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.

 

I am an Athiest

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You can't "make" a baby believe anything either.


Islamists do a pretty good job in convincing children Allah exists, seems to be very much the case in the Middle-East, a lot easier to indoctrinate someone with nonsense when they have little other reading material available, and a strict regime that has to be abided by, commanded by state; a theocracy.


You cannot "make" someone believe anything. Their belief is up to them.


You can suggest an idea. (i.e. if you disbelieve in God, you will burn for eternity)

Many children will believe these things if you suggest them.


Correct, but that's their choice you cannot "make" the choice for them.


Of course, again, we can't make people believe in evidence, if they want to believe the Earth is flat, it's up to them. Again, i agere, we can't FORCE peple.


Of course we can't MAKE or FORCE people to believe one way or the other.



Okay, which personality am I talking to now? I've been saying this ^^^ since page one!!!!!


That's why i said "OF COURSE" - It didn't even need to be said. Stop trying to imply i have a split personality. Your attacks are futile.



Sure, we can, but that's not what the OP asked for. The OP asked for someone to "make" him/her believe. That's not possible.


This is a forum, people exhange ideas and respond to people's points. Join in, stop being a butthurt troll.

The OP is yet to intervene to any response i've made and a mod is yet to intervene in regards to "off-topic" posts. And even most of Atheists have delcared: "no one can make you believe"

AGAIN, It's about offering perspective


No, not "again", the first time you asked I had no idea what Q you were asking about because you didn't specify



Madness didn't ask me anything for one thing, he told me what he wanted me to do to satisfy his wants and desires.


I'm happy to concede i was wrong, i'm humble like that.

It was a demand, and i'm guessing you won't meet it, because of your strict compliance to the thread topic....yeah right haha.


He wanted me to articulate something to make him feel better and to give him a more pleasant web experience.


I'm inclined to think he just wanted you to admit the truth. Faith is blinding though.



Here, if you really think it's possible to "make" someone believe something with a good argument them "make" me believe Atheism is true.


"Atheism is true" - LOL.

Atheism doesn't have to be a positive theory. It's not always a polar opposite; It's just a disbelief. Again, the only people that have to make us believe are those who make extraordinary claims and are yet show their working out.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


If I'm wrong A&A, "make" me believe Atheism is true.



Shifting the burden of proof



The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

EXAMPLE:

"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"


Slippery slope argument



This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

EXAMPLE:

"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."


Straw man




The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible."

The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net.


Burden of proof isn't on me, i never made a claim, i just disbelieve your conjured exuse for a "theory".

Don't think you'll get away with such lazy practice of philosophy.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



There is nothing to "shift", I am a Theist. I believe in God.

You're trying to tell me that a good argument can persuade a person to change their mind. My contention is that only the person can decide o change their mind.

Prove me wrong, persuade me to change my belief about the existence of God to one that is just like yours.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm not here to persuade. I'm here to challenge, and i will continue to challenge your beliefs, and your philosophical arguments; not because i want you to convert, but for anyone else to observe/consider, and make their own judgement.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Are youu done challenging my assertion that the OP is impossible to do?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm not challenging that.

You and i are both in agreement; That doesn't stop you from creating a duplicate farce - hypocrisy anyone? wasting people's time? A futile request? I think so. You've never wished to consider people's perspective, only condemn them and promote your dogma.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see that you were careful to use the word "persuade" - Very cunning. Again, you don't want to be persuaded or convinced of a position you deteste and have no consideration for; you only wish to demonise atheism, and disregard philosophical refutations against your position.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Of course I used the word "persuade", I've stated numerous times that no one can "make" someone believe something. The thread I started was for another reason, well, two of them actually. Sabretruth caught on to the reason easily enough. The other reason I'll kindly keep to myself if u don't mind.

Surely someone can persuade me. I still have faith in you guys.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



The other reason I'll kindly keep to myself if u don't mind.


No problem. I'll just say that's telling.


Surely someone can persuade me. I still have faith in you guys.


Again, and probably my suspicions for your secret motives for the thread; You care not for perspective, you won't ever challenge your own beliefs; You wish to demonise atheism and promote your cult, it's understandable why you'd want to keep that to yourself if you were a coward.

