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: 59
34
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Student X
reply to post by StlSteve
 


I'm just using the quote to make a point. Settle down, tough guy.


And it's my quote anyway, lol.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Fine. I don't care who said it. My point still stands.


edit on 8-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Student X
Fine. I don't care who said it. My point still stands.


Oh, I don't disagree. There are some schools of thought (mostly Calvinist, but a number of other Protestant views, as well,) that say that a non-believer is absolutely, totally unable to believe, regardless of how much they would like to believe, because God has intentionally not granted them the grace of faith.

I'm not a fan of that perspective (although a very good argument can be made for it,) and it seems a bit more reasonable to see a lot of the recalcitrance being due to having an opinion and setting the bar for overcoming that opinion so high that it will never be met.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


You wrote:

["They trap themselves in a psychic catch-22 and so they never "go there". What they need is a "I'll see it when I believe it" stance."]

Valid point, but it shouldn't lead to 'free-for-all' approaches. There's still a need for strict systematic methodology, with 'tools' suited to the 'outside scientific-objectivity definitions'. And such could take a very long time to develop.




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



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by StlSteve
 


The misquote the launched a minor flame exchanged.

Come on, I grew up in the Lou! Why you gotta play me like that? And why did you just bother to make an uncommented upon misquote? Where's the beef?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


In the absence of objective data, subjective data only has a use to a point. It can direct us on where to look, but the problem is that it is oftentimes contradictory. Look at most psychological perceptions experiments.

Now, sure I could fake all of that, but I could attempt to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And you could fully prove the claim if you were shrewd enough and had the means to come over here and test it. The point is that the claim has some level of testing behind it, while theistic claims that make massive reality claims, including but not limited to the intervention of a supernatural force in defiance of the laws of physics into the natural world, are testable yet yield no data that provide evidence in favor of the claims.

Quoting excluded to prevent people from accidentally misquoting things.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


Well, you were shown that an atheist didn't post that and you've not retracted your defamatory statements against atheists...so what's with the intellectual dishonesty? If you're going to use this quote anyway, you're just using a poorly-constructed straw man made from isolated, out-of-context theistic statements and then labeling it "atheist" and probably drawing an angry face with pointy teeth on it.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote:

["There are some schools of thought (mostly Calvinist, but a number of other Protestant views, as well,) that say that a non-believer is absolutely, totally unable to believe, regardless of how much they would like to believe, because God has intentionally not granted them the grace of faith."]

Have always found that one very funny. The watchmaker universe, so similar to the reductionist materialist universe.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by adjensen
 


You wrote:

["There are some schools of thought (mostly Calvinist, but a number of other Protestant views, as well,) that say that a non-believer is absolutely, totally unable to believe, regardless of how much they would like to believe, because God has intentionally not granted them the grace of faith."]

Have always found that one very funny. The watchmaker universe, so similar to the reductionist materialist universe.


No, it's classic Calvinist Predestination. The "raw" perspective is that... oh, let's use you and Madness as an example... God decides (for whatever reason, purpose is not relevant) that he will grant you the grace of faith, and that he will deny Madness the same. The doctrine also teaches that it is irresistible grace, so you have no choice in whether you will believe or not, and also teaches that this grace is required for belief, so Madness is out of luck, no matter what his intentions might be.

Offshoots are that God sees that Madness will ultimately reject belief anyway, so he doesn't bother extending him the grace, or that that grace would be resisted so, once again, it is not extended.

Calvinism pisses me off, because I'm an Arminian (a school of thought that says we all get the grace of faith, but some people choose to not accept it,) but when you work through it theologically, Calvinism makes a lot more sense than you think it would (and should -- when you think it through, it's ultimately a very frightening position.)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Student X
 


Well, you were shown that an atheist didn't post that and you've not retracted your defamatory statements against atheists...so what's with the intellectual dishonesty? If you're going to use this quote anyway, you're just using a poorly-constructed straw man made from isolated, out-of-context theistic statements and then labeling it "atheist" and probably drawing an angry face with pointy teeth on it.


Read what I said a little closer please. I'm quote myself: "In my experience with atheists and "skeptics" it seems that "God" and such usually boils down to a rejection of evidence that others might find conclusive in favor of a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance."

Now I'll expand on that, in the hopes of clearing up any misunderstanding. IN MY EXPERIENCE are key words that I would like to draw your attention to.

In my experience with atheists and skeptics, which is wider and deeper than merely this little thread and the handful of atheists in it...when asked what sort of evidence would persuade them to change their position, they often indicate an "I'll believe it when I see it" sort of stance "or I'll believe in heaven "when I go there". Maybe YOU would say otherwise, but that is beside the point. My experience with atheists and skeptics is wider than my experience with YOU sir.

"Because short of me going there, nothing that you could present, nothing, would be conclusive evidence. In the age that we live, it could all be faked, pictures, video, phone calls, whatever."

