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.
Freemasons - I have a few questions.
page: 26share:
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I will never believe that civilized people are true atheists, or that true atheists are civilized people,
*******and thus, I would never participate in the making of an atheist a Mason.
Was anything I stated or asked in this thread non-civilized? I hope not. My apologies if you found anything I said uncivil.
Being an atheist does not necessarily mean holding no beliefs in other realms beyond the physical realm. (String theory even suggests other realms/dimensions).
The only thing that keeps me civilized is my belief in a spiritual connection to every other living being, and a purpose to improve myself during this existence, so that my spirit may continue afterwards.
Well - to each his own. I also believe in self improvement during this existence, but not for the purpose of my spirits continued existence. I try to improve myself and others around me for the purpose of making this life more comfortable and enjoyable whilst we are here, and so that future generations may enjoy a better life.
I also feel an empathy and emotion towards other living beings - a spiritual connection. I have my own moral values and beliefs which keep me from behaving like an animal. An atheist can have all of those things without believing in a creator/god.
I believe you and other Freemasons on this thread are doing good, by making good men better. As an atheist, am I automatically not good? Not able to be made better?
Peace and total respect.
reply to post by SecretSky
Brother Albert Pike, in his "Morals and Dogma", mentions that there are lots of theoretical atheists who are practical Christians, just as there are many theoretical Christians who are practical atheists. In other words, there are many atheists who practice Christian morality and virtues, and there are many Christians who live without a moral compass. Therefore, morality and virtue cannot be judged on the basis of whether one is a Christian, or believes in God.
Freemasonry does not accept atheists, but this is not because the fraternity believes atheists are immoral. It simply because its teachings are theistic in nature, and therefore would not be appreciated by non-theists.
Brother Albert Pike, in his "Morals and Dogma", mentions that there are lots of theoretical atheists who are practical Christians, just as there are many theoretical Christians who are practical atheists. In other words, there are many atheists who practice Christian morality and virtues, and there are many Christians who live without a moral compass. Therefore, morality and virtue cannot be judged on the basis of whether one is a Christian, or believes in God.
Freemasonry does not accept atheists, but this is not because the fraternity believes atheists are immoral. It simply because its teachings are theistic in nature, and therefore would not be appreciated by non-theists.
reply to post by SecretSky
On the contrary, you have been very civilized, and that is why I worded my statement the way I did.
I don't believe any civilized person is a "true" atheist, and I don't believe any "true" atheist is a civilized person.
See, if you were a true atheist, and nothing existed except for flesh and bone, and all of creation is a random accident, then you would not feel a "spiritual" connection to other living beings. There would be no reason to waste time "improving" yourself, because you only have a limited time here. All motivation would be to experience and consume. Freud's "Id" would rule your decision making. There would be no logic in limiting yourself, except from a strategic point of view of limiting yourself in order to consume more at a better or safer time. A lion doesn't chase every wildabeast, only the ones it can catch. The same would be said for an atheist human.
And, yes, my interpretation of Masonry is that an Atheist is not worth trying to "make better." Without a spiritual guide, there is nothing to improve upon. I won't go into the forest and try to reform the snakes or the owls or the coyotes. They are going to consume and reproduce. Those are their only motivations, and no amount of lectures or allegories from me are going to change that.
This is not a personal attack on anyone, such as yourself, that believes you are an atheist. I hope this is just thought-provoking as to your real spirituality. Perhaps you are not what I would define as an atheist? Perhaps your personal morals define something else?
I think many people have been tricked into believing they are atheist, because they don't subscribe to organized religion. This is not true. I feel God in my life. Sometimes my prayers are answered, almost immediately. I can walk out and embrace a tree, or wilted flower, and I can feel the connection. Random eye contact with someone in traffic is moving for me. There is an obvious life force that we experience daily. For me, I "know" that there is a God, and know amount of "religion" is going to mess that up.
On the contrary, you have been very civilized, and that is why I worded my statement the way I did.
I don't believe any civilized person is a "true" atheist, and I don't believe any "true" atheist is a civilized person.
