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: 56
34
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by defenestrator

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)


damn your nimble fingers!
was just about to reply to that one when you edited it out.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


I was just consolidating, sorry for my bad timing, please go for it.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



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!


How do you acknowledge God?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by defenestrator
 


lol.

... just I noticed you said an atheist can have an acceptance of other supernatural phenomena, ie ufos, and that it doesn't contradict an atheistic pov. I'd agree, since these phenomena can be reviewed in a completely secular [non theistic] context. When attempting to explain them there's no requirement of either the theistic or atheistic interpretation – both are equally irrelevant to an objective description. There was then some chat about absolutes, but I wasn't sure where that was going or who it was aimed at. Excuse me.

but to get back to the OP, I'd imagine it might be because folk are just fed up with their self-consuming materialist dogma, which almost boils & foams with fervor at times... one which has systematically undermined the morality & ethics of every western culture since the Industrial Revolution and left a vacuum for greed and machiavellian self advancement.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



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!


How do you acknowledge God?

I don't.

Pow! Zing! He Scores!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by defenestrator
 


Haha touche! Of course - Atheists like you and i cannot find any reason to acknowledge God, and thus put faith in such a theory......

I can understand EarthCitizen acknowledging computers, because there is evidence to prove they exist, and HOW they exist. But God? How does EarthCitizen go about acknowledging his/her/it's presense?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by defenestrator
 


lol.
... just I noticed you said an atheist can have an acceptance of other supernatural phenomena, ie ufos, and that it doesn't contradict an atheistic pov. I'd agree, since these phenomena can be reviewed in a completely secular [non theistic] context. When attempting to explain them there's no requirement of either the theistic or atheistic interpretation – both are equally irrelevant to an objective description. There was then some chat about absolutes, but I wasn't sure where that was going or who it was aimed at. Excuse me.

but to get back to the OP, I'd imagine it might be because folk are just fed up with their self-consuming materialist dogma, which almost boils & foams with fervor at times... one which has systematically undermined the morality & ethics of every western culture since the Industrial Revolution and left a vacuum for greed and machiavellian self advancement.


I totally agree.

Good stuff.

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: kbrd fail



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Re Chocise

You wrote:

["There was then some chat about absolutes, but I wasn't sure where that was going or who it was aimed at."]

My own take on atheism, theism and the other -isms relating to the subject is less a personal interest in academical narrowing down semantic categories, than a down-to-earth pragmatism on the consequences of theist social impact. And from this angle 'absolutes' is a very important issue, for the very obvious reason, that clashing absolutes often are a social disaster.

So even such witty absurdities as "Oh mighty Spaghetti-monster, tell us your non-will", the 'Donald Duck' or 'Wine-taster' political parties must be accepted on common constitutional egalitarian ground. Nothing complicated about that; 'absolutes', justified or not, must be balanced.

Quote: ["but to get back to the OP, I'd imagine it might be because folk are just fed up with their self-consuming materialist dogma, which almost boils & foams with fervor at times... one which has systematically undermined the morality & ethics of every western culture since the Industrial Revolution and left a vacuum for greed and machiavellian self advancement."]

A materialist dogma can also grow into an absolute, which is subordinate to egalitarian principles. Still no-one is forced to 'scientism' or compulsary worship at the shopping mall. It's optional. And anti-materialist dogma can be 'preached' on the same conditions as all other ideologies. Secular education in democracies are not indoctrination-institutions for exclusive scientific principles, directly or indirectly attacking theist positions. It's an expression of a growing co-sensus in the direction of comfy lives with medicine, technology and social care.

Any 'education of the masses' towards ideological absolute claims, are just claims of minority privileges. Shall we teach all 34.000 interpretations of christianity to be 'fair', at the cost of analphabetism or not knowing mathematics or basic science.

So take it or leave it. Mankind has increasingly decided on a path of small greed, instead of following ideological warlords. Anybody wanting to present alternatives will probably be better off giving practical examples than preaching about them.

As to 'morality and ethics', that's just another disguised absolute claim.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 



Originally posted by chocise
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.


He just called something a mental abortion. I think the language is stupidly strong because it doesn't allow for a level-headed conversation. The strongness is stupid, not the statement. You could just say "I think it's wrong" instead of "I think it's a mental abortion". That sort of language is unnecessary.

And where the hell is a straw man? You're mixing up your logical fallacies.




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?


Why yes, you can. Atheist means 'no god' not 'no supernatural'. I know that ATS user Benevolent Heretic believes in certain supernatural forces and is still an atheist.




