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: 55
34
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Re Annee

My bad. My recent post to you can be read several ways. To clarify: I did not intend to imply, that hyperdimensional beings would be the postulated 'ultimate reality god' of theism. Just the 'god(s)' of holy manuals.




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Re Doctor j and inmate

IMO you made a good representation by outlining extremist positions.

But unless you've just joined the thread without actually reading much of it, you would otherwise have noticed, that some of us already are aware of this dysfunctional situation, and that some tentative, but constructive, suggestions of how to solve it have been aired.

Do you have any additions on how to actively start a real dialogue? All useful suggestions will be recieved with gratitude by at least me
edit on 6-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and syntax



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
On glp you can't go 20 posts without reading some scripture***sighs very, very deeply.

First my beliefs, 1 there is a god,
2 Consciousness EXISTS after death
3 less free will will than you think, but it is still there.

Next for the attackers, I was exposed to catholicism. They have a very valid point here.

For the true catholic, To live like christ meant, defying the corrupt, powerful system of any nature, successfully attacking it and gathering followers, Then in response the system crushes you, destroys your live, your followers abandon u and u die a horrible, painful death and then Your followers, after your death take up your cause against the system and the battle begins again.

Thus when spreading the word of God, you have have to face the same fate as the 12 apostles, They all died HORRIBLY, killed all. the early christians were fed to the loins, and the fact was they went bravely, calmly to their death and welcomed the opportunity to die for their lord God.
That is the stuff of religious crusaders, not posting scripture while drunk, One poster read scripture to a hooker, god the things u read, u don't need to remote view to know that went over really well.

Another favorite is suicides burn in hell and damnation, and here this is good, peace loving compassionate buddhists, believe that suicides get a horribly deformed body in their rebirth after having taken their own life. Yikes, like I have to plan out my next body in this life, like I don't have enough on my mind already.

Compassion, grace and dignity are the cornerstones of faith,
If an atheist goes to a casino and spends 20 hours looking at the rolls of the dice table, you will see that they do not fall in random distribution, Amazing even though psychic powers flow in casinos, that is only for the winners, the losers are atheists all, Some games blacjack, poker, slots are destined to lose at the start and nothing can be done, dice can theoretically be won every time. But either there is luck, powers, energy or it is pieces of plastic falling in patterns or rigged to fall a certain way, it is or it isn't.
The last problem is the problem of evil. If god answered all of our prayers especially in the crazier times the planet would have been destroyed many, many times,



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by cgats
 



Compassion, grace and dignity are the cornerstones of faith


But not exclusive to faith.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Deebo
 


Very simplistic view. Thank you for being so on top of "the obvious".

But if you took the trouble to dig deeper, you would find that every mass murdering Tyrant of the 20th Century and now, the first decade of the 21st Century has been an OCCULTIST and has ties to the Rothschild Banking Cabal of Satanists ( their admission, not my supposition) .

Funding both sides of World Wars and smaller conflicts, i.e., the murdering of the Romanov Family
(Czar Nicholas ll had already abdicated 3 months previous) by the Bolsheviks; the use of the Jacobins to attempt an overthrow of the US in "the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794" (Illuminati/Rothschild promulgated, as G Washington stated in his letters to Rev GW Snyder in 1798), the Satanic Rothschild Family has amassed 400+ Trillion Dollars since 1750. BTW, Marx was a Satanist.

The last known mention of the Illuminati is "the Report to the California Dept of Education 1953 " on their interference in the Educational System through the "Non Profit Foundations". The Reece Commission was formed to follow up in 1954 headed by Norman Dodd, Chief Congressional Investigator. You should look up his interview by G Edward Griffin on Google from 1981 shortly before Mr Dodd passed away.

The fact is, we are dealing with Satanists who have used the NAZI's of Project Paperclip to infect this country since 1945. The linkages are to the FreeMason Brotherhood, the Knights of Malta, Scull and Bones, B'nai B'rith, including Zionists and the Vatican etc..., of which the CIA was formed.

