fahimknight
05-09-2009, 08:37 PM
THE GREAT DEBATE: RELIGION VERSUS RATIONAL THINKING PART 1
By Fahim A. Knight-EL
This writer had written an article entitled: Religion versus Cult: And Our Quest For Truth” that I web published on October 1, 2008. I knew from the outset that anytime you write or talk about religion, it is often a hypersensitive and emotional topic of discussion, in particular if you are attempting to give a critical assessment and evaluation. Thus, I have enjoyed engaging varying minds in an intellectual discussion relative to religion over some weeks and of course Logic and Rational thinking always win out. Religion is based on an emotional driven social science and it does not stand up under the rigors of intellectual and empirical proof and scrutiny. This has been a very good exchange between myself and others on the David Icke website and perhaps may be we all made some baby steps a long the way, but religion can always be a very sensitive discussion. I am always willing to succumb to any superior and/or logical reasoning and I do not want to come across of not being tolerable of others ideas and positions, but I know in any dialog it should always be based on give and take exchange.
I am perhaps guilty at times of boring my audiences with lengthy citations and wordy content; however, I have always tried to present alternative viewpoints and to at least give the readers something else to think about, but in the truest sense what is more credible than citing your own personal experiences and expressing your opinions relative to a topic. Moreover, which is just as valuable as the next person giving theirs, surely after these many years, I have embraced a worldview as a primary objective witness to life, as opposed to relaying what others may have uttered on this said topic. I took an entirely different approach in constructing and writing this article, I very seldom write in the first person tense and my professor and mentor Dr. Earl Thorpe is probably turning over in his grave.
I do enjoy reading Blogs and articles where people cite their own personal testimonies, which to me these type writing styles exemplify the highest form of artistic writing; when a writer can convey personal experiences in a narrative form, it speaks volumes of their skill level and the comfort level that they have with their intellect and experiences having the ability to standup under scrutiny and at the same time offering something to the scope of literary science. This is a literary art style that I truly envy because I have never been able to adopt it as my own, but I appreciate those that have the intellectual ability to do so. I was trained by a historian named Dr. Earlie Thorpe who is now decease, but historians write like private investigators; the most important thing to them is documentation and verification and making every attempt to be empirical in their research findings.
Religion is such a sensitive topic that it is often difficult to have a rational conversation relative to religion with those that adhere to organized religion. The original article came about due to some deep introspective and reflections that I was having about my own personal spiritual journey. I had taking a few philosophy courses in college some years ago and one of the courses was titled philosophy of religion taught by a professor named Dr. Clack, it reshaped my worldview.
I must admit as a young student, I enjoyed watching Dr. Clack’s analytical mind at work critically evaluating schools of thought that had not been fully tried and tested. So, I never told Dr. Clack, I really admired this man for his intellectual daring approach to take on "hot topics." But what I found to be most attractive, was his willingness to discuss topics that were considered off limits and he was not fearful of disagreeing with the popular view and tradition. I truly walked away from his class as a Free Thinker and over the years this position has gotten me in trouble. This experience led me to seek a deeper understanding of my own spirituality and I debunk organized religion in the formal sense years ago—Thus, I am tolerant of those that have chosen organized religion as their path.
Let me digress a bit and discuss what is differential between religion and spirituality. Spirituality doe not answer to set of agreed dogmas or does not need hierarchy clerics to determine their relationship as a microcosm entity or being, but fully understand their relevance to the macrocosm. This is purely internal development and has very little to do with the external. Spirituality can not be viewed from a corrupt perspective of Western lens.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IS ACCEPT AS SPIRITUALITY
Spirituality encourages people to learn how to think.
Spirituality invites everyone to trust themselves
Spirituality is led on guidance from within.
Spirituality teaches people to question everything.
Spirituality is guided by the spirit of the human heart.
Spirituality combines head and heart to form a conscious connection to The Source of All That Is.
Spirituality welcomes challenges -- Challenges are food for growth and to tools with which to become stronger.
Spirituality teaches that heaven is a state of being.
Spirituality is reborn moment-by-moment right-here right-now. It is born out of one's own knowing that every person is a divine being having a human experience.
Spirituality is all inclusive and teaches that every religion is its own pathway to God. Spirituality acknowledges that trying to stick God into a single religion is like trying to fit the universe into a shoe box.
Spirituality teaches that humans are divine beings experiencing an earth-life in a human body.
Spirituality teaches that personal behavior is a function of knowing in one's own heart what’s right and wrong and then following that inner guidance.
Spirituality teaches that the mind must be brought into play--that there is no one else to blame for whatever is dysfunctional in the outside world or in one's own personal life.
