Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

a reply to: Char-Lee

Exactly, I don't usually post in a forum if I don't feel that I can contribute seriously there. If all I can do is disbelieve, I leave it alone. Telling people who believe in something like a UFO when I can't do much more than imagine aliens myself that UFOs don't exist and ridicule them for their belief is counter-productive. I don't really know for sure that UFOs don't exist, and the universe is an awful big place. So, I just let them carry on. Maybe someday, I'll have that experience that makes me one of them.

a reply to: akushla99

Ridicule (I would have thought) was not part of ATS for any reason...there must be a way to discuss conspiracies without it...

True wisdom would be the ability to discuss anything at all without deriding the person who holds an opposing belief. The ability to discuss the belief (and all beliefs) only from the reference of opposing beliefs, our own ideas, book references whatever we have should be an enjoyable learning experience.

We each deal with our emotion over certain subjects and may hate the point of view of the opposition and yet we are here for discussion and when someone asks you to look at their idea and ponder their point of view they are offering the chance for each of us to learn.


My peeve is that maybe someone offers a scripture they feel is relevant, they may be attacked from many persons, but someone else on the same thread offers up a one liner joke or the word...BACON...they receive smilies and stars. No one says they have offered something irrelevant or dumb or they should leave the thread! Many play double standards.

Do you deny the color red?

Now see there as an example, a discussion and it should include as many pieces of imput and sources as multiple different views can provide!

Physicist: Colors exist in very much the same way that art and love exist. They can be perceived, and other people will generally understand you if you talk about them, but they don’t really exist in an “out in the world” kind of way. Although you can make up objective definitions that make things like “green”, “art”, and “love” more real, the definitions are pretty ad-hoc. Respectively: “green” is light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm, “art” is portraits of Elvis on black velvet, and “love” is the smell of napalm in the morning.

www.askamathematician.com...

a reply to: Murgatroid

All of your beliefs come from religions, how you do not see that is a conspiracy in itself.

What part of reading the Bible and following its words in any light TOLD DO YOU, is NOT A RELIGION ??

God does not hate religion, God is UNAWARE of such things, the religions have told you how to think about this, divorce yourself from all of it and realize that this GOD you seek, talk about, is not in anything you have read or experienced, all the experiences are heavily INFLUENCED BY RELIGIONS!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Char-Lee

Exactly, I don't usually post in a forum if I don't feel that I can contribute seriously there. If all I can do is disbelieve, I leave it alone. Telling people who believe in something like a UFO when I can't do much more than imagine aliens myself that UFOs don't exist and ridicule them for their belief is counter-productive. I don't really know for sure that UFOs don't exist, and the universe is an awful big place. So, I just let them carry on. Maybe someday, I'll have that experience that makes me one of them.

I on the other hand would love to insert my THOUGHTS to that forum even if I don't know much about it and I have that right and the right not to be ridiculed for my own imput on the subject...not many here are experts in every subject!

I would also enjoy reading the thoughts of someone like yourself and what you have come to suspect, what conjecture you may have on the subject from an outsiders view, all imput is good and helps us to think! Sometimes the true wisdom of a thing comes from someone who knows nothing of a subject but their own off the wall imaginative idea!

I think we should also eliminate Aliens too from the site since they have about the same amount of evidence as angels do....

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

But see? You hold to the atheist version that all that is is all there is. But you have no real proof of that beyond your own belief. You see people are dead and you can't interact with them, so for you that's it. You have no idea if that's all there is for them or not.

For all you or I or anyone else knows, there is more. Just because no one here has found a way to find out what that is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means we haven't found a way to figure it out what it is or IF it is yet.

Once upon a time, no one knew if there was anything beyond the moon either and that didn't negate the existence of all the rest of the universe.

So you are being very Schroedinger's cat with this. If you can't see the cat in the box, then it must not exist, and yet, we all know it does. Here it's a bit different. There may or may not be a cat in the box, and you don't believe there is. Others very much do. What makes you any more right about it than any of them just because they tend to envision cats of all different colors while you envision no cat at all?

Atheist only means that we do not accept your claims that gods exist. That is all it means. Any other claim is not atheism.

If you want to make the claim thats gods do exist, or that there is something "more" to the universe, then you will have to show the corroborating evidence that supports your claim. Without the evidence there is no reason to come to that conclusion.

