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.

 

Would You Believe In A Theology....

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
....that didn't require anything from you?

What if someone came along with a theology that took all the stuff we know about - logic, physics, biology, evolution, molecular science, all of it - and used it to interpret the assertions made by traditional theologies and came up wit a new anti-religion theology that didn't dismiss the existence of God as the creator, but redefined the whole thing so that everything made sense with everything else?

Would you even bother with such a theology? What if it offered the following features.....


  1. Let's say this theology didn't ask you to have faith in anything at all.
  2. Let's pretend that there was no reason for salvation. No one is in danger of damnation.
  3. Imagine that in this theology human beings can't really fail at being a successful part of the overall plan.
  4. And, as an added bonus, in this theology, you've already achieved eternal life by simply being a human being


What would you do with such a theology? Would you embrace it? Could you believe in something that wasn't trying to scare you or get you to change your basic way of being.

Would it bother you that it didn't offer you a challenge/reward suite, or a way of progressing toward a big jackpot? After all, if there's no way to lose, then conversely, there'd be no way to be a big winner either. Would that have you heading for the exits?

This is a Religion/Theology discussion forum. Let me know what you think about a theology that just wants to explain things to you and doesn't want your devotion.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Yes I would because no other religion makes sense, I personally believe in evolution because if we asks our selfs a question we wouldn't be able to answer it>>>>God made us but who made God????That is what kills me, so that is why I believe in evolution. We started as bacteria!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Even though this new theology would not be atrocious (like christianity), it still could not provide any evidence for a god. There cannot be a god and there never will be. However, if it defines something else as "god", such as a supreme extraterrestrial overlord of the universe or an extremely powerful natural force that created the universe, then I can say that those are more plausible. Even if the theology is anti-religion and non-bigoted, the assertion of a god still annoys me. Infinite regression exposes the problems with god concepts and most people realize that infinity cannot be obtained by anyone nor anything because it is not a number or value.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

  1. Let's say this theology didn't ask you to have faith in anything at all.
  2. Let's pretend that there was no reason for salvation. No one is in danger of damnation.
  3. Imagine that in this theology human beings can't really fail at being a successful part of the overall plan.
  4. And, as an added bonus, in this theology, you've already achieved eternal life by simply being a human being



Sounds like my life.
So, I don't think this is new, it's just not been framed as a "theology". It's just a life without religion. Or did I miss something? It sounds like this "theology" isn't a religion:

What is the difference between your proposed theology and many atheists' lives?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
Even though this new theology would not be atrocious (like christianity), it still could not provide any evidence for a god. There cannot be a god and there never will be. However, if it defines something else as "god", such as a supreme extraterrestrial overlord of the universe or an extremely powerful natural force that created the universe, then I can say that those are more plausible. Even if the theology is anti-religion and non-bigoted, the assertion of a god still annoys me. Infinite regression exposes the problems with god concepts and most people realize that infinity cannot be obtained by anyone nor anything because it is not a number or value.


Well, the term "theology" implies a god as being the main focus of what it is that's being called a theology. Theos is a Greek term for god, so it's hard for someting to be a theology without acknowledging the existence of such a being.

That said, this theology - being a very different sort of theology, and custom made for a world that can see that magic and miracles can't possibly exist - wouldn't have the creator being the kind of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent god of the ancient world. This theology would likely present a very different understanding of what a creator being would be like, and would realize that it has to back it all up with logic and empirical evidence.

After all, if it didn't, it would be requiring you to have faith, which this theology doesn't require. Oh, and I agree with you about infinite regression and the logical fallacy of a being that requires no physical genesis. Let's assume that this is not part of the claim structure here, since it needs to provide a solid logical verification foundation, and we both agree that infinite regression isn't logically sound. The "god" being has a means of physical genesis and it's not supernatural by any means.
edit on 1/31/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by NorEaster

  1. Let's say this theology didn't ask you to have faith in anything at all.
  2. Let's pretend that there was no reason for salvation. No one is in danger of damnation.
  3. Imagine that in this theology human beings can't really fail at being a successful part of the overall plan.
  4. And, as an added bonus, in this theology, you've already achieved eternal life by simply being a human being



Sounds like my life.
So, I don't think this is new, it's just not been framed as a "theology". It's just a life without religion. Or did I miss something? It sounds like this "theology" isn't a religion:

What is the difference between your proposed theology and many atheists' lives?