See, if you were a true atheist, and nothing existed except for flesh and bone, and all of creation is a random accident, then you would not feel a "spiritual" connection to other living beings. There would be no reason to waste time "improving" yourself, because you only have a limited time here. All motivation would be to experience and consume. Freud's "Id" would rule your decision making. There would be no logic in limiting yourself, except from a strategic point of view of limiting yourself in order to consume more at a better or safer time. A lion doesn't chase every wildabeast, only the ones it can catch. The same would be said for an atheist human.
And, yes, my interpretation of Masonry is that an Atheist is not worth trying to "make better." Without a spiritual guide, there is nothing to improve upon. I won't go into the forest and try to reform the snakes or the owls or the coyotes. They are going to consume and reproduce. Those are their only motivations, and no amount of lectures or allegories from me are going to change that.
This is not a personal attack on anyone, such as yourself, that believes you are an atheist. I hope this is just thought-provoking as to your real spirituality. Perhaps you are not what I would define as an atheist? Perhaps your personal morals define something else?
I think many people have been tricked into believing they are atheist, because they don't subscribe to organized religion. This is not true. I feel God in my life. Sometimes my prayers are answered, almost immediately. I can walk out and embrace a tree, or wilted flower, and I can feel the connection. Random eye contact with someone in traffic is moving for me. There is an obvious life force that we experience daily. For me, I "know" that there is a God, and know amount of "religion" is going to mess that up.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SecretSky
On the contrary, you have been very civilized, and that is why I worded my statement the way I did.
I don't believe any civilized person is a "true" atheist, and I don't believe any "true" atheist is a civilized person.
Amazing how much the inverted-commas add to the meaning.
Well - I'm glad I didn't appear uncivilized. I've found this thread pretty amazing - and the discussions with all Freemasons most enlightening. I hope in real life if we all ever met, we'd get on fine and all have a civilized drink or two. hehe
My definition of atheist is simply not believing in a creator or God.
Your definition of a 'true' atheist is a bit more strict than mine. I've never met an atheist who is non-civilized, and who shares no moral values or virtues. There are obviously atheists who are bad. The same can be said for people of any belief.
I think many people have been tricked into believing they are atheist, because they don't subscribe to organized religion. This is not true. I feel God in my life. Sometimes my prayers are answered, almost immediately. I can walk out and embrace a tree, or wilted flower, and I can feel the connection. Random eye contact with someone in traffic is moving for me. There is an obvious life force that we experience daily. For me, I "know" that there is a God, and know amount of "religion" is going to mess that up.
It's funny, all the things you mention; embracing a tree, a wilted flower, random eye contact. They are all moving for me too. I explain it to myself in a different way - that nature is a beautiful and awe inspiring thing. Maybe what I see as the beauty in life is what others call 'God'. Maybe it's all just terminology.
Regardless of if I can be a Freemason or not, I'd like to consider myself a friend to your cause.
reply to post by getreadyalready
Yeah, being from Idaho we are almost completely blue collar. We do have a pretty good mix to include college students.
reply to post by pslind69
Blood relatives are still family. No relationship is negated by joining.
reply to post by The Benevolent Adversary
The Morgan Affair was something that severely damaged Freemasonry and changed the American perspective.
P2 is another stain and a thorn in the side of real Masons. They were a rogue Lodge.
I've been to Italy and visited the Brothers, and have seen nothing more than in America. The Italians though were persecuted and harassed for their membership.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
Freemasonry is a very charitable and philanthropic organization.
Nowhere in our ceremonies and rituals is Satanism, world domination, or the establishment of a singular world religion. You should do research on the history and meaning of certain symbols and how they pertain to Freemasonry.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
Nothing more than accusations.
reply to post by illuminazislayer
Freemasonry doesn't claim to be sole organization or pathway of lessons of morality. Your opinion of what organizations are needed or in how to impart those lessons is still just your opinion. You do it your way, Freemasonry will do it the way it has done for centuries.
As free citizens are we not entitled to rights of privacy and assembly?
You're equating rank with Scottish Rite degrees which is folly. The Scottish Rite has authority only over the Scottish Rite. Nor is there any recognized body above the 33rd in the Scottish Rite. If there were it does not hold recognition of the Grand Masters nor are they then a part of Freemasonry, but a different group entirely and no Freemason holds allegiance to them. You seem to think the Scottish Rite and your fabled higher degree holds authority over the other appendant orders. This is not so. I have many times explained the roles of the appendant orders and their connection, and reliance upon, the Blue Lodge. You have yet to give a detailed summary or synopsis.
