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.

 

Who else sees the religion/atheism debate as a non-issue?

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by Annee
 


What is god, can't have an argument without understanding the subject material.

In my opinion there are too many semantic interpretations, rendering any constructive argument null, the only way to argue and debate is if both parties agree on what it is they are discussing.


OK. What is God.

"Suns of God descending from the Sky"

Interpretation: Humans of earth viewing space ships reflecting the sun - coming from the "skies". God or Gods - - - explanation for something you have no real current practical knowledge of. Basically - - an invention to explain an occurrence you don't understand.




posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
If anything, religion and The Bible have probably done more to confuse humanity than anything else. I think many people find the concept of God and/or spirituality very frustrating because of the contradictions that come with The Good Book and a given religion. We as humans are never going to find peace until we reconcile ourselves with our spiritual self--and that doesn't mean being forced into some category of organized religion. We should stop worrying about what others believe and focus on our own spiritual well-being.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


That is so true, but many act like there's no possibility that evolution and God could have both had a hand in our creation. It's one way or the other for most people. I think that's about as silly as thinking that man wouldn't be prone to manipulating meanings in the Bible while writing it. I mean, look at us! We're so easy led by our egos and arrogance not to think that this hasn't happened.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


did you just watch zeitgeist?

I don't know what god is because I do not have all the information there is in the universe. My notion of god is that it is the initial generator and mutual attractor of the fractal that is the universe.

I understand the notions conjured when that word is used. Though, to think you're on the same page as anyone else when discussing such nebulous and gargantuan subjects as "god", to myself is ridiculous. Even individuals who are together a part of a pre-existing archetype, a founded religion, will have differing ideas about the "form" of "god".




Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin. According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore. Nonetheless, it is also interesting to note the similarity to the ancient Persian word for God which is Khoda. The following is a survey of some of the efforts of those who have been trying to decipher the ancient roots of the word God: Webster's 1913 Dictionary: \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. [Goodbye], [Gospel], [Gossip].]




wahiduddin.net...


Seeing as all individual consciousness are novel and unique, so are their imaginings and feelings on things. Our government is one thing, but the views about it differ substantially, people get angry and upset when discussing it. Same here. Same issue. Some people see only the abrahamic god, others see god as the universe, god as the mind, god as.. and so on.

god is merely a word, a container whose contents have not even been determined, just like all words. Words are symbols and the magic is that they transmit human thought, but words are not what they describe.

the word apple, it's symbols do not resemble what it describes at all.

The big bang

Let there be light

sounds, similar enough.

I realize they are finding evidence that negates the big bang, but I'm using it for effect.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
IMO, this thread has thus-far told us two important things.

1) Religion and Spirituality are synonymous but not necessarily symbiotic.

2) There are so many ideaological conflicts between Religion and atheism that the debate will never be over. Although, this doesn't mean the debate isn't still completely pointless.

There will always be arguments on either side..

Thus, the OP would be correct in saying that it is a non-issue in the sense that there is always going to be a counterargument to any argument.

Any debate requires an ultimate resolution to the main question being presented. In this particular debate, the resolution will never come. Thus, the dog will always chase its tail and the debate will always act to frustrate people and generally just piss them off.

This does not mean that anyone's personal beliefs are wrong or incorrect. Both could be somewhat correct. Both could be somewhat incorrect too. This also doesn't mean that the debate can't teach us more about ourselves or just enlighten curious minds in general that want to see both sides of the debate before drawing their own conclusions.

Unfortunately, since the debate will likely last for all eternity, it is inevitable that people will come to their own conclusions before they have the answers. In other words, they've already decided before they've heard all the arguments to be made on either side.. We only live so long after all! The Religion/Atheism debate is unique in this sense. The extremes on both sides are both driven by faith whether they realize it or not.

-ChriS

[edit on 28-7-2010 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I'd like to contrast the previous post. I'd also like to say that I support the OP's position: hopefully I can say what the OP had so much difficultly trying to get across.

Though our opinions on the definitions of words will vary, I would like to point out a couple of distinctions that seem rather obvious to me.

Religion does NOT equal spirituality.

This is evident in the way that some religious act. Many of them just follow the rules, pray the prayers that are given to them. Others claim a religion but don't do anything that indicates membership. Therefore, some religious people are spiritual.

