What is wrong Western Religion?

[Original Poster]

Specifically talking about religion with roots in Judaism, Egypt, Greece, Babylon and all those big ancient societies that make up the roots of Western Culture, as well as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all modern derivitives. First of all I'd like tot state that just because one may revoke their religion and join a different following or none at all, their upbringing and culture are still completely tied to their society's belief system and though traditions can change you can't really start new, only build on what's already in place. People that are completely removed from their original culture begin again on the bottom floor of the new culture, as the criminals and homeless. Along with their culture, they lose ethics and pride. My source? Immigrants, aboriginals in australia, slave societies, etc... So here are some generalized differences between Western and Eastern Philosophy: - WS claims God is a separate entity that created life, ES claims God is just the conscious accumulation of all life - WS claims God is loving though life sucks and he keeps making terrible things happen, not to mention according to different spiritual leaders he is utterly prejudice, ES claims we put ourselves through suffering through our own actions because we create the universe as we exist in it and everything done to the outside is done to the inside. Okay I'm going to jump to my point. God did not make everything, the Father that Christ referred to is known in code as "saklas" by some ancient gnostic texts and you should look him up. Most creations have some sort of King appointed, like a leader in charge of keeping order. Of course this King is just another little drop of awareness in a vast pool that, with Western Religion, I suppose you would have to call the Holy Ghost. So this rule Saklas has had over the world has been... pretty crappy. At some point we get the snake, which symbolizes dishonesty between people, I believe. People began to deceive each other and without being able to just be completely honest with each other we lost our ability at telepathy. Jesus Christ comes along and does nothing more but bare himself earnestly like all human beings used to be able to do. For being honest, we was tortured and killed, serving as an example of what happens when people try to return to the ancient times of harmony and love. This harmony and love IS the garden of Eden. I don't know exactly how to put this, but honesty does not mean telling everybody your judgments, it means allowing the world to exist earnestly and unconditionally. It means facing what is naturally there, to stop lying to yourself. Don't be afraid of your thoughts even if they create doubt in your mind, because trying to convince yourself the world is what you think it is will not make you any happier. What is worrying but an attempt for someone to convince themselves their future is going to turn out alright? Until we just learn to drop this necessity to be right we won't be able to switch from a competitive mode to a cooperative mode. It's this competitive mode that creates a nebulus of ideas, creation and beauty but there comes a period when it's time to switch over and instead of fighting for our own ideas like our lives depended on it, harmonize ourselves with society and love each other. You could say not everyone deserves love, a very LeVayist attitude, but I believe everybody does. The thing is, real unconditional love implies absolutely nothing, that's what makes it unconditional. It implies no matter what we have to do to each other whether we have to kill or punish each other to do what we determine is best, we still treat people like ourselves. The greatest thing is, now with all this technology we can sync up on a Global Level, and we can do everything from harnessing huge amounts of energy to exploring space and getting in space battles with aliens and all that cool shit. People have to let go of themselves though. Every human being has necessities, but why do almost any that have the opportunity to just save up fortunes that could feed the whole world several times over and then they waste it on bullshit. So in conclusion, right now most of us have wetsern roots that are on this forum, but are apart of the counter-culture: we are atheists, agnostics, or have chosen to look at Eastern or other ancient philosophies. Here's my question, why does it have to be one or the other? What is with everybody antagonizing each other when we have so many hundreds of pairs of eyes and interested minds we could be using to learn more about our natural world? It seems like so many people listen to others just long enough to figure out what category to put them in, and then respond in talking points from their pastor or whatever source they trust. Even those that refer to their own opinions barely every try to build each other's ideas, just tear them down. Critiquing in good and all but nobody is going to drop all their old opinions and start new so maybe instead of just making people feel upset or ashamed with our criticisms, we could help construct their ideas by adding our own experiences and evidence. Just because you reject the image of divine consciousness delivered to you in your upbringing does not mean you can stop looking once you create logical concept of the universe without it because like it or not you still apply the same cultural teachings that contain a divine consciousness, subliminally. That why I use terms like atheist clergy, to denote the similarities atheists have to Christians. Even if they've altered the beliefs, they were still raised by a Christian society and will neve be nothing more than a sect of Christianity. It's evolution, if a creature from the weasel family evolves to become a skunk, it does not mean he's no longer a weasel, he just found a new, better way to be a weasel. Just some of my crazy thoughts.

