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.

 

Atheism and Theism are both wrong.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Atheism
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
en.wikipedia.org...

Theism
Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of a god and its relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of a god as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.
en.wikipedia.org...

So you are probably wondering, "How can both be wrong when they cover the whole field of subject?" Well it's an extremely difficult answer but I will try and give you the reasons why I think they are all wrong.

When humans first began whether you believe it was Adam and Eve, alien biogenetics, or from an organism the first people to develop the necessary level of intelligence to think and have the ability of perception would not have believed in a god. They did not even consider that as a possibility, what they knew was that they were alive and they had 2 parents and their parents had parents, so on and so forth. That's all they knew, and that's all they even considered.

Eventually they began to revere nature as they became more intelligent (don't forget this was the time of hunter-gatherer). They then began to recognize that certain animals around them provided them with food; the lakes, streams, rivers, etc... Provided them with water; the earth provided them with food and material; and the sun provided them with warmth, light and growth. So you get where I'm going with this.

They eventually began to see these things that were important to them as of higher importance or of great power. So because their intelligence was still pretty minimal they had to collectivize and establish a hierarchy of the animals, an animal king of sorts. Eventually as they began to worship these animals they could not understand the certain things that the animals did, they saw it as a form of magic. Which lead them to believe these animals were better than them, or had special powers. This made them believe that they could not be humanlike, or natural. So they began to believe it was 'supernatural'.

As time progressed and more gods began to exist they would attribute certain characteristics to each god. Such as an eagle god would hold the power of wind and sly hunting. This kept growing and growing. Then eventually they would have a 'battle' of gods because as people became more organized there had to be a more dominant and powerful god. This would lead to duels or battles to see who was more powerful and whichever god would win would be labeled the all powerful god.

Continuing down the human timeline as people become more organized there would be fewer gods as people moved into urban areas. So the worship would change from animals to the weather, earth and sun. Then there would always be a god on top that is more powerful because civilizations created powerful people on top. But then there was the idea that there had to be one god that is the only god in the whole world.

This god was begun by the Jews and when Moses won the fight against the pharaoh it was perceived that their god won. He was the more powerful god. And as the Jews left Egypt for Israel they made their own religion worshipping one almighty god. The all powerful god of the universe. This was then challenged when Jesus arrived, it was still basically the same notion of god but that Jesus was his son. This split the Jews into two groups, Christians and Jews. As the Christian religion spread into Europe their belief of god was beginning to prevail over the Jewish belief of god.

Then another split occurred and it was a new religion that believed in Jesus but did not believe he died. This was led by Muhammad as he sought to spread the beliefs of Islam throughout Arabia. This led to a new god that was virtually the same as the other two just with different ideals and demands. These 3 religions began to rid the Middle East, North Africa and Europe of Pagans who believed in more than one god. They began to incorporate Pagan ideals into their religions to make it easier for Pagans to convert. Their goal was to have only one world religion worshipping one almighty god.

Eventually the belief in more than one god was virtually eliminated everywhere in the world except the Far East. As Abraham religions spread west the concept of only one almighty god became the general acceptance among almost all people. The religions believed that if they let people think for themselves that they might lose their grip on power if knowledge was allowed early in religions history. So they have to persecute anyone who dared to challenge church beliefs.

Then as the new world was beginning to grow the American Revolution occurred. This released the shackles of oppression by the British monarch and religion that was oppressing Europe. The new American government gave all people the right to choose their religious beliefs and to not have any religion forced upon them. This allowed for the explosion in knowledge and innovation. Then France had their revolution which was far more unstable as they battled with continental war and a struggle between republic and monarchy. As America and to a lesser extent France were beginning to allow freedom and liberalization their people did not lose their religious beliefs.

Religion was so engraved in society that even taking it out of government did not stop it. The advancements of science and knowledge were then incorporated into and alongside religion. Then came Charles Darwin, his theory of evolution would soon rock the world to its core, but silently. As the religious tried to suppress his theories they did not manage to stop it. His theories did not spread outside of the scientific and academic community for decades. Then more people began to oppose religion because they saw it as a form of oppression of the people. This was part of the new socialist movement in Europe.

Then in 1917 the Russian Revolution occurred which created atheism as the major religion in the Soviet Union. Then as socialism and communism spread around the world and grew in followers so did atheism and agnosticism. We were finally beginning to see the cracks in the strangle hold of religion. As time progressed in just one century Europe went monarchies that were ruled by religion to becoming more than 50% Atheist and Agnostic. Religion plummeted in Europe as they began to see it as outdated, unimportant or even illogical. This was the beginning of the rejection of a god.




