Religious Dogma is Speculation. Discuss

Originally posted by The GUT

You refer to Carl Jung like his work is accepted as fact by academia, which it's not. That seems like a faith-based belief to me.

Not faith based, but empiricism based. Besides, many ideas that Jung discovered are still in use on psychology. Of course, like with most theorists, there are many who disagrees with him. I do not "believe" in Jung words or theories. I just have found them resonating according with my own experiences of psyche and unconscious.

And yes, he researched alot about "occult". But because you are not familiar with his works, you have no idea why he did that. I'll explain in brief: The "occult" is the ad-hoc infantile psychology of unconscious contents; the unconsciousness is from where the "religious" and "spiritual" experiences emerge. No one cannot dismiss the fact that people are actually experiencing these numinous phenomenas. Jung made a decent attempt to explain them scientifically (after all, he had analyzed more than ten thousand individuals) and found the "archetypes" that are similar to all human beings, regardless of race, education and gender. These archetypes are in fact behind the religious experiences and these proceses were expressed in gnostism and alchemy in very vague terms. Also these "occult" sciences described the individualization process, yet they did it again in very "occult" manner, but did nonetheless, so of course he had to explore and research those as well.

About Jung's "knowledge" on god:

Yes, he admits the existence of god. But to understand what Jung means by word "god", you should know more about his works. He doesn't think "god" as a omniscient and omnipotent personality/entity, but rather the archetypical thoughtform of human race that emerges from individual unconsciousness, which is part of collective consciousness. (At least what I have gathered from his works).

However, since his works are so massive in quantity, I must refrain from explaining them further for it would be an impossible task - Instead I sincerely recommend that you read his work by yourself.

-v

reply to post by peacevic


The devil may well be in the detail but the beast can only exist in the collective.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Not every believer was raised in a tradition of faith. Not every believer found faith without the struggle of applying the critical faculties to the idea of a metaphysical reality that transcends chaos.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Faith and Ignorance

This is faith. And it's the exact type of unfalsifiable nonsense as Tarot Card Reading, Astrology, Psychics.

These charlatons hide behind the unfalsifiable nature of their claims and expect us to believe them on the basis of faith. This is what is ruining our intelligence and civilisation. They are actively teaching ignorance. And many are being fooled beacuse of this, and have become rather arrogant.

Again, why does this ignorance demand our respect? Should you be considered a sinner just because you challenge this ignorance?

Whilst I do agree with some of what you are saying I would just like to point out that you claim that Tarot reading, Astrology and Psychics are nonsense. This is most likely because of the commercialisation over the last 100 years of these practices however in their original versions they are actually not that nonsensical as they may seem.

Tarot reading, or rune-casting, was originally done, not as a way to divine the future, but as a way to make a person reflect upon a problem and/or situation and force them to step outside the box so to speak. If you look at the way that runes/tarot are constructed you will notice that they each have things like finance, death, happiness etc. Each of these would prompt the person to think about that topic because when we are too close or are too invested in a situation we often do not think through every possible angle.

Astrology, once again based on the current modern version of astrology is crap yes, it is based upon a newspaper astrological prediction drawn up for a princess (sorry cant remember which one) around 1-200 years ago. However the concept of astrology is not as nonsensical as it seems, in the ancient context. It may sound ridiculous that the planets being in a certain position at a certain time when a person is born could possibly have any effect on their personality, however this is something that has never been studied so there is no proof either way. We do however have proof that astronomical bodies, such as the moon, do have adverse affects, on human behavior and even cattle. There is a lot more to this point but I will end it there.

Psychics, is just one of those things that I don't think will ever be able to be studied properly as their are just too many charlatans and attention seekers. Which is quite sad as their are plenty of documented cases of psychics who have accurately predicted, or found things. But when someone tries to study these things scientifically the results are inconclusive due to the idiots. I do however think that to class psychic's as nonsense simply because you can, given the documents out there that show there have been real 100% accurate psychics out there is a little harsh. and by psychic i don't mean the wacko's sitting around a crystal ball saying they see a tall-dark handsome man in your future.

reply to post by Kulzarn


All i ask is if they are so certain of their "powers" then they should be willling to be tested under reasonable conditions in a controlled environment. I don't know a single fraudster who's been willing or able to demonstrate these alledged "powers".

For example, mediums will use the technique of cold reading.

I can't believe try to defend should fraud such charalatanism, whether it's between the modernised versions of these "professions" or ancient versions it still unscientific and frankly, untrue. And people get away with doing this for a living.

