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.

 

Religion is a Conjuring Trick

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Honestly, having read what you say about religion, it sounds like you are speaking about specific religions.... i never heard buddhism claim to be the true religion.


All religion relies on the belief in a metaphysical deity. Each religion has different specifics whether it be moral commands or organised rituals.

While i have no qualms with Bhuddism i still think the metaphysical claims are at worst, untrue, and at best, unreasonable. I think belief in a supernatural deity is false and presumpious.

Most religions are vile enough to threaten (even chidren) with hellfire, The most immoral act ever, twisting a persons moral perception and giving prejudices based on metaphysical claims of "Heaven" and "Hell" - Follow religion>Go to Heaven logic. It's appauling, and that's what i'm talking about. I think Pascal's Wager is a despicable propsition.

Especially the main abrahamic doctrines, in Islam, they teach concepts of Matyrdom and Jihad, the core belief is that EVERYONE should be a Muslim.


I recommend you read up on Jean Lyotard as you still seem to think that theree is only one kind of dialogue... scientific.


Thank you, it's an interesting read.


You will find that the human has different types of dialogue with which the human writes their own narrative.

some of these require validation of legitimacy, and others do not. For example, a love poem does not require any proof of legitimacy, it merely has to resonate with the listener.


Of course, of course; beauty is but in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective (like piece of music or a love poem you speak of)


You say you have no problem with cultural anthropology... I suggest you do some serious research as opposed to simply throwing stones at that which you do not like.


I will be sure to do some further research......But come on, really isn't this just another word for Politics, or perhaps more appropriately "humanism" or "socialism"




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

my box is open, ready, accepting theories, possibilities, philosophical ponderings, debate, challenge, but not half-baked sloppy irrationality.


You must get rid of the box entirely, at least once.

That is the leap of faith.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 



You must get rid of the box entirely, at least once.


What's the meaning of this anology? losing the box entirely? losing my mind? I'm not sure what you mean.



Like i've said, my mind is OPEN! I'm just waiting for evidence.

Enjoy the video
a merry song you might like.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 



You must get rid of the box entirely, at least once.


What's the meaning of this anology? losing the box entirely? losing my mind? I'm not sure what you mean.



Like i've said, my mind is OPEN! I'm just waiting for evidence.

Enjoy the video
a merry song you might like.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by sinohptik
 



You must get rid of the box entirely, at least once.


What's the meaning of this anology? losing the box entirely? losing my mind? I'm not sure what you mean.


Search it out, it only takes a will to explore our own perspective!

And thank you for the video! That was pretty funny.
The guy kind of looks like a mad scientist.
edit on 30-12-2010 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 
awake_and_aware,

You may run with that explanation but this one will not. Sure I know more hucksters hauling off a high living hawking lies all the time.. It is high time people got out the Word and got some True Knowledge.

I like the following verse for just a little starter. -

Lu 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

What has the Son revealed to you? We can know, yes we can know and most are surprised when they do. It requires going to Him in full surrender and obedience. To know Him is to Love Him.

When we know Him we know the foundation of Truth, His Word. But not until we Know Him.

Truthiron.



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


Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Satan would love for you to be deceived.
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1

Paul, quoting David, writes, "There is none who seeks after God." Man is so deceived and imbued with his own system that no one knows what to look for! The Devil has so deceived the world (Revelation 12:9) that the true God is hidden. Satan is the god of this world because he is the source of its ways of life. All mankind worships and responds to him except for that small, elect group to whom God has revealed Himself.

Read more: www.bibletools.org...



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

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



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



Honestly, having read what you say about religion, it sounds like you are speaking about specific religions.... i never heard buddhism claim to be the true religion.


All religion relies on the belief in a metaphysical deity.

Each religion has different specifics whether it be moral commands or organised rituals.

While i have no qualms with Bhuddism i still think the metaphysical claims are at worst, untrue, and at best, unreasonable. I think belief in a supernatural deity is false and presumpious.



What supernatural deity are you talking about? Buddhism does not see Buddha as a super natural deity.




Most religions are vile enough to threaten (even chidren) with hellfire,


Actually no, most do not... some do, yes, but most is the wrong qualifier.