Freemasonry is not some pyramid in terms of hierarchy through the degrees. It is a tree with different branches but in the end the branches are still reliant upon the Blue Lodge or trunk of the tree. The York Rite outnumbers in amount of degrees/orders compared to the Scottish Rite. It was 11 members of the York Rite who founded the AASR and thus the Scottish Rite Supreme Council in the US. There is also more than just one Scottish Rite Supreme Council in the world which means there is more than just 33 active 33rds in the world.
Also, You used to need to be either a York or Scottish Rite to join the Shriners, not the case anymore.
You have made only allegations based on nothing more than past lies and/or hoaxes.
reply to post by jrstock
There are more non- and anti-Masons than Masons on this site.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
He was an authority in the Scottish Rite. His work on the rituals, to the best of my knowledge, still required the approval of the Supreme Council. I believe that is why 'Morals & Dogma' was not adopted as official work. The rest of his writings are just his opinion and interpretation.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
Where does Pike assert that Freemasonry is Satanic? When he speaks of Lucifer he is speaking of knowledge, enlightenment. There is also much debate that Lucifer isn't the same as Satan. Stemming from a misinterpretation by St. Jerome in the 4th century.
The original text spoke of 'Helal, son of Shahar' whoch translated into 'Day star, son of the Morning', and the day star, or star that preceded sun rise, was called Lucifer. Today we know it to be the planet Venus. Earlier in that chapter Isaiah, it refers to him as a disgraced Babylonian King. Isaiah is the only book that mentions Lucifer and not all versions have Lucifer in it at all. Fun fact: there was a Bishop from Cagliari named Lucifer around the time of St. Jerome. It's also ironic that the 'Prince of Darkness' can be compared to a light-bearer. Jesus refers to himself as a morning star, or Lucifer, in Rev. 22:16. 2 Peter 1:19 speaks of letting the light of the morning star (or Lucifer) into your heart.
It should also be known that using 'shining' or 'illuminating' was often attached to royalty. Look at how King Louis XIV of France was called the Sun King.
This is a lie commonly known as the Taxil Hoax. The guy even admitted that it was a lie.
freemasonry.bcy.ca...
reply to post by pslind69
The Worshipful (meaning someone worthy of respect) Master is elected to lead and preside. He keeps order and serves as one of the delegates to Grand Lodge. He is elected to serve the Lodge and his position is explained in the ceremonies of our Order. At the end of the day though he still meets on the Level with all Brothers.
Yeah, being from Idaho we are almost completely blue collar. We do have a pretty good mix to include college students.
reply to post by pslind69
Blood relatives are still family. No relationship is negated by joining.
reply to post by The Benevolent Adversary
The Morgan Affair was something that severely damaged Freemasonry and changed the American perspective.
P2 is another stain and a thorn in the side of real Masons. They were a rogue Lodge.
I've been to Italy and visited the Brothers, and have seen nothing more than in America. The Italians though were persecuted and harassed for their membership.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
Freemasonry is a very charitable and philanthropic organization.
Nowhere in our ceremonies and rituals is Satanism, world domination, or the establishment of a singular world religion. You should do research on the history and meaning of certain symbols and how they pertain to Freemasonry.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
Nothing more than accusations.
reply to post by illuminazislayer
Freemasonry doesn't claim to be sole organization or pathway of lessons of morality. Your opinion of what organizations are needed or in how to impart those lessons is still just your opinion. You do it your way, Freemasonry will do it the way it has done for centuries.
As free citizens are we not entitled to rights of privacy and assembly?
You're equating rank with Scottish Rite degrees which is folly. The Scottish Rite has authority only over the Scottish Rite. Nor is there any recognized body above the 33rd in the Scottish Rite. If there were it does not hold recognition of the Grand Masters nor are they then a part of Freemasonry, but a different group entirely and no Freemason holds allegiance to them. You seem to think the Scottish Rite and your fabled higher degree holds authority over the other appendant orders. This is not so. I have many times explained the roles of the appendant orders and their connection, and reliance upon, the Blue Lodge. You have yet to give a detailed summary or synopsis.