Spirituality acknowledges that every human being has his or her own direct connection to God by way of the God-Self within. (See Matthew 6:5-6 and Luke 17:21.
Spirituality has only one weapon, the truth.
Spirituality is far beyond what many religious people can conceive. Thus, you can not adequately fit spirituality into one’s religious worldview, it just might not fit. However, one can be religious and spiritual, but also one can be spiritual without being religious (this dictum or axiom is often mindboggling to does that practice organized religion). The above represents some of the principles that I acknowledge relative to the concept of spirituality, it is in no way limited to this list nor does this list presents an exhaustive definition of spirituality. These are not my words but this is what I adhere to which differs in many ways from the western concept of religion. I hope this explanation gives my readers some clarity, relative to how I see and view spirituality.
I had not realized the kind of impact that Dr. Clack’s intellectualism had on me and as I stated in the initial article it led me to become a Free thinker, It would be Dr. Clack's rational thinking approach to God and religion that led me to delve deeper into the realm of critical thinking, and eventually evolved into one who did not mind challenging ideas. Thus, as one grows and develops intellectually, it becomes difficult to allow any conscious and/or subconscious restraints to be placed on your mental capacity to think and explore ideals and concepts. There would be no topic or subject that would be considered off limits—this included religion.
I left organized religion along time ago, but it was once a big part of my personal
experience and development and perhaps may be in some of my prior written articles those experiences come across in my thinking, as well as in some of the philosophical ideas being expressed. Life is about traveled paths and religion led me to spirituality, but I truly know that I would have come to that conclusion without religion. I became very uncomfortable with my personal faith tradition; based on the fact that you could not question the tenets or the theology (but deep down inside, I was always a rational thinker before I even met Dr. Clack; my thinking formalized itself a little better upon meeting Dr. Clack) this frustrated me because it prohibited me from having an outlet to debate, explore and weigh evidence and theories in order to satisfy my own inquisitiveness.
My wife is religious, but I must say she is truly my alter ego, because even in religion there are some principles that are irrefutable. I became exposed to logical and rational thinking and this process forced me to raise certain questions because I was searching for rational and logical answers not fairly tales, magic and superstitious concepts. Organized religion is not comfortable with analytical reasoning and I could have accepted a long time ago the cleric just telling me he just did not have the answers to certain questions, as opposed to telling me boogieman stories because I dared to question that which did not add up to being rational.
I am of the further opinion, that there is no defense for religion; it is all concocted magic designed to make people feel good and rob them blind. Religion is one of the biggest con and hoax that has ever been played on humanity. Somebody has a God complex. Let me give you an example, if you look at most global conflicts that are taking place around the world today, you will often find at the basis of these conflicts, is religion (which is systematically used by the Invisible Rulers to keep humanity divided and mentally and really physically enslaved). They use these so-called "Holy Books" as control mechanisms and slavish drive us in various political, economic and social directions. Many that were debating me had weak analytical arguments and were trying to hold on to the tradition of magic and superstitious beliefs—called religion. But in reality had no credible rational defense other than stating to me that “people have the right to practice their feel good faith tradition.” This point is valid, at least from the vanish point of us living inside the United States of America. Yes, I side more with rational theories and science (logic) and I am not willing to allow myself to be duped by the clerics of "tricknology".
What was there before organized religion and before these holy books arrived? Religion in my opinion was a mere concoction invented by man and therefore, the so-called perfection story (the creation and man's attempt to explain his reality) and absolute started out flawed. You can not place something as flawed as religion into a mathematical equation. The physics and math will only show that it’s even more flawed because of the root of its intellectual premises, if we can call it that. Science starts out from the premises of looking to solve the X factor that which is unknown and then it takes you through stringent processes of analyzing data—being tried and tested in order to ascertain a definitive value for X. Thus, this process of assessing and evaluating principles are forever evolving; the science keeps on validating itself. Religion just does not standup to the scientific method and logic is the antithesis to such unproven theories called religion (faith).
I have studied practically all world religions (and their theology) and have walked different paths in my life and those paths (and my acquired experiences) have brought me to this space and time where I am right now, as I write this article. Whatever one considers to be working for them that is their prerogative and however, one determines the benefits or non-benefits of their association with organized or non-organized belief structure, it is better for them to define their religious reality than for me to unfairly render a blanket conclusion about the concept of faith tradition. I have a problem with it all, because I feel for humanity and how these concepts of god and religion keeps us divided and foster human conflict, but this is being done systematically, often unknowing to the innocent one’s who practice organized religion.
