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: 57
34
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Would it condense everything to too fine a point if I were to suggest you are trolling this thread? Lurk more before you post.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I see, one identifies & answers the OP's opener, expresses grave doubts on atheism – its blurring effect on scientific enquiry and destructive influence on society – even offer up an alternative to the theory in tatters and get labeled a troll. Brilliant.
edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: remove emoticons



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
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.


Hmm, since I am an atheist living in what is described as the bible belt, I'll respond.
I generally hold religion responsible for the moral & ethical collapse of present day western culture and in this I blame their money hungry policies and ardent cries for tax-free status whilst certain aspects shelter known criminals. Yet more of them preach from positions of ignorance and superstition. They praise peace and practice violence: violence of the spirit with their uneducated views of women, sexuality and often scientific advance.
They practice to deceive by ignoring facts and instead quote endless tracts of obsolete text from manuscripts that have little relevance in modern society.
Most are hypocritical in the extreme, willing to use any and all technology that suits their purpose, the prime one being to recruit new drones, whilst at the same time condemning anything that may, just may, highlight a flaw in their precious structure of ignorance.
They require belief and faith, no questioning the holy word..thank you. Corrupt and dishonest barely encompasses the cancer that religion was/is and always will be and all based on the supposition that an invisible deity that cannot be denied is the reason that this planet sees so much war, strife and general conflict in its/their name.
But he/it/she loves us....loves us so much that if we utter one word of doubt, one question, we are damned.

Any questions ?

Addendum for clarity : Not all believers suffer from this malady. Many are in fact good and worthwhile people who take comfort in their belief. Sadly, it seems that number declines as deities and other bogeymen lose relevance as our knowledge and understanding expands.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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?


Now I get the feeling your just a sore loser and cant admit defeat!

Atheism defies/rejects/denies the existance of deities because science cannot prove they exist. Atheists have constantly stated show me empiracal proof OR:

"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."


Your words, not mine, which means CIRCLE LOGIC fallacy! Science is performed by humans you know.....
Most rational people don't deny something exists unless they can FIRST prove it does not exist!

The burden of proof falls on ANYONE making concrete statements but since we are talking about BELIEFS in the first place, then no one should be forced to prove ANYTHING! Since I believe in both infinity and absolutes and since something needs to create something else I believe absolute theism must exist! You might say well infinite regression and/or infinite progression does not make absolutism possible but I can easily prove you wrong by saying BOTH 1.9999999999999999999999999999999 and 2 exist.
Also what is not possible in one dimension may be possible in another dimension aka multiverse theory. Go ahead and prove me wrong!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
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


No its called LOGIC just like "Why don't you quote properly?" must have a logical explanation....



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
They still don't know what created the earth and the universe. They will say a black hole. Still, where did the black hole originate from. There must be something superior to all these things who was the trigger to all of it. An Intelligence. He does not need proof for himself.

God created everything.
edit on 2011/2/8 by etherical waterwave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
They still don't know what created the earth and the universe. They will say a black hole. Still, where did the black hole originate from. There must be something superior to all these things who was the trigger to all of it. An Intelligence. He does not need proof for himself.

God created everything.


There must be something . . . .

That part I can agree with.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by bogomil
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


No its called LOGIC just like "Why don't you quote properly?" must have a logical explanation....


What on earth has 'quoting' ability to do with 'logic'? If you refer to my computer incompetence, I can't see how it reflects on my, or any other person's logic capacity.

But I stand by my first observation. Your vocabulary is a semantic trap. You really believe, that anyone buys a process, where you join this process by entering with one meaning of a word, and then exiting with another meaning of the same word; 'proving' something.

"God is christians' name for the absolute............AND he's also qualitatively defined this way...."

As e.g. in the bible (my comment).

If you wish, I can take up 'intelligent design' in details.
edit on 8-2-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 


Lol you are pretty funny. So the universe couldn't have always just existed then? If that is the case, then neither could god, he would have had to be created as well. and the god before him etc etc.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Addendum for clarity : Not all believers suffer from this malady. Many are in fact good and worthwhile people who take comfort in their belief. Sadly, it seems that number declines as deities and other bogeymen lose relevance as our knowledge and understanding expands.


I'm curious to hear what expanding knowledge and understanding in, say, the last 20 years, has resulted in this declining number that you see? Personally, I see it as a social phenomenon, not an intellectual one -- the non-conformity perspective of the baby boomer generation which reacted against the pre-1960s materialism and the institutional nature of society has simply come home to roost.

