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.

 

THe Faithless Movement

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I came across this Universalist movement while working today.

For all recorded time, true believers have fought for faiths that define their societies. Their horrors have stalked us through the millennia, and in the 21st century we have reached a precipice. Competing forces of faith struggle for dominance on a geopolitical stage, wielding weapons of mass destruction. Faiths impose profound limitations on human potential, and propagate thought processes that remain among the greatest inspirations for individual acts of violence. Now they threaten all humanity. We must declare independence from faith, or fall from the precipice.

It is the mission of The Universist Movement to provide humanity the vibrant and positive alternative to traditional religions that millions are seeking. That alternative is Universism.

Traditional religions proclaimed authoritative answers for the most important questions we will ever face. Universism announces the true hope of an individual quest, understanding the reality that no one knows for certain. We are each grappling with the mystery; finally engaging in the true human experience.

Has anyone else heard of it? I like the idea, but think that organizing an idea into a belief with a following is doing exactly what it preaches against. It's almost hypocritical. If this thing takes off, what is stopping them from torturing people 1500 years in the future to get them to renounce their faith.?




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Has anyone else heard of it? I like the idea, but think that organizing an idea into a belief with a following is doing exactly what it preaches against.


Is that what universists are really doing? My understanding of Universism is not that it is a system of belief, but rather just a gathering place for freethought sans dogma. Could it transform into another dogmatic religion? Of course it could. So could the UAW.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Naming a group of people with like thoughts is just the beginning of creating a dogmatic religion. I don't think that it's necessary to give a name to the belief in free thought sans dogma. By giving it a name, it automatically seperates itself from other groups.

For example, if I say that I believe in Christ being the son of God, and that he died for our sins, then I'm a Christian. If I believe in free open thought, and don't believe in other religious dogma, then am I automatically a universalist? Once they seperate themselves, then they begin the downward spiral that is dogmatic religion.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
If I believe in free open thought, and don't believe in other religious dogma, then am I automatically a universalist? Once they seperate themselves, then they begin the downward spiral that is dogmatic religion.


What makes universists any different from, say, an astronomy club? Are astronomy clubs also destined to become dogmatic religions? Universism, like an astronomy club, is a secular organization. While it certainly could transform into something akin to religion, I don't see why it is particularly susceptible to do so.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I see what you mean. I think I began to fear it as susceptible to the weaknesses of modern religions because of the nature its of discussion. Where an astronomy club’s knowledge comes from observable and testable science, Universalism’s knowledge comes from open discussion and debate about spirituality.

Of course the Inquisition scenario may have been a little bit of a stretch, but I was just trying to illustrate the extremes to which spiritual debate, and eventually consensus may lead. Open debate, however, often leads to much more accepting members of society.

I think my concern was in the phrasing of some of their quotes, such as

Faiths impose profound limitations on human potential, and propagate thought processes that remain among the greatest inspirations for individual acts of violence. Now they threaten all humanity. We must declare independence from faith, or fall from the precipice.

Personally I can see many instances where this isn’t true, but would I be able to openly discuss this with Universalists and be encouraged to continue? I have had many experiences where once open forum turned into inquisitions. I think it was giving themselves a name with “ist” at the end that set me off.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I think my concern was in the phrasing of some of their quotes, such as

Faiths impose profound limitations on human potential, and propagate thought processes that remain among the greatest inspirations for individual acts of violence. Now they threaten all humanity. We must declare independence from faith, or fall from the precipice.

Personally I can see many instances where this isn’t true, but would I be able to openly discuss this with Universalists and be encouraged to continue?


I just noticed something. You have a link to Universists but keep talking about Universalists. Are we talking about the same group?

I suppose if I were in a meeting where someone made the faith comment, I would dive into what they think the word "faith" means, since it is a loaded word with many meanings. If it means something like, "belief based on hopes and fears", then I suppose we could agree that such belief is irrational.

Making such a comment would be equivalent to saying "we embrace reason and reject the irrational". Of course, everyone thinks their positions are rational, making such a statement effectively meaningless.

