It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by unityemissions

The conclusions they reach are usually so nonsensical.

A bit like Sunday at church

Are you assuming I go to church, or believe in God?!

I don't.

But do agree, it's on the same level of absurdity, imo.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

The new paradigms emerging from modern science, and God, are or can be, entirely complimentary and need not be mutually exclusive by any means.

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch

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

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality

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's_theorem

reposted that so that it doesn't get glossed over while the atheists call all believers foolish, idiotic, their views absurd, etc. etc. etc.

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

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

Highlighting idiots and exposing disinformation sounds like the pursuit of truth to me. They're obviously interested in truth. I've been giving the same ridicule as they do to theists in this thread, but you haven't objected to it at all. Am I the exception?

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by kallisti36

I also find joy in my friends and don't much care if they don't exist based on your limited understanding of reality, in that case I will reject your "reality" for my own and become a whimsical solipsist.

My understanding of reality is not limited. Are you implying that yours isn't and mine is? By the way, I never called you childish. I merely stated that religion has no evidence and there are too many absurdities for me to believe any of it. Having a closed mind and basing your understanding of reality on one conceptual book IS a limited understanding of reality. I do no such thing.

Solipsism - the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

Are you sure you want to go that route?

You did make a blanket statement of theists being childish.

The solipsism comment was a joke, but there's more to it than the belief that only you exist, it's basically deciding reality for yourself.

You do happen to have a very limited understanding of the universe, as do I. We can't see x-rays or feel gamma rays or see ultraviolet light. At best we are only viewing the intricacies of the universe through a crack in the door. This is the same reason why I believe trying to understand the nature of an eternal omnipotent being is impossible.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by Annee

You are completely excused. Did you consider the context they chose to express themselves was insulting and offensive? By your definition of atheism there is no licence to be rude, supercilious or to be a troll.

The only interests these individuals expressed was deliberate Hijacking of threads and general breaches in netiquette. And that my dear is the central issue I find with Both the Abrahamic religions and the skeptics both sides assume they know what is best and their evangelical (yes evangelical atheism) enjoy zealously acting in a way that breaches netiquette.

I actually try not be rude on line but I get annoyed at some of the sneery atheists simply because I can probably give better than they.

I rerally have no interest in whatever atheists choose to enquire into.
edit on 2-2-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by kallisti36
This is the same reason why I believe trying to understand the nature of an eternal omnipotent being is impossible.

God cannot be explained. He cannot be argued about. He cannot be theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood. God can only be lived... (Bhakti..?)

To understand the infinite, eternal Reality is not the GOAL of individualized beings in the illusion of Creation, because the Reality can never be understood (and why would we want to and ruin the suprise)l it is to be realized by conscious experience.

Therefore, the GOAL is to realize the Reality and attain the I am (of) God state in human form."

~ Meher Baba (parentheses added by me)

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

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by Condemned0625

I was simply saying i don't enjoy Pen & Teller, i guess, personally, i don't like their content to ridicule ratio.

I'm more than happy collectively acknowledge the stupidity of organised religion and SOME of it's followers.

It can be true comedy and on ATS, it can often be informative. A common finding i have noticed is the clear abundance of wit and a sense of irony amongst non-believers and Atheists alike.

I hope it didn't appear that i was attacking you. Keep spreading the good word.
edit on 2/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:01 PM

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by awake_and_aware

of interest

So? Deepak Chopra is an idiot, if a well meaning one. He's a New Age self help guru who writes patronizing fan-fiction about religious figures. Like many of these New Age self help gurus, he's theologically ignorant and would fail an entry level class on theology.

Case in point: "was it not Christ who said to His followers 'give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

I do have to agree with AlienScientist's analysis of Penn and Teller's Area 51 episode. I never watched that particular episode because they can't disprove UFOs and Area 51 activities. There's a preponderance of evidence for flying saucers, secret technologies, secret bases, government disinformation (to protect their secrets) and government secrecy in general. I've been a subscriber to AlienScientist for a while. But, even the available evidence is not enough for some people. Some will expect a flying saucer to devote its time to them and land on their front lawns before they believe it.
edit on 2/2/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by kallisti36

I can't stand Deepak Chopra either and I'm the ah.. "NewAgeMan"!