Can you honestly tell me, that any of these practices can be demonstrated without reasonable doubt? Why would these people refuse to be tested? "The powers don't work when they're forced, is probably what they say"

In religion, similar avoidance would be seen as "Well God doesn't work in that way" - And i'd ask "How do you know? This is fraud, this is avoidance, this is charlatanism. And it's getting very tiring that people are so gullible as to believe there is any truth to it.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Not at all, i'm trying to emancipate my brothers from an absolute dictatorship; mono-theistic religion.

God is the Kim Jong-Ill of mono-theistic religion. An absolute dictator, because it's written differently by man, it causes prejudice and patriotism to that God, people hate other believers or non-believers.

Anti-Theism isn't a schism, I don't tell people how to live their life, call them a sinner, act like i'm better than my fellow human beings. I'm just fighting the clear idiocy and infectious nature of the religion, and it's un-true metaphysical claims.

I fight in the name of freedom, not zeolousy.

Thanks for your kind comments though, learn what Anti-Theism is about, it's not a cult, it's not a schism.

I've said why i'm an Anti-Theist and it's not cause i'm arrogant, and it's not as farcical and non-sensical as reasons for being a Racist, Sexist, Homophobe.

My issues with religion are much deep routed than some idiotic myoptic fahcist babbel without reason; like racism for example.

reply to post by AllIsOne

Unless you can prove the non-existence of GOD your statement is false.

Spoken like someone entirely ignorant of the atheist position. Atheism deals with belief, not knowledge, most atheists do not claim there is no God, they simply lack a belief in one. You do not need proof that something does not exist to lack belief. For instance I have no evidence that Bigfoot DOES NOT exist and yet I wouldn't say I have a belief in him. DO YOU have any proof that fairies do not exist? It is those making a claim that hold the burden of proof and the only brand of atheism I know of that makes any claims are gnostic-atheists (also known as positive atheists). I've spoken to dozens of atheists and never met a gnostic-atheist, I've never met a single person arrogant enough to claim there is definitely no God but I've met dozens arrogant enough to claim there definitely IS a God.

I'm an agnostic-atheist. I'm atheistic because I lack belief in God and agnostic because I do not claim to know there is no God.

Please understand the position of people you disagree with before responding, otherwise you just look like you're building a straw-man.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I would have taken that one, but judging by what he posted I decided he probably didn't have anything to say that would make any sense.

My question: Should these bizarre religions that opress and cause prejuduce (based on no evidence) be respected?

Oppression and prejudice should not be respected. The humans propogating oppression and prejudice should be treated with the same.

Should a belief without evidence be respected? Or should it be challenged?

Personal beliefs should be respected. However, if these beliefs are forced upon others (e.g. teaching YEC in science lessons), they should be challenged. If these beliefs are used to justify oppression and prejudice, they should be questioned, and where they are used as such, they should be received with the same.

Indoctrination not only kills knowledge, it destroys faith.

Professional fence-sitting [size=-3]copyright SaturnFX is the way forward.

reply to post by TheWill


Thanks for your words, i appreciate them.

Although, i disagree with SaturnFX's comments on "professional" fencesitting.

When it comes to mono-theistic religion, and it's narrow-minded dogma - there is no indecision for me.

double sorry

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Encore friend, it's a priveledge to see such humble reasoning braught to the debate. Thanks for contributing.

I'm frankly quite sick of the social stigma that Atheism or Non-Belief carries. It's as if WE'RE the arrogant side of the coin, the "narrow-minded" contrarians.

Again, it's like you said, it's not that we are unwilling to admit the possibility of a "GOD", we just assert that anyone proclaiming revealed wisdom regarding this "GOD" should quite frankly be considered rediculous. I mean, it's there's not too many debates between Deists and Atheists, and if there were they wouldn't last very long. I would go on further to say Deists, for the most part, are Anti-Theist.

What are your thoughts on this?

Nice to have you here.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Agreed. Many Deists seem to be very much against organized religion, just look at the Founding Fathers. They often espoused their distaste for the Christian idea of God and Thomas Jefferson even took a literary chisel to the gospels to produce his own "bible". I was a deist for a time as well as a pantheist and for the most part both beliefs are compatible with anti-theism.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Again, i agree, it brings great promise that the founding fathers decided to separate church from state, they decided beliefs best be kept out of human affairs. I think that because theocracy cannot encroach on state law society can work together for humanity rather than to appease some deity.

And that's my exact problem i think with BOTH Deism and Theism - They seem to have a habit of being a cheerleader to the God. And personifying "him". Believing everyone should praise "him"? And why?

