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: A God Might Not be Impossible

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Yes, but we're still years away from designing a tree from scratch. And honestly, I don't think we should even try. The day we recreate the work of Source, is the day we decide we no longer need Source. The day we decide we no longer need Source, is the day we decide we are better than Source. The day we decide we are better than Source, is the day we forget Source. And the day we forget Source, is the day we are all truly damned.

We are not yet ready to be gods. And still, we will try. Whether for better or for worse, whether salvation by miracle or disaster by design, remains to be seen. And if we do fail spectacularly, I hope we die along with that dream, like rabid dogs. We are too dangerous for anything else to happen.


Wish I could give a billion stars for this post.

Alas - - you have to settle for one from me.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jaws1975
 


Ever heard of '___'? It's a highly hallucinogenic chemical that our brain only produces twice in our life: at birth, and at death. It will show you all sorts of spiritual visions, none of which is real but all of which will, at the very least, disturb you.

This chemical creates impressions of an afterlife, and of a creator waiting on the other side. I'm not saying that every experience is caused by '___'; however, I would very much hesitate to say that these visions from near-death experiences are proof of anything like what you're saying.

The simple answer is, we JUST DON'T KNOW.


Yes I have heard about it and read the book about it and.....
....anyway's those experiences are infinitely varied, where as there is a definite blueprint to the NDE. Why?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I hold with the "I am that I am" = I think, therefore I am.

In other words, consciousness/awareness + intention = God.

It makes sense in a very weird, riddle-ish way.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jaws1975
 


One of my many talents is my infallible ability to admit that I don't know.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jaws1975
 


Ever heard of '___'? It's a highly hallucinogenic chemical that our brain only produces twice in our life: at birth, and at death. It will show you all sorts of spiritual visions, none of which is real but all of which will, at the very least, disturb you.

This chemical creates impressions of an afterlife, and of a creator waiting on the other side.
You're regurgitating a myth, or at the very least a theory. While the chemical is found in the body in trace amounts, there's no evidence of when or where it's produced, but people think "at birth and at death" as an excuse to write off the NDE as just a "hallucination."

NDEs tend to happen when there is zero brain activity, and keep happening even several hours after death in some cases. I read a story where one man had been dead for about 6 hours until he sprung back to life to share his experience.

The body is a collection of atoms, and atoms don't die, just change form. But rather than dispersing completely upon death, quantum entanglement says no, it just moves to another place, hence those experiences.
edit on 16/7/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



When ingested, '___' acts as a psychedelic drug.[7] Depending on the dose and method of administration, its subjective effects can range from short-lived milder psychedelic states to powerful immersive experiences; these are often described as a total loss of connection to conventional reality with the encounter of ineffable alien realms.[8] Indigenous Amazonian Amerindian cultures consume '___' as the primary psychoactive in ayahuasca, a shamanistic brew used for divinatory and healing purposes. Pharmacologically, ayahuasca combines '___' with an MAOI, an enzyme inhibitor that allows '___' to be orally active.[9]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 



When ingested, '___' acts as a psychedelic drug.[7] Depending on the dose and method of administration, its subjective effects can range from short-lived milder psychedelic states to powerful immersive experiences; these are often described as a total loss of connection to conventional reality with the encounter of ineffable alien realms.[8] Indigenous Amazonian Amerindian cultures consume '___' as the primary psychoactive in ayahuasca, a shamanistic brew used for divinatory and healing purposes. Pharmacologically, ayahuasca combines '___' with an MAOI, an enzyme inhibitor that allows '___' to be orally active.[9]


en.wikipedia.org...
I know what '___' is. I'm a fan of Graham Hancock and watched the Spirit Molecule movie as well, and some other videos of the whole Ayahuasca experience.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jaws1975
I have often wondered why near death experiences have not been looked at closer by atheists as evidence for life after death and a creator.


Short answer: Brain Chemicals.

Or - all living things have a way of protecting themselves. Even creating illusions to ease death.


How would someone's brain know that they're dying, and how could such behaviour possibly evolve?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee
 


I hold with the "I am that I am" = I think, therefore I am.

In other words, consciousness/awareness + intention = God.

It makes sense in a very weird, riddle-ish way.


I guess I should have stated I was referring to - - physical existence.

I am a consciousness. But - like a computer - what if someone pulls the plug?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Your body ceases to function. But does that mean your soul simply fades away?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
 



As I often say, "I have no concrete proof of God's existence and I'd be kind of disappointed if I did."


Why would you be disappointed?


Because I want to love for love's sake, not because I've been backed into a corner.


Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
AfterInfinity, I love the fact that you can say I just don't know! Humility goes a long way when we are trying to have such a deep conversation. Maybe part of this game called life is that we are not meant to know, maybe if it was so easy to prove that a creator exist's than we would not do anything on Earth and sit around all day and expect to be taken care of. We have the good ole US of A for that, right?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee
 


Your body ceases to function. But does that mean your soul simply fades away?


Hey! This isn't about my own personal belief.

Personally I do believe everything is energy from the same original source. However - - looking at video games from where they began only a few years ago (I had Pong) - - - to the realistic sophistication today - - doesn't make it too far fetched for me to allow we could be a created illusion.

In the physical realm of our beginnings - - - I lean toward the Terra Papers.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jaws1975
 


Ever heard of '___'? It's a highly hallucinogenic chemical that our brain only produces twice in our life: at birth, and at death. It will show you all sorts of spiritual visions, none of which is real but all of which will, at the very least, disturb you.

This chemical creates impressions of an afterlife, and of a creator waiting on the other side.
You're regurgitating a myth, or at the very least a theory. While the chemical is found in the body in trace amounts, there's no evidence of when or where it's produced, but people think "at birth and at death" as an excuse to write off the NDE as just a "hallucination."

