Are there bigger HYPOCRITES on this planet then atheists???

reply to post by humphreysjim

If you want to explain to me in your own words why "Sacred Geometry" is strong evidence of a personal God, go ahead, but I'm not spending hours studying something 99% of respectable scientists ignore as complete bunk if you're not willing to make your own case from the offset.

Oh, but it was a test. If you were truly willing to consider it, you would never have posted this. Since you have, I know you aren't serious about admitting you might possibly be wrong, which means you'll never know if you're right.

It was a test, and you failed miserably. Good day sir. Don't bother responding to this post, because I don't waste my time with people who are unwilling to go the distance.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

If you want to explain to me in your own words why "Sacred Geometry" is strong evidence of a personal God, go ahead, but I'm not spending hours studying something 99% of respectable scientists ignore as complete bunk if you're not willing to make your own case from the offset.

Oh, but it was a test. If you were truly willing to consider it, you would never have posted this. Since you have, I know you aren't serious about admitting you might possibly be wrong, which means you'll never know if you're right.

It was a test, and you failed miserably. Good day sir. Don't bother responding to this post, because I don't waste my time with people who are unwilling to go the distance.

Sigh, just trolling now are you?

I am interested in all ideas that show themselves as worthy of study, you failed to show anything of any substance, you just posted a youtube link and instructed me to "do the research". This is pure laziness on your part, and as I said, you're just trolling.

reply to post by humphreysjim

I am interested in all ideas that show themselves as worthy of study, you failed to show anything of any substance, you just posted a youtube link and instructed me to "do the research". This is pure laziness on your part, and as I said, you're just trolling.

I also posted a pdf link. But if you're too lazy to click the link, why should I put forth the effort to supply information you're unwilling to consider? If you want to call me lazy: I went to Youtube, found the video, found both the PDF and the url, and posted both.

All you had to do was click and read. Or watch. And if I had been so kind as to post a transcript of the video, I run the risk of you reading the first two paragraphs, deciding you don't like it, and ignoring the rest or judging the rest before you even see it, which makes my effort completely worthless. So who's lazy here? The one who is unwilling to partake of understanding, or the one who is hesitant to waste time on such a person, but is willing to meet them halfway? Must I post an image of a silver platter to coax you?

Just so you have no excuse, here's an excerpt. If you are unwilling to explore the material from here, I'll know it's less because of my participation and more because of your personal reluctance, in which case, I cannot help you and wouldn't wish to. It would be insulting to me and irritating to you. Only those who are willing to brave the dark will find the light.

Leonardo Fibonacci was an Italian mathematician who introduced to Europe and popularized the Hindu-Arabic number system (also called the decimal system). He contributed greatly to number theory, and during his life published many important texts. He is also known for the Fibonacci Series, a numerical series found frequently in the natural world.

The Fibonacci sequence is generated by adding the previous two numbers in the list together to form the next and so on and so on.(1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...). Divide any number in the Fibonacci sequence by the one before it, for example 55/34, or 21/13, and the answer is always close to 1.61803. This is known as the Golden Ratio.

One of the most profound and significant activities encompassed within sacred geometry and lightSource is the 'Golden Mean Spiral', derived by using the 'Golden Ratio'.

The Golden Mean was used in the design of sacred buildings in ancient architecture to produce spiritual energy that facilitated connectivity with spiritual realms through prayer. Our reality is very structured, and indeed Life is even more structured. This is reflected though Nature in the form of geometry. Geometry is the very basis of our reality, and hence we live in a coherent world governed by unseen laws. These are always manifested in our world. The Golden Mean governs the proportion of our world and it can be found even in the most seemingly proportion-less (active) living forms.

Clear examples of Sacred Geometry (and Golden Mean geometry) in Nature and matter:

All types of crystals, natural and cultured.

The hexagonal geometry of snowflakes.

Creatures exhibiting logarithmic spiral patterns: e.g. snails and various shell fish.

Birds and flying insects, exhibiting clear Golden Mean proportions in bodies & wings.

The way in which lightning forms branches.

The way in which rivers branch.

The geometric molecular and atomic patterns that all solid metals exhibit.

The way in which a tree spans out so that all its branches receive sunlight

Another, perhaps less obvious but most significant example of this special ratio can be found in Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) - the foundation and guiding mechanism of all living organisms.

