Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


If you say to me, prove that certain animals fly, I will show you creatures with wings - birds, bat, flying insects.

If you say to me, prove that gravity exists, I will drop things so that you may watch them fall.

Now, if you ask me to prove there is a god, what can I show you that has magical powers, can create life from dust, and lives forever? Nothing! There is nothing on this earth or in the entire universe that offers evidence of a god.

Of all the mythical creatures, the god is the most unprovable. If you ask me to prove that unicorns exist I can point to horses, then to creatures with wings, and to creatures with horns. If all three can exist, then it is not impossible to fathom one creature with all of these attributes.

But where are there any creatures with any of the attributes of a god? There are ZERO.




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by HumansEh
 


The Flower of Life set in stone at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos.


Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that. Studies in my youth encompassed sacred geometry and symbolism in art history and archaeology.

Keep goin OP, you are doing well.
Usually people start these threads to insult and shout down the opposing point of view.
You are striving for debate.
I respect that.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by bb23108
 

Maybe you're just focused on the wrong stuff, and that plate tectonics is the best way to maintain a living world for the long haul...
Are you implying that your God as Creative Agency designed plate tectonics to potentially destroy a huge section of the world so that a new start can occur??? If so, I want to vote him off the island now! There is no way that is a Divinely causative plan or design.

The Divine Reality I directly recognize simply attracts us out of this dreadful dream of conditionality by blessing us with Unconditional Love-Bliss Consciousness, and to the extent that we receive this blessing in each moment, we transcend these conditional realms.

Regardless of this earth realm being beautiful in various areas - it is still like a hell because the ego reigns supreme here and even if it did not, this is still the domain where our precious loved ones all die. That is not a Divine Plan - death of the limited body-mind is simply inherent in these conditional realms.

However, deeply feeling this fact of our mortality can be the very reason we allow ourselves to release our fake ego-I activity, and finally open up utterly to Reality Itself - to show us what the hell is happening! In that disposition of utter openness/surrender, the Truth is revealed. But regardless, this place in and of itself will never be a utopia, or paradise on earth. These body-minds are too capable of suffering and die regardless.

However, this place can be one of love and cooperation in which the happiness of Divine communion is our common ground. That would be plenty good enough! Then we can deal with all the difficulties with some real force and grace - everyone, all at once.
edit on 15-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

I know that space, but I'm smart enough to recognize the absolute transcendent Godhead who is also self aware.

You too are trying to do away with God, and by becoming one with everything edge the fundamental beloved relationship out of the equation, and that's fine, you are perfectly free to do that, but it might have a flaw? There could be a blind spot is all I'm saying which manifests in outrage towards the creator because he created the creation the way it is.

But please don't take offense because this is just a friendly debate in regards to a hotly debated issue, and yes that's funny and humorous from the state of blissful awareness.

Just remember that we're part of a creative process which was launched and initiated in chaos in the very distant past and that is rolling along towards a certain destination, ever evolving and with us involving, and you're certainly doing your part so don't get me wrong.

But there's no need to trash the creator the result of which we are here now as the creation self realized.

I guess what you're saying is that at some fundamental level in spirit we must have been with God all along from the very beginning because love is the reason that we are here.

The creation isn't cruel, ugly and "bad" - it's quite magnificent and so are you and me as what might be one of the highest expressions of the creative process in cosmic history.

"Love them as you loved me from before the foundation of the world."

There is only one spirit after all, only one God, one condition, so in a way we're both right in this case as far as I can tell.


"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba


edit on 15-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

If you say to me, prove that certain animals fly, I will show you creatures with wings - birds, bat, flying insects.

If you say to me, prove that gravity exists, I will drop things so that you may watch them fall.

Now, if you ask me to prove there is a god, what can I show you that has magical powers, can create life from dust, and lives forever? Nothing! There is nothing on this earth or in the entire universe that offers evidence of a god.