[Serkat]

That why I use terms like atheist clergy, to denote the similarities atheists have to Christians. Even if they've altered the beliefs, they were still raised by a Christian society and will neve be nothing more than a sect of Christianity. It's evolution, if a creature from the weasel family evolves to become a skunk, it does not mean he's no longer a weasel, he just found a new, better way to be a weasel. No. A skunk is not a weasel. Society isn't Christian, it's secular and driven by secular morals. You're a collectivist, go to China. The rest of your thread was actually a pretty good read.

[iseeu]

That why I use terms like atheist clergy, to denote the similarities atheists have to Christians. Even if they've altered the beliefs, they were still raised by a Christian society and will neve be nothing more than a sect of Christianity. It's evolution, if a creature from the weasel family evolves to become a skunk, it does not mean he's no longer a weasel, he just found a new, better way to be a weasel. Bravo! Nothing changes except that "Converted" Atheists trade the "I believe" for "I don't believe" rhetoric while their behavior, MO, mentality, morality and everything else that comes with it remains status quo. I find them to be just another off-shoot of Christianity. If you want to see proof of this, wander thru any Atheist blog and you'll quickly see what I mean. You can only see true Atheism in someone who has been raised from birth in a totally secular environment, anything else is pure pseudo-atheism and hypocrisy.

[Original Poster]

I don't understand how this is collectivism. This is individuality to its finest because people allow others to be individuals as well. Even if they show slower progress in their intellectual development, I think it's better to build on their foundation with new information and points of view instead of just looking at their argument for holes. I think the latter is actually self-justification, like an attempt to prove one's one ideas to themselves and testing them against other people. I don't see why people are so attached to their ideas like that. First of all accept that as crazy as some ideas are, what's true in our minds might as well be true because at the end of the day as much controlled, objective and natural evidence as we may acquire, we can't get out of this subjective viewpoint. That's why we have Science, because we can't excape our own perspectives and how is society ever going to progress if it's just one perspective vs another? We needed a system that doesn't allow subjective influence so that no one can say, "That's just your opinion." I'll admit to falling back to that claim very often on this forum because I believe it's true, opinions and science are two different things, science doesn't have an opinion, only results. Eastern and Western religion and Philosophy do not oppose Science, science emerged from these philosophies. It's the traditionalists, those clinging to things they thought were true and don't want to accept may not be, that oppose Science. People jump to conclusions by studying evidence but scientific evidence does not represent knowledge, just information. When you make the jump from having information and knowing something, it's like if that thing is then later proven false you lose something. It's like now if God is proven to exist, you're wrong and all those fucking retards that believe the most ridiculous shit get to yell at your face as well as promote they're incredibly prejudice ideas, assuming they're now justified because all those damned atheists were wrong. So I guess I believe you're right, a skunk is not a weasel, it only came from a muselid(?) and then became a skunk. However, perhaps if it understood where it came from better, it would understand where it is now. Religion is not the only part of Western Society, but it is certainly not secular in its roots. I would like you to define secular anyway, if you don't mind, because I kind of see it as having an unbiased position on esoteric matters. The thing is, all early societies that we originally came from were not secular. When democracy arrived, we separated Church and Government as a change to our original system, but we did not remove religion. They could now only influence the people that chose to be influenced, that's all. People were allowed to freely live the lifestyles they chose. And then what happened? They started hating on each other for picking different lifestyles, and if someone with the antique belief system wandered in, they would all join together and hate on that person. I understand that back when religion and government were tied, people of different beliefs had it pretty bad. You could even say Christianity deserves to be bashed a little bit, what with the Crusades, Inquisition, Mary Queen of Scots, Conquistadors, The Witch Trials, Manifest Destiny, The KKK, etc. It's bad... it's really bad. The thing is, we're really only holding a grudge against an idea, and like V said, ideas are bulletproof. No matter how much we hate on Christians, Christianity will still be bullet proof and all we succeed in doing is making the Christian feel down, or pissed off, and mostly likely more attached to their beliefs. With attachment to beliefs comes value, and the more value, the more it hurts if we accept these beliefs are wrong. I say fuck beliefs, even ones based on pure scientific evidence because the wonder of science is new things can be discovered at any time. It is not locked into true and false. The trick to my life, I guess, is that I don't think my imagination is any less real than the world, it's simply more real on a personal level and less on a collective level.

