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.

 

I'm an atheist, and lover of science.. but I had to wonder, what if there is something beyond our p

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Again, I thank you for the discussion and debate. I thank miniatus for his tolerance and reply and patience. Good thread!




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
And this is why it is important to agree on what constitutes "A," at the beginning. This is called shared contextual understanding. Once the shared context is agreed upon, there is no more changing of the horse midstream. It avoids the circle you find yourself in. I am merely trying to lead you out.

Funny but your the one that keeps going back to the meanings that I never agreed to.


You are perfectly welcome to view things in grey, but this does not constitute atheism according to Oxford.

The definition by Oxford only states that it is a disbelief in god. Nothing more nothing less. You are trying to bring other things into "personal beliefs" and have things conform to scientific method and whatnot when they, by definition, can't. Your the one stuck on the merry-go-round.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





Funny but your the one that keeps going back to the meanings that I never agreed to.


I am terribly sorry. I thought when you posted THIS:


I have no problem with that so lets look at what the Oxford dictionary says:

Definition of atheism noun [mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

A rather simple definition. I'm sure we can agree that beliefs can change so an atheist will only hold his disbelief until something convinces him that he is wrong.

you were AGREEING to utilize Oxford Dictionary as the baseline and authority for defining context. Forgive me for taking you at your word.

If you can demonstrate one time where I have misconstrued the terms "disbelief," or "atheist," outside of the definition provided by Oxford Dictionary, then I will retract all of my argument.

Until then,

You are dismissed.


edit on 13-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
I am terribly sorry. I thought when you posted THIS:


I have no problem with that so lets look at what the Oxford dictionary says:

Definition of atheism noun [mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

A rather simple definition. I'm sure we can agree that beliefs can change so an atheist will only hold his disbelief until something convinces him that he is wrong.

you were AGREEING to utilize Oxford Dictionary as the baseline and authority for defining context. Forgive me for taking you at your word.

If you can demonstrate one time where I have misconstrued the terms "disbelief," or "atheist," outside of the definition provided by Oxford Dictionary, then I will retract all of my argument.

I did but, as I have already said, the Oxford dictionary does not claim that atheism as a "personal belief" must be fact-based, conform to scientific method, have a logical basis or anything else that you have used in your arguments. I don't really care if you retract your argument or not since, I'm sure that my point is clear enough to anyone following the thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



I did but, as I have already said, the Oxford dictionary does not claim that atheism as a "personal belief" must be fact-based, conform to scientific method, have a logical basis or anything else that you have used in your arguments.


You do understand the atheist demands evidence for belief in a god or deity, correct? The reason they do this is because their supposed position of disbelief is based on the lack of factual evidence for a deity. The alternate position of belief (disbelief) must call for the same level of evidence. That level of evidence cannot possibly rise to a state of total experience. Anything less would be intellectually dishonest. Are you being purposefully obtuse? I already caught you in one lie. Are you continuing to lie?


I don't really care if you retract your argument or not since, I'm sure that my point is clear enough to anyone following the thread.


If by the word, "point," you mean caught in a bald faced lie, then yes...it is clear to everyone...If by the word, "point," you mean in the corner with a cap on your head, then yes... it is clear to everyone...If by the word, "point," you have offered anything other than dishonest participation, then yes, that is clear also...

edit on 13-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik
 

You do understand the atheist demands evidence for belief in a god or deity, correct? The reason they do this is because their supposed position of disbelief is based on the lack of factual evidence for a deity. Are you being purposefully obtuse? I already caught you in one lie. Are you continuing to lie?

I understand that that is your point and I disagree. Not being obtuse or lying, just disagreeing.


If by the word, "point," you mean caught in a bald faced lie, then yes...it is clear to everyone...If by the word, "point," you mean in the corner with a cap on your head, then yes... it is clear to everyone...If by the word, "point," you have offered anything other than dishonest participation, then yes, that is clear also...

You seem to be the only one who thinks you have caught me in a lie. Maybe you could start a thread with a poll and find out how ATS really feels about it. I won't care then either but at least you might have something to back up you ad hominem against me.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


The record here is clear enough. You were the one who offered to use Oxford Dictionary as the authority for defining terms. You then followed that up with a post stating you had never agreed to a definition.