Again, that's this PDF document right here. I've seen far more positive reviews than negative, and it's all proof of a certain divinity (what I call 'divine order', or organization that governs all of reality far beyond what we could have devised) in all of the universe and even the data we have today. The systems, the technogues, the methods, the seemingly random or spontaneous arrangements somehow pleasing to the eye, or very useful in the way we interact with the natural world and all the physics involved.

It's your choice from here. I only hope you give it a chance. Far too many live in darkness because that's what's familiar to them, and they don't want to bruise themselves finding the sun.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Atheists dont have a standard law or moral standard other than what is forced upon them by secular society.
If they want to love gays thats fine, if they want to hate gays thats fine as well. No one is right or wrong as there is no standard applied.
Hitler was a good man or Hitler was a bad man, depending what is right or wrong to the individual. Life has no value at all or the contrasting life is all important. The average atheist can and does believe whatever they want
Its a free for all.
Granted Christians are not good at what they are supposed to do, we are not very loving and forgiving and we often are hypocritical as well. Yet we know, everyone knows that the Christian mantra is love God and love the people of the world
The problem then is why cant Christians have a standard they choose and apply it to themselves like the atheist do. I get it, many Christians fail, as do atheists, but why are we judged so harshly and atheists are not judged at all. At least we have a standard, yeah we fail at it and we still sin, but we have that standard.
Atheists have nothing and then judge Christians, thats cowardly in my opinion.
So a Christian doesnt support homosexuality and thats bad, yet an atheists who states as much is ok HYPOCRITES

edit on 3-10-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)

We're not supposed to judge non-believers, but I do understand your frustration. I understand the frustrations of both parties, and I understand how those frustrations occur and you are not going to like my answer; both sides of the equation won't like my answer.

BUT, I will keep this short: you are not supposed to judge nonbelievers because you were once a nonbeliever.

We are supposed to be the light of the world, and I welcome those criticisms from nonbelievers because they are damn right... 21st century American "Christians" that protests again gay marriage are the same protesters that fought against woman equality, racial equality, and equality in general. Damn, can't we just take a step back and think?

If you need a God, book or punishment as incentive to be a moral person, you have no morality to begin with.

To think you need someone to tell you how to behave is belittling to yourself.

If that's how you want to live, fine, but don't tell me I need the same 'guidance' that you do.

To me, the Golden Rule is all I need to be a moral person.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I didn't ask what sacred geometry is, I asked how and why a ratio that occurs in nature is strong evidence of a creator rather than a natural result of a structured and rational universe that obeys and acts in accordance with physical laws.

We all are well aware that there is structure and consistency in the universe otherwise it would not be rational, and intelligent life would not thrive. You might as well say "there is order in the universe, therefore god exists", but then you'd just be treading over very old and tired ground, and this argument is nothing new, and certainly not without its refutations.

I asked you to justify, in your own words, why sacred geometry is worthy of serious time and effort to study, on my part, and you have done nothing to make that case besides copying and pasting a chuck of text describing something I was already aware of - what "sacred geometry" is supposed to be.

reply to post by humphreysjim


Because there have been too many chances for the universe to not make sense. An explosion that happens to create a perfect balance of everything? You leave that to pure chance? You are a gambler of extraordinary faith, my friend. It takes faith to assume that the universe randomly arranged itself just so, out of the googleplex of opportunities it had to collapse into a meaningless mess, or just scatter itself into a widespread tangle of dust. That it was all chance. Sacred geometry is not absolute proof, but it is a pattern that shows "Hey, look at all these opportunities for something that is supposedly random to screw up, but it didn't. It was spot on, each and every time. And as time goes on, it is STILL tried and proven." But it's still just chance, right? Just coincidence?What would you say if someone took a hundred thousand cards and called every number and suit exactly right? Chance? Coincidence? That's more faith than logic. That's pure blindness.

You might as well say "there is order in the universe, therefore god exists", but then you'd just be treading over very old and tired ground, and this argument is nothing new, and certainly not without its refutations.

Right, it is old ground. But only because you choose to thumb your nose at the numbers in favor of chaotic miracles. But given one chance out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, you'd still bet on it? You'd be sweating titanium beads of despair with those odds, admit it. You have so many more chances of failing, you may as well turn around and bend over and pray that the boot is a size 6 instead of a size 16. But you still think it's more likely than an intelligence? What other option is there, given these odds were consistently beaten, despite the chances of failure, at each and every turn?

See, I can understand how man look at the Earth and say, "There isn't a higher power." What I don't understand is how they can look at the cosmos, which are such a larger and more beautiful and purer example of what came before us, and again say, "There is no higher power".

