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: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized



Sure, Humanity has a herd mentality. Hence, the need for education teaching critical thought processes. Like, if the Old Testament God is God, why is Tyre still in existence? What perpetuates false belief?

Herd mentality exists regardless of Religion. Education is for employment training only in the 21st c.e. Everything you point out is overrated.
Religion still controls education to large extent as I pointed out several times already in this thread however you conveniently avoid my question on this VERY important fact!.

btw what is Tyre got to do with the discussion time to cut the crap & stop talking in riddles. Some of us aren't all that smart and even if we are you cant expect instant recognition of riddles!.

edit on 13-11-2014 by 74joff because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




After many years studying fundamentalist Christians, including some I knew before they became "born again" (ahem), I've concluded that they lack the ability to even learn how to reason critically. Some of them had the ability prior to becoming fundamentalists but lost the ability to reason critically in all situations whether or not related to religion.

Some in religion are well educated as well! I am sure cardinals and many senior priests are well educated.
Anglicans also tend to be well educated and muslims not many Uni campuses in Australia were you wont find the hijab wearers on campus here in Australia very well represented!. I guesss the US is different however it is not that diverse culturally afterall.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized


I'm not convinced. Looks like it allows 1984 scenarios. That whole ignorance is strength thing.

I guess you're referring to what I posted earlier:


Astyanax: I'm increasingly inclined to regard religion as somehow indispensable. The people seems to need its opium.

Indeed, your premise is the exact opposite.

You're saying that religion promotes ignorance, mutual misunderstanding, false belief, false hopes and hatred. Well, I agree with you about that. The historical record is hard to argue with.

However, I do not agree that a programme of eradicating religion (whether through education, propaganda or coercion) is either possible or desirable. Though an atheist myself, I have come to regard the evils of religion as the price that has to be paid in order to obtain the benefits of religion for individuals and society.

It may be worthwhile to list a few of those benefits here.

For the individual, they are: comfort in time of sorrow, refuge from fear, the sense of fellowship and belonging, strength to deal with present trials, hope for a better future, moral guidance and the promise of eternal life. These are great boons, and it would be cruel, as well as harmful and dangerous, to deprive people of them.

On the community level, religion can help improve social cohesion and promote the maintenance of law and order. In time of war, it unites the people and gives them strength. It gives moral sanction to the maintenance of existing social structures and hierarchies, but it can also help pull them down when they become tyrannous and overbearing (a good example is the role played by the Roman Catholic Church in the overthrow of Communism in Europe). Religion can unite disparate groups of people behind a common purpose in times of social stress. It can help build empires.

It is understood that the potential benefits of religion are also potential liabilities. Wise rulers always recognize that their priests have common interests with them, but are also potential competitors for the loyalty of the people. When things get out of control, you have IS, or the Crusades, or the confrontation between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV at Canossa. The trick is to use religion as a weapon of statecraft and not be used by it. Religion can be dangerous — just like fire, electricity or the printing-press. The thing is to use it in such a way as to obtain the greatest benefit for the smallest possible risk.

You may wonder how a self-confessed atheist can take such a view of religion. It is because I am not a hypocrite. If I were, I should proclaim myself religious in order to maximize its benefits both for myself and for society. But I am an honest fool, so I express my views honestly: religion is for the common people, atheism for the elite few capable of functioning without faith. Not all who reject organized religion are necessarily members of this elite, by the way.


edit on 13/11/14 by Astyanax because: of a few tweaks.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: addygrace

Already referenced and dealt with in my post.

You are taking that passage to mean what you want it to mean. The bulk of Christians read it differently.

Let me ask you a question: which of these groups would you consider genuinely Christian?

1. Roman Catholics

2. Members of the Eastern Orthodox Communion

3. Members of the Anglican Communion

4. Lutherans

5. Methodists

6. Armenian Christians

I eagerly await your reply.


edit on 13/11/14 by Astyanax because: Terminus est.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized


The playbook is really recognizable. You followed it very well. But, see, you made a mistake. Others that go googling will see it too.

This is all quite amusing. Please, continue preaching the good news of 1984.

Are you entirely incapable of conducting an argument without making personal remarks or attributing bad faith to your opponents? There are lots of sad, shabby, contemptible people like that on ATS. Are you just another of them?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

But honestly though most atheists wouldn't be as annoyed if religion simply stayed out of politics the RC & Muslims are more about politics than faith/metaphysical matters. The the truth is most don't believe their own Book.
Just a way for the ecclesiastic polity or priests, Ministers,Pastors to push their alpha egos as they clearly failed to get into law business or electoral politics so its like being a man of the cloth is their D grade career option.
edit on 13-11-2014 by 74joff because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 74joff


But honestly though most atheists wouldn't be as annoyed if religion simply stayed out of politics.

Sure. But it won't. It can't.