Most scientific advances in the past 20 years are incremental and far above the head of the average person, so it's not akin to the advances of Galileo, Darwin or Copernicus, which pretty much horned in on religion's space, but didn't result in significant declines in church attendance, as has been the case in the past 20 years. (Arguably, there are lots of reasons that it didn't, but those reasons didn't suddenly go away in 1990 after the science was known for hundreds of years.)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
I see, one identifies & answers the OP's opener, expresses grave doubts on atheism – its blurring effect on scientific enquiry and destructive influence on society – even offer up an alternative to the theory in tatters and get labeled a troll. Brilliant.
edit on 7-2-2011 by chocise because: remove emoticons


I've followed Madnessinmysoul's many posts with interest and admiration for his competence. I have on one occasion had a direct contact with him on a subject, where a rather complex situation ultimately ending with the question of the validity of induction versus deduction was considered by both of us.

Though MIMS and I eventually at one point would end up going separate ways, there was never any doubt in my mind, that he understood the concepts involved in the situation, and that he responded rationally, competently and politely to me.

On the other hand, you Chocise, seem to be throwing scientific and logic concepts around you, which you must have picked up and 'learned how to use' in the school of christian fringe-pseudo-science.

I'll return to the above example of induction and deduction.

In a former post you write (apparantly to MIMS):

["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...."]

This indiscriminate and totally misapplied opinion on MIMS's very strict deductitive reasoning, by claiming that he (MIMS) is using induction comes only second in uninformedness to a christian, who recently seemed to believe, that the geocentric model was about time-sequence.

And to stay on that subject of the geocentric model, that would be my point of demonstrating the complete invalidity of your kind of christian claims, as I'm not very knowledgable on biology and geology. So I'll possibly take it up later, if there's reason for it.

Your later ethical speculations on the line of 'monkeys in the banana-plantation' as a result of atheist social impact is a separate subject, which I also can take up. As it is now, your claims in that direction are not only based on ignorance on the subject, but they also contain no small amount of propagandist-clichée attitude.

edit on 8-2-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and specification



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 



Originally posted by chocise
I see, one identifies & answers the OP's opener, expresses grave doubts on atheism – its blurring effect on scientific enquiry and destructive influence on society – even offer up an alternative to the theory in tatters and get labeled a troll. Brilliant.


Except you did none of the above. You expressed no grave doubt about not believing in deities. You showed nothing linking it to scientific inquiry, nor did you demonstrate a destructive influence on society.

And then you started talking about evolution, an entirely separate subject for which we have an entire subforum. You demonstrated complete ignorance of the issues, dismissed multiple sources as not containing any facts (hint, when you're given actual scientific papers, some facts might be contained therein), and then proposed conjecture without explaining anything. You didn't offer an alternative to a theory in tatters, as evolution by natural selection is not in tatters...and you didn't offer a suitable alternative, you just mentioned an idea that has no scientific support.

Of course you're a troll, you're acting like a troll. Instead of actually addressing how people are objecting to your ignorance you're just whining about being called a troll.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 



Originally posted by chocise
I see, one identifies & answers the OP's opener, expresses grave doubts on atheism – its blurring effect on scientific enquiry and destructive influence on society – even offer up an alternative to the theory in tatters and get labeled a troll. Brilliant.


Except you did none of the above. You expressed no grave doubt about not believing in deities. You showed nothing linking it to scientific inquiry, nor did you demonstrate a destructive influence on society.

And then you started talking about evolution, an entirely separate subject for which we have an entire subforum. You demonstrated complete ignorance of the issues, dismissed multiple sources as not containing any facts (hint, when you're given actual scientific papers, some facts might be contained therein), and then proposed conjecture without explaining anything. You didn't offer an alternative to a theory in tatters, as evolution by natural selection is not in tatters...and you didn't offer a suitable alternative, you just mentioned an idea that has no scientific support.

Of course you're a troll, you're acting like a troll. Instead of actually addressing how people are objecting to your ignorance you're just whining about being called a troll.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

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?


Now I get the feeling your just a sore loser and cant admit defeat!


I get the feeling you're someone who doesn't bother to back up such assertions. How have I lost?



Atheism defies/rejects/denies the existance of deities because science cannot prove they exist. Atheists have constantly stated show me empiracal proof OR:

"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."


Your words, not mine, which means CIRCLE LOGIC fallacy!


How is that 'CIRCLE LOGIC'? Circular arguments go "This book is true because God says it's true and God is right because this book says its right!"

I'm not making a circle, my argument is fairly linear.



Science is performed by humans you know.....
Most rational people don't deny something exists unless they can FIRST prove it does not exist!


No, the burden of proof lies on the claimant. Rational people don't accept something exists unless they can first prove it exists. We get a lot more done that way. Unless you don't deny the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Invisible, Incorporeal Dragon which is currently living in my garage and spewing out heatless, lightless, fire. Do you accept these claims even though there is no evidence?

Of course not



The burden of proof falls on ANYONE making concrete statements but since we are talking about BELIEFS in the first place, then no one should be forced to prove ANYTHING!


...except this fails the basic precepts of logical inquiry. I'm not making a concrete statement about anything. Those who believe in a deity are. If you believe in a deity you are making the concrete claim that an all-powerful, intervening being exists. If you don't accept that claim, you are not making a claim.



