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.

 

Atheists / Agnostics. Could We Be Wrong?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

I said Hebrew, not Yiddish. There's a difference.


I looked up both. The story is the same/similar.

As I said - - - Believers find their history on Believer sites. The Watchman is a Believer site.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Annee
 



You can not prove a belief - - no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others.

The Bible is proof man can write. It is not proof of a god.


You should buy Carl Gallup's "The Magic Man in the Sky", you can get it in amazon. interesting read.

God's fingerprint is all in the bible and wihe the heptadic code and the bible code and the geneaology of names.


The bible proves only one thing.

Man can write.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I believe it also proves the book wasn't written or "inspired" by God..




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I looked up both. The story is the same/similar.

Alright, go ahead and tell a Jew that.


As I said - - - Believers find their history on Believer sites. The Watchman is a Believer site.

You're calling bias, which is a pathetic argument. Want to realize how much?
Yes, believers find knowledge through other believers, just as Economists find knowledge of their trade through other Economists, just as Farmers find their techniques from other Farmers, and just as those in depression, who lose someone- only find comfort in those who also have lost someone, not from people merely speaking empty words, but from those who actually understand.

You see, there's nothing wrong with a biased site. If you have a problem with it, it's because you're incapable of discernment and deciphering the truth for yourself. One of us is right (Theists or Atheists or Agnostics), we can't all be wrong.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by Annee
I looked up both. The story is the same/similar.

Alright, go ahead and tell a Jew that.


I looked up both and read both.

Its basically the same story with logical explanations.


As I said - - - Believers find their history on Believer sites. The Watchman is a Believer site.



You're calling bias, which is a pathetic argument.


YES! Absolutely I am. "History by Belief" is not fact history.







edit on 3-6-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Annee
 


I believe it also proves the book wasn't written or "inspired" by God..



I'm far more inclined to believe it is man's interpretation of "off planet visitors".

Explaining something you see that is not within your knowledge or experience.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


ok, answer this. What part of the world was the yiddish language formed?
I will give you a hint. It wasn't in Canaan, Israel or Judah.
I will give you another hint. It was in the caucasus mtn region..lol.

why?
I didn't have to look it up...you do though.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I said the history of losing a language and resurrecting it is the same.

It is not some holy miracle. It is explained with logic and real factual history.

The "STORY" is the same.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


your analogy works for the history of pig latin and English. The story is the same.
No, your example doesn't have a story that relates here, as in my example.

Sorry, your story is not the story, it's your story. Walt Disney tells stories loosely based on history too!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by Annee
 


your analogy works for the history of pig latin and English. The story is the same.
No, your example doesn't have a story that relates here, as in my example.

Sorry, your story is not the story, it's your story. Walt Disney tells stories loosely based on history too!



Many of Walt Disney's stories are more believable then the bible and all its nonsense.

Of course - - - their historical adaptations - - - aren't much better factually.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
You can not prove or dis-prove God.

Coming up with situations that can be realistically explained - - - is not a miracle.

Trying to factually prove God is ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
You can not prove or dis-prove God.

Coming up with situations that can be realistically explained - - - is not a miracle.

Trying to factually prove God is ridiculous.


lol, based on your own explanations, you are ridiculous trying to explain to others what you claim is ridiculous. What makes you feel that claiming sometthing you consider ridiculous makes sense?
You become ridiculous making the statement do you not?
You just make no sense and then you claim it's something from another planet that makes sense, but you claim it's ridiculous...but you ehhhh....say what?
And then you do a google and it's no longer ridiculous because you did 5 minutes that you consider due diligence and it is not ridiculous, for the moment....because you aren't ignorant like those christians because they did a google from a website that is biased because they don't believe in men that are gods from the sun, like the mormons believe, but they aren't ridiculous because you did a google and they tricked you, I mean, they convinced you that your mormon google is the right google becxause you are the one that googled it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd wiki confirms it. lol, I crack myself up sometimes. Come on annee, you are being ridiculous. lol



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by Annee
You can not prove or dis-prove God.

