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.

 

Thoughts on Organized Religion

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized


Are you serious? What kind of world?

I am utterly serious, and the fact that you cannot see my point indicates enormous ignorance on your part — ignorance of history, epistemological ignorance, moral ignorance and above all ignorance of human nature.

I am attempting to educate you out of your ignorance, to make you think — and just look how you respond.

You are illustrating the impossibility of your own project.


A world where people are educated to RECOGNIZE ignorance about xyz is a bad thing?

That world already exists, to the extent that science, philosophy and human nature allow. Progress occurs, slowly, at the pace of history, but it is always slow and often temporary.


What happened after slavery was no longer tolerated? Or women being property? Or various other mythologies celebrating human sacrifice?

Slavery is tolerated. Women are property. Human sacrifice, too, still occurs. And contemporary Western society has plenty of myths of its own — for example, the myth that all are created equal. If you won't tolerate ignorance, you'd better learn to tolerate inequality, eugenics, paedophilia and lots of other nasty things.




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Religion. It really is too bad that it is the way it is today...
Some of the best people I have met are unfortunately religious/Christian. But to have a conversation with them that does not go back to their fundeMental ideas and practices have basically put ends to our relationship. I can't expect them to understand things in my life (nor theirs) without it going to battle of what we perceive to be right/wrong. I grew up in the church and left as soon as my parents said I could (at 16). Anything they'd talk about would lead straight back to their indoctrination.

A few were recently in an "up roar" about the fact that Vancouver wouldn't allow religions to use public property for their gatherings. I fully agreed with the city. The public property are paid for by the tax-paying public, but they have their own churches that are tax-exempt. Use them then. Don't expect the public to have to pay for your "gatherings" unless they are able to compensate the tax-payers dollar. They know that they wouldn't allow "the public" to use their "house"/church for something that wasn't religiously aimed.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Not once have I suggested forcing anything on anyone.

In fact in my initial post I quoted another user:


This is why I like *freedom* and an open market of ideas. If you believe that people are able to recognize the truth when it is presented to them, then you don't need to shove it down their throats...just maintain freedom of speech and of the press and the truth eventually will win out.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Uh huh.

I just checked my op. I read your post, and was confused. The OP was about organized religion, and using modern education and media to move away from said myths. It had nothing to do with intolerance, but, ummm, education.

Considering education is a right in Article 26 of this document... I'm really at a loss. It is almost like organized religions nemesis is education, but I digress.

We are not on the same subject. Whither or not that was intentional, time will tell. You should know, I do not consider organized religion as anything but business masquerading as religion.

By the way, I'm expressing my freedom of religion by collapsing wavefunctions. Or am I not allowed, because it isn't organized? Lol.



My feelings in music format:


edit on 4-11-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


Uh...science determines fact via testable evidence.

Up to a point.

I am an empiricist just like you. Faith is not part of my world. I find it unnecessary to believe in gods, demons, souls, spirits, magic or life after death.

However, I am not foolish enough to believe that science has the last word on everything. You are making the fatal error of believing (yes, believing) that what is inaccessible to scientific investigation cannot exist.

What are you? Serious question. Are you nothing more than your physical body? Your body grows, changes, suffers damage. Over time, every cell in it is replaced. You endure nonetheless, your identity consistent through all these metamorphoses. Decades may pass, yet other people can still recognize you as the entity known on ATS as Tangerine. What do they recognize?

When the ATS member currently known as AlephBet made his return to the boards, several of us were immediately able to out him as the same person formerly known here as EnochWasRight. What is it we recognized? A style of expression? A particular set of interests and opinions? Is that what a human being is? A style of expression and a collection of opinions? Obviously not — these are external manifestations of the personality known on ATS as AlephBet. But what is the reality behind the manifestation? Why is it recognizably consistent though its external attributes are all subject to change? Why is it identifiable even when it is not itself consistent?

Can science investigate those questions?