We know enough about physics to exclude any claim without supporting evidence.

Yea there was a time when people did not know what was beyond the moon. So what? There was also a time when we had no knowledge of germs or mental illness. Now we do. Thanks to people who noticed that sickness wasn't evil spirits. They observed the world around them. They did proper science, and invented experiments that led to the supporting evidence to gain a pretty keen understanding of the human body. Try telling these people something without any supporting evidence.

Why would you take the word of someone who lived in a time that they didn't understand the properties of the world anyways?


Just because we don't know every thing, doesn't mean we don't know anything. There is a lot that we know cannot exist. There are limits to what is possible. Therefor it is prudent to understand what these limits are. That is what chemistry and physics are doing at this very moment. These scientists are at the spear's point of understanding the limits of the physical world.

If you want to claim there is a nonphysical world you are going to be asked for proof.

a reply to: jude11
As an agnostic, who 'thinks' anyone with an opinion toward the spiritual veil and it's proprietor(s), is simple minded. That is ALL of them who opine with such assurance that they know what lies beneath.

If it was readily observed that a BIG CHEESE was involved in our reality, we would not be discussing this.
If we could completely dismiss spirituality we would not be having any controversy.

I find all explanations as to what the behavior of the Universe is predicated upon to ring hollow.

To mount the Horse of Hubris and charge into the fray with easily distinguishable falsehoods as your sword just strikes me as dumb. This includes the supposedly disparate views of atheists (nuts) and religious (crazies).

If a supreme anything wants your attention, it will inform you without any doubts allowed. If it does not want to be known, you will NEVER know of it.

No one can prove these views. My agnosticism allows me to permit my ignorance. It doesn't make me any more ignorant to admit to not knowing the Flying Spaghetti Monster or its derivatives or whether there is the possibility of same. It's above OUR pay grade to be completely informed.

Since I have had very odd experiences, NOT easily explainable by either camp of believers, I choose a neutral, uninvested stance. I honestly do not care for proselytizers as they are incompetent by their very actions (my view of them), to be able to have a valid opinion.

I will wait and may never see, but I will not be deluded by some barbaric mashup or sophisticated BS to think that there is some reason for my existence other than the Universe wants me here, now. Why? Damned if I know.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think we should also eliminate Aliens too from the site since they have about the same amount of evidence as angels do....

Another who failed to actually read the OP.

Who said eliminate?

Only you.

Peace

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate anything personal. I merely responded to your comment in a previous post where you mentioned you kinda wished there were more Hindi posters...

...And It occurred to me that if there are, I've never noticed.


Peace

The first time I heard conspiracy theories was in church, long before ATS was ever heard of, Christians are Conspiracy theorist, so we tend to see the connection to scripture in all subjects.

The American evangelist and politician Pat Robertson, a 1988 candidate, is the presidential aspirant with the most elaborate ideas about a plot against the United States; he may also be the single most influential conspiracy theorist in the contemporary United States.

Robertson offers two very different scenarios for the New World Order, one financial, the other moral. In the first, he foresees a European seizure of American wealth via a world currency and a single global bank.

Robertson's second and far uglier scenario concerns the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and extreme New Age religionists who aspire not to money but to undermine the Christian social order. To achieve this they seek "a one-world government, a one-world army, a one-world economy under an Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, and a world dictator served by a council of twelve faithful men."

This tyranny will attempt to "destroy the Christian faith" and "replace it with an occult-inspired world socialist dictatorship." In another place, he foresees nothing less than a world under "the domination of Lucifer and his followers" in which spiritual forces will be set into motion "which no human being will be strong enough to contain." Robertson offers Hitler's attempts at world hegemony as the closest historical parallel to the "giant prison" of the New World Order.

Writing in 1991, Robertson finds that recent events point to "a giant plan" in which everything is "perfectly on cue." Note the particulars: "Europe sets the date for its union. Communism collapses. A hugely popular war [against Iraq] is fought in the Middle East. The United Nations is rescued from scorn by an easily swayed public.

www.sullivan-county.com...

a reply to: Woodcarver

Ah, ah, this about someone coming into a thread where those of us who do believe in a metaphysical reality are discussing as much and then ridiculing us for it.

If you don't believe it exists, why go into a thread specifically about it only to ridicule? Ridicule is not asking for proof. There is a difference.