Of all the mythical creatures, the god is the most unprovable. If you ask me to prove that unicorns exist I can point to horses, then to creatures with wings, and to creatures with horns. If all three can exist, then it is not impossible to fathom one creature with all of these attributes.

But where are there any creatures with any of the attributes of a god? There are ZERO.

I will respond jiggerj (I want to call you "pops" but I don't want to insult you either), but it might take me a few days to haul it together. Your patience is appreciated.

Best Regards,

NAM



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
There may be some confusion over the words "evidence" and "proof." For example, in a civil court case you win if you have a preponderance of the evidence. You needn't prove anything beyond all possible doubt. We make decisions all the time based on the evidence we have. Any major purchase, our political candidates, our spouses, are all selected based on weighing the evidence.

The existence of historical figures is also determined based on what evidence we have available. We can't "prove" the existence of Homer, or even Shakespeare (or Bacon for that matter). But we accept their existence based on the evidence we have.

It is, of course, impossible to prove there is no God. Even finding evidence that there is no God is difficult. He hasn't made Himself obviously present in the last 2000 years? How often does He have to show up? Does he need to perform a showy, recordable, miracle every decade to establish proof? And to whom must he prove it? The vast majority of the world believes in God now, however they describe Him, and an even greater majority of people who have ever lived share that belief. As usual, there's always 2% that don't get the memo.

There's no characteristic of God that is visible on Earth, so there is no God? How about Love, Mercy, Self-sacrifice, Generosity? When we are hungry we look for food for satisfaction; when thirsty, drink; when tired, sleep; when lonely, companionship. When we have a need there exists something to fill that need. From the first, people have looked for God, cried out their need for Him. Is this the only need that can't be filled? I think not.

Proof of God? Not in this life. Evidence to believe in Him? More than enough to satisfy me and almost everyone who has ever lived.

You pick your own standard of proof, but this may be the most important question any human will ever face. Study, research, think, discuss. Do whatever you have to do to find your answer, whatever it is. But please, don't go through life dodging the question, "Maybe He does exist, maybe He doesn't, I won't worry about it" is at best a painfully lazy and cowardly position.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You too are trying to do away with God, and by becoming one with everything edge the fundamental beloved relationship out of the equation
I am not sure how you came to this conclusion from what I posted. By no means am I somehow trying to do away with the Divine Person or even abstract Him as elsewhere - quite the contrary, as you must actually know from my various other posts re: Jesus, etc.

However, this myth of God as Creator is another matter. It is a myth that stunts us spiritually and altogether, really, because most of us immediately tend to assume God as Other - in other words, objectify him, separate from him, and therefore make him unavailable for direct communion. This is what ego does with everything arising, and especially by tendency in the face of dissolution in the Divine or real communion.

I know you are trying to bridge that gap by using the Creative Agency terminology - but still you are saying that such a one actually created this world, is in charge, etc. - and this is what I am arguing about.
edit on 15-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye

I don't know, something seems kind of disingenuous about that position no, especially when you call it pure logic..


My mention of logic was directed at the concepts of knowing vs believing. Again atheism is not a statement of knowledge, but in fact a lack there of.


So atheism (except staunch, explicit, jaw clenching, teeth-on-edge atheism) is non-knowledge of God.

But knowledge of non-knowledge of God IS knowledge of God (as the all in all or whole domain of knowledge), so the atheist, except of the staunch, explicit, jaw clenching, teeth-on-edge variety, provided he's at least willing and open minded, and open-hearted (to the spirit of kindness and mercy that life is), is actually much closer to God-realization than anyone who holds out at arms length their own personally constructed conception of God whereby it may be said that "religion is a defense against having an authentic spiritual experience" (Carl Jung).

the audio on this is a little off (for me, all left sided) but if you pull out the headphone jack and fiddle with it a bit it goes back into left/right normalcy hey nothing's perfect I guess..


