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.

 

How Would You End All Religions on This Planet?

page: 28
34
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


Again a short post, (oh no i'm a ninja, suspicious) scientists are always making mistakes, but they are humble enough to admit them when a better theory fits.

Because of this progression we have stood on the forefather's shoulders of science, fixing their errors, improving the information.

That's why you have the joy of electricity in your home, years of gathered knowledge and testing.

Yes, people are condemned when they believe something in science, but you should look towards the evidence, Gallileo was condemned by the Theocrats, by the fanatical Christians because is earth/sun model contradicted "GOD's" theory of us being the centre of the universe, and they didn't like that.
edit on 15/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   


Love God. Love being in God. This is not accessible to you, but it's a highly ethical act, as a first cause, bearing the good fruits of increasing awareness.


Well, there's enough above to confuse the average Christian! But since this was stated by no less than an enlightened New Age man, we could perhaps assume that such a statement contains within it a rudimentary answer to the age-old Problem of Evil.

Oh yeah, now there's a tired, old atheist complaint! But frankly, I don't think that even "hybrid" forms of theism, which desperately try to explain away the serious existential problems that atheists face up to, can really cut it.

Let's see now. Loving God is a highly ethical act. In a weird way, I could agree with such nonsense! No, I probably don't really understand what would be meant by it, but this is what comes to mind.

"God", is generally believed to be "good", and yet, allows lots of superflous suffering in "his" universe. He also is said to have the means (omnipotence, omniscience) to eliminate this gratuitous "evil" that is the suffering of innocents. And yet, he does nothing!

This then makes "God" a titanic JERK, who would actually look UP to guys like Stalin and Hitler, as far better and moral beings (even if they lacked god's sheer power and knowledge).

SO, logically, if it is "ethical" to love Hitler, it could be ethical to love such a god. Obviously, the word "ethical" is a bit out of place I think, but if we simply reduced it to "good", then yes, I could agree with a sense of this.

In other words, it would be practically beyond "good" to manage to "love" a very bad person, and yet, the very highest of virtues deal with concepts like "mercy", and so why not? Could at least Hitler's mother forgive him, and continue to love him? Sure!

However, to clarify further, we might return to that word "ethical" once again. If a person meant that the act of loving involves condoning immoral, or evil behavior for the being in question, than I would have to say that the "act" would be far from ethical.

And yet, this is the very reality most religionists and theists maintain. They know their "god" does bad things, boasts about it in their Bible, and keeps us all suffering greatly, and yet, they "love" him nonetheless!

Perhaps the battered woman really does "love" her tormentor, but the more important fact is that she is very sick for doing so.

Again, I probably just had no idea what could have been meant by such a ludicrous-sounding statement. Perhaps what was meant was that it would be "smart" to take that first leap, since all might follow after, but that would be just as confusing as the first interpretation.

JR



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Sorry folks, especially awake, I would love to stay and get into an interesting debate, but my girlfriend just came home and it appears her boss was mean to her. Take it easy guys and/or gals.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


"It makes me feel calm and happy just sitting here by the window in the sun. Thank you God."

~ Your Dog



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Take it easy, hope to see you around again! Good discussion



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Research and deep soul searching. It's the only cure.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


In the end, no matter how you or i perceive it to be, it is the way it is. Even then, our individual perception of the "truth" will vary wildly. When i say "Chair," its probably a different one than i conjure up, eh?

Could you be wrong? Could God (whatever you perceive others to perceive him to be, i guess
) exist? And on that point, what DO you perceive others perceive God to be? It seems you have it pretty well whittled down and defined, so i would like to know how i view God, in your view


I think you are entirely missing my point of jumping to one side or the other as "right" and the other "wrong" as being equally ignorant on a topic that can not be proven, regardless of who has "burden of proof."

If you truly want to take a scientific standpoint on the issue of God, say "i dont know." In the occurrence of "lack of evidence" no conclusions can be made either way, lest we think the earth is flat, no?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


God cannot be understood, theorized, debated, argued over, or intellectualized. God can only be lived through bhakti (look it up).



edit on 15-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I agree somewhat, you have to define God, maybe we live in an infinite reality, there are no boundaries, there is no causation.

For if you were to presume the cause of reality as "GOD" then who caused or "created" GOD?

This is what's known as an inifinite regression.

I'm just as Agnostic as any other human here on earth, we simply don't know, we might even never know. What i'm not willing to do is make a guess and conclude that my assumption is correct.

And what i won't accept is organised religion's dogma doing exactly the above, and teaching our children that's beliefs don't require evidence. Pay to get your palm read, go see people who "Talk to the dead" - Be ignorant if you want, but don't preach it to our future generations because it's retarding the mindset for science and peace amongst different cultures.

I understand your argument from subjectivity, that i may conjure a different idea of a chair than you do, but there are things in this reality that we are learning are objective. Like the matter we are standing on, the gravity that holds us both to this floating rock.
edit on 15/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I'm just as Agnostic as any other human here on earth, we simply don't know, we might even never know. What i'm not willing to do is make a guess and conclude that my assumption is correct.


Wait, what? Can you clarify your actual beliefs on this matter? I feel they have gotten buried under the thoughts on other thoughts.


