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.

 

Religious Dogma is Speculation. Discuss

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


It was a joke. Good or bad, you do know what those are right? You have shown yourself to be quite humorless... lighten up!

I also said to read past the smiley face, as the smiley face had nothing to do with anything, but that does yield interesting insight.

i dont think you have made any attempt whatsoever to try to understand my perspective, regardless of whether or not you agree with it (please correct me if im wrong). So, yes, lets just agree to disagree and move on
the current conversation is a waste of time.

Interesting note though, according to that pic, i am entirely agnostic, yet i do believe in God.


Also, indirectly calling people who disagree with you "retards" is not very humble




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


No problem, And of course i have a sense of humour. Just note that i have never attempted to demean your character, by suggesting such a thing, I simply respond to the points you'rw making and expect you to reply politely as i have done. If i make an error, or i misunderstand something, do let me know and i'll be happy to conceed my shortcomings.

I've never heard of an Agnostic who believes in "God". In fact, Agnosticism states that there isn't enough evidence to make an assumption as to the origin of our universe.

But your belief/faith is still "GOD". Well what is God to you?

If you believe that the universe and nature itself is "GOD" then i believe this is what's known as Pantheism.

Please do tell me if i am wrong and let me know your position (is it Agnosticism, is it Pantheism, is it Deism?)
edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 



Also, indirectly calling people who disagree with you "retards" is not very humble


Irrational beliefs ARE retarded. They severly retard logic. I "believe" theres a pony with a cucumber on it's head that is orbitting Mars, an irrational belief, based on no evidence. Retarded.


If someone is "offended" because i challenged their logic then i say, let them be offended, but why enter a debate if you expect not to be offended or challenged.

Nice use of smileys may i add.


edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


My friend, i have already detailed the answers to all of those questions in this very thread


Succinctly, i believe that our journey to discover the different perspectives contained within "all that is" is hindered by trying to put it into general boxes as we can only know our own perspectives. I do not know what "god" others speak of, regardless of whether it is to praise or deny god. My conceptualization of god is undoubtedly wrong. This means i do not believe in my own definition of god. That would give me atheistic leanings. I claim nothing about the creation of anything, because i dont know. That would give me agnostic leanings. I believe in a personal God (my own definition, of course!), this would give me theistic leanings. I believe All That Is, or at least my perception of that, to be God. That would give me pantheistic leanings. But in the end, i dont believe my "beliefs" are anything more than a limited finger pointing to the moon. Which would make me.. an idiot?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik
 



Also, indirectly calling people who disagree with you "retards" is not very humble


Irrational beliefs ARE retarded. They severly retard logic. I "believe" theres a pony with a cucumber on it's head that is orbitting Mars, an irrational belief, based on no evidence. Retarded.


If someone is "offended" because i challenged their logic then i say, let them be offended, but why enter a debate if you expect not to be offended or challenged.

Nice use of smileys may i add.


edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


I like smilies, i wont deny it


I am not disagreeing (or agreeing) with what you are saying, i am just saying its not a humble stance, regardless of how you came to the conclusions! For me, that makes it no less valid. It is what it is.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


You ARE disagreeing. "Agnosticism is NOT humble" is your stance, that evidence doesn't really justify a belief.

That you can just say magical spagetti monsters exist and that's logical enough to form a belief.

So i ask; what is your position? Is it Pantheism? Theism? or is it Deism?

You cannot be "Agnostic" with a belief in God; here's why:-


Agnosticism (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims.


We're all Agnostic and thus Atheistic, we lack the belief in any "GOD" theory until we have critical evidence. Some who do believe in God call it "faith". Theists are Atheists in regards to all other religions but their own.

So finally, to understand your position; Is it Pantheism? Theism? or is it Deism? You have already ruled out Atheism and Agnosticism with your logic path to the belief in "God".
edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Why must beliefs fit within a pre-defined box?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


What do you mean by pre-defined? A belief is a belief. I'm not telling people what to believe in. I'm just asking for some good reason as to why they believe something.

