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: 52
34
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Having read it I'm now convinced that God would take the Atheist Wager ...




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by defenestrator
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)


I guess a hammer only sees nails ... That was not was I was talking about.

To make it really easy for you, and to show me wrong, please point out one thing that can exist on it's own --> finite.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["To make it really easy for you, and to show me wrong, please point out one thing that can exist on it's own --> finite."]

I would agree with that. In any case, an existence-based-on-polarized-interaction model has the fringe benefit, that something can come from nothing without much ado. Symbolically: 0 = a + b + c (= 0 :reversible). The trigunic model.

In pure numbers e.g. 0 = 1 + 2 + (-3). A set of polarities together can come from and return to 'nothingness'. The theistic cosmogonic implication can be reduced to unspecified 'intent' of a trigunic system with a few fixed proportions in the initial conditions.


I take a break now.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Of course if you were responsible for everything, all-that-is, what is their to infer to, you would be an Atheist if you were God of all that is. (arf, arf, arf)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Dude can you use the reply button as it is hell trying to find your responses unless of course you don't want me to see them.

Anyway I choose magic in all its forms as my spiritual expression as it complements my paganism. The point is that the chaos magicans have argued that perhaps all we have is constructs tohat are capable interacting with reality as spiritual entities.

But frankly as I have said before most of us are comfortable exactly where we are on our path but as you have admited it is a path. It does mean that there is no need for proof on the part of the believers
edit on 5-2-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

I believe = theist of the faith they wish to believe.

There is no proof = atheist

I would be arrogant to claim full knowledge of all that exists = kind of agnostic

You don't agree with that?


How does one "wish" to believe? I don't get that.

Any human would be arrogant to claim they have full knowledge of all that exists. Therefore I do not know if there is a god or there isn't.

Known knowledge/evidence does not prove to me there is a god. Actually - I think known scientific evidence proves something different.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by bogomil
 

It does mean that there is no need for proof on the part of the believers
edit on 5-2-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)


Unless those believers claim their beliefs to be objective truth, such as so often is the case. You clearly are not doing that here, so bravo! But the tacit implication in your post is that there is no burden of proof on believers who do force the idea that their beliefs are somehow true for others whether the others like it or not. I can't say if you intended it to imply that or if it was incidental.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Re Madnessinmysoul

For myself I would like to apologize for my part in derailing the thread, if it has been inconvenient for its flow.

I have a great respect for your many qualities, and considering you as a kind of ringmaster, I will abide by your opinion on the recent direction of the thread.

I can only say, that I think it's positive, that moderates from several 'camps' actually have engaged in communication across our respective 'borders' in constructive dialogue.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
defenestrator, U2U me if you decide to respond to my last post to you. Same goes for madness. Until then, I think I'm done with this thread.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne

I guess a hammer only sees nails ... That was not was I was talking about.

To make it really easy for you, and to show me wrong, please point out one thing that can exist on it's own --> finite.


Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, you are neither a hammer nor a nail. (and neither am I so discontinue the juvenile semantics games, please.)

Please define the term "one thing," more specifically and I'll do my best.

I'm glad, like bogomil that there is a decent conversation happening, and I'm sorry to the Original Poster that the thread has been derailed.

I believe there is a very well organized movement among American Christian Fundamentalists to attack atheism, science, and alternative beliefs generally, but not specifically here among ATS'ers, just everywhere in general. This thread is not nearly as trolled-to-death as it could have been.
edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Re Tiger5

I think it's great step forward to acknowledge the need of proof. But I agree with Defenestrator, that exclusive absolutes isn't a public communication basis. An active search for potential meeting-ground is of necessity.

This does not mean, that anyone must reject his/her own ground or methodology, it only means that the incompatible parts must be disregarded for the time being (if possible).

On a personal note. I'm experimenting with bringing my response technique up to this century's standard, but it will be slow going. So in the meantime you'll have to suffer a bit more. In any case thread-participation usually has a higher standard, if the thread is followed as a whole, instead of cherry-picking special directions. Some parallel lines can turn out to be relevant.

Sleeping-time in Europe now, so until tomorrow....



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


LOL! One liner ...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


?




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


I agree with your post, in some respects, there certainly is common ground. I'm not sure why a response was required, precisely, but I don't wish to offend. I think the difficulty in having a conversation is because theists don't view religion and mysticism as one unit, but that their belief is somehow superior to others, and that includes the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by defenestrator
 


Surely this is all irrevevent as relativity theory does not marry with quantam theory, or at least we have found no mathmatical means (yet) to marry them.

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.

Nor have i heard any convincing evidence that reality is infinite. Although the mandelbrot set and the fibonacci spiral are mathematical concepts or ideas it doesn't prove that existence is infinity........ But stating so could be considered more rational than theories without matematical or logical formation. Even still, it is not enough to warrant a definitive belief.

What you think mate? I'm no scientist; so correct me on the quantam theory/relativity statement!

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


Well, string theory claims to have reconciled Relativity and Quantum Mech. But that may have fallen apart recently and I could be unaware. Regardless that was a pointless exercise in pseudo-science, and I should never have indulged Allisone on that point, it was a mistake.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne

I guess a hammer only sees nails ... That was not was I was talking about.

To make it really easy for you, and to show me wrong, please point out one thing that can exist on it's own --> finite.


Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, you are neither a hammer nor a nail. (and neither am I so discontinue the juvenile semantics games, please.)

Please define the term "one thing," more specifically and I'll do my best.

I'm glad, like bogomil that there is a decent conversation happening, and I'm sorry to the Original Poster that the thread has been derailed.

I believe there is a very well organized movement among American Christian Fundamentalists to attack atheism, science, and alternative beliefs generally, but not specifically here among ATS'ers, just everywhere in general. This thread is not nearly as trolled-to-death as it could have been.
edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry that I've overloaded your circuits. It won't happen again.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by defenestrator
 


Do you think I'm a Theist?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I went to your link "A Rational Response to the "GOD" question". Unfortunately, I didn't see anything "rational" there. I saw one man denying the God-experience. Could it be that he just never had that experience and therefore it is beyond his ability to understand it?

People who haven't seen a UFO will never understand what some people on ATS are talking about. Once you see one, everything changes ...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Experience is subjective. So far i've found no subjective, empirical or logical evidence that implies an omnipotent deity. Nor has a majority of scientists and free thinkers alike.

God is a positive assertion that can be formed on no other grounds but faith, or subjective "experience" - neither of which i trust, just like many other sceptics. I find the more cautious approach to be the most honest about what humankind actually knows (currently) about reality.

I don't find faith to be a virtue.
edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


From what little I know about you, which is this thread, I think you are a young person who finds petty semantic inexactitudes to use as pieces in a game of quasi-intellectual one-upsmanship for absolutely no reason, I don't know anything about your religious beliefs or lack thereof, you haven't volunteered that information. And you could be older than I'm guessing. Thanks for asking.
edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: specificity improvement.

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



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join