And have you ever asked yourself what this hellfire represents in those that do? From whence did their religion/culture emerge? Under what types of circumstances? All of these questions and more will point to the why's and wherefores of any particular religion.

But please keep in mind that these Abrahamic religions are quite related to the Semitic tribes, and that other tribes have much different ideas about such questions as "What happens after death". Some don't even have the concept of sin... You will note that the more the identity of a tribe appears to be threatened, the more strict they become about their morality... so those which emerged without threats from outside their realm of religious ideas didn't have this concept of "YOU MUST FOLLOW THE RIGHT PATH OR PAY!"

Indeed the morality of the Celts centered more around being a skilled artisan, than mingling with people with other Gods. There was no sense of jealousy of the peoples beliefs in the Celtic pantheon as we find in the Hebrew one. In fact, the Gods could care less what man did... the morality in the Celtic world was something you did for your tribe, and not the demands of a god.

This is why I say it's key to learn about where religions come from, under what circumstances they were formed etc... though you can usually figure it out by looking at the neurosis and priorities of each religion... because each is very unique in it's own right... as a scientist I'm sure you can understand the complexity and nuance between each different religion.






The most immoral act ever, twisting a persons moral perception and giving prejudices based on metaphysical claims of "Heaven" and "Hell" - Follow religion>Go to Heaven logic. It's appauling, and that's what i'm talking about. I think Pascal's Wager is a despicable propsition.



What is appalling, is that you continue to paint all religions with the same brush that some backwoods preacher gave to you.

First you have to understand how religions emerged, what purpose the served culturally and then you would realize where this perverted view that you describe comes from. But you know what, even Jesus said the same thing. That's what his parable of the sower was all about... the mere fact that the notions he spoke of would land on all sorts of different ears and hearts, and that depending on those ears and hearts, it would be interpreted in much different ways, some leading to joy, and the actual experience of "The kingdom of heaven" (in this life, not after), and some would lead to nothing...

You seem to be seeking perfection in an imperfect world.




Especially the main abrahamic doctrines, in Islam, they teach concepts of Matyrdom and Jihad, the core belief is that EVERYONE should be a Muslim.



Yes indeed.. and why do they teach that? Ask yourself what unconscious process could be at the ground of why tribes tend to fight over religious identity... you will find the answer, but you have to want to see it, or else you will just go on blathering about these crazy people.





I recommend you read up on Jean Lyotard as you still seem to think that theree is only one kind of dialogue... scientific.


Thank you, it's an interesting read.


You will find that the human has different types of dialogue with which the human writes their own narrative.

some of these require validation of legitimacy, and others do not. For example, a love poem does not require any proof of legitimacy, it merely has to resonate with the listener.


Of course, of course; beauty is but in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective (like piece of music or a love poem you speak of)


You say you have no problem with cultural anthropology... I suggest you do some serious research as opposed to simply throwing stones at that which you do not like.


I will be sure to do some further research......But come on, really isn't this just another word for Politics, or perhaps more appropriately "humanism" or "socialism"


Nope... not at all... what you are missing here is one key point... "Meaning". Humans have a psychological need for it. Science can say nothing of Meaning, as it is a very subjective and slippery vapor, unique to each person in their own experiences.

Meaning, is at the root of all religious beliefs. Now, I will admit that there are those who find themselves in positions of power and thus *use* the religious beliefs of others against the adherents, or to their own gain, however the reason why science fails to salve the heart of mankind is because science can not provide meaning. Sure to some, science is a deep and mysterious journey of uncovering, and that journey can sure provide meaning, but only to those who have the inclination to this... others find meaning in devotion, or serving, or cleaning, or farming, or what have you.

Though religion, once an emergent phenomenon composed of all of the hopes and fears of a people and their experience was once used for collective identification, it is now something much different.

Religion has grown to represent many things now and so many other items in our life have grown to supplant religion in our lives... indeed politics and nationalism has grown to replace the sense of cultural identity that religion once brought with it.

Religion once the source of divine guidance, has now become a cornerstone of authority in the minds of many people. You see one of the drives created by our finite existence is the human desire to be right... this brings with it a false feeling of security... so some gravitate toward moral rectitude and fall into religion, while others go toward science in this attempt to be right.

But as long as mankind seeks to be right as the highest priority, as opposed to a meaningful existence, then the thirst will never be quenched. You might as well chase the dragon.