If they so fervently believe that their powers come from the dark one, why would you refute the existence of GOD, to whom they are rebelling?


video.google.com...=-8098064883375662340

video.google.com...#



www.whale.to...


video.google.com...#

video.google.com...=5711848891999225224

wideeyecinema.com...

www.viewzone.com...

the Illuminati truly believe that they are the direct descendants and claim a "divine" Luciferian right to the Earth:


www.churchoftrueisrael.com...


video.google.com...

whatreallyhappened.com...

www.takebackthemedia.com...


video.google.com...

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

www.wanttoknow.info...

www.youtube.com...

www.john-f-kennedy.net...

newsfromthewest.blogspot.com...

www.barefootsworld.net...

www.globalresearch.ca...


FreeMasonry

www.youtube.com...

Note: Exchange the J word for Zionists. It is historically accurate. More accurately, Zionism at the "highest" levels is really about Satanism.

Most who follow the Kabbalah & the Talmud haven't a clue about who their masters really are today.

They were led away from the Law of Moses and the Torah. The moderate peoples of each of the three monotheistic Religions are the victims of this ancient deception.


Sometimes all the History in the World, straight from the Library of Congress and the Vatican Library just isn't enough.

People would rather buy the security of Sweet Lies from the TV.

Don't touch my comfort zone, or I'll shoot the messenger!


This is how we got here.

Advanced course 501. In case you wanted some authentic voices you never heard.

Reading between the lines is helpful, but not always necessary.

Tony


PS: This is about abuse of power and deception to gain power over ALL peoples of all faiths, by setting THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER.

as Viktor Ostrovsky's example (by his book title) exposing his former employer, the Mossad.

"By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War".

Make no mistake. We are fighting Pagan Zionists, formerly "GENTILES", who've disguised themselves as Israeli Jews and American Jews Christians and Muslims, too!

Look up Khazaria- 740-780 AD.

They have no such blood, or honorable, connection.

This deception must end.

www.haaretz.com...

www.sweetliberty.org...

www.erichufschmid.net...

www.antichristconspiracy.com...

www.iamthewitness.com...

ALBERT PIKE and THREE WORLD WARS:

This is an excerpt from the letter the 19th century Pope of Freemasonry, Albert Pike, sent to Italian Freemason, Giuseppe Mazzini (which literally translates to "Mason"). It is dated August 15, 1871. This letter, which was reportedly once on display at the British Museum, is an excellent example of how agendas are laid out many, many years before the public sees them unfold in what we call "current events." What we call history is nothing more than a script being played out, written many years in advance by a small few who have existed down through the ages, out of the public eye, working to carry out the goals of their Hidden Masters, which are many generations in the making....

"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile th e other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
=======================================================

Aldous Huxley was right....

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

-- Aldous Huxley (1961)

Huxley noted several key developments that he thought would be essential in setting up such a system, including:

*Permanent economic security which would remove the primary source of discontent.

*Improved techniques of suggestion and conditioning, including the use of drugs and repetitive, hypnotic training. (Note that this was written before the advent of television and Prozac!)

*A method of psychological evaluation and assignment of individuals to their "proper" social and economic places in the hierarchy.

*Widespread use of recreational drugs to allow temporary escape from the pressures of existence.

*A system of eugenics to allow "human resources" with only the desired characteristics to be bred as needed.

*Huxley knew the agenda because he was part of it*

=======================================================

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

--David Rockefeller speaking at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany

=======================================================

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences ."

"The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank . . . sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

-- Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope", 1966, pg. 324

=========================================================

For the past several years I have been writing about and helping to inform others of the hidden history behind the system we are all born into, which we call "reality." This "reality" is in fact not our own, but one created from the top, handed down to us to keep us from the truth. The truth about our existence and who we are as conscious and spiritual beings.

The system of scientific control in which we are living under is certainly not new. It is ages old and goes back to Ancient Egypt and likely before that. It was Plato who wrote that in order for a society to properly function to serve the few running the show from behind the proverbial curtain, culture must be created for the people and given to them from the top, as any grassroots movement might upset the scientifically-created order within society. Any disorder within society would need to be from the top-down, and this is what we are seeing today in the form of "terrorism" and other forms of occultic psychological control tactics. (occult = hidden.)

Psychological control has been used since the beginning of documented civilization to move societies through the ages in a pre-planned direction as seen by those at the top.