This theology is a theology. It involves the existence of an intelligent creator for this specific realm that we inhabit, and a defined reason for the creation of this realm with a full explanation of how it benefits the creator being and how the creator being is logically motivated to act to initiate the realm in order to achieve that end. The atheistic view is that there is no such being. This view is that while such a being is not necessary for a similar realm to exist, this specific realm exists as a means to an end for such a being.

That makes this a theology (since this being would be - by definition - our god, since it brought about the conditions that resulted in our existence, and did so, so that we would eventually come into existence) as opposed to a simple emergence theory. That said, this theology does present a logical emergence theory to explain how the "god" being came into intelligent and dynamic existence. No stones are left unturned.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Yes. I realize that your idea is a "What if" scenario. If it happened, I would have no choice but to accept it due to the evidence. It's irrelevant to my life though because it's merely hypothetical.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Yes. I realize that your idea is a "What if" scenario. If it happened, I would have no choice but to accept it due to the evidence. It's irrelevant to my life though because it's merely hypothetical.


Okay then, what if it wasn't hypothetical?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
It involves the existence of an intelligent creator for this specific realm that we inhabit, and a defined reason for the creation of this realm with a full explanation of how it benefits the creator being and how the creator being is logically motivated to act to initiate the realm in order to achieve that end.


Does the creator show him/herself? You said we wouldn't need faith, so I assume we get to meet this creator?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by NorEaster
It involves the existence of an intelligent creator for this specific realm that we inhabit, and a defined reason for the creation of this realm with a full explanation of how it benefits the creator being and how the creator being is logically motivated to act to initiate the realm in order to achieve that end.


Does the creator show him/herself? You said we wouldn't need faith, so I assume we get to meet this creator?



The creator can't logically exist within the same contextual environment as the gestational process that it initiated any more than the dad can't crawl inside the placenta with the baby as its being formed in the womb. That doesn't mean that the creator hasn't left more than enough evidence of its existence, its intention and the physical nature it possesses. This is a fully natural process, but the kind of lifeform involved here is not one that we're all that familiar with - even though we do possess a major amount of its fundamental physical nature, so it's not completely foreign. The being that initiated this is bound by the same rules of logical association and identity that we're bound by, and that being the case, to accomplish what is being accomplished requires a very specific process of existential development.

This theology absolutely lays this entire process out and defends every aspect of it from a point of empirical evidence and extremely rigid logic. There are no questions that have not been addressed and the answers provided, thoroughly vetted by presenting them to aggressive public scrutiny. Some of those answers vetted right on this board.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





And this "religion" is......


I'm waiting for you to tell us which one.... I know it's coming.


As BH said, up to a point of what you're saying, that's just an Atheist or an Agnostic stance....


Apart from where you going with it now, creator, can't see them, evidence, faith.... yadda yadda...
edit on 31/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Well, then I'll say that I'd have to hear the logic and the evidence. The hypothetical is getting a little deep for me to commit to accepting a theology, whose evidence I will have to take on faith.
I mean, if you're saying, "Trust me. There will be enough evidence for you to believe in this creator"... well that's the same thing a million Christians would say about their creator. Because THEY believe.

So, for now, I'm going to have to say no, but I'm open-minded to seeing and hearing the actual evidence.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
And this "religion" is......


I think it would fit Universal Unitarianism just fine. So, this theology may already exist. And I'm not a member.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by NorEaster
 





And this "religion" is......


I'm waiting for you to tell us which one.... I know it's coming.


It's not a religion. It's a theology.

It's called AutoGenesisism. You can Google it, and the search results will lead you back to this board for the most part, or you can go here - autogenesisism.com... and look at stuff, or you can (if you're registered on Amazon.com) check out the book and "Look Inside" for some bits of stuff that probably won't satisfy your demand to have it all bulletpointed for you. Here's the link to that...

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289600799&sr=1-1

And, there's nothing else like it anywhere. Not Eastern Philosophy, Christian-centric, Pagan or Pantheistic, New Age, or anything like any of that. You can't base a religion on it because there aren't any action items. The creator itself wouldnt know if you were worshipping it or not, and frankly, it doesn't have any more need of your worship that you have need of a skin cell of your unborn child's worship. And basically, it'd be the same thing, with the obvious differences between you and a fetus skin cell acknowledged, of course.

Hell, I've been running the more vulnerable aspects of this thing through a woodchipper on this site and several others for months now, and as a logical premise it's held up like a real workhorse. I think it's ready to see what people will think of the whole package.