Similarly, some spiritual people claim no religion. (I am one such.) They simply practice their own rituals regularly.

The debate between theism and atheism misses the point

First: In order to prove that god does not exist, one must already have an adequate definition of what god is in the first place! And it is not the place of an atheist to tell a theist what his god is. Atheist philosophers have been making this mistake for a very long time. It is much easier to defend agnosticism than atheism, because the agnostic need not prove the existence or nonexistence of anything.

Second: There is no need for the theist to prove anything to anyone if he has an experience of the divine. And this is exactly what the OP is saying. And what counts as divine? Well, that is entirely up to your experience. Ever seen Pulp Fiction? Jules sees the divine in a series of lucky gunshot misses. Does this mean that anyone else will see the divine in it? Of course not. Witness Vince's reaction. What matters is only that one has the experience, because after having this experience, there is simply no going back to either atheism or agnosticism. And religion has absolutely nothing to do with this experience.

This experience renders the whole atheism/theism debate pointless. Why? God's existence can be neither proven nor disproven because no definition of god is adequate. I speak from experience when I say that this is true: trust me, I have spent 6 years getting degrees in philosophy with the express purpose of proving that god exists. It can't be done. The only thing that will convince you that god exists is an experience.

But an experience cannot be given to someone else! Anyone who has had such an experience becomes utterly aware of this fact as soon as they try to tell other people about it. The only people who understand are the people who have had a similar experience.

Therefore, anyone who feels the need to prove anything to anyone about god is doing so because he is lacking an experience of the divine. People fling arguments around because they have beliefs but lack experiences.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I agree on how it's a non issue. But people just need to do this because of a human flaw- the need to feel superior. Stems from ego i suppose.

To me, i put it under the same category as:
Islam - christian
mac - pc
iphone - blackberry
intel - amd
canon - nikon
football teams

You get the idea.

This human flaw (also insecurity) requires people to gather up against a common enemy, i think it's to feel a sense of belonging.

You see this trend from watching kids in playground, where one group decides to "conquer the playground", school gangs in hong kong, gangsterism culture in general, political parties, warring nations and their propaganda.

It's almost as if, they never really grow up. From sticks and stones to guns and missiles. From playgrounds to cities to nations.

Just my bit.
Thanks.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
As I slowly, but surely become increasingly arthritic and dementia, I am sitting here at my computer terminal, with all the time in the universe where with in which to rant on about this and that, however the subject of whether or not GOD exists, seems to be a complete waste of my energy. If the foolish want to believe that there is no GOD then that is their choice. Nothing I say to them will make them change their opinion. Scriptures are thus not going to change that situation. This is why in my religion, "ChienTao" [the way of heaven], more commonly known as ZEN BUDDHISM, although it pre-existed Gautama Siddhartha by tens of thousands of years in the form of Chinese Taoism, we do have respect for scriptures, however realise that "enlightenment" cannot be acquired by reading of books or transmitted by speech. The "enlightenment" is from within the individual as a Gift of God to whom so ever it please that she might give it, or not as the case may be.

So as to acquire the TRUTH we need to follow the "scientific method". We must find a paradigm that can explain all the data. Unfortunately there are those who follow various paradigm that do not explain all the data, and thus they ignore what ever data do not fit in with their paradigm. They "cherry pick" data that fits in with their paradigm whilst ignoring that data that contradicts their paradigm. Obviously we must find the paradigm that explains all the data. To say that science cannot prove the existence of GOD is absurd. Of course science is able to prove the existence of GOD. However, very few have ever understood real science. Real science is looked upon with utter incredulity as if it is mere "science fiction fantasy". shimono/id309926637


Albert Einstein taught the following explanation. "The Folding of the Fabric of Time and Space". Take a sheet of paper. It is a two dimensional surface. Draw a point A and a point B. The distance between point A and point B is about three inches. Point A and point B are separated by space and it takes time to travel the three inches between them. But that is only because they exist in two dimensional space. If we introduce a third dimension we are then able to fold the paper in that third dimension. In folding the paper we join point A to point B. Then the separation between point A and point B is zero. No separation.


Google Video Link

Recommended reading : THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE by MICHAEL TALBOT publishers Harper Collins. ISBN 0-586-09171-8. Amazon books.



