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.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls, a few interesting things for ats members.

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Fine and dandy however I asked a question to him. Concerning his beliefs....didn't ask you to make a comment or offer your opinion. You can make any statement you want but maybe just make a statement instead of posting it as a reply to a question that was specifically asked of someone else.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Akragon
 


Fine and dandy however I asked a question to him. Concerning his beliefs....didn't ask you to make a comment or offer your opinion. You can make any statement you want but maybe just make a statement instead of posting it as a reply to a question that was specifically asked of someone else.


You are right...

my appoligies, he has a habbit of disapearing though... i thought that might have been the case here

but no matter its not my business




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Human4life
 

Jesus is the same with God, BUT!! in thoughts, not the same person. God is Yahweh, the son of God is Yeshuah, Jesus Crhist.
If you want to get into this calling Jesus, Yeshuah, just chuck the New Testament and become a Jew, same with you calling God, Yahweh. The existence of Jesus is only known through the New Testament so if you don't accept that, you have no business saying anything about Jesus.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


These threads get confusing. That reply to thing gets clicked to much. Lines get crossed. Appreciate your grace. Fine Change of pace for ats!!!! Lol didn't mean to sound like an ass if I did.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Ashira
 


So Jesus was quoting a psalm is what you are implying? And not asking a question of his father?


Psalm 22

1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?


And:

24For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

He that has an ear to hear let Him hear



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ashira
 


Yes I understand...he supposedly was pointing out his own fulfillment of scripture. At least the author of the gospel implies that. Need I point out that this was written long after Jesus died and the author would have had access to or knowledge of the psalms? And even it was actual fulfillment of scripture...why would he call out to god if he is god? That's all I want to know. Explain a monotheistic trinity of gods?. Now if you were to say that jesus in you belief wasn't god but a prophet or whatever, fine....I can say I disagree but we are entitled to our beliefs, Leaps of faith. My point is that Christians insist there is ONE god. And that god is father son and holy ghost and the father and son regularly converse and the son prays to the father. Not seeing how that makes any sense in a leap of faith or otherwise.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "unit" from μόνος monos, "alone"),[2] according to the Pythagoreans, was a term for Divinity or the first being, or the totality of all beings, Monad being the source or the One meaning without division.

en.wikipedia.org...(Gnosticism)

. . .the term Monad was the highest god which created lesser gods, or elements (similar to æons). In some versions of Christian gnosticism. . .
. . .the God of the Old Testament is often considered to have been the Demiurge, not the Monad. . .
I think the trinity may have been an invention to not have Christian theology open to ridicule by Greek philosophy, and also to combat claims made by Gnostics.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Praetorius
 
Science has by no means comes to terms with parallel dimensions or multiple universes.


I could likely have phrased that better, but to clarify, I did say "coming to terms with the likely existence of many additional dimensions and possibly parallel or multiple universes", in reference to superstring & membrane theory, as well as some physics suggesting (or requiring) the existence of up to 11 dimensions at or shortly after the big bang. My apologies for not being more clear there.


Intellectually is not a word you should throw around. By that I mean you specifically. You say atheism is an intellectually dishonest opinion? An intellectually dishonest opinion? Explain to me first what you mean and then explain how you came up with the phrase intellectually dishonest opinion? You say god can't be disproved like it's the most concrete proof there is. Explain 1 way that god can be proved and you've got an argument. Who gave this guy stars for that response?


To start - I was responding to the claim "I think its been common knowledge that religeon is and always has been a myth." First thing first, I believe an honest appraisal of the history of society and current statistics on world theism/deism will disprove this.

But going to your post directly, let's couch it in these terms to explain my use of the term:

We cannot prove (at this point, anyway) that bigfoot exists. But there are many reports of bigfoot encounters and alleged evidences found for people to make the claim that he might exist. As such, it's intellectually dishonest for someone to outright claim bigfoot doesn't exist.