Of course, speculation/conjecture on my part.

Perhaps you're an atheist troll.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Of course I used the word "persuade", I've stated numerous times that no one can "make" someone believe something.


And i've agreed more than once:-

YOUR STATEMENT:

Of course we can't MAKE or FORCE people to believe one way or the other.

Okay, which personality am I talking to now? I've been saying this ^^^ since page one!!!!!


MY RESPONSE:-

That's why i said "OF COURSE" - It didn't even need to be said.


Again, your above statement just shows your lack of effort in reading my posts, and your attempts to demean my character when i have been more than civil in the context of discourse.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I left atheism and Evolution, I've been a Theist and born-again for less than a decade. Do I really need to go back to my former beliefs to re-evaluate my current beliefs?

That sounds, what's the word.. retarded.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Then why are you chastizing me for being precise and using the term "persuade"? Should I have said "convince"?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I left atheism and Evolution


Evolution is a theory and a fact, DNA evidence confirms the essense of evolution.

Perhaps you should read the 15 misconceptions about evolution, because you'll find that it IS truth. And evolution is a theory, you don't leave Evolution, you either belief in the EVIDENCE for evolution or you don't. I'd suspect someone with a previous IQ of 151 would understand such a concept.

listverse.com...

Take a read, before you slip up on any future arguments. You know? i'm helping you out. Not attacking you.

You should be aware that even the Pope has admitted his acceptance, no longer do Theists try to refute Evolution. I'd like to hear your refutations though.

And for the record, "Social Darwinism" does NOT equal atheism. And you certainly don't have to promote social eugenic programs to be an Atheist, and i'd certainly condemn that, as it has nothing to do with atheism.


That sounds, what's the word.. retarded.


More implications that considering the Atheist's position is retarded. I see. Telling.


Then why are you chastizing me for being precise and using the term "persuade"? Should I have said "convince"?


I believe it was an attempt to gain superiority over this (troll) thread post; hence "persuade" is in itallics, but again, it's cunning because you have no wish to gain perspective, you only wish to gain some sort of upper hand; it's understandable; desparation is obvious in your posts when you result to personal attacks.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


How deceptive. I didn't call the atheist position retarded, I was commenting that the idea of leaving or questioning my current beliefs in light of my former beliefs to be retarded. You basically accused me of not considering other explainations besides Theism.

I LIVED the other position for the better part of 25 years. Why do I need to consider my former beliefs to justify my current ones?

That idea is what is retarded.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Not deceptive whatsoever.

If i was to state "my former position was of Christianity" (or Theism), and then if i was to state "changing my position back would be retarded" I would feel i had implied Christians were retarded, it would definetly offend, in the context of debate, it implies their opinion isn't worth considering because i've made up my mind.

Again, it just shows your hypocrisy;

"persuade me that there is no God"

and then:-

"changing back to my old position would be retarded" - Then why ask to be persuaded?
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


If you recall what I posted in the OP I asked for a skeptic to persuade ME, I didn't state that I was going to pursuade myself. I don't have a desire to return to atheism or re-evaluate my Christianity, I'm fully comfortable with my current beliefs as opposed to my former beliefs.

Sorry??



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
My point basically is this... you said "you won't ever challenge your beliefs".

That's wrong, I'd still be an atheist who believed in molecules-to-man Evolution if I never "challenged my beliefs."



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



who believed in molecules-to-man Evolution if I never "challenged my beliefs."


You're made of stardust.
edit on 9/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Is it stardust these days? When I was in school they taught we came from rocks that were rained on for a very long time.

So you're saying we don't come from rocks???



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Is it stardust these days? When I was in school they taught we came from rocks that were rained on for a very long time.

So you're saying we don't come from rocks???


I'm 65.

Even I know its Stardust.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Is it stardust these days? When I was in school they taught we came from rocks that were rained on for a very long time.

So you're saying we don't come from rocks???


I'm 65.

Even I know its Stardust.


Alright Granny, try to think back this far...

How did the oceans originally form?




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join