Coming up with situations that can be realistically explained - - - is not a miracle.

Trying to factually prove God is ridiculous.


lol, based on your own explanations, you are ridiculous trying to explain to others what you claim is ridiculous.


You can not prove God. Period.

Done.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
You can not prove God. Period.

Done.


Okay, let's work with your logic here.

You can't see God, so you can't prove him, correct?

Let me paint you a picture. Two men are walking through the local park and find an old wrist watch laying in the grass. There are no inscriptions, markings, or anything indicating the name of the person who made the watch- it's just a simple watch. It's in working condition, and it's beautiful- it's ticking and ticking and you can hear the clockwork gearing inside.

The first man says, "Wow, that's a beautiful watch. The one who made this is truly intelligent to put together such a complex device!"

The second man scoffs, "I agree it is beautiful, but you can't prove that someone made this watch. This watch, logically, was created by chance- nothing else."

The first man was surprised at these claims, yet stated calmly, "This watch cannot have come by chance! It's a complex and intelligent design, requiring a designer! I am completely positive that it was made- and I can prove it."

The second man got angry and kept on insisting, "No. You can NOT prove that this watch had a designer. I do not see him, I have never met him, there is no evidence found on this watch to suggest a maker, therefore it is logical and rational to assume that it does not have a maker."

The first man tried diligently to convince the second man that, logically, this watch (which is of complex design) would require a designer - and that just because he could not see him, nor met him, does not mean that he doesn't exist. Yet, he tried in vein, as the second man would refuse any piece of evidence thrown at him.

--- Moral of the story is this; there are many ways to prove that the watchmaker exists, yet it shouldn't even require anything more than common sense and logical reasoning (the same applies to the universe), but such methods do exist. It would be difficult, yet the proof does exist. That's the key thing.

Sadly, the second man has chiseled it deep into his thick, vacuous skull, that it's simply impossible to prove that the watchmaker exists, and that it was all created.. by chance. Logically..



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Objections against the watchmaker argument

There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?



Mandelbrot analogy
A similar objection is coined as the Mandelbrot Analogy. It relies on the observation that some complex patterns and behaviours, such as those seen in fractals and chaotical systems, arise naturally from simple systems. Therefore, the complexity of something is not a valid argument for the necessity of a designer.


But for me the main objection is who made the watchmaker - if complexity proves intelligent design, then who designed such a complex designer?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gurru
reply to post by Annee
[

For me, as in my present state of mind and dimensional awareness. I have been able to find god through nature. Waking up in the morning and going out for a hike, i have been able to notice the complete randomness of every pattern on every leaf of every tree. The distinct tone of every bird of the countless species that roam the skies. God created all of this for us. And we as humans can't even appreciate what has been given to us as the greatest gift of life. Our bodies will die and be part of the earth. But the energy that is within us cannot be destroyed but only changes form.


Do you recognize the perfection of creation including you?
If you do not like the word perfect the substitute ---the best that it can possibly be.
Scriptures say that all God creates is perfect. Do you recognize that perfection?

Regards
DL
edit on 4-6-2012 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Gurru
reply to post by Annee
[

For me, as in my present state of mind and dimensional awareness. I have been able to find god through nature. Waking up in the morning and going out for a hike, i have been able to notice the complete randomness of every pattern on every leaf of every tree. The distinct tone of every bird of the countless species that roam the skies. God created all of this for us. And we as humans can't even appreciate what has been given to us as the greatest gift of life. Our bodies will die and be part of the earth. But the energy that is within us cannot be destroyed but only changes form.


I understand that.

I was raised Christian and went on a "Spirit Quest" for about 50 years. I've experienced most of the commonly known beliefs.

Atheist means only lack of belief in a god. It does not mean No Belief.

