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: 53
34
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



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


When you see an UNIDENTIFIED flying object everything changes?

Personally if i can't find any evidence that the "U.F.O" i experienced was disobeying current understandings of aerodynamics/physics i would refrain from asserting a belief. If i saw aliens staring out the window, maybe i would be convinced by my experience (LOL)

Even if it did disobey my understandings of physics etc. it could just be a science or technology that is unheard of in the public domain, I would suspend judgement because i'm sceptical.

That's what it means to pursue the truth; being honest with what you know, otherwise you may be guilty deluding yourself where you lack critical information, even in light of a subjective "experience"
edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I saw some UFOs once, back in the 90's; I really have an appreciation for what the fuss is about now, but I still have no answers.
I'm never impressed with videos of lights in the sky that never move, or do so quite little and/or slowly, because the things I saw moved like the proverbial bats out of hell in many different directions on three dimensions, and there were 5 lights which moved as a single formation, then as two separate formations at different times, in different directions, distances, (or sizes, perhaps) and altitudes, with pauses in movement where they would hover for several seconds independent in each formation. Then they seemed to blink out, or speed off directly away from us with ludicrous speed. There were several reliable people with me, family and friends. None of this makes me believe in God, or "The Soul," or "ESP," but neither does it make me disbelieve.

(note; ironic biblical references.)
edit on 2/5/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by defenestrator
 


I'm interested in U.F.Os because i think the idea of extra-terrestrial life visiting earth isn't as unlikely as we think.

Considering the technological advance of our civilisation in 100 years, imagine a civilisation on another planet for 1000, or 10,000, or more!!!

We don't know what they're capable of, especially considering our limited understanding of the universe.

There could be many type 3 civilisations out there, they might not be as rare as scientist predict. Especially considering the potential size of the universe and even our limited understanding of our gallaxies stars and planets.

Cosmos 250 times bigger than visible universe

I'm sure i've seen some "anomolies" before, but i can't vouch for my sobriety at the time


I have doubts regarding the new Jerusalem UFO; One possibility is a holograhic projection.
edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

I don't think the craft I saw were of Earthly origin, but they could have been reverse engineered, they definitely had acceleration and deceleration without inertia, which is beyond our official capabilities now, correct?
I guess I got lucky, I now have a permanently attached giant sociological tin-foil hat. Having seen that was a blessing and a curse.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by defenestrator
 


It seems some people are quick to judge. I'm sure i've seen things i can't explain and i can't think of any explanation. Sieving through the endless ammounts of hoaxes there are some convincing and hard to explain recordings etc. ( "STS-75" - an illegitimate released broadcast from NASA is one example.)


without inertia


How do you know the vehicle was "manned"? It could have been remotely controlled? Or even by artificial intelligence if you could consider that posibility?

However, i don't doubt that if a craft was manned there would be innertia protecting technology. Perhaps if the ship utilises an anti-gravity shield using the circulur ship, that you are free from innertia within the centre of the craft or "donut".

I would ever stigmatize you for your personal experience, but at the same time, someone could be convinced by 1 sighting that another person is unconvinced by. UFOLOGY is nothing like the "GOD" concept. And like i have said, i've seen things that i can't explain, that may be outside of my understanding. It's certainly interesting and possible!


We may never have evidence for a God, or never find it at least. Aliens on the other hand, seems within our grasp, and not so far from science-fiction


Peace comrade,

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



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
The bashing comes from both sides. And it's ridiculous. Neither side can prove their point. That's why it's a belief. Why not spend your energy on important issues like the economy or teen pregnancy instead of attempting to prove your own beliefs?


LOL yeah because Atheism is a belief. Let me correct you and others, while there might be people trying to convince you that Atheism is a belief or a new sort of religion they are wrong or misinformed, Atheism is not a belief but the lack of belief.

I think both sides fight because both sides are trying to tell each other what they believe in, mostly by insults, "Atheist" call the other side fairy believers, and Religious people condemn the Atheist.

I think is funny to me since instead of trying to understand one another everyone decides to tell the other how wrong the are.

I myself am at fault of this but I was able to change.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Arsenis because: added some more stuff



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by defenestrator
I saw some UFOs once, back in the 90's; I really have an appreciation for what the fuss is about now, but I still have no answers.


I saw one back in 1965. Los Angeles - 4:30 in the afternoon - clear skies.

I was waiting in a parking lot near LAX waiting for my mom to get off work. I looked up and saw this disk (or cigar) shape. It was self illuminating in a yellowish/white glow. I was just watching it kind of matter-of-fact. At first I thought it was one of those big advertising spotlights. It eventually moved - in what appeared to be a half circle across the sky - then returned to its original position. So again - I thought it must be one of those spotlights. But then it went straight up until it was no longer visible. Later when I could look up on the internet - reports of UFOs. I discovered many reported a "self illuminating yellowish/white glowing disk".

I'm one who does believe the "gods" of ancient time were off planet beings. In my opinion "god" - the omnipotent one of religion - is a man-made phenomenon.

Back to OP. Yes - there does seem to be an inordinate number of non-atheists - - - starting threads on atheism.

Few with any factual and/or accurate information.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


Believe me friend, amongst these 53 pages, that point has been raised many times, it's starting to climb into double figures.