The Euthyphro dillemma is proposed in Plato's famous diaglogue where Socrates asks:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods"

Wikipedia - Euthyphro dilemma

This essentially boils down to:-

""Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Again, i ask how can they know this? or answer this question honestly?

It seems to me if there IS a "God" (or a "caring" "omnipotent" "intervening" God) that he is pretty indifferent to the affairs of humans and how the universe manifests itself.


See Problem of Evil

I know there is order, and i really don't want to say the universe is random, but the opposite to random isn't intelligently "designed".

I've said before, the andromeda gallaxy is set on a collision course with our own, when it collides it will cause destruction and mayhem. And we ask the theist - "What kind of [caring] "Designer" is this"?

Evolution shows that nature has no forsight, there doens't appear to be a designer working, or at least a designer that can "go back to the drawing board"

I have a problem with Theist's suggesting that God started cosmic evolutio; Started reality if you will, because who would create the God that created the reality, and who would create that creator and so on.

it's an infinite regression.

And to be quite honest, if i was to make up a theory without conclusive evidence, i'd sooner worship the concept of infinity itself, or something as timid as the The Force in Star Wars. Again, i can't be assure, but i believe we are alwaya going to have a problem in regards to defining the word "GOD"

And may i add, just because i believe the universe to be chaotic and indifferent doesn't mean i can't contemplate it's beuty and amazing order; the order from chaos.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I'm frankly quite sick of the social stigma that Atheism or Non-Belief carries. It's as if WE'RE the arrogant side of the coin, the "narrow-minded" contrarians.

You have no idea how much I agree with you there. Actually, to give you some idea:
The year before last, a couple of Jehovah's witnesses arrived on the doorstep, and asked me if I was ready to accept Jesus into my life. I asked them to give me, as an agnostic, a good reason to. And for 45 minutes, I listened patiently as they said that the end of the world was coming, and it was definitely about now because the bible said that men would love men, there would be famine, and there would be earthquakes. I explained to them that this has always been happening. They showed me Mary's husband's family tree and talked about Jesus, which I pointed out was irrelevant because Jesus was supposedly not Joseph's son.

Up to this point, despite having to take several deliveries from postmen etc. over the unmoving religious time-thieves, leaving to answer a lengthy phone call (and when I came back they were still on the doorstep) and being late to meet a friend, I was being quite civil. With my limited understanding of other religions, I was not making the point that they were spouting intolerant (censored), but rather trying to gently explain to them that their intolerant (censored) was no better than - or indeed different to - anyone else's.

Then, all buddyishly, he says to me "I'll tell you how low this societies getting, the other day someone tried to tell me that we were related to apes!"

I explained, without stating that it must be fact, why that was a perfectly rational view-point, and one of them, called me narrow minded.

I exploded. For fifteen minutes, i shouted at them.

Then they left.

(The same ones finally returned a couple of months ago and my sister got the Jehovah's witness experience. She only went about 20 minutes, I understand, before they said "your brother's the evolutionist, but you accept creation, don't you?" and she explained that evolution is pretty much undeniable, got called narrow minded and had a rant at them, too.

I was so proud. )


I have yet to see an atheist going door to door, asking people about their beliefs and calling them narrow-minded for not accepting that we are apes.

reply to post by TheWill

And for 45 minutes, I listened patiently as they said that the end of the world was coming.

I actually laughed out loud when i read that sentence

You handled that brilliantly, and reasonably - You should start new thread with that story as a preface!

I can't believe the stupidity of some of these pious idiots, and what makes it even more idiotic is that they come around and disturb you at your door with asking us to preach to their "Master" because "he" is bringing on the apocolypse.

It seems that education or rather knowledge is strongly correlated with the lack of religion or peity. Although, in educated parts of America there are still evangelical Christians spouting similar **censored** to what the guys in your story were spouting. Some people seem to be tuned to see through the **censored**

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Kulzarn

 

All i ask is if they are so certain of their "powers" then they should be willling to be tested under reasonable conditions in a controlled environment. I don't know a single fraudster who's been willing or able to demonstrate these alledged "powers".

There are plenty who practice these things genuinely who are willing to be tested, and some have been tested, as I said in the previous post however the scientific findings of such studies often arrive at inconclusive because to many people who are truly fraudsters try to participate in the study. And the studies of these things themselves are very few and far between because no credible scientist wishes to place their career on the line by investigating something classified as a fringe science that could discredit them in the future.

I can't believe try to defend should fraud such charalatanism, whether it's between the modernised versions of these "professions" or ancient versions it still unscientific and frankly, untrue. And people get away with doing this for a living.

