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.

 

Scientist & Atheist Converts

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


You wrote:

["I can see why you might think that, but God doesn't generally legislate morality."]

From my experiences on this forum, I'm sure many other types of christians would disagree on that.

Quote: ["He might wipe out some wickedness"]

'Wickedness' as defined by which criteria?

Quote: [" It is a pretty good stumper that consciousness issue, eh? It throws a legitimate bump in the road for materialists."]

Such smart 'tactics' could backlash, if it turns out, that it's just maneuvers without competence behind. Re-inforcing the impression of the christianities as a bunch of empty talkers and semanticists without a clue of what they are talking about.

----------------

I can't answer, before you first have answered my questions. I want to make sure, we will talking about the same thing.

Concerning the amount of people converting one way or another, it's imo completely irrelevant. Objective 'truth' isn't decided by a majority vote, objective procedure is exactly that....objective procedure..... as opposed to subjectivism, and in objective procedure the 'authority' lies in the procedure, not with the individual.


edit on 26-8-2011 by bogomil because: typo




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Please excuse me for butting in Bogomil.

There is a book called "Is there a God". It is written from a christian perspective rather than a secular perspective. If you can stomach reading a book written by a christian concerning the 'science' contained within the bible then I highly reccomend it. If you would prefer not to read the whole book then you can click the link, press ctrl f and search for 'flat earth'. It will take you to the section concerning the bibles record of the earth and it's physical attributes.

Here is a link:

www.greatcommission.com...

I hope that helps.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX
Please excuse me for butting in Bogomil.

There is a book called "Is there a God". It is written from a christian perspective rather than a secular perspective. If you can stomach reading a book written by a christian concerning the 'science' contained within the bible then I highly reccomend it. If you would prefer not to read the whole book then you can click the link, press ctrl f and search for 'flat earth'. It will take you to the section concerning the bibles record of the earth and it's physical attributes.

Here is a link:

www.greatcommission.com...

I hope that helps.



'Butting in' is no problem. And thanks for your suggestion. But as I have to make priorities on my time, I can only promise you a cursory glance. I have waaaaay to much knowledge of the pseudo-science branch of christian apologetics to waste time on it.

But it would be unfair to discard it out of hand. THIS one might be rational and honest, I don't on principle consider all christians as incompetent and overly semanticist.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


i did what you suggested


Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


circle of the earth
like this?
atheistsweekly.com...


this one interesting – at the top it says “400 passages in the bible condemn the glob theory” and the bottom “scriptures that condemn the glob theory”
www.forevergeek.com...

and just to make sure, this is a circle - right?
www.stariel.com...

and the “heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” bit
so one this for sure
www.religioustolerance.org...

sorry but to my sceptics eye the bible=flat earth



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


The ancient Hebrew word חוג

Has three meanings: circle, round & sphere.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


1 - its say circle and not sphere or ball or round
2 – the passage gives us two bits of information – circle and
“heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in”

The only real conclusion is Isaiah thinks the world is flat


If we lived in some odd universe where sceptics where defending the flat earth theory and using a bit of text like Isaiah 40:22, you would have no problem in seeing they are wrong and that circle ball

I think what’s happening is you know the world is a sphere and you believe what the bible says is true so if these things come into conflict you have a problem, you must cut in some kind of mental blinkers in an effort to make the conflict go away

But remember sceptics don’t have your world view and so can read exactly what the text says – and what Isaiah 40:22 says is the world is flat

One more thing, if the word has 3 meanings then it could mean anything, if it could mean anything then it really means nothing


edit: i dropped חוג into google images and got:

www.google.co.uk...,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1728&bih=833&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=o g&sa=N&tab=wi

so some kind of ring?

edit on 26-8-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by XplanetX
 


1 - its say circle and not sphere or ball or round
2 – the passage gives us two bits of information – circle and
“heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in”

The only real conclusion is Isaiah thinks the world is flat


If we lived in some odd universe where sceptics where defending the flat earth theory and using a bit of text like Isaiah 40:22, you would have no problem in seeing they are wrong and that circle ball

I think what’s happening is you know the world is a sphere and you believe what the bible says is true so if these things come into conflict you have a problem, you must cut in some kind of mental blinkers in an effort to make the conflict go away

But remember sceptics don’t have your world view and so can read exactly what the text says – and what Isaiah 40:22 says is the world is flat

One more thing, if the word has 3 meanings then it could mean anything, if it could mean anything then it really means nothing


edit: i dropped חוג into google images and got:

www.google.co.uk...,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1728&bih=833&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=o g&sa=N&tab=wi

so some kind of ring?

edit on 26-8-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)



Not true.

The word that is translated into english as 'circle' can just as easily be translated into 'sphere' from the ancient Hebrew.

