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.

 

What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


ok not too negatory, though have'nt I addressed you in length already? anyway it happened after I begun to open the cover of a green (they are color coded you know) Gideon NT that had been left on the counter some days before and if that does'nt tickle your fancy of course there are plenty of "it is written" to back that thing up
edit on 2-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



You left one out- 3. Belief there is no God.

If you believe there is no God, it is a "Belief". There is simply no honest way around that.


Our disbelief in God could be considered a belief. The same way that not believing in Santa, is a belief.

If you're in pursuit of the truth, positive assertions is the ignition and discourse of any scientific theory. You assert an explanation for reality (or phenenoma) and you provide logical/historical/mathematical/ reasoning for that explanation. You don't use circular logic and fail philosophy. You don't just use unfalsifiable hypothesis and say "well you can't prove me wrong" - It's retarding science and cognitive thinknig.
edit on 2/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


I didn't just decide what I "believe". I studied too. Your assumptions are ridiculous. You're alright with assuming that I just "decided" to dismiss religious claims because a website "says so"? I had to do tons of reading and I'm sure the website owner had to read and study it as well in order to form such conclusions. Just because you reach different conclusions doesn't mean you studied it better. Now your argument is beyond ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

Is there a more cogent conspiracy to suppress non-believers?


Isn't it pretty much part of the faith to try and convert others?

So aren't all religious threads pretty much an "attack" on atheism? Likewise though, isn't atheism an attack on faith?

No victims here....both sides argue against each other.


Wonderful answer to the OP. Perfect answer in fact.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by The Djin
 


ok not too negatory, though have'nt I addressed you in length already? anyway it happened after I begun to open the cover of a green (they are color coded you know) Gideon NT that had been left on the counter some days before and if that does'nt tickle your fancy of course there are plenty of "it is written" to back that thing up
edit on 2-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



No you haven't addressed me at length and no you have not answered the questions I've asked which were =

Did the voice happen to mention which jesus it was claiming to be ?

What if the voice said I am Allah, would you have accepted it with the same conviction ?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


It was a side not because you said




And that is where you are totally wrong. If most of science is wrong, then that must mean that reality and existence function magically. Your assertions are chocked full of bias and they are jokes. I find it funny how you claim that the elites are trying to "prevent" humanity from discovering particular pieces of information. SCIENCE is found in EVERYTHING. Every single occurrence in the universe can be explained scientifically, no matter what it is. Philosophical arguments and poetic-like stories do not completely explain how things work


So we bothed assumed some things about another. Let's just move on and stay on topic as you suggested.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


It was a side not because you said




And that is where you are totally wrong. If most of science is wrong, then that must mean that reality and existence function magically. Your assertions are chocked full of bias and they are jokes. I find it funny how you claim that the elites are trying to "prevent" humanity from discovering particular pieces of information. SCIENCE is found in EVERYTHING. Every single occurrence in the universe can be explained scientifically, no matter what it is. Philosophical arguments and poetic-like stories do not completely explain how things work


So we bothed assumed some things about another. Let's just move on and stay on topic as you suggested.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Just the flavor of the day I suspect. Everybody loves to hate.
Nobody likes to admit they love to hate as it seems unenlightened, unevolved, unintellectual, un-Christian or what have you. I'm afraid that whatever we are, we are stuck with each other hating and denying. At least until the escalater to the here-after or just off of this rock is built. And so it goes.

PS I love you all. That should p*ss at least half of you off.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by firegoggles
 





Understanding the universe has a creator and he made a way for us to commune with him has 0 to do with a creator.


Needless to say, in the entire history of mankind your god has proven itself to be the worst communicator of all time.


Wait a minute... Did he just say that understanding the fundamentals of a creator has nothing to do with a creator? That's like saying this "Understanding the computer has a designer and he made a way for us to commune with the world has 0 to do with a designer." I'm not sure what he meant, but whatever. Yeah, you're right about the biblical god being the worst communicator of all time. I've seen better communication among monkeys than the retarded nonsense displayed in the babble. I know how the babble can be non-fiction...just leave the pages blank. Very simple.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by The Djin
 


ok not too negatory, though have'nt I addressed you in length already? anyway it happened after I begun to open the cover of a green (they are color coded you know) Gideon NT that had been left on the counter some days before and if that does'nt tickle your fancy of course there are plenty of "it is written" to back that thing up
edit on 2-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



No you haven't addressed me at length and no you have not answered the questions I've asked which were =

Did the voice happen to mention which jesus it was claiming to be ?

What if the voice said I am Allah, would you have accepted it with the same conviction ?


sorry must have had a close name and I assumed you knew what a Gideon NT (New Testament) was, yes that invisible Jesus mentioned in there, just like what Paul heard (in Acts9, John5) when he first believed that only said he was Jesus from invisibilty of whom he called Lord as I did of which no one can say or confess by their own natural power
edit on 2-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I admit that I love to hate. There's certain people that I would never love, ever. I admitted that easily and I do it all the time. I love to hate when hatred is necessary for me. I don't know what I would do without hatred. I can't live without it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Skipping to contemporary times (recent posts)

Re Student X

You wrote:

["Ethnographic comparison proves that there is a genuine collective unconscious in the Jungian sense. That should give atheists pause, but it doesn't."]

