Atheism is Scientifically Impossible

reply to post by randyvs


Hello randyvs. Fine thanks, but very tired. How are you?

Considering i'm the only guy in the room i'm in, i'm the smartest guy here! Other than that, not a chance.

You are asking a loaded question, one designed to elicit a response that has a tried and tested retort from yourself, regardless if the answer is in the affirmative or negative..correct?
That's not sporting old fruit. So i'll take the third option and decline the question, if it's all the same to you.

reply to post by Son of Will

The fact that ANYone flagged or starred this thread really made me depressed tonight. Thanks a lot.

Your welcome. If your computer, is getting the best of you. It's time two
take a few steps back away slowly, grab a coat and haul azz to the nearest exit. It's about to take over man, get the hell out of there.

Spikey
you can't know that until after you answer the question.
You can assume that. I assure you if I were to ask you a loaded question
I wouldn't make it obvious by limiting your answer.

It is first, a very simple yes or no question.

You decline?
I accept.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by bwinwright


please scientifically demonstrate the existance of a god

This will maybe seem bizarre, but I have my reasons for how this unfolds. You will like what of it you like and see what you will see.

Sure, cause some atheists are, by definition, eaters of themselves. Besides, no essential person fits into any of these categories. They believe, by choice in light of perspectives on experience which are mutable, in a universe without a singular principle (universe without an integral principle?). They use the word, I, often, but fail to see the irony (unless they have a good sense of humor, in which case I would laugh with them.) SO, basically, the only "I" they perceive is reflective of the reptilian cord, the need to partition, divide, and conquer. They say their is no God because they wish to see their essential characteristics reflected in the world. They want to be the deus ex machina. They don't mind having a "god," but this god must not encompass anything not perfectly measured, spewing in all of their prideful arrogance that if God must exist it must exist within their dualism. The only "god" (controlling principle) they acknowledge is the the god of control itself, but their desire to control necessitates that they call it not a god, as someone else might enter their safe little nest and rip it to shreds.

They say it is chance that created the universe, not admitting that the universe is merely what they perceive to be the universe, and as such being said universe, strangely believe that they had no will in creating their very own nifty little universe (lots of universes), no choice whatsoever. Ironically, they, like all those mechanized hollow things seeking an anima, divide the world into us versus them in an essential act of denial in that they are frightened to perceive that the "world" is not merely a reflection of binary, solid-state computer/like thinking. Well, if that is the perspective they choose, of course their world will naturally emerge between those lines. Their soul (sole, mine, mind?) perceives a world that is absent intelligence, but full of cause and effect, which can be perceived, and subsequently exploited and controlled indefinitely, at least until the meaning of it all is perceived on the inside.

Strangely enough, Christians (at least some modern day appear to sometimes) exist in an oppositely exclusive realm. They see the universe as all intelligence, yet no chance. Maybe, maybe this whole experience has acts of will reflecting causes and effects which were set into motion by yet other wills. Yet wills can understand the causes and effects within them and refashion them into yet other wills. Selves can rearrange their very own digital identities at will, but they must perceive what they are getting into beforehand. The universe can morph into another, interact with others, and can be transcended as well, although the life spark does fashion another at this time based on previous choices.

Oh yeah, by the way, of course not everyone who claims the label of atheism is truly atheistic. However, the boundaries set by this linguistic virus of a belief structure will continue to mold the clay of the individual until he and/or she has understood himself and/or herself within the context of this particular web. Then, the choice is the individual's on how or whether that "I" will divide itself yet again. Or rather it is the sum of its choices.

Oh yeah, maybe if Christianity and atheism were to make sweet love, they might see something divine. Maybe if logic personified itself and realized that it always runs into a wall. Maybe if intuition (INtelligence) realized that its desire to be the center of it all, when left alone, requires us to repeat the same drama time after time. Maybe if both these happen, maybe when the line and circle get together, a spiral occurs. Maybe if the line and circle are making sweet love, so to speak, then the spiral is quite upward. If the line and the circle hate each other, so to speak, they better imagine a world in which they love each other. That way, when the spiral hits bottom, at least their is a portal to a world that transcends the degrading interactions of the one prior. Peace through reconciliation. Fun through a dynamic interplay which realizes the whole to the extent that reactions can exist in a world without the war mentality.

