it is truly so that all religions want to have a monopoly on the truth and thereby control and subvert their subordinates into infinite submission forever. abberants (free thinkers) are seen as a threat and therefore destroyed by any means available in order to maintain control.

the main tool for this control of the many by the few is fear.

First, I would like to applaud your obviously high vocabulary. Sometimes, however, a well formed vocabulary is not enough to make a point, let alone prove anything at all. May I humbly ask what proof you have for these rather certain and outrageous claims? It is true that there are religions out there that use fear as a means of keeping their followers in line, and some religions have even ventured far enough as to murder the so called "non-believers" of their faith. But can you truly say that "all religions" want a monopoly on the truth? After all, can you even define what truth is? I pose to you then, the million dollar question: What is truth? Please take care in providing an answer, because how a person answers this specific question determines the sate of their arrogance. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the definition of religion is "a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals (Dic. Definition)." This means that, logically, everyone in existence is involved in some form of "religion." Yes, that does mean that Agnosticism and even Atheism are religions of their own. Each has a set of values and beliefs that they believe to be right, and more so, Atheism takes itself even further into the realm of religion by simply saying that there is no God (in other words, religion is wrong). Atheists are doing the very same things that they accuse various religions of doing. To take this to an even higher level of thought, I would venture to say that Atheism in its self is impossible. No human could every claim to know the whole of our existence in entirety. In other words, to truly be an Atheist, you must know 100% of all knowledge. The reason I say this is because if you are even missing .001% of all universal knowledge, you could not say without a shadow of a doubt that "God" or some facsimile of "God" did not exist somewhere within that unknown. Therefore, you would simply be lying to yourself if you said that "God" did not exist, because you don't know everything, plain as day. To top it all of, even the most brilliant person on earth could not possibly know even 1% of the total knowledge in our universe. After all, humanity hasn't even had one manned mission beyond our own moon, and many people even debate about the credibility of the moon landings. I await your reply!

-RayRay-

LOL....yeah, it sounds pretty scary if you read Doktor's comments aloud in your best doomsday voice....give me a break. Anyways, lets get to the issue at hand.

First of all Raymond, I think you strayed way off topic - the existence of God questioned in Doktor's comment. All that Doktor said basically is that he believes that all religion (maybe religious organizations...b/c how does a religion, or collection of beliefs, seek to control people?) seeks to control its followers and secure that control by eliminating free thinkers (or at least the ones that threaten the organization by being vocal). I think that you could make a good argument to support that statement using Christianity as a model. The Catholic Church has a long history of that sort of practice both in Europe and the colonization of the Americas. Is it not true that we still have religious organizations that preach "fire and brimstone" threatening hell and guilt tripping people every step of the way (I've been to a couple...they tend to emphasize tithing too....just keep coming with your check and don't miss church or you could be on the road to hell). Christian doctrine also seems to emphasize servitude to God, being like meek little sheep or children. Having the "fear of the Lord" is a virtue, which makes it easy for corrupt organizations to exploit these beliefs in their followers.

I think that if you really wanted to attack Doktor's statement, I would have started with the idea that "all" religions (religious organizations) seek to control people. I'm sure there are at least some Christian religious organizations and others that do not use fear to control their followers and that encourage free thought. I think the ideal religious organization would teach that free thought and truth seeking would lead to a peace with God.

What I think he means by truth is a "correct worldview". Is it not true that many religions, especially Christianity, claim that it is the one true religion? If you claim that your organization's beliefs are the only way or truth and seek to convince your followers, then you are trying to gain a "monopoly of the truth" according to Doktor's statement.

What is the "total knowledge of all the universe"...is that even a finite quantity? What does that have to do with anything? And if it's true that you can't reasonably be an atheist without 100% of all "knowledge", how can you reasonably believe in a god without all the "knowledge" of the universe save through faith? (I do agree that there has to be a degree of "faith" in any person completely convinced of their beliefs). And as far as knowledge of the universe goes, many people believe that the more we learn about the universe, the less room there is for a god as an explanation for things. Years ago, people used deities to explain natural phenomena such as the weather, planetary movements, etc. Now the sciences explain such things. So some people argue that, with the current tendency, the "god gap" will continue to get smaller until science can explain everything....but for now people maybe haven't accumulated enough knowledge.

