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.

 

God is Not Tinkerbell

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I am suggesting that you cannot approach a true understanding of God because the finite cannot describe the infinite. The small cannot contain the large.

The only way for us to approach an understanding of God is by His revelation to us. This is what He wants us to know and is sized to fit our mind. This is why scriptures are so important, they condense the revelation to others into a clearer and more complete picture.

We cannot ever know God in entirety.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





Pray the illness away, pray the gay away, pray the ......whatever


While you may doubt the power of prayer, I have seen several miraculous things happen because of it.

One instance was when my son's close friend was in a car accident and broke his spine just below the shoulder blades. The doctors verified that there was no feeling and no movement.

We prayed earnestly with him and his family (who were not believers) and within minutes he was reporting feeling in his legs and started moving his legs at the knees. He walked out of the hospital four hours later.

Last weekend this same boy helped my son move house and was strong and fully able, carrying loads that I wouldn't attempt.

You may reason that prayer cannot be effective and is some sort of intellectual avoidance mechanism but it is simply talking to God.

Until you accept what is written in scripture or have a direct revelation from God, you will never have the experience of answered prayer because you will never try in the first place.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


At least have the common courtesy to label the user you're addressing next time.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Wow, you fail at honesty about honesty. That's fractal failure.


Feeding trolls is never a good idea.


So the fact that I'm presenting legitimate objections makes me a troll? Wow, yet another insult for actually trying to engage.



Your reification is just that and nothing more.


Are you saying I'm participating in a fallacy of ambiguity?



You chose to enter this thread to advocate atheism and attack those who believe in God, in doing so, all you did was prove my point, not refute it.


Hey, look, someone is lying about what I said! I didn't enter here to advocate atheism or attack those who believe in anything. I chose to enter this discussion because you were wrong about something and I wanted to clear that up for people.

Hell, I just defended theists in my last post! Let me quote myself:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Listen, as much as I am opposed to religion and disagree with the religious, I'm not going to state that they believe their deity exists solely based on their belief. They claim that their deity is eternal and precedes belief or anything else for that matter. A great number of western Christians claim that other deities were worshiped while this deity stood around figuring out the best way to get some followers (hint, genital mutilation played a factor).


That is a defense of religious persons, how is that an attack? Where did I attack anyone? I may have disagreed with your positions, but that is hardly an attack.



For you, God is as much Tinkerbell as it is for the true believers who insist that one must believe in God in order to...


How? Because I find that there is a lack of evidence? You're saying that because I think I need a concrete basis for belief, I think that existence is predicated upon belief? I already refuted that solipsism, twice. You ignored it.

Time number three:

Again, I will believe in any deity, including the deity of protecting rectums during defecation, so long as I am presented with sufficient evidence. I have yet to encounter such evidence, therefore I don't believe. That doesn't mean that I think it doesn't exist, I just don't have any good reason to believe. Hell, a deity might have once existed and no longer does. A deity might one day exist. Several deities that we are unaware of may exist. I just don't have any good reason to accept any of those statements.



You are entitled to your belief system, and in no way did I ever make an argument that atheists weren't.


Atheism is not a belief system. "I do not believe in any deity" a system does not make.



I simply made an observation that both sides seem view God as Tinkerbell.


And I refuted it. Hell, I refuted it for both sides.



Now, clap your hands.


Well, I'm doing something else with my hands.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You wrote:

["I am suggesting that you cannot approach a true understanding of God because the finite cannot describe the infinite. The small cannot contain the large.

I completely agree with you, that the small can't contain the large. That's an argument I often use, when people are trying to present 'absolutes' (which are VERY large per definition) from a small, exclusive basis.

Quote: ["The only way for us to approach an understanding of God is by His revelation to us."]

You have here presented one such 'absolute': 'God'.

How can your finite mind (experience, existence?) decide on the existence of such an 'absolute'. Absolutes, no matter what kind, are 'large', our minds 'small'. So before you go further, you must consider if you yourself haven't broken your own rules by postulating the actual existence of a 'large'.

Quote: ["This is what He wants us to know and is sized to fit our mind. This is why scriptures are so important, they condense the revelation to others into a clearer and more complete picture."]

I have ofcourse no objections whatsoever to your personal adherence to any doctrinal system, but a considerable part of mankind outside your categorical 'us' considers your 'god' and your religious manual as meaningless. Us, outside your categorical 'us', don't feel a need to live our lives according to authoritative sources based on what we consider circle-argumentation.

We feel we can find better answers on our own.

Maybe this comparison is useful. Most christians would object to being told, that Marx's 'Das Kapital' represents some kind of ultimate and absolute 'truth'.