Are you the patterns of activity in your brain? The information it contains? Or, perhaps, the behaviour it manifests? Yet when you fall asleep, or into a coma, or even suffer total amnesia, other people still recognize you, showing that you are not simply information or behaviour. Behaviour is not based only on the information in the brain, but on the biases and limitations of your physical body, which vary from person to person. So 'you' are not simply the sum of these attributes. There is more. What are you?

Being, personality, identity — these things have an immaterial component that cannot be investigated scientifically, which resists empirical definition. Other entities and conditions do, too. Take music. Take love. Scientific investigation may explain their causes and describe the biochemical processes associated with them, but it cannot help us understand them in any meaningful way at all. On the contrary, scientific investigation destroys such entities in the attempt to abstract their reality.

Finally, you must surely be aware that nothing can be fully explained through science. The rabbit hole, to use a metaphor much loved by conspiracy theorists, is never-ending. What are quarks made of? What is a string made of? What is time? What is consciousness? Every time we try to answer these questions, we find that the answers generate other questions. Empirical inquiry must acknowledge defeat.

Scientific inquiry is an invaluable human invention but it is not all-powerful. Wise scientists admit that fact. Foolish ones (and their camp-followers) deny it, insisting instead that the universe ends at the limits of their understanding. That is hubris; beware Nemesis.


edit on 4/11/14 by Astyanax because: of Nemesis.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

And when "what is" is answered??
I my self continues with "WHY"...

And that is were faith steps in i belive...

But that is for ME to discover..

But then again, FEAR is a powerful emotion
and i think most ppl live more in fear then
their real life.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized


I read your post, and was confused.

Good, then we are making progress.


The OP was about organized religion, and using modern education and media to move away from said myths.

Yes, you said we should try to educate people out of religion. From the viewpoint of someone to whom religion is truth, how is that different from propaganda and brainwashing?

They will oppose you. How will you deal with that? By shouting louder than them? By debating them? What makes you think you will win? The emotional appeal of belief is far greater than the power of reason to convince. This, too, is proven every day on ATS.

The only way you will do better is by the application of force, and that is what it will have to come to if you really wish to succeed, or at least capture the appearance of success. I have now repeated this several times, but you seem not to understand it. My campaign to educate you through the media appears to be failing.

You are starting, from the assumption (the belief) that you are right and the opposition is wrong. Can you explain how you differ from those you oppose? You're just another believer as far as I can see.


We are not on the same subject.

We most assuredly are. A pity you cannot see it.


By the way, I'm expressing my freedom of religion by collapsing wavefunctions. Or am I not allowed, because it isn't organized?

I happen to have studied quantum mechanics — academically, at a real university — and would be very interested to hear you explain just what you mean. Try me. I'm growing bored with this argument anyway.


edit on 4/11/14 by Astyanax because: it's the OP's first-ever thread on ATS (at least according to his or her profile).



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Miccey

Fear certainly is a powerful emotion. Several on this thread are attempting to continue it.

Little by little has been closest so far.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Uh huh. *looks at the topic*. Nope, the OP is not about organized religion at all. It isn't capitalized or anything.

Misleading content, Insults, red herrings, aggressive behavior, etc. Have you even addressed the OP? Yeah, I've seen this playbook before. :-)

It sounds like the old me.

Now an educated person hating on education. Yeah.... basically programmed to disagree with me via duality. Lol.

To answer. ‘One Headlight‘.......... just for starters.


Best wishes.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer


Not once have I suggested forcing anything on anyone.

It wasn't meant to be an accusation

I've been following this thread - it's such an interesting argument going on in here

For the past how ever long I've also been following (in the outside world) this firestorm over Bill Maher's views on religion, free speech, bigotry, the students (at Berkely - of all places) that are exercising their right to protest his right to free speech - and it goes round and round...

At the center of it all - you have to wonder - who is the most enlightened? Who is the most liberal? Who decides the value of any of that?

I have a point - bear with me...

