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 arrogance of the atheists

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zero314
 




"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt



If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:



[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything



Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Well, I am asking the more militant atheists here to explain why they feel the need to browbeat believers. Why is there this obsession to force others into their way of unbelief. Why does it matter to them?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


WOW. Thank you very much for that article. It puts into words what I have come to realize about God. Maybe some of those who are seeking for truth will realize what is contained in this and come to some understanding of our universe and connection to God.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 


I posted that not without a sense of irony and humor, relative to what I was responding to. Then again, perhaps the atheists at ATS are smarter and better informed than the likes of Laszlo and Haisch..



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 



Originally posted by jennybee35
I have been watching and participating in several threads on ATS lately about atheism vs religion. While I don't really agree with "religion" per se, I am always horrified by the callous disregard that the atheists have for anyone's belief in anything other than what is tangible and scientifically proven.


I'm sorry, but where's the evidence of 'callous disregard'? And please answer this question. The last thread about atheists being arrogant has a user for which I currently have 18 (and counting) unanswered questions.



There seems to be no room in the atheists soul for mystery, romance or mysticism. I think that is a tragedy of epic proportions.


There's no need...we don't seem to have those 'soul' things. Though we do have a consciousness, which is pretty much all we need in that regard. Now, there is a room for mystery...just not unsolvable mysteries. There's definite room for romance. In fact, I'd recommend you watch "The Symphony of Science" series of videos on YouTube. They demonstrate the awe and wonder we have for the universe, it's all very romantic.

As for mysticism, could you please clarify what you mean by it and why we need it.



While I don't believe that man-made religion has any of the answers, and I can certainly see where the tripe that is available in the "religious" world would certainly turn quite a few people off of the deeper things of God, I cannot understand this need that atheists seem to have to quash others need for deeper meaning. Why do you care what others believe about their own soul?


Well, here's another straw man. We don't want to quash needs for deeper meaning. We just want to show that deeper meanings don't have to be illogical, irrational, superstitious, etc. There is so much meaning to be found in the universe itself, so why must you fabricate new realms to find meaning in?



I found this article today that I think goes a long way toward explaining the feeling I get from our resident atheists here on ATS:
LINK


Ah, the NY Daily News...as if any media outlet in America is all that impartial to atheists at all. I love those 'I was an atheist' stories, because they all seem to miss the point.
Oh, curious thing. Did you notice that 58% of the people that responded to the poll said they didn't believe in a deity? How arrogant these people must be to actually read viewpoints that dissent with them.

Also, like this thread, that article is nothing but rambling opinions that are entirely unsupported. It also contains such outright falsehoods as:

Though more than 95% of the world finds some meaning in faith..


I'm sorry, but the global population of atheists, according to Cambridge University, is around 500-750 million, possibly more. This puts global atheist population between 8-12.5% So her numbers are definitely off.

And secondly, that's a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum coupled with an appeal to emotion.



The tone of the discussions here on ATS lately are eerily the same as described in this article. Why is that?


Where is the evidence of that?



Does this article really describe the atheists feelings about the mysteries of the soul and spirit? It certainly has echoes of the discussions being held on here.


...a preponderance of atheists have no belief in a soul or spirit. What would be so horrible with people disagreeing with you?



Tell me and make me understand why it is that you feel the need to belittle and demean others and their search for some soul truth.


I'm sorry, but the person most demeaning and belittling others on here in the last month or so has been attacking atheists, I can u2u you the details if you'd like, but I'm not going to open this up to a discussion of a user rather than the flimsy opinions you present.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Your reply to the OP was riddled with arrogance. Granted, tone doesn't translate well on the internet, but there was a certain snobbish quality to it that I think is one of the problems the OP has with some of your persuasion.

But maybe that's just how I read it.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


Thats how i read it too, however, from reading other "madness" posts, it may just be miscommunication. He seems relatively level-headed, with just a touch of arrogance. Thats not necessarily a bad way to be, methinks. However, it can certainly come across as disrespectful, but most people (atheist or otherwise) dont really care about these things. Many atheists, specifically, do not feel someone who practices faith of any kind deserve any respect, period, so in those cases its definitely intentional. The religious who are doing the same are, quite bluntly, not following their own edicts.