In the end... the realm of "What is it and how does it work" is a much simpler world than the realm of "What does it mean to me?" And the two realms can not be translated one into the other, as the former is purely objective, and the latter is purely subjective.

And in the end, as ironic as it sounds, the realm of "What does it mean to me?" plays a much larger part in the life of a human than "What is it and how does it work".

We are no more than hairless monkeys.. and we are arrogant to attempt to find self-righteousness in either science or religion, as these are both simply the products of monkeys... useful to different ends, but none much more important than what our next meal is or our status in the tribe.



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

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

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



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Bhudda is a metaphysical deity - hence Bhuddism.

Some religions incite less prejudicial philosophy than others, it still doesn't negate the irrationality of the metaphysical claims, whether it be "Afterlife", "Reincarnation" or even threats of Eternal Damnation.

Anyone can accept or reject moral or ethical philosophy in any doctrine based on it's rationality, reason or it's benefits in regards to human solidarity. Just because "GOD" is preached to have said these things, does not make it right.


edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Well I'll let you go on with your deluded interpretations of religion.

As for me... I'm a very happy man, and I don't need rectitude or logic to bring that happiness to me... All I need is my own pen with which I write my own story...

:-)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Some religions incite less prejudicial philosophy than others, it still doesn't negate the irrationality of the metaphysical claims, whether it be "Afterlife", "Reincarnation" or even threats of Eternal Damnation.

Anyone can accept or reject moral or ethical philosophy in any doctrine based on it's rationality, reason or it's benefits in regards to human solidarity. Just because "GOD" is preached to have said these things, does not make it right.


My friend,

I see where your confusion is in relation to spirituality. You are simply rejecting imaginations of others for your own. There is nothing wrong with this. The human mind is a very powerful thing. With it we can create any kind of "metaphysical" experience we choose to. It is the harnessing of this power which creates "Guru's". Lets say I am a guru and you have come to me for enlightenment.

You: Guru, I wish to have enlightenment
Guru: Very well, first cleanse your mind of all thought in meditation.
Picture a golden door.
Open the door.
Behind the door, you will see a great white light.
Go into the light and find peace.

You: Guru, I tried but I do not see a white light, a door, all I see is darkness.
Guru: Keep trying.

All these techniques do is quite the processes of the mind down so that a sensation of peace can overcome you. It is relaxation and it is addictive because it is comfortable.

With your mind and imagination, you can control all aspects of your body. It takes time and practice but it is possible.

Religion is a different trick altogether. It is the use of superstition and science to control a population. It starts out being a beneficial force in a society and evolves to a control mechanism.

All it takes is to observe a phenomenon, find out what causes it, learn to cause it or predict it, wow your spectators, say it is God, and Poof, the masses are at your control.

This does not mean there is no God. There is a God because there is existence. God is the creative force of this existence. As he created everything, only he can decide what is good or bad. Since everything exists, it must be good or God would have not created it.

It us humans that judge what is good and bad when they should not. Those judgements cause us to turn on each other and have the world we live in now. Eventually, the judges will kill us off if we can not peacefully take them down and get them to reason.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


No problem
I'm not here to argue against individuality, do what you want, i'm not fighting against freedom of expression.

I'm here because i have concerns regarding the irrational (metaphysical) claims of religion and also concerns regarding SOME of the philosophy and immoral preachings of SOME of the religions, as do many other people. I am here to discuss and debate. Religion is not free from criticism.

May i say i final few words; and again, you may not agree, fair enough. I'm just here to share my thoughts.

-Religion is pre-defined, you have to subscribe, it's someone elses thoughts of "GOD" or someone else's interpretation of "GOD", it is written by man who has been known to teach faulty moral philosophy. In other words, it's not your own thoughts, it's the thoughts of other men.

-Religion is geo-graphical based, just ask yourself why? Also, every person who subscribes to a religion (i.e. labels themself with a religion) is an Atheist to every other religion but to the one they subscribed to. I find that ironic. Maybe you won't.

Thanks for your input.

and Peace.

A&A
edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I have no concerns with Taoism (maybe a religion, maybe a philosophy, who knows) and Bhuddism a like, i have no concerns with MOST of it's moral teaching as it specifically condemns violence, but i do have philosophical alarm bells going off in regards to the metaphysical claims, whether it's just metaphysical realities (reincarnation, afterlife) or metaphysical deities, i believe that it is an argument from ignorance.

