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.

 

Common Arguments for "GOD" to Be Aware Of

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No problem, I understand your concern.

Thanks for participating. It's always a joy to read your thoughts and opinions.

The way i see it, this post is merely a thread to discuss reasons/arguments for believing or not believing in God, or any specific definitions of God.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik
 


As this is a thread regarding arguments for God, I welcome any opinion or argument regarding the reason to believe in "GOD" or any deity, or reason not to.

@megabyte.

I agree with a lot of what you have say although i have to remain skeptical in regards to your Annunaki position, yet willing to entertain the idea/possibility. However, this does't seem to answer the "GOD" question,because who or what created the Annunaki?

point taken

but just because I am fascinated with reading about the annunaki does not mean that I am 100% convinced that it is all true

I will read more because I enjoy reading about these things and the different interpretations

cheers



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by megabyte
 


I see, apologies for my misunderstanding, i think some of Annunaki theories are rather interesting but i am yet to be convinced, i have tired myself looking for logical path to this theory (cave paintings, broad language, cuniform tablets just don't cut the preverbial mustard) - I havn't given up yet and i'm willing to keep an open mind, and not to rule any possibility out.

Intelligent design can be ruled out - see Evolution etc.

This is explained by Richard Dawkins.(The Blind Watchmaker)

You may enjoy - www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by megabyte
 


I see, apologies for my misunderstanding, i think some of Annunaki theories are rather interesting but i am yet to be convinced, i have tired myself looking for logical path to this theory (cave paintings, broad language, cuniform tablets just don't cut the preverbial mustard) - I havn't given up yet and i'm willing to keep an open mind, and not to rule any possibility out.

Intelligent design can be ruled out - see Evolution etc.

This is explained by Richard Dawkins.(The Blind Watchmaker)

You may enjoy - www.youtube.com...



it seems then that you and I may be on a similar path - to read and ponder and question, In the meantime we enjoy what we read



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by megabyte
 


Indeed my friend, keep spreading those humble words of wisdom. Keep up the pondering and enjoy this wild ride we call life



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I am currently in favor of Spiritual Humanism. (I personally do not follow or need rituals. But I would steer people to this thinking if they did).

A religion based on the ability of human beings to solve the problems of society using logic and science.

Most people need a religion to help guide them through life's challenges and difficult moral decisions. Recognizing how the power of religious rituals, methods, and communication can impact human behavior, Spiritual Humanism fuses traditional religious behaviors onto the foundation of scientific humanist inquiry.

While it is impossible to remove age old traditions from human culture, we can redirect them by redefining their underlying significance and meanings. Spiritual Humanism is natural, not supernatural. By using a method of scientific inquiry we can define the inspirational, singular spark inherent in all living creatures.

www.spiritualhumanism.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


What you talk about is fantastic in every way, but is it really a religion? It seems to me it's more of a philosophy, a way of life.

I was having a discussion with another user about Taoism, pondering as to whether it is a "religion" or a "philosophy". I could not find an absolute definition of "Religion", however, it seemed with most description it involved the belief in metaphysical theories.

Take Bhuddism for instance, if it wasn't for the "Bhudda" bit, i would have no concerns with it's philosophy


I refuse to "submit" or believe in the metaphysical, unfalsifiable claims of deities(without evidence). Although, logically, i cannot rule out the possibility, our "GOD" must be very incompetent and capricious.

As long as this Spiritual Healing encourages free speech and it subject to improvement (i.e. it is not absolute like mono-theistic religion) this is a great thing to be advocating, a good thing for society.

I will definetly have a look at this site, Thanks for the link.
edit on 30/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Annee
 


What you talk about is fantastic in every way, but is it really a religion? It seems to me it's more of a philosophy, a way of life.


Is God a religion?

I'd believe in a God before I'd believe or follow any religion.

In my opinion - - - both Religion and Philosophy is man looking for answers of Why.

The only difference between the two - - is religion is about control - - philosophy is about open ended thinking.

You are not supposed to question or think in religion.

You are supposed to question and think in philosophy.

Spiritual Humanism is just Atheism (or Humanism the new Atheism) with a "religious comfort factor" added. If you are going from a control belief to a thinking belief - - - I guess some might need a transition belief.



edit on 30-12-2010 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Its interesting to me, why does everything need to be defined?

I think my problem with religions, or labelled lack there-of, it proceeds to put oneself into concepts of anothers understanding.

I think you hit the nail on the head though, annee, when speaking of:

"You are not supposed to question or think in religion.

You are supposed to question and think in philosophy."

What i find interesting, and important from my perspective, is to go beyond such things. I said it before but:

In the lesson i personally learned about moving my arm (i am a fan of this lesson, so im sure people will eventually get tired of it, or understand the premise), to move ones arm, one must use their mind. However, if one simply thinks about their arm moving, absolutely nothing happens. One must actually move their arm to move their arm, but in the end the mind is still firing the neurons. I use this to apply it to my own beliefs at the time and came to the conclusion that it, along with all things, are about a balance of sorts. One (philosophy) is simply thinking about their arm moving (it never will), and the other is waving it about wildly and is liable to get smacked in their own face (religion). I dont think that has meant anything to anyone yet, so perhaps it will to you
It is not necessarily speaking of ones heart lining up with their actions (although important), it speaks to the very subtle experiential difference between the two that is beyond words.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Annee
 


Its interesting to me, why does everything need to be defined?


