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: poncho1982
They are. The tactics are the same.
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: poncho1982
They are. The tactics are the same.
You think the threat of incredible violence, torture and suffering for all eternity is comparable to mockery and satire?
Is this why places get blown up when a god is mocked?
originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Annee
Love the conversion attempt!
Really clever question Euni..
I, like most, have faith that my perspective is somehow tied to reality in an applicable sense. When it comes to specifics, such as God(s), the only pertinent ideas are that our minds are inherently incapable of omniscience and to carefully choose defining parameters for the universe we experience.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369
Argumentum ad populum. Just because it is the dominant belief doesn't mean it is correct. If god exists do YOU think that it would be the Abrahamic god considering the claims about it from its various holy books?
originally posted by: roberthsiddelljr
There are so many miracles that everyone should have some faith in God.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But if I were to call myself an atheist over an incorrect version of god then that would be like saying I don't believe in horses because unicorns aren't real.
I cannot settle for a definition that I am most likely to encounter. It needs to be defined precisely before I can measure belief.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Annee
among other things, i am humanist. my stance is that no deity, contrived or otherwise, should compromise the psychological and emotional well-being of the human race.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369
Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.
Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.
Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.
Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?
Lacking belief in a god is not a conclusion that there is no god.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369
Argumentum ad populum. Just because it is the dominant belief doesn't mean it is correct. If god exists do YOU think that it would be the Abrahamic god considering the claims about it from its various holy books?
originally posted by: roberthsiddelljr
There are so many miracles that everyone should have some faith in God. I'm shocked that so many ATSers reject God and Jesus. If you have not experienced a miracle, watch Youtube's: "The Best Stories of People who have seen Heaven and Hell". There are countless such stories and ALL the people cannot be telling similar lies (esp Muslims that Jesus spoke to). Like UFO's: some people lie but there are too many honest people telling similar stories for the public to be UFO atheists or agnostics. If you want to sell your soul to the Devil like Bob Dylan, the price you'll pay is to much (if you did, rebuke him and call on Jesus). Life is short so don't get caught short on your soul's salvation and spend eternity regretting your error.
originally posted by: roberthsiddelljr
I am telling the truth to the best of my ability. I and probably most Christians cannot give you a scientific proof like in math/physics (my BS degree) but rather like a scientific theory or legal proof based on the preponderance of evidence. The Holy Shroud supports the Gospel's accounts of Jesus' death and that gives reason to believe the rest of the Gospel stories might be true. I have a lot of faith in the stories of Jesus appearing to people to witness to them (esp Muslims who have denied Christ) and in people's NDEs of Heaven and Hell (although some strike me as a Satanic deception). A couple personal experiences did it for me. One was after my wife divorced me and I couldn't sleep and was dying of a broken heart. I begged Jesus to help me. Immediately I felt a viscous liquid pour onto my head and begin to run down. The next thing I remember was waking up feeling fantastic like I had slept 10 hours and the pain was gone. About a month later, a preacher from South Africa visiting a church I'd never been to before gave me a message from Christ: "You have a very heavy load to bear; it was I who came and put my arm around you". Also, I spoke up at a Republican Party meeting and said our candidates should dance around "choice" because the majority support it. Two nights later, I was awakened at about 3 AM by an angel about 8 feet tall dressed like a Roman soldier. He said: "You have prided yourself on having never killed anyone but I am Michael and have just come from the Throne of God to tell you that you murdered your own daughter". He looked to his right and a teenage girl who looked a lot like my son but sounded like my daughter said: "I love you daddy" and they both disappeared. I have no reason to believe that the six miracles I've experienced came from other than God The Father.
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369
Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.
Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.
Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.
Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?
Lacking belief in a god is not a conclusion that there is no god.
Haven't we wasted enough time on this?
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369
Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.
Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.
Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.
Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?
Lacking belief in a god is not a conclusion that there is no god.
Haven't we wasted enough time on this?
Yes we have.
You listen to no one. And continue to try to write your own dictionary.
Let me know if you ever get a publisher.