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: 64
34
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
No disrespect man but the big bang is kind of old science by now! If you believe in the multiverse and white holes then it is "easy" to understand that a black hole collapses into itself and creates a white hole(BIG BANG) within the 11 dimensional multiverse, thus setting up a new universe.


...I never said the Big Bang didn't happen, I said that the claim that 'nothing' proceeded the Big Bang is incorrect. And the ideas you put out are hypothetical, not proven. The Big Bang is proven.



Remember all space-time points are interconnected and can be warped?


What do you mean? You mean by gravity? What you said doesn't really have a specific meanings per say...



That is what worm-holes and stargates are theoretically based on. Antimatter is the antithesis of matter(negative energy) and can be theoretically used to shrink space-time ahead of you, thus pulling you ahead at faster than light speed.


...no, antimatter isn't negative energy...the result of antimatter and matter combining would be energy. And the only methods that have been theoretically devised that can warp spacetime ahead of an object would still require insanely high levels of energy.



Who created the multiverse and matter? In my opinion god!


Well, there's no evidence of anything beyond our universe...but why did matter have to be created? What remains is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion and an understanding of science that might be better tempered with some actual research into what you're talking about..




posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
My response would be; "The problem of evil" if you are to say "God" is good or "GOD" is what we associate with the concept of "Good" and God is creator, God is the creator of all good AND all evil.


Except that evil isn't a "thing", something to be created. Evil is simply the absence of good. God "created" evil by making it possible to not be good, that's all.

I'm surprised that you would argue the problem of evil, though, since it requires absolutes, and you've said that you don't believe in them. If morality is subjective, as you've said, then there really is no evil to be debated.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware


The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)


This does NOT make much sense to me because its circle reasoning.

When someone or something is better than you then the natural tendency is to look up to that someone or something with respect and admiration.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This question has presented a problem for theists ever since Plato's original discussion, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.


Good and bad are relativistic human concepts and what may seem evil to you may seem good or neutral to someone else. If a burglar decides to bust in and steal my valuable possessions and I shoot him in the head and kill him...then who is "evil" and who is "good"?

I do NOT see god as being purely good and satan as being purely evil. That is the traditional view that everyone more or less takes for granted. In fact afaik god is/was the absolute and satan was an archangel that rebelled against god and was cast to hell. I don't know what "hell" is and where it is but I doubt it has to do with earth only.

Also I think you are making the mistake of personifying deities when in reality they may be exotic energy forms. Personification of things we do not understand is a bad habit!
edit on 12-2-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed tags



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


"Exotic energy forms"? What the hell does that even mean? I'm sorry, but it's just something that frustrates me on alt websites, people throw around the world 'energy' like it's something that's a catch-all term. We know what energy is....

Now, of course this dilemma only applies to those who claim that the idea of good is dictated by deities...so what? Not all problems with some deities will apply to them all.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...I never said the Big Bang didn't happen, I said that the claim that 'nothing' proceeded the Big Bang is incorrect. And the ideas you put out are hypothetical, not proven. The Big Bang is proven.


So your saying there is ONLY ONE universe...that created by OUR big bang?

How is that proven more than the multiverse theory and the existance of multiple white holes?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
What do you mean? You mean by gravity? What you said doesn't really have a specific meanings per say...


And what is gravity? Is it not a form of electromagneticism we pretend not to understand? Isn't almost everything based on electromagneticism? Are there any exceptions to this rule? Sorry for my loaded questions....


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...no, antimatter isn't negative energy...the result of antimatter and matter combining would be energy. And the only methods that have been theoretically devised that can warp spacetime ahead of an object would still require insanely high levels of energy.


Correct! I should have said negative matter rather than negative energy. Negative matter + positive matter = Energy


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, there's no evidence of anything beyond our universe...but why did matter have to be created? What remains is nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion and an understanding of science that might be better tempered with some actual research into what you're talking about..


I did not come up with these theories on my own, if that is what you are insinuating. Everything has already been postulated by science and some theories are more acceptable than others. Maybe you should look into them more and worry less about correcting my "limited understanding" of the topic.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So your saying there is ONLY ONE universe...that created by OUR big bang?


I'm saying that there is only one universe we are certain of that was created by a single big bang as the evidence suggests



How is that proven more than the multiverse theory and the existance of multiple white holes?


Well...there is one universe. We know it was created in a big bang...and...well, that's about all we have going for us. Now, it might be that there is more than one, but all we have evidence of is the one.



And what is gravity? Is it not a form of electromagneticism we pretend not to understand? Isn't almost everything based on electromagneticism? Are there any exceptions to this rule? Sorry for my loaded questions....


They're only loaded with a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental forces of our universe:

Strong
Weak
Electromagnetic
Gravity

Electromagnetism and gravity are different fundamental forces of the universe.