Quote: ["We cannot ever know God in entirety."]

IF such an entity exists, I agree. It's uncertain if mankind ever reaches complete and ultimate understanding of truth or reality. Personally I can live with that.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You wrote:

["While you may doubt the power of prayer, I have seen several miraculous things happen because of it."]

I'm an amateur reiki-healer myself. I have once cured a terminal, as in terminal terminal, cancer. There was no 'god' involved in the process.

Quote: ["You may reason that prayer cannot be effective and is some sort of intellectual avoidance mechanism but it is simply talking to God."]

I do not question, that prayer CAN be effective, just as reiki-healing, meditation etc can. What I DO question is how this demonstrates the existence of any specified super-natural agency.

We don't know why, so .....aha....it MUST be Jahveh, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, some buddhistic saint (in Mahayana), chi-energy, orgone-energy, bio-energy (the russian 'godless' label) according to our small mindsets. Which, you may remember, according to your model are too small for such big answers.

Quote: ["Until you accept what is written in scripture or have a direct revelation from God, you will never have the experience of answered prayer because you will never try in the first place."]

And until you are initiated as a reiki-healer and have experienced what buddhists experience, your box is too small and exclusive to be worth considering seriously. As it is now, you're just pushing your own mindset preferences.

In any case my original context was:

Quote: ["I keep on seeing medical attention as a lack of faith."]

Relate to that, not to half of the sentence.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 




You have no burden of proof for "I hold that all gods are fictional until proven actual/real."


That's right. The burden of proof in a court of law holds that the defendant is presumed, by default, innocent until proven guilty. I presume, by default, that all gods are fictional until proven actual. I am taking up the default position, disbelief until evidence is presented. Much the same way a juror should not assume the guilt of a man on trial for murder until evidence has convinced him beyond a reasonable doubt I should not assume any gods exist until proven.



Nobody need prove anything to anyone else in order to hold an opinion themselves.


This is true, of course, one doesn't need to justify one's opinion to others. However in these sorts of discussions is the cause not to persuade the other person of something? I think that providing proof can be awful persuasive. The issue is that one cannot prove atheism because it is a disbelief, kind of like how I'd be hard pressed to prove that fairies don't exist. In the courtroom analogy it is the theists who are the Prosecution because they're the ones with something to prove. As the defense all the atheists need to do is poke holes in the logic and whatever evidence is presented.



People do not need to be "freed" from their own personal opinions.


When those opinions are wrong and are hurting the world than I believe they should be freed. I do think that white supremacists should be freed of their opinions that other races are inferior. I do think that people who discriminate against gays because of the Bible should be freed. I do think that people who were brainwashed as children into believing unsubstantiated supernatural claims should be freed. Most of these opinions are planted in the minds of children where they remain until adulthood. Many people don't know better, I was one of them once.



They have maneuvered you into becoming a teaching example whom they can preach about to increase their hold on others. Congratulations on your "escape."


It is not up to me whether someone escapes Fundamentalism. As you say whether it is a good decision to leave religion behind will be for them to judge. But it will be their decision, not mine, even if I somehow facilitate the loss of faith. How exactly is that meant to oppose my view that I should try to free people from Fundamentalism and religion?

No one out there is preaching about me specifically, oh sure they're preaching about people like me. But then there were people like me before I was even born. Again I fail to see how that is any deterrent. Simply because they will continue to point to atheists and apostates and rail against them is hardly a reason to stop opposing these beliefs.

reply to post by Jinglelord
 




I wonder what evidence would make you believe? How could science conceivably prove the existence of God? This is a legitimate question as I honestly can't think of a thing.


It is a good question and one I've often wondered about. I think that prayer might be the key. For instance we could put all the believers of every god in a lab and have them pray to their god to light a piece of paper on fire (one paper per prophet). If one of the pieces of paper lights on fire under lab conditions than we should know which God caused it. We would then repeat the experiment over and over while taking away various variables (such as the chance that the prophet himself has the power, not the god or the idea, as mentioned by a poster above, that act of prayer itself has the power). So the power of prayer is one way we could verify the existence of a God to some extent.

It is true that many god concepts seem entirely non-falsifiable which is why I remain an agnostic-atheist, there might be a god somewhere out there but I disbelieve in all the gods I've been shown thus far.
edit on 28-2-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: fixed stuff again



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I think the experiment you outlined would only show that through intense concentration and focus a particular person was able to ignite a piece of paper. See that is my primary objection to proving the existence of any God or anything that exists outside of what can be perceived by the senses (including scientific incrementation). The issue is that we have the unknown of exactly what the human mind is capable of, we have the unknown as to what exactly the external force that might create repeatable outcome is.

