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.

 

Atheism

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 



Originally posted by confreak
That being said, the lack of random is the main evidence for a creator.


How?

How does a lack of randomness prove the existence of a creator?



Which proves the Universe was created this way, and didn't form through random as believed by some.


Straw man, straw man, let's all play with a straw man. I'm sorry, but who is saying it was random?



If the Universe is restarted hundred times, the same exact results will be produced, just like your computer which you are using.


An unproven/unprovable statement if I ever heard one.



I have laid my evidence down, anyone can read it, you can write a counter if you want, I will leave you alone.


You've laid out a few facts and derived a conclusion that doesn't follow from them, that's all.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 



Originally posted by Leahn
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Sure, fundamentalist atheists,

* will use every single opportunity to mock the belief of theists, no matter how small or off-topic, and regardless of consequences.


Evidence needed.



* will use every single opportunity to state that God doesn't exist.


I already asked you to provide a single instance of an atheist making that claim.



* will call God "sky daddy" "sky fairy" or equally derrogative names.


Heavenly father.
Heavenly = sky
Fater = daddy

Supernatural being in the sky? Sky fairy.



* argue that religion is a source of evil and harm.


And we have thousands of years of evidence to back up that argument.



* argue that religion is a major source of wars.


Historically, even in modern times, it has been.



* argue that there is some kind of rivalry between science and religion.


No, there's a rivalry behind the two different types of thought, evidence versus faith. Granted, some religious people manage a great level of compartimentalization and allow themselves to maintain both separately.



* believe that science and the scientific method are the only valid sources of truth.


Actually, that's untrue. I accept philosophy as a valid means to get closer to the truth, though it's nowhere near as conclusive as science.



* will hold to the ideas that it is not possible to prove a negative therefore they don't have to prove their position that God doesn't exist.


We are not claiming that. I already explained that atheists do not believe in a deity. Not believing is not equivalent to believing not.



* will claim to be anti-religion, but will be effectively anti-Christianity only, under the excuse that the other religions do not influence their life enough.


...I'm anti-Islam, anti-Hinduism, anti-Buddhism, anti-Judaism and anti-paganism....and addressing any of those leads to threads that are 6 posts long and go nowhere. I even started an anti-Islam thread recently and it didn't even get past the first page.

No your audience. The vast majority of the audience of ATS that is religious is Christian.



* will preach their atheism aggressively even when it is completely off-topic, like in a political discussion.


Please, demonstrate an instance of this.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Gazrok, a quick aside. Your profile picture is from my island. Yes, little finger, Game of Thrones was filmed partially here. King's Landing is a bit distracting because I just keep seeing parts of Malta. Also, my friend played one of Finger's whores...which is a bit funny.

Anyway, on the topic. What you've describe is an atheist. An atheist does not believe. It doesn't matter how or why or what level of certainty they have, as it's a very vague term. I do not believe in god, and I'm almost certain that my position is correct, but it would be epistemologically irresponsible to claim that I am absolutely certain.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm also agnostic on the question of free will. A/gnostic describes whether you can know, a/theist describes whether you can believe.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 



Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by sirnex
 


The Universe is not random, therefore if restarted 100 times it would produce the same exact result,


...that doesn't actually follow. You're making the claim that the traits of the universe as it is now apply to the moment at which the universe "came into being" so to speak..and we can't actually make any statements about it beyond "INFLATION!" and a few complex mathematical things about that inflation.

We don't know what began the inflation, we don't know anything about that initial event...and thus we cannot say what would happen without sounding ignorant.

You're basically arguing a position that you cannot prove.



what is that indicative of do you think?


Determinism.

Determinism doesn't necessitate a deity.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Common sense is stupid. I prefer rational inquiry because the universe doesn't fit with common sense. If common sense had any use beyond bare survival we wouldn't need physics or chemistry or mathematics or any other field of inquiry because the universe would just make sense.

We don't need an incentive to be good. We don't need a fear of consequence to not be bad. I don't tend to get rewards for my good actions, I just do them because that's what I hope everyone else would do in that instance.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


You're saying that someone else is being illogical?

