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.

 

Using the position of ignorance to oppose Christianity

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Science has just showed some folks what God meant for them to know. When we step down to a quantum level things get a little magical. If you have never seen the dual slit experiment or the measurement problem you should. If you were able to see evidence of God would you deny it? Would you accept it? It would seem that without an observer the universe not not exists at all.


People on both sides (atheists and religious) really shouldn't use the quantum world to define anything yet. The observer effect needs a lot of testing done to validate it. Or rather, to invalidate it because it smacks of magic, and there's no room for magic in science.

Have a blind man stand next to the double slits. If the wave remains a wave, then this rules out the idea that any type of consciousness or intelligence is involved.

Then remove the blind man and put a camera next to the experiment. If the wave turns into a particle, then the change has to do with mindless lenses. So, this would mean a lensing effect.

With no camera or blind man, run the test again. What happens? The wave remains a wave, but guess what? We are able to measure it when it hits the sensors on the back wall. This means that measuring it has nothing to do with whether or not a wave remains a wave or turns into a particle. If this quantum weirdness didn't want us to be able to measure it, the wave would collapse into a particle before it hits the sensors.

What it boils down to is some form of meaningless optical illusion that we have yet to understand. Just as we can see something out of the corner of our eyes, but when we look directly at it we find that it's not there.

As for why the wave does collapse when we try to measure it, I have no idea, but the above tests would prove that consciousness has nothing to do with it.




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by georgiaboy
It seems more and more these days, that people like to argue that Christians are just ignorant and close minded. That we do not see the things for how they truly are. They say that the Holy Bible is a creation of man, not the inspired word of God. That it is a book of fairy-tales and fables. That it was written by ignorant sheep herders. They like to throw out the theory of evolution, and the big bang theory as proof of this claim. People call believers backwards and lacking of the ability to think freely. They laugh and scoff, scorn and deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They say the bible is inaccurate in historical detail.


Yes the Bible is a creation of man. But that does not mean it has no truths to it. Take out everything where there is a singular personality. When ever someone is writing about themselves or someone, being a singular person do not read it. When the bible talks about god think as if all me where saying it.

Salvation comes from withing. Do not abandoned all of your faiths writings for there are truths within all words of every religion in the world. If the end game is always the same. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong.
Oneness. Thought. For that is what creation is and what all creation springs from. Thought.

May Thoth be with you.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
For all those saying that religion is bad need to recheck their facts.

What is the first commandment of the 10?

Thy shall not kill!

Simple enough is it?

People are bad not religion. Religion doesn't tell people to kill. People do. God gave us freewill to believe what we think is right. And I would rather place the moral authority in a fictional being (I believe He is real. God that is) than a corruptible human who believes there is no moral authority but himself. I agree with the OP many humans are callous and arrogant of others needs.
edit on 4-11-2012 by bitsforbytes because: humans make mistakes....I am

edit on 4-11-2012 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 


edit on 11/4/2012 by Klassified because: Redacted



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 


Thou shall not kill is NOT the first commandment. Actually, the first commandment is the one that takes AWAY one's freewill, and condemns free thinking and the pursuit of knowledge.

It's kind of ironic that the penalty for violating any of the 10 Commandments was death!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


Two quick points to address about your post.

First the laws in Leviticus , I am no expert but it is my understanding that these laws were there to separate the jews from the gentiles. The Lord was raising up a nation of people to combat the godlessness of the other nations. He gave them laws that while they seem strange to us now were there to ensure that the nation survived. Hard to continue on as a nation when you can no longer reproduce due to homosexuality.

Second you mentioned hypocrisy of Christians using the advancements of science. Science addresses the material world. It is nothing more than a series of observations limited by the tools to observe. When science oversteps its bounds and attempts to explain the unexplained/metaphysical with a limited perspective based in materialism then science is flawed.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


I can't take your argument seriously in the slightest.

