Have Atheists Given Up Here?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Wonders
Shows where you get your information from. Why is God the hypothesis?
How can it be a hypothesis when people won't even bother to see for themselves if God is real because all the other loud mouths tell them that God's imaginary?


Where I get my information from? So where would that be?

God is the hypothesis because it can not be tested and is not observable. How hard is that to understand?

There you go! You gave me a glimmer of joy when you posted the scientific method!!!!! Then you post this?
If that's the case, then why are there people like myself who have experienced things that science IGNORES?
I understand what you are TRYING to say, you HONESTLY think that God can not be tested and is not observable, that is a limitation that you have put on yourself, how convienient.




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by namine
Problem's faith is blinding, and often stronger than facts and logic.

As for your question, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who can prove something doesn't exist, zealot or not.




There are ones that take one side, there are others that take the other side. The most rational, logical thing is to accept one's theistic or non-theistic beliefs instead of being so vehemently against the "opposition" and understand how one side came to be with an open mind, and humor of a good nature is also recommended, but I am just horrible at joking so I can't comment further on that.

Why I put quotation marks around opposition is to remind everyone that we are all human, trying to find to answers; most of the times, we are more "wrong" than we are "right" and we must not forget that. How can one say to someone, "You're a dumbass for falling down," when one is still scraping the dirt from one's knees?

"The ultimate test of a relationship is to disagree but to hold hands." - Alexandra Penny
edit on 14-11-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-11-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cjttatu
 


Thanx mate.

I think the problem is the state, over hundreds of years, has used religion as a way to control people, and has turned Christianity (and all religions) into an ego stroking form of social superiority, as much as wealth is. An illusory construct that the sheep can easily follow, and easily full fill that feeling of emptiness we all feel.

That feeling we get of things not being quite right, like something is missing, comes from our conscience that knows the system we live in is not natural. People fill that void with religion, or sex, or drugs, or ATS lol.


edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


So basically, you had some internal experiences that made you believe in god. You either hallucinated, or communicated with some entity in your mind? So basically what you're trying to say is, you're schitzophrenic? Or do you claim to know reality so intimately that you know the human mind in its entirety and can describe every function and how "god" speaks to you? Are you prepared to admit that your experiences don't indicate an ultimate god who created the universe - but more a mechanism of the human brain which is not understood fully, that many people use to claim proof of "god"? I do love me some schitzophrenics. The more extreme ones always have grand notions about god.

When I was a child I used to try to speak to god. I would always get in instantaeneous subconcious and vague reply. In the end I decided it was more a mechanism of my brain, not the "creator of the universe talking to me in ambiguous terms and not about anything complex".

I love how lots of religious speakers today talk about how they "spoke with god at length".. And basically are just describing their own thought-processes. Sigh... All this talk about the masses of braindead humans is depressing.
edit on 14-11-2012 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
There you go! You gave me a glimmer of joy when you posted the scientific method!!!!! Then you post this?
If that's the case, then why are there people like myself who have experienced things that science IGNORES?
I understand what you are TRYING to say, you HONESTLY think that God can not be tested and is not observable, that is a limitation that you have put on yourself, how convienient.


No it is not a limitation on anyone.

You claim science is wrong. Science has a method to prove it's right. You can not prove God using that method, what method would you use?

You can not prove God by claiming you have experienced him. You have no idea that what you are experiencing is in fact God. You can not do that, however much you think you can, seriously. You want it to be God so you think it is. It has nothing to do with anyone not understanding what you experience, you thinking you experienced God does not make it a fact.

So if you want to prove God to those who are skeptical the only way to achieve that is to use the scientific method. But of course you know that's impossible, so you'll just simply argue that I don't understand and around and around we go...

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjttatu

Originally posted by Wonders

Originally posted by cjttatu

Originally posted by Wonders

Originally posted by cjttatu

Originally posted by Wonders
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Have you ever went to a group of satanists to make fun of their beliefs? No? Hmm....



their really good at hiding.

i looked for them once..honest i did, seems they get some weird active results.

But alas not a satanist to be found

I don't doubt that. I want to know how many people are actually studying Satanism for it's validity, could someone tell me why more people who were into satanism converted to Christianity rather than become agnostic?
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.



did they or did they just go back to the title alchemists.
to get out of the religion clique??


What does the title matter if the content is merely tweaked. Protestant and Catholic are both considered Christianity and yet the distinction in title remains because the content is tweaked.


yeh but according to supposed satanistic beliefs,the trick is
for people to believe they no longer exist,much like supposed secret societies.
I was kinda being light hearted about the alchemy thing but there are some who believe
they go hand in hand.