I am of the belief that to have a serious conversation about religion, it can not start from the premise of emotionalism because to start from that premise will only compromise the possibility of objectivity. I had no other motive for writing this article other than looking to engage people in an honest and open debate about religion—not to criticize religion, although I am of the opinion that religion is not above critique. My critique is meant to evoke greater understanding, but not to be overly judgmental of people who find it necessary to embrace organized religion.
I know it is difficult for some to depart from tradition, but just look at man's inhumanity to man that is done in the name of God and religion. For example, Constantine and Church in 325 A.D. concocted the Christian creed (they built Christianity on lies and religious deception). Why do not the religious zealots begin a campaign to right (write) the religious historical wrongs? Plain and simple, give the people the truth, Isa Ben Yosef (Jesus the son of Joseph) did not teach the lies that is attributed to his ministry. Let’s start right there.
The paths we all choose depends upon one's understanding of reality—some will embrace the human struggle others will betray the human struggle, it has nothing to do with the criticism and mischaracterization of one’s educational level and assuming the higher level somehow this makes them more susceptible to become reactionary. The enemy has co-opted all types of people, some are part of academia and others are not. I do not have a problem with the pursuit of learning be it formal or be it outside the conventional four wall classroom settings that we in the Western World associate with learning. The question should be, what side are you on.
I think formalize education has its place; it dependents upon one's worldview whether or not they become part of the problem or part of the solution. Thus, I have met some highly trained people who were intellectually insane and I have met some laypersons who had not attained any academic letters, but I would consider them highly educated. I do not think its fair to pigeon hole somebody because of training and/or there lack of. We are at war for the hearts and minds of humanity and I am sorry, I just see organized religion as being an antagonistic contradiction in human development.
Thus, for daring to write about topics dealing with religion, I have been called atheist, agnostic, evil, devil, Satan, Benedict Arnold, etc., and various other derogatory names by people who profess to be believers. I am neither. I have a deep respect and appreciation for that which gives me a rational explanation about creation, the universe, human existence, and the system of universal laws that governs our existences.
This article came about due my involvement as a member of David Icke’s website where I posted the original article titled, “Religion versus Cult and Our Quest For Truth”. I had read or better yet studied Icke's book titled, "The Biggest Secret" and I found him to be an outside the box thinker and one of the few scholars that was willing to challenge conventional thinking. But I was starting to wonder that those who opposed me on the David Icke forum, perhaps had not really read or been listening to Icke (this was his official website) about his views on religious subliminal seduction (religion is some real mind control) which some of them were trying to defend; he meaning Icke, does a much better job of dismantling this magic than I.
I found most of his information credible and welled researched. Icke tackled subjects ranging from such topics as Freemasonry, New Age, Conspiracy, Paranormal topics, Reptilian, International Banking and Finance, religion, the Dynastic Family Cabal, New World Order, Illuminati, etc.
Thus, my article “Religion versus Cult and Our Quest For Truth” as I have stated above when I posted the article, it was immediately met with some opposition from members of the David Icke’s website, but most of those who opposed my views did it out of sheer emotionalism and many of their arguments were void of the practicality of rationalism. I took all of their comments and arguments and in my opinion deconstructed their arguments because they were arguing from the basis of "faith" and "belief."
But there was one gentlemen who went by the Internet handle of Mephibosheth, I suspect this was not his real name, but I found him and his argument interesting. Thus, unlike many of the others on the David Icke website who ventured into this debate this gentlemen Mr. Mephibosheth appeared to be a little more philosophical and he definitely was better read in philosophical theories than his constituents on the site. I suspected that he has had some formal training and education in the field of philosophy and he appeared very comfortable in opposing my theories.
I do not think even him or myself cared much for organized religion, but I believe he took the opposite position of me for the sake of debating the antithesis and perhaps both of us viewed this argument and debate more as a mental exercise in the area of ideas; more so than either of us holding onto immovable theoretical convictions. He was a formidable debater and he and I for a few days debated religion back and forth. I would like to share a portion of that debate with my readers because the argument that we were having in my opinion was much bigger than us.
There are perhaps many more beyond those who will access my Blog and David Icke’s website who could benefit from this discussion. So I have decided to expand this conversation to other audiences and forums beyond just the David Icke’s website.
Those who access this article via Internet have my permission to repost my article on your Blog pages and websites, if you find this conversation to be a necessary discussion as well as take this discussion to your preacher, priest, Imam, minister, Rabbi, elder and discuss it with them. I personally think this conversation is a much needed one, as humanity continues to make theological, religious, spiritual, social, political, and economic transitions.