It's what science is founded on, "show me why you believe in your theory"," demonstrate it", "show me the maths".

What makes religious theory different from scientific theory? Science is open for debate, questions and testing yet Religion or a belief/theory in God is free from challenge and deserves respect. Why?

This sums up my position. I've said it in another thread:-

We are all Agnostic (without knowledge) as to the source of reality or the creation of the universe. Because of this we are all Atheists.

Religion is idiotic and irrational. Even they, are unwilling to see the irony of the fact that they are all Atheists towards every religion but their own.

I'm very sorry if i cause "offense" but do respond to some of the arguments i have in regards to the flaws of the "GOD" hypothesis.
edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


ahh, i thought i saw something that wasnt there... oh well. i view all beliefs as akin to thinking about moving ones arm. fun, but it doesnt get anyone anywhere.

you do not have the power to offend me, so no worries!

lets just agree to disagree.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


No problem.


.
edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: 2nd line.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
To continue the discourse of this thread, i want to re-iterate my post and postulate the question:-

As we were agnostic (without knowledge) as to gallaxies and solar systems 500 years ago, and science has now gained knowledge of them, who do you trust more to reveal the cause, if any, of the universe?

1) Religion
2) Science

And maybe science cannot answer these questions, but why would you trust religion to? What tools do they have to form a belief? Faith? Because a book has been written? Because a Preist says so?


edit on 22/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
To continue the discourse of this thread, i want to re-iterate my post and postulate the question:-

As we were agnostic (without knowledge) as to gallaxies and solar systems 500 years ago,


I don't think we were agnostic about our own solar system. We observed the sun rising and setting and thought that it rotates around the earth. It was empirical knowledge at the time.


and science has now gained knowledge of them,


Knowledge is never stagnant, nor absolut. I don't think that knowledge and truth are one and the same. 500 years from now they will laugh about our current knowledge and understanding of physics.


who do you trust more to reveal the cause, if any, of the universe?

1) Religion
2) Science


I think your question is leading: the two can work together. It's like the double nature of light as a photon and a wave. It's the same thing just looked at from a different viewpoint, using different "instruments". Just because currently we don't have a TOE photons, or waves are bogus?



And maybe science cannot answer these questions, but why would you trust religion to? What tools do they have to form a belief? Faith? Because a book has been written? Because a Preist says so?


Usually Hermes Trismegistus is quoted wrong. Please note the last sentence after the comma. That's why I think ultimately belief, faith and feeling can go where no science ever will.



"That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing" Hermes Trismegistus



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



I don't think we were agnostic about our own solar system. We observed the sun rising and setting and thought that it rotates around the earth. It was empirical knowledge at the time.


Of course we were agnostic - it wasn't until Coppernicus and Galleleo that we truly understood the construct of our solar system and that the Earth orbits the Sun. Earlier than. 500 years ago, we were blind, we thought it was the other way around.

They didn't know of Gallaxies until much later on.


Knowledge is never stagnant, nor absolut. I don't think that knowledge and truth are one and the same. 500 years from now they will laugh about our current knowledge and understanding of physics.


Science is ever expanding, learning, correcting mistakes. But there's no escaping that our planet is an Oblate Spheroid and that we exist in a Gallaxy. We have photographic evidence of other gallaxies too. These are facts that we have gathered, objective facts. We won't later learn that the earth is actually a prism.


I think your question is leading: the two can work together. It's like the double nature of light as a photon and a wave. It's the same thing just looked at from a different viewpoint, using different "instruments". Just because currently we don't have a TOE photons, or waves are bogus?


They are polar opposites, Religion claims it knows the truth before it has evidence. Science is skeptical, a relies on empirical evidence before professing any truth, and if it has been proved wrong, it is willing to accept and progress.


faith and feeling can go where no science ever will.


I agree, because faith and feelings are abstract, based on no evidence, on a feeling, a human emotion.

Scientology certainly has made claims and has gone where Science cannot go, and makes claims Science could never assert.


"That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing" Hermes Trismegistus


I don't believe you're quoting me here.

Peace
edit on 23/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join