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

reply to post by something wicked

Obviously you have an issue with one faith in particular, does it spread to others?

Obviously I do and yes it does

Please share any collateral from a non fringe aspect of any religion that shows humans happily cohabiting the planet with dinosaurs please - would be interested to see it, but remember, non fringe only please.

What is and is not a fringe aspect of someone else's club is not for me to decide , I'm not really concerned how cults split themselves up. No doubt you are attempting to disassociate yourself from certain types ?

Would I be correct in assuming you are one of the "true christians" and the rest are a fringe movement ?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tiger5

 

Why does it take 18 months? Why can't you just show what you do? And not a single scientific paper has proven psychic abilities, let alone a meta analysis of studies done.

Here's the thing, proof is acceptable. Lots of it would be. Like if you could simply demonstrate your abilities. You don't have to train someone else for 18 months to prove that the thing exists. If it exists, you should be able to demonstrate it independently. If you could repeatedly demonstrate it in a controlled environment, I doubt anyone would be skeptical once they see the proof.

I just wanted to point out not all things that have been scientifically proven were always known facts yet it was eventually shown to be true. I mean how many people a thousand years ago could unequivically prove a atom exsisted. Thats just a little atom... I think trying to scientifically prove a supreme being existed would take alot more brain power that we humans are able to provide at this time. Things that are proven in science how do we not know a supreme being designed it as such. If the big bang theory is 100% true how do we not know that a supreme being created the "bang" to begin with. I just think the unknown does not nessicarily mean it factually does not exist. I beleive anything is possible unless proven otherwise. By the way please excuse any typos in any of my posts.. I proof read and try my best to spell and type correctly.

Re EarthCitizen07

You wrote:

["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"]

It would be even more reasonable "not to suggest", that the bible ever was 'authentic' on anything except maybe as somewhat relating to an alleged person and his disciples, who maybe said and did this and that or maybe not (as according to his alleged biography NT).

The popular Sherlock Holmes books were originally based on Conan Doyles' teacher, but the fictionalized results don't 'prove' anything about the role-model, even less about whatever philosophy or religion he had, and if they were 'true'.

reply to post by lowki



So, you up for doing some online magik for us in this thread then?

Or am I adding your silence to my little book of BS excuses ?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tiger5

 

We have no direct evidence that they had no theistic belief, but we also have no evidence to show that humans always had a theistic belief.

The most famous evidence for a tribal culture with no theistic belief is the Pirahãs. They're even famous for recently deconverting a missionary sent there. Source for this claim.

Now, I'm not 100% sure if there are more, but the fact that there is one culture with absolutely no conception of a deity is quite a lot.

Well the point was Mr Lizards ancestors like most of the people on this site had theistic beliefs. I confess I find this is something that I see no purpose in denying.

I appreciate the link by the way it is the exceptions that make life interesting. I read it as soon as I saw it.

reply to post by sterlingmoon

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.

Are you referring to the character that appears in the new testaments known commonly as jesus ?

How do you square that jesus beleived in yahwhe the god of the old testament ?

Do you believe that jesus was a god ie the creater of all that there is was or will ever be ? If so why do you choose to believe this, do you take it on faith or are you convinced by evidence provide by other men ?

Re Sterlingmoon

You wrote:

["I just think the unknown does not nessicarily mean it factually does not exist. I beleive anything is possible unless proven otherwise."]

Ofcourse the unknown is unknown in a positivist sense (meaning no conclusive answers as to WHAT it IS can be formed). But as to what it is not, we can with reasonable certainty exclude the flying spaghetti monster as the ONLY canditate of ultimate reality. He (or she as may be) has competition from Jahveh, Zeus, Allah etc.

Next: We can also continue and question the idea of a deity in general. An alleged ultimate reality would most likely be something so unconcievable by human standards, that giving it anthropomorfic qualities is ridiculous (we can't even conceptualize the alleged new dimensions in string- and M-brane theory except through a complex mathematical model).

Next: Contemporary science suggests strongly, that causality (as known in cosmos) breaks down beyond 'event horizon' (sometimes known as 'creation'). IF there is causality beyong event horizon, it wouldn't be the household version from our universe.

There are too many unknown premises for even educated guesses. Those insisting on 'answers' on the unknown are just fabulating.

reply to post by sterlingmoon


Well this will prove that what is called the supernatural exists via a series of trainings that would yield psychic events and sight and sense of spirits. I am beginning to feel that the atheists have a beef with the idea of a supreme being but not beings. The problem is that they all have lsightly different takes on the matter. Also this thread is about atheists v Xtians so perhaps I am in the wrong place as I am neither.

I believe in the existence of a supreme being. Said thing is so remote from us that their are numerous intermediaries to interact with. I have no scientific proof of the existence of the supreme being. Do I loose sleep over such a situation? Nope. Do I have the urge to harass people in the street about my beliefs? Nope. Do I enjoy the thought police chasing after me to renounce my beliefs? nope.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by sterlingmoon

 

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.

Are you referring to the character that appears in the new testaments known commonly as jesus ?

