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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


And Sinohptik (and others) - Debate, arguments, or even clarifications are more than welcome!




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


Thank you for your perspective


You also sincerely (seemingly) asked what my perspective was on something, that is absolutely to be commended.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The faith v evidence dilemna is a vicious circle alright! Why keep arguing it? We will never agree as I can't see how you can't see that without faith, there can be no evidence to have faith in.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


I'm sorry brother, I have to disagree; Peace is an ideology

Ideology - An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions.

Ideology does not cause idiocy in all cases. Fascist unreasonable Ideology like Nazism causes idiocy and prejudice.You're right about learning from our mistakes, but our efforts are best spent discussing how to prevent them in the first place.

Peace
edit on 17/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


But that's the point exactly - you can't really "know" anything - blind faith without evidence causes rigidity of thought that often leads to fanatical actions. And when large groups of people have blind faith that are opposed to other large groups' blind faiths, discrimination, hatred, and wars are the result.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Just wanted to say, thanks for all the responses and input.

I think this is a very important matter that separate's two completely separate view of reality as we know it.

Keep it going.

Thanks again.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


Because there is no need for the prejudice of superstitious beliefs when we have the critical conviction of evidence. It's as if you think without faith, the human race would be lost, would be inferior?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Awake_and_Aware, nice that you made this thread!

Why is it that atheist threads can only muster 1 flag, after 3 pages, when the subject matter is so important?

S&F from me, just to protest!

I was posting on that other thread, and it probably does make sense to get a bit more focused.

Why can't the religionist get it? Atheist/Agnostics remain OPEN to further evidence, while the religionist has closed themselves off from evidence.

SO, the OP question, is religious dogma mere "speculation"?

Without EVIDENCE, that's what it might be called in a court room!

Religionist, bear in mind that probably most atheist/agnostics were once upon a time, "religious", perhaps very much like you, or were likely raised as the majority were in their nations. Nonetheless, we have come to "believe" that dogma and faith are hollow, upon close inspection.

How close has the typical religionist inspected what they believe?

Many who might be tempted to post to a thread like this might say they HAVE spent time investigating what they believe, and have come to the honest conclusion that there is not only a god, but that their particular religion/belief system is the "best".

Personally, I don't have a problem with that, if it is really honest. C.S. Lewis was one who walked a road, and came back to Christian orthodoxy after having tried atheist ideas out. Yes, the timing of his return seemed to coincide with tragedy in his life, but I can grant that something genuine must have happened to him, to overflow with the passionate writing that he gave us.

The thing that I see most religionists doing is that they "skip" over very important issues. Namely, the age-old Problem of (superflous) Evil in the world (where the religionist still insists on a "good" god).

Does the religionist not understand that this issue has NEVER been "solved", by anyone? Religion is an attempt to explain away this obvious fly in the ointment, but they have never succeeded.

It has been thousands of years now, but the truth of this logic, yet simplicity, should humble anyone who posits a "good" deity, in the face of all we actually KNOW:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

Indeed, why call him God?

JR



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Thank you for your kind comments. I'm normally rather timid in regards to starting threads but i eventually "cracked", as it were. It's great to have you contributing in here anway.

I'm liking the epic "Problem of Evil" verse - I think that philosophical statement questions the very core of the mono-theistic assertion and belief system. That God is an intelligent being that created the universe, he intervenes in human affairs and that submitting will redeem you from hell fire. A proposterus non-sensical, untrustworthy exuse for a theory.

Like you, i think this type of claim, this suggestion, especially to a child should be deemed wicked and immoral.

I've said it before but when religion was created they barely new they existed in a solar system, let alone how we came to exist. To positvely claim you know "GOD"'s desires, or to even claim he has desires is to make a wild guess about the nature of reality.

I think the hubble telescope really gives us an understanding of our place in the universe, it's it's not at the centre, that's for sure. That the universe is full of chaos, yet beauty. And that out of the chaos comes ourselves. Although the universe is not "random" as it were, it does have order but that does not inherintly mean that it is intelligently "designed". Evolution, for example, has no forsight. The religious and dogmatic "God" of the Christians must have watched with indifference as 99.9% of all species on earth has died out throughout history.

Just because we don't have a totalitarian absolutist dictator to declare objective moral codes on us doesn't not mean we cannot be moral human beings. We are compassionate and cooperative creatures innately, if we were more destruction than co-operation we would have become exinct.

I look forward to other atheist's viewpoints on the conflict between Deism and Atheism, but mostly importantly the natural prejudice and ignorance that Theism inflicts on it's followers.

Please where i have been over-zelous or unreasonable please do call me on it, where i have been ignorant or mistunderstood someone, speak out!

Thanks,

Peace
edit on 17/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by peacevic
 


I am not atheist, agnostic, or religious, and in every sense i am all of the above.

A while back i decided that all these aforementioned people were all wrong and that such a thing is a personal discovery that is beyond the filter of our minds and the simple world that we can "see." I found that i could not properly conceptualize God due to limited human perspective. I also found that through the constant conscious act of being, i found what i DO conceptualize as God, or the universe, or a symbol, or dumplings (mmmm), or whatever label you want to actually throw on it (they are irrelevant). Which is why i asked about personal exploration and searching because it was only through... a long time.. of focused exploration of "life" that i found that what i was looking for all along was right there. As a self-proclaimed atheist, such an experience was rather shocking for me, but revolutionary in my life. I set out to prove that which is perceived to be "god" was in fact nothing more than human consciousness manifesting on some level (at best) or just outright delusions (at worst). The idea was to show how one finds "enlightenment" without "god" and to live as an example of that. I was wrong.