Freemasonry is not some pyramid in terms of hierarchy through the degrees. It is a tree with different branches but in the end the branches are still reliant upon the Blue Lodge or trunk of the tree. The York Rite outnumbers in amount of degrees/orders compared to the Scottish Rite. It was 11 members of the York Rite who founded the AASR and thus the Scottish Rite Supreme Council in the US. There is also more than just one Scottish Rite Supreme Council in the world which means there is more than just 33 active 33rds in the world.
Also, You used to need to be either a York or Scottish Rite to join the Shriners, not the case anymore.
You have made only allegations based on nothing more than past lies and/or hoaxes.
reply to post by jrstock
There are more non- and anti-Masons than Masons on this site.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
He was an authority in the Scottish Rite. His work on the rituals, to the best of my knowledge, still required the approval of the Supreme Council. I believe that is why 'Morals & Dogma' was not adopted as official work. The rest of his writings are just his opinion and interpretation.
reply to post by AntoniusBlock
Where does Pike assert that Freemasonry is Satanic? When he speaks of Lucifer he is speaking of knowledge, enlightenment. There is also much debate that Lucifer isn't the same as Satan. Stemming from a misinterpretation by St. Jerome in the 4th century.
The original text spoke of 'Helal, son of Shahar' whoch translated into 'Day star, son of the Morning', and the day star, or star that preceded sun rise, was called Lucifer. Today we know it to be the planet Venus. Earlier in that chapter Isaiah, it refers to him as a disgraced Babylonian King. Isaiah is the only book that mentions Lucifer and not all versions have Lucifer in it at all. Fun fact: there was a Bishop from Cagliari named Lucifer around the time of St. Jerome. It's also ironic that the 'Prince of Darkness' can be compared to a light-bearer. Jesus refers to himself as a morning star, or Lucifer, in Rev. 22:16. 2 Peter 1:19 speaks of letting the light of the morning star (or Lucifer) into your heart.
It should also be known that using 'shining' or 'illuminating' was often attached to royalty. Look at how King Louis XIV of France was called the Sun King.
"To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees - The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine." (Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, Albert Pike, Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l' Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588)
This is a lie commonly known as the Taxil Hoax. The guy even admitted that it was a lie.
freemasonry.bcy.ca...
reply to post by pslind69
The Worshipful (meaning someone worthy of respect) Master is elected to lead and preside. He keeps order and serves as one of the delegates to Grand Lodge. He is elected to serve the Lodge and his position is explained in the ceremonies of our Order. At the end of the day though he still meets on the Level with all Brothers.
edit on 5-4-2011 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by KSigMason
He was an authority in the Scottish Rite. His work on the rituals, to the best of my knowledge, still required the approval of the Supreme Council. I believe that is why 'Morals & Dogma' was not adopted as official work. The rest of his writings are just his opinion and interpretation.
The Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction USA adopted Morals and Dogma as the official lectures of the degrees, and originally required the book to be given to all new members.
In the 1960's, Clausen's Commentaries On Morals and Dogma was adopted. Clausen's was replaced by Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light" in the mid-80's.
All Scottish Rite Valleys in the Southern Jurisdiction are still required to maintain copies of Morals and Dogma and Clausen's Commentaries for the use of interested brethren.
edit on 5-4-2011 by Masonic Light because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Masonic Light
reply to post by SecretSky
Brother Albert Pike, in his "Morals and Dogma", mentions that there are lots of theoretical atheists who are practical Christians, just as there are many theoretical Christians who are practical atheists. In other words, there are many atheists who practice Christian morality and virtues, and there are many Christians who live without a moral compass. Therefore, morality and virtue cannot be judged on the basis of whether one is a Christian, or believes in God.
I suppose by Albert Pike's definition then, I would be a 'theoretical Atheist and practical Christian'. hehe. Quite amusing.
I agree that morality and virtue cannot be judged on the basis of whether one is a Christian. I also believe that 'Christian morality and virtues' would be more correctly termed 'good morality and virtues'. I'm sure being a Freemason (and thus in acceptance of all religions which include 'supreme beings') you have witnessed many of your brothers who are non-Christian possess these same morals and virtues.
Thanks for your reply I'm glad that you see religion and morality as something which is not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, my friend! But "good" is an assessment of value particular to the viewer, is it not? We can avoid such judgments by saying a set of values, be it good or bad, is in line with those preached by Christians, and that's a valid, non-opinionated statement.