Here's your argument in a nutshell.

Premise A: The universe is not random
Conclusion: God

...that's a non-sequitur. There is no connection between the premise and the conclusion. Why does the lack of randomness in the universe necessitate a deity?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


And none of that proves the existence of a deity. Non-randomness implies determinism, not a creator.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie

I agree with the Ancient Alien theory 100%

I don't think that the aliens were 'mistaken' as gods, tho. They were gods, as that was the term to describe an extraterrestrial in ancient times.


Ahh, I would agree with that. I guess I should have clarified - mistaken to be a singular god, or the mystical god that people think of today.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




How does a lack of randomness prove the existence of a creator?


Because random means "Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision". Since nothing is random within this Universe, what does that indicate?

By the way, I'm merely posting an evidence supporting a creator, which was a response to another poster who claimed there was no evidence.

I think I have made my point.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by sirnex
 


The Universe is not random, therefore if restarted 100 times it would produce the same exact result, what is that indicative of do you think?



I think that's indicative of you placing too many assumptions without facts into your way of thinking. There is simply no reason to assume that the universe 'restarted' 100 times, let alone even once.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




How does a lack of randomness prove the existence of a creator?


Because random means "Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision". Since nothing is random within this Universe, what does that indicate?

By the way, I'm merely posting an evidence supporting a creator, which was a response to another poster who claimed there was no evidence.

I think I have made my point.


You made your point all right. You prefer to redefine words to fit your arguments rather than work the words actual definition. Sadly, redefining a word does not make evidence of a creator.

EDIT TO CLARIFY

When I say redefine, I mean in contextual meaning as applicable to the discussion of randomness.
edit on 9-6-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Randomness is a fuzzy word...it's a word that we use to describe something that we cannot predict.


Interestingly enough this is a fair description of the bible god and as he allegedly created himself then all must be random no ?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 





Since nothing is random within this Universe


This you can never know as you have not observed every place within this universe.

Your language hints at other universes, this gives you a bigger problem, if other universe exist then you have no means of determining if they came into being randomly or were created as you put it, Neither have you any way of showing that this universe was not created or a random by product of something in one of those universes .

As the previous poster mentions, all of this does not prove a deity and even if it did you have all your work ahead of you in proving that it is your particular deity.

Give it up please or at least until you have meassured every corner of the universes.



edit on 9-6-2011 by The Djin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 



Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




How does a lack of randomness prove the existence of a creator?


Because random means "Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision". Since nothing is random within this Universe, what does that indicate?


...you're missing a basic grasp of the English language here, thankfully I get paid to teach people that stuff. Or means that it is one of the parts of a group but not necessarily all of them. So, to expand on your chosen definition to all of its possible components:

Made without method
Made without conscious decision
Done without method
Done without conscious decision
Happening without method
Happening without conscious decision
Chosen without method
Chosen without conscious decision

The lack of randomness could imply that there is one of two things, a method or a conscious decision. A method could be akin to the consequences of natural law.

Therefore, you've merely set up a dichotomy rather than evidence of a creator. Either everything is a consequence of natural law (which is what all the evidence points towards) or its a creator...though the creator thing requires a hell of a lot more evidence.



By the way, I'm merely posting an evidence supporting a creator, which was a response to another poster who claimed there was no evidence.


And there isn't any. What you have provided is a lack of knowledge and an attempt at a semantic rather than substantive argument. You can't magic a deity into existence merely by playing with words.



I think I have made my point.


That you don't understand logic or the English language?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by UB2120
 


Thank you very much!!! . I have read the introductory and I like what it says so far. I will be passing this on to my daughters...they too have been in limbo, and searching a long time too.

Both were in many churches the same as my self after they were grown. In child hood they attended the church of their Dad's choice in a belief. So did I and attended my Mom's choice for me when I was growing up.