We are living at the tail-end of this agenda, which is thousands of years old. It h as never changed.

We are living during a vital point in history as we enter the transition from the Old Age of Pisces to the "New Age" of Aquarius. To make way for the New Age, the old one must be destroyed, and this is what we can see happening right now if we're able to read between the lines and look critically at events as they continue to unfold all around us.

The attacks of September 11th, 2001, marked the beginning of the final phase of the current system as we make our way into the new global-fascist system, which will be a world communist/socialist government based on the Soviet system. This system is already in place and it's only a matter of time before the right "catalyzing" event which will be needed to bring about this new system is triggered.

By the year 2010, less than five years from now, we will see the implementation of the proposed North American Union, which is to be based on the EU, along with a new currency based on the Euro. This will include the merging of the US with Mexico and Canada, in tandem with the NAFTA superhighway stretching from Canada to Mexico. This too has been many years in the making, and, as was the case with the buildup to the EU, news of the coming North American Union is practically nowhere to be seen in the mainstream media. This is because the mainstream media is controlled by many of the same economic powers behind this new system, which is just another building block/bloc towards the coming global dictatorship.

In his book, 'Das Kapital', Karl Marx spoke of a world divided into three trading blocs under a global governing body. So, as we can see, the idea is not new, and the plan which is unfolding before our eyes was planned many years ago by groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which are spearheading this transition from behind the scenes, out of the controlled media's spotlight.

The coming years spanning from 2007-1010 will be chaotic as we witness the transition from the current system to the new scientific system written about by people such as Aldous Huxley and Zbigniew Brzezinski decades ago.

We are fast approaching a one-world communist dictatorship, which will include a one-world currency and military, where every man, woman and child will be microchipped and every move will be tracked and monitored by a central computer database. This system has been many years in the making and is reminiscent of the "technetronic society" Brzezinski was writing about in the 1970s, in his book, 'Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era'.

The silent war facing humanity isn't so much a war against freedom as much as it is individuality. Free-thinking individuals pose the greatest threat to those working to bring about this New World Order. So it's no surprise the end goal is to eventually do away with individuality through chemical, electronic and genetic means. Under the coming system, population levels will be greatly reduced and children will not be born unless it's with a purpose, to serve this new system -- this Elite utopia on earth.

This system of control we are under is not impossible to break, but it's up to every person to become sentient, free-thinking and aware of the wider world around them. Once enough people break free from the chains that have imprisoned humanity for so long, there is no stopping the unimaginable power of the indomitable human spirit.



www.911essentials.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Re Cgats

You wrote:

["First my beliefs, 1 there is a god, 2 Consciousness EXISTS after death 3 less free will will than you think, but it is still there."]

For the moment focusing less on the intrisic outcome (1, 2 and 3 as above), I'll direct your attention to a later....

......quote: ["Compassion, grace and dignity are the cornerstones of faith,"]

where you apply the word 'faith'. It's not only nitpicking on my part, but there can be a distinct difference between 'belief' and 'faith' at a pragmatic level. I suggest, that 'faith' is the most suitable one in the present context, as neither 'god', post-death consciousness or the amount of free will is very well examined or evidenced. At least not to the point of conclusive answers.

Your casino-example doesn't really indicate anything, one way or another. It's too vague. Personally I find it difficult to see the direction of it. So any implied 'god' or whatever in this example needs to be outlined more precisely.


edit on 6-2-2011 by bogomil because: typos



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Aleister Crowley, Thelema, and the Toltecs part 1: thinking in symbols

[...]

The great mythologist Joseph Campbell encouraged his readers to understand all religious truth as metaphorical—which emphatically does not mean as false! Rather, he meant that inspired religious texts and stories contain truths at a symbolic level.

Symbolic thinking is the type done when solving a problem in higher math, symbolic logic, philosophy, and certain types of science, music, and poetry. It is a disciplined form of mental activity that transcends belief and ordinary thought. Symbolic thoughts do not so much mean convey meaning as obey certain laws of movement and combination, like a cosmic dance. If you have never worked with thought on the abstract level—and many of us have not!—then you will have accept that you have no clear idea what it is like.

[...]