Believe me, it's probably not at all what you think it is.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Greetings to you, NorEaster. I would say, and not in an offhand manner, that what you described in the post is what I would loosely call my own "religion," for lack of a better descriptive word.



1. Let's say this theology didn't ask you to have faith in anything at all.
2.Let's pretend that there was no reason for salvation. No one is in danger of damnation.
3. Imagine that in this theology human beings can't really fail at being a successful part of the overall plan.
4. And, as an added bonus, in this theology, you've already achieved eternal life by simply being a human being


I gave up on having "faith" a long time ago. The common understanding of faith is a system of religious belief, the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. The faith that a savior will come and "save" you from an imagined place of torment invented by the Church. The belief that being "saved," as in the Christian belief system.

What I have is Ideas. As I have said in here before, a belief is set in stone, and cannot be changed, at least a change that would be commonly noticed. The New Living Translation and Christian Fundamentalism in general are real good examples of what I am talking about here.

Let me explain what I mean here. Lets say I have an Idea. I can add to my idea, if new information come in, I can alter my original idea, or build on my idea by adding the new information to it. I can share my ideas to others, and they too can have the idea for their own, they can then change, alter, or add to as I have dome, and then they too have an idea system. My ideas are in no way sent in stone, for that is. Here is the wisdom here. A 'Belief" seems to be Static in nature, while an "Idea" is Dynamic in nature. A static thing, by definition, remains in the same place, and never changes. A Dynamic thing, in contrast, will be vigorously active, or even forceful, and also very energetic in nature.

There was a time, in my youth that I was quite mesmerized by the Christian faith, my Mother was what could be called a fundamentalist Christian. I prayed to Jesus just like the rest, I saw people "speak in tongues" handle snakes, faith heal, the whole experience. I heard preachers yell at the top of their lungs that we are all "sinners" who were going "straight to hell" unless we "followed Jesus" and "waked with Jesus." I saw their faces get so read, I thought they would burst their hearts.

Then there came a time when I had a few questions for the preacher. He patted me on my head and told me to "go home and read your Bible, son, all of your questions will be answered." Little did he know I would do just that. within two weeks i had read it cover to cover, using my Mom's concordance to check words out I did not understand. I also used the Webster's quite a bit. I was 14 at the time.
When I returned to the church, instead of having one or two questions, I had about 100 of them. Like the 33 Gods and Goddesses in there. Plus the 42 or more evil deeds of the God in there. I took a real hard look at Lucifer, and he did nothing bad in the whole Bible! Not once did Lucifer kill anyone, hurt anyone, destroy anything. Why is this? I demanded of the preacher. He was taken aback, and asked me to come with him to a study room, and brought two church deacons along. together the tried to distract me, but I had my notes with me, and my Bible was bookmarked, earmarked, with notes written in the margins. After 30 or 40 minutes of this, I was politely asked to leave and never return. For me, that was a turning point. I began to see what was going on.

For many years I read books and studied, I even wrote a book myself, but never attempted to publish it. I studied everything to do with religion, or anti-religion, Occult books, books of Magick and Spell Casting, the Kabbala, the Keys, the Sword all were very enlightening to me. I began to see where God was, and where Goddess was. for there is a duality in the godhead, whether Christians like it or not. I began to have Ideas, lot of them. Fast forward to today. do I have a "religion?" Not really, I have a system if ideas of what I think and know. I call myself a Wiccan, mostly because it throws a loop to any Christian that comes around trying to convert me and save my soul.

There are may others out there in the world who are frantically looking "Out there" for God and Salvation. I blame organized religion for this, they have turned humanity from the Inner Spirit to look outward for everything good and righteous, when it is right here all the time, deep inside is everything one needs. If What You Seek Cannot Be found Within, It will Never Be found. That is my credo, take it or leave it.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I am going to read about it, but I have a gnawing question... Why do I want this or need this set of beliefs in my life? If it makes no difference whether or not I 'agree' with this concept, what does it matter? I really don't get the point... Just so I can say that I know where we came from?

Edit: I'm sorry, it sounds like just another "story of where we came from" to me.



In the beginning there was nothing


That's an assumption. Anything based on that is going to be dependent on it being true. And since we can't be sure that's true, we'd have to have FAITH that it's true.