So that quote - regardless of who said it - brought to mind a question I often ask atheists...what would change your mind? The answer I usually get is something along the lines of "I'll change my mind when I see God/go there to heaven. Because short of me going there/seeing it for myself, nothing that you could present, nothing, would be conclusive evidence." If you would have an entirely different sort of answer to that question, I would like to hear it.

I hope this clarifies things for you.


edit on 8-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

The point is that the claim has some level of testing behind it, while theistic claims that make massive reality claims, including but not limited to the intervention of a supernatural force in defiance of the laws of physics into the natural world, are testable yet yield no data that provide evidence in favor of the claims.

I see no evidence that "theistic" stances typically make so many more unevidenced claims than other similarly comprehensive metaphysical stances.

Some metaphysical propositions must be right. None of them have evidence for or against, else they would be physics, not meta-.

Why not Jensen's metaphysics, then?

Apart from metaphysics, many of the detailed temporal claims of the revealed religions (that Mohammed received the recitations rather than composed them himself, for instance) have the usual corpus of evidence for private experiences of people now long dead: the principals' recorded testimony, maybe supplemented with some pertinent observations by contemporaries.

As always, the evaluation of evidence, its bearing, and the extent to which it supports conclusions is entirely subjective. An evaluator who finds Mohammed credible becomes a Muslim. Someone else who does not so find does not so become.

100% subjective. Whether the subjective conclusion is correct or not may be an objective matter, but that doesn't help. We have no direct knowledge of objective contingencies, only our inferences, and those inferences about contingencies are subjective and fallible. All of them.

Congratulations, BTW, for keeping a conspiracy-free thread atop the religious conspiracies board for so long. I guess the ATS-PTB bought your image of the God Squad having a secret meeting to smite the seed of Chucky. Lol.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Now, sure I could fake all of that, but I could attempt to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.


No, I don't think that you could. Like I said, it would require digging into philosophy, but there are positions that I could adopt that would prevent you from proving it.


The point is that the claim has some level of testing behind it, while theistic claims that make massive reality claims, including but not limited to the intervention of a supernatural force in defiance of the laws of physics into the natural world, are testable yet yield no data that provide evidence in favor of the claims.


I'm not sure that they are testable in a reasonable manner. Take miracles, for instance. Lots of weird stuff happens -- people who undergo spontaneous remission from terminal disease, and doctors testify that they "have no idea how it happened." We can test the person and see that, yes, they don't seem to be dying any more, but there's no way to test and see why not.

While I was in Texas over the past couple of weeks, a series of very odd events took place that I cannot sort out, though I've been trying. Disparate pieces of a puzzle began to take form a number of years ago, and all came together last week. It is real, I have the "evidence" here in my office back in the tundra, but I have no idea how it came about.

Statistically, it is, literally, impossible to have happened by chance. I am left to believe in providence, synchronicity that falls into the metaphysical, or some sort of evil intentional manipulation on the part of a number of people. You can guess where I'm aligning myself



Quoting excluded to prevent people from accidentally misquoting things.


lol. I will take the risk for purposes of clarity



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

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.


Bascially if you don't have a phD from an ivy league university and ALL your papers "peer reviewed" by the NWO league of scientists......then your "not" credible enough to give any testimony other than what you ate for lunch and dinner.

I have argued with MMIS in at least two threads and nothing I present as evidence satisfies his taste buds. Not only that but he just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. He even dismisses science theories such as the multiverse and the 11 dimensional universe whenever it suits him of course.

Facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs. I dont feel like I need to prove anything to anyone and someone who claims god does not exist is also making a claim of belief. This is basic common sense!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Based on personal experience, I guess that it depends on the "wish" part of your statement. Most heavy maths and sciences are not something that one picks up on the weekends, though if I can learn the History of Greek Mathematics on my days off, I guess that there's hope for most people.


But there are many fields and discoveries that require an effective lifetime of study and experimentation to comprehend, and those would absolutely be over the head of someone who hadn't done the work. That's not elitism, just a simple fact, somewhat akin to your chances of becoming a professional hockey player being pretty slim if you didn't start playing when you were three.


While i agree with the hockey statement, I'll choose to disagree with the lifetime study part required to comprehend.

I ,and everyone else, can comprehend many things without a lifetime of study. Comprehension does not always require a lifetime of study. It usually requires someone else to devote a lifetime of study.
Any result from research that cannot be explained in relatively simple terms is research for the sake of research and usually falls in the "math for math's sake" areas within the hard sciences.

After all was it not Newton that said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Science is rarely about flashes of insight. It is more commonly laying one brick upon another until the structure is clear.

Yes, we are all ignorant still. We are, in general, a better class of ignorant than our forerunners..............



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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


It has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion because it goes to prove that the creator only creates and is not created by anything else. Its like saying did the egg come before the chicken or did the chicken come before the egg and I say the egg came first!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.


