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: 32
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   


Because they are both experts and proponents of "The one right way". I just want to be left alone as a pagan. You guys should get into a stadium with plenty of blunt instruments and beat each other up. You are both as bad on each other.

Sadly life is not fair.


Huh?

I'm neither Christian nor Pagan, I'm an atheist.

I'm beating nobody up. I believe in peace.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Parapsychology and the Skeptics


Those damn sceptics!!! Not willing to believe without evidence; how stupid - what an obvious disregard of the "truth".

Finding out more about the universe requires skepticism, it's how science progresses, thinking outside of the box, but remaining cautious about claims before asserting something as TRUTH or even asserting a belief in the claim.
edit on 3/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Well I have read 10 pages into the thread so far... this is just my take and opion on things that have been said so far. I consider myself a christian as I belive the teachings of christ. I dont believe in the God of the old testament as that is the Jewish take and I beleive in what Jesus says. I am a human being and am not Jesus nor am I perfect so I make many mistakes but I try and follow what christ teaches tho I may fall short. Nobody is perfect as neither am I. Have I hurt people? yes. Was it my intention or motive... no. Was it premeditated... no. With that said I try and forgive and cut people some slack as I would want. There are good and bad in any grouping, race, relgion and so forth everyone is an individual with their own strenths and weaknesses. No body is perfect... not even christians.. it seems some are holding christians to be christ like... well they are not christ even if they agree with his teachings and will always fall short. People are always singled out and bullied no matter what "group" you associate with... christians are bullied... atheists are bullied... muslims are bullied... and so forth much like the over weight kid in school. People get picked on for many reasons.. it seems no single group is the victim. As far as evolution goes I believe in change and adaptation... things evolve and change to adapt. I do not believe that humans came from a common ansestor as apes. I do not have belief that the missling link exists nor will be found as I have no faith in its exsistance. A professor of mine once pointed out that it takes faith to believe in science. Something can be known as scientific fact but maybe ten years later proven wrong by a new scientific discovery. So it takes faith to believe the current scientific fact presented before you is indeed 100% accurate and a fact. Anyways it made sense to me. I have been attacked for my personal beliefs and opinions but so has everyone for one reason or another. Anyway thats just my opinion.. I was a atheist for many years and believed in nothing but science and have experienced some strange experiances since then that caused me to question myself and my belief system. Feel free to rip me apart lol.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Call it natural progression,enabled through the provision of unlimited,unfettered,uncensored information available on the internet,religous people are in the initial stages of a global anxiety attack,who else could they "justifiably-ha ha ha"lash out at with all of their godly wrath?
If you arent following me yet--answer this question---we already know cloning is viable and is being done--soooo---what happened when they cloned the first human,which we must assume has already been done,DID IT ANIMATE AND COME TO LIFE ------------OR DID IT REMAIN LIFELESS?

Do we need god to create human life and a new "soul"------------OR NOT????????????

Do you understand that there is no escape from a global,cumulative reality anymore,there are no rocks left to hide under,if you cheat on your spouse ---you will be caught,if you steal from your friend---you will be caught,if you behave in a corrupt manner ANYWHERE----you will be held accountable.

So what happened with the human clone???or are we waiting for the vatican to tell us what to believe???

Do you see the inevitable future?If there are no lies and corruption-----WHAT TRUTH WILL YOU SEE?

Think about it because the time is now,if you were anticipating a day when the good would be seperated from the evil,YOU ARE A LIVING WITNESS.

Viva la Internet,no more darkness,no more manipulation,a new world,at a time when humanity needs it the most.

By the way,what do you think happened to the clon,did WE make it or do we need what some people call god to create a living human with its own soul?

You would think the churches would sure like to know wouldnt you,after all it would PROVE GOD EXISTS,I can think of billions of reasons to keep the question secret,oops I meant keep the ANSWER secret.

Do you see that the question answers itself through a failure to address the issue --- this is why it is referred to as a SEED of doubt.