Their Dad and I are no longer together and you can guess why. Religious differences finally took a toll and tore us apart. I simply could not be a hypocrite and say I believe the way it was being taught. So I quit attending his church or any other at that moment. It was very embarrassing for him.
Hence the search for God...in an organized belief system that is.
edit on 9-6-2011 by ellieN because: added



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by UB2120
 





You asked why I thought the universe reeked of design, I gave examples. I'm just showing that there is pattern and God is the source of all pattern.

Which god ?


There is only one. The Universal Father, .



You have proof of this ?


You have proof this is not the case?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by UB2120
 





You asked why I thought the universe reeked of design, I gave examples. I'm just showing that there is pattern and God is the source of all pattern.

Which god ?


There is only one. The Universal Father, .



You have proof of this ?


You have proof this is not the case?


You have proof this is not not the case?

See how tiresome that gets? You're making a positive claim, back it up with positive evidence.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ellieN
reply to post by UB2120
 


Thank you very much!!! . I have read the introductory and I like what it says so far. I will be passing this on to my daughters...they too have been in limbo, and searching a long time too.

Both were in many churches the same as my self after they were grown. In child hood they attended the church of their Dad's choice in a belief. So did I and attended my Mom's choice for me when I was growing up.

Their Dad and I are no longer together and you can guess why. Religious differences finally took a toll and tore us apart. I simply could not be a hypocrite and say I believe the way it was being taught. So I quit attending his church or any other at that moment. It was very embarrassing for him.
Hence the search for God...in an organized belief system that is.
edit on 9-6-2011 by ellieN because: added


No problem at all. I was in a similar boat, I felt like a hypocrite going to a chruch where I did not believe the info being taught. Feel free to message me if you ever have any questions. I can direct you to areas that may help specific questions you or your daughters have.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by UB2120

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by UB2120
 





You asked why I thought the universe reeked of design, I gave examples. I'm just showing that there is pattern and God is the source of all pattern.

Which god ?


There is only one. The Universal Father, .



You have proof of this ?


You have proof this is not the case?


You have proof this is not not the case?

See how tiresome that gets? You're making a positive claim, back it up with positive evidence.


You hit the nail on the head, I am making a positive claim, that there is a God and if you believe you can have eternal life. You are making a negative claim, basically calling people stupid for believing the universe was created by God.

How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith — human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.

Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The “scientific method” is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.

The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.

If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. Man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and the creative qualities of spirit.

The sincere effort of man to become a mechanist represents the tragic phenomenon of that man’s futile effort to commit intellectual and moral suicide. But he cannot do it.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.

If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.

If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual.

How foolish to presume that an automaton could conceive a philosophy of automatism, and how ridiculous that it should presume to form such a concept of other and fellow automatons!

Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.

Mechanists — humanists — tend to drift with the material currents. Idealists and spiritists dare to use their oars with intelligence and vigor in order to modify the apparently purely material course of the energy streams.

Science lives by the mathematics of the mind; music expresses the tempo of the emotions. Religion is the spiritual rhythm of the soul in time-space harmony with the higher and eternal melody measurements of Infinity. Religious experience is something in human life which is truly supermathematical.

In language, an alphabet represents the mechanism of materialism, while the words expressive of the meaning of a thousand thoughts, grand ideas, and noble ideals — of love and hate, of cowardice and courage — represent the performances of mind within the scope defined by both material and spiritual law, directed by the assertion of the will of personality, and limited by the inherent situational endowment.

The universe is not like the laws, mechanisms, and the uniformities which the scientist discovers, and which he comes to regard as science, but rather like the curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating scientist who thus observes universe phenomena and classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. Neither is the universe like the art of the artist, but rather like the striving, dreaming, aspiring, and advancing artist who seeks to transcend the world of material things in an effort to achieve a spiritual goal.

The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by UB2120
You hit the nail on the head, I am making a positive claim, that there is a God and if you believe you can have eternal life. You are making a negative claim, basically calling people stupid for believing the universe was created by God.


So even after you understand you're being asked for some evidence it appears you didn't pony any up. Your reasoning and assertions does not constitute evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join