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


No, but I applaud the attempt at ridicule and character attacks. Theravada Buddhism, the oldest form of Buddhism, is atheistic. There is no deity. Any idea of a deity is merely an illusion.




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...



Not all forms of Buddhism are the same. It's an old religion.




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?


I'm claiming to not know the actual fact of whether or not a deity exists because such a claim is impossible to disprove based upon its premises. It is set up in a way so that it could not be disproved. Of course, it is set out in a way that it could be proven, but nobody has done so.




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 ....


I love it when you make these really arrogant statements needlessly. It's not going to hit me 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?


You're mixing things up. "Vocabulary term" is something used by EarthCitizen07, not myself. Please, only attribute to me what I said. What I said, separated out into separate quotes because they were replies to separate statements:




Originally posted by madnessinmysou
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.


Please, do not mix up quotes and then say that they don't make sense. Of course they don't make sense when you intentionally edit together statements that were separate responses to specific claims into one long run on sentence. You're being dishonest in doing so.




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.


Not my problem. Read the statement I was replying to. I replied to the idea that denying the absolute meant denying the existence of anything. We do not need an absolute being to exist for the universe to exist.




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.



Wow...enlightening.



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.'


Ok, natural selection is asserted with evidence.
There are millions of publications
Plenty of evidence
Lots and lots and lots of it



A theoretical construct of a reductive process - one which reduces specie numbers. It cannot provide diversity.


I'm sorry, but it involves reproduction, as in the increase of numbers of members in a species.



There is no evidence for NS.


Which I've already refuted. There is a massive mountain of evidence in favor of it.



The fossil record rejects it


I'm sorry, but where in the fossil record is evolution rejected? We have transitional forms! We have tiktaalik, the fossil that people were always saying was a missing link we'd never find. The transition from land to sea!

Hell, the proliferation of life over time supports evolution, not just the morphology of fossils. If evolution were false we'd find a bunny in the Cambrian, an archeoptryx chilling with a mammoth, and other such anomalies.



and the hopes once pinned on discoveries in genetic homology have completely demolished any causal link.


Except that genetics proves evolution. Entirely. Stating that it doesn't won't make it so. You can say it until you're blue in the face, until you blue yourself for nothing, and it still won't be true.



Any belief based on it is then an assertion without evidence and we should reject it completely.


Except that you're:



There are literal mountains of evidence for evolution and you seem entirely ignorant to them. Please make your way over to the "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!" thread if you think you have some disproof of evolution. Or to the "Creationism: PROVE IT!" thread if you can prove that assertion.



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.


Except that it is. And you're still wrong.



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.


Quote mine!

At least finish the damn quote


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. But I can find out no such case.




: bacterial flagelli at the simplest level of life, just one example.


I'll let Dr. Kenneth Miller explain this to you, because it's a personal favorite of his. He's Catholic btw.



And here's another video explaining it.



So, once more, I most post the same video again:






Atheism has obviously impaired your vision.


Nope, but I must be blinded by science. You know, the stuff that you seem to be ignoring.





Here's a tip, never combine real science and atheism, or mix the two, it makes for very bad science.


The only person demonstrating any lack of understanding of science is you.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Just viewing one your supporting truths.... but can't see any supporting facts yet.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Well, that's a shame. You must have fact blindness. The condition that doesn't allow you to see the supporting facts. The TalkOrigins FAQs each contain massive numbers of facts. They all have various citations for these facts. The Ken Miller talk is in reference to actual scientific research.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
yup, as suspected, nothing in there. Is that all you have?

Where are these indomitable, immovable assertions to back your non-science based arguments? Where are they? Where can you prove ANY singular part of the theory you so blindly defend and pedal as a truth?

There aren't any because they don't exist. There is nothing but opinion and inference. You group things as a child does, because things 'look' similar, and this is where your cogent thought falls to pieces entirely..., not just because there are no facts to back them up, but because you have mistakenly observed a likeness in things, and [anthropomorphically] imparted your own dielectric on to them. That they are similar is NOT a product of [Darwinian] evolution per se but simply because, and you're going to fall off your chair here, they obey simple constructs which appear in nature, as they are: they are part of a fractal evolutionary law, whereby the likeness of sorts are recurrent by definition.