Are you suggesting that we may have not landed on the moon or that this idea is even worth considering?

sorry I could have proofread better...maybe I typed too fast. In the second paragraph, it should read " - the existence of God IS NOT even questioned in Doktor's comment".

I am curious... Where did you get the idea that I was attacking? I was actually looking for an interesting discussion, as a matter of fact, it is the only reason I posted here. I am aware of what He meant, however, I think you may have read my reply wrong. On the moon landing topic, I am not sure where you got that I was suggesting that we may not have been there. If you read what I said again, it should read as such:"many people even debate about the credibility of the moon landings. " This in no way implies that I am debating anything, but is actually a general statement. And yes, it is true that people do not believe that Humans have been to the moon. I do also know that Doktor said nothing about the existence of God. My bringing it up was my way of inviting him to toss in his thoughts and feelings on the subject.

-RayRay-

P.S.- Nice speaking with you again Steven.

Hey, nice talking with you too...it's been a while. When I said "attack", I was referring to his statements or arguments regarding religion....like in a debate, you "attack" an argument from a certain angle. I didn't mean "personal attack". You do disagree with him, don't you? Sorry though, maybe I should have picked a better word.

As far as the moon landings (or non-landings) goes, I didn't ask if you believed it (I read it correctly), I was just curious if you even considered it or that anyone should consider it....otherwise, I don't know why it was worth mentioning.

About your argument about the "total knowledge of the universe" (how can you have a "total" something that is possibly infinite?)....

You said,
"To take this to an even higher level of thought, I would venture to say that Atheism in its self is impossible. No human could every claim to know the whole of our existence in entirety. In other words, to truly be an Atheist, you must know 100% of all knowledge."

In what way is atheism impossible? Is it impossible that no god exists or impossible to believe that no god exists? Did you mean that people should not have "faith" that no god exists? If that's the case, why should they have faith that a god DOES exist?

Unless you have proof of a deity's existence already (in which case this debate would be over very shortly), then it is possible for the universe to not have a god because of the possibilities offered by the unknown (the opposite is also true). Or did you mean that in order to believe in something, you must KNOW it beyond a shadow of a doubt....if that's the case, no one should ever believe in anything. Ironically, in your statement, you must possess god-like knowledge of the universe to not believe in god.

Based on your argument, Atheism and theism are on the same level. Atheists believe that there is no solid proof for the existence of a deity and that there is not any proof in the unknown either. Theists believe that some proof must exist somewhere because there is a god. So if you believe that there is no undeniable proof of a deity so far and do not think you should make any assumptions about the unknown, then you are an agnostic (hence the group name).

On the topic of 100% knowledge, you have outlined my point that I was trying expressing. Even in the Christian faith it is impossible to know everything, because to know everything, you would have to be God and God himself is infinite, therefore all knowledge is infinite. The reason I say that Atheism is impossible (this is my own observation/ opinion), is because Atheism in itself goes against its own founding principals. Your use of the word "Faith" perplexes me. I see faith as such: "Hebrews 11:1--- ...faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. " How can a man have faith in nothing? Am I wrong in my understanding that Atheists believe in no divine deity, or so on? I also understood that Atheists don't believe in having faith. What good is faith to a man who believes that the universe is entirely random and by chance? It is my own understanding that proof of Gods existence is all around us.


--Leaning back towards Doktors topic--
Ironically, I actually agree with Doktor about fear and control being used as tool of manipulation for many religions. I simply disagreed with his use of two words in direct relation to one another. Those two words are: "All" and "Religions." It is true that as a believer in God, I believe that essentially My faith is right, and others are wrong. This is how things work for everyone. Every human on this planet has some belief that they think they are right on, while others are wrong. But let me ask you this, As a Christian, in our past debates and discussions, have I ever used fear to manipulate you into believing my faith? I embrace free thinkers, and men/women who ask questions. I enjoy discussions with you for this reason; you are fresh and open to all possibility. This is rare to find in most modern cultures because a majority of the so called 'free thinkers" in existence today are not really free thinkers. They are people who have simply adopted the ideas and thoughts of other free thinkers who are well known, such as Sigmund Freud, and turned them into yet another religion. Anyhow, I am out of time for tonight. Until Next time.

-RayRay-