Meditate on It

Could ancient campfire rituals have separated us from Neanderthals?

A couple hundred-thousand years ago—sometime after our hominid ancestors had controlled fire, but long before they were telling ghost stories—early humans huddled around campfires to meditate and partake in shamanistic rituals. Today, when we slow down for a yellow light, recognize a dollar sign or do anything, really, that involves working memory, we have these ancient brainstorming sessions to thank.

That's the somewhat controversial connection psychologist Matt J. Rossano is making. Ritualistic gatherings sharpened mental focus, he argues. Over time, this focus strengthened the mind's ability to connect symbols and meanings, eventually causing gene mutations that favored the enhanced memory we now possess.

"We have decent evidence that shamanistic rituals may go very deep into history, and that these rituals might have had positive psychological effects," says Rossano of Southeastern Louisiana University, whose theory appears in the February Cambridge Archaeological Journal.

Fossil records suggest that anatomically modern humans split from Neanderthals about 200,000 years ago. Around that time, says Rossano, early humans practiced shamanistic meditation to help heal the sick.

The deep focus achieved during such rituals strengthened parts of the brain involved in memory, argues Rossano. Recent brain research supports this notion. In 2005, neuroscientist Sara Lazar of Harvard University studied people with meditation experience and found that several areas of their brains—notably, areas associated with attention—were thicker than normal.

As neural areas of attention grew stronger, the minds of subsequent generations became better equipped to hold information and make the connections necessary in modern working memory, Rossano suggests.

Eventually these connections led to complex forms of symbolism, which begin to show up in the archaeological record around 50,000 years ago. Archaeologists have found cave paintings from this time that display sophisticated symbolism, such as a lion-headed man that presumably infers some personality trait.

These intricate symbols seem to require a higher sense of associative memory compared with more primitive attempts at symbolizing—for example, using red ochre pigment to depict blood.

"If you're going to use symbols, you have to be able to think abstractly and hold one thing in mind while recognizing that the literal thing is not really its meaning," Rossano says. "That might be difficult to do if you can't keep attention long enough."

Hunting, tool-making and some other activities of that age also exercised the brain's memory systems, but only meditation distinguished human ancestors from Neanderthals, Rossano argues.

[...]

Number as archetype

The metaphysical assumptions in Chapter allow us to connect results in mathematics and physics directly to the human mind and psyche . The physical structure of the mind and its conscious structure are the same thing. Jung felt that there was a unity of matter and psyche related to the archetypal structures in the psyche and to number. The physical structure of our bodies was determined by evolution. Some structures were evolved earlier and others later. More complex structures are built on simpler ones. Jung recognized that the same is true of our minds. Archetypes

are the psychic shapers of ideas, images and behavior that have been molded by evolution over the eons. Archetypes are not emotions, thoughts or mental images. They can be sources of all of these. Archetypes do not have a specific meaning. They create meaning.

After C. G. Jung had completed his work on synchronicity in ``Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle,'' he hazarded the conjecture, already briefly suggested in his paper, that it might be possible to take a further step into the realization of the unity of psyche and matter through research into the archetypes of the natural numbers . He even began to note down some of the mathematical characteristics of the first five integers on a slip of paper. But, about two years before his death, he handed the slip over to me with the words: ``I am too old to be able to write this now, so I hand it over to you.'' --- Marie-Louise von Franz, from the preface of Number and Time [32].

Number and Time: Reflections Leading Toward a Unification of Depth Psychology and Physics



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Re Mcguyvermanolo

You wrote:

["BTW, Marx was a Satanist."]

Locked in the common black/white frame of confused theist fanatism, being against you means siding with your imagined enemy.

Quote: ["If they so fervently believe that their powers come from the dark one, why would you refute the existence of GOD, to whom they are rebelling?"]

You first have to establish, that 'they' actually believe, that their power does come from the alleged 'black one, that a 'black one' exists, that a 'black one' has any kind of power etc., before you can rant your way to conclusions.

Quote: [the Illuminati truly believe that they are the direct descendants and claim a "divine" Luciferian right to the Earth"]

Do you actually KNOW any 'illuminaty' or are you just referring to 2½ million web-ramblings on the subject.

