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.

 

Question for Atheists

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
If religion didn't try to force itself into every aspect of society - politics/government - - - there would be no need for organized Atheists.

But religion does try to force itself into every aspect of society - politics/government.

Idealism is a nice word. But we do not live in an idealistic world.

You have to be real. An organized Atheist group is needed to keep separation of church and state.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Not if I'm going to have to scrounge around on google.!

Talk about implicative.
edit on 5-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Annee

I can't speak for religion sweetheart. I try not to hang my hat there to long. To busy following the real deal as best I can.
edit on 5-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Are you gonna be an active member of this discussion or are you going to pick fights?
I still don't know what you believe and you seem to be ignoring me in favour of pointless off topic bickering, honestly, you should go into politics or maybe become a rodeo clown as you seem to have a knack for making people see red.

credit where its due however, this is the first time one of my posts has reached 3 pages so thankyou for that help.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


DUDE!! you can't call a woman 'Sweetheart' in that context in this day and age, damn man you really are trying to pick fights.
I cringed when I read that,



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Well i've said my piece, basically what i believe is most probable is this: first there was a mind it's presence created an enviroment so it explored it's enviroment and the enviroment responded by expanding. As everything became more complex and developed the mind found new ways to learn and explore and one of these ways was to create (mirroring what humans do hence we are created in his image)
This idea, to me, seems to account for science and religion. It's rough but it's a start and the sooner we figure out this puzzle of existence the sooner people stop killing over it.
So what do you think?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Look, speak to women however you want, personally I think it takes balls to pull a line like 'sweetheart' but whatever

lets just get back on topic please.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I agree with the sentiments of getting back on track. At least we can all agree to that.

OP mentioned something that is a rather profound topic when people expand on it.
The interaction of chaos and order in a seemingly geometric or algorithmic relationship.

Now, for a while, naturally occurring patterns confounded me. I took quite some time to look into many of them, from biologically created patterns, to simple crystalline structures.

It's rather difficult for me to re-regurgitate everything I learned and my final understanding of it all, but I can amalgamate allot of it onto one impression.

It's like Jazz.

I know it sounds odd, but it's the best simple description I can come up with.
Nothing is guiding it, there's no "sheet music" but when everything interacts together and reacts to everything else, it tends to harmonize in a way that I can only describe as mathematical Jazz.

In Jazz, there's no conductor. Nobody "wrote" the piece. Each musician works off what they hear from the others, and vice versa, resulting in a sway from chaos to order to chaos to order, back and forth, as each musician does something unexpected and the rest then react to the new pattern and re-harmonize and re-sync again.

The structure of Jazz is only there because of the reaction of the others, and that structure changes, without fore-planning, in a similar way nature itself reacts to changes.

The apparent algorithms to me are like chordal patterns. Nothing per-defined them, they were just the ones that worked with the key and pattern that the musician heard at the time.
Even evolution itself is like the musicians hearing a change, and changing with it.

But the part about nature that's weirder than Jazz is, there's nothing consciously thinking about the adaptations... it just adapts. Like one side of an equation to another. With a few random variables thrown in.


I can personally comprehend the overall concept of how such an adaptive system came into being. It sort of makes a logical sense to me. Even the fact that the universe exists naturally makes sense to me. But that's a different topic from evolution and adaptation.

... I wish I had time to sit down and explain it all. It really is remarkably beautiful how it all interacts.
And, at the same time, it all makes an incredibly simple sense once you see how it works.

The scary part is though,
I now realize how unforgivingly harsh and cold it all is.
There's nobody looking out for us, but us.

Future generations are the only thing that matters.
The point is the species and life itself.

Everything else is moot. You, and every individual is forfeit.
Like a dead skin cell. You're forfeit. The body is the only thing that matters.


You might stop playing. But the music continues.
Everything is Jazz.
Everything.
edit on 6-9-2011 by johnsky because: parting comments



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Ok cool back on track.
I agree with everything you said however I think if there is a god then the origin of god is found at the origin of the universe.
Because the thing that all of the math fails to adequately explain is what humans call a soul.
My gut tells me that there is more to us then just a body that dies and is gone forever.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 


While I understand what you're saying, I believe the concept of a soul is nothing more than a mental protection mechanism we devised ourselves to deal with the harsh reality of our mortality.

I completely understand why you would want there to be a soul, and who am I to strip that from you.

But I myself do not believe such a thing exists.

This of course would raise questions as to morality from those who believe morality is bound to this soul concept.
My morality is defined by my belief that future generations of life matter more than the individual.
It doesn't matter which species, or even if we find other species in a distant system from our own.
Life there as a whole matters more than the individual.

Because once you're gone, future generations still exist.
Therefore, only life itself matters... and making the passing of the next generation that much better than our own.

My belief in a lack of an afterlife has rendered me with a rather selfless view of myself.

If you were to be correct, and a deity exists, and by chance that deity condemns me for aiming to be selfless... I'd wear the condemnation as a badge of pride.

I'd love for you to be correct though.
Living on after death.
Wouldn't that be something.
edit on 6-9-2011 by johnsky because: addendum



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


OK but why would we develop to be capable of questioning such concepts as the soul and an afterlife, development of concepts such as this seem surpurfluous to the continuation of the species especially if lack of belief in such things as a soul engenders a selfless, community attitude.
having no soul doesn't fit with evolution.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 


I see what you're getting at, but we develop many mental concepts to aid in our life.
For one, on the topic of evolution, if everyone were too afraid to do anything due to the realization that we'd cease to exist if we died, we'd get nothing done. We'd never leave the house.

I'd imagine the concept of a soul and an afterlife has instilled a sense of bravery in previous generations which simply wasn't due.
Hence, we advance in areas we'd normally avoid.