The RC & Muslims are more about politics than faith/metaphysical matters.

What about born-again Christians getting involved in Constitutional issues like abortion and gay marriage in the USA?

What about the support Vladimir Putin's regime gets from the Russian Orthodox Church?

What about massacres of Muslims by Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka?

What about the massacres of Muslims by Hindus in India (and vice versa, of course)?

What about the support and promotion for Imperial Japanese militarism from the Shinto priesthood during the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s, which ended in the horrors of the Pacific War?

Religion claims an interest in every area of human activity, including politics. Indeed, because both politics and religion are ways of modifying and controlling human behaviour, they are inextricably bound to each other.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted yt?by: Not Authorized
a reply to: 74joff

Sure, Humanity has a herd mentality. Hence, the need for education teaching critical thought processes. Like, if the Old Testament God is God, why is Tyre still in existence? What perpetuates false belief?

Start at the basics. Is it true or not?

If what was presented as a product was true, you wouldn't have any problem selling it.



After many years studying fundamentalist Christians, including some I knew before they became "born again" (ahem), I've concluded that they lack the ability to even learn how to reason critically. Some of them had the ability prior to becoming fundamentalists but lost the ability to reason critically in all situations whether or not related to religion. Some, of course, were born without the ability but the process of brain washing that most undergo when they "convert" seems to knock out the critical reasoning part of their mental circuit boards.

For those who don't know, brain washing is not a process of persuasion in that no processing of information is involved. It is only after the brain is "washed" that the indoctrination begins. It's actually quite frightening how simple it is to accomplish.
Every Christian you know lost their ability to think critically across the board and without exception? No wonder you think Christians are ignorant. That's a strange coincidence. I'm flabbergasted....maybe they all got infected by that Algae virus that makes you stupid.

Just so you can have faith in humanity again, I assure you, your belief in the Christian God will not turn you into a brainwashed idiot.

My critical thinking skills have led me to the conclusion that you are lying. Also, I believe most rational people see right through claims like that.


Your alleged critical thinking skills didn't lead you to carefully read my post. I said "...fundamentalist christians, some of whom I knew before they became 'born again'..." To reiterate, FUNDAMENTALIST Christians.

You said, "...your belief in the Christian God will not turn you into a brainwashed idiot." Of course it won't. I'm not a believer. Not to mention that belief has absolutely nothing to do with the process of brainwashing.

Most rational people reading my post and yours will realize that you were unable to understand my post. Your post reflects that lack of understanding.


Oh a fundamentalist Christian isn't just a "born again" Christian? Ok, because "born again" describes what a Christian is.


Either you're a "born again" fundamentalist who considers only "born agains" to be Christians or you have reading comprehension problems. Anyone who self-describes themselves as a Christian, fundamentalist or not, "born again" or not, and who believes in the Abrahamic God and believes that Jesus died for his/her sins is a Christian.
Just to clarify, you can not be Christian and not be "born again". So if that's a fundamentalist Christian, then I don't believe you when you say the fundamentalist Christians you know have lost there ability to critically think. It just sounds like you dislike Christians, just as the OP, and somehow Christians need to be silenced so society can survive. It's crazy arrogance like this that trample people's rights.


If I intended to silence you, I wouldn't be posting to you expecting a response, would I? For your information, most Christians don't buy that "born again" stuff. What does my claim have to do with whether or not fundamentalist Christians can reason critically? What do you mean by reason critically?
If someone says they are Christian but they don't buy that "born again" stuff how do they reconcile the following passage? John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”


Don't ask me. I don't know how anyone can justify being a Christian.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: 74joff
a reply to: Tangerine




After many years studying fundamentalist Christians, including some I knew before they became "born again" (ahem), I've concluded that they lack the ability to even learn how to reason critically. Some of them had the ability prior to becoming fundamentalists but lost the ability to reason critically in all situations whether or not related to religion.

Some in religion are well educated as well! I am sure cardinals and many senior priests are well educated.
Anglicans also tend to be well educated and muslims not many Uni campuses in Australia were you wont find the hijab wearers on campus here in Australia very well represented!. I guesss the US is different however it is not that diverse culturally afterall.


Apparently, you're unaware of fundamentalist Christians. They're a specific variety of protestant Christians who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Most are evangelicals who believe they are God-ordained to proselytize. Neither cardinals nor priests are fundamentalists. Anglicans are not fundamentalists. Some muslims are fundamentalists but probably not many you're likely to find in universities.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Religion claims an interest in every area of human activity, including politics. Indeed, because both politics and religion are ways of modifying and controlling human behaviour, they are inextricably bound to each other.