You dont think we really stopped at Dolly do you,humans are still being used in lethal and damaging tests and experiments worldwide,,YOU REALLY THINK THEY STOPPED AT DOLLY.

Athiesm is being attacked because it is the only traditional avenue available to attack,we better hope it stays the only avenue,after all more humans have died inn religous wars than in all other wars combined---IMAGINE THAT----hope the godfearing just keep fearing---dont you??



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by one4all
 


I agree, lack of belief seems to be correlated with democratic modernised countries where knowledge and science is ripe, If my observation is correlated, the lack of belief, or at least non-religious belief can only grow.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lowki
 



Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by lowki
 



Originally posted by lowki
You could say that Atheists are heavily science-fearing individuals blinded by their faith *shrugs* it's more or less the same.


I'm sorry, but science and faith are mutually exclusive.

not at all,
you have faith in science.
You believe in what science tells you.


I believe it because I can test it. I believe it because anyone is free to test it and so many people have and those tests have shown that it works. Hell, we're testing science right now by just using our computers and the internet. We're testing dozens of things.



Belief is any thought you hold in consciousness,
especially those you re-visit and reinforce.


And belief =/= faith

Faith is a subset of belief, belief isn't a subset of faith.



Science also is a priesthood,
much like freemasonry there are three degrees,
Bachelor, Master, Doctor,
and there are high-priests which spread the faith
called teachers or professors.


Except that science isn't like the priesthood because you are free to challenge the establishment. Hell, a little nobody scientist from Germany turned the most highly held idea of physics, Newtonian mechanics, from the basis of all physics to merely a portion of it.





Atheism has nothing to do with science! It has to do with philosophy.

Science is a child of Philosophy.
Much like Buddhism is a child of Hinduism.


Only in that science stemmed from philosophical inquiry that relied on evidence rather than reason. They deal with two entirely different fields.



So you've never seen The Secret,


Oh, I did. I did and I laughed whilst my father (a physicist) just kept going "But...but...it...c'mon, even YOU (directed at me) know this stuff is wrong!"



where by Quantum-Entanglement (magic-spells),
and Observer Bias (allowing things to appear), we shape our experience.


[citation needed]

I'm sorry, but there's no evidence of observer bias actually changing anything above the observable quantum level and entanglement is the ability of a particle to be in two places at once, how is that a magic spell? The only 'magical' thing it could do is allow for instantaneous communication along vast distances.



Then how can you claim to know quantum-physics?
If you don't apply it in your daily life?


Because I know that quantum physics breaks down at the atomic level. Anything higher than the atomic level and you stop using quantum physics and can revert to Newton for some average stuff, but once you include any relatively high amount of speed and mass you get into Einstein's territory.







anyone that delves into M-Theory must admit to spirits,
or dimensional co-existing entities.


I'm sorry, but the existence of 11 dimensional spacetime doesn't necessarily imply its inhabitation by entities. Hell, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of what could exist in those other dimensions, if anything exists at all.

Actually If you look at any of the theories,
you'll find that there are infinite worlds,
that can even have us in them, with slight variations.
but considering they are infinite, it's just about anything.


Except that the 'many worlds' idea is a hypothesis and I've never seen an 'infinite worlds' hypothesis proposed.





Furthermore, M-theory still exists in the realm of competing theories. It isn't necessarily proven, though the experiments at CERN might shed light on it.

Physics hasn't had a testable theory in over 70 years,
since the birth of String Theory. *shrugs*


Higgs-Boson, 1964. We're testing for it right now. It's one of the things that the LHC is testing. In fact, pretty much everything that it's testing is around 50 years old.
That's off the top of my friggin head! I didn't even need to blink to put that down.



As steven colbert calls it,
"numerical masturbation"


Great comedian, not a good scientist.







If they don't then they haven't applied the science to their own lives.

...I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand science.

