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.
Actually, I was saying it. My words were "If one is looking for the truth. . . " If you're not looking for the answer to a question, it's hardly surprising that it is not found.
Who says people are looking for the truth? Maybe they are just looking for a reason to live. These are not the same things.
Your wish is my command. 1) See that the available evidence points in several directions, and by using appropriate scientific methods and reason, determine, at least to your own satisfaction, which conclusion is most likely. 2) look at your own feelings and decide they trump everything else, including available evidence. 3) Just as I am not an expert in physics, and have to rely on experts, why not rely on the thousands of people throughout history who have studied this and rely on their opinions.
Then correct my description.
I didn't reference that quote at all, never discussed it. What I said was "You change subjects drastically after your Sherlock Holmes quote."
I mentioned the Sherlock quote because. . .
What? What is there to disagree with? Do you believe the question must not be raised?
I disagree.
Really? Why do you think they were superstitious? Because they believed in God? Sheepherders? The occupations of six of the Apostles are unknown, four were fishermen, one was a Nationalist leader (sort of like a community organizer who didn't mind a few deaths along the way), and one was a tax collector who held the contract for collection all the Roman taxes in a particular area.
All the evidence was compiled from superstitious Bedouin sheepherders that lived and died thousands of years ago when objective observation was a myth and science was Satan's pet project.
Nobody is claiming that the existence of Jerusalem or Nazareth proves that the Bible is true.
Now, if the mention of real places and events in fictional novels of today do not validate the legitimacy of the contents in those fictional novels, why should they validate the conversations purported to have taken place in the Bible?
Originally posted by FinalCountdown
Religious people and Atheists are one and the same.
Both believe they are right.
Both have zero evidence and operate only on "faith".
Originally posted by theMediator
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Aaaand your wrong.
An atheist didn't conclude there are no gods. Atheists do not conclude anything..they simply remain in disbelief until facts and proof is given.
Actually, Atheists do conclude that there is no god, from their beliefs and faith in their idea.
It's the Agnostics that stay open minded and don't conclude any sides of the argument.
I don't know where you picked up that misconception about Atheists.
the·ism
/ˈTHēizəm/
Noun
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal...
gnos·tic
Adjective
Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.
Noun
An adherent of Gnosticism.
Originally posted by FinalCountdown
Religious people and Atheists are one and the same.
Both believe they are right.
Both have zero evidence and operate only on "faith".
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Agnostic Atheist (someone whom has no mystical knowledge of deities, and therefore does not believe in deities
...
No...No no no. Agnostics, as they call themselves in modern society are simply agnostic -atheists- whom don't feel like weighing in during a debate because they are either too damn lazy to commit to their actual thoughts for fear of being not liked by some, or really haven't put much thought into it.
Originally posted by theMediator
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Agnostic Atheist (someone whom has no mystical knowledge of deities, and therefore does not believe in deities
...
No...No no no. Agnostics, as they call themselves in modern society are simply agnostic -atheists- whom don't feel like weighing in during a debate because they are either too damn lazy to commit to their actual thoughts for fear of being not liked by some, or really haven't put much thought into it.
Have any clear idea what "mystical knowledge of deities" is?
It just doesn't sound right at all.
Me, for instance, being Agnostic has nothing to do with laziness, acceptance or lack of debating measures.
It's quite simple, Atheist BELIEVE there is no god(s) and Theist BELIEVE in god(s).
Both are unprovable and rely on faith in order to be true belief.
To be 100% sure gods don't exist requires the same amount of faith than to be 100% sure there are gods.
Agnostics just don't see any clear proof about which side is the truth and stay open minded.
You we're debating on the significance of "Gnostic" while "Agnostic" is the complete contrary.
Well : Theologicalpositions
So with this graph showing both on each extremities, we can ALSO see that being only Agnostic is surely possible.
I think you will have to review your knowledge on the definition of Agnostic, you had me doubt my own knowledge for a while there. I could have very well been wrong.edit on 8-5-2013 by theMediator because: (no reason given)
Atheists don't believe there is no God. They have a lack of a belief in a God. Big difference.
Originally posted by theMediator
It's quite simple, Atheist BELIEVE there is no god(s) and Theist BELIEVE in god(s).
Both are unprovable and rely on faith in order to be true belief.
To be 100% sure gods don't exist requires the same amount of faith than to be 100% sure there are gods.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Dondylion
Atheists don't believe there is no God. They have a lack of a belief in a God. Big difference.
Could you explain this big difference? Lack of belief in one thing generally constitutes a belief in the opposite,
I do not believe aliens are visiting earth.
I believe aliens are not visiting earth.
Originally posted by windword
Originally posted by Jepic
Both ways of thinking are equally as arrogant. Exhibit A says that there is a god and exhibit B says that there is no God.
When the truth is all we really know is that we know nothing.
Not really.
Person A says: "There is a God and "HE" is like this, according to this book I read."
Person B says: "Okay, I hear you, but, I don't believe that is true."
I believe evidence and proof.
There is no evidence or proof of a deity..
I believe that
Therefore I do not believe in deities.
A theist has no evidence or proof of deities
They therefore believe in deities.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SaturnFX
I do not believe aliens are visiting earth.
I believe aliens are not visiting earth.
For simplicity's sake, I have isolated these two excerpts from your post in order to state that these two sentences as quoted above are essentially one and the same.
"I would like a hot dog with ketchup."
"A hot dog and ketchup, if you would."
While the arrangement and style differ in small ways, the general sentiment is precisely the same. The reasons and explanations you listed for each are easily interchangeable due to the nature of their expressions, as quoted above. As such, I would have to disagree with the "big difference" you attempted to illustrate for me. If you would like to try again, I'm still listening.
I do not believe in gods
is not
I believe there are no gods.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SaturnFX
I do not believe in gods
is not
I believe there are no gods.
I'm not following. Perhaps you should explain in the style of the grandfather example. I'm sorry if I seem dense, but I sincerely read those two sentences as exactly the same message in different wrappings.
Like this:
1+2+5+7 = 15
5+2+1+7 = 15
edit on 8-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)