Since I believe in both infinity and absolutes and since something needs to create something else I believe absolute theism must exist!


Ok, go ahead and believe that. They're illogical assertions. Infinity exists as nothing but an abstraction and if something needs to create something you beg the question of what created the something that created something.



You might say well infinite regression and/or infinite progression does not make absolutism possible but I can easily prove you wrong by saying BOTH 1.9999999999999999999999999999999 and 2 exist.



Except that I'm not arguing for infinite regression, you are. By claiming that we need something to create something you beg the question of infinite regress. I'm saying that natural causes formed the universe, not an agency.

And the simultaneous existence of 1.9999999999999999999999999999999 and 2 have nothing to do with this discussion.



Also what is not possible in one dimension may be possible in another dimension aka multiverse theory.


...Universe. The word you're looking for is universe. A dimension is something like length, width, and depth.

...and the idea of a multiverse is a hypothesis, not really something that is backed up.



Go ahead and prove me wrong!


Well, I refuted your statements, if that's what you mean. You need to prove yourself right.
edit on 8/2/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Quote fix



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
or the Invisible, Incorporeal Dragon which is currently living in my garage and spewing out heatless, lightless, fire. Do you accept these claims even though there is no evidence?


Are you making this claim?

Here's the problem -- we do this stuff all the time. You have told me where you live. I have no evidence, beyond you telling me that that's where you live, but I accept it, because I don't really see any reason not to. If I knew that you were a pathological liar, I would be less likely to take your word for something, but you're a stand up kind of guy, so I'll just take your word for things.

Now, the counter-argument is that the likelihood that there is such a dragon in your garage is pretty small (though never zero) and I would be foolish to take your word for it. But the one side -- your testimony -- is based on what I know about you, and the other is based on my life experience and how I have been shaped through events (and, arguably, prevenient grace) to judge the chance that something can be true. Both are subjective, and will result in vastly different determinations of whether to take your word for it or not in each person.

In other words, your testimony is evidence, in itself. Whether I take it as such, though, depends on the conclusions that I've come to about you, and about whatever it is that you're claiming. Because I have seen things in my life that point to the supernatural, I'm going to be more accepting of such claims than someone who has never seen such things. Whether they are actual events or simply the result of a fanciful imagination doesn't matter all that much, because they are real enough to me, the one who experienced them.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote:

["In other words, your testimony is evidence, in itself."]

Happily you and I sometimes agree. I find this statement of yours VERY valid, on the condition, that it's a pointing out of direction; not automatically justifying premature conclusions.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


eyewitness testimony is not evidence

this is similar to what i was trying to explain in another thread, people let emotions betray their rationale

its obvious you are very well-versed in science, if not a scientist yourself, therefore you should understand the distinction between "evidence" and "scientific evidence", and only the latter can be used to make claims of a scientific nature

God appears to strike to the core of a lot of people's emotions, and thus let emotions thwart their understood conventions of language in favor of justifying a certain belief system



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote:

["In other words, your testimony is evidence, in itself."]

Happily you and I sometimes agree. I find this statement of yours VERY valid, on the condition, that it's a pointing out of direction; not automatically justifying premature conclusions.


No, certainly not. That's the other side of the equation, balancing what is being testified to with the credibility of the person saying it.

But it occurs to me that this is, in fact, the largest sort of "evidence" that we ever get. If my mum rings me up to say that my sister is coming to visit, I don't demand evidence of it, I just take her word for it. Think through a typical day, and every bit of information that comes to you. How much of it is someone simply telling you something (whether a coworker, someone on the radio, or whatever) and how much is real physical evidence.

You'd go mad if you refused to take anyone's word for anything, but demanded proof that lunch in the office cafeteria would be cheese sandwiches, or that it was likely to rain in the evening or that your husband loved you.

It's only on points on contention that we insist on additional "evidence", which is reasonable, but then that feeds back into my original point that we'll tend toward evidence that we're open to, based on experience and expectation.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by adjensen
 


eyewitness testimony is not evidence


Tell that to someone who has been convicted in court on the basis of it.
In actuality, if the witness is credible, eyewitness testimony is some of the most persuasive. That's why an attorney will often attack the witness' credibility, not necessarily what they are claiming to have seen.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
They still don't know what created the earth and the universe. They will say a black hole. Still, where did the black hole originate from. There must be something superior to all these things who was the trigger to all of it. An Intelligence. He does not need proof for himself.

God created everything.


There must be something . . . .

That part I can agree with.

There may be something, I can agree with, must be not so much.

Again, Atheism is a stance on a single subject, not all subjects. Prudent science doesn't claim to have any answers that it does not have. Scams will happen, yes, but there is always the flamethrower of skepticism to keep those at bay.
Theism claims to have answers that it has no evidence for, plain and simple.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join