Originally posted by SecretSky
I agree that morality and virtue cannot be judged on the basis of whether one is a Christian. I also believe that 'Christian morality and virtues' would be more correctly termed 'good morality and virtues'. I'm sure being a Freemason (and thus in acceptance of all religions which include 'supreme beings') you have witnessed many of your brothers who are non-Christian possess these same morals and virtues.
After all, there are some cultures whose "good morality" might be criminal in most western civilization.
Originally posted by JoshNorton "good" is an assessment of value particular to the viewer, is it not? We can avoid such judgments by saying a set of values, be it good or bad, is in line with those preached by Christians, and that's a valid, non-opinionated statement.
After all, there are some cultures whose "good morality" might be criminal in most western civilization.
That's very true! All adjectives are quite subjective. Especially ones so generic as 'good' and 'bad' it seems.
I suppose 'Morals and virtues in line with Christianity' doesn't have the same ring to it...hmmm, I was looking for a way of wording it to be more inclusive of other groups.
Perhaps calling it 'masonic virtues and morality' would be more inclusive and well-defined
I'm sure it would cause an uproar though. hehe
Thankyou for your reply, friend
reply to post by SecretSky
My disagreement with atheism is not based upon morality at all. I too have known moral atheists and immoral theists.
However, to the atheist, the ultimate reality can only be found in matter. Therefore, mind (and consciousness itself) is the product of matter. Everything being the product of random and accidental combinations of matter, our personalities would be illusionary and mechanical. Being completely under the blind evolutionary forces of nature, there would be no development of sentiments such as love or awe, or even hate. Just a blind instinct to survive and reproduce.
Here, allow me to quote the great Adept, Eliphas Levi, from chapter 1 of his monumental work "Ritual and Dogma of High Magic":
The greatest injury that can be inflicted on a man is to call him a
coward. Now, what is a cowardly person? One who neglects his moral dignity in
order to obey blindly the instincts of Nature. As a fact, in the presence of danger it
is natural to be afraid and seek flight: why, then, is it shameful? Because honour
has erected it into a law that we must prefer our duty to our inclinations or fears.
What is honour from this point of view? It is a universal presentience of immortality
and appreciation of the means which can lead to it. The last trophy which a
man can win from death is to triumph over the appetite for life, not by despair
but by a more exalted hope, which is contained in faith, for all that is noble and
honest, by the undivided consent of the world.
My disagreement with atheism is not based upon morality at all. I too have known moral atheists and immoral theists.
However, to the atheist, the ultimate reality can only be found in matter. Therefore, mind (and consciousness itself) is the product of matter. Everything being the product of random and accidental combinations of matter, our personalities would be illusionary and mechanical. Being completely under the blind evolutionary forces of nature, there would be no development of sentiments such as love or awe, or even hate. Just a blind instinct to survive and reproduce.
Here, allow me to quote the great Adept, Eliphas Levi, from chapter 1 of his monumental work "Ritual and Dogma of High Magic":
The greatest injury that can be inflicted on a man is to call him a
coward. Now, what is a cowardly person? One who neglects his moral dignity in
order to obey blindly the instincts of Nature. As a fact, in the presence of danger it
is natural to be afraid and seek flight: why, then, is it shameful? Because honour
has erected it into a law that we must prefer our duty to our inclinations or fears.
What is honour from this point of view? It is a universal presentience of immortality
and appreciation of the means which can lead to it. The last trophy which a
man can win from death is to triumph over the appetite for life, not by despair
but by a more exalted hope, which is contained in faith, for all that is noble and
honest, by the undivided consent of the world.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
reply to post by SecretSky
However, to the atheist, the ultimate reality can only be found in matter.
Not believing in a creator/God does not amount to not believing in realms beyond this one of matter. In fact, some scientific theories even show it as unlikely that only this realm of matter exists.
This is taken from an article at Columbia University
String theory suggests that as many as nine or 10 spatial dimensions, plus time, may exist, for a total of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions.
Of course, not all Atheists believe in String Theory, but I find it likely that some do.
Here are some definitions of Atheist taken from around the internet:
Wikipedia
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
The Oxford Dictionary
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
one who believes that there is no deity.
