What's with the uptick in religious fundamentalism on ATS, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
Topic started on 14-1-2010 @ 08:34 AM by kenochs
I'm a journalist by trade, and when I originally began reading a year or two ago I found this to be a site to get a lead on interesting events going on terrestrially and otherwise and to read some reasonably intelligent scientific discussion of events that don't get a whole lot of press.

I'm a trained skeptic and used to really enjoy the give and take with those far more credulous and generally it's been a lot of fun.

But lately I can't open any thread, especially threads related to Obama or 2012 without someone telling me the end times are coming and Obama is the Anti-Christ and that I need to get right with God. And as we all know, it is impossible to have a scientific discussion about faith, its counterintuitive, and counterproductive.

Faith... is, and if you believe, well, generally I find that's that. I got no problem with accepting the great unknowable.

But I have always hoped, and used to see more posters adhering to at least the basic principles of scientific inquiry, on this site. What I am seeing now is a complete abandonment of those rules and more and more posters whose skepticism swings towards an abandonment of science altogether. What that means to me is a flood of people who throw evolution, and climate change and 'scientists' into their over-arching vision of a nightmarish conspiracy against the everyman.
To me that's a bit like saying 'gravity is a conspiracy to keep us all down'. It takes away from what I have always thought is a wonderful venue to examine the fringes of 'scientific' thinking.
I find it sad. Any thoughts?


[edit on 14-1-2010 by kenochs]


reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 09:01 AM by kenochs
reply to post by gYvMessanger


I'm not interested in judging the religious influence just noticing an increase in the amount of fundamentalists commenting.
I do take the world as it is, and so find the increase interesting and worth pointing out, so I'm not ignoring it.
The question was actually meant to elicit a response, positive or negative and to note the decreasing reliance on 'scientific' discussion here and the movement towards eschatology in posts and referring the relevance of events.
Also, as a journalist I don't ascribe meaning to trends, I just note them, if you think that it's a sign of the times, I say, sure that's possible and history does show a rise in fundamentalist thinking during economic hard times and during democratic administrations. Maybe that's part of it.


reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 09:15 AM by kenochs
reply to post by gYvMessanger


Smart and thoughtful, and I accept that, thanks for the reply.

But the thing that prompted this was the sunspot 1040 thread and how quickly that devolved into a discussion of christian eschatology.

Perhaps I wrote before thinking.

Oh well, who's perfect?



[edit on 14-1-2010 by kenochs]

[edit on 14-1-2010 by kenochs]


reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 09:28 AM by Dr Love
reply to post by arbiture



"Mass" was created by God to explain how gravity keeps us all from floating out into space.

Peace


reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 09:51 AM by kenochs
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


That's an interesting thought as well, the 2012 hysteria as a mass produced global conspiracy thread in order to shill for a movie.

I find that fascinating and am fairly certain that cynical marketers would find it a simple thing to accomplish but I fear that one day the manipulators might find the manipulated banging down their door demanding their heads on a pike.

Also, wouldn't it be nice if there were a sure thing... well beyond the knowledge of our own mortality.





[edit on 14-1-2010 by kenochs]



reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 10:06 AM by mike_trivisonno
reply to post by kenochs



I think Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" will shed light on why religion and feelings of faith arise in virtually every single instance of human development and how the vestiges of our past are carried forward into the present through the expression of religious and political structures used for social control.

Brilliant man.


reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 10:16 AM by hadriana
Dude, I'm seeing it EVERYWHERE. It isn't just on ATS.
I do know around here though that a lot of the smaller churches practically preach conspiracy theory stuff in their churches - NWO, Satanic rites in the highest offices, ect. right along with end times.
Even the moderate churches are convinced that the end times is here.

I'm not a Christian but I can see their point. I can remember back in the 70's reading those TRUE TIMES Christian prophesy magazines about how the end was coming and the antichrist and all that - and how war in the middle east would be the trigger.

Well after so many years of war in the middle east folks are starting to freak.

You got pagans galore and witches running around and a war on Christmas. Christmas, is nothing sacred anymore? And then gay folks getting married? And that's OK? If the sky ain't fallin' yet, it's fixing too!

Then you have Obama, a black man who is too young and inexperienced to be running - and he's a good talker and OMG he WON. The end is near.

Add some 2012 heathen prophesy on top of it and a financial...depression?...whatever it is...with so much corruption and it seems the NWO has already taken over and no one even noticed it, what do we do now?

Well I am not a skeptic, and I'm not a Christian, I'm one of those pagan witches runnin' around, but even I know that things are changing too fast for some people and that's just the way they cope....and then again, some prophesies are SELF-FULFILLING.


reply posted on 14-1-2010 @ 10:20 AM by The Riley Family
Originally posted by kenochs
I'm a trained skeptic

And as we all know, it is impossible to have a scientific discussion about faith, its counterintuitive, and counterproductive.

Faith... is, and if you believe, well, generally I find that's that. I got no problem with accepting the great unknowable.

Any thoughts?


[edit on 14-1-2010 by kenochs]


Why would it be counter-intuitive/productive to discuss faith? If one would look at it in a more scientific manner it could be realized that faith is not supposed to be based on the great unknowable or any other unknowable. What makes it a tough debate is both sides see it one sided. This is something the supposed "faithful" and the supposed "faithless" have in common. How does that make for a debate? It doesn't. That is why it is undebatable, at least between them.

For example. If a person of the Christian faith posses a question to a member of their hierarchy let's say about how the existence of dinosaurs fits into the great scheme of things and the response back is "you just have to have faith" isn't this a faith based on ignorance? Is it really what they claim the source of their faith requires of its adherents?

What is actually counter-intuitive/productive is the willingness to accept the great unknowable without using scientific methods in researching whether it actually is an unknowable or not. Could it be scientifically looked into through the reality of what is known to exist, and through the doctrines of the supposed believers, and also from the actual source of information it was supposed to be derived from in the first place?

What you may find is that the doctrine of faith is not really derived from the resource it claims to come from. Has faith come to be known as something it was never meant to be in the first place? This is not only unfortunate for those who religiously accept it but also for those who non-religiously accept it also.

Does it make any sense for anyone to be expected to believe in something they know little or nothing about? That in itself makes no sense at all. Have the non-religious been indoctrinated also? The non-religious seem to base their understanding of faith on the doctrines of the supposed faithful and consider this to be the message that is emanated from its source. It seems the non-religious could also be considered faithful ones. So where is the skepticism in all of this?


[edit on 14-1-2010 by The Riley Family]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^