I think you see the problems from both sides of the fence honestly. Both sides are so stuck in their limited beliefs and limited understanding of them.. To the "religious" i ask "Is God not so great that we arent all correct?" And to the atheists.. well, there isnt much to say that will make them think anyone else might have a point. But hey, its those rare occasions where true discourse happens where you can learn about one anothers perspective. I think that happens just enough to actually make any conversation whatsoever worth it. . Most arguments are both sides yapping about their concept of the other sides concept, with no room for variances. I have found that if you dont fit into an atheists concept of the christian concept, then they usually have little desire to actually speak about differing perspective. Most of the time it devolves into "proving" the other side wrong, which is absolutely asinine in regards to this topic.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 


Kindergarten playground mentality maybe? Don't stress yourself out by obsessing over their obsessing. When you say you don't care what they think, and you act like you don't care what they think - then it's over. It's fun to them - I don't think they have much else to do. They probably aren't like this at all in real life. I NEVER talk about religion with anyone, unless they ask me...even then, I don't volunteer a lot of information.
I get asked (at work) "Are you a christian?" - I'll either turn it into a joke by saying "Whenever I need to be, yeah", or something like "I'm not really the churchgoing type"

It's common on here. Between the creationists & evolutionists, the ufo-believers & skeptics, and then the folks who are straddling the fence or have their own unusual theories.

Mainly I think they're just trying to stir things up - whenever you respond to them you give them exactly what they want.

Don't feed the trolls.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I'm just going to clarify something: the post was intended in a quiet, explanatory tone. Sort of the tone I take when I'm teaching. But you're right, tone doesn't translate well.

Oh, and my typical tone isn't arrogance, I'm just an attempt to sound confident on the internet. Not infallible, not all-knowing, not assuming I have all the answers (though I can often see where discussions are going when I've had them before, specifically in O&C), simply confident in my ability to maintain a rational discourse. And yes, I said maintain the discourse, not dominate it.

Now, I hold that all people are to be given the right of the free exercise of religion. I'll agree with Thomas Jefferson that I care no more whether my neighbor believes in twenty gods or none. It's their choice. Unfortunately, the private theists don't really make up a good portion of the population. The culture is so saturated with religion in ways that are inherently exclusionary to 8-12% of the world's population outright and more when you account for different religions.

What's more, I'm doing this all on the internet. Christopher Hitchens does it through books and talks. Same with any of the 'new atheists'. They aren't in your face about it. They don't go around on street corners. They use media that you are free to look at or free to ignore. How is it arrogant to put an idea out there for those who are willing to listen?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Oh, and my typical tone isn't arrogance


Ive always tried to use what others are saying about my tone to get better insight into it. My intention might not align with others perception. If i am convinced i am not being arrogant or condescending, but every person i talk to says differently, its hard to deny that my initial intention is irrelevant to how it is actually being sent out. With something like tone, it is undoubtedly something which will rely on the listeners (or readers in this case) perception, which means my intention might manifest into something which is perceived as arrogance, or condescension. Whenever someone tells me directly that i am being arrogant or condescending, i attempt to rectify the situation through my actions even if my intent stays the same. I try to use it to learn how to better master my own communication with others.

Just something that slowly came to light for me over the years, perhaps it can be of some use to you as well



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 

You claim science is based upon truth and I have to ask you if you still believe in this after the high priests of global warming snookered you. This kind of "science" in the Soviet Union was used for Marxist manipulation purposes.

Science is search for truth....it is not the truth. People who have spiritual beliefs are also scientists. Many Christians of history were major scientists. I have a brain surgeon in the family who is a Christian. Atheists need to dismount that high horse of nothingness.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I was born into Christianity and experienced first hand there is more to life then what we can see.

I only concluded religion is a sham after I started to investigate it whch caused me to know a lot more about religion then most of the religious I meet and debate.My search did not end there as science is my new frontier.

The only thing I still see backs up my conclusions. Although a deity might exist it is not religion that will lead you there.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedish

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by jennybee35
 



Well it is a fact that Jesus existed. It's a fact that there are hundreds of recorded instances of a solar eclipse at the time of His crucifixion. It's a fact that He changed the world. It's a fact that people twist the gospel to fit their own desires. It's a fact that God desperately wants you to know Him...but you keep rejecting Him.




Really? You seem to be stating that just the fact that there are hundreds of recorded instances of a solar eclipse at the time of his crucifixion somehow verifies his existence. What is fact is that are many,many people who were alive at and around the time of his supposed existence and that few,if any, of them left behind any clear, discernible records documenting his life. If Jesus had such huge masses of people following him around,would there not be voluminous historical (secular) accounts to illustrate this?