And I'm not saying that the belief in a soul is CONTRARY to morality. Far from it! The belief in eternal punishment is certainly an effective moral disciplinary tool for those who believe in it.
I was merely stating my morals to appease the curiosity of those who view their morals as stemming from the soul concept.

To add : and I'm not trying to tread on your beliefs here, but we also do the same with superstition.
Throwing salt over the shoulder, etc.
On the surface, it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, until you realize that it made the individual comfortable enough to continue on with a false sense of security.

Otherwise, we'd be cowering in fear over random events. It's all part of the minds desire to create patterns out of chaos... its standard method of learning and advancing.
Most of us need these comforting concepts to ease our minds in order to push on.
The rest of us... well... maybe we're doing damage to ourselves by not providing comforting thoughts to ourselves.

Or maybe we're just embracing madness.
edit on 6-9-2011 by johnsky because: addendum



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


You make perfect sense, however your statement does raise questions, like the behaviour of family pets for example. For the family dog to risk its life protecting a human child would suggest a motivation other then continuation of the species. could this be explained some other way that satisfies science?
Also what evolutionary perogative would result in a human level of self awareness that would nessecitate convincing ourselves of life after death? wouldn't our physical characteristics be sufficient to keep the species going strong? and if these characteristics were the catalyst for our self awareness then why? I don't see how self awareness can assist our survival as animals as we appear to be one of the only animals that has this gift.
What I mean is why do we need self awareness in the first place when other animals get by without it ie: no religion, no afterlife thriving animal like rats.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Raivan31 because: To clarify



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Sorry for the slow response time and the short messages but i use a PS3 to surf and it limits my ability to type and the length of messages, it's like sending really long sms's



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raivan31
reply to post by johnsky
 


You make perfect sense, however your statement does raise questions, like the behaviour of family pets for example. For the family dog to risk its life protecting a human child would suggest a motivation other then continuation of the species. could this be explained some other way that satisfies science?
Also what evolutionary perogative would result in a human level of self awareness that would nessecitate convincing ourselves of life after death? wouldn't our physical characteristics be sufficient to keep the species going strong? and if these characteristics were the catalyst for our self awareness then why? I don't see how self awareness can assist our survival as animals as we appear to be one of the only animals that has this gift.


Ah yes, the family pet.

As I previously stated where my morals derive from, and where yours do as well, there exists an underlying morality cause that's far more primitive in nature.
Pack values, or at least that's the best term I can conjure for it.

Supporting the pack has, through generations of non-self-aware animals, provided a better assurance of the future of that family line. It has become ingrained into the nature of most animals, or at least, those which work in packs. The defense of the pack, even if it ends one of the pack members lives, ensures the safety of the rest of the pack.

Dogs for example, historically, worked in packs. The dog however, is not self aware enough to comprehend the cause behind it's natural desire to protect the pack. It views the adoptive family as its pack, and hence, naturally attempts to protect it.


Onto your topic of human self awareness. It is currently understood that our outward mental thought was triggered due to a series of events which threatened the extinction of a number of tribes. As I understand, it was the development of forethought which allowed us to answer this threat to our survival. The adaptation of tools and the ability to store water.

In order for this to occur though, the human mind had to go from a simple reaction based primitive form, to a more complex self interest aware system. The ability to think outside of the now, made way for mental development which never seemed to get turned back off after the advancement began. We became aware of ourselves, because we were pushed to do so. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have survived.

Since then it has proven advantageous for our species to further take advantage of mental growth. The further development of tools, shelters, water diversion, leading up to the use of forces of nature for our own purposes, such as travel to expand the species, and finally to the technological advancements we now have today.

We developed self awareness, because we were forced to.
Other species have done similar things, but their mental advancement ended after they found sufficient means to survive. The beaver comes to mind, creating dams in order to control food supplies and shelter. It never reached the level we call self aware, because its needs were met immediately.

Our troubles clearly didn't end after our first mental advancement. Likely because we became our own cause for competition... one tribe versus another. My pack, vs yours.

As we advanced our tools etc, we had to advance to understand their uses, at which point we re-advance the tools. It's a relentless cycle. There's no way, for example, that a 10th century human could design a computer chip if they had the tools at their disposal... but through mentally keeping up with our own creations, we continue to become more and more mentally capable.

Somewhere along the lines, way back when, this cycle caused us to be mentally aware enough to question even ourselves. I believe it would be around that time that we began imagining a purpose for ourselves, creating religions.

This of course was a LONG time ago. FAR longer than any current religion reaches back.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 


OMG! A ps3?
Plug a USB keyboard into that thing! It works!

Also, cats tend to hunt alone, and only move into a group when it suits their purposes for pro-creation.

... which explains a heck of allot about the selfish nature of my little fuzzy jerks.


Anyways, sorry, but I have to log off for the night.
I trust I'll find you on-line again in the future.

Here's to you and yours.
edit on 6-9-2011 by johnsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Raivan31
 


I think at first, most go through an atheist phase. These people tend to be searching for answers, and realize organized religion is not it. So these people are still searching. What they are searching for cannot be explained, because that is in the "god" category of things.

Eventually these people may realize that all of this searching means something. Many will have experiences to justify the searching and proof of the meta-physical. Once that point is reached, most will not turn to an organized religion. These people are beyond that. Most will then say that they are spiritual; they are agnostic. That is the term most come to use.

Atheism is a phase for many. I die hard cynic will stay in that phase forever. I personally feel sorry for those people. Just because you hate organized religion and this reality as we know it, does not mean that there are some things you will never't know. That may rub you the wrong way, which is okay. Just stay an atheist then.

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



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Thankyou and see you in another thread.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join