From my own knowledge as a former anthropoly and psychology student at university, I wouldn't say, there is any 'proof' in that. Too many assumed underlying premises.

Quote: ["Parapsychology is much stronger than debunkers would have us believe. That too should give atheists pause, because parapsychology is an attempt to study "miracles" in the lab...to bring them down-to-earth so to speak. But again it doesn't seem to give them pause."]

This seems more claimable than the above, except for the 'debunking' part. I occasionally bring up this study of anomalies, and I've never been 'debunked'. Mostly ignored (no worries), but e.g. Madness met me rather sensibly and corteously about the subject once.

Quote: ["Under the microscope of comparative mysticism, comparative religion, comparative mythology, and parapsychology such absurdities evaporate into thin air."]

The problem is, that this 'microscope' still isn't quite up to deductive logic's requirements, so either we can adjust deductive logic slightly (without threatening its initial basis), or we can construct better calibrated 'microscopes'. It's an epistemological question at that level.

Quote: ["The problem is very few atheists seem to have the temperament to delve deeply enough into those fields to realize that, and so from their perspective they see no evidence."]

As a (self-defined) metaphysicist, I can understand their reluctance. There are tons of sensationalism on the market, even amongst people calling themselves scientists, and most of the debates are about claims of scientific competence, and who said what about whom.

But if it's any consolation, I would warmly recommend your direction as very valuable, though with some patience.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 





I'm not sure what he meant, but whatever


"He" probably doesn't know what he meant lol and that will probably be the back of him, shame he was getting quite entertaining.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Our disbelief in God could be considered a belief. The same way that not believing in Santa, is a belief.


Fooey on you!!

It's not even close to the same thing!!



I can easily prove that Santa doesn't exist.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a plausible theory for how and why everything in the universe is the way it is.

We simply don't have enough data to say much either which way, reasonably.

To think otherwise is pure hubris.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
If you believe in something but you cant accept that someone else has a different view and there is a possibility they may be correct - then your an idiot. Chritian, Athiest, Buddest or Jedi.
No one has the answers, this is why we call it a faith, and for science a theory.
edit on 2-2-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Rustami
 





sorry I assumed you knew what a Gideon NT (New Testament) was, yes that invisible Jesus mentioned in there, just like what Paul heard (in Acts9, John5) when he first believed that only said he was Jesus from invisibilty of whom he called Lord as I did of which no one can say or confess by their own natural power


OK, fair enough a voice in your heads says it's jesus the one in the Gideon NT and you choose to believe it,

So, what if the voice said it was Allah would you have believed it with equal conviction?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Except we know Santa is not real. It is not possible to know there is no Higher Power anywhere in the Universe, as it beyond our ability to know.

Now if you have all knowledge of the Universe(s), I bow to your wisdom willingly. Do you? If so, I have lot's of questions for you and you are somewhat of a Deity yourself it would seem. You could start with the moment of Creation of the Universe if you would. Just a brief synopsis would be fine.

To me the truth is that this whole argument is meaningless. A complete waste of time and arguing for arguments sake and I'm an idiot for letting myself be drawn into it. The only people who would argue this are Atheists who want to do away with Religion and force their views on others. The only people from my side who would engage in this argument are fools. Seems I'm a fool yet again.

I'll watch closely for your account of the origins of the Universe and all that is in it.

Sorry but the childish Santa argument was meant by you and anyone who uses it as an insult and I assure you People of Faith have the same mental capacities as anyone else. I often wonder why people can't admit it is their "theory" there is no God. Intellectual honesty would demand it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 
reply to post by byteshertz
 
reply to post by unityemissions
 
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


Originally posted by NewAgeMan




"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

Proof of non-locality or transluminal interconnectedness
Bell's Theorem
en.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem



edit on 2-2-2011 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


It's a guess, it's an unfalsifiable theory, while they are not always true, they are not always false either. I admit this.

The reality could be infinity, scientists still havn't confirmed causation. Trying to anthromorphize reality into a deity is just guesswork without knowing what is behind it or whether reality even has a begining and an end.

It's a primitive guess, Like thinking a volano is a deity, or that disease and illness is punishment.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


I've been quite entertained by the xtians in this thread. They try to turn the tables on me and ask me to prove that their god doesn't exist after I ask them to prove that it exists. They don't realize (or just don't care) that the burden of proof is on them when they assert that their god exists. All I've seen here are apologetic arguments that have no basis on evidence, which is enough to amuse me and make me laugh. If any evidence existed at all, I would know about it and it would have convinced me already. I guess it's too bad for them that I have the ability to determine the difference between truth and BS. You have that ability as well, but it doesn't seem to matter in this thread.
edit on 2/2/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join