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.

 

I am so sick of religious people

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DumpMaster

There really aren't many polytheistic religions left. Hindusim even has one God of everything.

Also the way philosophical debates on God are done is through Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguements. They don't require a specific religion. What was the first cause for instance. It must be a necessary being because something can not come from nothing (cosmological type), ontological would be like "can you imagine a being greater than all others in your mind?, if you can that being has to exist in reality or its not a greater being" (ontological arguement). Teleological: The universe is so finely tuned for life it would require a push from something to create it.

These are not my arguements but they are harder to dismiss without providing equally ambiguous claims. The still have good rebuttles. The only truly difficult philosophical arguement is the teleological arguement. The others have pretty good rebuttles. Fine tuning vets a bit harder but it's also just an observation and assumption it's not a fact or anything.




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So you believe good and evil on constructs of the mind and not something objective and real, that plays out between human beings?



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DumpMaster

You would like Spinoza I think. If you haven't read his work check it out. Even just quotes to get you started. He was considered an atheist but he held a form of pantheism. In his day though he may as well as been communing with the devil.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Nothing wrong with the word sacred but I see what you mean. I just don't know another word that means of extreme value or something like that. What I meant was this is all you get, once it's gone it's over and there is nothing else so you have to value it in the extreme.

The Nazi regime, that is because of religion. Christianity is to blame for that. In the bible it talks about different races and their values. Hitlers was trying to purge the "other races". He was very religious and into occult stuff as well. He especially hated "jews" because of the bible.

Their actions were evil because they murdered and tortured people for their beliefs. I make that claim because they thought something that was untrue was right, then murdered others because of it. That sounds pretty evil to me.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Yes. Without question. That is how nature is.

When a hurricane kills thousands is it evil? Or a cat that plays with its food? Nah evil is a human concept. I am not saying it doesn't exist. Kind of like baseball. Without human concepts it doesn't exist. It's the way we classify brutal acts. The universe is loaded with those.


Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad. Baruch Spinoza
edit on 22-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DumpMaster

Mao and polpot targeted religious people because they were insane power lust people not because they were atheist. The same goes for Hitler. It's the zealots of beliefs that you have to worry about. Like vegans. Just kidding.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DumpMaster
a reply to: BooCrackers

Your 95% staistic is wrong. You're saying 95% of the people worship only 1 deity, many worship many deities.

People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others, correct and great. Problem is read what I wrote in my post above yours where harmless beliefs are killing innocent people elsewhere.

What if I'm wrong? Well evidence and proof says I am not. Religions have no proof or evidence otherwise they would stop asking people to have faith. If there was proof or evidence of any religion being real I would follow the proof and evidence because only the truth matters.

Jesus was a character made up of many previous characters through history. Study some history and you will find many "jesus's" throughout time, but way before your jesus.

Hell is also a fictional place used in indoctrinating children and people into the religious scam. There is no evidence or proof of any such thing. Most religions do not have a hell.

Hope that clears things up.


Ok maybe I was slightly misunderstood junior, try not to let the vein pop out of your forehead.

-Engrish is not my native tongue so you'll have to read between the lines for inflection dude.

-What I meant was 95% believe in a higher power and yes you are right, many of them like to worship cows and cats and your neighbors picture album of you in your backyard during BBQ season. Primarily however most worship one god. Even religions with multiple deity's have one premier god that is above all the others...please check yer religious history for verification.

-Religion to me is much like this post is to you, a waste of time. Yes I know, Jesus was a copycat artist and God is actually the sun. I was being general as in examples of generally speaking, but since you want specific OK.

-And I read your post, only understand you're balling about something none of us have immediate control over. Why worry about it? Just because you and I like the color blue doesn't mean I'll kill my neighbor because he likes red if you choose to do so. You have no physical control over other people, there I said it. You only have control over you and your immediate universe. Again why worry about it? Now if a religious cult murdered your kin, then I would say you have a place at the table of grievances.

-Again if you're not religious, why does it concern you so? You do realize that science has a firm foundation in religion, and if it wasn't for religion, science would not have even started off as quick as it did. They go hand in hand. Many top scientists believe in a higher being that cannot be proven, so are they crazy too? They're scientists.

