Atheism or Intelligent Design?

Let me share with you my perspective.
GOD and Nature are the same thing.
It exists BY NECESSITY.

Intelligent Design - does not need to mean God.

I believe in an Energy Consciousness Intelligence - that thought is energy - and thought creates. I reference "the Creator" as a point of beginning. But I do not see that as a god. As we think we create - - we are extensions of "the Creator" - - and energy consciousness intelligence.



SPIRITUAL HUMANISM: Spiritual Atheism.

A religion based on the ability of human beings to solve the problems of society using logic and science.

Most people need a religion to help guide them through life's challenges and difficult moral decisions. Recognizing how the power of religious rituals, methods, and communication can impact human behavior, Spiritual Humanism fuses traditional religious behaviors onto the foundation of scientific humanist inquiry.

While it is impossible to remove age old traditions from human culture, we can redirect them by redefining their underlying significance and meanings. Spiritual Humanism is natural, not supernatural. By using a method of scientific inquiry we can define the inspirational, singular spark inherent in all living creatures.

www.spiritualhumanism.org...

I find it absolutely amazing how some people use their intelligence to try and disprove intelligence. lol.

It's like a child that did not study for a test and another child that did study for a test. After the test the teacher grades it and writes in all the right answers for the kids. One day we will also learn the answers. Lets just hope that the Teacher grades on a Bell Curve.

reply to post by consulmac

Why does no one seem to think yes evolution makes an awful lot of sense.the creator must be really clever to imprint the potential to evolve upon his first creations! does this make sense anyone but me? ( by the way I personally have no religious views and believe in evolution but surely this is a simple way to please most folks)

I see all that is said to be proof of evolution. As really being just proof
for adaptation. Also the thread dosn't mention evolution in the heading.

The Subjective and Objective Paradigms

The debate between evolution and creationism is rooted in two fundamentally different paradigms of human thought, or general ways of thinking about the world and everything in it. These can be called the modern objective paradigm, and the ancient subjective paradigm.

The objective paradigm, which provides the basis for modern science, presumes that the universe and everything in it, including all forms of consciousness, is the product of complex interactions among fundamental fields of force and matter, which operate objectively and unconsciously on the basis of local cause-effect relations. In recent decades, it has come to be held that the ultimate source of the universe can be ascribed to the unified field—the hypothetical unity of all the force and matter fields.

The subjective paradigm, which provides the basis for much older spiritual and philosophical systems of thought, dating back to the very dawn of human civilization, presumes that the universe and everything in it, including all forms of force and matter, is the product of complex interactions among fundamental fields of consciousness, which operate subjectively and consciously on the basis of self-conception and free will choice. In some traditions, these universal fields of consciousness were called the gods, and the unity of those fields was called God.

In other words, what the ancients referred to as God, the Creator, is now referred to as the unified field. The difference is that God, the Creator, represents a field of pure consciousness, which operates on the basis of self-conception and free will choice, while the unified field represents a field of pure energy, which operates on the basis of local cause-effect relations. However, in both cases, the field of pure consciousness or the field of pure energy transcends all means of direct empirical observation—it cannot be directly observed or measured. Hence, it represents a metaphysical reality (beyond the physical), whose existence must be postulated a priori. In other words, ancient spiritual theories must start with the assumption that God exists, while modern scientific theories, such as a unified theory, must start with the assumption that the unified field exists. If it doesn’t exist then why should we study it?

The truth is that both paradigms represent belief systems, for which supporting logical arguments and evidence can be presented. The objective belief system is a few hundred years old, while the subjective belief system is many thousands of years old. As with any “belief” system, there is a tendency to accept the arguments of the side you believe in, and reject the arguments of the other side—as a matter of faith. In this regard, philosophical arguments are largely useless due to semantic vagueness. The only way to resolve the debate concerning these two paradigms is to develop two different types of scientific theory, rooted in different axioms of existence.

To be consistent with the modern objective paradigm one must assume that the unified field possesses an unconscious form of objective existence, such that its elementary constituents can be modeled by analogy with insentient objects, such as vibrating strings or membranes, which operate mechanically on the basis of local cause and effect. That is precisely the approach used in superstring theory and membrane theory, the two most promising unified theories.

To be consistent with the ancient subjective paradigm, one must assume that the unified field possesses a conscious form of subjective existence, such that its elementary constituents can be modeled by analogy with sentient subjects, such as vibrating minds or conscious beings, which operate subjectively on the basis of self-conception and free will choice.