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

edit on 15-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: Carl Jung quote added for highlight.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You too are trying to do away with God, and by becoming one with everything edge the fundamental beloved relationship out of the equation
I am not sure how you came to this conclusion from what I posted. By no means am I somehow trying to do away with the Divine Person or even abstract Him as elsewhere - quite the contrary, as you must actually know from my various other posts re: Jesus, etc.

However, this myth of God as Creator is another matter. It is a myth that stunts us spiritually and altogether, really, because most of us immediately tend to assume God as Other - in other words, objectify him, separate from him, and therefore make him unavailable for direct communion. This is what ego does with everything arising, and especially by tendency in the face of Divine dissolution or real communion.

I know you are trying to bridge that gap by using the Creative Agency terminology - but still you are saying that such a one actually created this world, is in charge, etc. - and this is what I am arguing about.

I understand where you're coming from now, about the assumptions people make with God creator being synonymous with God as other, and a very separate and distinct other at that (doesn't sound like the kind of hiearachy I'd like to be a part because you might have to knock someone off or get knocked off or both!). and I'm glad you acknowledge that I'm hoping to bridge the gap with the Creative Agency demonstration (to come). I'm also happy to hear that you know God personally, that's really something very rare in our day and age, congrats to you!

Oh and I'm not saying that he's "in charge" no. What I'm saying is that he's so infinitely intelligent and so ahead of the curve and so ingenuitve that "he" (as infinite intelligence) doesn't have to be and that the whole thing from the very instant the creation flung itself into existence, had this very moment in creation already embedded, into the original design by anticipation whereby our universe represents an intelligent subtraction from the very end state that everything is evolving towards and relative to (Alpha and Omega).



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I'll come back to this on Sunday I need the night off and tomorrow night (Hockey Night in Canada).

God Bless (whether you believe or even whether you like it or not),

NAM



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I as many others have already stated will say your simply mincing words,
atheism is the lack of belief in a god, it does claim there is no
god flat out, a good analogy is this: Fox news is republican leaning
and CNN is democrat leaning, atheism would be the television is off
all together, so whether or not you turned it off or it was simply off to
begin with it isn't a channel.

Everyone is born an atheist because they lack the knowledge of any
gods, whether you get there by making the choice to require evidence
for your beliefs or you get there by simply never having been told
people believe in gods you still end up an atheist.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodreviara
I as many others have already stated will say your simply mincing words,
atheism is the lack of belief in a god, it does claim there is no
god flat out

You meant to say that it (atheism) doesn't claim there is no God, flat out.

What of an inkling? Have you ever had an inkling that there's something more, some non-material principal lurking at the heart of everything even in your own innermost heart of hearts, like a kindness and a joyfulness you might have once known as a child?

Is an inkling of God as a mere possibility like allowed if you're an atheist or is it TV off for good on all channels?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by bloodreviara
I as many others have already stated will say your simply mincing words,
atheism is the lack of belief in a god, it does claim there is no
god flat out

What of an inkling? Have you ever had an inkling that there's something more, some non-material principal lurking at the heart of everything even in your own innermost heart of hearts, like a kindness and a joyfulness you might have once known as a child?

Is an inkling of God as a mere possibility like allowed if you're an atheist or is it TV off for good on all channels?


God forBID!

It might very well have been a mere inkling or a whim that got us into this mess in the first place! TV off, turn it off, all channels!

Not.


"The Creator is created.
The Destroyer is destroyed.
The Preserver is preserved."
~ Meher Baba


~ from the book "God Speaks"


The question then in the final analysis isn't proof of God, at least it's not as urgent a question as it once might have been but instead - WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!!!

We have all the time in the world to explore the "who" of God once we discover that "God" is our very condition in eternity as spiritual beings created by God to live with God in his "heavenly household" (look around).

What else is it but a cosmic palace made FOR us, so that we can enjoy the experience of being alive, what a gift, what a precious gift for me that evokes powerful feelings of gratitude without any indebtedness whatsoever because it's a free gift to begin with.