Yes, that's why I stopped going to church, too much bible reading on my part apparently. Also, if I didn't know anything about Satanism, I'd never have suspected my pastor of such a thing, symbols handshakes and secrecy. And lead into gold, yeah, I'll say.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Good night everyone,

God bless you all,

I love you all,

Yes, even you filthy heathen atheist!



(that was a joke)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by godlover25
(that was a joke)


What, that you love filthy heathen atheists?


'Godnight' to you too.

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by Wonders
 


So basically, you had some internal experiences that made you believe in god. You either hallucinated, or communicated with some entity in your mind? So basically what you're trying to say is, you're schitzophrenic? Or do you claim to know reality so intimately that you know the human mind in its entirety and can describe every function and how "god" speaks to you? Are you prepared to admit that your experiences don't indicate an ultimate god who created the universe - but more a mechanism of the human brain which is not understood fully, that many people use to claim proof of "god"? I do love me some schitzophrenics. The more extreme ones always have grand notions about god.

When I was a child I used to try to speak to god. I would always get in instantaeneous subconcious and vague reply. In the end I decided it was more a mechanism of my brain, not the "creator of the universe talking to me in ambiguous terms and not about anything complex".

I love how lots of religious speakers today talk about how they "spoke with god at length".. And basically are just describing their own thought-processes. Sigh... All this talk about the masses of braindead humans is depressing.
edit on 14-11-2012 by WorShip because: (no reason given)


Who said anything about INTERNAL experiences?
Why is your "communicated with some entity in your mind" guess valid?
Your response sounds like George Bush's after 9-11, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories."
The religious speakers of today are mostly frauds. Good luck getting to know God through them.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I am not going to argue about whether God exists or not but all these atheists calling people schizo's for talking about what has historically been termed spiritual, which is essentially in the mind, bothers me.

The scriptures of many religions have spoken of this material world is not all that exists in creation and that the spiritual realm is not bound by flesh or electrical signals to the brain. Do not forget that what you term reality is merely how your brain interprets electrical signals from sensory organs.



Now what are the implications on science when mere observation of an experiment affects its outcome.

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
www.sciencedaily.com...


When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.

Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.




In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.


Applying this proven scientific theory to the 'religious' view of God might assist you in understanding why many have faith. If one were to read the scriptures and understand what is meant by God instead of reverting to the childish fantasy of flying spaghetti monsters or unicorns (which is actually a symbol for something entirely different than most atheists think) then perhaps they would understand how one can see God in all things.

The phrase 'seek and you shall find' comes to mind here. However most atheists seem to not actually seek but rather prefer to spew insults at believers seemingly to compensate or reconcile some lacking in confidence. If one honestly seeks and does not find and thus turns to atheism I have no qualms with that but I do not take seriously the atheists who hate on religion and have never put forth an honest attempt to prove or disprove.

It is the scientific method to test one's hypothesis but many atheists like claim ridiculous actions such as saying "may God strike me dead" and it not happening as proof. Honestly its funny but I have to inform you that when I laugh it is not with you.

Oh and P.S. the father of physics Sir Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist which is fundamentally a spiritual working and not chemistry of turning lead to gold which it has been so tainted with in modern times. In fact most of the great leaders and thinkers have been members of esoteric orders which begs one to ask, why?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Wonders
There you go! You gave me a glimmer of joy when you posted the scientific method!!!!! Then you post this?
If that's the case, then why are there people like myself who have experienced things that science IGNORES?
I understand what you are TRYING to say, you HONESTLY think that God can not be tested and is not observable, that is a limitation that you have put on yourself, how convienient.


No it is not a limitation on anyone.

You claim science is wrong. Science has a method to prove it's right. You can not prove God using that method, what method would you use?

You can not prove God by claiming you have experienced him. You have no idea that what you are experiencing is in fact God. You can not do that, however much you think you can, seriously. You want it to be God so you think it is. It has nothing to do with anyone not understanding what you experience, you thinking you experienced God does not make it a fact.

So if you want to prove God to those who are skeptical the only way to achieve that is to use the scientific method. But of course you know that's impossible, so you'll just simply argue that I don't understand and around and around we go...

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Okay, prove to me that vaccinations are right. Science is whatever the hell the person with the most money says it is. Vaccinations don't work. We don't NEED fossil fuels. and Mainstream Media is corrupt. I know what a fact is. And just because you think you're more knowledgeable than I, does not make it so.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: Some people will believe anything from an unknown source, so long as that source is outwardly more wealthy than "commoners" like themselves. This goes for "Christians" too.