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:04 PM
OMG! I'm about to lose my lack of belief.

edit on 2-2-2011 by trailertrash because: (
edit on 2-2-2011 by trailertrash because: I forgot to include the neato icon

note to mods. I could be in compliance with the rules but if I were then the snappiness, timeliness, appropriateness and their requirements for the use of intellectually satisfying trendy and brief attributes would perhaps be confused with a need, on my part, or by some readers for an explanation of why, exactly, the author found it necessary to expand so in a comment which would have been much more to the point had he/she cut it down to the minimum necessary for understanding. This is due, in part, to the ability of the average person to create in visual form a vision of that which is suggested. I suppose, however, that since not everyone is so equipped that I might just add "yo mama" or some other adjectively qualifying exponentially defining whatever.

edit on 2-2-2011 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2011 by trailertrash because: (no reason given)
extra DIV

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

To be clear, I was talking about a specific group of people in the New Age movement, not the entire movement.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:09 PM
Re Student X

To my somewhat shame, I had to look up 'emic' and 'etic' (as they are after my time as a student), but I'm not sure, that I'll subscribe to the terminology/destinction, as it seems to be a kind of deflectionary maneuver FROM epistomology TOWARDS methdology, which in an ATS context could lead weak souls onto a track of 'counting angels on a pin' (something I've spent considerable time and energy to avoid). It's bad enough with the simplistic circle-argumentation.

I would prefer to stay with the relatively uncomplicated deduction/induction dichotomy (even though that seems a brick-wall to the theist mindset).

But signs of some slowly emerging communication ARE manifesting. It's acceptable to roam around at the edge containing fanciful zero-point physics and such stuff as the double-split experiment. This will probably be the new, but housebroken, approach to anomalies, which extremist theists and atheists will 'have to' refer to.

If not for anything else, because a refusal to join such a communication opportunity would indicate pigheadedness for the refusing part, thus loosing face; a terrible situation for an agitator.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Well I don't know about other people, but I find most Atheists annoying. Maybe people are just annoyed. It has nothing to do with a god either. I also think it is silly though when people give Atheists a hard time because they don't obey any set of codes from any religious texts. Both ends of the spectrum annoy me a bit. Many Atheists get a bit cocky about it just as many followers of the older religions do.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

I actually like Penn and Teller, despite being a theist. Probably because I'm a libertarian. I just don't like their Biblical and conspiracy themed episodes because they're more focused on scoffing and psuedo skepticism and they also aren't very good with theology (as though the Israelites mixed up geographic locations and actually crossed the REED SEA. lame.) But even as far as dealing with theists, they're actually pretty curteous, especially to fans. I recall Penn talking about a fan who gave him a Gideon's Bible and instead of freaking out about it (like Dawkins and Hitchens would) he recognized that the fan cared about him and his well being.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by kallisti36

So? Deepak Chopra is an idiot, if a well meaning one. He's a New Age self help guru who writes patronizing fan-fiction about religious figures. Like many of these New Age self help gurus, he's theologically ignorant and would fail an entry level class on theology.

Well it's great to see intelligence standing up against this ignorance in debate, and with such ease. I imagine he's "Self-helping" his way to people's pockets too

You see such ignorance and blind disregard of reason, logic by such zealots as Ken Hovind, Ayan Rand, William Lane Craig - they have a certain talent of sounding somewhat convincing despite completely lacking any intellectual content or cognition.

I could listen to this man speak for hours and hours and never get tired of his voice and thoughts.

He's a great example of someone truly educated in philosophy, religion and history. If his argument is found wanting, his content is still informative. I urge you to watch more of this man if you have not done so already. True free thinker, thinking for freedom!
edit on 2/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Someone gave me one of his books to read. I haven't gotten to reading this yet. What about it bothers you. I want to know so I can keep an eye out for it.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

I really do hope Hitchens doesn't die from his cancer. Medicine has greatly improved over the past few years, so maybe he'll recover. I recommend this man as well.

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Rustami

You wrote:

["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"]

Personally I consider Paulus as one of the greatest scammers in historical time.

Then this circle-argumentation claim of using specific names on/about Jesus as a 'proof'. Your formal reasoning is void, and your specific use of it 'majic'.

You see, ......I, Bogomil the enlightened, but somewhat confused at times, in reality the first cousin of the spaghetti monster, send here to chasten all who are egg-noodle enthusiasts.

I can prove this: Only true believers in the spaghetti monster can say his name, without being struck with lightening. As many actually HAVE said the real name of the spaghetti monster, without being struck by lightening, this proves two things. !/ That the spaghetti monster exists, and 2/ That spaghetti monsterism is numerically superior to christianity, when it comes to the amount of 'true' believers in the 'true' spaghetti faith.

My logic is as impeccable as yours. Now we can switch to competing on intrinsic holiness.

see what I said (pg13 1st) but "majic" is a new one
sorry not going to waste anymore time addressing your "hopeful" guesswork as in the past, good luck

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:23 PM

There is no way in hell that the universe went from atoms to Shakespeare out of random stabs. This is an extraordinarily driven process. And all of this, without exception, is driven by love.
~ Ken Wilber.

Evolutionary Christian Mysticism..?

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in