It doesn't.

I once had a psychiatrist at a social function tell me I would never find a man because I couldn't be put in a "box". I was too dangerous by being undefinable. Cracked me up.


When I post - I try to bring it into the simplest form - with as few words as possible. Just soze you know.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


psshh, i know it doesnt silly


It was an open question, though worded as clearly as smog


It seems to be such a strong tendency in this subject (specifically) to try to fit everything into someones elses concept, i was wondering your thoughts on it.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 




I prefer the "I don't know" approach; it's humble and politely honest.


And that is the other half of being smart, friend. Being able to admit that there are so many things we do not know.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Is God a religion?


The word "GOD" on it's own is a concept, not a religion- Deists believe in a God but without subscribing to dogma or "commands" but most still tend to personify God. I suppose you could call

It seems obvious to me that dogma is written by man, not "GOD" (if God exists). (As you'll probably agree)

Pantheism is another form and attempt at rationalising reality into one single entity.


Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god.


As an agnostic atheist, i believe it is foolish to personify God before even defining God, or that the metaphysical existence of a "God" is even a necessary assumption to make. I'm more than happy and humble enough to admit "I don't know"

Can i ask why it is called "Spiritual" Healing? I know that that word has connotations in regards to "the essense of life" - our spirit in mind, our consciousness.


I guess some might need a transition belief.


What would this entail? Letting people think for themseleves or spoon feeding them beliefs? Surely they should sooner attend a Philosophy class.

you state:


both Religion and Philosophy is man looking for answers of Why


and then state:


You are not supposed to question or think in religion.

You are supposed to question and think in philosophy.


I agree but religion IS NOT a man looking for answers, it's a man buying into false hope, buying into someone's answers based on "FAITH"

THe whole point of religion is that you are told what to believe.

The point of philosophy is to question all of life's confusions, not accept someone else's point of view. To question what you may WANT to believe or question the reason you believe.

I think we agree in essense though, despite your belief in God; ethical and moral teaching should be discussed and improved by man for the happiness and progression of our species, if nothing else.

It should not be commanded by some un-changeable, unquestionable, supernatural dictator.

edit on 30/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

I agree but religion IS NOT a man looking for answers, it's a man buying into false hope, buying into someone's answers based on "FAITH"

THe whole point of religion is that you are told what to believe.


That would, of course, only apply to certain sects of certain religions. Could you please specify exactly what you are talking about to avoid miscommunication? Generalizations, in my opinion, do not lead to growth for anyone involved.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


All religions require the belief in pre-defined dogma to label yourself with that religion. Otherwise, you're an Atheist that is following the moral and ethical guides of ancient doctrine made by man. I can't put it any clearer than that.

If you still believe in a God, but believe that organized religion is made by man, and not God, then you are a Deist. In principle, a Deist believes in a supernatural deity but is wise enough to realise organized religion is the words of man, and not the God they believe in.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


What about zen buddhism? or even really buddhism in general.

There are thousands of different sects in christianity. many only follow the teachings of christ only in their actions, and nothing beyond that. Where do they fit in? Organized religion is a different thing than religion.

Also, why does everything need to fit in a pre-defined box?

err, wait friend. i actually didnt see whom i was speaking with. Lets just agree to disagree

edit on 30-12-2010 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Annee
 


psshh, i know it doesnt silly


It was an open question, though worded as clearly as smog


It seems to be such a strong tendency in this subject (specifically) to try to fit everything into someones elses concept, i was wondering your thoughts on it.


LOL


You mean you actually want me to think?

I'll try to add some insight a bit later - in a few days when I go back to CA.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I know, im a pain in the ass, haha

I suggest using canned air to clean out the cobwebs, seems to work well for me.
Just dont turn the can upside down, or you will learn the true meaning of "brain-freeze!"


I look forward to speaking with you more about such things!
edit on 30-12-2010 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bijouramov
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 




I prefer the "I don't know" approach; it's humble and politely honest.


And that is the other half of being smart, friend. Being able to admit that there are so many things we do not know.


It is not about "I don't know" - - I fully admit I don't know anything. I could be an Avatar in Sim City for all I know. But then who or what is playing the game.

I have belief. I believe everything is Energy.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


The metaphysical claims of Bhuddism are still unfalsifiable, however - i have no concerns with it's ethical or moral teaching.


Also, why does everything need to fit in a pre-defined box?


I think i've heard this old chesnut before. The answer; it doesn't. Science can't pre-define anything, it almost inevitably ends up changing it's mind.

Religion,however, IS pre-defined, it comes in a pre-defined box labelled "Christianity" or "Mormonism" and so on. You must accept the defined believes of "Bhuddism, Christianity, Islam" is order to be called a follower of that religion. It is pre-defined. You are not doing your own thinking. It's ancient man's thinking.

Let's remember that mono-theistic doctrine is exclusive and absolute and not subject to change if the followers believe it is the TRUE word of God.

I'm happy enough, again, to agree to disagree.

Peace anyway.
edit on 30/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join