And Just so we're clear, people need to look for their own proof, don't just rely on others for your beliefs, don't trust just anybody, not even if they seem capable of giving you emotional comfort.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: To add.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
Okay, prove to me that vaccinations are right.


Well that's not really science is it? As in creating an hypothesis and then testing it to see if the hypothesis works.

They don't have to follow the scientific method to produce a vaccine. They are making a product, not trying to prove an hypothesis. The blame should lie in the capitalist system, not in science.


Science is whatever the hell the person with the most money says it is. Vaccinations don't work. We don't NEED fossil fuels. and Mainstream Media is corrupt. I know what a fact is. And just because you think you're more knowledgeable than I, does not make it so.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: Some people will believe anything from an unknown source, so long as that source is outwardly more wealthy than "commoners" like themselves. This goes for "Christians" too.


Vaccinations not working has nothing to do with science. Blame the chemist that made them, and the capitalist system that puts profit making above health care.

Fossil fuels also has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with making profit.

What do you think it is I'm believing, and from what source? This is just common sense mate, I don't need a source. Your arguments are none-arguments, you simply don't understand science. Not surprising though...


Fewer than half of U.S. students are proficient in science, renewing questions about the country’s global competitiveness, the Education Department said Tuesday...


Most U.S. students lack science proficiency, goverment reports

You can choose to believe that, or not, but I bet if you polled ATS you'd get a similar result.


edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Wonders
Okay, prove to me that vaccinations are right.


Well that's not really science is it? As in creating an hypothesis and then testing it to see if the hypothesis works.

They don't have to follow the scientific method to produce a vaccine. They are making a product, not trying to prove an hypothesis. The blame should lie in the capitalist system, not in science.


Science is whatever the hell the person with the most money says it is. Vaccinations don't work. We don't NEED fossil fuels. and Mainstream Media is corrupt. I know what a fact is. And just because you think you're more knowledgeable than I, does not make it so.
edit on 10/01/11 by Wonders because: Some people will believe anything from an unknown source, so long as that source is outwardly more wealthy than "commoners" like themselves. This goes for "Christians" too.


Vaccinations not working has nothing to do with science. Blame the chemist that made them, and the capitalist system that puts profit making above health care.

Fossil fuels also has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with making profit.

What do you think it is I'm believing, and from what source? This is just common sense mate, I don't need a source. Your arguments are none-arguments, you simply don't understand science. Not surprising though...


Fewer than half of U.S. students are proficient in science, renewing questions about the country’s global competitiveness, the Education Department said Tuesday...


Most U.S. students lack science proficiency, goverment reports

You can choose to believe that, or not, but I bet if you polled ATS you'd get a similar result.


edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Alright so maybe I'm mistaken, are vaccines attributed to the wonders of modern science, or aren't they?
Real science is supressed, and that's why we use fossil fuels.
And Americans aren't proficient in science because the powers that be want it that way, BUT someone can still study what they can when they graduate and they don't need a tuition to do it either.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 

What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?

You only need one nail to hang up the picture.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
Alright so maybe I'm mistaken, are vaccines attributed to the wonders of modern science, or aren't they?


Yes they are, but you can't blame science for the application of that science.

Do you blame Einstein for the bombing of Japan with a nuclear weapon, or two?


Real science is supressed, and that's why we use fossil fuels.


Yes science is suppressed, but that is done mainly because that science would cost some huge industry some profits. So that industry uses it's massive economic persuasion to get that science suppressed.

Again not the fault of science.


And Americans aren't proficient in science because the powers that be want it that way, BUT someone can still study what they can when they graduate and they don't need a tuition to do it either.


Well I agree, but I do believe you missed my point, entirely.

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Wonders
Alright so maybe I'm mistaken, are vaccines attributed to the wonders of modern science, or aren't they?


Yes they are, but you can't blame science for the application of that science.

Do you blame Einstein for the bombing of Japan with a nuclear weapon, or two?


Real science is supressed, and that's why we use fossil fuels.


Yes science is suppressed, but that is done mainly because that science would cost some huge industry some profits. So that industry uses it's massive economic persuasion to get that science suppressed.

Again not the fault of science.


And Americans aren't proficient in science because the powers that be want it that way, BUT someone can still study what they can when they graduate and they don't need a tuition to do it either.


Well I agree, but I do believe you missed my point, entirely.