[Sornaensis]

Sorry but being black in white society doesn't make you white.

[Original Poster]

Yeah, exactly, and you were raised white then decided one day you were black. No, you still have the foundation of a Christian belief system, you've simply editted a few parts to make the concept more logical.

[Universal Mind]

So, in being a Western atheist, how am I like a Christian?

[Original Poster]

You are not a Christian, but you are in a Derivitive of Christianity like Mormons or Jahova's Witnesses. They decided that the bible wasn't completely correct either, and came up with their own dogmas. Granted, these don't have logical backgrounds but I'm not talking about how you came to change your beliefs, simply where they came from and how there are still so many things similar to them. You didn't start fresh on esoteric ideals the moment you decided God wasn't a logical concept, you have the entire christian foundation with one single alteration. You can consider it as big as you want, it's obviously a big enough difference that you bash people that think differently from you like some sort of atheist crusador or inquisitor (I'm sorry I love doing this). The thing is, of course the difference between a God and No God seems big, but only because you don't even think about how similar your beliefs are to a Christians as opposed to say, someone with Eastern beliefs. Their entire outlook on life is different, yours is the same, you just decided to call your beliefs facts instead of faith.

[Universal Mind]

You are not a Christian, but you are in a Derivitive of Christianity like Mormons or Jahova's Witnesses. They decided that the bible wasn't completely correct either, and came up with their own dogmas. Granted, these don't have logical backgrounds but I'm not talking about how you came to change your beliefs, simply where they came from and how there are still so many things similar to them. You didn't start fresh on esoteric ideals the moment you decided God wasn't a logical concept, you have the entire christian foundation with one single alteration. You can consider it as big as you want, it's obviously a big enough difference that you bash people that think differently from you like some sort of atheist crusador or inquisitor (I'm sorry I love doing this). The thing is, of course the difference between a God and No God seems big, but only because you don't even think about how similar your beliefs are to a Christians as opposed to say, someone with Eastern beliefs. Their entire outlook on life is different, yours is the same, you just decided to call your beliefs facts instead of faith. Are you going to answer my question?

[ClouD]

Modern 'religion'...who has the best imaginary friend?

[Original Poster]

You are not a Christian, Ahem. Don't O'Reilly me. EDIT: My post DIRECTLY answers your question. You are like a christian because you have the same general world view, but instead of faith, your call your beliefs facts. It still held inside this true/false mindset, as if you have the real facts and people that dont think like you have the fake facts. That's how you are similar to a Christian. If you want more I need to compare and contrast christians/atheists with other religions that didn;t evolve out of the ancient middle eastern Mysteries

[Serkat]

So anybody who has any belief is a Christian. Makes perfect sense.

[Universal Mind]

Ahem. Don't O'Reilly me. EDIT: My post DIRECTLY answers your question. You are like a christian because you have the same general world view, but instead of faith, your call your beliefs facts. It still held inside this true/false mindset, as if you have the real facts and people that dont think like you have the fake facts. That's how you are similar to a Christian. If you want more I need to compare and contrast christians/atheists with other religions that didn;t evolve out of the ancient middle eastern Mysteries Don't liberal O'Reilly guest me. I knew you are saying I and Christians have the same general view. I was asking how our general views are the same. Now you say it is that we believe in truth and falsehood. Is that it? People who believe in truth and falsehood are automatically a great deal like Christians? Do you believe that what you posted is true? Do you have the facts or the fake facts?