You the one that does not apply science to daily life.


I do apply science to my daily life. I keep a certain distance from the cars in front of me by doing quick momentum calculations in my head to make sure I have enough room to brake (my brakes aren't all that good, and it's the only quick calculation I can do off the top of my head).

I also have been applying the scientific method to my daily life since I could understand it (again, my father is a physicist). I test everything via the scientific method in varying degrees.



Is telling me, a person that does apply science to daily life.


I'm sorry, but you think that quantum entanglement means 'magic spells' and that observer bias does something perceivable on the macro level.



Just think about it, I'm a scientist, since I apply the Scientific Method.

Hypothesis, Procedure, Result Analysis.
And I write down my experiments.


Actually, the scientific method is a tad more complex than that:

Observe phenomenon
Come up with hypothesis
Set up experiment with large enough data set, controls to make sure that you are testing only one point of information, blinding to prevent observer bias, etc.
Experiment and repeat.
Check results.
See if they confirm your hypothesis or not.
Explain why they do or do not.
And (most importantly) peer review to see if you did everything right and to allow others to test your claims.





I'm sorry, but how is 'accepting claims without evidence or understanding or reason' opening yourself up?


I'm not sure what claims your referring to.

Is your mind making claims,
and you're denying they are valid?


No, your claims. Hell, "The Secret" is a book/video that is full of nothing but unsupported claims wrapped in misrepresentation of science.







Able to transcend the boundaries set by book-religions and materialist-atheism.


Atheism is not inherently materialist. I am a materialist separate from my atheism.

Really so what Immaterial or Spiritual things do Atheists believe?


I don't know. I am a materialist atheist. You'd have to ask a non-materialist atheist (Benevolent Heretic is one)



It's supported by the experience of many thousands/millions of Mystics.


And here I thought you said you were scientific. Experience is not scientific. You have to provide evidence that is testable, repeatable, and controlled.



I'm not sure you've heard, but there is this going around called the Awakening.


Le sigh...yeah, I've been on ATS long enough to know that this sort of stuff is cyclical.



The materialist half of it is realizing the powers that be,
Though the spiritual half is also present.
Ya maybe you'd like to look it up...


There is no evidence of the powers that be.







here is the original thread, contrasting outer-theism with inner-theism:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3/2/11 by lowki because: original thread


Tis a silly thread.

You didn't even look.



I looked at it earlier this week. In fact, it's part of the reason I put a rant about how there isn't much in the way of actual philosophy in that forum.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nivekronnoco
 


Oh hey look, more random abuse!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 



Originally posted by something wicked
Now you are actually starting to be a little silly. What theories? How large was the survey pool? What were the questions asked? Why have you focussed on Christianity? Would another monotheistic religion have produced different results?


For the most recent study, you'll find your answers here.



Define why Christianity is 'stupid' - define stupid.


This would take a whole thread. Aside from the fact that it's based on contradictory texts? Aside from the fact that its central prophecy is ~1950 years overdue? Aside from the immoral ethical teachings? Aside from the misogyny?

Stupid: Wrong, illogical, unproven, and damaging.



Look at this thread, I have seen several atheists describe atheism in different ways when really there is only one - refusal to take faith alone as a reason for acceptance (although one atheist then went on to say how they were sure of the existence of ET life and was very specific about it - faith?).


No, atheism has 3 forms.
Agnostic atheism: Doesn't know or not, doesn't take it on faith.
Gnostic atheism: Claims to know or have a good enough argument to declare deities don't exist.
Implicit atheism: An individual who doesn't even know about the concept of a deity and therefore cannot believe in one. This would include babies.



That's fine, I may or may not be of the same thought, but please, it's an opinion that some people have. That doesn't make it a movement of like minded people with a common purpose which seems to come across as a perception a lot over the last few pages.