How do you square that jesus beleived in yahwhe the god of the old testament ?

Do you believe that jesus was a god ie the creater of all that there is was or will ever be ? If so why do you choose to believe this, do you take it on faith or are you convinced by evidence provide by other men ?

edit on 3-2-2011 by The Djin because: edit

edit on 3-2-2011 by The Djin because: (no reason given)

He does believe in the god of the old testament but according to his teachings god is much different than what man portrayed him to be in the old testament. Wheather he was a character or not has yet to be proven one way or the other but you are free to believe as you want. I am in the beginnings of comming to my own personal understandings of things regaurding faith. No I do not get my belief from other men persay... but what makes sense to me from everything that was presented to me or that I have come across... as I do with everything. Faith is tricky for me as I am still learning but I use to have faith in nothing except science.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is just my guess but I'll share it.

There are a number of topics discussed here on ATS that many have strong feelings about. Given that - they are usually discussed with a certain passion and conviction by those on both sides of the issue. But, because each side has equal passion and conviction the number of actual "conversions" (for lack of a better word) to the opposite view is usually small. In other words, in these topics its rare to have anyone say, "Gee, you are right and I am wrong. Thank you for opening my eyes." regardless of what is said or presented.

The "for" and "against" threads regarding these topics tend to wax and wane depending on the activity of the other side at the time. Call it "that side defending their view", call it "retaliation to other threads", call it what you will - it happens - it is human nature.

These topics vary but usually fall into certain categories. US Politics (left vs right, pro-gun vs anti-gun, etc). World Events / Politics / Patriotism ( Pro-US vs Anti-US, discussions around the Mid East (Iran, Islam, Israel, etc) and Region / Atheism ( Religion (usually Christianity) vs Atheism). Topics around these issues pop up on both sides quite frequently.

Sometimes good discussion can be had on this. Sometimes though, various believers of Side "A" in whatever the issue is may feel that Side "B" has been banging their drum, tooting their horn, beating their dead horse, etc.. a bit too loudly and frequently. So, Side "B" will retaliate by tooting their horn, banging their drum and beating their dead horse with just as much (or more) vigor than Side "A". Of course, usually neither side will admit to doing this.

I'm not saying it's planned. Usually it stems from someone on one side of the issue feeling the other side has gotten a bit out of hand and basically posting to that effect and it goes from there...

Pretty much human nature. I think "A" - you think "B". Both of us believe in A and B deeply (respectively) - so deeply that it is unlikely either of us will change our views very much. If I go around saying how great A is and how bad B is over and over you'll start defending B or attacking A.

reply to post by bogomil


Goosebumps at resposne.

Keep it up Bogomil.

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by sterlingmoon

 

Well this will prove that what is called the supernatural exists via a series of trainings that would yield psychic events and sight and sense of spirits. I am beginning to feel that the atheists have a beef with the idea of a supreme being but not beings. The problem is that they all have lsightly different takes on the matter. Also this thread is about atheists v Xtians so perhaps I am in the wrong place as I am neither.

I believe in the existence of a supreme being. Said thing is so remote from us that their are numerous intermediaries to interact with. I have no scientific proof of the existence of the supreme being. Do I loose sleep over such a situation? Nope. Do I have the urge to harass people in the street about my beliefs? Nope. Do I enjoy the thought police chasing after me to renounce my beliefs? nope.

Even tho you are neither a atheist or christian does not mean you can not weigh in on your own personal opinon.. I mean everyone has opinions and thoughts and there is such a thing as freedom of speech so express away lol. All I can say and comment on is my own personal experiences and beliefs/opinions. I by no means claim to hold all the answers, as a matter of fact I have way more questions than answers. Btw I have been told more than once I ask alot of questions lol. I suppose just like athiests, christians, agnostics, muslim ect. we are all different.. You can't really pigion hold anyone to a certainty based on their "label". I do not loose sleep over it either because what is... is. We are powerless over it... whether that be nothing exists or a specific God or or many Gods. Like I said this is relatively new to me and I believe what makes sense to me personally.

reply to post by sterlingmoon


I believe the mistake of mankind is to talk about God in terms of [certainities (definitives/absolutes) before evidence, even if God is true. It's certainly seems that God is not a caring God if "HE" does exist.

Re Frogs

You're right, but there can be some ulterior or alternative motives, such as my own.

I don't do this to 'win'. I do it as a protest against evangelist efforts of 'taking over'. 'Taking over' being a tactic I've seen used in many contexts of elitist extremist Machiavellian maneuvering.

E.g. in my youth a few hundred hard-core commies infiltrated a basically poltical neutral peace-movement of tens-of-thousands of people, and used the peace-movement for their own propagandistic purposes. (And ofcourse eventually discrediting the whole peace-movement).

Evangelists try to do similar every chance they get.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by tiger5

 

Why does it take 18 months? Why can't you just show what you do? And not a single scientific paper has proven psychic abilities, let alone a meta analysis of studies done.