Quote: ["They were led away from the Law of Moses and the Torah. The moderate peoples of each of the three monotheistic Religions are the victims of this ancient deception."]

You should be one to talk about 'moderate'.

Quote: ["Don't touch my comfort zone, or I'll shoot the messenger!"]

Is this a personal statement, or are you citing somebody?

Quote: ["PS: This is about abuse of power and deception to gain power over ALL peoples of all faiths, by setting THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER"]

This is about your first rational comment so far. But as I see it, your post doesn't really differ so much in that respect.

Quote: [" We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil."]

It certainly will take a lot to demonstrate the 'horror of absolute atheism' (like a worldwar e.g.) as the rather non-uniform group of atheists sofar has been rather non-invasive. But maybe the really bad-guy atheists are just hiding, biding their time until your prophecies are fulfilled.

Quote: ["Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal,"]

You definitely are prophet material with your clearcut message of: "Me good-guy; 'them' bad-guy".

Your quote from Huxley: ["*Permanent economic security which would remove the primary source of discontent."]

YES, let's get more homeless on the streets to ensure discontent.

Quote: ["Aldous Huxley was right...."]

and another

Quote: [" *Huxley knew the agenda because he was part of it* "]

Which side are YOU on then?????

Quote: ["For the past several years I have been writing about and helping to inform others of the hidden history behind the system we are all born into"]

And now the turn has come to this thread. Did you have any success elsewhere?

Quote: ["The truth about our existence and who we are as conscious and spiritual beings."]

More correctly: YOUR truth.


Fun, as meeting and responding to you has been, I'm afraid, I'll have to stop now.

You can probably find some other place to put up your soapbox.

edit on 6-2-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Re Student X

Sound as I find some of your basic premises, you are quick to continue on a string of assumptions, which you then legitimate by using equally assumptive support systems.

After driving several wives/girlfriends to insanity or suicide, Crowley ended up broke, and as a heroin-addict. While I find Crowley fascinating and intelligent, I also find him megalomaniac and unable to follow the rule of: 'Doctor heal yourself'.

Quote: ["certain laws of movement and combination, like a cosmic dance. If you have never worked with thought on the abstract level—and many of us have not!—then you will have accept that you have no clear idea what it is like."]

That would all be very well, if such querulous people like me, who actually have danced around in cosmic right-brainhemisspere parts of existence, STILL disagree with your step two advancing on 'reality'.

And don't even think about trying to insinuate, that I danced the wrong way around.

Quote: ["A couple hundred-thousand years ago—sometime after our hominid ancestors had controlled fire, but long before they were telling ghost stories—early humans huddled around campfires to meditate and partake in shamanistic rituals."]

A reasonable guess, but not more. Where you there?

Quote: ["Around that time, says Rossano, early humans practiced shamanistic meditation to help heal the sick."]

Similarly employed these days under e.g. the name 'reiki-healing', which sometimes functions, sometimes not. As an example of anomalies it's good, but it just demonstrates...anomalies.

Quote: [""If you're going to use symbols, you have to be able to think abstractly and hold one thing in mind while recognizing that the literal thing is not really its meaning," Rossano says. "That might be difficult to do if you can't keep attention long enough."]

Agreed.

Quote: [" They can be sources of all of these. Archetypes do not have a specific meaning. They create meaning."]

Archetypes = a decent working hypothesis.

But:

Quote: ["After C. G. Jung had completed his work on synchronicity in ``Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle,'' he hazarded the conjecture, already briefly suggested in his paper, that it might be possible to take a further step into the realization of the unity of psyche and matter through research into the archetypes of the natural numbers"]

that's building two working hypotheses (with the second part: Synchronicity) into a complimentary self-contained system. Unacceptable for a rational approach.

edit on 6-2-2011 by bogomil because: typos



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


My internet has been down and I don't feel like reading all of these new pages, but I'll respond to one of IAMIAM's assertions.

You cannot justifiably claim that the unknown is "god" or that "god" is the unknown. The unknown is simply the unknown -- that's it! Since you really don't know that a god exists, you have no good reason to say "It is unknown, therefore it is god." That's invalid.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Annee

My bad. My recent post to you can be read several ways. To clarify: I did not intend to imply, that hyperdimensional beings would be the postulated 'ultimate reality god' of theism. Just the 'god(s)' of holy manuals.


