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.
Originally posted by Cecilofs
Both science and religion will come and go eventually.
And we will fly off into the sparkling skies.
Originally posted by thirdeyeaware
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
" the Bible does a really good job of addressing the "Why" "
Lol! if you believe in talking bushes, yeah.edit on 15-12-2010 by thirdeyeaware because: (no reason given)edit on 15-12-2010 by thirdeyeaware because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
I was responding to EarthCitizen's comment that the New Testament was empirical evidence for Creation, so ask him how that works.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Only if you tell me why 60%-70% of the worlds' scientists are atheists. An atheist means he/she believes in no diety whatsoever and no magick, regardless if it is black or whte.
It is a terribly narrow point of view to have,
nevermind the blasphemy aspect which is a bit childish.
I think we should of started the conversation by first defining what *divine intervention*, *spiritual guidance*/*intelligent guidance* are then move accordingly.
Divine intervention could range from god/allah/buddah, satan, grey aliens, reptillian aliens, or just simply super-human strength such as from human/alien hybrids.
Our universe has many unsolved mysteries and not everything can be tackled in a laboratory by scientific investigation.
Sometimes you just have to go by *word of mouth* and believe far fetched claims....
Freedom of speech and freedom to think are constitutional rights guaranteed by the first amendment!
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Actually, atheism speaks nothing about magick. That would be asupernaturalism.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
As for 'believes', that is an incorrect phrasing. Atheists do not believe, it's a null position. They feel like there's no good reason to accept any deity, hence no belief.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How is it narrow? Atheism is the nonexceptance in the light of a lack of evidence. Most atheists, especially the scientists, would accept any claim which has evidence, it's not like we reject the possibility.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by earthcitizen07
nevermind the blasphemy aspect which is a bit childish.
What do you mean by this? Serious question, I don't get what you mean here.
I think we should of started the conversation by first defining what *divine intervention*, *spiritual guidance*/*intelligent guidance* are then move accordingly.
Finally something I agree with.
...ok, three out of those are 'divine', the rest would be naturalistic.
Aliens, or human hybrids of such, would be natural forces. Also, they wouldn't solve the question because we'd then be asked where they came from...the same with deities.
...um...yes they can. Please, provide me a claim that science cannot handle about the universe.
Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I respect their right to believe, but I do not have to respect their belief. If someone believes something that is stupid or clearly false, it is not their right to have that go unchallenged.
Guess what, I live in Europe...not that I don't believe in freedom of speech, expression, conscience, and thought...it's just that your justification is improper.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And what is "super"-naturalism?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
As for 'believes', that is an incorrect phrasing. Atheists do not believe, it's a null position. They feel like there's no good reason to accept any deity, hence no belief.
kool, as in "kool"-aid.........
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How is it narrow? Atheism is the nonexceptance in the light of a lack of evidence. Most atheists, especially the scientists, would accept any claim which has evidence, it's not like we reject the possibility.
At least you don't reject the possibility. Again thats kool!
It means some people take religion a little too seriously and believe ONLY what the OFFICIAL church wants them to believe. Is nothing obvious for you?
So how can science answer that question?
Well, there would be evidence of EBE tampering or hybridization in human genetics...
...um...yes they can. Please, provide me a claim that science cannot handle about the universe.
Well since you can't answer the above question (where do the aliens and dieties come from)
Both are unconfirmed entities. Science also cannot answer where the tooth fairy comes from. If it's not confirmed, science can't say anything about it.
I guess that IS ONE CLAIM that science cannot handle.
If there were evidence of extraterrestrial life or deities science could handles it.
Tell me, to become a scientist is it a pre-requisite to have an overblown ego?
Science isn't something that inflates the ego. If anything it humbles the individual by making the grandeur of the natural universe apparent.
It is enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to think that there are fairies beneath it (or so someone said, not my own words but I can't remember the source)
Does science play the role of god?
There is no role to fill.
Did scientists themselves create the universe at los alamos national laboratories?
No, but they aren't claiming to have done that. The claim is that the universe could have arisen naturally.
Nope, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There is NOTHING extraordinary about science, religion, ufos/aliens, stupidity, etc....They have all been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and yet debating these topics seems to be an excercise in futility.