I read an opinion piece this morning that more or less instructed me to trust Bill's view on things - because he's such a darned good liberal - and because he's fighting the good fight for liberalism - and liberals everywhere

I'm a liberal - and an atheist. What is my duty to this world? Do I have an obligation of some sort to set all the people of this world that don't see things my way straight?

The students (4,000 of them, apparently) don't want him to speak at their commencement. Is that violating his rights? Do they not also have the right to protest?

In another piece - I read this:

But there's another reason why I have so little tolerance for this kind of evasive maneuver. It envisions a world in which the only thing standing between campuses inviting Hitler to give commencement addresses, or the proliferation of KKK student groups, is an enlightened elite that stands ready to censor us for our own good. The truth is that the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan would never be invited to be a commencement speaker in the first place. (And if he were, that would tell students something they desperately needed to know about the university they chose to attend!) The views of the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan are and should be protected by the First Amendment, but the only world in which those views are popular on campus are those that exist in the hypotheticals of pundits struggling to justify why they are trying to censor a liberal atheist comedian

Well, duh - any enlightened person has to agree with this. :-) What he really means is that Bill Maher is above reproach

So, you said:


I'll give you that. But when claim after claim after claim about their religion can be shown to be false, illogical, or highly unlikely, do we really want to cling to "well we don't know for sure" straws?


Then I said:

So, back to square one?

How do you force a person to drink at the well of your version of reason?

My mistake - obviously - was deciding to go with the word you

:-)

Those straws we cling to make it possible for us all to coexist - not coexist my way



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized


Nope, the OP is not about organized religion at all.

The title of the thread is 'Thoughts on Organized Religion'. I assume you gave it that title. Have you forgotten?


It isn't capitalized or anything.

It's capitalized. I assume you capitalized it. Have you forgotten?


Misleading content

What content? How misleading?


Insults

Are you claiming that I have insulted you? Kindly quote the relevant sentences here, then alert a moderator.


red herrings

Show us. Quote the relevant sentences.


aggressive behavior

Show us. Quote the relevant sentences.


Have you even addressed the OP?

Yes. I have shown that it is a fantasy based on a completely unjustified assumption of superior knowledge, containing within it the seeds of a conspiracy — and worse, of tyranny.


Now an educated person hating on education.

No, an educated person pointing out that education has its limits.


Basically programmed to disagree with me via duality.

Why did I pick you and not many of the others posting threads on ATS, then? Why don't I disagree with everybody? And what is 'duality'?

This appears to be your first-ever thread on ATS, at least according to your profile. I notice that the bulk of your activity on the site to date has been anti-religious. Would you say you were entirely unbiased in your views concerning the thread topic?

I'm still waiting to hear what you mean when you say


I'm expressing my freedom of religion by collapsing wavefunctions.

Are you going to explain, or should we simply write off that statement as meaningless what-the-bleep-type woowoo?


edit on 4/11/14 by Astyanax because: of woo. Also woo.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
What we have going for us:

Media. We already have the internet, which is a great source for kids who are questing to learn about atheism and ways to free themselves from the religious indoctrination and retraining the way they think. More and more, atheists are speaking up on the internet and it's a wonderful thing and great step forward for mankind.

Science and Technology. Science continues to progress as we learn more about how everything in the world+ works. Astronomy is a great way for people to realize there is much less to religion compared to science. The more we discover and educate about our universe, the more people will come to see how organic and non-god based things are. Stressing all of the sciences in education will help alleviate the ignorance.

Truth and Time. The more we grow as a species, the more we will come to understand that is all we are and all we ever were. Sooner or later, people will reject religion in favor of truth.

What we Have Against Us:

Indoctrination. Incredibly difficult to break away from especially when it's been pressed into a belief system from early development. Parents and communities reinforce the dogma and beliefs repeatedly and in every situation. The fear of leaving what one has been taught and risking eternal punishment is often too big for people to deal with.