Of course, if we apply the coldest logic possible, we can find strong support for the assumption of an initial nothing through the fact that any active (or even passive) something must have both requirement and opportunity to exist, as well as some form of environment within which to achieve that existence.


Opportunity and environment, I buy, but requirement? Any 'something' must have a requirement to exist? I'm not buying that, either.

Sorry, too many assumptions.

edit on 1/31/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am going to read about it, but I have a gnawing question... Why do I want this or need this set of beliefs in my life? If it makes no difference whether or not I 'agree' with this concept, what does it matter? I really don't get the point... Just so I can say that I know where we came from?


Knowing it will make an enormous impact on your arrival to the "other side". Seriously. It's not unlike this world here, except that we've all been programmed to expect certain things of it that may (or may not) be to our benefit to believe, depending on what one has grown to expect. I envision it to be akin to being a teenage runaway girl who steps off the Greyhound bus in the mid-to-late 70s at the downtown LA terminal and doesn't realize that anyone who knows what she's looking for (a talent agent to magically recognize her star potential) has the immediate capacity to be that agent (as far as she knows) and wisk her off to the rest of her life - for what that's worth, depending on the character doing the wisking.

There's a common axiom "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" You'll want to have one eye as you make the transition. 90% go into that transition stone blind or severely deluded. I see having a heads up about real possibilities as being a value item, but then I take my future seriously and treat reality as if it's real and imminent. Some folks simply believe, and feel that faith will protect them - be they Christians, Buddhists, Judaists, or Islamic Fundamentalists. Even Atheists are sure that they are absolutely correct in their view of what awaits. Me, I prefer to have some other information to fall back on in the event that my personal Jesus isn't waiting at the bus station for me when I blow into town.

I sure as hell don't want to be walking off with someone claiming to be Jesus, who's done this time and time again with other new arrivals. I gueess it depends on your belief that there's a protective security detail for everyone at the opening of whatever tunnel it is that everyone talks about. I don't believe it's that simple or that people change at all once they've shed the corpse. All indications are that they don't change, and if the human "spirit" is what I've discovered it to actually be, then knowing what's up will mean all the difference for you when your time rolls around.
edit on 1/31/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am going to read about it, but I have a gnawing question... Why do I want this or need this set of beliefs in my life? If it makes no difference whether or not I 'agree' with this concept, what does it matter? I really don't get the point... Just so I can say that I know where we came from?

Edit: I'm sorry, it sounds like just another "story of where we came from" to me.



In the beginning there was nothing


That's an assumption. Anything based on that is going to be dependent on it being true. And since we can't be sure that's true, we'd have to have FAITH that it's true.



Of course, if we apply the coldest logic possible, we can find strong support for the assumption of an initial nothing through the fact that any active (or even passive) something must have both requirement and opportunity to exist, as well as some form of environment within which to achieve that existence.


Opportunity and environment, I buy, but requirement? Any 'something' must have a requirement to exist? I'm not buying that, either.

Sorry, too many assumptions.

edit on 1/31/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


Suit yourself. It doesn't matter if you bother with it or not, so it's not an issue with me. I've had that very brief description of existential genesis vetted by some extremely serious logicians before including it in the book, so I don't feel the need to battle with you about the overview's veracity. That's already been well vetted.

The entire premise is immense, and that genesis descriptipn is a very small part of it. You probably would blanche at other aspects too. It's pretty counterintuitive, but then, that's probably why it's never been presented before. It doesn't embrace the idea that the human mind can't ever know whats actually going on here. Most people simply refuse to allow that possibility to exist.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Well, you sound like a serious man, and one that I'd be very interested in hearing from if you were to check this theology out. What I feel is important is that a new avenue needs to be opened, so that the brilliant minds of our world can walk down it and see what there is to discover. We've all been walking down one of two basic paths and fighting with each other over which is the right path, with some of us trying to veer off into the underbrush to start our own paths to try and mate them up somehow. This examination stops, goes all the way back and examines what created these separate paths in the first place, and by bringing everything we've established as wisdom and fact together, discovers a very different unified path that has always been far off to the side of both paths. One that may very well lead away from where we've gotten of late - fighting over the weirdest and most unrealistic controversies, even as the fragmented specifics of reality become more and more obvious to us.

I'd be interested in what you've determined to be the bottom line concerning why we exist.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I've had that very brief description of existential genesis vetted by some extremely serious logicians before including it in the book, so I don't feel the need to battle with you about the overview's veracity.


So, that's YOUR book? You've devised this theology?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join