[edit on 28/7/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
IMO, this thread has thus-far told us two important things.


Only one for me, that even a op titled "Religion/Atheism debate as a non-issue" has become a Religion/Atheism issue debate.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I think the whole religion/atheism debate is so meaningless...

Beside of that speaking as a patheist/atheist.... I really believe that atheism is also some sort of religion. Because you believe that there is no god... because you believe that the universe and yourself is god...or has 'god's power' so is that not a religion then ? You also believe in something..

As religious people didn't we all learned the have respect towards other people ? No matter what there religion, race, etc... is ? So why even start the debate ? History has told us that so manny wars have been fought between different religions.. and what is the outcome of it ? world peace, a heaven on earth ? Makes you wonder, who can really save us ? What kind of god can... maybe the aliens ? I doubt it...

But one thing is for sure.. this really stay's a difficult subject...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Hi All,

It is an important issue because religious groups often get involved into public debate and their opinons are biased by their belief system. Therefore their religious beliefs must also be debated.

This also ties in to that old hypocrisy, whereby the religious can comment on whatever they want, however no-one can comment on the religious.

I also believe it to be an important debate as here in australia, faith based schools recieve funding from federal government. It agitates me a great deal knowing my tax money is going towards the indoctrination of children into false belief systems.

Thanks (first time poster).



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by Annee
 


did you just watch zeitgeist?

I don't know what god is because I do not have all the information there is in the universe. My notion of god is that it is the initial generator and mutual attractor of the fractal that is the universe.



This did not come from Zeitgeist - - although I do support the Zeitgeist movement.

There is God - then there is Creator.

From the beginning man has asked why and where did I come from. I can't say where the word God came from - - - but I definitely 100% believe the Gods of Earth - - the ones humans encountered were advanced off planet beings - - nothing omnipotent or supernatural in a "god sense".

The Creator. Well there had to be some kind of creation or we wouldn't be here. But was it a natural event or design? Did consciousness/intelligence evolve on its own or was it programmed into us?

Does consciousness/intelligence continue after the physical body dies?

It could be we are just a very advanced sophisticated video game. If you pull the plug on a video game do the characters still live?

I don't have the ego to consider myself more then I am. Wishing that there is more - a heaven and God - - doesn't make it so.

Wishing that I am an immortal being with an afterlife - - does not make it so.

Does that make me an Atheist? I prefer Spiritual Humanist.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by izero
Hi All,

It is an important issue because religious groups often get involved into public debate and their opinons are biased by their belief system. Therefore their religious beliefs must also be debated.

This also ties in to that old hypocrisy, whereby the religious can comment on whatever they want, however no-one can comment on the religious.

I also believe it to be an important debate as here in australia, faith based schools recieve funding from federal government. It agitates me a great deal knowing my tax money is going towards the indoctrination of children into false belief systems.

Thanks (first time poster).


And there you go.

I don't care what anyone believes - - - its all about how it affects me through government.

I support Zero God in government. Any God. Government is like a business. Businesses need to be run by logic and the bottom line that provides and supports EVERY citizen equally. Personal belief systems have no business in government.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Geez 27 flags for a redundant OP. Just goes to show how many people want to cheer for their team than have an honest conversation.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder

Pondering this a bit more deeply, I guess that when it comes to religion, I don't really *believe* as much as I *feel.* To me, this takes religion out of the realm of "belief" and into...well, a totally different kind of experience.



If the OP had started and stopped with the title: Who else sees the religion/atheism debate as a non-issue?

That would be one thing. But NO - - the OP continues on to explain his/her belief.

Even though he/she tries to explain the difference between belief & feel - - - he/she is still expressing a spiritual experience.

Basically saying - once again - Atheism is wrong.

No Flag from me.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I support Zero God in government. Any God. Government is like a business. Businesses need to be run by logic and the bottom line that provides and supports EVERY citizen equally. Personal belief systems have no business in government.


Hello, Annie.

Though I am not here to debate your theology, or lack thereof, I am curious if you live in the United States?

If so, have you read the Declaration of Independence?

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

---definition of God in 1776 Webster's dictionary- Date: before 12th century. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.

"--And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor..."

