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: 51
34
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["You probably meant to say "photons"?"]

Thanks for the specification, but to my knowledge (I'm not a professional physicist) there are other options. I'll have to take a look, my memory is on account of age often like a swiss cheese.

Quote: [" Particles and wave function are well defined in physics. The double slit experiment has lead to the discovery of the double nature of "light"]

Yes, but as with the micro/macro-cosmos dichotomy a defintion is only a working basis, not a real explanation of the overall 'relative reality'.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Like i've said before; many Atheists believe themselves to be Gnostic Atheists in regards to man-made religion only ( Especially to the theory of an "intevening" or omnipotent God).

They are still "Agnostic Atheists" towards a creator or designer of "all-that-is"


So an Agnostic Atheist is the same as an Agnostic Theist? They both claim they have no clue ... ?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


I'm agnostic in regards to the cause of the universe, i'm Gnostic towards any religious (man-made) definition of God. Therefore i'm Anti-Theist, and thus Atheist until further evidence is presented.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["You probably meant to say "photons"?"]

Thanks for the specification, but to my knowledge (I'm not a professional physicist) there are other options. I'll have to take a look, my memory is on account of age often like a swiss cheese.

Quote: [" Particles and wave function are well defined in physics. The double slit experiment has lead to the discovery of the double nature of "light"]

Yes, but as with the micro/macro-cosmos dichotomy a defintion is only a working basis, not a real explanation of the overall 'relative reality'.



Science never claims to "know it all". But it's the best current model to explain what happens in nature. What do you mean by "overall 'relative reality'"?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Agnostic Theist - admits that there's no definitive proof for God, but would rather assume the position of faith than not.

I feel this is the acceptance of "Pascal's Wager". That's what differentiates a Agnostic Atheist and a Agnostic Theist.

A response from the Agnostic Atheist is often the "Atheist's Wager":-
edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   


Therefore i'm Anti-Theist, and thus Atheist until further evidence is presented.
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Ah, don't throw the baby out with the bath water ... I totally hear you on the "religious stuff". It's all garbage



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Thanks for educating me. I will go and read ...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


It's a pleasure and an honour. I'm just sharing my experience in regards to arriving at my position. I expect disagreement.

Thanks for the questions.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["So your definition is at odds with defenestrator? You are both Atheists?"]

I found it, but not Defenstrator's defintion. I'll put it this way: To my remembrance all theist systems containing specified 'god'(s) are 'faiths', based on assumptions. The part of atheism relying on e.g. science and logic are 'belief-systems' based on axioms ('belief-systems' in the sense, that axioms also can be said to rely on pragmatism eventually, and then pragmatism........We'll end with old DesCartes sooner or later: "I drink, therfore I am"). But for daily, mundane use science and logic on its own ground can be said to be completely 'objective', and disputes on that point are only of very academical interest.

I'm not an atheist, as far as I know. This kind of labelling doesn't interest me except in situation, where 'positions' must be defended or defined precisely. I believe in syncretism with boundary overlapping.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


For the purpose of debate is it not helpful to categorise a multitude of assumed beliefs?

Agnostic Atheist seems to encompass to position that is most appealing to those who are in pursuit of the truth, in favour of the endevour of scientific methodology. Of disocvering what this is all about?

As you are well aware, i respect your opinion, i am more than humble enough to admit that i look up to your thoughts and knowledge.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by defenestrator
 


The whole fact of the matter is that, we can't assert a theory before having evidence, those who assert a theory are doing so on extremely irrational premises. I have heard no logical or empirical evidence that implied any definition of a God; the creator, or designer. or even the omnipotent intervening deity.


God is the sum of all energy. E=MC2. The simple fact that there is "something", rather than "nothing" is a big indicator to me.


Nor have i heard any convincing evidence that reality is infinite.


Do you mean "space" which actually defines time and vice versa? Can you show me something that is by definition AND implication "finite".



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Re All is one

Quote: ["What do you mean by "overall 'relative reality'"?"]

I explained it earlier in detail to One4All on page 45. Here's the short version.

If we consider 'matter' from the human perspective, it's the tactile and gravitational perception we rely on. That's a 'relative reality' most people live in and consider THE reality.

If we consider this human perceptually experienced 'matter' from a more standard scientific perspective, it's the result of the outer atomic shell of electrons repulsing each other and gravitons (if they exist) acting as transmittors mainly between quarks. This is a upgraded relative reality.

From a zero-point perspective particles are potential. This is a still further upgraded relative reality.

From the hypothetical point of a moderate observer created reality (where existence is by and through interaction) all the known cosmic phenomena are 'shadows' played up on the screen of awareness. The sofar furthest relative reality we can conceptualize.

Beyond that the labelled experience of e.g. Nirvana, as a postulated ultimate reality (I take no stance on this, knowing to little).



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



God is the sum of all energy. E=MC2. The simple fact that there is "something", rather than "nothing" is a big indicator to me.