Along those same lines, we cannot prove that 'god' exists. But there are many reports of spiritual encounters/communications throughout history and alleged evidences in science and existence itself that he/it might exist. As such, it's intellectually dishonest for someone to outright claim god doesn't exist. We don't - and probably never will - have the understanding or presence in the universe and all possible realms of reality to effectively disprove such.

So, it's only honest for someone to say we can never KNOW he doesn't exist - and for comparison, you don't have to give it all that much weight anyway. I can equally say it's intellectually dishonest to claim that pink elephants don't exist. No one can prove there's not a pink elephant out there somewhere, even if every likelihood is that there isn't. To make the claim that we know such simply isn't honest. As such, I am agnostic on the belief of pink elephants as I've never seen and evidences one way or the other but can't say they aren't out there.
edit on 10/5/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

So by your reasoning Christianity or any other religion thAt claims god does exist is expressing an intellectually dishonest opinion as well, correct?
edit on 5-10-2011 by FloatingGhost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Praetorius
 

So by your reasoning Christianity or any other religion thAt claims god does exist is expressing an intellectually dishonest opinion as well, correct?
edit on 5-10-2011 by FloatingGhost because: (no reason given)

I was thinking about that, but I don't think so. There are evidences and arguments (debated, of course) that people can present to posit the existence of a god, and it's something that COULD one day be proven incontrovertibly (and according to some faiths, will be).

So while some may argue over the interpretation and meanings of the evidences given one way or the other, it's something that *could* be proven - although whether or not it ever will, who knows? All it takes is one confirmed-beyond-dispute claim to prove it. You can't prove beyond dispute that something doesn't exist.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Your reasoning doesn't seem very...reasonable. And rather biased to be honest. Also, atheists don't have a set creed. Its not a religion. As an atheist I do not believe in gods. But I don't deny there may be one or many. I don't seek to disprove god either. This is not agnosticism. Maybe call it agnostic atheism if you have to put a name on it. My point is that atheism and claiming there is no god do not go hand in hand as many think.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Ashira
 


Yes I understand...he supposedly was pointing out his own fulfillment of scripture. At least the author of the gospel implies that. Need I point out that this was written long after Jesus died and the author would have had access to or knowledge of the psalms? And even it was actual fulfillment of scripture...why would he call out to god if he is god? That's all I want to know. Explain a monotheistic trinity of gods?. Now if you were to say that jesus in you belief wasn't god but a prophet or whatever, fine....I can say I disagree but we are entitled to our beliefs, Leaps of faith. My point is that Christians insist there is ONE god. And that god is father son and holy ghost and the father and son regularly converse and the son prays to the father. Not seeing how that makes any sense in a leap of faith or otherwise.


Are You Your word? Ask Yourself:without words what are am I really?

At that time and place it would be suicide to create any religion based around a crucified God or Son of God.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Praetorius
 
Your reasoning doesn't seem very...reasonable. And rather biased to be honest. Also, atheists don't have a set creed. Its not a religion. As an atheist I do not believe in gods. But I don't deny there may be one or many. I don't seek to disprove god either. This is not agnosticism. Maybe call it agnostic atheism if you have to put a name on it. My point is that atheism and claiming there is no god do not go hand in hand as many think.

Hey again FloatingGhost - perhaps it's not, but it seems reasonable to me, so...eh.


As for the rest, it seems to come down to a matter of semantics. I would agree agnostic atheism would probably be a good catch-all for you - not personally believing, but not denying the possibility. When I refer to atheism generally, I'm speaking to the hard-line type like I originally responded to in this thread that effectively insists there's definitely not a god or anything along those lines, it's common knowledge that such is nothing more than fairy tales, and basically that people who believe in such are defective on some level, etc.

Anyhow, apologies for my perceived lack of reasonableness...don't worry, I spread that around on all sides so I likely drive believers crazy on a good many topics as well. And I appreciate the reasoned and calm discussion, so thanks for that.