So do you see the evolution of religion yet? We started with no belief in god or the rejection of god because the concept of god did not exist. Then we created gods because of what was important to us. Then we created a hierarchy of gods which were ruled by a ruling god. Then we created only one god almighty. And now we are beginning to reject the notion of a god. But none of this is correct, because the issue of god should not be open to debate. We should not even be discussing this issue because it should not exist. But we are and a person want to know, is there or is there not a god(s)?

We won't shake this question but what we should do is stop asking it. And stop trying to answer it. Remove the belief, disbelief and questioning of god(s) altogether. Whether or not god(s) do/do not exist is an unanswerable question because it was created by us. We created the concept of god(s) and whether or not we got it right and animal gods are our creators, whether or not there is a hierarchy of gods, whether or not there is just one almighty god or just no god at all. It is all the creation of man. We created the belief in god from what we could not understand. Then we made them fight for whose more powerful, and then we selected one god that is the most powerful and rejected every other god as false.

So could there be a god like Jesus stated? Maybe, maybe not. But it should not even be a question. If we die we will know, or the question will finally be irrelevant because we won't exist to ask it. Why are we trying to figure something out that we created in the first place and then created everything else about it? We just want answers that are impossible to know until we are dead. So the whole Theism and Atheism junk is all wrong because it should never even exist because there are no answers.

The point is How can you answer your own question?

[edit on 3/29/10 by Misoir]




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
It's awfully late, so I just gave your S+F for bringing something up that I myself have in the past and will mark this for later review tomorrow and add my minor commentary.

I have thought of these three points of view as a worldly trinity where as the fourth point, this unnamed point on a sturdy tripodal foundation, resides in a dimension of realization above the three, completing the vertices of the tetrahedron.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I'm glad i'm not the only person who sees religion like this.


It's like black(Atheism) and White(Theism), plus gray(Agnosticism). Stop with the colours already!


[edit on 3/29/10 by Misoir]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think you are in correct track, but I'd still refrain to ignore all the theisms as complete bunk, because they are after all phenomenas of human psyche. But I understand these viewpoints in very same manner as you do, that deities are more or less natural phenomenas which we have idealisized (idolized), then personified and lastly made dogmas out of them.

But nevertheless they still play significat role in our societies and in collective consciousness and cause both beneficial and ill consequences in humantiy in general.

But nonetheless I'd applaude your thread and it's red string of thought.


-v



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


Well if I refrained from stating the facts I would be a liar.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Great post, really well written, but there is a big problem.

Agnosticism is the belief that spirituality is unknown. If it is not making a claim in any way as to what 'god' is, how can it possibly be wrong.

That is like a teacher asking a student who discovered America, and the student says "I dont know" and the teacher says that answer is wrong.

It isnt incorrect. It is incomplete.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Great post, really well written, but there is a big problem.

Agnosticism is the belief that spirituality is unknown. If it is not making a claim in any way as to what 'god' is, how can it possibly be wrong.

That is like a teacher asking a student who discovered America, and the student says "I dont know" and the teacher says that answer is wrong.

It isnt incorrect. It is incomplete.



But in order for Agnosticism to be correct the thought of religion, which is false, might have to be true. Agnosticism is scepticism of religion, which was created by man. So all of our religious viewpoints are incorrect because the notion of religion is false. I hope you understand what I mean.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Great post, really well written, but there is a big problem.

Agnosticism is the belief that spirituality is unknown. If it is not making a claim in any way as to what 'god' is, how can it possibly be wrong.

That is like a teacher asking a student who discovered America, and the student says "I dont know" and the teacher says that answer is wrong.

It isnt incorrect. It is incomplete.



But in order for Agnosticism to be correct the thought of religion, which is false, might have to be true. Agnosticism is scepticism of religion, which was created by man. So all of our religious viewpoints are incorrect because the notion of religion is false. I hope you understand what I mean.


I disagree, and I think maybe you dont know what agnosticism is.

It is simply saying "there might be a god, there might be earthly powers, there might be something else we havent thought of".

It isnt predicated on religion. It is the admission that one doesnt know. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I am not claiming it is correct, because, just as it cannot be wrong, it cannot be correct. It is a position of unknowing, not a claim of belief, as the two things you compare it to are.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I always interpreted Agnosticism as either secepticism of Abraham religions or of Atheism. Thanks for clarifying it, I will change the title.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I always interpreted Agnosticism as either secepticism of Abraham religions or of Atheism. Thanks for clarifying it, I will change the title.


No worries. It encompasses many different views. There are plenty who claim to be agnostic that are actually just anti-religion.

Again, though, great thread. I really enjoyed the read.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Schism exists in all human ideological systems, religious, political, or philosophical and does not necessarily lead to individual dilution of belief or values.

I agree that all the tonal, my way or the highway, bickering is wrong. But eagerness to enter into contention or robust discourse between opposing groups, provide the forums for individual growth. People's awareness, knowledge and understanding of all that life is, has indeed evolved, in part because of the conflict, but the major bone of contention, the Self, has not.