This all goes for all dogma, which somewhat coincidentally spelled backwards is "am god" This even goes for this dogma, strangely enough. Maybe we should just believe in dogma that works for both individual and collective, and be willing to amend when necessary, and be willing to have an open perspective that is aware of the necessary time. That way, we are God, instead of "I" am God.

Oh, yeah, a world that transcends this would be wonderful, but I see that we must be wise in our progression.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by orwellianunenlightenment]

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment

Maybe we should just believe in dogma that

Star for that.
I have a petty comment of sorts about your reciprocating word observation.
There are a great great deal of anomalies in our language i find them
interesting. The one that comes to mind. Witchcraft, can you think of another word with five consenents in a row.

Atheism is Scientifically Impossible.

I don't believe it!

Really though, I just read today (again) space smells like burnt meat.

So, somebodys cookin' up something.

It's been a lot of fun reading people trying to explain, with great fervor, what is essentially the UNKNOWABLE. As to my position on this matter, I believe the only intelligent stance is to be a Agnostic Fundamentalist, which means I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU!

I also wanted to quickly add that no thought is impossible. Even a thought about the impossible. I mean, is a thought about a unicorn a REAL thought?

And lastly, let's not forget that FAITH is belief with the absence of PROOF.

Originally posted by RUFFREADY

Really though, I just read today (again) space smells like burnt meat.

wait..

what??

reply to post by cjcord


"Oct 17, 2008 ... ASTRONAUTS say their suits smell of steak, hot metal and welding on return from space walks Nasa experts say."

That headline in many papers caught aLOT of folks of guard. But, whatever it might smell like ...it does smell.

So...

Originally posted by john124
People who aren't agnostics, but are athiests certaintly do look at all of the evidence, and the evidence of that is abundant.

...dont ya think "ALL of the evidence" might be a bit of an overstatement?... i've never looked at ALL the evidence... cant say i've even looked at most because, mostly, that crap bores the hell out of me...

Originally posted by john124
Because athiests are generally more logically thoughtful (whether agnostic or not), they are more likely to disregard flawed evidence that would requires faith or a pseudo-scientific approach.

... thats better because you used "generally" and "more likely"...

...i've always been an atheist, even before i knew there was a word for it... when i was a kid, it certainly wasnt a matter of making a well-informed logical decision... i think it was more about understanding the art of storytelling - and - the art of manipulation, which instilled a healthy contempt for anyone who tried to tell what to believe...

Originally posted by john124
So to sum up..... athiests are everyone who isn't a theist,

...nope and heres why... theres two sides to every coin and AN EDGE... agnostics are edge-riders - some dangle their legs to one side or the other and some cant dangle cuz they aint got no legs and some build glass houses, lol..

Originally posted by john124
and athiests often have other opinions or beliefs; such as belief in ET; dancing pixies at the bottom of their garden; or even that a deity is unknowable.

...i believe in nessie...

Originally posted by john124
The idea that all athiests are boring people without imaginations and with closed-minds is a myth, that thiests often propagate with the other gibberish they almost constantly spout !

...theres no shortage of gibbering whack-jobs on either side of the coin or the edge...

reply to post by RUFFREADY



That's the awesomest information ever.

this is for you!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/abac78a55e20.jpg[/atsimg]

If you ask any scientist to prove that their is a god scientifically they would be unable to. in order to prove there is no god you would have to be omniscient knowing everything there was to know throughout out all of reality. and we don't know that and science can't give us that. also you would have to be omnipotent and omnipresent. you would have to be able to travel throughout the universe in a flash to check if god isn't hiding in a galaxy somewhere. So the only way to prove there is no god is if you had the attributes of god but if you had the attributes of god you would qualify as god so god would exist, it would be you. therefore god is at least a possibility.

