hatred that's coming from this user?

Also, it's not a doctrine. It's skepticism to theistic claims. It's something that we would change were there ever evidence of a theistic claim being true. If someone proved Yahweh existed I'd become a Yahwehist. If someone proved that Odin existed I'd become an Odinist. Etc.



Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan.


Please provide evidence for your redunkulous claim. Oh wait, you can never provide any evidence for any of your bigoted claims against atheists because there isn't any.



It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists.


Deceptively? We reject all theistic claims, there's nothing deceptive about that. It's right as it says on the tin. And again, please provide evidence for this insanely bigoted claim.



It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author !


No, it's not a doctrine. I've already explained that. It doesn't require authorship as it is a single skeptical claim. Unless of course you're implying that a-closetmonsterists are inspired by Satan since we can't find the origin of that 'doctrine'.



This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.


No, I've already provided enough reason for all of that. There's no need for an Earthly author of any skeptical claim. In history it's impossible to track single skeptical rejections unless they are monumental, like Copernicus and his rejection of geocentrism.



The process by which atheism originated is very involved, so a simple starter presentation of the basic principles that gave it birth must suffice...


What basic principles? It's pure skepticism. That's all it is. It doesn't require a grand scheme, a brilliant author, or a cultural movement. It just...is.



A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion.


Um...we don't accept the existence of this being. Atheism doesn't care about the actions of deities, merely the existence of them. Atheists may personally come up with philosophical arguments against the actions of literary characters, but this is not a concern of not believing in any deity.

And once more, please provide evidence of total depravity among atheists.

And yes, your Yahweh is wrong in killing children in a flood, in asking Abraham to perform a sacrifice in the first place, in destroying Sodom and Gommorah, in ordering multiple genocides and mass rapes, in creating the Sun and Moon after plants (it just doesn't make sense!), in saying that amputation is better than temptation, etc.

Your holy book is wrong on so many levels, but I don't expect you to know that since you don't seem to have actually read it. I didn't arrive at this due to total depravity, I arrived at it because I feel that there is a greater morality than that presented in the Bible.



So in order to understand how atheism had it origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of Satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism.


Again, prove atheists are totally depraved. You cannot. Unless you think Bill and Melinda Gates, with the biggest charity in the world, are totally depraved.



Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better.


Wow, now you're psychic. Apparently I "know better"? Um...more evidence required please.



So it would seem Atheism does have its roots in Satanism...


You ignorant bigot.reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source ?


...um...of course not. It's a rejection of theistic claims, it requires no source. It's a single lack of belief.

Just like you won't find the original source for theism. We have no way of knowing when humans first started believing in any deity, though we're pretty sure it started out with sun worship. We also have no way of knowing who first came up with the belief in an afterlife, who first came up with the idea of the soul, etc.

It's a single lack of belief. It's not really all that surprising that there isn't a single author, as it's something many people can come up with. And it's more than reasonable enough to say that atheism predated theism, as all people before human conceptions of deities were implicitly atheists.



Not even the most "educated" atheists, particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated.


Again, it probably predates theism. It's a single nonbelief that doesn't require a specific author. It has no doctrines, no dogmas, etc. It's just a skeptical position to a claim.



They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures, but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.


Because it isn't anything more than a skeptical view on religious claims. Can't you wrap your bigoted head around that?



The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon...


Atheism is not a philosophy. It is a single skeptical view.



But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time.


Oh wow...you're seriously going to go there?
No, what's highly indicative is that you don't understand that single skeptical claims don't tend to have authors.

Can you trace back the first kid who didn't believe in Santa Claus? The first person to say that faeries weren't real? The first child to tell their parents that monsters don't live under their bed?



Atheism is not a man made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons.


Yay, bigotry!
Seriously, mods, why haven't you shut down the cascade of fecal hatred that's coming from this user?