We no longer can allow ignorance, emotionalism, fear, and unfound dogmas to continue to guide humanity's thinking because the results of this is evident by humanity's lack of spiritual development and it has adversely affected the state of humanity to live in peace and harmony with ourselves and the planet. However, I do think there are good people who practice organized religion and have benefitted from the principles and tenets and have used the various faith traditions and texts to personally better themselves, family and the community. Nevertheless, stated below is the discussion and debate between Mephibosheth and myself:
Mephibosheth stated: by logic. You realize, of course, that this is hopelessly circular, and by necessity.
Fahim A. Knight-EL: No. my man, rational thinking gives way to logical outcomes that are not hopeless; it connects the dots and gives us a reasonable probability and it is not based in unproven spook and mystery God teachings. Question: That you are avoiding, when are you going to produce that mystery God? Yes. I know it's "faith" and this is a reality that is personal? I deal in reality that can be counted and measured. Is this God physical or is it spirit being. Please give us the evidence. I am interested in verifying his/her existence; is it animated or inanimate object?
Mephibosheth stated: If such a God exists, it must be experiencable. If God can't be experienced, then God isn't real.
Fahim A. Knight-EL: Now! this is a good example, of spook teaching. What is the experience you are pertaining to? How do you know that experience is related to "God" but through deductive reason this relegates it-self down to faith (unproven inferences). This is magic at is best.
Mephibosheth stated:" I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you. But I could lead you down the path to where one might attain such an experience. Basically, its the same path all the mystics take."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: This is one of the best rational points that you have made: "I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you." I do accept this as a truth, but you can not lead me to no path where someone could produce that mystery God and verify his existence (this thought or theory only takes us back to "faith" the evidence of things unseen). I put no reliable credence in such non-rational and antagonistic theory." Do you know anyone that can provide via observation a testimony (primary source). I do not mean no damn so-called "Holy" book account of this mystery God?
Mephibosheth stated: "The greatest message from religion is one of self-empowerment. Jesus teaches this, Buddha teaches this, in their own way. That is, they encourage individuals to seek the truth and see reality as it really is, fully and clearly. And this is to see reality beyond words and symbols, concepts, and dualities. But this is difficult for someone to understand if they are stuck clinging to duality and polarity, stuck clinging to the construct of self and the narrative web of meaning built up by language, which does naught but separate us from the immediate and immanent facticity of our being."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: Please produce the evidence that the man called Jesus and other Sages ever walk this earth. I got it; you going to refer me to the Bible, a book that was written years after the so-called man (Jesus) was dead. I contend the man never existed. They gave us 66 books (to control the ignorant) and took out those books that truly would have empowered humanity. Why would these "divinely" inspired men do this?
Mephibosheth stated: "Yes, really."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: You have no defense for religion; you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site trying to pose and intellectual argument; the stuff that you are posing; you need to at least give credit and citation to source because I have seen this non-senses somewhere else; I just can not put my finger on it. You know it is illegal and against the law to plagiarize someone's intellectual property and not give the source proper credit. Yes, I have seen this somewhere just can not put my finger on it. My man, it is a nice cut and past job. Logic is independent of all the variables you cited and you can not equate something as emotional as religion and assess and evaluate these unproven theories and come up with an empirical and rational fact (truth). Yes, man and woman functioned and reasoned (determined right and wrong) understood the laws of relativity, understood the universal laws of cause and effect, etc., long before these so-called holy books corrupted and tried to redefine the natural order of things. My thoughts are original and I am not stealing other people's work to make my case (your last two responses was someone else’s work). You can not even talk about science and religion in the same breath (they are diametrically opposed) to each other. Logic and rational thought is not based on some unproven concoctions. You can not prove that mystery god exist. Somebody wrote these contradictory fairy tales and called it "divine" scriptures. They told us it was "inspired word" of God. Really!
Mephibosheth stated: you said, and I quote "you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site". I asked, 'where's the evidence'? I want to know what's your evidence that I am 'pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site'? Now, for such a highly rational mind such as yours, this should pose no problem whatsoever, right?
Fahim A. Knight-EL: I accept your clarity and your point is valid.
Mephibosheth stated: "Besides which, your statement above is laughable. If there was no conjecture in science, no one would get anything done."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: Science is in the business of testing out; and conjecture is taking through the rigor process of ascertaining what is a highly probability (empirical processes). It seeks empirical conclusions and it has an openness to embrace better science, as we improve on theories and validates new tried and tested data.
Mephibosheth stated: "Meanwhile, your statement that religion is filled with "unscientific theories that stands outside the realm of logic" is utterly nonsensical. Again, this just goes to show that you don't know what logic is, or that you are using the term incorrectly. A religious system, as a system of values, as a system of politics, as a system of metaphysics, can be perfectly logical so long as it is internally coherent and consistent."