Correct! I should have said negative matter rather than negative energy. Negative matter + positive matter = Energy


Well, calling it 'negative matter' is a bit misleading. It's antimatter. It's not negative because negative implies a charge.



I did not come up with these theories on my own, if that is what you are insinuating.


No, I'm postulating that your basis is in popular scientific literature rather than academic works.



Everything has already been postulated by science and some theories are more acceptable than others.


True, but postulated is the key word. These are competing models, none of them are set in stone.



Maybe you should look into them more and worry less about correcting my "limited understanding" of the topic.


Well, I'm just pointing out that you might be benefited by looking into some basic scientific literature.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


What about gallaxies colliding, bacteria, parasites and disease?...Still "GOD's" work.

There is beauty and elegance throughout the universe but there is also chaos and evil.



God is not some "concsiouss" being that "cares" or "intervenes". God isn't a "designer" of life; Evolution has defeated the faulty man-made myth of creation.

Even if the God of Deism or any Theism existed, i wouldn't worship it.
edit on 12/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Even if the God of Deism or any Theism existed, i wouldn't worship it.


Which is perfectly fine -- there's nothing in Christianity (at least) that says that you have to. That's what the whole "free will" thing is all about. As I've said, time and again, if there is a God, then any problem that you have is between you and he, it's none of my concern.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So do you or don't you believe in Hell if you choose to disobey any man-made religion? (i.e. neglect "GOD")

For instance, you don't think non-believers are "sinners", do you?

It's one thing believing in a creator of reality, it's another thing believing that man can obtain the commands and description of the creator of reality.

I believe religious description is nothing more than a poem, and metaphorical attempt at revealed wisdom by early man. Some of it is profound, and useful, other passages or dogma in religion could be seen as evil or promoting prejudice.

I have no concerns with the Deism position, i have few qualms with this belief as theres no hysterical dogma attached to the belief system.

So what is your position? Belief in a deity (Deism) or belief in a specific description of the deity (Theism)?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
 


So do you or don't you believe in Hell if you choose to disobey any man-made religion? (i.e. neglect "GOD")


Like I said, problems such as this are between you and God, not me. If God doesn't exist, then you've nothing to complain about, and if he does, and this is his rule, you are welcome to file your complaint with him.

I've made it abundantly clear what my beliefs are, and I don't see the need to endlessly repeat them, particularly when they are completely offtopic for this discussion.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Do you consider me a sinner for my belief structure? it's a straight forward question. My point is that, if God is willing to send someone to hell for eternity without proper discussion or without a chance of refomation then i consider him tyrannous and unloving, i woudn't ask anyone to belief him, let alone put faith in him.

Obviously each religion is different so i could be considered a "sinner" to different religions depending on which religion i worship - That's how proposterus the idea of religion is; Every member of religion is Atheist towards every other religion. A muslim disagrees with the Christian understanding for example.

I just wanted a simple answer; do you uphold dogmatic beliefs? The pre-written beliefs of other men? Or is your belief that of Deism? (without dogma)?

This is regarding threads attacking atheists and it is useful to clear any misconceptions and gain more of understanding.
edit on 12/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen
 


Do you consider me a sinner for my belief structure?


Of course not.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I have no concerns with the Deism position, i have few qualms with this belief as theres no hysterical dogma attached to the belief system.

So what is your position? Belief in a deity (Deism) or belief in a specific description of the deity (Theism)?





Religious Schizophrenia

Part of the extremely serious and dangerous problem of religion is that it has been estimated that almost 25% of all inpatients in psychiatric hosptials who are schizophrenic are suffering from a "religious" form of schitzophrenia; they are not merely "insane" but they are "religiously" insane and often claim that "God" is communicating with them.

I think we can all be sceptical when some millionaire TV evangelist claims that "God told me to raise a million dollars for this ministry" and brand him a charlatan, however the phenomenon of schizophrenics hearing voices from God is so widespread that it is not so easy to put this down to fraudulent claims, especially when they have nothing to profit by such claims. I have experimented wildly throughout my life with shamanic psychoactives and I certainly have had many such similar experiences, and I can testify to the fact that such experiences can seem very real.

Part of the problem of combatting religion is that we are essentially combatting an army of schizophrenics; I would not wish to suggest that "all" persons suffering from religious psychosis are schizophrenic, however what seems to occur is that many of the most famous religious celebrities (such as the Jesus of the Gospels) are held up as "models" of an ideal person, whereas from a psychological perspective they are classic schizophrenics.

When debating on the Interent with a religious schizophrenic, I am entirely aware that some of these people are totally incurable; schizophrenia is not merely a temporary form of psychosis which can be cured by psychotherapy, as it also has a neurological basis; it is a malfunctioning of the brain.