If you would like to see another example of how the ancient Hebrew can be translated incorrectly then I suggest you watch this three part video:





posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


Ok so it can be easily translated to sphere – accurate translation or not – so what about the “heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” – I guess that actually reads as 15 billion light year wide space time event if you read it in ancient Hebrew

Re-read Isaiah 40:22 and ask yourself “if I where a sceptic could I read this as it saying Isaiah thought the world was flat?”
Or
Putting to one side the ancient Hebrew thing, is "flat earth" a reasonable thing to get from the text?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by XplanetX
 


Ok so it can be easily translated to sphere – accurate translation or not – so what about the “heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” – I guess that actually reads as 15 billion light year wide space time event if you read it in ancient Hebrew

Re-read Isaiah 40:22 and ask yourself “if I where a sceptic could I read this as it saying Isaiah thought the world was flat?”
Or
Putting to one side the ancient Hebrew thing, is "flat earth" a reasonable thing to get from the text?




Given that we know today that the world is definitely a sphere, albeit not a perfect sphere. If the bible is indeed the inspired word of God then we should take the default position that the translation should definitely be 'sphere' not circle. If you can find something in the bible that definitively suggest's that the world is flat then I am all ears.

While most other religious text's give some crazy descriptions of the earth, the bible describes it as:

circle, round, sphere.

In Job we are even told that God suspends the earth with nothing:


JOB 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.


An invisible force that we call gravity today.

Compared to other ancient religious texts the bible is quite remarkable.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["JOB 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.


An invisible force that we call gravity today."]

Did the similarity of the words 'nothing' and 'invisible' lead to to one of those christian-'logic' conclusions of things being identical, because they semantically can be put on a VERY broad common category?

In REAL logic, this is called a false inductive argument. But don't worry, it's mainly critics of christian missioning who care about logic, so no souls will be lost.

PS The real cosmological situation is ofcourse as everybody (i.e. all the right kind of believers) know, that the earth IS flat, and that it rests on the top of a never-ending regression of turtles. Some people believe it to be a sphere, because this disc sags somewhat at the edges, creating an illusion of being a sphere.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX

Given that we know today that the world is definitely a sphere, albeit not a perfect sphere. If the bible is indeed the inspired word of God then we should take the default position that the translation should definitely be 'sphere' not circle. If you can find something in the bible that definitively suggest's that the world is flat then I am all ears.


According to this guy (Orlando Ferguson)
www.forevergeek.com...

there are “400 passages in the bible condemn the glob theory” if you open the picture and zoom in you can see some of these passages at the bottom



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["JOB 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.


An invisible force that we call gravity today."]

Did the similarity of the words 'nothing' and 'invisible' lead to to one of those christian-'logic' conclusions of things being identical, because they semantically can be put on a VERY broad common category?

In REAL logic, this is called a false inductive argument. But don't worry, it's mainly critics of christian missioning who care about logic, so no souls will be lost.

PS The real cosmological situation is ofcourse as everybody (i.e. all the right kind of believers) know, that the earth IS flat, and that it rests on the top of a never-ending regression of turtles. Some people believe it to be a sphere, because this disc sags somewhat at the edges, creating an illusion of being a sphere.





Ahhhh.... Bogomil.

Can you physically see gravity?

No. You can only see the effects of gravity.

When you look at the earth from space it is suspened by 'nothing'.

You are arguing semantics.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
People who argue that the bible says "this" and argue the point, but don't even believe in the bible amaze me. They build these super easy straw-men arguments shoot them down and proclaim themselves the victor, everybody else is stupid, and they are the smart ones. I guess it strokes their ego to do that.

My favorite one, is they say the Sun was created after the earth, even after vegetation was on the earth, totally ignoring science and context.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are arguing semantics."]

Yes, I AM arguing semantics. I'm also arguing twisted logic. But that is already clear in my former post. If you want to follow this direction, please present a rational reasoning chain of how a biblical 'nothing' is a scientific gravity.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
People who argue that the bible says "this" and argue the point, but don't even believe in the bible amaze me. They build these super easy straw-men arguments shoot them down and proclaim themselves the victor, everybody else is stupid, and they are the smart ones. I guess it strokes their ego to do that.

My favorite one, is they say the Sun was created after the earth, even after vegetation was on the earth, totally ignoring science and context.


You have presented a very vague effort of an epistemological approach, spiced with pop-psychology.

Now what about getting factual and take a look at the REAL communication options?

Instead of.....

Quote: ["My favorite one, is they say the Sun was created after the earth, even after vegetation was on the earth, totally ignoring science and context."]

WHAT science? WHAT context? And may I also include standard logic into the situation.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are arguing semantics."]

