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: 41
34
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
A kind of cosmic McCarthy'ism then? But how can you be sure, that you're siding with the good guys?


I can't be sure of anything! Are you sure the sun will rise tomorrow?



Originally posted by bogomil
You relate to a cosmic scope, and let one confused and self-contradictory book be your manual on cosmic ethics.


I did not find it "confused and self-contradictory".


Originally posted by bogomil
And redemption doctrine then, where does that fit in?


What are you talking about




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I don't know. You should be honest and admit that you don't know as well. Saying things like "My god is this, my god is that" and "God exists!" is NOT proof. You're just babbling about it because you believe it.

Why don't you accept any of the other gods? Why do you make a special exception for yours? You agree that evidence does not exist for the others, but you claim there is evidence for yours? Nonsense. Your god concept is in the same exact position as the rest and that is the position of lacking conclusive evidence. Your argument was already flawed as soon as you said this:


God exists.


Oh yeah? Prove it.

These assertions are not proof.


God is omnipresent, God is everywhere.
God is omnipotent, God is all knowing and all powerful
God is Omnibenevolent, God is all loving.


I can say the same thing about The Flying Spaghetti Monster. What a joke.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryJoy
 


You must have missed the rest of my paragraph, you know, the part when I explained how infinite regression is also a problem for god concepts. Go back and read the whole thing. I'm tired of people skimming through my responses, cherry-picking certain parts and ignoring the rest.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


I did read your entire post...your reference to infinite regression is irrelevant in the light of the fact that intelligent life-forms exist. And to follow the line of infinite regression would deny that FACT !!!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Re Something wicked

You wrote:

["You can't not believe in a deity if you don't know what a deity is - hence my point about implicit atheism that you didn't actually answer."]

Isn't scholastic a wonderful thing? Anything can be proved or disproved or non-proved or non-disproved if you can tire out opposition with an abundance of 'angels on a pin'.

Here's my scholastic proof that theism actually is a derivative of atheism, not the other way round:

Theism is a disbelief in non-God. To disbelieve you need to understand the concept of non-God(s) to reject it, therefore if you do not know the concept you neither accept or reject it. Using your logic you could also call someone who is not familiar with the concept an implicit atheist.

Quote (originally adressed to Madness): ["You can say differently as much as you like, frankly it doesn't make you right, it's your opinion. I've said I consider your opinion ridiculous, it is."]

Exactly my opinion on you, according to my 'proof' above.

Quote (originally adressed to Madness): [" So you play to the audience entertainment a key factor, focus on one religious group as it's the one you know best and are selective even at that point. Ok, a troll then."]

Sorry, it's MY niche to play idiot. Madness is usually rational, polite and patient.

edit on 4-2-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
I don't know. You should be honest and admit that you don't know as well. Saying things like "My god is this, my god is that" and "God exists!" is NOT proof. You're just babbling about it because you believe it.


Thank YOU! I do not know either. I never said I did. I said we cannot fully comprehend God. My God is unknowable in its origin.



Originally posted by Condemned0625
Why don't you accept any of the other gods?


Because the other Gods have limits. They are known. The can be PROVEN away. We know that the thunder is not God for their is much greater than thunder. The lesser cannot be the Greater!


Originally posted by Condemned0625
Why do you make a special exception for yours?


Because mine does not have dogma attached. All mine asks of me is to love one another. It asks me to love one another because we are all his creation. If I harm another, I am harming another of his creations. If I Judge another, I have judged his work. I do not Judge science. It is a tool. A method of understanding. It is a language by which we have come to understand even more about our universe, his creation.



Originally posted by Condemned0625
You agree that evidence does not exist for the others, but you claim there is evidence for yours?


Everything is part of mine. To say that the evidence does not exist is to say nothing exists. What I am saying is that while there is evidence, it is no where near enough to claim to understand it. I am not claiming to understand. I am claiming to be in love with what it is to be.


Originally posted by Condemned0625
Nonsense. Your god concept is in the same exact position as the rest and that is the position of lacking conclusive evidence. Your argument was already flawed as soon as you said this:


My God is the unknown. If you want to prove to me that the unknown does not exist, then prove everything about existence. Then, I will call you God.