Well, religion does have quite a few extraordinary claims, like the violation of natural laws, the divine creation of the universe, etc.
Science makes some extraordinary claims too...but it backs them up with evidence. Lots of it. Black holes, supernovae, heliocentric solar systems, spheroid planets, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. All of those claims are extraordinary with ample evidence to support them.
UFOs...well, that's also an extraordinary claim. It's a claim that beings are able to travel faster than the speed of light to visit a backwater underdeveloped society (at least by their standards). There is insufficient evidence for extraterrestrial visitation, no matter how cool it would be.
I wonder WHY? Can science answer that question?
Sure, neurobiology.
Indeed nothing should go unchallenged...especially not the absurdity of "If I can't touch,smell, see something with my own two eyes then it MUST NOT be true."
Hey look, it's a straw man argument. The skeptical claim is that "If I don't have supporting evidence I have no reason to accept a claim"
Using that same logic why should I believe thomas jefferson or ben franklin existed? Just because history books say so?
...no, because we actually have their writings, contemporary accounts of their actions, and pieces of their own property.
Who cares, the bible was real to, but some people cannot accept its real
The Bible is comprised of many unconfirmed claims, including the historicity of characters such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. We have no supporting evidence outside the Bible for any of those individuals. In fact, the earliest piece of evidence outside the Bible we have for Jesus is.....from around 40 years after he supposedly died from someone who was born about 20 years after he supposedly died.
The Bible has zero evidence for most of its claims.
See how irrational "proof" can be IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE AS PROOF?!
What evidence? You make a lot of claims without any evidence.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[The Bible is comprised of many unconfirmed claims, including the historicity of characters such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. We have no supporting evidence outside the Bible for any of those individuals. In fact, the earliest piece of evidence outside the Bible we have for Jesus is.....from around 40 years after he supposedly died from someone who was born about 20 years after he supposedly died.
The Bible has zero evidence for most of its claims.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think it is patently false to claim there is no evidence for the new testament because the level of details expossed is more than sufficient.
Besides its quite perposterous to assume billions of people worldwide were fooled to believe a false messiah. Thousands of churches were built worldwide based on this very belief system,
not to mention the monasteries and the monks that followed a strict code of discipline for a rich and rewarding afterlife.
Jesus was "allegedly" resurrected 40 days after his crucifixation and there were live witnesses to the occassion;
its what easter is based on! Christmas is based on his birth!
And what about the twelve apostles? Were they traveling the old world misleading everyone? Do you and the rest of the athiests really believe that?
Sorry but after-a-while the athiest arguement becomes cynical, not to mention the OTHER RELIGIONS which follow the same general principles of christianity with different messiahs and a slightly different twist of events.
No religion really is against another religion because more-or-less they are all based on gnosis. Its human weakness and our corrupt politicians that try to find weakness in others and exploit them for personal/empirical gain. AFAIK most muslims respect christians and even jews which is a religion based on the old testament. One religion builds on another religion or at the very least acknowledges the other for its strengths and weaknesses.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Abraham and Moses are from the old testament, while the life of jesus and his teachings are from the new testament. I think it is patently false to claim there is no evidence for the new testament because the level of details expossed is more than sufficient.
Besides its quite perposterous to assume billions of people worldwide were fooled to believe a false messiah.
Thousands of churches were built worldwide based on this very belief system, not to mention the monasteries and the monks that followed a strict code of discipline for a rich and rewarding afterlife.
Jesus was "allegedly" resurrected 40 days after his crucifixation and there were live witnesses to the occassion; its what easter is based on!
Christmas is based on his birth!
And what about the twelve apostles? Were they traveling the old world misleading everyone?
Do you and the rest of the athiests really believe that? Sorry but after-a-while the athiest arguement becomes cynical, not to mention the OTHER RELIGIONS which follow the same general principles of christianity with different messiahs and a slightly different twist of events.
No religion really is against another religion because more-or-less they are all based on gnosis.
Its human weakness and our corrupt politicians that try to find weakness in others and exploit them for personal/empirical gain. AFAIK most muslims respect christians and even jews which is a religion based on the old testament. One religion builds on another religion or at the very least acknowledges the other for its strengths and weaknesses.