Too many unknowns for concrete proof. Seems like God and Tinkerbell are one in the same. All you can do is clap your hands and believe.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
People do not need to be 'freed' from their own personal convictions, but they constantly need to be 'freed' from OTHER peoples' convictions, which invasively has been imposed on them.


All personal convictions are based solely on personal experiences that are subconsciously influenced by the uncontrollable environmental factors that occurred during our upbringing and the society that we were/are exposed to.

Consequently, everybody's views are heavily influenced by other peoples' convictions.


Take those who hold scientific theories and the commonly accepted rules of logic as the most legitimate form of knowledge and understanding, for example:

Would these people have formed these theories through their own analytical observations without any relevant outside influence ?

Do people who cite scientific theories and research to back up their views actually observe the phenomena and conduct the observations/experiments to verify the information that their views are based upon ?

Would someone, through their own volition, formulate the generally accepted rules of logic without the influence of others' thoughts on the subject ?

The answer to the three rhetorical questions that I posted above, is, by and large, a resounding ''of course not''.


Everybody's personal beliefs are heavily influenced by others' convictions; whether that influence is on a religious, philosophical, cultural, or familial level, is irrelevant.

Eightbits is absolutely correct, as nobody needs to be ''freed'' from their own personal opinions and beliefs.
We all have the freedom to believe or disbelieve in what we want to.

82% of ATSers come from the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia. I'm sure that the remaining 18% are predominantly from countries that also allow for freedom of religion. There aren't too many people, in these circumstances, who need to be ''freed'' from the strawmen of Mao, Stalin, or Henry the VIII, are there ?


What you are ultimately complaining about is that people don't generally concur with your personal views on existence.... Aaw, diddums (!) Well, ''tough''.

Welcome to the real world.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Please stop embarrassing yourself.

All you have shown on this thread is that you can ''think'' from other people's thoughts, parrot other people's views, and that you base your arguments on textbooks of science and philosophy that you have read, rather than applying independent critical thought and analysis to the matters at hand.

The ability for individual, creative, and deep thought is one of the main benefits of being human.



The fact that you can't see the fundamental logical flaw in defining one's self as ''atheist'', leads me to believe that you haven't thought about this issue very thoroughly, let alone formed a rational outlook to express your views on the matter.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


That's why I suggested repeating the experiment to eliminate that variable. We could have different prophets of the same god brought in. If they could all do it, and the prophets of NO other god could I think we'd have some evidence of a god or, at the very least, some supernatural force that is connected to this god concept. You're right though, it would be very hard to find concrete proof.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You wrote:

["All personal convictions are based solely on personal experiences that are subconsciously influenced by the uncontrollable environmental factors that occurred during our upbringing and the society that we were/are exposed to."]

With the reservation of 'subconsciousness' being a hypothesis and an addition of genetic predispositions into environmental factors. Yes

Quote: ["Consequently, everybody's views are heavily influenced by other peoples' convictions."]

With above reservations. Yes.


Quote: ["Take those who hold scientific theories and the commonly accepted rules of logic as the most legitimate form of knowledge and understanding, for example:

Would these people have formed these theories through their own analytical observations without any relevant outside influence ?"]

This is a cultural inheritance, so I agree.

Quote: ["Do people who cite scientific theories and research to back up their views actually observe the phenomena and conduct the observations/experiments to verify the information that their views are based upon ?"]

No, they don't need to. The systematic methodology of science is independent of subjective interpretation, so when a theory becomes a theory instead of a speculation or a hypothesis, the methodology will have proven its results in a uniform way, which is repeatable by anyone, who is familiar with the procedures. It's not a question doing it, it's a question of having the option.

Eventually this is an epistemological question, where my own position is, that science operates within the relative reality of the visible universe (cosmos) and does it with a high approximation of 'truth'. Outside this relative reality science isn't competent. If science makes claims of ultimate absolutes, it's as bad as e.g. absolute doctrinal religion and has become 'scientism'.

Quote: ["Would someone, through their own volition, formulate the generally accepted rules of logic without the influence of others' thoughts on the subject ?"]

Same answer as when you put the almost identical question before.

Quote: ["The answer to the three rhetorical questions that I posted above, is, by and large, a resounding ''of course not''."]

I hope, you do not presume to make my answers for me.


Quote: ["Everybody's personal beliefs are heavily influenced by others' convictions; whether that influence is on a religious, philosophical, cultural, or familial level, is irrelevant."]