You can't ever prove it true, but you can't negate it either. It's unfalsifiable.

Me: There is a teapot in a crater on the moon

You: Surely that's not true.

Me: Prove me wrong

You: Well, i can't.

Me: So it's true.

It is a "Unfalsifiable hypothesis"

Arguments from ignorance (mediums, fortune tellers, and revealed wisdom that is displayed in religion) generally have detremental consequences to human affairs. It's this act of "Cold reading"

Again, i have no concerns with regards to tame religions like Bhuddism, Taoism and perhaps even Hiduism, they are almost a "way of life, a philosophy" but i still think the belief systems and metaphysical claims are irrational.

Not all religions encourage martyrdom and jihad, infact many religions actively condemn violence (which is a good thing) but it doesn't make them any less irrational in terms of the metaphysical beliefs.

Although, i do think religions metaphysical claims are irrational i do however grant that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" not in regards to religion but to unfalsifiable hypothesis.

We're not so different, you and i.

Peace Brother,

A&A
edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I have no concerns with Taoism (maybe a religion, maybe a philosophy, who knows) and Bhuddism a like, i have no concerns with MOST of it's moral teaching as it specifically condemns violence, but i do have philosophical alarm bells going off in regards to the metaphysical claims, whether it's just metaphysical realities (reincarnation, afterlife) or metaphysical deities, i believe that it is an argument from ignorance.

You can't ever prove it true, but you can't negate it either. It's unfalsifiable.

Me: There is a teapot in a crater on the moon

You: Surely that's not true.

Me: Prove me wrong

You: Well, i can't.

Me: So it's true.

It is a "Unfalsifiable hypothesis"

Arguments from ignorance (mediums, fortune tellers, and revealed wisdom that is displayed in religion) generally have detremental consequences to human affairs. It's this act of "Cold reading"

Again, i have no concerns with regards to tame religions like Bhuddism, Taoism and perhaps even Hiduism, they are almost a "way of life, a philosophy" but i still think the belief systems and metaphysical claims are irrational.

Not all religions encourage martyrdom and jihad, infact many religions actively condemn violence (which is a good thing) but it doesn't make them any less irrational in terms of the metaphysical beliefs.

We're not so different, you and i.

Peace Brother,

A&A

edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Metaphysics concerns the imagination. It cannot be proven unless you imagine the same as the other guy. You don't have to, it is still true in his mind, just false in yours. As it does not effect the outer world unless we put action behind our imagination, trying to disprove each other or even prove each other, is fruitless.

Now, when we bring our imagination to fruition through invention, that is where the real magic is !

We are not different at all my friend. I like the way you think.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



Metaphysics concerns the imagination


Of course
Metaphysics are "ideas" (they are bulletproof) While metaphyiscs is, in essense; "the imagination", it can be philosophical, religious and even scientific.

They are unfalsifiable, but this does not necessarily mean it is false.

Metaphysics are thus, "unprovable" or at least untestable, you cannot demonstrate or observe any given "theory".

Science has metaphysical theory (multiverse theory) or quantam mechanics (the machinery behind the universe that we cannot see) This however is rational, theories are formed based on mathematics and logic. The fundamental reason for the theory is to discover more about how the universe might potentially work or fit together, ultimately trying to find a theory for "everything" (if possible).

Pseudo-intellectual metaphysics such as claims to "afterlife" and "theories" of "heaven" and "hell" or "intelligent being" is more wishful thinking rather than rational thinking.


trying to disprove each other or even prove each other, is fruitless.


Tell that to science. I'd rather not put my beliefs in "faith" - If i think an idea is stupid, i will say why.I think anything should be up to debate. ( except for a few ideas such as Peace, Soladarity, The idea of Free Speech and Freedom of Expression
)

I do not want to stop people beleiving what they want, that is a breech of freedom of expression, I'm just here to challenge what people believe, For the same reason someone might challenge a particular political view.

Peace bro,

A&A



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



Metaphysics concerns the imagination


Of course
Metaphysics are "ideas" (they are bulletproof) While metaphyiscs is, in essense; "the imagination", it can be philosophical, religious and even scientific.