Although the models and mathematics involved in the two theories may be fundamentally different, the test will be their predictive power. No matter what their starting assumptions might be, whichever of the two theories turns out to provide the most accurate empirical predictions over the largest scope of possible phenomena, will have to be accepted as more scientifically valid than the other. I see this as a “contest” between the two general paradigms, which will likely be taken up over the course of this century. Whichever theory “wins” will likely determine the future course of human thought for thousands of years to come.

The question is whether or not we will continue to uphold the modern objective paradigm, which has been around for a few hundred years, or will revert to the ancient subjective paradigm, which has been around since time immemorial. My bet is upon the latter.

I tried to understand that.

But I'm not really seeing differences in one presentation from another.

Belief in anything - manipulated by man for political or personal gain - is a tainted belief.

Science requires recurring - testable - proof. Not manipulated fantasy to appease the masses.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by consulmac

 

Why does no one seem to think yes evolution makes an awful lot of sense.the creator must be really clever to imprint the potential to evolve upon his first creations! does this make sense anyone but me? ( by the way I personally have no religious views and believe in evolution but surely this is a simple way to please most folks)

I see all that is said to be proof of evolution. As really being just proof
for adaptation. Also the thread dosn't mention evolution in the heading.

sorry randyvs, do you mean that as oppposed to evolution evrything just adapted to it's environment or that the proof is open to adaptation by people?
I'm unsure how to respond directly to that

Also, evolution is not mentioned in the thread title but it does tend to go hand in hand with intelligent design does it not

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragnet53

no direct proof???

mitochondria DNA suggest we are 200,000 years old.

Ahhh JEEZ.

Firstly, the title: "Everything You Know Is Wrong" is a catchphrase used by cultists and I'll usually avoid anyone trying that line on me. I watched the video anyway

Secondly, his arguments are as absurd as any other creationist. It amounts to the fact that we have less chromosomes than some other primate species, therefore the Annunaki came are and did it. Huh? Oh, and be sure to buy the book.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

LOL absurd?!

This has been proven also by geneticists as well.

He also agrees with creationists and believe they are right. Oh my god so he mentions his book. BTW so you go to church and the priests does his sermon and then asks don't forgot to donate to us before you leave. I guess that is right huh?



[edit on 9-6-2010 by dragnet53]

reply to post by dragnet53
You've kind of lost the argument by raising the ghost of Lloyd Pye as a credible source!

I'm still waiting for his 'incredible proof' that alien life has visited us and left the 'starchild skull.' He had the results of DNA analysis some 3 months ago...where is it?! Oh yeah...he needs donations before he can publish! What's his defence when we refute his arguments? 'Science lies.' What's his excuse for 20 years of DNA tests on his skull? 'Science lies and is stuck in a paradigm.' The results are 'exactly wrong' until they agree with him.

I'm not criticising you, I'm just suggesting Pye is a craven fool with a narrow-minded perspective he's barely altered in over 20 years.

Flew was an old man and his mind was going. In subsequent interviews he changed his position over and over again. Anyway, arguments from authority prove nothing.

There's a special forum on ATS for topics related to creationism and human origins, by the way; this thread belongs there. You might ask a moderator to move it. However, as you'll see, there are already many threads in that forum addressing the topic.

I'm surprised you don't know this already, since your profile information tells us you joined ATS nearly two years ago!

Up until recent, I've been jumping back and forth between atheism/agnosticism. Through experimentation with '___' and reading into some abstract (what I USED to think as abstract, if not completely ABSURD) theories, I've come to a point where I believe there IS intelligent design in this universe. How IT works is beyond our level of comprehension and is the backbone to the SHORT evolutionary changes in species, to all the laws of this world (gravity and whatnot), and to our soul. There's something MAKING things happen, it just isn't God from the Bible, or God from any other religion.

reply to post by Angiras

How does giving everything idiotic, tasteless new names make any difference to the basic debate?

[edit on 9/6/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by randyvs
If atheism turns out to be right what will it be right about? It will only be right about some people being wrong about their beliefs. Hardly anything honorable and no great addition to humanity or civilization.

Some people believe the value of a truth lies in its being true. Some people believe it is dishonourable to lie to themselves or hide from the truth.

As for the 'addition' (I suppose you mean benefit) to humanity and civilization, the toppling of an imaginary tyrant under whose sway the race has suffered (at least) ten thousand years of opression and persecution should be benefit enough for anyone, don't you think? Of course, some slaves grow to love their chains.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

C.S. Lewis was both a casuist and an intellectual pygmy, two attributes that don't go well together.

reply to post by bwinwright

The question is simple, which is, was intelligence involved in the formation of the universe and life as we know it, or not?