PLEASE SEE PART 2 (CONTINUATION)
By Fahim A. Knight-EL
This writer had written an article entitled: Religion versus Cult: And Our Quest For Truth” that I web published on October 1, 2008. I knew from the outset that anytime you write or talk about religion, it is often a hypersensitive and emotional topic of discussion, in particular if you are attempting to give a critical assessment and evaluation. Thus, I have enjoyed engaging varying minds in an intellectual discussion relative to religion over some weeks and of course Logic and Rational thinking always win out. Religion is based on an emotional driven social science and it does not stand up under the rigors of intellectual and empirical proof and scrutiny. This has been a very good exchange between myself and others on the David Icke website and perhaps may be we all made some baby steps a long the way, but religion can always be a very sensitive discussion. I am always willing to succumb to any superior and/or logical reasoning and I do not want to come across of not being tolerable of others ideas and positions, but I know in any dialog it should always be based on give and take exchange.
I am perhaps guilty at times of boring my audiences with lengthy citations and wordy content; however, I have always tried to present alternative viewpoints and to at least give the readers something else to think about, but in the truest sense what is more credible than citing your own personal experiences and expressing your opinions relative to a topic. Moreover, which is just as valuable as the next person giving theirs, surely after these many years, I have embraced a worldview as a primary objective witness to life, as opposed to relaying what others may have uttered on this said topic. I took an entirely different approach in constructing and writing this article, I very seldom write in the first person tense and my professor and mentor Dr. Earl Thorpe is probably turning over in his grave.
I do enjoy reading Blogs and articles where people cite their own personal testimonies, which to me these type writing styles exemplify the highest form of artistic writing; when a writer can convey personal experiences in a narrative form, it speaks volumes of their skill level and the comfort level that they have with their intellect and experiences having the ability to standup under scrutiny and at the same time offering something to the scope of literary science. This is a literary art style that I truly envy because I have never been able to adopt it as my own, but I appreciate those that have the intellectual ability to do so. I was trained by a historian named Dr. Earlie Thorpe who is now decease, but historians write like private investigators; the most important thing to them is documentation and verification and making every attempt to be empirical in their research findings.
Religion is such a sensitive topic that it is often difficult to have a rational conversation relative to religion with those that adhere to organized religion. The original article came about due to some deep introspective and reflections that I was having about my own personal spiritual journey. I had taking a few philosophy courses in college some years ago and one of the courses was titled philosophy of religion taught by a professor named Dr. Clack, it reshaped my worldview.
I must admit as a young student, I enjoyed watching Dr. Clack’s analytical mind at work critically evaluating schools of thought that had not been fully tried and tested. So, I never told Dr. Clack, I really admired this man for his intellectual daring approach to take on "hot topics." But what I found to be most attractive, was his willingness to discuss topics that were considered off limits and he was not fearful of disagreeing with the popular view and tradition. I truly walked away from his class as a Free Thinker and over the years this position has gotten me in trouble. This experience led me to seek a deeper understanding of my own spirituality and I debunk organized religion in the formal sense years ago—Thus, I am tolerant of those that have chosen organized religion as their path.
Let me digress a bit and discuss what is differential between religion and spirituality. Spirituality doe not answer to set of agreed dogmas or does not need hierarchy clerics to determine their relationship as a microcosm entity or being, but fully understand their relevance to the macrocosm. This is purely internal development and has very little to do with the external. Spirituality can not be viewed from a corrupt perspective of Western lens.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IS ACCEPT AS SPIRITUALITY
Spirituality encourages people to learn how to think.
Spirituality invites everyone to trust themselves
Spirituality is led on guidance from within.
Spirituality teaches people to question everything.
Spirituality is guided by the spirit of the human heart.
Spirituality combines head and heart to form a conscious connection to The Source of All That Is.
Spirituality welcomes challenges -- Challenges are food for growth and to tools with which to become stronger.
Spirituality teaches that heaven is a state of being.
Spirituality is reborn moment-by-moment right-here right-now. It is born out of one's own knowing that every person is a divine being having a human experience.
Spirituality is all inclusive and teaches that every religion is its own pathway to God. Spirituality acknowledges that trying to stick God into a single religion is like trying to fit the universe into a shoe box.
Spirituality teaches that humans are divine beings experiencing an earth-life in a human body.
Spirituality teaches that personal behavior is a function of knowing in one's own heart what’s right and wrong and then following that inner guidance.
Spirituality teaches that the mind must be brought into play--that there is no one else to blame for whatever is dysfunctional in the outside world or in one's own personal life.
Spirituality acknowledges that every human being has his or her own direct connection to God by way of the God-Self within. (See Matthew 6:5-6 and Luke 17:21.