Oh no no. I didn't read it wrong.

Just meant to reiterate my position on religion.



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

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

Academic Atheism (as in, "there is no proof for the existence of God," not "There is not, nor can there be a God") is not faith based, it is based on evidence, of which there is none. It really is very simple to understand.


Atheism is mental abortion because it rellies PURELY on human science and mathematics. Instead of taking the rational AGNOSTIC position, which most people do when they DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, they take the negative position of DEFYING that which is unknown.

You ask for evidence(or even proof) of something that is impossible to understand, because most likely we were not meant to understand IT. If we could understand IT then we would be THAT ABSOLUTE unknown/god and hence NOT HUMAN. You cannot be a human and god at the same time because humans are not perfect nor of the absolute. How can this be hard to understand?

Stop asking for evidence/proof to acknowledge something. Notice I say acknowledge rather than understand! To acknowledge something exists is different from saying I understand IT! I know computers exist because I use them almost every day, BUT do I know how they work? Do I need to understand how something works to acknowledge its existance? The answer is most definitely no!

To deny the existance of god is to deny the existance of the absolute. As others have said, god is the vocabulary term we use to label the absolute. TO DENY THE ABSOLUTE MEANS SOMETHING CAN BE DERIVED FROM NOTHING which is an illogical fallacy. You need SOMETHING TO CREATE SOMETHING ELSE otherwise you will have nothing.

Common sense 101 at harvard university.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:44 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?



Well from every corner of the Earth every race and kreed have their religions and gods THEY all tell a different story to explain the same things creation,man the universe etc they cant all be right but they can all be WRONG!

Man creates god not the other way round its simple, gods were created to explain things man at the time could not explain ie THOR the Norse god of thunder ,sea gods, moon gods , sun gods etc etc

The men in frocks want to keep it going because its always given them a position of power over normal people.
Just look at the pope for example!

Religion is total bs its really that simple.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Re EarthCitizen007

You wrote:

["To deny the existance of god is to deny the existance of the absolute. As others have said, god is the vocabulary term we use to label the absolute."]

And that vocabulary is a semantic trap.

Quote: ["TO DENY THE ABSOLUTE MEANS SOMETHING CAN BE DERIVED FROM NOTHING which is an illogical fallacy. You need SOMETHING TO CREATE SOMETHING ELSE otherwise you will have nothing."]

Before you arrive at such advanced 'philosophy', it's unfortunately necessary, that you first learn about what causality is and where it's applicable.

Nice try though in spite of having been used to death through 'intelligent design', which never really became the hit it was intended to be.


edit on 6-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Atheism is mental abortion because it rellies PURELY on human science and mathematics.


Wow, some stupidly strong language. How does atheism rely on human sciences? Atheism deals solely with a single question: Do you believe in any deity?

This is not about anything else. You can still believe in other supernatural forces and be an atheist. Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic.



Instead of taking the rational AGNOSTIC position, which most people do when they DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, they take the negative position of DEFYING that which is unknown.


No, agnostic is not claiming to not understand, it is claiming to not know. But knowledge is something independent of belief. Atheism in the modern academic sense is not believing because there is no good proof. It is the only rational position. If there is no proof you don't go "I don't know", you instead say "There is absolutely no reason for me to believe this notion, I will reject it."

That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.



You ask for evidence(or even proof) of something that is impossible to understand, because most likely we were not meant to understand IT.


And yet the religions are claiming that whatever it is interferes in the natural world. We aren't asking to understand it, we're asking for evidence of its existence. If it's interfering in the world we should see all sorts of evidence.



If we could understand IT then we would be THAT ABSOLUTE unknown/god and hence NOT HUMAN.


I'm sorry, but we can understand concepts that are more complex than we are. Understanding something greater than yourself doesn't make you greater than yourself. Also, there's a bold function, it doesn't take too long to use. Caps have a connotation of shouting.



You cannot be a human and god at the same time because humans are not perfect nor of the absolute. How can this be hard to understand?


How is it that you've just defined a deity as perfect and absolute? Not all definitions of deities put forth that it is perfect or absolute.