I thought the goal of religion was to be closer to God and the metaphysical universe to be honest.
That is still the goal of most Esoteric beliefs. The Liberal Catholic church are better than most they actually encourage pantheism.
Just goes to prove more than ever that religion is a croc of crap, on that i agree with the thread poster!


edit on 13-11-2014 by 74joff because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


Apparently, you're unaware of fundamentalist Christians. They're a specific variety of protestant Christians who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Most are evangelicals who believe they are God-ordained to proselytize.

They also tend to be very poorly educated.


Anglicans are not fundamentalists.

Not strictly true. Anglicanism is the most tolerant of communions, and you'll find Anglicans of all shades of belief from Anglo-Catholics (who differ from Roman Catholics only in their rejection of papal authority and a few elements of doctrine) to hard-core Calvinist Evangelicals who are all but 'born again'.

You'll even find a few Anglicans who don't believe in a personal God, such as Bishop John Shelby Spong — and myself.


edit on 13/11/14 by Astyanax because: of the Spong and I.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Apparently, you're unaware of fundamentalist Christians. They're a specific variety of protestant Christians who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Most are evangelicals who believe they are God-ordained to proselytize.

I am completely aware but i dont care there are no issues with people like that in Australia this very much a nth american issue only too many wack job dispensationalists.




Some muslims are fundamentalists but probably not many you're likely to find in universities.

Speak for yourself in Australia many Muslim Fundies have been to Universities. After all who in nation like Australia with its extremely multi cult society and overly sensitive diversity policies is going to prevent them or screen for them?
No one cares(no wants to be RACIST) they do as they please they still leaving Australia to fight in the middle east to this day aussie authorities morons and easily corrupted like to make lots of noise in media but in reality do NOTHING!
edit on 13-11-2014 by 74joff because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   


Not strictly true. Anglicanism is the most tolerant of communions, and you'll find Anglicans of all shades of belief from Anglo-Catholics (who differ from Roman Catholics only in their rejection of papal authority and a few elements of doctrine) to hard-core Calvinist Evangelicals who are all but 'born again

Also the most easily infiltrated because of that very fact! Stacked full of masons and other neo pagans. Another reason why some are turned off Religion not because of lack of tolerance but because of TOO much tolerance!
edit on 13-11-2014 by 74joff because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: 74joff
a reply to: Astyanax




Religion claims an interest in every area of human activity, including politics. Indeed, because both politics and religion are ways of modifying and controlling human behaviour, they are inextricably bound to each other.


I thought the goal of religion was to be closer to God and the metaphysical universe to be honest.
That is still the goal of most Esoteric beliefs. The Liberal Catholic church are better than most they actually encourage pantheism.
Just goes to prove more than ever that religion is a croc of crap, on that i agree with the thread poster!



Are you assuming that closeness or unification with the Abrahamic God is the goal of esoteric belief systems? Are you aware that the Abrahamic God is the god of only three monotheistic religions? I assume that the esoteric belief systems to which you refer are not of those three Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Am I correct?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine


Apparently, you're unaware of fundamentalist Christians. They're a specific variety of protestant Christians who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Most are evangelicals who believe they are God-ordained to proselytize.

They also tend to be very poorly educated.


Anglicans are not fundamentalists.

Not strictly true. Anglicanism is the most tolerant of communions, and you'll find Anglicans of all shades of belief from Anglo-Catholics (who differ from Roman Catholics only in their rejection of papal authority and a few elements of doctrine) to hard-core Calvinist Evangelicals who are all but 'born again'.

You'll even find a few Anglicans who don't believe in a personal God, such as Bishop John Shelby Spong — and myself.



I was unaware that there are Anglican fundamentalists. Calvinists are a type of Anglican?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: 74joff
a reply to: Tangerine




Apparently, you're unaware of fundamentalist Christians. They're a specific variety of protestant Christians who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Most are evangelicals who believe they are God-ordained to proselytize.

I am completely aware but i dont care there are no issues with people like that in Australia this very much a nth american issue only too many wack job dispensationalists.




Some muslims are fundamentalists but probably not many you're likely to find in universities.

Speak for yourself in Australia many Muslim Fundies have been to Universities. After all who in nation like Australia with its extremely multi cult society and overly sensitive diversity policies is going to prevent them or screen for them?
No one cares(no wants to be RACIST) they do as they please they still leaving Australia to fight in the middle east to this day aussie authorities morons and easily corrupted like to make lots of noise in media but in reality do NOTHING!


If you are aware of what fundamentalists are, why did you mention Catholic priests and bishops who are clearly not fundamentalists?

I wasn't referring to only Australia when I said most Muslim fundamentalists probably haven't gone to university. I was referring to Muslim fundamentalists world-wide.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: 74joff


Not strictly true. Anglicanism is the most tolerant of communions, and you'll find Anglicans of all shades of belief from Anglo-Catholics (who differ from Roman Catholics only in their rejection of papal authority and a few elements of doctrine) to hard-core Calvinist Evangelicals who are all but 'born again

Also the most easily infiltrated because of that very fact! Stacked full of masons and other neo pagans. Another reason why some are turned off Religion not because of lack of tolerance but because of TOO much tolerance!