You have no science. In fact your interpretation of it is supremely erroneous. That you persist in trying to misinform and pedal such untruths is not only doing a great dis-service to science, but to humanity in general. If only you practiced what you actually preached [oh the blissful irony!] you'd be better placed to impart an opinion. You openly holla for proves and verifications, but can provide none yourself. You are a personification of mankinds' ignorance, reincarnate. When we finally get past your own staggering ignorance we will eventually be able to move on, but while people like you exist, science [and the rest of humanity] will remain at the cross-roads it has itself created.



edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: inclusion: provide



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Ken Miller didn't explain anything. He attempts to debunk bacterial flagelli by trying to prove it is not non-reducible. What he does is say a part of the structure has another function, but ignores all the other pieces!

.... and 'evolution occurs through a gradual, incremental process over time'.

hehe. Total nonsense. Defend it! It isn't what we observe at all. In fact it's totally the opposite.

Your thinking is dead. Darwin is dead. Evolution by NS is a fallacy. You are blinded by your atheist zeal because you simply cannot contemplate a world where materialism is extinct and your Victorian ideals are dead.
edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: typo



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
delete/double post
edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
Ken Miller didn't explain anything. He attempts to debunk bacterial flagelli by trying to prove it is not non-reducible. What he does is say a part of the structure has another function, but ignores all the other pieces!

.... and 'evolution occurs through a gradual, incremental process over time'.

hehe. Total nonsense. Defend it! It isn't what we observe at all. In fact it's totally the opposite.

Your thinking is dead. Darwin is dead. Evolution by NS is a fallacy. You are blinded by your atheist zeal because you simply cannot contemplate a world where materialism is extinct and your Victorian ideals are dead.
edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: typo


May I ask how evolution is relevant to the question of atheism ?
One can question the current theories regarding evolution and still be an atheist. Atheism as has been stated many times is simply no belief in deities.
One can be a theist and agree with the current Evolution theory.
It's the wonder of humanity that each and every one of us can choose what to give credence and what to discard. It is the shame of humanity that so many of us don't.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


I'm sorry to say this so bluntly; your post is a nonsensical rant with no value. Your use of circular arguments to support unprovoked attacks on scientific theories does not help you in this discussion. What do you mean "your thinking is dead?" Darwin is dead, that's a fact but it is hardly breaking news. Just what are you on about, then?''

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: misquothed person I'm replying to.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 



Originally posted by chocise
yup, as suspected, nothing in there. Is that all you have?


Wow, you managed to go through all of those documents, all of those scientific papers, all of those FAQs in a few hours?



Where are these indomitable, immovable assertions to back your non-science based arguments?


Well, I don't have any non-science based arguments in this area. But here's a lot of stuff that supports evolution.




Where are they? Where can you prove ANY singular part of the theory you so blindly defend and pedal as a truth?


Some of it is above. It's not a heavy science source though. It's a source of laypeople like us.



There aren't any because they don't exist.


That's more than a bit ignorant.



There is nothing but opinion and inference.


Of course there's inference. What sort of ignorance is this? Science is based on inference. You cannot have science without inference. The vast majority of the theory of evolution does not rest in opinion. Now, there are small and specialized facets that relate to specific rates at which environmental pressures and sexual pressures interplay that are in mild dispute...but there's no dispute the natural selection and sexual selection occur.



You group things as a child does, because things 'look' similar, and this is where your cogent thought falls to pieces entirely..., not just because there are no facts to back them up, but because you have mistakenly observed a likeness in things, and [anthropomorphically] imparted your own dielectric on to them.


Except that there's also all the genetic evidence. Atavisms also help the case. Honestly, why the hell am I talking to the sort of person who doesn't even know the first thing about what they're attacking?



That they are similar is NOT a product of [Darwinian] evolution per se but simply because, and you're going to fall off your chair here, they obey simple constructs which appear in nature, as they are: they are part of a fractal evolutionary law, whereby the likeness of sorts are recurrent by definition.


Uh huh...fractal evolution. Yeah...and where's the evidence to support this? You do realize the supersede natural selection your idea is going to have to explain everything that this concept explains in a better way than natural selection, right?



You have no science.


Except that I do. I have 1 year of advanced biology and 1 year of advanced chemistry, did quite well in both. Excelled in evolutionary biology. I've also been learning science since I could talk because it's such an interesting subject and I happened to have a scientist for a father.

I've also shown you the damn science. There are millions and these are not metaphorical millions but literal millions, of scientific articles published that support the truth of evolution by natural selection. Major corporation actually depend on evolutionary biology! Flu vaccines, antibiotic resistant bacteria, tissue rejection, etc...all explained via evolution by natural selection.