Also, it's not a doctrine. It's skepticism to theistic claims. It's something that we would change were there ever evidence of a theistic claim being true. If someone proved Yahweh existed I'd become a Yahwehist. If someone proved that Odin existed I'd become an Odinist. Etc.



Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan.


Please provide evidence for your redunkulous claim. Oh wait, you can never provide any evidence for any of your bigoted claims against atheists because there isn't any.



It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists.


Deceptively? We reject all theistic claims, there's nothing deceptive about that. It's right as it says on the tin. And again, please provide evidence for this insanely bigoted claim.



It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author !


No, it's not a doctrine. I've already explained that. It doesn't require authorship as it is a single skeptical claim. Unless of course you're implying that a-closetmonsterists are inspired by Satan since we can't find the origin of that 'doctrine'.



This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.


No, I've already provided enough reason for all of that. There's no need for an Earthly author of any skeptical claim. In history it's impossible to track single skeptical rejections unless they are monumental, like Copernicus and his rejection of geocentrism.



The process by which atheism originated is very involved, so a simple starter presentation of the basic principles that gave it birth must suffice...


What basic principles? It's pure skepticism. That's all it is. It doesn't require a grand scheme, a brilliant author, or a cultural movement. It just...is.



A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion.


Um...we don't accept the existence of this being. Atheism doesn't care about the actions of deities, merely the existence of them. Atheists may personally come up with philosophical arguments against the actions of literary characters, but this is not a concern of not believing in any deity.

And once more, please provide evidence of total depravity among atheists.

And yes, your Yahweh is wrong in killing children in a flood, in asking Abraham to perform a sacrifice in the first place, in destroying Sodom and Gommorah, in ordering multiple genocides and mass rapes, in creating the Sun and Moon after plants (it just doesn't make sense!), in saying that amputation is better than temptation, etc.

Your holy book is wrong on so many levels, but I don't expect you to know that since you don't seem to have actually read it. I didn't arrive at this due to total depravity, I arrived at it because I feel that there is a greater morality than that presented in the Bible.



So in order to understand how atheism had it origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of Satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism.


Again, prove atheists are totally depraved. You cannot. Unless you think Bill and Melinda Gates, with the biggest charity in the world, are totally depraved.



Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better.


Wow, now you're psychic. Apparently I "know better"? Um...more evidence required please.



So it would seem Atheism does have its roots in Satanism...


You ignorant bigot.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 



Originally posted by etherical waterwave
Atheists claim there is no god. Aren't they antichristians in life?


No, atheists do not claim there is no god. An atheist doesn't believe in any deity.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


So the following individuals aren't very nice?



Zackie Achmat (1962–): South African anti-HIV/AIDS activist; founder of the Treatment Action Campaign.[53]
Baba Amte (1914–2008): Respected Indian social activist, known for his work with lepers.[54]
Deng Pufang (1944–): Chinese handicap people's rights activist, first son of China's former Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping.[55]
David D. Friedman (1945–): Economist, law professor, novelist, and libertarian activist.[56]
E. Haldeman-Julius (1889–1951): American social reformer and publisher, most noted as the editor of Appeal to Reason newspaper.[57]
Franklin E. Kameny (1925–): American gay rights activist and former astronomer.[58]
Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921): Russian anarchist communist activist and geographer, best known for his book, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which refutes social Darwinism.[59]
Taslima Nasrin (1962–): Bangladeshi physician, writer, feminist human rights activist and secular humanist.[60]
Ingrid Newkirk (1949–): British-born animal rights activist, author, and president and co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the world's largest animal rights organization.[61][62]
Ron Reagan (1958–): American magazine journalist, board member of the politically activistic Creative Coalition, son of former U. S. President Ronald Reagan.[63]
Henry Stephens Salt (1851–1939): English writer and campaigner for social reform in the fields of prisons, schools, economic institutions and the treatment of animals, a noted anti-vivisectionist and pacifist, and a literary critic, biographer, classical scholar and naturalist, and the man who introduced Mahatma Gandhi to the influential works of Henry David Thoreau.[64]
Margaret Sanger (1879–1966): American birth-control activist, founder of the American Birth Control League, a forerunner to Planned Parenthood. The masthead motto of her newsletter, The Woman Rebel, read: "No Gods, No Masters".[65]
Rosika Schwimmer (1877–1948): Hungarian-born pacifist, feminist and female suffragist.[66]
Marie Souvestre (1830–1905): French headmistress, a feminist educator who sought to develop independent minds in young women.[68]