We don't know what that "something"...."force" or "energy" is though. It's equal to describe it as the "The energy" or the "Force" rather than than to Anthopomorphize it as a "GOD" without reasonable cause.


Do you mean "space" which actually defines time and vice versa? Can you show me something that is by definition AND implication "finite".


I just mean reality in general, therefore encompassing the universe, we don't know that it is or isn't infinite.

I can't rationally demostrate that the universe (or "multiverse" "macroverse") is infinite.

But i refer you to such "CONCEPTS" as:

The mandelbrot set

The Fibonacci Sequence/Spiral

When you've studied these interesting concepts, perhaps you would like to watch infinity in nature, or "nature by numbers":-


edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   


Infinity as a concept; the mandelbrot set.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You know that there are atheists who con people out of money. Yes I am aware of people like Sai Baba who use sleight of hand. What we must be careful of is how many people suceesful have the kind of practices that outstripp any of your conceptions of what mysticism is about. The simple fact is that mystics are savy. There is a lot discussionand debunking in mystic communities. Be care not to set up straw men by citing the extremes and calling them norms.

Many mystics are very happy working on the practice and do not ned to intellectualise it in the manner that you so choose.

I am sure the jails have a significant level of atheists.
edit on 5-2-2011 by tiger5 because: typo



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Re Awake

Quote: ["For the purpose of debate is it not helpful to categorise a multitude of assumed beliefs?"]

For linguists, general semanticists and for establishing common communication ground it's surely valuable. When it turns into almost scholastic proportions (mixed with a lot of steam-roller propagandists routinely repeating the same slogan) it's stiffling.

One of my main complaints on theists is, that they often seem to end in purely semantic considerations, where language is in an ultimate/superiour postion to the 'territory' (reality-bit) it's supposed to describe. They sometimes get to the point, where it looks as if existence can be TALKED to be the way, they believe.

"The map (in this case language), is not the territory"



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



God is the sum of all energy. E=MC2. The simple fact that there is "something", rather than "nothing" is a big indicator to me.


We don't know what that "something"...."force" or "energy" is though. It's equal to describe it as the "The energy" or the "Force" rather than than to Anthopomorphize it as a "GOD" without reasonable cause.


Of course we do. E is everything ... But your hang up is probably the consciousness aspect of that statement. True?




I just mean reality in general, therefore encompassing the universe, we don't know that it is or isn't infinite.



Since we have the miracle of matter (and for me that is the true miracle, not "spirit") we can see that everything relates to everything. The keyboard you type on sits on your desk and so on. For one thing to manifest there needs to be another. But where does it stop? I can't wrap my brain around the theory that the universe is "finite". Show me one thing in reality that is not related to another and then again to another ... It never stops. So why should there be "boundaries" to the universe?
edit on 5-2-2011 by AllIsOne because: :-)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["So your definition is at odds with defenestrator? You are both Atheists?"]

I found it, but not Defenstrator's defintion. I'll put it this way: To my remembrance all theist systems containing specified 'god'(s) are 'faiths', based on assumptions. The part of atheism relying on e.g. science and logic are 'belief-systems' based on axioms ('belief-systems' in the sense, that axioms also can be said to rely on pragmatism eventually, and then pragmatism........We'll end with old DesCartes sooner or later: "I drink, therfore I am"). But for daily, mundane use science and logic on its own ground can be said to be completely 'objective', and disputes on that point are only of very academical interest.

I'm not an atheist, as far as I know. This kind of labelling doesn't interest me except in situation, where 'positions' must be defended or defined precisely. I believe in syncretism with boundary overlapping.

Yeah, I agree with that, particularly the first paragraph. I have only a feeble grasp of all these academic philosophical concepts, despite my wordiness on the subject, but enough to sift sh!te from shine, usually. I would define myself as an Atheist, but only to simplify communication, as evidenced above. I would even consider myself an Anti-Theist, I have come to the opinion that religion has negative consequences for the species as a whole.
edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Simplified answer is:
complexity != God
complexity != infinity

Because it is complex and difficult for a mere human being to comprehend does not mean it is infinite, nor does it mean there is any sort of God(s); those are both spurious correlations.
edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: Please note my efforts to capitalize the "G" word so as not to offend those who do believe.

edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Re Tiger5

Quote: ["You know that there are atheists who con people out of money."]

There are con-artists at all levels of life.


Quote: ["Yes I am aware of people like Sai Baba who use sleight of hand."]

My only knowledge of Sai Baba is one second-hand source (sensible person, and quite enthusiastic about him); I can't form an opinion on that narrow information. And I wouldn't trust internet in such a case.

Quote: ["Many mystics are very happy working on the practice and do not ned to intellectualise it in the manner that you so choose."]

My intellectualizing is an indulgence, not directly associated with mysticism itself. Only the epistemology connected with it is really useful, as it can help in the jungle of optional types of 'mysticism'. My best friend through 45 years is a mahayana buddhist, and we still have a very humouristic discussion going about Nirvana being 'emptiness' or 'silence'. I don't want to waste 10-15 years going in the wrong direction.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join