I do believe there is an Energy Consciousness. I DO NOT believe there is a sentient being God of earth/humans.

I believe there are multiple multiple multiple (without end) layers of created existences from the original source Energy Consciousness.

I think Mormons are probably closer to reality in believing the earth/human "overseer" is a real being from another planet/existence. And is involved in our progress of evolution.



Darn. I was liking what you were saying till this Mormon thing.

Here is an analogy of how all the given religions began.
Just so you know. I am not an atheist and had an apotheosis to a cosmic consciousness so I agree with that concept but it does not have the multi-layer that you think. It is not a creator of nature but is just a part of it like you and I.

www.milkandcookies.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Gurru
reply to post by Annee
[

For me, as in my present state of mind and dimensional awareness. I have been able to find god through nature. Waking up in the morning and going out for a hike, i have been able to notice the complete randomness of every pattern on every leaf of every tree. The distinct tone of every bird of the countless species that roam the skies. God created all of this for us. And we as humans can't even appreciate what has been given to us as the greatest gift of life. Our bodies will die and be part of the earth. But the energy that is within us cannot be destroyed but only changes form.


I understand that.

I was raised Christian and went on a "Spirit Quest" for about 50 years. I've experienced most of the commonly known beliefs.

Atheist means only lack of belief in a god. It does not mean No Belief.

I do believe there is an Energy Consciousness. I DO NOT believe there is a sentient being God of earth/humans.

I believe there are multiple multiple multiple (without end) layers of created existences from the original source Energy Consciousness.

I think Mormons are probably closer to reality in believing the earth/human "overseer" is a real being from another planet/existence. And is involved in our progress of evolution.



Darn. I was liking what you were saying till this Mormon thing.


I was Mormon for 5 years. Unless you are fully knowledgeable of Mormonism - - - don't go there.


I am not an atheist and had an apotheosis to a cosmic consciousness so I agree with that concept but it does not have the multi-layer that you think. It is not a creator of nature but is just a part of it like you and I.



I understand Oneness.

Are you speaking of layers in our current existence? Or layers from the origin of first consciousness?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
So what do the Mormons think about ancient history, and end time type scenarios Annee?



So atheists/agnostics, could we be wrong? We have thousands of years of written and verbal testimony from a vast number of witnesses that something, or someone, IS going to happen. Are we, the “uber” minority wrong to believe that the only savior or event that is ever going to happen is us? That the only cure to our problems is us? Individually and collectivity? Are we the fools? And everyone else has it all figured out but us?


And for that matter, what do you think? Are all these cultures who believe their "gods" are coming back wrong? Are the people waiting for an "event" just fantasizing?
edit on 6/4/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


Objections against the watchmaker argument

There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?



Mandelbrot analogy
A similar objection is coined as the Mandelbrot Analogy. It relies on the observation that some complex patterns and behaviours, such as those seen in fractals and chaotical systems, arise naturally from simple systems. Therefore, the complexity of something is not a valid argument for the necessity of a designer.


But for me the main objection is who made the watchmaker - if complexity proves intelligent design, then who designed such a complex designer?

en.wikipedia.org...


Three arguments-


Complex Artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes.


This is called chance, also known as the "God of the Religion of Evolution" - Chance. You can gamble it all away and assume everything came by chance, as the watch did, or as the entire universe did, but that only proves one thing- that you have an insane amount of faith in your god of chance.

The second argument isn't an argument at all, just a statement.

The third argument is what you're asking-

The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?

And yours-

But for me the main objection is who made the watchmaker - if complexity proves intelligent design, then who designed such a complex designer?


This can be summed up as thus; if God made the universe, who made God?

This is always deemed the "coup de grace" on how to "shut up Christians"- yet it's pathetic- it misinterprets the law of causality and assumes that everything has a cause.

False- the law of causality states- Every effect must have an antecedent cause.

God is the cause, the Universe is the effect.
God doesn't need a cause.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join