Without understanding evolution we wouldn't have an idea why cheetahs have so little genetic diversity that they're able to accept skin grafts from populations as separate as possible, yet it's incredibly difficult to find a skin graft donor from a sibling for humans.



In fact your interpretation of it is supremely erroneous. That you persist in trying to misinform and pedal such untruths is not only doing a great dis-service to science, but to humanity in general. If only you practiced what you actually preached [oh the blissful irony!] you'd be better placed to impart an opinion. You openly holla for proves and verifications, but can provide none yourself. You are a personification of mankinds' ignorance, reincarnate. When we finally get past your own staggering ignorance we will eventually be able to move on, but while people like you exist, science [and the rest of humanity] will remain at the cross-roads it has itself created.


Hey look! A giant block of text that serves as nothing beyond a ranting personal attack.




edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: inclusion: provide


Wow, a nice little fractal...you know, they're interesting in mathematics...
Huh, I tried looking up some scientific papers on it...the only times I've found the word 'fractal' used in conjunction with 'evolution' have nothing to do with a theory of evolution to supersede natural selection....
Odd...
You claim we have no science, please show me a scientific publication that proves your supposedly superior idea.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 



Originally posted by chocise
Ken Miller didn't explain anything. He attempts to debunk bacterial flagelli by trying to prove it is not non-reducible. What he does is say a part of the structure has another function, but ignores all the other pieces!


...the fact that we can make a structure from some of the pieces and not all of them means that it's reducible. It's like when Behe says a mousetrap is irreducibly complex...except you can remove one piece and make it a tie clip



.... and 'evolution occurs through a gradual, incremental process over time'.

hehe. Total nonsense. Defend it! It isn't what we observe at all. In fact it's totally the opposite.


Well...I did provide you with a lot of material that supports it. Evolution is a gradual process, how gradual depends on the organism. It's more gradual for organisms that reproduce less frequently and in lower numbers. It's less gradual in organisms that reproduce frequently and in greater numbers.



Your thinking is dead. Darwin is dead. Evolution by NS is a fallacy. You are blinded by your atheist zeal because you simply cannot contemplate a world where materialism is extinct and your Victorian ideals are dead.


Darwin is dead? Really? I was under the impression that people lived to be well over 200 years old...oh wait, no I wasn't. My thinking isn't dead. The 150+ years of science since Darwin first published "On the Origin" have done nothing beyond modify his theory and show how damn right he was.

There is no atheist zeal here. I understood evolution for years before I became an atheist. Were I a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Muslim, I would still accept evolution. Please, save your ignorant and empty attacks for somewhere else.

Also, there's a damn reply to function. Learn to use it.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
May I ask how evolution is relevant to the question of atheism ?
One can question the current theories regarding evolution and still be an atheist. Atheism as has been stated many times is simply no belief in deities.
One can be a theist and agree with the current Evolution theory.
It's the wonder of humanity that each and every one of us can choose what to give credence and what to discard. It is the shame of humanity that so many of us don't.
Yes, quite.


Originally posted by defenestrator
I'm sorry to say this so bluntly; your post is a nonsensical rant with no value. Your use of circular arguments to support unprovoked attacks on scientific theories does not help you in this discussion. What do you mean "your thinking is dead?" Darwin is dead, that's a fact but it is hardly breaking news. Just what are you on about, then?''

edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: misquothed person I'm replying to.
Excuse me, I felt it needed being said.

What I meant by "your thinking is dead" was that the current mode was inadequate, and some progress was needed. If one claims to defend science and use irrefutable facts ... one should at least provide some. What I find incalculably indefensible is the lack of objectivity in the face of 'what is observable'. It's all hinged on fundamental truths I guess, & that's why it can be an emotive subject. Forums evolved to allow the odd rant.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by defenestrator
 


Perhaps it wasn't clear enough.

I hold atheists responsible for the moral & ethical collapse witnessed in present day western cultures and in this I blame their materialist philosophy for destroying society. I see it [atheism] as a totally negative, redundant set of values & beliefs. From what I've witnessed the most atheistic are also the most ardent evolutionists who'll defend a theory in tatters – against scientific reason, observation, and evidential fact – while claiming adamantly they are using scientific reason, observation and evidential fact to prove its existence. It's then as destructive as is it is corrupt and dishonest, and I have every good reason to express a dislike of it while pointing out the huge holes in it. Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join