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 daskakik
Nice try but those images represent an idea that not all atheists have to believe in. Also it isn't a replacment for god. I don't think they are praying to the life size dolls of humanoids at a museum, at least I hope not.
I did say that both religion and science have their dogma and they both like to come off as "knowledgable", earlier in the thread. Their respective followers (including me) often accept certain things on faith. Many theists like to say that science is the new religion. The religion of the atheists replacing god with the graph of the evolution from monkey to man.
Originally posted by coyotepoet
I think the problem is more one of language and concept. As the anthropomorphized being that "God" has become in the ideology of Christianity, I could understand people's problem with the idea that there was something in the nothing and where did that something come from. Void implies nothingness and from out of the void sprung creation. But consciousness needs no form just awareness. Probably closer to the Truth is that "God"/the Creator was a seed of energy (like a nucleus) energy that attained consciousness. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form. That is why it is said that "God" is omnipresent, because the energy that is the Creator split itself in order to "create" form, or rather, trans-form. The energy that is the Creator is present in Galaxies and is present in our very cells, is our very cells. Thus the esoteric maxim, "As above, So below". I agree that God just was. I don't agree with Christianities limited definition of God. Thus, in the purest sense, all of us, all of everything is God. But there is only one Creator. The many and the one.edit on 8-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)
So in my opinion I would say that rather than being part of 'God', we are of a finite amount of God's essence. As a being, God is infinite, and is not subject to the limitations of his creation.
Originally posted by Quickfix
No, I don’t agree that it is accurate, the Bible has been tampered with, it is not accurate anymore, the Illuminati have had their hands on it for over 1,000 years. Their bloodline goes back to the Money Changers at the Temple…
Originally posted by Quickfix
Also like you said some books were left out, so how can a book with missing pieces be accurate?
The pieces left out were left out for a reason…not because they aren’t authentic; Carbon Testing of the Scrolls was accurate. Not Surprising since that form of testing has proven accurate over and over again.
Originally posted by coyotepoet
That's just splitting hairs, but is actually probably a more accurate way to express it.
Originally posted by HardbeatAcolyte
reply to post by Quickfix
Originally posted by Quickfix
No, I don’t agree that it is accurate, the Bible has been tampered with, it is not accurate anymore, the Illuminati have had their hands on it for over 1,000 years. Their bloodline goes back to the Money Changers at the Temple…
You state this as fact. Respectfully, just how much solid evidence is available to support these Illuminati claims? How do you know that the original message of the books present in the Bible has been lost? I personally haven't seen anything that proves these theories.
Originally posted by Quickfix
Also like you said some books were left out, so how can a book with missing pieces be accurate?
The pieces left out were left out for a reason…not because they aren’t authentic; Carbon Testing of the Scrolls was accurate. Not Surprising since that form of testing has proven accurate over and over again.
I personally think that age is not the only neccessary indication of authenticity, and they were left out because they were not entirely consistent with the rest of the Bible. If this is true, then I think that they were either not divinely inspired, or had been corrupted - either way, they would not have been appropriate for inclusion. That is only my opinion though, and I don't really know as much about the apocrypha as I shouldedit on 9/4/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Sinny
Just one quick question, and i dont mean to sound ignorant, but if a divine being created all life......what created that divine being?
Whats was the very first thing in existance? How did it come to exist?
My feelings so far are that ill never know in my lifetime, and the way to gain this info is through science.....pure science.
Please try to answer my very difficult question
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by randyvs
No I'll believe the truth it's just that you haven't shown it to me yet. I mean the real truth here not something just to fill the void of our ignorance.
Originally posted by HellMartyr
Alright let me say this. I believe Biblical Creation is plausible. I won't dismiss your theories because everyone has the right to do their own research and come up with their own conclusions. So let's say the universe was created by an invisible sky tyrant. Now here is my question. Why would such a powerful being demand to have his ego stroked and be worshipped by his creation? And don't give me that "Old Testament is obsolete, follow the words of Jesus" BS. Jesus said himself that he didn't come to earth to bring peace, but a sword. I will not worship an egotistical baby killer. I would rather be tormented in hell. Rewards are for the selfish.
Still not substantiated truths just a lot of passion for what you believe is true. Nothing wrong with that but I just don't have your faith. You could say it's my loss. I'm cool with that.