Take care.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
[. Discussion is the key! I dont know...maybe that take care at the end was you saying you were done with talking about this?? I don't like the term intellectually dishonest opinion but will use it here as we've established a meaning...can't see how saying there is NOT a god is any more intellectually dishonest than saying there IS a god. Because it can't be proven god doesn't exist but could conceivably sometime in the future maybe be proven?? That's what you meant? I guess that would depend on ones interpretation of god...if you believe that god created earth...should a theory like big bang be proven...would that not disprove god? If you believe that god literally created man as described in genesis...would not the theory of evolution disprove god? These are modern theories put forth by extremely intelligent men...based in solid scientific research and study. Are there god theories? No...those are called religions and are based in no science whatsoever. I would associate intellect with science...as faith with religion. To say say that believing in god is more intellectually honest than not believing makes no sense whatsoever. You may respond that those theories being proven wouldn't disprove god only change mans interpretations....in which case god will become a shadow and you are correct...he couldn't be disproven. And it would be intellectually IRRESPONSIBLE (not to mention futile) to try viewing it all in an intellectual (scientific) way.
edit on 6-10-2011 by FloatingGhost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
John the baptist was a ROGUE essene. through my studies I have come to realize this. Many of the essenes had to live in the "wilderness" in order to pass and be allowed in the Essene club. That being said John did this but one thing crucially different. He didn't hang around others and left the essenes themselves to find God. Essenes went into the wilderness in groups. Safety in numbers! Also, the community itself may have been those living in the wilderness, because the Essenes did not live next to the city at all, they also lived in the wilderness. John left the Essenes after a lot of political/religious issues.

Let me rewind. John's the baptist Father was assumed killed and MURDERED by Jewish priest. There is a Apocrypha where is blood Congeals into the synagogue church alter. By being of the lineage of Priesthood that JOhn was, he probably stuided the Torah and was chosen to be a Rabbi. I am sure elezibeth (john's mom) decided this so as well due to all her visions. John grew in age. His mother told John that his father was murdered by the priest at a certain age. John became angry at the order and anti-establishment. John not only was reprimanded by his social class/status by the phairsee, but He also watched people heal themselves in the pool, (the crippled, lame). He left and went to the essenes in order for spiritual guide. Probably stayed there for awhile.
edit on 7-10-2011 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FloatingGhost
reply to post by Praetorius
[. Discussion is the key! I dont know...maybe that take care at the end was you saying you were done with talking about this?? I don't like the term intellectually dishonest opinion but will use it here as we've established a meaning...can't see how saying there is NOT a god is any more intellectually dishonest than saying there IS a god. Because it can't be proven god doesn't exist but could conceivably sometime in the future maybe be proven?? That's what you meant?

Sorry for my apparent continuing lack of clarity in former post. The definition of your own atheism provided (not believing a god, but allowing for the possibility), I don't find to be intellectually dishonest.

I believe - and this is of course my own opinion speaking - that claims arguing for the obviousness or utter factual knowledge of a god not existing are intellectually dishonest (the hard-line atheism I mentioned previously and as alluded by the claim I originally responded to). You are correct - as I said, there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist somewhere, especially when we are still so blind as to the fullness of reality, but you can prove that something DOES exist (and a good many believers, myself included, see such proof in anecdotal accounts throughout history, the realities of our existence in contradiction with our understanding of how science and reality do and should work - always expanding and updating, of course - and a good many other factors).


I guess that would depend on ones interpretation of god...if you believe that god created earth...should a theory like big bang be proven...would that not disprove god?

No...that would actually square pretty well with various creation accounts.
The big bang doesn't seem to make sense in light of science itself, barring various and continually more-exotic hypotheses such as fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, unproven membranes or multiverses, a static universe continually expanding and contracting (which seems likely discounted by continuing acceleration, IIRC), and so forth.