[Original Poster]

You are highlighting my point in your inability to see outside your own perception. There are a billion different ways to see the world. Let's take a look Christians and Atheists both believe in time. Christians and Atheists both believe there are a set of rules the universe is run by. Christians and Atheists both believe dreams, astrology, paganism, symbolic rituals and anything outside of a commonly accepted norm of reality are BS. Christians and Atheists both believe inanimate objects do not contain consciousness because God is outside of matter as a creator of matter according to christianity. Christians and Atheists both congregate in elitist groups and put down people with differnet opinions by using circular arguments. Both Christians and Atheists relax on Sundays. Christians and Atheists believe there is a standard version of reality unaffected by perception. And anyway, I can't even go further because I'm a Westerner, too, and there are a billion habits I have and ideas I subconsciously believe that create my universe the way it is.

[Serkat]

You are highlighting my point in your inability to see outside your own perception. There are a billion different ways to see the world. Let's take a look Christians and Atheists both believe in time. Christians and Atheists both believe there are a set of rules the universe is run by. Christians and Atheists both believe dreams, astrology, paganism, symbolic rituals and anything outside of a commonly accepted norm of reality are BS. Christians and Atheists both believe inanimate objects do not contain consciousness because God is outside of matter as a creator of matter according to christianity. Christians and Atheists both congregate in elitist groups and put down people with differnet opinions by using circular arguments. Both Christians and Atheists relax on Sundays. Christians and Atheists believe there is a standard version of reality unaffected by perception. And anyway, I can't even go further because I'm a Westerner, too, and there are a billion habits I have and ideas I subconsciously believe that create my universe the way it is. You don't know what atheism means, please educate yourself. Thank you.

[NonDualistic]

Modern 'religion'...who has the best imaginary friend? I

[Universal Mind]

You are highlighting my point in your inability to see outside your own perception. There are a billion different ways to see the world. Let's take a look Christians and Atheists both believe in time. Christians and Atheists both believe there are a set of rules the universe is run by. Christians and Atheists both believe dreams, astrology, paganism, symbolic rituals and anything outside of a commonly accepted norm of reality are BS. Christians and Atheists both believe inanimate objects do not contain consciousness because God is outside of matter as a creator of matter according to christianity. Christians and Atheists both congregate in elitist groups and put down people with differnet opinions by using circular arguments. Both Christians and Atheists relax on Sundays. Christians and Atheists believe there is a standard version of reality unaffected by perception. And anyway, I can't even go further because I'm a Westerner, too, and there are a billion habits I have and ideas I subconsciously believe that create my universe the way it is. Are those the facts or the fake facts? Please answer me this time. Those are some parallel beliefs and habits, but atheists generally don't use circular arguments. (Could you give me an example of a common circular argument atheists use?) Also, EVERY religious school of thought hangs out in groups and says why they disagree with the other ones. But those are just a few similarities. A lot of them are just cultural norms that come with living in a Christian society, such as relaxing on Sunday. We do that because it is one of the two days we don't have to go to work. Also, most of the world does not think inanimate objects have consciousness. The ones who believe they do are the odd balls. The same goes for people who believe in astrology and so forth. I wouldn't say left wingers and right wingers are practically the same because they both drive cars and believe Dumbo doesn't live on top of the Empire State Building. Those are some pretty trivial similarities you listed. What atheists and Christians believe about the origin, purpose, rules, and future of the universe and the life it contains are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Xaqaria]