Thanks for correcting misunderstandings again though, maybe if we repeat ourselves, the arguments might stick and make sense.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I hear you, this seems to be a problem here on ATS, most people want the argument to escalate instead come to an agreeable decision and most of the single most valid points get ignored.

sometimes repetition is the best way to not ignore this points.

edit on 5-2-2011 by Arsenis because: misspellings



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
sometimes repetition is the best way to not ignore this points.


I dunno. Some "hard heads" on here - - that just can not and will not accept that some lack belief in a deity.

How many times must it be repeated?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I never made any statement about the craft being manned or otherwise occupied, they very well could have been remotely piloted, or just a hallucination. I do believe, because of their aerial histrionics, that they are beyond the current capabilities of human science, and therefore extra-terrestrial (or extra-dimensional) in origin.
I guess what you mean is I'm implying with the quoted words "without inertia" that they were manned craft, I am not. Objects have inertia whether they have living occupants or not. My original post should have said "without apparent inertia." as it would have been more specific.

edit on 2/6/2011 by defenestrator because: kinder, gentler, clearer

edit on 2/6/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by defenestrator
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)


Some members on here seem to hide behind well constructed sentences, axioms and pseudo-logic. Funny thing is when I probe a little, it all seems to fall apart ...

Thanks for your time though.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 




That's what it means to pursue the truth; being honest with what you know,


So the rational mind is the gate keeper of truth ...? There are many paths that the mind can explore, but there is only one way for the heart.



otherwise you may be guilty deluding yourself where you lack critical information, even in light of a subjective "experience"


There is a great truth in the movie "Contact" with Jody Foster. I let you ponder what it is.

Thank you my friend for your time. I've learned a lot from you



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by something wicked
 


Agnosticism/Gnosticism - What you know.

Theism/Atheism - What you believe.

Atheists don't claim to know the cause of reality therefore they suspend belief in light of any theory proposed. Because any theory being proposed has been formed without evidence; scepticism is inevitable. This includes a simple belief in God, or the more deceptive approach of defining God (Religion)

Many Atheists arrive at their positision through Agnosticism.

There is such a thing as an Agnostic Atheist - Agnostic Atheism
edit on 5/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Agnostic atheism is a buzzword to make something sound more exotic than it is. Sorry, atheism could not be simpler to define - disbelief in God/s.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:41 AM
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"


Then they are not atheists, they merely reject one, many or all current and past faith based organisations but believe there may be something for which the word God is currently used as a name. That means they are agnostic. As per previous post, any other definition is just trying to make a simple thing sound more interesting than it is.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
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.


Man made definitions are neither here nor there. Atheism is not rejection of a religious man made definition of God, it's disbelief in God. To be a theist doesn't mean you follow a faith based organisation, it means you believe in God. You sound more like an agnostic.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Arsenis
sometimes repetition is the best way to not ignore this points.


I dunno. Some "hard heads" on here - - that just can not and will not accept that some lack belief in a deity.

How many times must it be repeated?



Annee, I'm not sure that's correct. I think a lot of people, myself included really couldn't care less. When people try and turn that lack of belief into something somehow more interesting than 'I don't believe in a deity' then I find it rather strange.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by defenestrator
I saw some UFOs once, back in the 90's; I really have an appreciation for what the fuss is about now, but I still have no answers.


In other words since you have seen UFOs for yourself, you realize there is a stimulus behind the ET mythology. As opposed to, say, mere daydreaming and wishful thinking and gullibility.

And since you are a little more well read on the UFO phenomenon than many people, you realize that this very same stimulus is older than the modern ET space-age mythology. Correct?

Therefore, you must realize that this very same stimulus is behind earlier mythologies and religions, just as it is behind the modern ET space-age mythology. As opposed to wishful thinking, or a lust for power, or insane delusions, or fear of death, etc. You know, the sorts of mundane things that atheists glibly say is behind religion and myth.

Those sorts of mundane things aren't behind the ET myth, and they aren't behind earlier myths and religions either. You are in a position to realize that, and so you are in a position to be a little more forgiving of religion than most atheists.


None of this makes me believe in God, or "The Soul," or "ESP," but neither does it make me disbelieve.


Thats fine. I wouldn't expect you to, until you experience that which those words refer to. Just keep in mind...the words are not the things. The words are mere symbols. If those things were expressed to you in an entirely different system of terminology and symbolism with no emotional and cultural baggage clinging to it, you just might find that you do indeed believe in them. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


edit on 6-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



That's what it means to pursue the truth; being honest with what you know


No but the rational minds certainly deters half-baked philosophy or logic. Basically, all i am saying is, be honest with what you know, seek truth on what you know, but be open to new findings and new truths.


There is a great truth in the movie "Contact" with Jody Foster. I let you ponder what it is.


Loved that movie, and i know what your poking at, NO one believed her "experience" in the end (BUT there was the 18 hours of static on the shuttle camera
)

I admit myself absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, but that doesn't give me the ground to just make any theory up; If i had an experience like Jodie Foster i would understand people's doubt or scepticism, but i would do everything within my potential to prove it true and demonstrate it.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 



Therefore, you must realize that this very same stimulus is behind earlier mythologies and religions


They are non-comparitive, again UFO only means unidentified, it could be human. And at least we can something rather than nothing.

absense of evidence is not evidence of absense but at least we have the evidence for something "identified"

Theres no logical or empirical evidence for a God. The only logic is "everything is created, it must have a creator"(without understanding how the universe functions) or whether causation is nessasary.

The creationist debate was over 60 years ago at the National History Museum.
edit on 6/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join