---definition of "Divine" from 1776 Webster's dictionary-Date: 14th century
of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God--- (in capitalized form as written in Declaration of Independence)

God and Divine as what our ForeFathers understood Him to be and wrote the founding documents of this country upon.

You clearly must not believe in its validity. I am asking simply out of curiosity why you would choose to live here when you do not believe in the doctrines of which the United States was founded on. I am not being a smart aleck, truly, I am just wondering... no matter how many people try to explain this away, these are the truths upon which these documents were written, and I wonder how you feel living under them... In the Constitution, religion also was actually defined as a true belief, not a right to believe in nothing...
Thanks for your response. Again, not trying to offend, just wondering.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegoodearth

Originally posted by Annee

I support Zero God in government. Any God. Government is like a business. Businesses need to be run by logic and the bottom line that provides and supports EVERY citizen equally. Personal belief systems have no business in government.


Hello, Annie.

Though I am not here to debate your theology, or lack thereof, I am curious if you live in the United States?

If so, have you read the Declaration of Independence?



My family has been here in America since the 1700s

The declaration of independence is 234 years old. If we haven't evolved in all that time we are in deep trouble.

I am a futurist - I am for evolution and change.

**** I felt your post was sincere and quite polite. I post in a style I labeled "short tacks" (try to make your point in 10 words or less). I don't like padded POVs. So don't let this blunt style throw you off.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I appreciate your polite reply.
Thanks~



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegoodearth
You clearly must not believe in its validity. I am asking simply out of curiosity why you would choose to live here when you do not believe in the doctrines of which the United States was founded on. I am not being a smart aleck, truly, I am just wondering... no matter how many people try to explain this away, these are the truths upon which these documents were written, and I wonder how you feel living under them... Thanks for your response. Again, not trying to offend, just wondering.

I know you did not ask me, but if you don't mind, I'd like to answer this question from my own perspective.

As an Atheist, I may not believe in God, but I do believe in some of the principles the Bible and various other religions attempt to instill in us. I do not believe these principles to be constructs of religion or qualities bestowed upon us by god, but rather innate instincts, passed down from previous generations. Evolution basically, it is beneficial to the progress of a people to cooperate and work together and be in harmony with each other as much as possible. So I do believe that being good to your neighbor and not throwing stones are exemplary qualities to possess. I just don't believe that God is responsible for these virtues, people are.

So just because the founding fathers were (insert whatever religion you think they belonged to) doesn't mean their views are incompatible with mine. We may defer on the existence of god, but on the ideals of equality and liberty and all that good stuff I'm pretty much in agreement.



In the Constitution, religion also was actually defined as a true belief, not a right to believe in nothing...
Not sure what you mean here but I'll take a guess. I would argue that Atheism is a true belief, I believe it a strongly as another may believe in christ, and I have just as reasonable reasons for believeing it. Just remember, claiming to be an Atheist only means I don't believe in god or gods in any shape or form. My views on spirtuality, the soul, or the afterlife are not included in that label.

On the concept of rights, I do not believe we have any except what people claim to be giving you. Rights are a man made concept, what is a right? I have a right to not be murdered in my bed, not that that means anything to Freddy Kreuger
Seriously though, what good is a right if it can be violated at any given time? I have a right to privacy, but when it's violated it's kinda too late isn't it? Not like God sticks his hand in and says " Don't even go there" Don't get me wrong, the concepts of rights are a good thing, help keep people in check and all that, justice, good stuff. But it doesn't really exist. If you go to China and claim you have a right to free speech, they'll just laugh and say "Not here you don't!" Lotta good those god given rights are then....

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Gigatronix]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Seriously not trying to get into a religious debate here...


Just curiousity... seriously, the Founding Fathers wrote the Founding Documents on Judeo/ Christian principles. That is the bottom line. The definition of religion for them, according to the Webster dictionary of their times is:

Religion: RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. ]
Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties.

Noah Webster was also one of the Founding Fathers.

At any rate, it really is a moot point at this time, as most people have decided to rationalize these doctrines as old fashioned and unrealistic at best, with no basis in the "progress of truth (?)." The United States population, in the 20th century and in the current century, has obviously fared very well by straying away from the core beliefs the Country was founded on in these documents, don't you think? In observing our current state of the Union and our youth, it is evident.

I wish you the best in your endeavors, regardless of our differences in opinions and faiths. Good luck~




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join