[quote[If you believe that god literally created man as described in genesis...would not the theory of evolution disprove god?
Evolution's got its own issues (the constant arguments just between gradualists and subscribers to punctuated equilibrium are good for catching the big problems in each) so I'm not too worried about it, but we're not dealing solely with literal believers in just the bible here, regardless - we're addressing theism/deism which has plenty of allowances for methods of creation, and not even all christian/jewish believers go in for a literal reading of the genesis accounts. Guided- or theistic-evolution is actually pretty popular amongst some groups of believers.


These are modern theories put forth by extremely intelligent men...based in solid scientific research and study. Are there god theories? No...those are called religions and are based in no science whatsoever.

Not directly related as applies to mainstream science, so I'll give this a yes and no...as I briefly touched on additional dimensions, parallel universes/membrane theory, and other related things earlier that some sciences are starting to lend credence to (in addition to ET phenomena and various other strange events), the door is opening oh so gradually for a more general acceptance that there may be other intelligences in reality that aren't just biological as we currently perceive life to be, and could be the root explanations for things involved in the origins of our various beliefs.


I would associate intellect with science...as faith with religion. To say say that believing in god is more intellectually honest than not believing makes no sense whatsoever.

As I said, I don't have the same issues with someone BELIEVING no gods exist as I do with stating as fact that no gods, etc., exist. Facts can be verified.


You may respond that those theories being proven wouldn't disprove god only change mans interpretations....in which case god will become a shadow and you are correct...he couldn't be disproven. And it would be intellectually IRRESPONSIBLE (not to mention futile) to try viewing it all in an intellectual (scientific) way.

Not a direct correlation, but should get the idea - as Clarke said:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I believe it would also be intellectually irresponsible to discount various histories of interactions going back thousands of years by just dismissing them as superstition instead of taking into account that there may be something taking place that simply deals with the unknown realms of our realities that we just haven't come to terms with as yet. Just my thoughts.
edit on 10/7/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


You were clear enough in regards to my views. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't. What I'm questioning primarily is you saying that iwhile hardline atheism is intellectually dishonest ( a phrase that irks me more every time I hear it now ) hardline claims that there is a god is not. This is flawed. If string/m theory is what you are basing your opinion on that god could conceivably be proven in the future, you are mistaken as those theories at their core can never be proven. It is pseudo science at best and to many not science at all. To promote these theories and discount big bang and evolution as aloofly as you do is folly. Big bang is the most widely accepted theory in science as to the universes beginning. String/m theory is far from accepted AT ALL. This is what I meant by god becoming a shadow....big bang and evolution put a dent in abrahamic religions...so the religions adapt saying, well yea, it was a misinterpretation. Not as a whole granted...but the people who want it to make sense as well as want to believe. Science, unintentionally, has blown holes in religious beliefs...not the other way around. If a hardline view on one side is intellectually dishonest a hardline view on the other is as well. At least if your basing a possible scientific discovery of god on string theory. Or maybe you are implying that while in our reality string theory is not provable due to lack of the ability to test it...maybe in another reality it will be tested? This is perhaps what you hint at in you quote about magic and technology? Or perhaps you feel aliens will reveal it's truth to us? If these are your arguments you are reaching and I mean REACHING! and then you back off of that and mention anecdotal evidences in history...by this you mean ancient hearsay? You said it yourself...facts can be verified. And there is no more factual evidence to suggest god does exist than to suggest he doesn't...a hardline stance on EITHER is intellectually dishonest, as you like to say. And that is my point. by the way, I can't take it anymore...there is no such thing as intellectual dishonesty. Dishonesty is dishonesty. There is no labeling it as this or that kind. And to suggest dishonesty on one side would suggest honesty on the other....or truth...and seeing as how these beliefs and theories cannot be proven, neither opinion is "truth".



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I'm not commenting on this anymore here as it is way off topic...however if you start a new thread on the subject I'd be glad to continue the discussion. As I'm sure many more would join in.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join