-Just because you watch the news and someone blows something up does not always mean its a religious act chief (trust me) half the time the act of jihad is merely a means to an end for someone else pulling political strings. Religion aint got crap to do with it. You should take television with a 5lb bag of salt. And swallow less Ra Ra USA propaganda. There is an agenda in play here.

As far as hell goes, well clearly you've never been married, and if you are, just give it time. Hell for your could be being trapped in a elevator full of hairy christians singing ramma ramma for eternity.

The truth as you put it, is we are not civilized, if we were we would not need armies, police, or of the like. We are animals period. Whether you like to admit it, so are you. Welcome to the herd and act natural. People have been killing people since the invention of people. You can't stop it, and most can barely prepare for it. Everyone dies chief, and people really should get used to that sentiment. If it wasn't religion, people would be getting killed over the color blue likely. With over 7 Billion in the world it will happen much more often.

And if I sound crass, that's not my intent. I learned English from Ryan Reynolds and Tom Arnold movies.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I feel your generalization of people that are religious is pretty sad . You basically have lumped all people of all religions together. Which is pretty disturbing. People pray to comfort themselves in tough times and to uplift themselves. I am not a true believer myself but I understand why people pray. I also understand that a religion isn't completely good or completely bad. I know there are radical religious people and there are just people that like to pray. Both are not the same and to lump them together is pretty insensitive. Just as insensitive as a religious person saying al non believers are evil. I feel you should teach your children tolerance and understanding. You should teach them that people are their actions and everyone can do bad things and everyone can also do good things it is always a choice of each person to decide



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Yes. Without question. That is how nature is.

When a hurricane kills thousands is it evil? Or a cat that plays with its food? Nah evil is a human concept. I am not saying it doesn't exist. Kind of like baseball. Without human concepts it doesn't exist. It's the way we classify brutal acts. The universe is loaded with those.


Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad. Baruch Spinoza


I actually agree with you for the most part. Although I don't equate human beings to animals or weather patterns and most definitely don't believe, as Dawkins states, "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Yet you state that you are not saying that it doesn't exist. I agree... It does. Perpetrated by humans, against humans.
So what is it to you, a mental construct or an objective reality?

I think Spinoza has flawed thinking.

'In the absence of objective morality good and evil cease to exist. All we are left with is legal and illegal and government as God." -Me

Government doesn't have a very good track record.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

A mental construct.

Spinoza was a brilliant thinker and not sure what you think was flawed?



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DumpMaster
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Nothing wrong with the word sacred but I see what you mean. I just don't know another word that means of extreme value or something like that. What I meant was this is all you get, once it's gone it's over and there is nothing else so you have to value it in the extreme.

The Nazi regime, that is because of religion. Christianity is to blame for that. In the bible it talks about different races and their values. Hitlers was trying to purge the "other races". He was very religious and into occult stuff as well. He especially hated "jews" because of the bible.

Their actions were evil because they murdered and tortured people for their beliefs. I make that claim because they thought something that was untrue was right, then murdered others because of it. That sounds pretty evil to me.



No, I really like your use of the word sacred! I agree. I believe human life is sacred. All of it...everyone. It's that sacredness or should I say the violation of one's sacredness, that is the fundamental definition of evil.

Please read up on the Nazi regime. It might have been vaguely cloaked in Christianity but it definitely wasn't Christian...or Christ like. Occultists they most definitely were.

In a secular, materialist, worldview how do you defend, objectively, where the line between good and evil is? What is evil to one could be good to the other so how could you argue with it?

I'm not defending Christianity, as a corporate entity within humanity. It has perpetrated some vile and heinous acts throughout history. Acts which were/are objectively evil and decidedly not Christ like and violate the philosophy and teaching of the man they declared that they followed.

In my opinion evil is real, not a construct of mind and lives in the hearts of man.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

A mental construct.

Spinoza was a brilliant thinker and not sure what you think was flawed?


So child rape.
Murder.
Genocide.