Spirituality has only one weapon, the truth.
Spirituality is far beyond what many religious people can conceive. Thus, you can not adequately fit spirituality into one’s religious worldview, it just might not fit. However, one can be religious and spiritual, but also one can be spiritual without being religious (this dictum or axiom is often mindboggling to does that practice organized religion). The above represents some of the principles that I acknowledge relative to the concept of spirituality, it is in no way limited to this list nor does this list presents an exhaustive definition of spirituality. These are not my words but this is what I adhere to which differs in many ways from the western concept of religion. I hope this explanation gives my readers some clarity, relative to how I see and view spirituality.
I had not realized the kind of impact that Dr. Clack’s intellectualism had on me and as I stated in the initial article it led me to become a Free thinker, It would be Dr. Clack's rational thinking approach to God and religion that led me to delve deeper into the realm of critical thinking, and eventually evolved into one who did not mind challenging ideas. Thus, as one grows and develops intellectually, it becomes difficult to allow any conscious and/or subconscious restraints to be placed on your mental capacity to think and explore ideals and concepts. There would be no topic or subject that would be considered off limits—this included religion.
I left organized religion along time ago, but it was once a big part of my personal
experience and development and perhaps may be in some of my prior written articles those experiences come across in my thinking, as well as in some of the philosophical ideas being expressed. Life is about traveled paths and religion led me to spirituality, but I truly know that I would have come to that conclusion without religion. I became very uncomfortable with my personal faith tradition; based on the fact that you could not question the tenets or the theology (but deep down inside, I was always a rational thinker before I even met Dr. Clack; my thinking formalized itself a little better upon meeting Dr. Clack) this frustrated me because it prohibited me from having an outlet to debate, explore and weigh evidence and theories in order to satisfy my own inquisitiveness.
My wife is religious, but I must say she is truly my alter ego, because even in religion there are some principles that are irrefutable. I became exposed to logical and rational thinking and this process forced me to raise certain questions because I was searching for rational and logical answers not fairly tales, magic and superstitious concepts. Organized religion is not comfortable with analytical reasoning and I could have accepted a long time ago the cleric just telling me he just did not have the answers to certain questions, as opposed to telling me boogieman stories because I dared to question that which did not add up to being rational.
I am of the further opinion, that there is no defense for religion; it is all concocted magic designed to make people feel good and rob them blind. Religion is one of the biggest con and hoax that has ever been played on humanity. Somebody has a God complex. Let me give you an example, if you look at most global conflicts that are taking place around the world today, you will often find at the basis of these conflicts, is religion (which is systematically used by the Invisible Rulers to keep humanity divided and mentally and really physically enslaved). They use these so-called "Holy Books" as control mechanisms and slavish drive us in various political, economic and social directions. Many that were debating me had weak analytical arguments and were trying to hold on to the tradition of magic and superstitious beliefs—called religion. But in reality had no credible rational defense other than stating to me that “people have the right to practice their feel good faith tradition.” This point is valid, at least from the vanish point of us living inside the United States of America. Yes, I side more with rational theories and science (logic) and I am not willing to allow myself to be duped by the clerics of "tricknology".
What was there before organized religion and before these holy books arrived? Religion in my opinion was a mere concoction invented by man and therefore, the so-called perfection story (the creation and man's attempt to explain his reality) and absolute started out flawed. You can not place something as flawed as religion into a mathematical equation. The physics and math will only show that it’s even more flawed because of the root of its intellectual premises, if we can call it that. Science starts out from the premises of looking to solve the X factor that which is unknown and then it takes you through stringent processes of analyzing data—being tried and tested in order to ascertain a definitive value for X. Thus, this process of assessing and evaluating principles are forever evolving; the science keeps on validating itself. Religion just does not standup to the scientific method and logic is the antithesis to such unproven theories called religion (faith).
I have studied practically all world religions (and their theology) and have walked different paths in my life and those paths (and my acquired experiences) have brought me to this space and time where I am right now, as I write this article. Whatever one considers to be working for them that is their prerogative and however, one determines the benefits or non-benefits of their association with organized or non-organized belief structure, it is better for them to define their religious reality than for me to unfairly render a blanket conclusion about the concept of faith tradition. I have a problem with it all, because I feel for humanity and how these concepts of god and religion keeps us divided and foster human conflict, but this is being done systematically, often unknowing to the innocent one’s who practice organized religion.
I am of the belief that to have a serious conversation about religion, it can not start from the premise of emotionalism because to start from that premise will only compromise the possibility of objectivity. I had no other motive for writing this article other than looking to engage people in an honest and open debate about religion—not to criticize religion, although I am of the opinion that religion is not above critique. My critique is meant to evoke greater understanding, but not to be overly judgmental of people who find it necessary to embrace organized religion.