Yes.

Quote: ["Eightbits is absolutely correct, as nobody needs to be ''freed'' from their own personal opinions and beliefs."]

Yes. But as I don't have disputed this, why do you bring it up in this answer to me?

Quote: ["We all have the freedom to believe or disbelieve in what we want to. 82% of ATSers come from the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia. I'm sure that the remaining 18% are predominantly from countries that also allow for freedom of religion. There aren't too many people, in these circumstances, who need to be ''freed'' from the strawmen of Mao, Stalin, or Henry the VIII, are there ?"]

So only countries represented on ATS count? And later, if we follow my suggested direction up, there will be some examples from almost everywhere of individuals not having freedom.

Quote: ["What you are ultimately complaining about is that people don't generally concur with your personal views on existence.... Aaw, diddums (!) Well, ''tough''."]

Are you familiar with my personal views on existence, or are you just guessing? I think this could be an interesting direction to take.

Quote: ["Welcome to the real world."]

Presently not being interested in this standard you set, I would instead have said: "Welcome to a MORE 'real' world according to my measure-tape".

What is your measure-tape? Has it lead you to THE 'reality'?




edit on 28-2-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


That's why I suggested repeating the experiment to eliminate that variable. We could have different prophets of the same god brought in. If they could all do it, and the prophets of NO other god could I think we'd have some evidence of a god or, at the very least, some supernatural force that is connected to this god concept. You're right though, it would be very hard to find concrete proof.


My own life being heavily infested with anomalities has led me to some considerations on the subject (formerly presented on ATS elsewhere).

Apart from a doctrinal 'scientism' defining anomalities away, I can see three options:

1/ People experiencing anomalities are insane, or some unknown bio-chemical processes are at work.

2/ People experiencing anomalities do really see 'something', which is a part of cosmos we usually filter away. When someone sees these anomalities, they are so unstructered (non-gestalted), that individual interpretations take place.

3/ People experiencing anomalities could actually experience something trans-mundane. Science and deductive logic would not be able to validate it, and only comparative methodology (e.g. inductive reasoning) could bring some patterns to light. Better than nothing, especially if an experience-methodology could be refined so as to be repeatable.

This isn't done tomorrow, but better wait for a possibility of finding somewhat valid answers than to invent some on the spot to avoid existential angst.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Please stop embarrassing yourself.


Man, this thread is just people insulting me without actually addressing a single point I've made.



All you have shown on this thread is that you can ''think'' from other people's thoughts,


Really? So you have some evidence that I'm not thinking things through myself?



parrot other people's views,


Really? Whose views am I parroting in this thread?



and that you base your arguments on textbooks of science and philosophy that you have read,


When did I mention any textbooks of science or philosophy? I mean, I did provide the full quote from Nietzsche about the death of God from "The Gay Science" because it was relevant, but that's the only place I mentioned any external source.

And I've moved beyond text books in certain areas of science. I actually read scientific papers. The only time I go back to text books is when I lack a proper understanding of a basic scientific principle (I'm really crap with physics equations sometimes).



rather than applying independent critical thought and analysis to the matters at hand.


My posts have been a succinct application of critical thought to an illogical argument. It is based on straw men.



The ability for individual, creative, and deep thought is one of the main benefits of being human.



Yes, which is why I'm using it. On the other hand, you're insulting me without addressing a single point I've made.



The fact that you can't see the fundamental logical flaw in defining one's self as ''atheist'',


The fact that you made a comma splice error...
Sorry, had to say it.

What is the fundamental logical flaw in citing that you honestly do not believe in any deity?

I do not believe in any deity. Deities may exist, yet I find no good reason to accept the existence of one or more of any of the proposed ones. Furthermore, certain claims about certain deities seem certainly refuted by physical evidence.

Therefore, I'm an atheist.

Where's the lack of logic in any of that?



leads me to believe that you haven't thought about this issue very thoroughly, let alone formed a rational outlook to express your views on the matter.


Or maybe I did think it through thoroughly and you're missing something that I found or maybe you're the one who didn't think it through thoroughly.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Titen


However in these sorts of discussions is the cause not to persuade the other person of something?

I can't speak for anybody else. I am here to discuss things. I think there is value in discussion. Maybe I'll learn something. I already have. But I do not aspire to change anyone's personal opinion. I don't interpret anybody's simple telling of their own view as something other than that.

As to proof, on these questions I've never seen any. I don't really expect to, either. The possibilities are interesting, I think, even if they never are resolved definitively.

I disagree that anybody, theist or atheist, has any burden except when they are seeking to change my (or anybody else's) opinion, and when they are, their burdens would be identical.