NDEs tend to happen when there is zero brain activity, and keep happening even several hours after death in some cases. I read a story where one man had been dead for about 6 hours until he sprung back to life to share his experience.

The body is a collection of atoms, and atoms don't die, just change form. But rather than dispersing completely upon death, quantum entanglement says no, it just moves to another place, hence those experiences.
edit on 16/7/12 by AdamsMurmur because: (no reason given)


I kind of agree with you a lot here, but none of the reported NDEs happened with zero brain activity. Sure, there's a point where the brain ceases to generate a coherent signal, which would indicate clinical death. After that, there are sporadic occasional bursts as the neurons break down, and I read somewhere that it could go on for months after clinical death. So, some form of brain activity continues a long time after death, but it doesn't seem to account for the NDEs.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?


It depends on your definition of "life". If you mean intelligent, conscious beings, from scratch (as opposed to just monkeying around with existing cells,) no, I don't think that's likely to happen.


If we don't doubt that we will create life from scratch, then why would anyone have a reason to doubt that one day (maybe far FAR into the future) we will learn how to create universes? Again, if this knowledge is out there, why wouldn't we come to know and understand it - and use it?


Because you're making some rather illogical assumptions there. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean that it can be learned. The answer to the question of "how to create a universe" lies before the universe was created, so determining the means of its creation is almost certainly impossible. All of the speculation that I've seen requires some action that defies the laws of thermodynamics, which is illogical and most people just kind of leave it at "here's the Big Bang, and we don't know how all that energy for it came to be." (I find Lawrence Krauss' speculations to be bizarre at best, semantic chicanery at worst, but at least he admits it's speculation.)

The other faulty assumption that you're making is that just because something is understood, it doesn't mean that it can be implemented. Where are you going to find the energy to construct a universe? Where are you going to put it? What, for that matter (har har,) is your definition of a universe? If you create a universe in a shoe box, aren't you making this universe a supernatural one for the other, and thus, unprovable by its science?

I think that you're unreasonable in your assumption that science can, and will, provide answers to everything, because there are practical limitations to what can be sorted out. On that basis, I don't think that it's rational argument to claim that God could exist, simply because some day, we will have conditions where we can duplicate what might have been done by him to create our reality.

But I do appreciate your "under the radar" point that an atheist can accept a god, provided that the god in question is himself


Don't you see that everything you've written is the kind of denial that people would have had just 200 years before we split the atom. People would have said that splitting the atom is god's secret and we're not allowed to know it. Others would have said it's just impossible. Others would have said there's no such thing as an atom.

And now, you (and most of mankind today) are denying the inevitable.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I guess what I am also saying is what about that thought energy? We are all assuming "something" from "nothing" here, aren't we?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hidden0
reply to post by Annee
 


I guess what I am also saying is what about that thought energy? We are all assuming "something" from "nothing" here, aren't we?


What can we do but assume?

We really DON'T KNOW.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by jiggerj
 





I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?


Already happened a few years ago, old news.

Scientists create self replicating synthetic bacteria

Creating synthetic life isn't hard, we're using Yahuwah's Elohim's knowledge and we can do that because we were made in his image. We have knowledge but lack the wisdom to wield it correctly. Instead of using the knowledge to His Glory, mankind takes that knowledge and does evil with it, turns it into weapons to kill with, or to make a few people filthy rich at the expense of others and that will never change by the actions of men alone.

The fact that we can create life just lends credence to mankind being created, because the act of creation is not limited to nature alone but by outside influence.
edit on 16-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


This is exactly what I'm saying! Have you posted this link in a new thread? I wish you would. I'd give you a thousand stars if I could!



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


True, thats kind of what I was getting at. We can know all sorts of things, getting closer and closer to understanding everything...but there is that one little problem: we are here, and we don't know how that is even physically possible that we are here.

Lets leave the physical behind. Even in terms of thought energy, souls, spirits, whatever term works best, it all operates on the idea that it exists. Upon which framework or lattice does it sit? The question is the same for both the realm of the physical and the mental - how is it even possible?

I'm not saying it is not possible - for here we are...but when it comes to the question of gods and godlessness, let us be open minded and realize our own existence is just as divine and wonderful as the questioned existence of a god. That, in fact, we can be considered gods simply because of how insanely amazing it is that we DO exist as opposed to not existing at all. Not that I am a religious person, but I think Jesus said it best, when he mentions we are created in the image of God himself.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by jiggerj
 





I propose that one day (probably very soon) we will learn how to create life from scratch in a laboratory. Does anyone have a valid reason to doubt this?


Already happened a few years ago, old news.

Scientists create self replicating synthetic bacteria

Creating synthetic life isn't hard, we're using Yahuwah's Elohim's knowledge and we can do that because we were made in his image. We have knowledge but lack the wisdom to wield it correctly. Instead of using the knowledge to His Glory, mankind takes that knowledge and does evil with it, turns it into weapons to kill with, or to make a few people filthy rich at the expense of others and that will never change by the actions of men alone.

The fact that we can create life just lends credence to mankind being created, because the act of creation is not limited to nature alone but by outside influence.
edit on 16-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


This is exactly what I'm saying! Have you posted this link in a new thread? I wish you would. I'd give you a thousand stars if I could!


I love this thread! Such healthy philosophy


Has anyone ever considered that nature and technology are one in the same? How can we say that technology, something birthed from nature, is not a natural forthcoming of life itself? There are some people whom believe that technology is merely a spore like that of a dandelion creating seeds to fly on the wind.

Yes, we may have been created, but how could there be an outside influence to the universe itself? All happenings in the universe abide by the universe. Try doing something that is against physics




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join