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.
Originally posted by defenestrator
edit on 2/7/2011 by defenestrator because: (no reason given)
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!
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?
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.
Originally posted by chocise
Wow... You're off on one again. Take a seat, breath deeply.
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.
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.
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?
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
Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic.
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...
That doesn't make sense. What do you mean 'agnostic is not claiming'? What are you not claiming to not know?
No, agnostic is not claiming to not understand, it is claiming to not know.
OK, now bear that in mind, cause it's going to come around and hit you in the back of the head ....
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.
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?
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.
Lost me completely here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by chocise
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
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.
Yes, quite.
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.
Excuse me, I felt it needed being said.
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.