Originally posted by Condemned0625
These assertions are not proof.


They are logic. You cannot prove logic with science. You can only prove logic with logic. Use your logic to disprove what I have said. I have offered the logical proof, the scientific proof is still being discovered.


Originally posted by Condemned0625
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is omnipresent, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is everywhere.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is omnipotent, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all knowing and all powerful
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Omnibenevolent, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all loving.


God is just a word to label a concept. If Flying Spaghetti Monster works for you, and the Flying spaghetti monster represents these concepts, then I will love the The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Regardless of whether you accept this idea my friend. Can you not see what we are doing to this world around us? Can you not see how we are wiping out our own existence over our own thoughts?

I will keep my thoughts to myself and never trouble you again if you can just see for a moment that we are creating this world we have. We are destroying it with the pain we cause one another. No word is worth this. No not one. If the word offends you, then strike it from our lexicon. I can live with loving the unknown, I can live with loving life. That is all we are supposed to do.

Anything less results in our own destruction. The proof is all around you.

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 4-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryJoy
 


Incorrect. Infinite regression does not exclude biological life. The universe is always possible without a god. To claim that it's impossible without a god, you must then demonstrate that a god is possible in the first place, which you cannot do. I always notice the loopholes you theists use in your claims.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Now you're not making sense at all. More loopholes and deductive reasoning. Nice job. By the way, I'm still not your brother and I don't like it when you write "With love" at the end.

Knowledge is more logical than belief. It's also more important.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
All these things you may deny. If you do you have only deceived yourself. I am willing to help you get past your deception, but you must want to see.

edit on 4-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)


Wishing is like fishing except you only hook yourself.

No one should have to want to see for the obvious to be obvious. Wanting to see implies there is nothing to actually see you simply convince yourself there should be. This is true denial.
I have met many, many people who profess that they "know" God/Jesus/Allah/Shiva etc. They all knew/know for certain the true path to enlightenment, yet each one knew/know a different true path.

If there truly was an omnipotent being then it would not require my love or worship. It would simply require me to act in the fashion for which it had created me. Yet every deity ever imagined has displayed the worst traits of humanity in equal measure. Which leads me to the conclusion that all deities (that we have/have had/will have) reflect the simple nature of their creators. We are not created in their image, they are created in ours.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 



We are not created in their image, they are created in ours.


Exactly. I read all of your post, but that last sentence was the most interesting to me. Man created god in his own image.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Re Earth Citizen07

You wrote:

["I can't be sure of anything! Are you sure the sun will rise tomorrow?"]

Nope, I'm not sure the´sun will rise tomorrow. I'll wait for the evidence.

Quote (referring to the bible): ["I did not find it "confused and self-contradictory"."]

What criteria did you use for arriving at that conclusion. Are you a literalist, symbolist, cherry-picker or interpretator of the totality? Did you use logic, induction or are you guided by channelled cosmic instructors? Is incompability between the bible and contemporary science a factor? Is a cosmic-commando-central general expected to know cosmology?

Quote (referring to redemption doctrine): ["What are you talking about"]

Obviously I'm talking about redemption doctrine, which appears to be an important part of the bible, as an alleged Jesus-movement was manipulated into by Paulus.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Now you're not making sense at all. More loopholes and deductive reasoning. Nice job. By the way, I'm still not your brother and I don't like it when you write "With love" at the end.

Knowledge is more logical than belief. It's also more important.


Then I will try again. But first, I apologise for my sign off. It is a habit.

Try seeing this way. Forget the word God. It is just a word.

Look at a glass of water. Imagine that glass of water as the whole of this existence. Within that water are hydrogen and oxygen atoms united in molecular bonds. Each atom is composed of the protons electrons and neutrons. Those protons, electrons, and neutrons are composed of things we have yet to have discovered. All of it is the universe. It is the whole.

To the electron, is it the water? no.

Is the water water without it? No.

If you take one drop of water out of the glass, is that water greater than it was before you did? NO.

It is whole and each part makes the whole. The electron only knows from the perspective of the electron. The molecule only knows from the perspective of the molecule. None know the whole, but all are necessary for the whole to be.

Does this make any more sense?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Noncompatible
 



We are not created in their image, they are created in ours.