The most common definition, and the one that I use is simply a lack of belief in any God/deity.
The point being that there is no definite concept of what an Atheist believes other than the lack of belief in a God/Deity.
There are also many theories about morality and higher-level emotions which suggest they developed as part of our evolutionary process, and some evidence suggesting that other living creatures possess aspects of morality.
Here are some further reading links on this topic:
MIT Press
The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs
The Evolution of Morality
I'm not saying I agree with all of these theories; simply that Atheists are pretty much free to believe in anything, the only common definition being the lack of belief in any God.
This topic is now stepping into the realm of philosophy I think - and I don't mean to distract from the genuine questions to the Freemasons, or the discussion involving Freemasonry, so I'll try and keep the discussion of my beliefs to a minimum from now on.
Again, thank you for your reply. Debate is certainly healthy - and I respect the point of view you are expressing. I acknowledge my own beliefs maybe completely wrong.
reply to post by SecretSky
What about Mother Nature? What about some central "life force" that is evident throughout nature? Is that not a God or a Deity? Enlightenment?
In my opinion, not believing in a Deity means not believing in anything spiritual. That is the part that I cannot comprehend. I do not see how anyone can believe there is only flesh and bone and nothing more. I have witnessed the lights go out in someones eyes, and it is so much more than physical.
I think this is the argument between "vegetarian" and "vegen." There seems to be an atheist lite.
Others are obviously much more versed on the specifics of religion, but I believe there is one central theme that pervades all religions, and possibly even your atheism. There is a central, connecting force. That force can be tapped in prayer, in meditation, or in other ways. That is the "deity" that makes atheism illogical. I find it hard to believe anyone could deny the existence of that force, so if we call that force "God," is there really any reason to define it further?
What about Mother Nature? What about some central "life force" that is evident throughout nature? Is that not a God or a Deity? Enlightenment?
In my opinion, not believing in a Deity means not believing in anything spiritual. That is the part that I cannot comprehend. I do not see how anyone can believe there is only flesh and bone and nothing more. I have witnessed the lights go out in someones eyes, and it is so much more than physical.
I think this is the argument between "vegetarian" and "vegen." There seems to be an atheist lite.
Others are obviously much more versed on the specifics of religion, but I believe there is one central theme that pervades all religions, and possibly even your atheism. There is a central, connecting force. That force can be tapped in prayer, in meditation, or in other ways. That is the "deity" that makes atheism illogical. I find it hard to believe anyone could deny the existence of that force, so if we call that force "God," is there really any reason to define it further?
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by SecretSky
What about Mother Nature? What about some central "life force" that is evident throughout nature? Is that not a God or a Deity? Enlightenment?
In my opinion, not believing in a Deity means not believing in anything spiritual. That is the part that I cannot comprehend. I do not see how anyone can believe there is only flesh and bone and nothing more. I have witnessed the lights go out in someones eyes, and it is so much more than physical.
I think this is the argument between "vegetarian" and "vegen." There seems to be an atheist lite.
Others are obviously much more versed on the specifics of religion, but I believe there is one central theme that pervades all religions, and possibly even your atheism. There is a central, connecting force. That force can be tapped in prayer, in meditation, or in other ways. That is the "deity" that makes atheism illogical. I find it hard to believe anyone could deny the existence of that force, so if we call that force "God," is there really any reason to define it further?
As far as most definitions go, I'm an Atheist. I do not believe in a God, because I do not believe in the creation of the universe by any supernatural being. Being an Atheist doesn't mean believing in 'only flesh and bone', I believe in (and I hope have) a sense of morality, respectable virtues, emotions and strong connection with people and nature.
If these things together constitute God, then perhaps I was wrong and I'm not Atheist after all - but have simply been using the wrong terminology. If however, God needs to be the creator of the universe, I'm afraid I'm still on team A!
As you noticed, I'm only a 'Vegetarian Atheist'. Perhaps Atheism has a 'Vegan appendant body', but to join I'll have to disregard any sense of morality and a few emotions it seems. Please don't think that these appendant bodies are 'regular' or have any authority over 'vegetarian atheism'. hehe. Just kidding
reply to post by SecretSky
Actually, string theory fits nicely with the Hermetic wisdom of occult philosophy, which has (for many centuries before string theory was developed) posited that matter is an expression of vibration, and can be affected by consciousness by attuning to the vibrational pattern.