And of course I agree that if a persuasion attempt is undertaken on a public board, then rebuttal is fair game, and yes, that could be poking holes with no obligation to prove any contrary. I add the additional specification that if it is an atheist trying to persuade, then the theist or agnostic need do nothing except poke holes, so long as they remain in a rebuttal posture or a recitation of their own opinions as being their opinions.


I do think that white supremacists should be freed of their opinions that other races are inferior. I do think that people who discriminate against gays because of the Bible should be freed.

I'm not sure I care whether a hateful attitude is ostensibly based on the racist's or homophobe's religious ideas. Speaking personally, if I did engage someone to chage hate-opinions, then I would consider challenging their belief that Jesus hates Blacks or hates Gays, rather than challenging their belief in Jesus in hope that this will change their mind about Blacks or Gays.


Many people don't know better, I was one of them once.

We seem to be in agreement that "whether it is a good decision to leave religion behind will be for them to judge." I changed my religious views as I approached adulthood. But other people I grew up with, who had similar experiences growing up, didn't change their minds. Still others changed from their "cradle church" to some other pious religion they liked better.

I wouldn't assume that a lack of change, or a change within the versions of theism, was because they don't know better. Speaking only for myself, what I do assume is that they know their own minds better than I do. Just me, and just sayin'.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 


You wrote:

["I keep on seeing medical attention as a lack of faith."]

I repeat in capital letters to make sure nobody misses the point:

"I KEEP ON SEEING MEDICAL ATTENTION AS A LACK OF FAITH.

Well done, Etherical. You have just presented yourself as a brilliant example of the obvious dangers of fundamentalism. Pray the illness away, pray the gay away, pray the ......whatever christians don't like...away and avoid mundane methods, even when they appear to function better than the holy ones.





You said it, pray it all away!



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by etherical waterwave

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 


You wrote:

["I keep on seeing medical attention as a lack of faith."]

I repeat in capital letters to make sure nobody misses the point:

"I KEEP ON SEEING MEDICAL ATTENTION AS A LACK OF FAITH.

Well done, Etherical. You have just presented yourself as a brilliant example of the obvious dangers of fundamentalism. Pray the illness away, pray the gay away, pray the ......whatever christians don't like...away and avoid mundane methods, even when they appear to function better than the holy ones.





You said it, pray it all away!


Thanks for hammering the point home.

You have the debate-tactical sense of a blind duck, which I actually mean as a great compliment. Your knowledge and religious direction can be debated, but at least you play straight from your own point-of-view.

Some of your co-religionists can use a few posts to build up a semantic trap; for good or bad you just wade directly into the situation.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
See, that's where this smiley comes in handy ->
see, completely up in it.

heheh, I wanted to show how medical science is more butchery than an exact science, it's so superficial. 'Eastern' knowledge about the body came from a spiritual point of view. Many appreciate accupuncture and such when it was performed on them.

am I making sense again, sometimes it's hard to find the words to express what I feel but my message came over.

hihi



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Knowing God is good for your health


.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You must find God in real life madnessinmysoul. Do it by prayer. It's the only way. You will be astonished.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by etherical waterwave
 


I did understand you, Etherical.

We're getting rather off-topic now, but until someone protests, I'll go along this direction for now.

Being a reiki-healer and minor 'natural medicine' practitioner myself, I'm ofcourse not an 'absolute' supporter of western medicine. But there ARE many illnesses, where modern medicine clearly are much more effective than natural medicine and other alternative methods. There's no need to arrange black/white situations in a contest modern/natural medicine.

And then you introduce acupuncture in a context with prayer. That's hardly realistic, as the only thing these two methods share is by not being part of modern medicine. A socalled inductive categorization with no evidential value.

Besides: Acupuncture is from a strict christian perspective the outcome of the 'heathen' semi-religious systems in the far east, based on a cosmology and mundane models far removed from christianity.

In a broader context: Remember periods from medieval Europe where ALL medicine was frowned upon (as were similar subjects such as social position etc). There are extensive ethical considerations implied in such positions.

Quote from your post:

["heheh, I wanted to show how medical science is more butchery than an exact science, it's so superficial."]

You're letting idealist abstractions getting the better of you. If this 'superficial' medical science can ease suffering and prolong lives, only those who believe in Disney-land in the sky as a better and ultimately 'real' existence would deny the value of this modern medicine.

OK, do it on yourself. But do not dare to presume, that you have the right to enforce it on other people (that includes children, who are NOT religious property).



edit on 1-3-2011 by bogomil because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join