Exactly. I read all of your post, but that last sentence was the most interesting to me. Man created god in his own image.


The electron is not the water.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Re IAMIAM

My friend, you're at it again. Circle-argumentatory preachings.

Quote: ["Because mine does not have dogma attached. All mine asks of me is to love one another. It asks me to love one another because we are all his creation."]

Your only way out of being stigmatized as a dogmatist yourself (according to your postulates above), is by relying on claims of direct communication with your 'god'; as in "All mine asks of me......".

You have just moved the reference point to another place, which then will need some kind of justification when presented to a critical public. That is if you still want to avoid being called doctrinal/dogmatic.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
No one should have to want to see for the obvious to be obvious. Wanting to see implies there is nothing to actually see you simply convince yourself there should be. This is true denial.


Incorrect my friend. If you do not wish to see, you close your eyes.


Originally posted by Noncompatible
If there truly was an omnipotent being then it would not require my love or worship. It would simply require me to act in the fashion for which it had created me.


It does not require your love my friend. Love is merely the manifestation of its will. When you feel loved, do you not feel good?


Originally posted by Noncompatible
Yet every deity ever imagined has displayed the worst traits of humanity in equal measure. Which leads me to the conclusion that all deities (that we have/have had/will have) reflect the simple nature of their creators. We are not created in their image, they are created in ours.


Man has attributed a lot to deity because they do not understand.

If I hit you in the face, would you not be angry with me? Where does that anger come from? It comes from the unknown reaches of your consciousness and manifests into this world. You will strike me back most likely. Then I will know it is not God's will to strike you.

Of course, I already know God's will and therefore will do no harm what so ever to you.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
You have just moved the reference point to another place, which then will need some kind of justification when presented to a critical public. That is if you still want to avoid being called doctrinal/dogmatic.


Will you stop judging me my friend? Will you simply use your own logic to dispute my claims?

Have I treated you so?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["Those protons, electrons, and neutrons are composed of things we have yet to have discovered."]

Just for the record: Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Quarks, electrons and possibly transmittor particles are suggested as originating from quantum-foam. Quantum-foam is an emission from or a manifestation of 'strings' or 'M-branes'. All these 'things' are said to flicker in and out of creation continuously at a high frequency.

Quote: ["All of it is the universe. It is the whole."]

Could very well be.

Quote: ["To the electron, is it the water? no."]

The meaning of this doesn't surface clearly. But in any case, who knows, what an electron experiences or concludes. The allegory isn't convincing.

Quote: ["Is the water water without it? No."]

Correct.

Quote: ["It is whole and each part makes the whole."]

A universe existing by and through polarized elements relating to each other, and thus forming visible existence is a reasonable idea.

Quote: ["The electron only knows from the perspective of the electron. The molecule only knows from the perspective of the molecule. None know the whole, but all are necessary for the whole to be."]

Quote: ["Does this make any more sense?"]

Not if used as an argument for any theistic theory.

edit on 4-2-2011 by bogomil because: wrong word replaced



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
A universe existing by and through polarized elements relating to each other, and thus forming visible existence is a reasonable idea.


Thank you.


Originally posted by Noncompatible
Not if used as an argument for any theistic theory.


Then throw out theology. It is an old wine skin and the wine within has lost its flavor and turned bitter!

Exactly what I am trying to do.



Now we move into the new wine skin...

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 4-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Re IAMIAM

Quote: ["Will you stop judging me my friend?"]

Hmmm. Is "circle-argumentatory preachings" a judgement or a statement relating to intrinsic values in the initial text?

Then it can ofcourse be said, that my alleged judgement also is circle-argumantatory preaching, because I haven't used an acceptable reference point. So just to skip the 'reference-point' debate, let's say we preach at each other.

We can stop this by counting to three together, and at three both stop preaching.

Quote: ["Have I treated you so?"]

You are a really nice guy, and I like you...more when you're not preaching.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
You are a really nice guy, and I like you...more when you're not preaching.


I am not preaching my friend. I am bilingual and trying to translate the conversation for two sides who cannot understand each other. I am a translator.

The funny thing about this is the one side calls me a heretic and the other calls me a religious nut job.

But, I love being me.

With Love,

Your Brother



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join