From wiki

Yeah...


reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


So your argument is that...there are more Christians therefore Christianity is right?
I'm sorry, but that's a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum.

You know, for a great portion of European history, atheism was a crime punishable by torture and possibly death. In the Middle East there are still people who would fear being exposed as an atheist because people in their society would beat and possibly kill them. In the United States there is still active discrimination against atheists.

In fact, these factors skew atheist population statistics, making them appear lower than they actually are.

Then there's the issue that Christians disagree amongst themselves. There isn't one monolithic Christianity, just like there isn't one monolithic Islam or any theistic religion.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



In the United States there is still active discrimination against atheists.

I don't think this is good, if somebody at work for example says I am atheist, just to let people know, that's cool.
But if that same person is always trying to advocate their beliefs, in the lunchroom, what's going to be the result?
Especially if everybody believes in some type of creator, although not even a religion. I never bring up my personal theist beliefs at work ever, unless somebody asks me directly, and even then it is the briefest of answers.

All loudmouths will be discriminated against, but it's not because they are atheists, but because they have no common sense, as to when they can advocate their beliefs. Maybe that's why the internet is such a magnet for atheists. A perfect spot for you guys to unite, defend, attack, and advocate with your dogmatic mindset.

edit on 20-12-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



In the United States there is still active discrimination against atheists.

I don't think this is good, if somebody at work for example says I am atheist, just to let people know, that's cool.


Well, there's active discrimination for those people too. I never would bring up my atheism unless the issue was pressed and it would normally be "Oh, I'm not a believer" or something of that sort. I still follow this, except I'm just not living in the USA now. Anyway, this would lead to endless pestering by others and did actually lead to active academic discrimination (I was kicked out of a school).



But if that same person is always trying to advocate their beliefs, in the lunchroom, what's going to be the result?


Well, it should be the same result as the Pentecostal who always advocates their beliefs in the lunchroom...but it isn't. The atheist gets treated more harshly.



Especially if everybody believes in some type of creator, although not even a religion.


So...it's ok to discriminate against a vocal minority because they're a minority and they're vocal. That's awfully circular.



I never bring up my personal theist beliefs at work ever, unless somebody asks me directly, and even then it is the briefest of answers.


That's good. Same here. I don't even think the issue has come up in any situation where I've been working.



All loudmouths will be discriminated against, but it's not because they are atheists, but because they have no common sense, as to when they can advocate their beliefs.


That's the problem, the issue isn't against loudmouths, it's against atheists in general. Most atheists throughout the world aren't very vocal. If they were they'd probably stand a better chance. In fact, according to recent polls carried out atheists are the group that is least trusted in the USA.



Maybe that's why the internet is such a magnet for atheists. A perfect spot for you guys to unite, defend, attack, and advocate with your dogmatic mindset.


What's dogmatic? I've explained this to you repeatedly, I'm not dogmatic and no other atheist is. Every atheist on here concedes that they may be wrong. That's a step further than any dogmatic person would take. We're merely skeptical to other people's theistic claims. We don't have a mindset that there couldn't be a god, we have a mindset that we'd like evidence before accepting such a claim.

And the internet is such a magnet because it's passive. You can choose to open up a thread, view a YouTube video, read an article, etc. It's a medium where only those who wish to participate must participate. We aren't dragging people in who would rather not talking about it.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
An Atheist can not base his or her beliefs in Satan more that he can on God as for both thesis on their existence is irrelevant therefore irrelevant to an Atheist !