Yes, I AM arguing semantics. I'm also arguing twisted logic. But that is already clear in my former post. If you want to follow this direction, please present a rational reasoning chain of how a biblical 'nothing' is a scientific gravity.





I have better things to do than argue semantics.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are arguing semantics."]

Yes, I AM arguing semantics. I'm also arguing twisted logic. But that is already clear in my former post. If you want to follow this direction, please present a rational reasoning chain of how a biblical 'nothing' is a scientific gravity.





I have better things to do than argue semantics.


Me too; but I'm not asking you to continue on the semantic track you started. I'm asking you to stop it, and introduce rational reasoning-chains.

That is if you still find bible 'nothing' identical with scientific specifics as a worthwhile subject.

Once basic standard logic and its application is understood, it's fairly easy. And definitely a better alternative than endlessly beating AROUND the bush with false logic.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by The GUT
 
Quote: [" It is a pretty good stumper that consciousness issue, eh? It throws a legitimate bump in the road for materialists."]

Such smart 'tactics' could backlash, if it turns out, that it's just maneuvers without competence behind. Re-inforcing the impression of the christianities as a bunch of empty talkers and semanticists without a clue of what they are talking about.

Well thank you, bogomil. You know that I think that you are brighter than the average secularist too. So, my reading of your reply and your understandable lack of counter-response to the 'problem' of consciousness suggests a further look.

I, like you, come by my conclusions honestly, so I think the "empty talk" asseveration can be tossed leaving us with a valid "model" for further inquiry.

And now, to be directly on topic I proffer these contributions:

Francis Colins was head of the team of scientists who cracked the genome code. It seems, the more I read, that, the things we have learned about DNA & the Human Genome has caused many of the world's scientists to, at the very least, come closer to the concept of a designer, and at the most, to find themselves staring directly into the eye of God so-to-speak.

From “Obnoxious Atheist” to Believer: Journey of World Famous Scientist who Cracked the Human Genome

One thing this OP is hopefully establishing is the ignorant argument/assumption that believers are uneducated or that we believe because somebody told us so or we were raised that way.

That can be true, but it's a ridiculous blanket statement. Same goes by saying we believe in a white-robed old man in the sky. Maybe some do, but my reading says he is spirit. Which I personally relate to consciousness; you know…that thing that materialistic science can't wrap it's finite mind around.

Read the stories of 5 PhD atheist scientists who came to believe in the Creator: The Evolution Crisis. I find it telling, but not surprising, that the professor mentioned below would "repudiate" his own work, but such is the power of truth and conviction.


In 1976 Professor Dean Kenyon repudiated the conclusion of his own evolutionary University textbook Biochemical Predestination (1969) which he had co-authored with Gary Steinman. His intensive research of amino acids and DNA caused him to reject Darwin's theory and accept Intelligent Design.

Then, in 1985, the atheist, Dr. Allan Rex Sandage, regarded as the greatest observational cosmologist in the world, told an American conference on science and religion that he had become a Christian, declaring:
"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science ... It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence ... Many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work."
theevolutioncrisis.org.uk...

Thank you OP. When this information about our scientists is put together in one place, it really begins sink in even deeper how baseless some of the counter-accusations are. There's more…so much more. I'm trying to collate it now but I'll be back. Peace Y'all!



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


You wrote:

["So, my reading of your reply and your understandable lack of counter-response to the 'problem' of consciousness suggests a further look."]

Could we please make that IMMEDIATE lack of counter-response, just to keep a nice atmosphere.

Quote: ["I, like you, come by my conclusions honestly, so I think the "empty talk" asseveration can be tossed leaving us with a valid "model" for further inquiry."]

I like delicate semantic balancing...no blame.

Quote: ["One thing this OP is hopefully establishing is the ignorant argument/assumption that believers are uneducated or that we believe because somebody told us so or we were raised that way."]

Apart from that I feel there's something verbally amiss with the "establishing" aim (just so we agree), it's not my opinion, that all christians are sub-standard. My rather overenthusiastic performance on this forum is mainly targeted on those who preach excessively or make fake claims/hijacking.
Concerning the direct factual content of the direction you pointed me to earlier: I don't debate with absent 'authorities', which while they sometimes can be relevant as reference-points for some specific information, .....I debate with other persons present on the forum.

So a friendly request: Your points in your own words. And remember my competence limitations; my biology doesn't qualify me for deep-loding in that direction, whereas I have a good understanding of psychology, perception-processes and the impact of such on existential questions.



edit on 26-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





WHAT science? WHAT context? And may I also include standard logic into the situation.


I can tell from the way you post you are not a younger person, so if you don't know by now.....it's going to be very hard for you to understand it, much less accept it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join