'___' (Dimethyltryptamine) and brain chemistry.

I cannot speak about my theory of brian chemistry from a totally scientific point of vew, but if you examine the various types of trip reports on '___' on www.erowid.org... you will find that this substance almost universally produces religious type experiences and it is extremely commonplace for people to report that "God" was speaking to them.

Since '___' is a neuro-transmitter which is naturally created by the body, I entirely suspect that many of these religious schizophrenics may have a body chemistry which over produces '___'. Personally '___' is one of the few psychoactives I have not experimented with, but havng been in the psychoactive production industry in the past, there have been times in my life where I had almost limitless quantities of '___' and psilocybe, both of which can produce a "temporary" form of religious psychosis. I have experienced the most amazing types of religious hallucinations and visions; and frankly I think that such experiences would be enough to convince any religious schizophrenic that they are "not" deluded and that there "are" gods, angels or demons communicating with them.

For many of the religious fanatics on the Internet who simply will not listen to reason, it may well be because their bodies overproduce '___' and this gives them visionary type experiences which simply "confirms" their irrational faith. Part of the danger of religious fanaticism is that when a model of religious schizophrenia is considered "normal" it is entirely possible for religious schizophrenics to become heads of state and command armies and nuclear weapons; in fact in certain nations if one models oneself around a religious schizophrenic, it is much easier to be elected.

Religious schizophrenia is not a "harmless" phenomenon; the consequences throughout history have been genocidal, and are likley to be so in the future, and in a post nuclear age, the dangers of promoting religious schizophrenic models (such as Jesus and Mohammad) should be rather obvious, particularly since the "End Times" prophecies of the Koran and the Bible predict an apocalyptic, genocidal Holy War.

The intellectual war "against" religion being we are combatting on the Internet is not a game, it is not a hobby; the salvation of humankind is at stake. We are the invisible revolutionary vanguard, united by a common purpose; we sit in judgement on the living and the dead; the future is ours, but many battles lie ahead.

Lux


edit on 12-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



religious hallucinations and visions


Describe a "religious" hallucination as opposed to just as regular hallucination.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


And chaos and destruction serves it's purpose within nature as well...........



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Lucifer777
 



religious hallucinations and visions


Describe a "religious" hallucination as opposed to just as regular hallucination.


Well despite my years of mixing Crowleyesque magick (Abramelin Magick) with shamanic psychoactives, I can only really think of a few occasions where I had a full blown hallucination which appeared to be toally real to me. The most powerful experience I had of this sort happened over 30 years ago (I am 52 now and I was 19 at the time) when I was living in India and I considered myself to be a Sadhu (a devotee of Shiva). The experience would probably sound unbelievable unless I first of all explain that I was using a cocktail of opium, marijuna and '___', but essentially it was the manifestation of a demonic creature whom I assumed was the "Devil;" the experience only lasted a short time, but it certainly seemed that he was communicating with me telpathically. I am not at all suggesting that this being had any objective existence, but it was extremely real to me.

Perhaps I should not really use the term "religious hallucinations" since this creates the wrong impression of the experience on shamanic psychoactives; I think that probably a better term would be "religious visions," or the experience that other beings were communicating with me from the spiritual world; such experiences being very commonplace among users of shamanic psychoactives. Abramelin magick is essentially "necromancy" and has been described as a form of self imposed schizophrenia which involves the summoning of angels and demons (discarnate intelligences) and commanding them in accordance with the will of the magickian. I was never interested in any form of personal gain; I have just always had a rather advanced Messianic complex which virtually all political Communists have; I just wanted to "save the world."

One of things that struck me when reading Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion" is that he claimed that he has "never" had any type of "spiritual" experience, and I think that it may well be that some people's body chemistry underproduces '___' while other people's body chemistry overproduces it, leading to religious schizophrenia, religious visions and religious hallucinations etc.

Thus when Christians claim to have "born again" experiences, although I have never been a Christian, I tend to believe them; however although such experiences seem to confirm their particular form of religious fanaticism, the same can be said of the Indian Sadhu (who spend much of their lives in a marijuana haze) who is more likely to have a vision of Shiva than of Christ.

Lux

edit on 12-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Thanks for responding; that's very interesting. I can't say i've had any vivid hallucination or visions while under the influence of any drug i've taken. Mind i've been limited to marijuana, coke and even ecstasy. (not exactly the most " "Hallucinogenic" line-up i admit) I never was brave enough to intoxicate myself with '___' or Mushrooms. I definetly would say i've had some "spiritual" experiences on Ecstasy and MDMA though.

Did this demon you speak of come from your personal fears? Or was it a conjuring of your mind, (free from bias or previous experience) Maybe this vision came from your sub-concious fears or worries regarding devils, spirits or demons and such?