They are unfalsifiable, but this does not necessarily mean it is false.

Metaphysics are thus, "unprovable" or at least untestable, you cannot demonstrate or observe any given "theory".


I disagree .. you are mixing two separate things..

Metaphysics is something completely different than what you have stated.

I encourage you to read about it here.

Who was the first Meta-physician? Aristotle.

Also, you appear to use the word "imagination" in a pejorative sense, as if it had less value than the objective realm. Your imagination is used everytime you experience anything...

By carefully working with this faculty you can achieve many amazing aspects of life which you may have only stumbled into otherwise.

Something that is Imaginary is not something that is unreal... it is simply in the subjective realm, as opposed to the objective. However it can pierce the veil and become objective through concentration and effort.

Your imagination allows you to see possibilities where others do not, it allows you to reframe your narrative in ways which enlighten you and free you from many of the illusions of this world.

But I will go on to say one other thing... Rumi once said, and I find it to be true, that Scriptures are like soap.. they are the dirt that we buy, to remove the dirt we don't want... In the end, that's all it is.

edit on 31-12-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I'm not mixing things at all, and i never even negated that metaphysical claims can extend from philosophy, to specific religion to science.

The multiverse concept it scientific metaphysical theory. Formed from gathering data and making informed decisions with the sole purpose for understanding more about the universe we exist in. Some may consider this scientific philosophy.

The theory of afterlife, heaven and hell, personfied supernatural deities (these are irrational metaphysical claims)

I concede, i must admit that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that the argument from ignorance stance is "impatience with ambiguity" as Sagan said.

Unfalsifiable hypothesis are not necessarily false, or irrational; you just can't demonstrate the claim, or prove it definetly, Aristotle didn't make any claims to truth about any particular metaphysical pondering. Besides, in philosophy you entertain possibilities, you do not persue definates.
edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


So, i take you arent willing to explore inside and outside your own personal perspective? are you really that afraid of your brain falling out?
Do remember, this specific thing is an experiential item, this is not saying "accept" everything you hear as your own personal truth, and actually has little to do with an "open mind" as that still implies a box. This is finding what is beyond the b#, including your own.

If there is no-thing there, then nothing should worry you about it eh?

I also think you would be extremely well served to actually learn about the religions you speak so much about. It is pretty obvious you have never done this, even if you say you have.

Good luck!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



I'm not sure how that theories of an afterlife are irrational in general...

Maybe you have some specific ones in mind... but in general, consciousness does go through a process of some sorts during the death experience.

Given that know one really knows how long consciousness lasts during the death experience, and mixed with the fact that some people have been brought back to life hours after they were presumed dead and told of experiences of consciousness while they were "out" I find it a very interesting and helpful area to review.

Some of these experiences are "pleasant" while others are "hellish". Some religions tie these experiences to a moral code, while others tie them to one's own sense of right/wrong... still others say it's a gamble.

And it's true that as one dies that things which once had importance no longer hold that in light of the finality of death, and that can bring a great sadness or joy. Tantra tells us that this experience, though common at death, can also occur in many other situations where our worldly concepts are torn apart. Such as when we see dogs disemboweling another human, or find ourselves being tortured etc... This is similar to the Christian concept of "dying to the world".

Although I agree the concept of "Good kids go to heaven and bad kids go to hell" is folly... The concep/studyt of what happens to consciousness during the death experience and how long that can last is hardly irrational.









edit on 31-12-2010 by HunkaHunka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I, too am like you, i can't claim to know any of these metaphysical theories based on faith. I can't, no-one can, but people do and they are pushing those "beliefs" or "ideas" onto other people. This is wrong. I have no problem with discussing ideas in debate, but if they are improbible, i will say so, i will challenge, there is nothing wrong with free speech.

Eternal damnation as a proposition to a child is evil preaching. "Submit or burn", the essense of totalitarianism.

Philosophical ponderings are harmless, intelligent "ideas" and never desires, Philosophy never deals in revealed wisdom such as threats of eternal damnation if you don't believe in a particular religion, this is immoral, the sooner we stop teaching this as "TRUTH" to our children, the better.



This is what i am getting at, tell me what you think of his arguments.
edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

edit on 31/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join