You're going to have to bring you’re A-game when you start tossing around casual arguments like this. At this point,you haven't proven anything...

And to further add to the total theme of the post,I agree that both Atheists and Believers alike can be horribly arrogant and close-minded which does nothing to help bring about true understanding of each other and our place on Earth.


edit on 29-12-2010 by FlyingJadeDragon because: Edit for content

edit on 29-12-2010 by FlyingJadeDragon because: edit for content



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


Oh, I'm definitely taking it into account. I'm always trying to tinker with my writing style, but the problem is that I try to get things out with a level of speed, so I tend towards a certain style. It is quite...biting, I'd say. I'm quite direct when I'm just tossing things out. I'm definitely trying to alter things. Though I'm keeping that haughty edge right now for a certain confrontational thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




I'm sorry, but where's the evidence of 'callous disregard'?


You yourself have participated in several that contained many examples of disregard for others. Here are some examples from this link


As arrogant as I find the highly religious moronic



Oh, dear, I cannot keep going.
You know what the sad thing is, as I had to go and read so many "atheism vs christianity threads" to answer you, I came to a realization: each side is just as nasty as the other. What a sad thing that is.There are very, very few members here that can participate in a rational discussion of this subject. On both sideds of the aisle it seems that the irrational, arrogant members scream so loudly that the reasonable cannot be heard.

I must say, though, that THIS thread has had a very different tone. I appreciate each and every one of you that have contributed so far. You have actually added new knowledge for me. For that I am grateful.

Yes, even you, madness!!
Even you have come here and explained your tone to me, and I can see your posts in a different light. Thanks!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by NthOther
 


Thats how i read it too, however, from reading other "madness" posts, it may just be miscommunication. He seems relatively level-headed, with just a touch of arrogance.


From reading his subsequent posts, you're probably right.


Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by NthOther
 


To the "religious" i ask "Is God not so great that we arent all correct?"


I think it's designed (yes, I'm bringing up intelligent design) for us not to all be correct. I don't believe people are supposed to go through life without learning from each other. Differences in belief and opinion have purposes, so that we can grow from one another's perspective.


Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by NthOther
 


I have found that if you dont fit into an atheists concept of the christian concept, then they usually have little desire to actually speak about differing perspective.


I like that you brought this up, if you're getting at what I think you are. It seems that a focal point of the atheist position is centered around criticism of the Abrahamic religions, and disproportionally among those at Christianity. It is rare that I ever hear an atheist critique of Buddhism or Hinduism with the same vehemence they do other faiths. Perhaps this is because there are many schools within these faiths that encompass a wide variety of paths for discovering truth. Some Hindus are polytheistic, some are trinitarian. Some Buddhists are atheists (although I would suspect most atheists would contest that), some are monotheists. Both have strong pantheist and panentheist currents within them. The Abramahic religions are a bit more specifically dogmatic, and therefore the targets of criticism are more easily defined.

Whatever the reason for this apparent preoccupation with western religion, I hold to my original observation that hardcore atheists are (in just my own opinion) limiting their understanding. We should be students of all philosophies, because the truth is probably more wild than we can possibly imagine, or prove.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sinohptik
 


Oh, I'm definitely taking it into account. I'm always trying to tinker with my writing style, but the problem is that I try to get things out with a level of speed, so I tend towards a certain style. It is quite...biting, I'd say. I'm quite direct when I'm just tossing things out. I'm definitely trying to alter things. Though I'm keeping that haughty edge right now for a certain confrontational thread.


I do the same thing. I think everyone does. As sinohptik alluded to earlier, we don't always perceive what we ourselves project exactly how others receive those projections... especially in the somewhat tone-deaf nature of text communication. Apologies for jumping to conclusions about your disposition.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Well, I am asking the more militant atheists here to explain why they feel the need to browbeat believers. Why is there this obsession to force others into their way of unbelief. Why does it matter to them?


Why do you assume all atheists are like that?

The ATS motto is to deny ignorance

edit on 29/12/2010 by OzWeatherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Can you show me where I said that "ALL atheists are like that."? I would really appreciate seeing my own words there for my perusal, because you quoted my "militant atheists" words.

So, am I to assume you are in that last group, since you are taking exception to my thread?

You probably ought to read this post of mine, too, before you respond:
post



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Let me get this straight.
An athiest does not believe in God because there is no proof that God exists.
If we follow this logic forward, If you don't believe an athiest exists, do they disappear??





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join