Do you have any metaphysical belief? Spirit world's, dimensional beings, afterlife etc. etc. etc.?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


It certainly seems to, it's what's at the core of evolution; Survival of the fittest. 99.8% of all species - GONE, exstinct, why? because although beautiful, nature is destructive. Some people want to personify and "worship" that, just like they personified volcanoes etc. The "unknown" or unexplained was anthropomorphized. Disease and natural disaster were punishment.

Besides, i think the poetry of nature is much more mysterious and profound without mentioning any type of omnipotent "Master of the puppets" behind the scenes.

God is an assumption as is infinity - but at least infinity has a mathematical logic to it.
edit on 12/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Thanks for responding; that's very interesting. I can't say i've had any vivid hallucination or visions while under the influence of any drug i've taken. Mind i've been limited to marijuana, coke and even ecstasy. (not exactly the most " "Hallucinogenic" line-up i admit) I never was brave enough to intoxicate myself with '___' or Mushrooms. I definetly would say i've had some "spiritual" experiences on Ecstasy and MDMA though.


Well I "used" to be a commercial producer of psilocybe mushrooms and I was at one time in the '___' business, though this is all in the past so I can talk about it; however I had virtually limitless quanities. '___' seems to have a "very" powerful effect on me, though I have heard testimonies from '___' users that '___' is by far the most powerful of all the shamanic psychoactives and what is even more interesting is the the human body produces it naturally. We don't really undestand scientifically how "dreams" are produced, but I entirely suspect that memory and dreams are related to '___', since shamanic "visions" or "revelations" are really very similar to a waking dream which cannot be controlled or switched off.


Did this demon you speak of come from your personal fears? Or was it a conjuring of your mind, (free from bias or previous experience) Maybe this vision came from your sub-concious fears or worries regarding devils, spirits or demons and such?


Well a couple of other important experiences I had were obviously just pulled from images in my memory. For example I once looked in a mirror on '___' and may face transformed into what seemed like a myriad of different faces including the face of Hitler and the face of Christ, but it just so happened that I had been reading Herman Hesse's Siddhartha, and the front cover of that edition had a painting of the multi-faceted Shiva on it; whereas I tend to think that a Christian who is obsessed with Jesus would be more likely to have a vision of Jesus than of Shiva.

Another early experience I had was a vision of Jesus, but on hindsight, I think that it was just an image pulled from the page of an illustrated Bible I had as a child depicting a blond haired, blue eyed Aryan Jesus in a white robe, and of course we know that the ancient Israelites were Semites (of Arabic appearance) and that they did not look like the Aryan Jesus of the German churches.

There was a period where I was immersed in Abramelin magick and although I did not have full blown visual hallucnations, the experience of summoning demonic entities was very real to me, although I was always in a psychoactive haze; whereas a Christian would probably have a very different type of experience on psychoactives which would probably reflect their existing beliefs.


Do you have any metaphysical belief? Spirit world's, dimensional beings, afterlife etc. etc. etc.?


Yes, to be frank I do believe that there are other dimensions of reality which exist alongside our current dimension, and that there are intelligent beings from other dimensions which observe and influence us, some of whom are malevolent and some of whom are benevolent; I suppose that this is what Christians refer to as "angels and demons." Of course I cannot prove any of this, and I doubt there will ever be empirical proof of such dimensions, since they are not part of our dimension and can only be perceived through the world of the mind, and even then it is very confusing. I don't believe in reincarnation but I certainly do have afterlfe beliefs and I consider the soul to be eternal.

I doubt that humankind will ever stop having metaphysical beliefs, however this is quite a different matter to the dangers of organised religion, mass religious hypnosis and religious indoctrination, especially with the kind of ancient, primitive and savage major religions we have, particularly those of the world's three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Hindusim, all of which are simply memetic diseases in my judgement.

I don't believe that the solution to these religious diseases is to create a "new" form of religious fanaticism; rather I believe that the solution is the eradication of organised religion. I have been active in the Neopagan movement for many years, but in those circles there are very few organised religions; most people are just eclectic New Age spiritualists who have their own personal beliefs based around Thelemic philosophy, and I think that this is a very modern, progressive and New Age / New Aeon tendency; even the O.T.O seems to be mostly comprised of old hippies who have an Aleister Crowley fan club and sit around getting stoned, and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner; the age of organised religion must come to an end at some point; Nietzsche, Crowley, Dawkins, Hitchens and others have already killed off the Christian god on an intellectual and moral level, but there is still a battle to be fought for the soul of humankind to take such intellectual and philosophical victories to the largely superstitious and religious masses.

Lux


edit on 12-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
You know what, I got fed up and decided to make my own thread as an open call for attacks on atheists.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join