I know it is difficult for some to depart from tradition, but just look at man's inhumanity to man that is done in the name of God and religion. For example, Constantine and Church in 325 A.D. concocted the Christian creed (they built Christianity on lies and religious deception). Why do not the religious zealots begin a campaign to right (write) the religious historical wrongs? Plain and simple, give the people the truth, Isa Ben Yosef (Jesus the son of Joseph) did not teach the lies that is attributed to his ministry. Let’s start right there.
The paths we all choose depends upon one's understanding of reality—some will embrace the human struggle others will betray the human struggle, it has nothing to do with the criticism and mischaracterization of one’s educational level and assuming the higher level somehow this makes them more susceptible to become reactionary. The enemy has co-opted all types of people, some are part of academia and others are not. I do not have a problem with the pursuit of learning be it formal or be it outside the conventional four wall classroom settings that we in the Western World associate with learning. The question should be, what side are you on.
I think formalize education has its place; it dependents upon one's worldview whether or not they become part of the problem or part of the solution. Thus, I have met some highly trained people who were intellectually insane and I have met some laypersons who had not attained any academic letters, but I would consider them highly educated. I do not think its fair to pigeon hole somebody because of training and/or there lack of. We are at war for the hearts and minds of humanity and I am sorry, I just see organized religion as being an antagonistic contradiction in human development.
Thus, for daring to write about topics dealing with religion, I have been called atheist, agnostic, evil, devil, Satan, Benedict Arnold, etc., and various other derogatory names by people who profess to be believers. I am neither. I have a deep respect and appreciation for that which gives me a rational explanation about creation, the universe, human existence, and the system of universal laws that governs our existences.
This article came about due my involvement as a member of David Icke’s website where I posted the original article titled, “Religion versus Cult and Our Quest For Truth”. I had read or better yet studied Icke's book titled, "The Biggest Secret" and I found him to be an outside the box thinker and one of the few scholars that was willing to challenge conventional thinking. But I was starting to wonder that those who opposed me on the David Icke forum, perhaps had not really read or been listening to Icke (this was his official website) about his views on religious subliminal seduction (religion is some real mind control) which some of them were trying to defend; he meaning Icke, does a much better job of dismantling this magic than I.
I found most of his information credible and welled researched. Icke tackled subjects ranging from such topics as Freemasonry, New Age, Conspiracy, Paranormal topics, Reptilian, International Banking and Finance, religion, the Dynastic Family Cabal, New World Order, Illuminati, etc.
Thus, my article “Religion versus Cult and Our Quest For Truth” as I have stated above when I posted the article, it was immediately met with some opposition from members of the David Icke’s website, but most of those who opposed my views did it out of sheer emotionalism and many of their arguments were void of the practicality of rationalism. I took all of their comments and arguments and in my opinion deconstructed their arguments because they were arguing from the basis of "faith" and "belief."
But there was one gentlemen who went by the Internet handle of Mephibosheth, I suspect this was not his real name, but I found him and his argument interesting. Thus, unlike many of the others on the David Icke website who ventured into this debate this gentlemen Mr. Mephibosheth appeared to be a little more philosophical and he definitely was better read in philosophical theories than his constituents on the site. I suspected that he has had some formal training and education in the field of philosophy and he appeared very comfortable in opposing my theories.
I do not think even him or myself cared much for organized religion, but I believe he took the opposite position of me for the sake of debating the antithesis and perhaps both of us viewed this argument and debate more as a mental exercise in the area of ideas; more so than either of us holding onto immovable theoretical convictions. He was a formidable debater and he and I for a few days debated religion back and forth. I would like to share a portion of that debate with my readers because the argument that we were having in my opinion was much bigger than us.
There are perhaps many more beyond those who will access my Blog and David Icke’s website who could benefit from this discussion. So I have decided to expand this conversation to other audiences and forums beyond just the David Icke’s website.
Those who access this article via Internet have my permission to repost my article on your Blog pages and websites, if you find this conversation to be a necessary discussion as well as take this discussion to your preacher, priest, Imam, minister, Rabbi, elder and discuss it with them. I personally think this conversation is a much needed one, as humanity continues to make theological, religious, spiritual, social, political, and economic transitions.