We've become a group of somewhat similarly minded people lately because we're actually starting to come out of the woodwork. We have a few purposes, though not all atheists share them. But the main thing we do share is that we think we deserve to be treated like people.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lowki
 


None of the claims made in that video are actually backed up by real scientific evidence. They've all been debunked. Now, if you want to hop on over to O&C I'll go over the whole 26 minute video and show you. I'm not going to do it in this thread that has nothing to do with that.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


I was referring to how Condemned's statement was so out of this world (pun intended) with regard to the possibility of intelligent atheistic life on exoplanets.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lowki
 


Um..Christ comes from 'Kristos' or "anointed one". It was used to refer to anyone who was anointed, including the head priest of the Temple in Jerusalem. What's odd is that you claim this guy went to India...and that he existed...when there's absolutely no evidence to show that he either existed or went to India.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
32 pages and this is still going strong?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by lowki
 


It would be a bit silly, wouldn't it? Why would I want to take an oath to a fictional being? I mean, I'm not going to carry out the oath, so why bother? It's silly.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I would amend this. I don't have a problem with all of his teachings, I do have a problem with some. I don't like the whole hell thing, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit into a just system of ethics. I mean, that's just one of his ideas, but it's a big one.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Re Tiger 5

Just for the record: Apart from my years at university and my interest in theoretically and practically applied metaphysics (and associated subjects), I've been an active farmer for 25 years and have a couple of professional craftsman's educations.

Hope you're not pulling a 'us common-sense down-to-earth types' on me. I'm no egghead.

Quote: ["If there are little spiritual entities why not great big ones that we may call deities?"]

You have to define the proper categories of the various entities first. Maybe 'little' spiritual entities aren't in the same group as 'deities', because the alleged 'little' entities are of this cosmos.

But if necessarily taken in a black/white optional choice (something I try to avoid), it's more reasonable to think, that an alleged Jahveh and his gang are entities from 'inside' creation, rather than letting fairies, djinns and small greys 'prove' (by wrong categorization) that Jahveh is 'outside' creation.

So through inductively based guesses, an alleged Jahveh is more likely to be some cosmic entity playing 'god'.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD
 


My answer to those who claim and find "proof" on the Internet that Atheism is a belief. You can always find someone to agree with you.

Atheism is absence of belief of a deity. That is all it is. Nothing else.

Doesn't mean an Atheist can't be interested in other things/theories.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
What do athiests make of the dead sea scrolls? Do they think they are "forged"?

What do athiests make of the 12 apostles that travelled the ancient world to spread the word of god? Where they "hallucinating" visions....maybe taking drugs??? And what about the last supper and the mona lisa?

How could the jews persecute jesus and hang him if they didn't believe he was the false messiah?

Just curious is all...I could come up with more questions because somehow I think athiests are not thinking straight and jumping to premature conclusions...........:....

Thats not to suggest the bible has remained authentic because after 2000 years and "wod of mouth" the message could have been perverted quite a bit and many "controversial" texts banned by the pagan romans!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





Hi, just out of interest, why do some people on here use the phrase Xtian? Do you have a problem with someone named Chris? Surely you need to also remove the 't' also if you wish to indulge in such games?
[/quot

Well I can only speak for myself , it's just a matter of indolence, as for indulging, well I don't need to do anything.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Re Iowki

Kind of following up on Madness' recent answers to you, it would be interesting to know, how you exactly go from e.g. the double-split experiment to 'observer-created' reality. You must have SOME micro-to-macrocosmos link.....,

.......or maybe you have just looked at 'What the bleep do we know?' two times already and are now a qualified specialist.

You see, I've spent app. the last 15 years of my life on the specific problem of an epistemology suitable for syncretistically unification of (the more reasonable) claims from many different directions. And I would love to find (at least somewhat) convincing conclusions on 'observer created existence', as it is my present favourite epistemological position.

But darn it, if I'll go out and make a fool of myself by using the populistic evangelist and new-age methodology of having the answer and tailoring the 'facts' to fit it.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join