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

So how great can science be if it is easily supressed by greedy people?
How are athiests so noble that they've allowed their own foundation to be corrupted?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Also;

What of the placebo effect? Perhaps the ailment was merely a hallucination of the doctor and the recovery as well

Placebo Effect: The Power of the Sugar Pill
www.cerebromente.org.br...


When a medicine is prescribed or administered to a patient, it can have several effects. Some of them depend directly on the medicine's pharmacological action. There exists, however, another effect, that is not linked to the medicine's pharmacology, and that can also appear when a pharmacologically inactive substance is administered. We call it placebo effect. It is one of the most common phenomena observed in medicine, but also a very mysterious one.

The placebo effect is powerful. In a study carried out at the University of Harvard, its effectiveness was tested in a wide range of disturbances, including pain, arterial hypertension and asthma. The result was impressive: 30 to 40% of the patients obtained relief with the use of placebo. Furthermore, the placebo effect is not limited to medicines but it can appear with any kind of medical procedure.

In a trial to test the value of a surgical procedure (ligature of an artery in the thorax) to treat angina pectoris (pain in the chest caused by chronic heart ischemia), the placebo procedure consisted in anesthetizing the patient and only cutting his skin. The thus fictiously treated patients showed an 80% improvement while those actually operated upon only 40%. In other words: placebo acted better than surgery.




Up to now medical science has not fully explained what is the cause (or causes) of the placebo effect. But it seems that it is the result of the patient's expectation of an effect.


Scientifically speaking this should NOT occur. Again we have the psychological affecting reality which by modern scientific understanding absolutely should not happen as it is akin to 'magic' or some supernatural phenomena which confounds the rational mind.

The results are then attributed to the conditioned reflex


Conditioned Reflexes

According to Pavlovian theory, the functioning of the nervous system can be understood as depending on reflexes, that are responses to stimuli from the external or internal milieu. A sensorial stimulus, come it from inside or outside the body, reaches a receptor and modifies the organic conditions, and, consequently, calls forth a motor, secretory or vegetative response.

There are two types of reflexes: conditioned and unconditioned.

Unconditioned reflexes are those with which the animals are born, acquired along the evolution of their species, that is, their phylogeny. For example, if we put food in a dog's mouth, saliva begins to flow. This response is preordained inside the dog's nervous system.

Conditioned reflexes are those acquired by the animals during their own lifetime, that is, their ontogeny. These reflexes represent one of the types of learning the nervous system is capable of. As certain stimuli keeps acting on them, the animals form conditioned responses to these stimuli. In order these conditioned responses can appear, they have to be based upon unconditioned ones. In Pavlov's classical experiment, ringing the bell didn't cause the dog to salivate initially. But after he repeatedly rang the bell preceding the unconditioned stimulus (food), the dog began to salivate in response to the ringing of bell alone.



Placebo effect as a conditioning

Thus we come to a very convincing physiological explanation about the placebo effect: it is an organic effect that occurs in the patients due to Pavlovian conditioning on the level of abstract and symbolic stimuli.

According to this explanation, what counts is the reality present in the brain, not the pharmacological one. The nervous system expectation in relation to the effects of a drug can annul, revert or enlarge the pharmacological reactions to this drug. This expectation can also cause inert substances to elicit effects that actually don't depend on them.

We could then define placebo effect as the therapeutically positive (or negative) result of expectations implanted in the nervous system of the patients, through conditioning, consequent to the prior use of medicines, contacts with doctors, and information obtained by means of reading and remarks of other people.


This explanation is essentially a cop out where the medical community claims that the body does what it needs to do based on training in believing that it is supposed to recover because a treatment was given.

This effect was shown to have better despite the fact that no treatment was actually given. All based on belief, or faith if you will.

Can you really justify your beliefs after science has admitted that the supernatural has been observed?

Supernatural
www.merriam-webster.com...


2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


You seem to have avoided the issue. You said you had some experience to prove God. I assumed you meant some subjective personal experience unique to you. So what did you mean by proving God from experience?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonders
So how great can science be if it is easily supressed by greedy people?
How are athiests so noble that they've allowed their own foundation to be corrupted?


Dude you make no sense.

Science is not an "athiest" [sic] foundation. Only in the heads of delusional people.

I give up!

List of Christian thinkers in science

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

(took all of 2 seconds to find those)

edit on 11/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


The supernatural does not prove the existence of a God, any God.

It is just something of nature we simply do not understand yet. The very same reason "God" came into existence in the first place.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join