Religious Community. Religious-based schools and organizations frequently dominate a small town or area. I would love to see these schools be forced to cease fostering a religious belief in children and focus solely on education. I see no way that would happen for decades though. Often, however, the religious private schools are a better education than public education which makes for obvious problems. If we were to vastly improve public education to a private institution's level of learning, that would be a large step.

Majority Rule. There are so many already steeped in religious belief that it's similar to a tumor that has metastasized throughout the entire body. People fear being different from others. They remain wary about leaving the comfort zone that their religion has given them. They see strength and positivity from people in their community who attribute that to their god and fall into line with belief so that they may be similar.

Desperation. People want so desperately to be considered important and to be eternal. To think they have a wonderful afterlife coming to them one day is a powerful drug indeed. They yearn to be an instrument of their god and can't resist the temptation to consider themselves spiritually special. Some need the ever-present authority figure that their religion gives them to keep them on the right track and to feel loved.

There is no easy solution to the problem. Thankfully, we are making great strides in this area. More people than ever before are beginning to question what they've been taught and logic is prevailing little by little as information spreads. It's not something that can be forced or controlled through law although hopefully law will continue to whittle away at the power system the religions have built for centuries.
It will take many years to remove the tumor that is religion.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Ah, my mistake in thinking it was an accusation.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The world we live in - right?

You're newish to ATS looks like - but you've been here long enough to know that it's hard to have a genuine discussion here that doesn't eventually turn into a game of dodgeball

But once in a while - magic happens

:-)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Again, thanks for the morning chuckle. Sticking to the playbook as expected. Some of us recognize that too. What is the next step after attempting to discredit? Go ahead. Attempt to discredit all you want, it won't change the fact mythology is mythology.

I never claimed I know everything, but, I do know what mythology is. I think everyone should have the opportunity to know that too, in a professional educational setting. Even movies could be used. Some of us came from an indoctrinated background, and, wish to share the exit. Dig into 2008, and you will verify I defended one of the big 3.

I found something interesting though. A person who studied QM thinks education pointing out mythology is now tyranny.

As for my beliefs? No, I won't explain it to you. Figure it out yourself. Even the terminology used was also linked to religion. If you don't understand a word I used, pick up a dictionary and Google it.

Now, back to our topic. I'm still looking for more thoughts and ideas. :-)

PS, I don't report stuff to mods, as I believe in freedom of speech. Even if I don't agree with it. This is your opinion, and it is your right.

Have a great day. :-)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Why does there have to be an effort to stamp out religion? I hate religion, especially Christianity, but I would NEVER presume to tell someone what to believe or not believe. That is for them to discover. The information is out there and is becoming easier by the day to obtain and absorb. There are now more agnostics and atheists on the planet than ever before. As our numbers continue to grow, more people will realize the truth since what we say make sense. Without persecution, the truth will ALWAYS win out.

The thing that you have to realize is that this isn't a process that happens overnight, or even other a generation or two. This is a process that will take a few hundred years. But as more and more people become informed and educated, more and more people will realize the folly of religion. They won't need the myths of a bunch of goat herders to guide their lives anymore. Humans are slowly realizing that we don't need to make stuff up about the universe, we can just go out and figure out how it works.

One more thing, as the scientific knowledge base increases, it discredits more and more of what religion says. Religious institutions have to do all sorts of back flips and cartwheels trying to shoehorn their message into the accepted body of scientific knowledge. If you study the history of belief over the years, you'll see that religions have relied on metaphors more and more as scientists learn more about the universe.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I'm in favor of tolerance. I think we should all just try to get along and "agree to disagree" on spiritual issues. However, based on numbers alone, I think if humanity decided to get rid of either organized religion or disorganized atheism, it would be the latter that ended up on the scrap heap of history. Fortunately most organized religions are tolerant of atheism.
edit on 5-11-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy,

Thank you for your post. I have a feeling it will assist in re-focusing the thread. Somehow, it moved from a topic of Organized Religion, Education and Mythology to tyranny, personal religion, changing the Constitution, ignorance, stamping out Christianity, etc.