And in the end, they are all just words and concepts in my mind that will likely not transfer over to yours in the vein they are transmitted. Which is why everyone has to find it for themselves. Some never will, even though "it" was right there all along, because that is their choice to live out
It is my opinion that there is more to us than our physical brains, and also that there is more to "this" than our physical brains can comprehend. I dont think any of us actually have anything but a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a clue what we are talking about, if even that. Because of this, i find debates and such rather humorous
Though they sure are fun! I just try not to pretend i actually know what im talking about, thus the disclaimer in sig! But im annoyingly curious about others perspectives and how much they have searched them out, as you witness before your very eyes



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I am sincerely interested in your perspective. I am interested to know how you (or the other religionists) would answer some of your questions - in particular - with respect to your religious beliefs, what experience or searching made you believe what you believe? Could you entertain the possibility that the God you believe in may not exist - either doesn't exist at all or has completely different attributes? If not, why not?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I don't think we've even begun to understand all there is to understand, so in that context, I agree with you that there is more to us than our physical brains - or at least the part of that which we currently understand. Could you expand on what you mean by :



The idea was to show how one finds "enlightenment" without "god" and to live as an example of that. I was wrong.


What exactly were you wrong about? And how did you determine that?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I am sincerely interested in your perspective. I am interested to know how you (or the other religionists) would answer some of your questions - in particular - with respect to your religious beliefs, what experience or searching made you believe what you believe? Could you entertain the possibility that the God you believe in may not exist - either doesn't exist at all or has completely different attributes? If not, why not?


Awesome!

Not only do i entertain the possibility of my conceptualized God not existing, im quite sure of it. I found dumplings in All That Is. It is entirely possible All That Is does not exist, but then i suppose all points everywhere would be moot anyway
at the very least, All That Is certainly is not limited by my perspective exclusively. I found the Divine within my breath, my steps, my thoughts, and All That Is around and within me. Im quite certain my conceptualization of that is flawed and biased, especially once i try to verbalize it. though its just one unique perspective amongst many other snowflakes, and in that, is valid.

What are your personal thoughts on "god?" what about "being?"



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by sinohptik


The idea was to show how one finds "enlightenment" without "god" and to live as an example of that. I was wrong.


What exactly were you wrong about? And how did you determine that?


The idea was that Truth was beyond anyones individual, or even communal, concepts, whatever they labelled them as (religious/atheist/etc). This Truth existed seperate of the humanistic tendency to try to explain things by "god," "gods." "the holy," "science," etc. I was right in that its beyond that, but i found what they were talking about (or trying to talk about) all along

edit on 17-12-2010 by sinohptik because: gremlins!



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 



The idea was to show how one finds "enlightenment" without "god" and to live as an example of that. I was wrong.


Enlightenment and transcendence has already begun with the realisation of our place is the cosmos, and our search for knowledge and evidence. I feel freedom of speech is a main part of englightenment as well as scientific knowledge. For this reason we have developed democracy which has done more for the rights of women, different races and homosexuals in the West in a few years than theocracy derived from a belief in a deity has ever done.

Believing in a deity is like living in a totalitarian edict like North Korea. Except with religion, ALLEGEDLY the suffering and pain continues after death, at least it stops when you die in North Korea. We don't need to live by the control of "big brother", we don't need to sing his praise, would he expect us to without any knowledge of any intelligent power?

We don't have all the information to say what this reality is, whether it was created, whether that force or entity even has desires of it's creation. We don't need to invoke God to embrace the universe. That's enlightening enough for me.
edit on 17/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by RSF77
 


How combative... remember, that post was originally in another thread, and was actually lighthearted
ahh, cant help just a little commentary as you didnt answer some questions!
With the "over thinking" comments and "i exist, therefore i am" you tarry quite close to the line with which many atheists stand on; not forcing beliefs on others, no?

Thank you for your perspective, friend


No problem, sorry that I was being combative and I couldn't answer all of your questions, I had a reason for it but I can't remember what it was now, it could have been that I just didn't have an answer. I have to apologize as well I might have been less than thorough because I was pressed for time.

I said you were over thinking some of the questions because they were basically philosophical riddles, not that I have a problem with that. I just thought I was talking to someone who didn't have the ability to understand what they were asking, now that I read more of your posts I see I was wrong. I should probably go back and retake your questionnaire when I have enough time to sit and think about it as I don't feel I did you any good justice by answering it in the way that I did, assuming you really care about it that much.

It all boils down to the fact that I cannot rule out the possibility of something that I can never prove or disprove, I can only go by the people that believe in the idea and the history of the idea itself, this would give a religious person the edge against me in any debate, but I can't rule it out while still being honest with myself because it's not something I can know, the burden of an atheist. This might make me less of an atheist or more of an agnostic, but those are just words anyways. Lets just say I utilize common sense to highly doubt it.
edit on 18-12-2010 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Anybody concerned about theism or anti-theism has already subscribed to a dangerous paradigm. Those terms are irrelevant. They only keep your mind in chains. Free yourself.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


I thought that everyone is automatically added to the mailing list when born.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Atheism isn't a belief, its a lack of belief, it requires no basis.


Nope. Unless you can prove the non-existence of GOD your statement is false. The basis of atheism is the belief system that there is no supernatural deity. Do I need to elaborate more?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


LOL!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join