Here's why the Levitican laws were created: Israelites were afraid(not truly fearing) of God. So they compromised, and traded his presence for a set of laws.
God wasn't too stoked on that. So he sent himself to bear the worst of what humanity, hell, and himself could offer. Once God's wrath is in motion, it has to fall somewhere. So he chose to bear it himself.
Jesus didn't break the Levitican laws once, yet he still died the violent, incredibly painful death of a sinner. On top of that, his spirit bore the wrath reserved for humanity. And then his former No. 1 did his worst for three days.
All to hit the reset button, and erase the mistake the Israelites made in the desert.
So we could HAVE forgiveness, and the presence of God.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the laws. They are no longer relevant.
edit on 4-11-2012 by elias because: grammar



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by elias
 


What is it in my post that makes it impossible for you to take seriously?

There are heinous laws in the Bible that most rational people agree is not right (slavery & rape). Even if Leviticus laws are no longer followed you can't deny the ridiculousness and senselessness of the laws between Leviticus 21:16 - 20 where God demands that imperfect people and those born with birth defects are not allowed to worship him. If God was all knowing, all powerful and all good why would he deny someone with dwarfism (a genetic defect)?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I'm speaking more to the hypocrisy of denying the evidence of Geology in regards to the age of the Earth and Universe; the fossils discovered by Paleontologists and Archaeologists that prove Evolution; but all the while still benefiting from the other discoveries in this field.

Like I said, Science if all fine and great until it debunks a "fact" present in the Bible.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


Well I can see your point but both sides can be blamed there. First scientific facts can and do change when new observations are made and repeated as new tools come along.

As for geology and the age of the earth not everyone is so dogmatic. Some people have found a synthesis between science and the bible like Gerald Schroeder and his big bang/6 day creation idea. The problem there is that science has already precluded that the bible is wrong so they exclude or overlook any ideas that conflict.

You cant blame a system of ideas for the actions of some. Humans make this mistake so often its a tragedy. I guess we can assume all Americans are ignorant war mongers because of the actions of a few. We should also conclude that democracy fails because of the actions of a few corrupt people. Science fails because it has been used to harm people. Capitalism fails because some have used it to exploit others for personal gain. This can go on and on.

I have a question for atheist who uphold science. Do you feel scientific knowledge is sometimes suppressed by the establishment? If you feel this way how can you have faith that what you know scientifically to be true is?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I agree with you on many points there and I do know that not every Christian is a firm believer in the 6500 year old Earth or denies the evidence of Evolution.

Science is wrong, has been wrong and will be wrong but what makes it more credible to me is that these are not "dirty little secrets" of the scientific community. They are well known, published and discussed. Science doesn't claim to ever have an iron clad answer, only the best one at the time with the best of their ability.

The same cannot be said of the Bible.

However, you are absolutely correct, that Science is not entirely without bias or controversies. Often particular fields being studied or funded are politically motivated. Military technology is disproportionately advanced in comparison to a field like medicine.

But we are allowed to criticize these without being reproached viciously or condemned to hell for blasphemy.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


You grossly misinterpreted those verses. They were symbolic.
Meaning that the truly blind, lame, and ignorant in the spirit might as well just not worship. They offend God's honor.
God loves every being, and he "lets" them worship him.

A lot of the verses you refer to are about animals. rams, lambs, etc. without defect.
That in itself was a reference to Jesus.
y'know: "spotless lamb sacrificed as an atonement for sins".

Make no mistake: If God met and healed a complete screwup like me, he'll do it for anyone.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


Also, the only verses I could find were about the lame not being able to enter the tent where the priests worshipped, and that they weren't allowed to carry sacrifices to the altar.
Technically, very few were even allowed to enter that tent unless they were getting atonement done.
There's one verse I recall when a group barged their way in all angry, and they were swallowed whole by the earth.