(Could you give me an example of a common circular argument atheists use?) God doesn't exist because I can't find any evidence, and I can't find any evidence for god because [he] doesn't exist. I think the point he was trying to make originally and admittedly is now doing a piss poor job of explaining, was that atheism spawned from christianity. I won't support the claim 100% because I'm sure there are atheists who grew up as buddhists as well, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to take a survey and show that the majority of atheists (especially in this country) either grew up in christian households or were raised by atheist parents who grew up in christian households. Whether your beliefs are based on what you were taught or based on a rejection of what you were taught, they are still guided by how you grew up and so atheism, by his argument, developed largely from christianity. I'm sure you can see it in your own beliefs. Most of what I've seen you put up here to refute the existence of god applies mostly only to the monotheistic judeo-christian opinion of what god is. Whether you want to admit it or not, your world view is built on the christian world view.

[Original Poster]

Are those the facts or the fake facts? Please answer me this time. Those are some parallel beliefs and habits, but atheists generally don't use circular arguments. (Could you give me an example of a common circular argument atheists use?) Also, EVERY religious school of thought hangs out in groups and says why they disagree with the other ones. But those are just a few similarities. A lot of them are just cultural norms that come with living in a Christian society, such as relaxing on Sunday. We do that because it is one of the two days we don't have to go to work. Also, most of the world does not think inanimate objects have consciousness. The ones who believe they do are the odd balls. The same goes for people who believe in astrology and so forth. I wouldn't say left wingers and right wingers are practically the same because they both drive cars and believe Dumbo doesn't live on top of the Empire State Building. Those are some pretty trivial similarities you listed. What atheists and Christians believe about the origin, purpose, rules, and future of the universe and the life it contains are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum. You don't know what most of the world thinks, you only know what you believe out of your western, christian heritage. If you think you don't use circular arguments, then what's this about saying people that believe the inanimate contains consciousness are oddballs? That sounds like a circular argument to me. The point is you can't even examine for yourself the similarities between Chrstianity and Atheism because you don't understand how the rest of the world outside of Western Society thinks. You have exemplified your ignorance to perspectives outside of the Western Norm through this post. I would say MOST of the non western world believes all objects contain consciousness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, the Hopi Indians, the Incans, Aztec, Mayans, Celtics, Gauls, etc... Furthermore, the ancient greeks also held the idea that all objects contain a spiritual essence. It doesn't mean your watch has an opinion on your wrist, it means we live in a conscious, living universe. So this is my entire argument, right here. In Western Society, Consciousness was removed frm the universe as a force that created it, and hence the universe became dead in their minds, empowered by a force that didn't live inside it. With this belief as a foundation, it's only natural some members would come to the conclusion that belief in the universe doesn't even necessarily require consciousness at all. And that belief in external vs internal consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg. I use the example of relaxing on Sundays because we inherit the Christian culture and even if not all people relax on Sundays in general we still have a Christian culture and deal with those values as the norm.

[Sornaensis]

Being athesit, there is no reason to think that a rock holds any kind of consciousness, or anything. Because they don't display those characteristics.

[Original Poster]

There are no characteristics of consciousness, consciousness exists purely so that things with characteristics can be experienced. Consciousness is nothing more than a recepticle of experience, it needs to have no reaction, no opinion, nothing.

[Universal Mind]