Hermeticism goes on to say that the origin of the vibration is within the mind of God, and the vibrational quality the effect of God's speech (Logos, the Word made flesh).
Actually, string theory fits nicely with the Hermetic wisdom of occult philosophy, which has (for many centuries before string theory was developed) posited that matter is an expression of vibration, and can be affected by consciousness by attuning to the vibrational pattern.
Hermeticism goes on to say that the origin of the vibration is within the mind of God, and the vibrational quality the effect of God's speech (Logos, the Word made flesh).
edit on 5-4-2011 by Masonic Light because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SecretSky
Was anything I stated or asked in this thread non-civilized? I hope not. My apologies if you found anything I said uncivil.
Being an atheist does not necessarily mean holding no beliefs in other realms beyond the physical realm. (String theory even suggests other realms/dimensions).
Well - to each his own. I also believe in self improvement during this existence, but not for the purpose of my spirits continued existence. I try to improve myself and others around me for the purpose of making this life more comfortable and enjoyable whilst we are here, and so that future generations may enjoy a better life.
I also feel an empathy and emotion towards other living beings - a spiritual connection. I have my own moral values and beliefs which keep me from behaving like an animal. An atheist can have all of those things without believing in a creator/god.
I believe you and other Freemasons on this thread are doing good, by making good men better. As an atheist, am I automatically not good? Not able to be made better?
Peace and total respect.
This is precisely the position of the Grand Orient of France and the Traditions of other Continental Orders of Freemasonry. My experience of the membership in the Continental Lodges I have sat in is that the majority in fact do belong to a religion or have a spiritual belief, however a few are indeed atheist or agnostic. In my Order there is a bible open upon the altar and obligations are taken upon it but we accept that people can and do have differing beliefs of creation and spirituality and who are we to judge them. They can certainly swear to tell the truth as affirmed by our courts, we can't assume they can't swear to keep a promise as well.
reply to post by Masonic Light
Thanks for the reply and information again - I had not heard of the hermetic occult. I just had a read on Wikipedia though, and it is fairly interesting. If string theory is proven right - well a pat on the back is deserved for all the renaissance free-thinkers.
My biggest issue isn't really connected to if there are other levels of existence beyond what we experience, or know.
This is my biggest issue:
If God created the universe, how was God created? If God was not created but is infinite - why can't the universe also be infinite without a creator?
Thanks for the reply and information again - I had not heard of the hermetic occult. I just had a read on Wikipedia though, and it is fairly interesting. If string theory is proven right - well a pat on the back is deserved for all the renaissance free-thinkers.
My biggest issue isn't really connected to if there are other levels of existence beyond what we experience, or know.
This is my biggest issue:
If God created the universe, how was God created? If God was not created but is infinite - why can't the universe also be infinite without a creator?
reply to post by Masonic Light
You mean to tell me that if a hurricane rips through a junkyard that there will be no fully assembled rendition of a Dodge Viper awaiting the curious explorer of the hurricane's aftermath? Here I thought that was how it worked. Random probabilities creating matter and consciousness through a tempest of random extremes and conditions. I'll have to go back to the drawing board. Great post MasonicLight!
Everything being the product of random and accidental combinations of matter, our personalities would be illusionary and mechanical. Being completely under the blind evolutionary forces of nature, there would be no development of sentiments such as love or awe, or even hate. Just a blind instinct to survive and reproduce.
You mean to tell me that if a hurricane rips through a junkyard that there will be no fully assembled rendition of a Dodge Viper awaiting the curious explorer of the hurricane's aftermath? Here I thought that was how it worked. Random probabilities creating matter and consciousness through a tempest of random extremes and conditions. I'll have to go back to the drawing board. Great post MasonicLight!
reply to post by SecretSky
Again, there are surely more elegant thoughts than my own, but why do we keep attempting to personify God? Why does everything have to have a beginning and an end? Why can't the Universe be infinite, and have an infinite creator? Why can't they be one and the same?
You have already mentioned the idea that we have multiple dimensions beyond these 3 that we experience. Mathematics supports that notion. It is entirely impossible and beyond comprehension for a human to even imagine just one additional dimension. If there could be several dimensions beyond our own, it is futile to even try to imagine where or how those would exist.