You base your opinions on one planet. less than 0.00000001 of the universe, and you have the audacity to say, "Hell no, there's no higher power". I have the humility to say, "I don't know." But I believe the odds are more in favor of an intelligence somewhere out there, than just pure chance. Because that's fear talking. That's the fear of acknowledging there's something greater than us in the universe, and we don't know what to do about it. You're looking at the Earth, and you're missing the forest, the broad expanse of the universe, for one tiny flower. That's the same principle as racism, but on a celestial level. On a metaphysical level. Judging many by the one. Judging all by a tiny bit. Even though you have no idea if it's all uniform, you assume it is, because that's what everyone else is doing.

At the very least, admit you don't know. But you sure as heck can't prove that there isn't, and I can't prove beyond a doubt that there is. Because of that, neither of us knows. Not for a fact. The least we can do is admit it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You make a lot of assumptions about what it is I believe. I find it unlikely in the extreme that there was only a single Big Bang or that ours is the only universe, for a start.

If the Big Bang was not caused by god, it was a natural event, and being a natural event it makes no sense that it would be a singular event. Atheism strongly implies a multiverse, and a multiverse is sufficient to explain order in universes able to harbour life. I suspect all combinations of laws may be played out in an infinite number of universes.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Where did I ever claim to know there was no creator? Atheism is lack of belief, that's it, I have made that quite clear in my posts in this thread.

None of this matters. You were born alone and you will die alone. What you do in between is what is important. If you live your life working to make people believe the same things you do you are wasting your time. Who cares if someone spends their life following a bronze age doctrine that makes no sense. It is their life to waste. Who cares if someone proclaims no belief at all. It really isn't harming you or anyone else. Also, does it really matter who I choose to sleep with? Does their gender really make a difference? Is it harming you or anyone else if I choose to love a man or a woman? I think not. Be a good human, love everyone you can. That's it.
Also, this is a troll post but I don't think I buy your response that you did it on purpose. I think you got busted and changed your tone. Just an opinion.

I remember when I was a little child sitting, on my fathers lap and he tickled me. In my giggling squirm, I accidentally kicked him in the crotch. I never knew, before this incident, that I had the ability to hurt someone, and I experienced guilt for the first time. I couldn't have been older than one, and had no religion, knowledge of God, but I knew that hurting someone was wrong .

My sister, who was 6 years older than me, used to like to act like a bull and charge at me. I remember the first time, sitting on the sofa, so little that I had to be propped up with pillows, and watching her paw at the ground with her foot, snort and then charge at me, landing on top of me with all her force, knocking the wind out of me so that I couldn't even cry. The thought of deliberately harming someone was not part of my mentality, so I never expected she would hurt me. I was shocked to learn that people could hurt others on purpose and I knew that was wrong, without anyone teaching me so.

When I started Kindergarten, my sister and I walked to school together. Some boys were picking on my sister and made her cry. I tore after them with a vengeance, defending my older sister against these big boys. It came natural. Nobody had to teach me to stand up for the weak.

Morality is etched on our souls and only perverted by biblical justification and religious intolerance. There is no morality disseminated by religion, only the hijacking and corruption of what is already written on the human soul.

Religion selling morality is like the government selling air. They don't own it.

reply to post by humphreysjim


You're right, I did assume. My apologies for taking certain liberties with your angle, but I took your point and explained it. Even if a portion of my response did not pertain specifically to your perspective, there are others who DO take that stance, and my response was addressed to them as well - I didn't say it, but that doesn't stop them from reading it, unless their consideration is already beyond the reach of my voice.

Atheism strongly implies a multiverse, and a multiverse is sufficient to explain order in universes able to harbour life. I suspect all combinations of laws may be played out in an infinite number of universes.

Purely theoretical. What supporting evidence do you have of this, that disqualifies the view I offered? I am not contesting your view, I am asking you to educate me.

Where did I ever claim to know there was no creator? Atheism is lack of belief, that's it, I have made that quite clear in my posts in this thread.

Atheism is NOT lack of belief. Lack of belief inherently involves abundance of incontrovertible fact, and the continued existence of divine worship clearly shows that this isn't the case. Atheism is the belief that all cases of divine existence are insubstantial and more fluff than scientific basis, but without an alternative rock-solid principle to propose in its place, you are stuck with belief that the other belief is pure speculation - which, in itself, is speculation. Which, depending on the degree of your support in favor of either, requires a proportional degree of faith. Where you draw that faith from is another story, and it differs from person to person, as in all things.