Not evil. Simply relative constructs. Correct?

edit; This quote is what I think is flawed thinking

Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad. Baruch Spinoza.

My reasoning is in my previous response.
edit on 22-3-2016 by TheOnlyAnswer because: addition



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Yep.happens in the natural world as well. It's a lack of reason and return to the animal state.

So if Spinoza isn't correct why do different societies and religions have completely different or opposite views of "sin"



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

I think you are trying to make a point for objective morality vs subjective morality (relative).

With reasoning following the golden rule you can "calculate" if a behavior is objectively good or evil.
I might not want to be gay but my subjective preference do not have any merit on saying that homosexual behavior is not good between two equal adults. Two souls connecting in symbiotic mutualistic behavior is good no matter what subjective religions are saying.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer

Yep.happens in the natural world as well. It's a lack of reason and return to the animal state.

So if Spinoza isn't correct why do different societies and religions have completely different or opposite views of "sin"


Because they are small minded and insane instead of aware?

If you base sin on how symbiotic a behavior is then knowing what is moral/immoral become easy. The grade is mutualistic - neutral - parasitic.

Islam and Christian faith is wrong about homosexuality.
Islam is right about usury since it is parasitical.
edit on 22-3-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Hey at least you're consistent! I disagree, but respect you for it.


I believe they are objectively evil, not merely a violation of what is decreed by common consent.

I don't believe a female praying mantis biting the head off her lover is evil yet if a woman were to do so, yes, I would say that is evil. Because of what I believe is the sacredness of human beings.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Spinoza is a poor philosopher in the least bit. But I don't agree with his world view.

Why is there different or opposite views of sin between societies and religions? Because we're humans and don't agree on much!


Why do different societies have completely different or opposite views of what is legal and illegal? Same reason!

The higher question would be, If there is a transcendent first cause of the universe what does He have to say about morality.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

I like the categorical imperarive to figure out what actions make sense.

Neutral is really the base in your model. Both mutual and parasitic are somewhat subjective unless it's a very obvious situation.

I could collect interest on your loan build a public library and buy myself a land Rover. I guess I would be both mutual and parasitic.

I could also siphen off the town's drinking water for my crops and feed my family and sell the rest to the town at a reasonable price.

If I use the categorical imparitive I would say that's a bad idea.

I get what you are saying though and agree to a point.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DumpMaster

Stalin, Mao, pol pot, Darwin teaching we are all animals and lives have no value.

Why get upset by all this evil, why is it evil., why do you value stardust and starwater, why do you say religion is wrong, what gives you the power to dictate what's bad.

Philosophically Killing baby's and children is good, there is nothing wrong with that, lest you be against it on a faith based account

Your argument is tepid, reasoning is not logical, you apply laws that hold no merit


I ask one question, as an atheist, killing children is acceptable according to Darwins assumption of survival of the fittest
Must be, Mao, pol pot, Stalin et all did it and they were atheists, there go all atheists are like them potentially



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LittleByLittle

I like the categorical imperarive to figure out what actions make sense.

Neutral is really the base in your model. Both mutual and parasitic are somewhat subjective unless it's a very obvious situation.

I could collect interest on your loan build a public library and buy myself a land Rover. I guess I would be both mutual and parasitic.

I could also siphen off the town's drinking water for my crops and feed my family and sell the rest to the town at a reasonable price.

If I use the categorical imparitive I would say that's a bad idea.

I get what you are saying though and agree to a point.


Just because we have problems figuring out the objective and make a subjective guess, do not mean there is not a perfect objective understanding to be understood.

Some souls use third eye abilities (or have been both blessed and cursed and have no choice) like empath ability to measure how an action propagates into another soul. I am not one of those souls but they can be amazing to be around.


On higher levels than this level I would assume these objective understanding and other omniscient powers are already quantified and manifested for all souls to use and understand.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DumpMaster
I have a strong dislike for the Abrahamic religions, but I could never agree to taking away someones right to practice their religion, as long as it does not infringe on other peoples rights, and stays out of government. Unfortunately, these are gray areas, and not always so easy to define.



new topics




 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join