God doesn't exist because I can't find any evidence, and I can't find any evidence for god because [he] doesn't exist. The first part of that sentence is only part of the argument, and the second part of the sentence is not a conclusion we use based on the first part. You are using two different point atheists make and presenting them together as if they are the premise and conclusion of our argument. This is the real one: I believe God does not exist because the idea is extremely far fetched and is not backed by evidence. I do not view the idea of consciousness without a brain, the ability to consciously create a universe, and human like invisible ghosts as anything realistic. So I have no reason to believe the idea PLUS see it as so improbable that I conclude it is not real. Now, why would such an outrageously improbable being not have evidence backing its existence? Because it is not real. What is your argument for the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Does it have something to do with improbability on top of lack of evidence? Do you think the lack of evidence results from the extremely improbable being's nonexistence? I think the point he was trying to make originally and admittedly is now doing a piss poor job of explaining, was that atheism spawned from christianity. I won't support the claim 100% because I'm sure there are atheists who grew up as buddhists as well, but I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to take a survey and show that the majority of atheists (especially in this country) either grew up in christian households or were raised by atheist parents who grew up in christian households. Whether your beliefs are based on what you were taught or based on a rejection of what you were taught, they are still guided by how you grew up and so atheism, by his argument, developed largely from christianity. I'm sure you can see it in your own beliefs. Most of what I've seen you put up here to refute the existence of god applies mostly only to the monotheistic judeo-christian opinion of what god is. Whether you want to admit it or not, your world view is built on the christian world view. I talk specifically about the Christian God here because that is the one the theists here generally believe in. Why would I want to discuss Thor with people here when nobody believes in him? I have debated several Muslims here. I would rather debate the existence of Allah than the Christian God, but there are not too many people around here who would get into that. It is Westerners who use this site, almost exclusively, so the Christian God it is. But I do have a particular interest in Christianity since it is my former religion and it is the one that dominates my culture. That does not mean I don't want to debate other religions. I would love to debate somebody on the existence of the Greek gods or some tribal religions. What members here would do that with me? I am of course influenced by Western culture, but that does not mean atheism and Christianity are alike theologically. They are not. What you are saying is like saying that Europeans who believed the world was round developed from and were guided by Europeans who believed the world was flat. Of course they were, but their beliefs on specifically the shape of the world were completely different.

[juroara]

I'm sure you can see it in your own beliefs. Most of what I've seen you put up here to refute the existence of god applies mostly only to the monotheistic judeo-christian opinion of what god is. Whether you want to admit it or not, your world view is built on the christian world view. this is my personal experience as well. there are many atheists I know in my life, and when they talk about the God they don't believe in they always refer to God as if God is some imaginary bearded man in the sky when I start to bring up God in a broader sense, a God present in all life forms, God being consciousness - the conversation changes. Actually it stops. All the anti-God arguments they have, is really built on a tiny world view that is no longer accurate compared to worldwide spirituality today the reality is, there are many atheists willing to believe in the latter God. though they have so much difficulty with just the word God, because they can't get over the image of God being a bearded man in the sky, that they will use any other word but the word God

[Universal Mind]

The point is you can't even examine for yourself the similarities between Chrstianity and Atheism because you don't understand how the rest of the world outside of Western Society thinks. I minored in philosophy and have a great deal of interest in Eastern philosophy, so don't even try that shit. Even if 99% of the world believes inanimate objects have consciousness, it is a result of their wild idea religions. It is not the case that I believe objects do not have consciousness because of my history as a Christian. I do not believe objects have consciousness because of scientific common sense. People who think they do are odd balls because they deviate from scientific common sense. I never once was told in Sunday school or church that objects do not have consciousness. It is not a Christian teaching. However, I did actually have the belief for a while that the entire universe is one conscious being. I don't believe it now because I decided when I was 21 that it does not make enough sense. I still question the idea, but my lack of belief in it is not the result of my Christian upbringing. It is the result of my scientific skepticism.

[Sornaensis]

this is my personal experience as well. there are many atheists I know in my life, and when they talk about the God they don't believe in they always refer to The Magic Pumpkin as if The Magic Pumpkin is some imaginary vegetable in the sky when I start to bring up The Magic Pumpkin in a broader sense, a The Magic Pumpkin present in all life forms, The Magic Pumpkin being consciousness - the conversation changes. Actually it stops. All the anti-The Magic Pumpkin arguments they have, is really built on a tiny world view that is no longer accurate compared to worldwide spirituality today the reality is, there are many atheists willing to believe in the latter The Magic Pumpkin. though they have so much difficulty with just the phrase The Magic Pumpkin, because they can't get over the image of The Magic Pumpkin being a vagetable in the sky, that they will use any other phrase but the phrase The Magic Pumpkin Fixed. Seriously, you have no proof, nor even a sound grounding for the term.