People still find it very difficult to accept another persons truth as being as valid as their own, the self rightousness of people from all ideological backgrounds is what causes the contention, the inability to admit either error on our own part, or concede validity of the opposit.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
As you attempt to use science to support your theory on both atheism and theism, your foundations are already wrong, for NO ONE alive can claim that mankind has found every answer within the realm of science.

Everyday, we are making scientific discoveries that would categorise the previous generations of ‘scientists’ as alchemist or shamans. There is still so much to learn. Just look at your physical self alone is enough to challenge your mind on how much do you understand the hows and whys it all came about.

Despite much progress in genome and neuroscience, we are just at its infancy. Despite our maths foundation, we still are unable to comprehend or declare E8 theory is a truth. Despite the rigidities of physic laws, quantum mechanics still causes endless debates.

Thus, what is the truth? Either you take that leap of faith - rationalize religious teachings, miracles - and ‘belief’, or wait for the answer that science will provide you one day.

So is your theory correct or wrong? I personally believe it is wrong, as you are using an unknown, ignorant and unverifiable construct to support your hypothesis.

Just my humble opinion, no offense intended.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I'm glad i'm not the only person who sees religion like this.


It's like black(Atheism) and White(Theism), plus gray(Agnosticism). Stop with the colours already!


[edit on 3/29/10 by Misoir]


It should all be transparent. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Did you change the whole thing around last night? I thought it said Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism are all wrong. That's what got me so worked up so late at night, now I see it's all changed. Timeline shifts really stick in my craw; sometimes they make you look like you have a reading comprehension problem.

:pizuzzled:



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Yes I changed the title and I removed Agnosticism. I did that because Agnosticism could be correct because it is sceptical of all forms of religion.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If I follow what you say, throughout the whole history of man there have been many different beliefs and values of different cultures and from cave paintings to ancient pharoahs inside pyramids to native americans worshiping the food they eat and the sun. And these beliefs of different areas of the world and different cultures and sometimes isolation have led to a debate today looking back and trying to encompass all that is and will ever be.
What is available to us today is 6 or 7 major religions with foundations and trains of thought that are very sophisticated and organized. For different areas of the world or cultures have their own and in some a lack of anything. I think agnostic means leaving the mind open havent done enough research or havent reached a conclusion. For some it could be a lifelong journey or self discovery, overcoming doubts and seeking knowledge through having a strong interpretation of all we have available to us today. ( in history , in different cultures of the world and considering all angles)
With atheism and theism being both wrong, they are different extremes to a measuring device ex. white and black and areas of gray in between. In the end we all have are own opinions and have to accept some things we will never know. With sciece too, Big Bang theory ... a big explosion then everything came out of the explosion or evolution changes in time alterations to make a better model of life through DNA and environment changes (then why are there 50 million different things and some got left behind). Science is us using tools and evaluation to determine or study things to a degree, and saying some will think that all are advancements and fields or study might sway more people to a side of the measuring devices extremes. With are already established theisms and the other side of rejection of these theisms or atheism both being wrong are you saying their is a middle ground a little of both that is right? Or we created the theism and answering are own question and there are things we can never begin to understand so dont try.
Throughout all of history man has tryied to determine why, what, where, when and how everything exists here, including us and maybe we shouldnt try to wrap our heads around the philosophical debate or spiritual. And we will never begin to understand the massive complexities so the belief of religion and the rejection are both wrong? I dont know I read this several times and I am confused.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by P. O. W.
 


I was basically stating that all religion created was created simply by man. What I am trying to say is that arguing religion is correct and there is a god is wrong and arguing that religion is false and there is no god is also wrong. Why? Because we should not even be considering the concept at all, the beliefe in any type of creation was our own creation that we have been fighting to prove who is right. When in fact no one is right, because the concept of god is not even be relevant. We created the concept of god and to argue it is real or not real is just foolish. We need to search for alternatives and answers besides arguing for or against god.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
As I believe in the transcendent nature of ALL, which is a sort of "God" that both does and doesn't exist. Therefore, my contention is that all three positions are simultaneously true, false and undecidable. This leads to a logical explosion in which anything follows from a contradiction, providing tantalizing insight into the questions of "how?" and "why?".



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
intresting thread

but to answer you're question which was "how can you answer you're own question?"

simple, you think

thats how most of the inventions came about.

where does this leave paranormal activities?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RizeorDie
intresting thread

but to answer you're question which was "how can you answer you're own question?"

simple, you think

thats how most of the inventions came about.

where does this leave paranormal activities?


Personally, I thought it best not to answer that. It asked "how do you answer a question that you asked?", which is quite easy to answer, which is: "just answer". It was not "how may you find a correct and verifiable answer with corroborating evidence to your own question as to why you can't find a correct and verifable answer with corroborating evidence?"



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join