Just not something you should do



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I have real issues with the bible - when it is taken for face fact. There is good stuff in here but let's take two specific examples and think of other alternatives:
- In the Old Testament when God is angry with man that he decides to kill every living animal except two of each species. Assuming that is the truth, how can that be fair? How can every single animal be blamed for man's evil? It makes no sense and shows a very vengeful God. If this is the sort of God that can kill every loving creature at a whim then I don't have any respect for this God,
- So we move onto the New Testament when Jesus decides at the wedding at Canaa that all the wine had been drunk , he would create some more wine. But this wine would be the best. To me a better alternative is that Jesus gives a rousing speech how the crowd do not need wine to enjoy themselves but actually can enjoy their own company without wine (being drunk). We do not know if he protects them from liver damage.

I offer these examples as cases where the bible can be read, reviewed but must be reviewed to see if there were better alternatives. I have not brought science into the equation as the book is more about morals - and hence this is what I question.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


I don't condemn you. People who don't want to take the time to use understanding and God's love are the ones who condemn, and they're not really doing it right.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by elias
 


There are still Christians out there who believe that getting a pimple is a sign from God that a person has committed a sin. Even if they were barred from approaching the altar it shows that people (and God) didn't have an understanding as to what caused ailments and birth defects... especially seeing how those would've been the product of God's creation.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by elias
 


There are still Christians out there who believe that getting a pimple is a sign from God that a person has committed a sin. Even if they were barred from approaching the altar it shows that people (and God) didn't have an understanding as to what caused ailments and birth defects... especially seeing how those would've been the product of God's creation.


I think you just illustrated perfectly the OPs post. Your first sentence in the above is an example of using the ignorance of others to somehow discredit God or the bible. I seem to have missed Christ discourse on acne. You cant skim the bible and take everything literally, while a lot is literal there is symbolism used throughout.

As to Gods knowledge of the human body while not something to base your faith around there is the example of circumcision. God commanded males be circumcised on the 8th day. This coincides with knowledge we have now. See the link below. Do not disregard the info solely on the name of the site the info is located. Some could argue they accomplished this through trial and error and this could be so but we cant know that for sure. Seems irrational to just throw away infant lives in a time with low mortality rates on some speculative trial and error not to mention I imagine to tribes at that time population was beneficial for protection etc.

Again not something to base your faith on but an example to counter the medical ignorance of God mentioned prior.

How did Moses know to circumcise on the 8th day?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I am not saying "all" Christians or "most" of them. I said SOME. My source? My roommate who is a practicing Christian. There are several verses in Leviticus that outline the barring of people with facial blemishes (boils are a type of cystic acne by the way so you did miss everything to do with acne) from worship or paying tribute to altars.

I also grew up in a Christian home and gosh, I think there was a day of the week that I use to spend in a house of god... jeez what are those called again... um... oh yeah a church.


Like I said, you cherry pick the parts that perfectly illustrate your arguments or points but leave out the dozen that also contradict it.

How about the 20 or so references in the bible about being left handed? It is biologically determined (or designed by God) but all of the passages suggest that being left handed is evil, untrustworthy and a connection to Satan.
edit on 11/4/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MonkeyFishFrog
 


I invite you to prove your statement.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by templar knight
 


We turned against God, what did you expect to happen? That he'd just forget about it, and we'd all skip off into the sunset singing KumBaYa? He has feelings too, and need I remind you that he created it all? He can kind of do what he wants. None of us are really in any position to question him.
And you calling out God for hitting the reset button to erase OUR mistakes really isn't the proper response at all. He gave mankind a second chance, and we killed the guy he sent.
Your second argument doesn't even make sense. Wine in biblical times is comparable to soda today, as far as popularity. Wine in that time had a minor fraction of the amount of alcohol in today's wine. You really had to work hard to get drunk. It was drunk as a celebratory thing mostly, sort of like soda or sparkling juices at parties today. It didn't affect you unless you really went overboard.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join