Mankind has been looking for a divine ruler ever since it was at the top of the food chain, how can such a week creature with a big brain be so ignorant. From all inventions come from intellects of all times confounded and these intellect never managed to use more than 10% of their brain. Now explain to me who is it possible that, Humans being so intelligent, at the top of the evolved Earth be the only beast/mammal that can continue ti willingly used it's intellect to the continuation of self destruction of it's habitat.

We are a Mammal, one that will die and decompose, just like a blue whale, dauphin or gorilla.

you think Dauphins believe in a God ???? lol



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Why, yes, theism predates scientific understanding. Of course it would. If we understood the natural world we'd have no reason to have a lot of those deities in the first place.

I'd bet on science having come first.

Inquisiteness, a drive to understand, is pretty basic to our species.
Learning to make and preserve fire, learning the best places/times to obtain the various foods, learning the medicinal effects of local vegetation, learning ways to make weapons that kill game, learning the best ways to keep each other alive, learning how to predict the weather, learning about seasonal change . . .

The tribes who just said "god did it," would have a distinct disadvantage, survival wise, to those who learned to understand the world they lived in.

I can imagine people who had more curiosity than the others learning things of importance to the tribe, and realising that their personal importance to the tribe lay in the knowledge they'd accumulated. So instead of giving all their knowledge away, they invent an invisible entity, with whom only they can communicate, and ascribe their achievements to acts of this god.

Of course the tendancy of humans to scoff at things a peer tries to teach them, but to cower before a frightening, powerful authority would have influenced the decision to invent a god.

Thus science and god would have been closely linked.

Eventually one of these invented gods became surrounded by so much political power that people who wanted to impress others did it by promoting this religion still further. People who think might makes right, and who are impressed by crowds, jump onto the bandwagon where they can be sure they'll find lots of people to agree with them.

Now some of the people benefitting from religion are starting to feel afraid science is disproving the basis of their beliefs/fantasies. So they are convincing their followers to blindly accept what they say, and to ignore the findings of those inquisitive ones who are still investigating this world.

Some of the things said in this forum show there are still people who would love to usher in a new dark age, in which the bible was sole authority, and heretics and unbelievers were burnt at the stake.




edit on 20/12/10 by Kailassa because: deformatting



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source ? Not even the most "educated" atheists, particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures, but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.

The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon... But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time. Atheism is not a man made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan.


This is just too beautiful; a "god of the gaps" argument to explain atheism.

Haven't you learned yet that you not knowing the how or why does not mean either of your gods did it?

By the way, who first invented a lack of belief in evolution?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 

That is a good question, because so many people have worshiped pagan false Gods even if they didn't believe in the one creator of the universe. I would say evolution is the crutch that allows an atheist to travel his path mentally and emotionally. No evolution=no atheism. So Darwin would be the closest, as he got the ball rolling with his new theory. And it has been expanded upon ever since by like minded people.

The mathematical extrapolation is, of course, evolution=atheism.

Sounds like you believe opening your eyes to the physical realities that have been discovered about our world will enable you to see your religion is false.

If you truly believed in god, that wouldn't matter, because then you'd know god was real, and that therefore all truth must lead toward the greater understanding of god.


Gravity is a crutch for those who don't believe Earth sucks.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Atheism has it's roots in Satanism, for the Atheist would have nothing to call it if it was not for the believers in the first place.

there IS much more to life than what you can see...


edit on 12/20/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 




LOL...... Okaaaaaaayyyyy



There is no real origin or "resurrection-like" event that occurred to make people not believe in or care about a god or gods or religion.

Put it this way..... the very day someone said "That volcano will erupt if we don't throw a virgin in"

or

"If you don't follow me and my rules, a sky man who is watching you all the time and has a special place reserved for you in either a good or bad place, will strike you down and kill you"


Or whatever crock of **** the person happened to come up with for whatever their motive was, there was someone who stood there are said "What the **** are you talking about? Are you crazy?"