Stop asking for evidence/proof to acknowledge something. Notice I say acknowledge rather than understand! To acknowledge something exists is different from saying I understand IT!


Why? We need evidence of something before we can say it exists. If this being is truly interfering in the natural world than there should be evidence of it.



I know computers exist because I use them almost every day, BUT do I know how they work? Do I need to understand how something works to acknowledge its existance? The answer is most definitely no!


We're not asking for understanding. We're asking for evidence that it exists. You know computers exist because you actually use them all the time. We have no such evidence of deities. I want something that shows that it exists. I'll deal with understanding it later.



To deny the existance of god is to deny the existance of the absolute.


What? Not all deities are 'the absolute'.



As others have said, god is the vocabulary term we use to label the absolute.


Some religions.



TO DENY THE ABSOLUTE MEANS SOMETHING CAN BE DERIVED FROM NOTHING which is an illogical fallacy.


Incorrect. To deny the absolute doesn't mean that, it just means that things can be derived without the absolute.



You need SOMETHING TO CREATE SOMETHING ELSE otherwise you will have nothing.


Then something has to create the something which creates the something else...which leads to regress. I'm sorry, but we can say that there's something that always exists that isn't a supernatural 'absolute' being.



Common sense 101 at harvard university.


Huh? I'm sorry, but nothing you said would be found at Harvard, it wouldn't even be found at a run down community college.

Common sense is useless in these discussions anyway because we use logic and evidence. Sometimes those things bring about counterintuitive answers.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Wow... You're off on one again. Take a seat, breath deeply.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07Atheism is mental abortion because it rellies PURELY on human science and mathematics.


Wow, some stupidly strong language.
stupidly strong? Where? Or by using the word 'stupidly' are you having an ad hominem go at EC there? Try not to get personal, eh, because frankly, I'm sick of your straw men.


How does atheism rely on human sciences? Atheism deals solely with a single question: Do you believe in any deity? This is not about anything else.
and in the same breath you say

You can still believe in other supernatural forces and be an atheist.
can you?

Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic.
Really? Which ones? The new atheist version I'd guess, and wooooooossh, who do we have but Christopher Hitchens [Dawkins' buddy] promoting a new Buddhist atheism

In God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens writes of Buddhism as the sleep of reason, and of Buddhists as discarding their minds as well as their sandals. His passionate diatribe appeared in 2007. So what's he doing now, just three years later, endorsing a book on Buddhism written by a Buddhist?
www.guardian.co.uk...



No, agnostic is not claiming to not understand, it is claiming to not know.
That doesn't make sense. What do you mean 'agnostic is not claiming'? What are you not claiming to not know?


But knowledge is something independent of belief. Atheism in the modern academic sense is not believing because there is no good proof. It is the only rational position. If there is no proof you don't go "I don't know", you instead say "There is absolutely no reason for me to believe this notion, I will reject it."

That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
OK, now bear that in mind, cause it's going to come around and hit you in the back of the head ....


Why? We need evidence of something before we can say it exists. If this being is truly interfering in the natural world than there should be evidence of it......We're not asking for understanding. We're asking for evidence that it exists. You know computers exist because you actually use them all the time. We have no such evidence of deities. I want something that shows that it exists. I'll deal with understanding it later...
As others have said, god is the vocabulary term we use to label the absolute.

I can't really understand what you're trying to say here. It just doesn't make sense. What does 'vocabulary term' mean? Are you attempting to place absolutes on the infinite?


Incorrect. To deny the absolute doesn't mean that, it just means that things can be derived without the absolute.... Then something has to create the something which creates the something else...which leads to regress. I'm sorry, but we can say that there's something that always exists that isn't a supernatural 'absolute' being.
Lost me completely here.


Huh? I'm sorry, but nothing you said would be found at Harvard, it wouldn't even be found at a run down community college. ..... Common sense is useless in these discussions anyway because we use logic and evidence. Sometimes those things bring about counterintuitive answers.


Let's consider one of your sacred mantras:Naural Selection
but bear in mind your earlier assertion 'That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.'