Here is my post in another thread about trying to comprehend one additional dimension. It is impossible.
My point is this. "God" does not have to be an entity like a person. It could be that life thread, it could be the eternal consciousness, it could be the universe itself. It could be the "creator" of everything we experience and know, but it does not have to have a creator of its own. It is not limited by the things we are limited by.
If God created the universe, how was God created? If God was not created but is infinite - why can't the universe also be infinite without a creator?
Again, there are surely more elegant thoughts than my own, but why do we keep attempting to personify God? Why does everything have to have a beginning and an end? Why can't the Universe be infinite, and have an infinite creator? Why can't they be one and the same?
You have already mentioned the idea that we have multiple dimensions beyond these 3 that we experience. Mathematics supports that notion. It is entirely impossible and beyond comprehension for a human to even imagine just one additional dimension. If there could be several dimensions beyond our own, it is futile to even try to imagine where or how those would exist.
Here is my post in another thread about trying to comprehend one additional dimension. It is impossible.
My point is this. "God" does not have to be an entity like a person. It could be that life thread, it could be the eternal consciousness, it could be the universe itself. It could be the "creator" of everything we experience and know, but it does not have to have a creator of its own. It is not limited by the things we are limited by.
Originally posted by jackflap
You mean to tell me that if a hurricane rips through a junkyard that there will be no fully assembled rendition of a Dodge Viper awaiting the curious explorer of the hurricane's aftermath? Here I thought that was how it worked. Random probabilities creating matter and consciousness through a tempest of random extremes and conditions. I'll have to go back to the drawing board. Great post MasonicLight!
I assume this is a dig at Atheists, and a pretty amusing one. I guess that's why we don't have many Dodge Vipers in Europe - not enough hurricanes.
However, if you are bringing in to question the source of complexity, how do you explain the existence of God, who must be of an almost infinite complexity? If the creation of a Dodge Viper from matter randomly scattered in a hurricane is hard to comprehend or explain, then how do you comprehend or explain that everything was created from nothing, by a God who has no origin?
My explanation does not rely on random for an explanation - it relies on evolution. Simple beginnings with simple additions being put to the trial of natural selection for millions of years, eventually evolving into complexity.
I feel this is getting pretty off-topic, I might make another thread to discuss these philosophical issues. I'm fairly new to ATS - would any Mod please give advice about this - would it be better to keep this in the thread or make a new one?
new topics
-
Feng Shui…
Health & Wellness: 7 hours ago -
Elon Musk to Make Games Great Again - XAI_GAMES Announcement Incoming.
Video Games: 8 hours ago -
North Korea in Ukraine conflict???
World War Three: 8 hours ago -
Most Complex Backyard Rube Goldberg Machine You'll See All Day
General Chit Chat: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Most Complex Backyard Rube Goldberg Machine You'll See All Day
General Chit Chat: 9 hours ago, 9 flags -
Elon Musk to Make Games Great Again - XAI_GAMES Announcement Incoming.
Video Games: 8 hours ago, 6 flags -
North Korea in Ukraine conflict???
World War Three: 8 hours ago, 5 flags -
Feng Shui…
Health & Wellness: 7 hours ago, 5 flags
active topics
-
Elon Musk to Make Games Great Again - XAI_GAMES Announcement Incoming.
Video Games • 16 • : TzarChasm -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3723 • : Skinnerbot -
Mass UAP events. DC. Machester Airport, UFOs over sub base in CT, Nuke bases.
Aliens and UFOs • 32 • : matafuchs -
Chasing Red Mercury – One Drop from Doomsday?
General Conspiracies • 59 • : Skinnerbot -
Feng Shui…
Health & Wellness • 11 • : GENERAL EYES -
North Korea in Ukraine conflict???
World War Three • 16 • : CarlLaFong -
Of course it was DEI
Dissecting Disinformation • 18 • : Flyingclaydisk -
I thought Trump was the existential threat?
World War Three • 148 • : Xtrozero -
Most Complex Backyard Rube Goldberg Machine You'll See All Day
General Chit Chat • 8 • : billxam1 -
population madness
New World Order • 23 • : Xtrozero