Atheism is as old as any religion on earth.

Unfortunately, people were pretty violent and barbaric, actually still are, and just killed these people or made it very difficult for them not to just convert or at least feign interest and belief.


edit on 20/12/10 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Atheism has it's roots in Satanism, for the Atheist would have nothing to call it if it was not for the believers in the first place.


Let me break this down into logical terms

Atheists wouldn't have anything to call itself without believers, therefore it has its roots in Satanism....

That isn't a logical chain. You just randomly introduced a conclusion from a single premise.




there IS much more to life than what you can see...


Yep, like sound. Or smells. Or touches. Or tastes. Or that which you can observe with a scanning electron microscope. Or ultraviolet light, hell the majority of the EM spectrum.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Atheism has it's roots in Satanism, for the Atheist would have nothing to call it if it was not for the believers in the first place.

there IS much more to life than what you can see...


edit on 12/20/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)


That's your opinion...one founded not on rationality and logic, but indoctrination.

Thanks for making me laugh though, your satanism comment is beyond hilarious


Are you the guy in the pic?


edit on 20-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Atheists wouldn't have anything to call itself without believers, therefore it has its roots in Satanism....

That isn't a logical chain. You just randomly introduced a conclusion from a single premise


Believers yes... believers in the truth and God.

very logical, that is why atheism is based in Belief and not knowledge as Agnosticism is.

Atheism is anti-belief in the truth, which is evil, which is Satan.

Agnostics are cooler ! they just don't understand they can know the truth but it does not come necessarily via 'knowing' there is another method not explored much by science and it is called 'feeling'

Atheists are Satanist !



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yep, like sound. Or smells. Or touches. Or tastes. Or that which you can observe with a scanning electron microscope. Or ultraviolet light, hell the majority of the EM spectrum.


explain to me what Love is then...

My point is proven, even if you try to use science to define 'feelings' you still can not explain their origin by observing animals.

who would want to try to explain it anyway ? it is better to feel it and live it...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


gosh I thought it was religious folks that spoke in tongues ?

you guys make absolutely no sense... knowing only what you hear, so gullible.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
the evildoers may go back to your allotted sections now and try your indoctrination on someone else... if you can not tell it is not going to work on me.

still I know you guys love me, heck I love ya'll too


also you may try studying up on this fella a little bit...

en.wikipedia.org...

William Tyndale - (the Architect of the English language)

so that you may better 'know' etymology and where alot of your language itself comes from.

it's a conspiracy...


edit on 12/20/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Or that which you can observe with a scanning electron microscope. Or ultraviolet light, hell the majority of the EM spectrum.


yes but these are things one can see... even after you see them there is still more isn't there ?

Science will not answer the question you are trying to understand but it is a tool... once you get to a certain point then there is revelation.

unless one can actually see nothingness !


edit on 12/20/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

en.wikipedia.org...

William Tyndale - (the Architect of the English language)



Why architect of the English language? He just translated religious Greek texts into English...where I come from, we call those people "translators".



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Or that which you can observe with a scanning electron microscope. Or ultraviolet light, hell the majority of the EM spectrum.


yes but these are things one can see... even after you see them there is still more isn't there ?

Science will not answer the question you are trying to understand but it is a tool... once you get to a certain point then there is revelation.

unless one can actually see nothingness !


edit on 12/20/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)


Can't believe I have to post this again...


What you are doing, is filling a gap in knowledge with god. Why? I dunno, and I don't care. But you pretend to know when in reality, you're just following stories and the manipulation of various churches. Nothing bad with that if you're happy...but starting a ton of ridiculous threads attacking atheism while believing in a mythical creature you have no proof of is kinda silly.

You seem to like judging people...let's see what the bible says to that:



James 2:13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!


You're a bad bad Christian!! And before you say I'm judging you too...I can without having to feel guilty because I'm a filthy atheist, remember?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join