The only other alternative is that you simply don't care, which is described as agnostic: not knowing if there is a higher power, and believing it to be irrelevant. I was an agnostic once, I would know. What changed me is the relevance point, largely in the way one suddenly takes interest in art after learning of the influence it has in history.

But again, please educate me on your other point.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Purely theoretical. What supporting evidence do you have of this, that disqualifies the view I offered? I am not contesting your view, I am asking you to educate me.

There is no direct evidence for parallel Universes, however, there are, I believe, many things indicative of them. I would say the only interpretation of quantum physics that makes any rational sense, and avoids seemingly ridiculous contradictions and things like instantaneous action at a distance and wave/particle duality, is the Many Worlds Interpretation (now adopted by Hawking and many other "heavyweights" in the scientific world.

However, it is just an interpretation that I think best suits the evidence, it is not real proof.

What it comes down to is a singular big bang runs into the obvious problems you have already mentioned, so we are left with either God, or a multiverse (or perhaps both).

It then comes down to which can be argued as the most parsimonious position, and to me, and all-powerful and infinitely complex intelligent being should be adopted as an absolute last-resort. I think you look for natural explanations first, and adopt supernatural ones only when natural explanations fail. Science backs me up here.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Atheism is NOT lack of belief. Lack of belief inherently involves abundance of incontrovertible fact, and the continued existence of divine worship clearly shows that this isn't the case. Atheism is the belief that all cases of divine existence are insubstantial and more fluff than scientific basis, but without an alternative rock-solid principle to propose in its place, you are stuck with belief that the other belief is pure speculation - which, in itself, is speculation. Which, depending on the degree of your support in favor of either, requires a proportional degree of faith. Where you draw that faith from is another story, and it differs from person to person, as in all things.

The only other alternative is that you simply don't care, which is described as agnostic: not knowing if there is a higher power, and believing it to be irrelevant. I was an agnostic once, I would know. What changed me is the relevance point, largely in the way one suddenly takes interest in art after learning of the influence it has in history.

But again, please educate me on your other point.

Agnosticism commonly refers to whether you believe knowledge of God is possible - agnosticism is generally the position that it is not. It is also adopted by people who consider themselves on the fence. I have never heard it used for people who don't care, I think everyone cares.

Atheism, by definition, means "without God belief" - that's what the words means. It is lack of belief. When I say I am an atheist, I am basically stating that I have reviewed the case for God and have found it thoroughly unconvincing.

reply to post by humphreysjim

Atheism, by definition, means "without God belief" - that's what the words means. It is lack of belief. When I say I am an atheist, I am basically stating that I have reviewed the case for God and have found it thoroughly unconvincing.

You mean you've reviewed the case for all of divinity, not just the gods that man worships?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I have far more time for believers in a god outside of the simplistic man made religions, but I would say nothing I have seen has been convincing for the existence of any creator.

reply to post by humphreysjim


I am one of the believers in an intelligence that resists the trappings of man-made ideals forged from the fire of primitive motivation, and not without cause. My higher power is both far more simple and far more complex, and far more natural, than most seem to regard their idols as being. However, I respect that you see things differently that I do. It's clear that you have your reasons, and I have no right to say they are less moving than mine, because we are different people with different ideas.

I can only trust that should you come across evidence the irrefutably points to an intelligence underneath the apparent chaos and order of the universe, with includes but is by no means limited to our inconceivably small corner of reality, you will admit it.

But how can we ever really know, until the moment comes that life is gone and we face whatever comes after? That will be the moment of truth, and until then, it is all speculation.

reply to post by Soloro


Atheism is not a filler for a belief. Right now there's something that exists in this universe and/or beyond that not a single person on this planet past, present, or future has ever thought of or will ever think of in the slightest degree. They have no belief on the matter in any way. No one is for or against or anywhere in between and not a single person that falls into either of these three categories has ever understood or will ever understand at all an area which even comes close to relating. An atheist doesn't not believe a higher being created all known and unknown matter nor does the atheist believe the opposite. There's literally zero, ZERO, opinion or belief. It's as if the concept never even existed just as the example I gave in the beginning.

Hypocrisy comes in all shapes and sizes. Hypocrisy can come from the mouth of believers and non-believers. Hypocrisy can even come from those that are on the fence.

But I always wonder why there are people in these three groups that try to impose their views on people with different views.

It must have something to with satisfying the ego. There is irony in that come to think of it...

Only fake christians....