Here's the thing, proof is acceptable. Lots of it would be. Like if you could simply demonstrate your abilities. You don't have to train someone else for 18 months to prove that the thing exists. If it exists, you should be able to demonstrate it independently. If you could repeatedly demonstrate it in a controlled environment, I doubt anyone would be skeptical once they see the proof.

Firstly there are several meta studies. I cannot understand why you are so far behind the curve.

You should learn to use search engines. If you google this

"esp + metastudy"

You will find that there have been at least twenty in the last ten years. The reason is that the field is huge and rapidly evolving.

A new paper is coming out soon and has been mentioned in the NY times.

I am not a perfoming chimp. I will show you the proof and you can do with it as you will but you will have your proof as I have mine. Alsoi the beauty of the experiment is that you can then set upo your own experiments as I have. I really have no time for armchair practioners of anything.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by zombiesC4

 

They will say Christianity is stupid but they don't have any evidence to back it up why they said that (by the way I'm not christian)

A chrisitian will often take the word of another man who who may have died a thousand or so years ago, without leaving any trace of himself, on blind faith , without requiring a shred of corroborating evidence nor skeptical inquiry.

That my friend, appears to be the height of stupidity.

Insisting or depicting human beings happily cohabiting the planet with the dinosaurs takes stupidity to the level of retardation.

I completely agree! But Atheism isn't the greatest religion either.

Re Tiger5

Mainly the problem is, that a major part of the 'researchers' of anomalies have been self-appointed 'specialists'; not above faking credentials. The whole subject has thus been discredited to the extent, that no serious and competent person wants to touch it with a ten-feet pole.

And I can sympathize with this reluctance from the establishment. If you first have to dig through diploma mill claims, then criticize a public pseudo-science guru with a group of disciples, who hardly know the minor multiplication table, even less the most basic principles of science and logic; it's just a waste of time in an area with no will for self-regulation.

Your own variety of an 'offer' of demonstration and application of whatever system you use, I saw already in the sixties. Always being either a scam or a result of self-delusion. Remember the craze about 'A course in miracles' or the wave of teaching 'shamans' following in the wake of Carlos Castaneda.

The fake-esoteric claim: "I can't bother to present my method to the vulgar" is as old a trick of selling spiritual snake-oil as anything from the flowery-powery days.

You're not exactly bringing credibility or glory to the subject of anomalies.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What do athiests make of the dead sea scrolls? Do they think they are "forged"?

You mean the oldest drafts of the old testament documents...which happen to be several hundred years removed from the supposed originals? Why would I have to think that they're forged? There's nothing connecting them to the New Testament.

What do athiests make of the 12 apostles that travelled the ancient world to spread the word of god?

Where's the historical evidence of this? I'm talking accounts of this written during their lifetimes, of course.

Where they "hallucinating" visions....maybe taking drugs???

Or maybe they didn't exist. Or maybe they thought what they believed was true, even if they were wrong. Hell, we see it all the time these days with the cults that spring up. Some may spring up out of malevolence, but many simple arise because people are honestly mistaken.

And what about the last supper and the mona lisa?

The Last Supper? Which one? Oh, I'm guessing since you mentioned it in conjunction with the Mona Lisa you're referring to Da Vinci's take on the painting...

It's a painting that expressed a religious sentiment, what of it? And what does the Mona Lisa have to do with theism?

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

There is no historical record of the crucifixion of Jesus. And there are all sorts of reasons he could have been crucified...he made the priestly class look bad, he broke sabbath rules, he did all sorts of things punishable by death under their law.

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...........:....

No, we're really not. You're jumping to premature conclusions in the face of a lack of evidence. I'm sure you're honestly mistaken. I don't think you're a bad person, you're short sighted, or anything like that. You just happened upon the wrong conclusion, it happens to the best of us

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!

Why is it that you guys blame the Romans for so much? There probably wouldn't be modern Christianity if not for the Romans instituting Christianity as a state religion. In a single command they turned Christianity from a fringe group into the official religion of an empire.

Sure, the possibility exists that it might have developed into an isolate religion, but it's highly unlikely that it would have gained the momentum it needed to be where it is today.

Re ZombiesC4

Quote: ["But Atheism isn't the greatest religion either."]

This will come as a great, great, great surprise for you. And it will probably take you some time to adjust to the completely new pespective of existence it will result in.

Hang on, here it comes:

"Atheism isn't a religion"

Actually this is a kind of secret, and you're amongst the first to be told. You probably even could get in trouble, if you pass it on the the wrong people. So keep mum for a while until the furore has settled a bit.

The way to this revolutionary insight has been long and hard. Involving several minutes with dictionaries, and in my own role of being a frontier fighter, also 20 minutes on Wikipedia on 'inductive categories' (don't worry, I don't suggest that you repeat this mindboggling and exhausting research. Just trust me on my word).

I had to change an intellectual fuse two times in the process.

reply to post by zombiesC4


Well, it isn't a religion. Of course it isn't the greatest religion if it isn't even one. It's a lack of a single belief. A religion, on the other hand, is an entire construct of beliefs surrounding the supernatural.