And the post I made above is about how science can't prove anything beyond our living reality one way or the other.

Can you prove to me there is no life after death? The poster I responded to simply claimed there wasn't because every belief has a different idea of it. The thing is. There may be different ideas, but they all do have an idea of an afterlife. So the atheists say there is no afterlife while the believers say there is one. No cat v. a cat. It doesn't matter if I envision a calico while the muslim sees a tabby - they're both cats.

And honestly, the OP is about asking why post religion. And this discussion has little to do with the OP.

a reply to: hurdygurdy

It would be interesting if there were. We have Christians of several flavors. We have some who follow more pagan traditions. We have muslims. We obviously have atheists. We have agnostics. Where are the Hindis, Sikhs, Buddhists (although I think there might be one of those floating around here somewhere), a Shinto would be interesting, too.

a reply to: ketsuko

So the atheists say there is no afterlife while the believers say there is one.

Wrong.

Atheists don't believe in deities. period. There are no other qualifiers to make one an atheist.


There are atheists that believe in an afterlife without deities.

a reply to: largo

As an agnostic, who 'thinks' anyone with an opinion toward the spiritual veil and it's proprietor(s), is simple minded.
A few here....

The simple minded are in good company though.
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer.
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulPascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian.
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism".
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.
Albert Einstein
he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ketsuko

So the atheists say there is no afterlife while the believers say there is one.

Wrong.
Atheists don't believe in deities. period. There are no other qualifiers to make one an atheist.
There are atheists that believe in an afterlife without deities.

What is Deity just turned out to be a name for an alien presence?

interesting article here:

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn't exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

www.science20.com...

a reply to: largo

An interesting article and something another religious poster was alluding to lately in round about language.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

You hold to the atheist version that all that is is all there is.

Actually no.
You must have missed this subtle hint.

BUT, there is a critical truth beyond this on this topic I won't go into on this thread, to take it off topic.

I deliberately left my post open as to not to derail into another topic, and the illustrative hyperbole logic I used is sound.
I also restrained myself from quoting scriptures, to allow people to do their own research. People need to think for themselves and not be influenced by either prejudices they hold, or society is thrusting upon them. I would include in that centuries of religious dogma which is obviously a lie, such as a literal "Hell", or Purgatory.

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ketsuko

So the atheists say there is no afterlife while the believers say there is one.

Wrong.
Atheists don't believe in deities. period. There are no other qualifiers to make one an atheist.
There are atheists that believe in an afterlife without deities.

What is Deity just turned out to be a name for an alien presence?

interesting article here:


www.science20.com...

What if deities turned out to be leprechauns?

It makes no difference. Atheists don't believe in what is expected to be deities otherwise known as gods. To postulate what they could be would first require us to have some belief they exist. It doesn't work that way.

The study quoted is interesting to those who care enough to think on it. For someone like myself pondering the existence of things without evidence does not take up much of my time. On ATS I find myself in these conversations but it is almost always due to technicalities such as the misrepresentation of definitive terms such as what it is to be an atheist.

Some people are just wired not to believe I think that I am one of those people nothing aside from a first hand solid experience could change my mind. The natural world is all I have. I have never seen or experienced the supernatural so deities are in the same realm of possibility as leprechauns in my book. To be honest with you when I was a kid I did try to find a pot of gold but then I grew up.

To answer a question of what if "Deity just turned out to be a name for an alien" then it is simply a case of mistaken identity like a man being mistaken for a son of a deity.

Aliens are aliens which I have never personally seen one. My understanding is we are still currently looking for signs of life in regions off our planet. Since we know it has happened at least once then there is a possibility it could have happened elsewhere. We are the evidence needed to make such assumptions. On the other hand we still lack evidence to assume a supernatural force.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: largo

As an agnostic, who 'thinks' anyone with an opinion toward the spiritual veil and it's proprietor(s), is simple minded.
A few here....

The simple minded are in good company though.
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer.
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulPascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian.
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism".
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.
Albert Einstein
he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

None of those people produced any evidence of gods. Most of them lived a long time ago when it was a death sentence to even publicly doubt the existence of gods.

What all these folks did do was observe the world, perform experiments and gather physical evidence to help document the laws of physics.

Who cares what their personal beliefs were?