I think it's hilarious and that this might turn out to be and become one of the most intriguing and amuzing threads at ATS ever, and I mean in the history of the universe.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumansEh

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by HumansEh
 


The Flower of Life set in stone at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos.


Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that. Studies in my youth encompassed sacred geometry and symbolism in art history and archaeology.

Keep goin OP, you are doing well.
Usually people start these threads to insult and shout down the opposing point of view.
You are striving for debate.
I respect that.

Thanks.

Here we have the G for generative principal because it's a principal of life meeting life as the flower of life having arisen from the original seed and egg of life, which emerged from the void as a thought-form even as a soundwave of sorts.


edit on 16-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: error



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Preview of coming attractions (solstice and perihelion)



We're going to go quite literally to the moon and back on this expedition in search of the Creative Agency whereby if such a one can be proven as a first/last cause then it's a whole new ballgame, and one that we get to still play in as well.

Go Canucks! (I don't really care because there'll be beer eh?)

NAM aka Rob or simply Bob if you like.

P.S. Don't forget that I'm a philosopher, and a rationalist-scientist and investigator, so you never know what I might come up with it might be something that you've never even considered before as a novel idea or paradigm in regards to earth evolution including, even especially including, human evolution unto the present day (we're still here OMG!).



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Sorry I mixed my baseball and hockey metaphors there, but you get the idea.

It's a whole new puck drop. (doesn't work)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


The problem with the inkling idea is that its just a feeling and you have
no idea what it really means, why you had it and cannot be tested as a
viable way to prove a god exists, the feeling could be anything from
chemical imbalance to a mild allergic reaction to something you ate,
to believe in a god based on an inkling is a HUGE leap between
two things that are not connected.

Just because someone wants a feeling to mean god is real does not
make it true, it makes it a desire fulfilled by someone who already had
a bias to begin with, if you had no knowledge people believed in gods
then most likely that inkling would be attributed to something else or
ignored as a strange feeling.

The entire problem comes down to the fact that there is NO evidence for
a god in existence and there are many claims that are easy to test,
the efficacy of prayer being one of them that has been tested many times
and every time and it has shown that praying does not increase the chance
of something happening or not happening.

Another good analogy for this is that while for goodness knows how many
years folks prayed for smallpox to be cured, well science came along and
instead of praying for someone else to do the work got in there and found
the cure for themselves, now many claim this is gods way of achieving those
prayers yet that type of claim is ludicrous because again no evidence to
back it up at all. praying is the idea that you can do something without
actually having to do the work......



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodreviara
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

The problem with the inkling idea is that its just a feeling and you have
no idea what it really means, why you had it and cannot be tested as a
viable way to prove a god exists, the feeling could be anything from chemical imbalance to a mild allergic reaction to something you ate,
to believe in a god based on an inkling is a HUGE leap between
two things that are not connected.

Just because someone wants a feeling to mean god is real does not
make it true, it makes it a desire fulfilled by someone who already had
a bias to begin with, if you had no knowledge people believed in gods
then most likely that inkling would be attributed to something else or
ignored as a strange feeling.

Setting aside the efficacy of "prayer" (which in the old old days used to be communion with God not asking for stuff! lol), are you aware of how funny what you're saying here could be, if the inkling is anything more than say digestion or a strange feeling to be quickly ignored, that's so funny and cute!

what if ignoring the inkling (and I'm talking the inkling, call it "thee"!) turns out to be, like religion is to the religious "a defense against having an authentic spiritual experience" (where any real knowledge must be the knowledge of personal experience)? When then?


edit on 16-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
My point is that every true definition of atheism permits the inkling regardless of what it might or might not be..

That means they are open minded!

..to the idea of God.

Even if only as a mere possibility.

That's funny!



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   
More coming attractions.. (just laying some puzzle pieces out on the table here as a starter..)



Originally posted by NewAgeMan







top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join