And what i won't accept is organised religion's dogma doing exactly the above, and teaching our children that's beliefs don't require evidence. Pay to get your palm read, go see people who "Talk to the dead" - Be ignorant if you want, but don't preach it to our future generations because it's retarding the mindset for science and peace amongst different cultures.


edit on 15/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Was the Earth round before it was proven as such?

edit: please answer the question "Could God exist?" thatll clear a lot up

edit on 15-12-2010 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


there are many paths to the top of the mountain, but they all go to the same place



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I understand your argument from subjectivity, that i may conjure a different idea of a chair than you do, but there are things in this reality that we are learning are objective. Like the matter we are standing on, the gravity that holds us both to this floating rock.
edit on 15/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Look at that ninja posting
didnt even notice it, until it was too late


what we perceive the matter and gravity to be, may not be aligned with "how it is." Our science and math are simply a representation of what is already out there, it is not truth itself. Akin to looking at an illusory picture that can be perceived as either a cup, or two faces. Which is right?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 

Jesus said "The son came into the world, not to condemn it, but so that through him the world might be saved."

Gotta think source in these matters, and have the ability, the open mindedness and the courage to look behind the mask of "religion", and bear in mind too that Jesus wasn't so enamoured with the religious of his day either..

I'm asking you guys to think outside of the box, with a whole new frame of reference, without starting with an assumption, and a presumption of possessing some sort of intellectual superiority which has already drawn the ONLY possible rational conclusion, if that's not too much to ask.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 



That's perfectly said! I couldn't have put it better myself... at least not without some probably offensive ranting to all religious people


I'm an atheist and my beliefs in life are based on scientific fact, rather than stories past down from generation to generation, translated and edited dependant on the current socio-economic climate. Ie. particle physics, quantum mechanics, astro-physics etc. etc.

I believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and to follow what makes them happy in life. I only have issues with religions when their followers try to force their beliefs on other people, when it impacts peoples freedom and basic human rights and courses ridiculous wars based purely on story books (see, told I couldn't express myself without being offensive to some
.

I personally believe that when other civilisations are found, that HOPEFULLY it will make everyone realise we are all one, the human race are all the same regardless of their beliefs. I would be very interested to see how these other civilisations are explained though, especially as even dinosaurs apparently didn't exist, or where handily missed out of the bible!

No doubt more advanced civilisations would have furthered scientific knowledge so religion would not be something that they would likely follow.

Unless of course their furthered scientific knowledge had PROVED THE EXISTANCE OF GOD!! But then eveyone would still argue who's god it was anyway


Well we can all dream, one day we'll all get there and wake up, and start to care for everyone on the planet rather than fighting each other over stories.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


You know what, I don't have children, but I think I will and I will teach them what I've learned from Jesus Christ, so as to have an even greater positive impact in our increasingly Godless world. Thanks for the inspiration!



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by crezo
 

I would be a selfish, mindless twit, without those stories and what they've done to inform me.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


Science has proved valuable in that it attempts to rationalise and frequently oberve effects of our reality so that we can use it for a practical manner, testing and frequently oberving using the tool of math has braught us such things as jet propulsion, electricity, radar, nucear power (to name just a few) Microscopes to see bacteria and learn how it functions to name one more.

They may be interpretations of reality but they seem to be pretty persistant to the point that we can manifest those interpations into ideas that can change our lives.

We have created life in a lab now using the tools of maths, understanding of biology and computing power.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Riveting, i'm not going argue with what you, personally, do in your life. I'm here to argue a certain ideaology, not tell people what to do with their own lives.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'm also starting to get inspired to maybe write a new book, called something like "American Highschool Confidential", where a group of kids with a certain rebellious teenage angst, all atheists to a one, somehow end up encountering a holy man from India, a "Sadhu by the name of Sundar Singh (look him up), who manages to alter their view of themselves, of others and the whole world, and who opens them up to the possibility of God. It wouldn't go over so well here given the very hardened and close-minded position of ATS atheists, but it might help some kid out there somewhere before he takes that poison pill to his grave.


edit on 15-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 




I'm asking you guys to think outside of the box, with a whole new frame of reference, without starting with an assumption, and a presumption of possessing some sort of intellectual superiority which has already drawn the ONLY possible rational conclusion, if that's not too much to ask.


NewAgeMan, it IS too much to ask, if you're just asking us to park our brains at the door, in slightly different language. Honestly, a lot of people can't do that very easily (and believe me, I've tried!)

But of course, I realize that's not exactly what you're asking. The trouble is, the agnostic and atheist crowd has already been put in a "box", by YOU. You ask that we get outside the box, but would it be too much to ask, can we come out now?

I honestly don't know of agnostic/atheists who have come to any singular "rational conclusions" about theism. We are a breed that is almost open to new information, by definition. Sure, there are some militant atheists that have treated the thing as if it were a kind of "faith", but that is a broad brush to paint with, IMHO.

Still, I can 'fess up to a bit of that intellectual superiority thing (big surprise), but we ALL do that. I "believe" I'm right, you believe you're right, but there is a subtle difference, and I've seen others explaining it admirably, and yet I might easily conclude that YOU have already drawn your conclusions.

I guess it would be pointless to keep repeating things.

SO, why not share with us your "whole new frame of reference" that somehow skips over, and seemingly ignores the fundamental philosophical issue of all time, that is, the Problem of Evil?

I think I'd like to hear that, but I must warn you, I personally find "typical" New Age ramblings rather repugnant, since they seldom hold up to logical scrutiny. And no, logic is NOT something to be casually brushed aside, no matter how a person chooses to phrase things. Logic is universal, which is why our computers work so wonderfully. If there is ever to be a meeting of minds, logic must needs be respected, at the very least.

JR



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join