That is a lie. You said it.

I do not need to start a new thread.

You are dismissed. You are engaging in troll-like behavior. No further need to entertain this or your ignorance or your lying.

By the way, there is no ad hominem in this instance. My statement of your behavior is totally factual and therefore not an attempt to diminish the basis for your position. Your position is made baseless by your own behavior, not mine.
edit on 13-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
The record here is clear enough. You were the one who offered to use Oxford Dictionary as the authority for defining terms. You then followed that up with a post stating you had never agreed to a definition.


Sorry but no, I "did" agree to use Oxford Dictionary as the authority for the defining of "Atheism".

I didn't agree that all the other terms, that you want to include, are part of that definition or that they are even applicable/required. That is something that developed as the thread went along.
edit on 13-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


And at any given point where I specifically utilized the Oxford, especially when I used it to define the word, "disbelief," you could have then issued your lack of agreement and spared us the ass hattery you are now attempting to engage in...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I think i get what your "opponent is arguing.,,.., he is saying the evidence of the existence of the universe and the existence of complex forms and science and intelligent life clearly proves a god created this universe,,.,,.

You do not believe a god created this universe,,,. so what is your evidence for that disbelief?

since neither of you have complete evidence or information to prove your side,,, both side are semi beliefs out of ignorance

thats all hes saying,
edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik
 


And at any given point where I specifically utilized the Oxford, especially when I used it to define the word, "disbelief," you could have then issued your lack of agreement and spared us the ass hattery you are now attempting to engage in...

I wasn't even aware you were using the Oxford definition of it, which could very well have been an oversight on my part, so how could I have issued lack of agreement?

In any case, this doesn't clear up my disagreement with your argument in general. No we don't need to go over it again.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
 


I think i get what your "opponent is arguing.,,..,

You are right, that is what he is saying. He is saying that since we don't know the existence or non-existence of god for a fact, the only logical position is one of agnosticism.

I agree up to that point. It is the leap from there to "calling yourself an atheist is incorrect" (not a quote) where I disagree.
edit on 13-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


in order to be an atheist you must define the exact god you do not believe in,,, because agnostically you do not have proof as to whether a god created the universe.....


atheism is mainly born from the non belief in mans religious gods ( which have nothing to do with the potential of there truly being an intelligent creator responsible for the initiation of the universe),,, of course mans guesses are probably wrong we can all be atheists to zeus,,, but the problem of did a creator create this universe does not go away in my book once we eliminate earth is the center of the universe and zeus watches us from a mountain in the clouds,.,...,
edit on 13-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
 

in order to be an atheist you must define the exact god you do not believe in,,, because agnostically you do not have proof as to whether a god created the universe.....

There is logic to your statement just like totallackey's. The problem is that people don't claim to be an atheist as part of a scientific proposal, in response to a belief in a specific religion or in a debate. They do so in casual conversation so some things are to be inferred and if clarification or further detail is needed then it develops as part of the natural flow of a conversation.

ETA:

atheism is mainly born from the non belief in mans religious gods ( which have nothing to do with the potential of there truly being an intelligent creator responsible for the initiation of the universe),,, of course mans guesses are probably wrong we can all be atheists to zeus,,, but the problem of did a creator create this universe does not go away in my book once we eliminate earth is the center of the universe and zeus watches us from a mountain in the clouds,.,...,

There is a quote which expresses something similar:


“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

edit on 13-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 



Originally posted by miniatus

It's well understood, well not exactly, but understood at least.. that our thoughts, senses, emotions.. and everything that makes us "us" .. is driven by our brian.. that jello up in your skull.. it drives everything that we do and sometimes it malfunctions of course.. but it's the pilot and our bodies are the machine that it controls.

It's also firmly believed as fact by those of us that are science minded.. that when your brain ceases to function, you are no more.. fade to black.. existance is gone for you.. Well this is where I allowed myself to break out of my logic restraints ever so briefly and think... what if that isn't true? .. what if we really are some being of energy that is simply locked in our physical form? much like a cocoon for a butterfly, and what if it's not the mind that informs the body, but that energy that informs the mind merely to drive the body.. energy never goes away it merely transforms...