We don't know for sure. If there is a God of some kind he/she/it has left no evidence and without evidence we see no reason to believe.

If the best argument for God is that one atheist changed his mind than God's gonna have some trouble. Sounds like the man was afraid of death and decided to cave into Pascal's wager.

Dawkins isn't my favorite person, I do feel he can be a bit harsh on theists but considering many of them already have a persecution complex maybe its best he not go easy on them.

Honestly there is something odd about religious faith. I feel that in the early days of humanity religion helped coalesce societies but now in the modern world it tends to hold us back or leave us bickering. What really bothers me is when religious folks fight amongst themselves, both believe something absurd and ridiculous by blind faith alone and yet they argue that the other person's religion is somehow false. How is Shinto any more false than Hinduism or Christianity any more false than Islam, there all based on faith and the indoctrination of youths, they're all equally false.

At least the skeptics, agnostics and atheists don't make such bold claims, although I have known a few atheists to declare that there absolutely is no God the VAST majority of atheists just lack belief in a God because of a lack of evidence - that's the most logical position.

Originally posted by dragnet53
I am going with intelligent design. I always laughed at them, but after hearing about the Anunnaki creating us just to be slave labor.

And do you have any proof of these so called Anunnaki?

Just because you read a very common pop culture mythos on a forum that mankind was the product of a superior race as a means of slavery doesn't make it true, nor should it be the deciding factor in your decision to believe in 'intelligent design'.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by dragnet53

 

You've kind of lost the argument by raising the ghost of Lloyd Pye as a credible source!

I'm still waiting for his 'incredible proof' that alien life has visited us and left the 'starchild skull.' He had the results of DNA analysis some 3 months ago...where is it?! Oh yeah...he needs donations before he can publish! What's his defence when we refute his arguments? 'Science lies.' What's his excuse for 20 years of DNA tests on his skull? 'Science lies and is stuck in a paradigm.' The results are 'exactly wrong' until they agree with him.

I'm not criticising you, I'm just suggesting Pye is a craven fool with a narrow-minded perspective he's barely altered in over 20 years.

Well he wouldn't need such a long time if he didn't want to debunk those damn purists. He is taking every precaution so that way some skeptic won't say he is a hoax.

Originally posted by noonebutme

Originally posted by dragnet53
I am going with intelligent design. I always laughed at them, but after hearing about the Anunnaki creating us just to be slave labor.

And do you have any proof of these so called Anunnaki?

Just because you read a very common pop culture mythos on a forum that mankind was the product of a superior race as a means of slavery doesn't make it true, nor should it be the deciding factor in your decision to believe in 'intelligent design'.

Actually yes, if you read the sumerian tablets. Also can't forget the Giza pyramids, landing strips of peru, temple of baalbeck, etc.

also can't forget these:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...





[edit on 9-6-2010 by dragnet53]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by bwinwright

 

We don't know for sure. If there is a God of some kind he/she/it has left no evidence and without evidence we see no reason to believe.

If the best argument for God is that one atheist changed his mind than God's gonna have some trouble. Sounds like the man was afraid of death and decided to cave into Pascal's wager.

LOL There is evidence that there is a true creator of all. Some people are just blind to see it. Take for instance the DNA. The original creator would have the copyrights to it.

Originally posted by dragnet53

LOL absurd?!

This has been proven also by geneticists as well.

He also agrees with creationists and believe they are right. Oh my god so he mentions his book. BTW so you go to church and the priests does his sermon and then asks don't forgot to donate to us before you leave. I guess that is right huh?

Yes, that is absurd in every way.

Such a hypothesis has not been proven by geneticists.

And yes, everyone with an unproven myth seems to have a book for sale or some other way to grope for money.

Spreading incorrect information that fringe pseudoscience hypotheses have been proven only reflects poorly on you.

Originally posted by dragnet53
Actually yes, if you read the sumerian tablets. Also can't forget the Giza pyramids, landing strips of peru, temple of baalbeck, etc.

Those are subject to interpretation and are not in themselves proof of these alien fellows. What, because the pyramids are so huge and complex and because we currently cannot account for their construction methods means it's aliens?

also can't forget these:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Ok, that is complete and utter BUNK.

Have you not done a quick Google search on "artifical skull deformation" ? It's a very common practice of the African tribes as well an Incan (i think). They woul use boards tied around the skulls of infants to help "guide" their growth.

What I find remarkable is that the site you linked to, which claims these skulls are "alien", mentions nothing of their biological composition. Are we to believe that alien skulls/bones are of the exact same make up as ours? I find that hard to believe.

It seems that website's "scientific" approach is biased sensationalism without any decent research.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by noonebutme]