-Thomas Kindell (greatly edited by me)

Hi I'm Agnostic.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Bringer]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Bringer]

reply to post by bwinwright


Even though I'm not an Atheist, nor am I part of any revealed religion but I have to disagree with your post. It's one thing to make an opinion about how you think atheism is impossible and then try to make an argument against it. Doesn't necessarily have to be strong because it doesn't matter what type of word play or links you use, Atheists will remain so. But when you make a claim about Atheism being scientifically impossible, then you run into a problem on this site. Scientific evidence must be provided.

With that said, from my own opinion, and this is my opinion even if it differs from everyones, is that I do think Atheists are wrong. I also don't buy the current theory of evolution. Before anyone calls me a creationist or some narrow minded christian for I am neither, because I do believe in evolution. MicroEvolution has indeed been proven, however, Macroevolution has not. I think someday we will find evidence of it. I do believe in a creator, but not a god or deity. I believe we were created, I feel our DNA is too much the result of engineering to be chance. I believe the missing piece of the puzzle is either extra-terrestrial or an extinct advanced race that we haven't been able to find remnants of. The question I often get is who created that creator then? I don't know, but something or some kind of process got life to start. That is a mystery that will probably never get solved.

Hello. New guy here. I just want to ask does it matter to you what your neighbor believes in or doesn't? What ever makes your life happier, do it!

Originally posted by hectorsmith
Hello. New guy here. I just want to ask does it matter to you what your neighbor believes in or doesn't? What ever makes your life happier, do it!

That sounds good but doesn't quite work. I rather think it would make me happy to believe in the Greek gods Apollo, Zeus, Athena, and the whole gang, but it's not as simple as just believing in what makes you the happiest. At some point, some people become interested in learning the truth and believing in that.

I think the OP is kind of trolling for a reaction, but I will say that science itself seems to be more agnostic than atheist, it can't prove god exists nor can it prove God doesn't exist, hence agnostic.

Of the world's 44 major religions, the atheist rejects 44 of them, the believer rejects 43 of them, so the difference between believers and atheists doesn't seem so large from that perspective. The agnostic doesn't know what to believe so again may be the standout in that comparison.

so..these scientists claim something cant just pop up from nothing...that EVERYTHING needs a creator..

theres a pretty large flaw to that reasoning...ill let you try and work out what it is...

What's more impossible:

A man living in a giant fish for days. A virgin giving birth. A guy getting nailed to the cross and then rising from the dead. The chances of YOUR Religion being right and others wrong.


or


Science, logic and reason. The planet was material that was formed by gravity

Originally posted by alienesque
so..these scientists claim something cant just pop up from nothing...that EVERYTHING needs a creator..

theres a pretty large flaw to that reasoning...ill let you try and work out what it is...

No it's simple, DNA is too complex to pop up by itself without a creator. So God greated the DNA. But God's too complex to have popped up without a creator, so there was another god that created God. And that one had to have a creator too.....See why those Greek gods are looking better all the time? there were so darn many of them! What you say is only a problem with monotheism.

On the other hand, I may even run out of Greek gods after a while, I guess I'll have to think that one through.

One of the most overt trolls on ATS in ages!

1. Member creates incendiary thread with no evidence and no supplied sources.
2. Member preaches doctrine and personal belief as fact.
3. Member only makes opening post and disappears, (not participating in thread).
4. Member sits back and watches the sh*t fly from safe distance.

The act of a true coward!

I vote this thread gets shut down!

IRM

[edit on 15/3/10 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by bwinwright
In reality, God is everything that is. God is omnipresent, meaning that God is everywhere, occupying all space, simultaneously. There is nothing that is not God.

So basically what you're saying here is that God is a great steaming pile of poo?

I like threads like this one, always give me something to chuckle about at work