Congratulations for asking a very elementary and profound question, a questions people wonder about for ages already and an idea religions are based on as well. I am a little surprised actually it took you so long to "get there", but that's fine


(I myself will also call myself "atheist" or agnostic, but this doesn't mean i wont allow myself the luxury to believe in something, i just think the mainstream religions are too naive/simplified, they cannot satisfy me in this regards...by a long shot. By the way, someone in this thread said "atheists reject all the supernatural" which is quite some nonsense - "a-theist" comes from Greek THEOS for God, rejecting a common belief in God does not mean one would have to reject anything "supernatural" as well, just as a side-note. There are spiritual beliefs AFAIK which do not necessarily involve a god-figure)

Anyway...to answer your initial question would be very, very difficult but i think we can not really afford to ignore some evidence which points indeed in the direction that our physicality is only some sort of "vessel" and there is something like an "über-being" ("soul" or whatever you wanna call it) which is not necessarily dependent on our physical body. By the way, this goes much further since it would not only involve our physical body, but also our current "reality". From that point of view, i BELIEVE that our bodies/brain etc. might serve the purpose to allow this "soul" to experience *one* aspect of a reality, our physical reality.

Evidence is there, starting already with so simple things like dreams, lucid dreams, out of body experiences, religious experiences, altered states of consciousness etc. etc.

Are such experiences all "produced" by the brain? If i have an OOBE and experience an entire different reality (which can be experienced as very real, in the same way as what we consider our normal "reality")...so i have to assume that there is indeed more to my "self" than this body (and with it this, one aspect of reality). YES those are subjective experiences - but i could as well argue that all the experiences of reality are subjective...what rule is there saying that "this" reality right in this moment is the "correct" one? (I hope you can follow me still
)

And of course, the rest can only be speculation:

Are we some "über-beings" which are "locked" in this physical form..for some purpose? What might this purpose be? MAYBE to learn about things physicality brings with it, such as pain, death etc.? Some form of lesson or test? As some religions suggest, a result of karma maybe...or some kind of test which will decide over a later outcome, depending how we do in this physical body and in this "reality"?

It gets even far, far more confusing and fascinating if you look at some UFO/abductee stories...or spiritual experiences for that matter (who knows, maybe this is all the same, anyway) - where there is a hint of evidence (in my opinion, as far as i interpret this) that "we" in this reality are somehow the result or product of ourselves (or other beings?) from "another" reality. There are some reports which i read in a way as if someone created us "here", with a specific purpose. (Thinking about it now, i think the example of playing a computer game with a virtual avatar in a virtual world works here actually).

So..you see this can go pretty deep.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


"There is logic to your statement just like totallackey's. The problem is that people don't claim to be an atheist as part of a scientific proposal, in response to a belief in a specific religion or in a debate. They do so in casual conversation so some things are to be inferred and if clarification or further detail is needed then it develops as part of the natural flow of a conversation. "

I understand your speaking for your self and you must understand that as well,,, because there are hard core ( dare i say extremist) atheists...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


"“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts"

this is summarized in my above statement under " mans idea of god" .,.,,. mans idea and belief in god has no effect on whether in reality a god truly exists, and caused this universe to exist,..,

you can use that line to muslims and christians and whatever,,,, and its a nice zinger,,,, but mans religion has no effect on whether or not a creator created the universe..



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
 

I understand your speaking for your self and you must understand that as well,,, because there are hard core ( dare i say extremist) atheists...

Doesn't matter if someone is a hard core atheists or not. The situation in which he is making the statement would dictate and that is not something that we can address here.


you can use that line to muslims and christians and whatever,,,, and its a nice zinger,,,, but mans religion has no effect on whether or not a creator created the universe..

That is why I said similar and not the same.
edit on 13-8-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


ok then so we see that we agree to disagree but agree that we cant know the original cause of what we see?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by daskakik
 

ok then so we see that we agree to disagree but agree that we cant know the original cause of what we see?

No, I can't agree that we can't know the original cause of what we see, so were just gonna have to agree to disagree on the whole thing.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join