A theoretical construct of a reductive process - one which reduces specie numbers. It cannot provide diversity. There is no evidence for NS. The fossil record rejects it and the hopes once pinned on discoveries in genetic homology have completely demolished any causal link. Any belief based on it is then an assertion without evidence and we should reject it completely.

I feel impelled to say this, as the ill-based euphoria which surrounds the entire science behind evolution is in fact, fact-less. There isn't a single supporting fact in it.

Darwin himself said: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. : bacterial flagelli at the simplest level of life, just one example.

Atheism has obviously impaired your vision. Here's a tip, never combine real science and atheism, or mix the two, it makes for very bad science.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
madness


That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Actually, the maxim you meant was

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dimissed without evidence.

(For atheist-friendly attestation, see Christopher Hitchen's usage of it in connection with Mother Teresa,

www.theage.com.au...

note that he describes it as not original with him, and doesn't justify the maxim beyond noting that it has been justified by others.)

Dismissal means refusal to discuss. Thus, the genuine maxim is specific regarding the consequences of unsupported assertion. Its justification is that it fosters critical economy. We needn't answer every claim which we encounter, but only those that minimally qualify for serious consideration and whose advocate provides us with some basis for an answer besides the trivial "I (dis)agree."

Your revision of the genuine maxim suffers from the glaring defect that rejection is vague. Rejection can mean mere dismissal, but it also can mean making an adverse finding of fact. In context, you apparently intended to misuse your garbling of the maxim to support an adverse finding of fact:


If there is no proof you don't go "I don't know", you instead say "There is absolutely no reason for me to believe this notion, I will reject it."

No. I may make an adverse finding of fact about some notion just when there is some reason to believe that the notion is false. In the meantime, however, while I am waiting for evidence, then I am entitled not to devote resources to the matter, and in particular, I have no obligation to develop the evidence which the notion's advocate has failed to provide.

That you went further, and suggested that your rewriting of the maxim was shared with modern academia generally is just wrong. But you offered no evidence. In keeping with the actual maxim, then, I decline to discuss that aspect of the matter any further.

I suppose your confusion on this point is attributable to the vast learning you have to keep straight. I shudder to think how challenged I would be to be an expert in logic, statistics, and communications engineering, with a minor in theology, while teaching English in my spare time.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

Academic Atheism (as in, "there is no proof for the existence of God," not "There is not, nor can there be a God") is not faith based, it is based on evidence, of which there is none. It really is very simple to understand.


Atheism is mental abortion...

The point in that quote where the ellipsis begins is the point at which I ceased to read, because your argument was a fallacy from that point forward. The college class I believe you are referring to at the end of your post is not called "common sense 101" but "PHIL 110-003 Introduction to Logic."
If you wish to participate in a meaningful dialog on the subject, that's not the best way to go about joining it. If you want a flame war between you and I, you're off to a good start.

I've been offensive in my attack some posts on this thread, and I justify that by pointing out what I consider the fallacies used to support their positions. If you would like to counter-attack my statements, please do so on that basis, or let us establish another between us, which I would be glad to debate.
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Additionally, you may want to review your definition of Atheism, it has been discussed at some length in this thread. Some Atheists do deny that God can exist, meaning they postulate that "God cannot exist." The Agnostic position postulates the God Question Has No Answer, and some of those Agnostics say that someday there could be an answer. Agnosticism and Atheism intersect on the postulate: "The God Question Cannot Be Answered." Those that consider themselves Atheists for academic reasons point out a lack of observable, experimentally repeatable evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent God. The Agnostics in this crowd are what I like to call Evangelical Agnostics, who postulate "I Don't Know and You Don't Either."

You could classify my position as either of the last two groups, but I choose to classify myself as an Atheist of the "The God Question Cannot Be Answered." - school, certainly not by humans, and limited human perception is all we have to work with.

reply to post by chocise
 


There was a side discussion of UFO phenomena a few pages back which establishes very clearly that one is able to cogently be an Atheist and still have beliefs in other unexplained phenomena. However, a good thinker would never claim to have the answers when they don't, and that is the bone of contention: Theists claim to have an absolute answer. Having a belief is different than having an answer, grok?

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: Consoidated triple post



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: consolidation



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: consolidation, triple post, sorry all.

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: *




top topics



 
34
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join