It seems to me this quote is targeting specifically the irrational religiosity that is moving the west toward world war III with the Arab world. It doesn't seem irrational to organize an all out assault against that which you believe directly threatens you. IMHO, this is why freethinkers are becoming vocal and direct attacks on religious nonsense, like the porn for Bibles/Qu'rans program, or Penn and Teller's BS program, are popping up left and right (mostly left though
).

I'm not a universist, but I can appreciate the position that the zealots are trying to get us all killed and we can no longer afford to allow their comfortable delusions unopposed. There is a sense of urgency as the empire has been overrun by psychotic sociopaths who talk to their imaginary friends, and actually believe those imaginary friends talk back (and tell them who needs to be bombed next).



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Faiths impose profound limitations on human potential, and propagate thought processes that remain among the greatest inspirations for individual acts of violence. Now they threaten all humanity. We must declare independence from faith, or fall from the precipice.


Personally, I think that that statement, all by itself, sums up the potential problems with such a movement. It's clearly, itself, a credo-- a statement of belief-- an article of faith.

It might just as well say, "And the notLord sayeth unto thee, 'Faiths impose profound limitations on thy potential, and propagate thought processes that remain among the greatest inspirations for individual acts of violence, so I say unto you that thou shalt declare independence from faith, or thou shalt fall from the precipice.'"

Although, for just that reason, I wouldn't be surprised if this thing turns out to be a success. The world seems to be full of people who desperately need to believe something, even if it's only that everybody else's beliefs are wrong.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
You're right Spamandham, that's my mistake. I think I just read it as Universalist rather than Universist.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Faiths impose profound limitations on human potential, and propagate thought processes that remain among the greatest inspirations for individual acts of violence. Now they threaten all humanity. We must declare independence from faith, or fall from the precipice.



Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Personally, I think that that statement, all by itself, sums up the potential problems with such a movement. It's clearly, itself, a credo-- a statement of belief-- an article of faith.


That was my exact thinking when I read that Bob-exactly.

I understand where they are coming from...but it's not like it's a new thought either....and if organized and teaching a principle based on the theory that world-faith based religion=utopia...thats just a new faith based religion to me, because that statement is meritless to me...it's a hope...based in some facts that religious zealots cause turmoil but still...it's a hope and thus a faith based belief system!!!!

...and if you are going to organize it, give it a name, have people associating with it by name not principle...then it is just another freakin religion

Maybe I'm becoming apathetic, but religeon...ah...I don't know...I keep thinking about Jesus Christ Superstar... I keep thinking of a song where Jesus and Judas are having it out and I don't care if you think Jesus is the son of God, just a historical figure, a fairy tale to keep the people in line, or a cartoon character in your head...one line in that song says it for me

"There will be poor always pathetically struggling..."

Poor in heart, poor of mind, poor in monetary wealth etc...it also says to me there will be war always...though people jusitify it through faith it is simply rediculous to me to think wars would cease without religions...as if power and greed would not still reign?

How about we just declare independance from violence, hate, wealth, power, etc...oh wait...thats what religions try to do...

my bad, huh?

just no way around it...we will destroy ourselves in the name of God or Freethinking- either or-there is no way out...so what I have to figure when all is said and done, is where did I personally stand while I had the chance



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I'm with Bob and think on this one. To claim a position 'against' other belief systems is the first step in separatism. Whatever they call themselves, to me, it's just another group to belong to, another box to crawl into.

This is why I don't even like to call myself agnostic. Yeah, I don't know whether there's a supreme being or not and I actually think there's not, in any conventional sense. But to put the label of "agnostic" on it means I share beliefs with others and really, I don't. I believe in an afterlife. I don't know many agnostics who do.

This article seems too much like the Uncola. The religion against religion.
The Unreligion. Ha-ha-ha.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This article seems too much like the Uncola. The religion against religion.
The Unreligion. Ha-ha-ha.


Crisp and cleen and dogma free!


I hear you on that one BH!

Seriously though that is it- a religion against religion...religious rebells with a cause.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join