Masons are neo-pagans? LOL. How about explaining that charge in some detail starting with a definition of pagan.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
It doesn't much matter, Religious societies are doomed in the modern age, someone used the words at the start of this "death throes" and that is correct.

If 25% of society A is doing religious studies after school and 5% science, and 25% of society B is studying science and 5% religion ... there is no hope of ever beating, besting or ever being comparable to the science based society (those numbers assume the other 2/3rds of people don't actually do squat no matter where you are)

I mean modern societies "fear" Terrorism or whomever gets an A bomb... with good reason, but the edge in defending against anything just will always guy to the guy with all the robots and lasers...

look at the results of "terrorists" from nations under fire thus far... in desperation, bombs have gone off from a few, some planes were stolen Once...

Now imagine America or Europe or Japan as examples under siege to a point where a portion of the population went "terrorist" to defend itself, the number of Doctors and Chemists and PHDS, the raw materials available everywhere the percent of the population that "could" do cyber attacks, make chemical weapons, dirty bombs, germs etc etc et al... your talking about not a handful of guys working for a govt like Iran as example who could maybe combine all resources to produce some WMD's... but a population at large that has Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that could make wmd's and the infra structure to do so if let loose from above (i.e no govt/police etc wanting to track and stop them)

And that's just on the end of "what would a modern terrorist look like"

quality of life is even bigger a non technology and science based nation just can't compete at anything, health, prosperity...



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


I was unaware that there are Anglican fundamentalists. Calvinists are a type of Anglican?

I didn't say they were fundamentalists. A lot depends on what you mean by 'fundamentalists'. Do you mean Biblical literalists? Then there are no Anglican fundamentalists, at least none whose beliefs would be recognized within the Church as Anglican. Do you mean people who use Scripture to support strongly conservative political views and agendas? Then there are some. Do you mean people who believe that the relationship between God and Man is a direct one, not mandated by or mediated by priests, sacraments or the Church? Then there are many. But there are just as many Anglicans, if not more, for whom the rituals and sacraments of the Church have enormous meaning and who see the priest at the altar as playing an important role in their spiritual lives.

Calvinism is not a religious denomination. The word describes people who stand upon the premises put forward by John Calvin, a Swiss theologian, during the Reformation. Some Anglicans, though not most, can and do call themselves Calvinists. They are strongest in the Evangelical and missionary divisions of the Church.

However, there are plenty of Anglicans — perhaps the majority — who differ in their views. On the opposite side of the Church from the evangelicals and charismatics are the Formalists and the members of the High Church, who hold precious the 'catholic' character of the Church and place great importance on the Apostolic Succession (I'll leave you to look that one up). Formalists are big on elaborate vestments, sonorous liturgies, crucifixes in church, lights on the altar and all the paraphenalia of 'smells and bells' beloved of Catholic ritual. The High Church types are those who emphasize the establishment character of the Church in England, its relationship with the Crown, and its (now largely vanished) role as a pillar of national life. Oddly enough, High Church types aren't confined to England; the school I went to, in a former tropical colony of Britain, is about as High Church as you can get (though we had our evangelicals and charismatics, too, plenty of them).

The thing about Anglicanism is that it was originally a national church, which Henry VIII created by royal fiat for two important reasons: first, to gain independence from the Pope and increase his room for diplomatic manoeuvring with the other great powers of the time, France and Spain; and second, to prevent England from catching fire from the sparks of religious conflict blowing across the English Channel from the Continent. The docrines of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli had already gained many English adherents by then, and confrontations between Catholics and Protestants had already begun. Henry wanted to create a single national church that could accommodate traditionalists and reformers of all stripes under its roof. It was not accomplished easily, or without bloodshed. It wasn't until the end of the reign of his daughter Elizabeth (the third monarch in succession after Henry) that things settled down a bit.

It's a long, complicated story, and not a particularly interesting one unless you're an ecclesiastical-history buff or have some kind of connexion with the Church. We shouldn't derail the thread with it. If you want to know more, u2u me.


edit on 14/11/14 by Astyanax because: of printers' devils.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: addygrace

Already referenced and dealt with in my post.

You are taking that passage to mean what you want it to mean. The bulk of Christians read it differently.

Let me ask you a question: which of these groups would you consider genuinely Christian?

1. Roman Catholics

2. Members of the Eastern Orthodox Communion

3. Members of the Anglican Communion

4. Lutherans

5. Methodists

6. Armenian Christians

I eagerly await your reply.

I really don't know which one of those groups would be genuinely Christian. If they are not born again, I really don't see how they could be considered Christian. Maybe I should take a class on Christian religious studies.

My main problem with what tangerine was saying was, born again Christians lack critical thinking skills.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join