We no longer can allow ignorance, emotionalism, fear, and unfound dogmas to continue to guide humanity's thinking because the results of this is evident by humanity's lack of spiritual development and it has adversely affected the state of humanity to live in peace and harmony with ourselves and the planet. However, I do think there are good people who practice organized religion and have benefitted from the principles and tenets and have used the various faith traditions and texts to personally better themselves, family and the community. Nevertheless, stated below is the discussion and debate between Mephibosheth and myself:
Mephibosheth stated: by logic. You realize, of course, that this is hopelessly circular, and by necessity.
Fahim A. Knight-EL: No. my man, rational thinking gives way to logical outcomes that are not hopeless; it connects the dots and gives us a reasonable probability and it is not based in unproven spook and mystery God teachings. Question: That you are avoiding, when are you going to produce that mystery God? Yes. I know it's "faith" and this is a reality that is personal? I deal in reality that can be counted and measured. Is this God physical or is it spirit being. Please give us the evidence. I am interested in verifying his/her existence; is it animated or inanimate object?
Mephibosheth stated: If such a God exists, it must be experiencable. If God can't be experienced, then God isn't real.
Fahim A. Knight-EL: Now! this is a good example, of spook teaching. What is the experience you are pertaining to? How do you know that experience is related to "God" but through deductive reason this relegates it-self down to faith (unproven inferences). This is magic at is best.
Mephibosheth stated:" I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you. But I could lead you down the path to where one might attain such an experience. Basically, its the same path all the mystics take."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: This is one of the best rational points that you have made: "I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you." I do accept this as a truth, but you can not lead me to no path where someone could produce that mystery God and verify his existence (this thought or theory only takes us back to "faith" the evidence of things unseen). I put no reliable credence in such non-rational and antagonistic theory." Do you know anyone that can provide via observation a testimony (primary source). I do not mean no damn so-called "Holy" book account of this mystery God?
Mephibosheth stated: "The greatest message from religion is one of self-empowerment. Jesus teaches this, Buddha teaches this, in their own way. That is, they encourage individuals to seek the truth and see reality as it really is, fully and clearly. And this is to see reality beyond words and symbols, concepts, and dualities. But this is difficult for someone to understand if they are stuck clinging to duality and polarity, stuck clinging to the construct of self and the narrative web of meaning built up by language, which does naught but separate us from the immediate and immanent facticity of our being."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: Please produce the evidence that the man called Jesus and other Sages ever walk this earth. I got it; you going to refer me to the Bible, a book that was written years after the so-called man (Jesus) was dead. I contend the man never existed. They gave us 66 books (to control the ignorant) and took out those books that truly would have empowered humanity. Why would these "divinely" inspired men do this?
Mephibosheth stated: "Yes, really."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: You have no defense for religion; you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site trying to pose and intellectual argument; the stuff that you are posing; you need to at least give credit and citation to source because I have seen this non-senses somewhere else; I just can not put my finger on it. You know it is illegal and against the law to plagiarize someone's intellectual property and not give the source proper credit. Yes, I have seen this somewhere just can not put my finger on it. My man, it is a nice cut and past job. Logic is independent of all the variables you cited and you can not equate something as emotional as religion and assess and evaluate these unproven theories and come up with an empirical and rational fact (truth). Yes, man and woman functioned and reasoned (determined right and wrong) understood the laws of relativity, understood the universal laws of cause and effect, etc., long before these so-called holy books corrupted and tried to redefine the natural order of things. My thoughts are original and I am not stealing other people's work to make my case (your last two responses was someone else’s work). You can not even talk about science and religion in the same breath (they are diametrically opposed) to each other. Logic and rational thought is not based on some unproven concoctions. You can not prove that mystery god exist. Somebody wrote these contradictory fairy tales and called it "divine" scriptures. They told us it was "inspired word" of God. Really!
Mephibosheth stated: you said, and I quote "you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site". I asked, 'where's the evidence'? I want to know what's your evidence that I am 'pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site'? Now, for such a highly rational mind such as yours, this should pose no problem whatsoever, right?
Fahim A. Knight-EL: I accept your clarity and your point is valid.
Mephibosheth stated: "Besides which, your statement above is laughable. If there was no conjecture in science, no one would get anything done."
Fahim A. Knight-EL: Science is in the business of testing out; and conjecture is taking through the rigor process of ascertaining what is a highly probability (empirical processes). It seeks empirical conclusions and it has an openness to embrace better science, as we improve on theories and validates new tried and tested data.
Mephibosheth stated: "Meanwhile, your statement that religion is filled with "unscientific theories that stands outside the realm of logic" is utterly nonsensical. Again, this just goes to show that you don't know what logic is, or that you are using the term incorrectly. A religious system, as a system of values, as a system of politics, as a system of metaphysics, can be perfectly logical so long as it is internally coherent and consistent."
PLEASE SEE PART 2 (CONTINUATION)