NONE of which was implied, said, or even directed. My thoughts align with your last paragraph.

I feel that our society is rapidly approaching a crossroads. Like Europe, the United States is also moving into a post-Religious/Christian era too. Old beliefs are fading out over time. Newer generations recognize it is a falsehood as told. Given said observation, is it wrong for me to want my children educated with observable fact, history, modern archeology, etc instead of mythology? Is it bad to desire media to reflect reality?

Respectfully,

edit on 5-11-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

This is a very interesting line of thought.

Thank you for sharing it.

I don't think anyone should be forced to drink from any well. That would be morally wrong. I would never condone such actions.

However, our current findings revolving around science, archeology, history, technology, etc, are drying up a different hypothetical well all on its own. No help needed.

As it is being recognized on a wider scale, should education be utilized to educate for the future? What are your thoughts on that?

edit on 5-11-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine


Uh...science determines fact via testable evidence.

Up to a point.

I am an empiricist just like you. Faith is not part of my world. I find it unnecessary to believe in gods, demons, souls, spirits, magic or life after death.

However, I am not foolish enough to believe that science has the last word on everything. You are making the fatal error of believing (yes, believing) that what is inaccessible to scientific investigation cannot exist.

What are you? Serious question. Are you nothing more than your physical body? Your body grows, changes, suffers damage. Over time, every cell in it is replaced. You endure nonetheless, your identity consistent through all these metamorphoses. Decades may pass, yet other people can still recognize you as the entity known on ATS as Tangerine. What do they recognize?

When the ATS member currently known as AlephBet made his return to the boards, several of us were immediately able to out him as the same person formerly known here as EnochWasRight. What is it we recognized? A style of expression? A particular set of interests and opinions? Is that what a human being is? A style of expression and a collection of opinions? Obviously not — these are external manifestations of the personality known on ATS as AlephBet. But what is the reality behind the manifestation? Why is it recognizably consistent though its external attributes are all subject to change? Why is it identifiable even when it is not itself consistent?

Can science investigate those questions?

Are you the patterns of activity in your brain? The information it contains? Or, perhaps, the behaviour it manifests? Yet when you fall asleep, or into a coma, or even suffer total amnesia, other people still recognize you, showing that you are not simply information or behaviour. Behaviour is not based only on the information in the brain, but on the biases and limitations of your physical body, which vary from person to person. So 'you' are not simply the sum of these attributes. There is more. What are you?

Being, personality, identity — these things have an immaterial component that cannot be investigated scientifically, which resists empirical definition. Other entities and conditions do, too. Take music. Take love. Scientific investigation may explain their causes and describe the biochemical processes associated with them, but it cannot help us understand them in any meaningful way at all. On the contrary, scientific investigation destroys such entities in the attempt to abstract their reality.

Finally, you must surely be aware that nothing can be fully explained through science. The rabbit hole, to use a metaphor much loved by conspiracy theorists, is never-ending. What are quarks made of? What is a string made of? What is time? What is consciousness? Every time we try to answer these questions, we find that the answers generate other questions. Empirical inquiry must acknowledge defeat.

Scientific inquiry is an invaluable human invention but it is not all-powerful. Wise scientists admit that fact. Foolish ones (and their camp-followers) deny it, insisting instead that the universe ends at the limits of their understanding. That is hubris; beware Nemesis.



I actually agree with much that you said. However, you are mistaken when you say that I make the error of believing that that which is inaccessible to science does not exist. I do not believe that. I'm a fortean and probably a hermeticist.I simply stated that fact is the purview of science. Something can exist and not yet or ever be proven fact. My quarrel is simply that some people insist that their beliefs are facts and they're not. That said, science certainly has limitations. I know I often come across as a strict empericist but that's because I'm usually countering claims that beliefs are facts. Thank you for your post. It gave me an opportunity to explain myself.

edit on 5-11-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join