I agree totally that there are too many people who are frauds that do this for a living and get away with it. However to make the claim that such practices are unscientific is a little insubstantial as there has been no definitive scientific study into any of these practices that has either proven nor dis-proven the "truthfulness" of it.

Can you honestly tell me, that any of these practices can be demonstrated without reasonable doubt? Why would these people refuse to be tested? "The powers don't work when they're forced, is probably what they say"

No I can not tell you that, any more than you can tell me without reasonable doubt that it can not. Hence why these subjects are still open for debate as it has not been proven either way. And "these people" do not often refuse to be tested, many have openly asked to be tested.

In religion, similar avoidance would be seen as "Well God doesn't work in that way" - And i'd ask "How do you know? This is fraud, this is avoidance, this is charlatanism. And it's getting very tiring that people are so gullible as to believe there is any truth to it.

edit on 18/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

That is Christianity, not all religions. You need to remember that Christianity is almost entirely a "faith-based" religion. However most other religions around the world do not make such claims in fact they did not even care if a person followed that religion/god/s or not. I do agree with you that Christianity is full of nothing but charlatans as this has been proven time and again. However to presume that all religions/gods and whatever are false or fraudsters is widely unfair.

reply to post by Kulzarn


I undestand your point while i still disagree with you regarding Tarot Card Readers, Astrologists etc. They hide behind the nature of their unfalsfiable hypothesis . None of these "arts" or "professions" have ever been conclusively demonstrated under controlled conditions.

For example, Can you honestly name any example in the history of the world of a single
Psychic who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they are able to read minds?

I don't think so, for now it remains an example of linguistic conjuring, much like the vocal version of magic. I.e. you are being fooled, tricked.

Please if you do find an example of any these "arts" scientifically being proven true. I will apologise sincerely for my remarks, and also cut off my leg for you.

That is Christianity, not all religions. You need to remember that Christianity is almost entirely a "faith-based" religion. However most other religions around the world do not make such claims in fact they did not even care if a person followed that religion/god/s or not. I do agree with you that Christianity is full of nothing but charlatans as this has been proven time and again. However to presume that all religions/gods and whatever are false or fraudsters is widely unfai

Here, i understand your point too, i think the most dangerous religions are the mono-theistic relgions, the apocolyptic prejudice abrahamic religions, i believe they are a direct threat the stability and survival of civlisation, especially with the era of weaponisation and nuclear power.

Of course there are more timid and pleasant religions such as Bhuddism,Hinduism, although they don't pose much of a threat i still feel it insults a human's intelligence; to say that a human cannot be moral without a God, without a absolute dictatorship like they have in North Korea.

The metaphysical claims of all religion are false, you cannot prove the existence of a creator and it's desires without first understanding that the Earth is flat. How ignorant, to know the source of the universe before realising your own planet was infact orbitting the Sun rather than the Sun "revolving" around it.

reply to post by TheWill


LOL - I too have had many of these conversations. Some with people I know, others with people knocking at my door. Too many of these have ended with "it's really too bad you're going to hell because you seem like a nice person". It never ceases to amaze me that people who don't know me, who came to my house to start a conversation with me, who claim to be loving and non-judgmental and to have a god that's all-forgiving can make such a statement!

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

Unless you can prove the non-existence of GOD your statement is false.

Spoken like someone entirely ignorant of the atheist position. Atheism deals with belief, not knowledge, most atheists do not claim there is no God, they simply lack a belief in one. You do not need proof that something does not exist to lack belief. For instance I have no evidence that Bigfoot DOES NOT exist and yet I wouldn't say I have a belief in him. DO YOU have any proof that fairies do not exist? It is those making a claim that hold the burden of proof and the only brand of atheism I know of that makes any claims are gnostic-atheists (also known as positive atheists). I've spoken to dozens of atheists and never met a gnostic-atheist, I've never met a single person arrogant enough to claim there is definitely no God but I've met dozens arrogant enough to claim there definitely IS a God.

I'm an agnostic-atheist. I'm atheistic because I lack belief in God and agnostic because I do not claim to know there is no God.

Please understand the position of people you disagree with before responding, otherwise you just look like you're building a straw-man.

Thank you for your reply.

I've never met a single person arrogant enough to claim there is definitely no God

And yet this is exactly what you call yourself ...???


Atheism originates from the Greek word atheos: without God. This is the true origin and meaning of the word. If everybody starts making up individual, distorted "personal" definitions we have no basis for dialog. The term agnostic-atheist is as non-sensical as me saying I'm a jewish-muslim.

Are you an Atheist (without God) or an Agnostic (not enough data to form an educated opinion) or just simply a non-believer (lack of belief in a deity)?