You make a demand for evidence as to my beliefs, I give you the evidence and you deny it, then ask for evidence once more. By any reasonable definition that is circle logic!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I have argued with MMIS in at least two threads and nothing I present as evidence satisfies his taste buds.


Most people set a level of "acceptable evidence", and you have yet to meet his. You likely never will. If you are so inclined, go with the Calvinist doctrine that nothing that you say stands any chance of helping Madness along the path to faith.

Barring that, just get used to not getting the response from your arguments that you want. The number of theists and atheists that have switched sides based on the arguments made in forums such as this can likely be counted on one hand.


Not only that but he just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.


Gosh, who doesn't?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
While i agree with the hockey statement, I'll choose to disagree with the lifetime study part required to comprehend.


That's cool, I'm probably a bit jaded from addressing people who think that "double slit photon experiments" mean that we can time travel, that the Earth is necessarily about 6000 years old (oddly, the number of atheists making that claim seems to outnumber the theists saying the same,) and that the fact that they have lost the lottery sixteen times in a row means that they're more likely to win it on the 17th try.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I've noticed that, too. I think it's because they see that their beleifs have MANY inconsistancies & are trying their hardest to keep their superstitious dogma alive. We all know that the Bible has NO place in modern civilization. Hell, we aren't even considered a civilization, because we aren't CIVIL enough to stop murdering each other in wars over who's right about their god!



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Take miracles, for instance. Lots of weird stuff happens -- people who undergo spontaneous remission from terminal disease, and doctors testify that they "have no idea how it happened." We can test the person and see that, yes, they don't seem to be dying any more, but there's no way to test and see why not.



Some people (including atheists and non-religionists) do make startling recoveries from illnesses; the person who prayed for a recovery may well claim that it was because they prayed, whereas the non believer who recovers comes to no such conclusion.

The fake healing business is a multi-billion dollar business, but none of these fake healers have ever collected James Randi's million dollar prize; if they could prove that they can do miracles, the prize would be theirs; similarly if they could prove that they could communicate with their deity (by consistently being able to pick lottery numbers for example).

"And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it." (John 14:13-1)

This statement allegedly attributed to the religious fanatic, exorcist and fake healer, Jesus, has disproven over and over, so many times in human history and every Christian knows in their rational mind that it is simply ridiculous; since their faith has been disproven they have to rely on instances where a person naturally recovered from ill health; however if Christians had the powers which their dead god promised them, there would be no need of doctors and hospitals, and there would be no such thing as leprosy and blind people.

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:

Since it has been established that Christians "cannot" miraculously cure leprosy, nor can they raise the dead, nor are they effective at miraculously curing the sick (not that it stops the charlatans of the multi-billion dollar Jesus business making such claims), they tend to concentrate on "casting out devils," since that cannot by verified scientifically; however the idea that illness and mental ilness is caused by demonic possession is simply a primitive and savabge belief, however it is a very good business for the numerous charlatans of Christianity, who follow in the example of their dead god.

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 )

There are many children who have faith and do not doubt that Santa Claus exists; similarly it should be very easy to get a child to "have faith" "not doubt" that they can miraculously cast mountains into the sea, yet no such child has ever been able to demonstrate such powers, nor has any Christian, and indeed if there ever existed a historical Jesus who did have such powers, I am quite sure that many historians of that era would have recorded such events; thus I must conclude that the dead god Jesus, if he existed at all, was just another religious charlatan, like his many followers in the modern world.

Lux



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucifer777

This statement allegedly attributed to the religious fanatic, exorcist and fake healer, Jesus, has disproven over and over, so many times in human history and every Christian knows in their rational mind that it is simply ridiculous;


Jesus was a shaman, not a fake. Shamans can use psi to heal but you've heard the expression 'it takes a villiage' before right? Hillary coined that phrase in reference to raising a child. A miracle is like a child. It takes the faith of a villiage. It takes psi on a parasociological level. The tribe has to believe in the shaman for the psi to manifest. Disbelief is psi-inhibitive.

If the villiage is packed with disbelieving pseudo-skeptics then an ordinarily psychic healer is powerless. Thats why faith is stressed in all religions, and that's why psi can be so elusive. The ebb and flow of the sheep-goat effect forms the transpersonal backdrop of every paranormal manifestation. The only way to overcome the snare of the sheep-goat catch-22 is to take a leap of faith and stick with it.

"By the power of faith, we are able to eliminate the two types of obscurations.[6] Through the power of faith both ontological and phenomenological knowledge arises. It is also by the power of faith that both the common and uncommon siddhis arise." Faith in Buddhism

Jesus the Healer

[...]

So if Jesus was a healer, how did he do it? Theissen points to two unique properties of Jesus' healings. First, unlike most traditional healers of the ancient world, Jesus consistently emphasized faith as critical to healing -- both the faith of the one being healed as well as the faith of those around him or her.

[...]


edit on 9-2-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join