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.

 

Athiests vs The Religious Conspiracy... Explain to Me Why Believers Believe.

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I asked you morally what is the difference? So man is more than a product of a natural processes? Or you just exerting your will to live over another?




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

So what? I asked you a question and you keep ignoring it. I'm going to wait until you answer my question before answering any further ones as I feel like I'm having a one sided conversation here.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

of course
something created us, what that something is, is up to debate



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neutronflux

Well true. We could live in utter chaos, throwing our feces around, and waiting for random comets to crash or we could build a society and live in it together. Humans opted for the society aspect. Neither answer is objectively right or wrong. Morality reflects maintaining society. That is all.

PS: Again. When are you going to get around to answering my question?


We do live in chaos. There is a quasar Star with its pole pointed right at the earth. When it explodes, it will send a gamma bust at earth. One bad solar storm from the sun can destroy our civilization. One comet or asteroid.

We live such short lives, it’s hard for us to see.

Sorry, but morals are derived from a moral authority as in God. If not, we are the moral equivalent of a lion or a comet.
edit on 27-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 27-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: justwokeup
The need to believe in something greater than the self without hard evidence seems to be hard wired into many humans. That need could be filled with organised religion. If not perhaps it'll be something more new age or politically dogmatic. It's a hole that something has to fill, for many. What exactly fills it depends on where they are born and the environment they are exposed to.

What's hard wired into humans is curiosity and the desire to find meaning in what they don't understand. This includes inventing narratives to explain the unexplainable in lieu of evidence. Then couple this with that life with a brain (including humans) learns through habitual learning. So the longer an idea remains in human society, the harder it is to shake.

You can confuse this with a "being hard wired to believe", but it isn't true. Again, it is just simple curiosity mixed with a 2 times millennium old habit


Perhaps, not convinced. I dont see religious belief and curiosity as necessarily aligned traits. If anything they seem contradictory. Happy to do some further reading if there's something you can point me to. It's an interesting topic.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please state the question again



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neutronflux

Well true. We could live in utter chaos, throwing our feces around, and waiting for random comets to crash or we could build a society and live in it together. Humans opted for the society aspect. Neither answer is objectively right or wrong. Morality reflects maintaining society. That is all.

PS: Again. When are you going to get around to answering my question?


We do live in chaos. There is a quasar Star with its pole pointed right at the earth. When it explodes, will send a gamma bust at earth. One bad solar storm can from the sun can destroy our civilization. One comet or asteroid.

Sorry, morals are derived from a moral authority as in God.

Besides how dumb and egregious this leap in logic is, I still want to know how you think you'd behave if god didn't exist.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please state the question again

link

I can flip your reasoning on its head too. Religious types suggest that god provides their morals, so that suggests that the only reason YOU are moral is because god told you to be so. If god wasn't there, does that mean you'd act unrestrained and do every immoral thing in the book?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If God doesn’t exist, why would it matter how I acted?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Logic dictates there is too many people on earth, what is the moral solution?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: justwokeup

Well. It's hard to see looking at how religion behaves currently being so stubborn and stuck in their ways, but if you try to think back to how things were when religions first started popping up then you should see things differently. Think about it. Back in the day, there were small tribes of humans wondering around. Their immediate world was their ENTIRE village and they had no knowledge of sciences. So they had to learn and explain things with the limited knowledge they had. All you'd need next is some slick talker who says stuff that sounds good to get everyone believing and BAM you have a religion.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Logic dictates there is too many people on earth, what is the moral solution?

No. Logic doesn't dictate that at all. Logic dictates that there is plenty of room and resources to house many more humans; all comfortably. Logic dictates that the current paradigm of supply and demand and unrestrained capitalism is doomed to fail.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If God doesn’t exist, why would it matter how I acted?

Don't answer my question with a question. Sheesh. How lazy are you? Can I go ahead and interpret this to mean that you would slaughter people without mercy then?



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BStoltman



Explain to Me Why Believers Believe


Pascal's wager?




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If God doesn’t exist, why would it matter how I acted?


I certainly would not be able to accept myself if I knew that I did something to disrespect or otherwise harm another person for no valid reason. I don't need the fear of God punishing me to know it is wrong. It would harm my psyche enough to know that I brought unreasonable harm to another innocent person (i.e., harm that violates the Golden Rule).

As Kazyshot asked, if your learned today that God does not exist, would you feel free to hurt others, maybe murder and steal from innocents? If you do, then that might be a sign of psychopathy.

I know I wouldn't be able to do so; the personal guilt it would bring to me to know that I harmed others would overwhelm me.




edit on 27/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But there was whole royal dynasties that stayed in power and lived relatively good lives abstained through murderous acts. How does the logic of good or bad apply.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then why is demand set to outpace coffee and cocoa production. Why is commercial fishing depleting the seas. Why is farming out in the western United States using up the water table faster than it can be replenished. Man is stripping the earth of natural resources faster than it can be replenished. You used ignoring valid concerns to get out of answering a question by proving a false narrative.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Because one nation cannot regulate any others in the practices of their citizenry and the entire world is based on supply and demand capitalism now. We can only enact change through mutual cooperation. None of that means that the planet is over populated though.

You do know that we can reasonably fit the ENTIRE population of the world in a land mass the size of Texas correct? And we wouldn't even be overcrowded. Resources would be a different issue, but we don't need modern society to survive either. On top of that mining asteroids is only a few decades away. Once we get there, resources abundance will jump through the roof (provided it isn't artificially bottlenecked).



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neutronflux

The "Golden Rule" does not depend on the existence of God. There is a clear Humanistic morality that exists with or without God.

I don't need to believe that God exists for me to know that humans should treat each other with respect and to value life.




That did not answer the question. Do you believe in good or evil. Without a morale authority, there is not a “way” person should treat each other? Why would child labor be wrong? Especially in a culture that promotes child labor?

In a purely evolutionary context, was Hitler wrong to put himself in a position of dominance? In the context of evolution, how is what Hilter did evil? Or wrong? With no God, why does it even matter?

The question is; “not you know how to treat people”, but “Why does it matter how you treat people?”


I'm sorry, what does Hitler have to do with evolution? As for morality, can someone please explain why theists think that atheists have no morality, or are in themselves immoral?
I am an atheist. I have my own moral compass that tells me to be nice to other people and which does not require me to live in fear of an imaginary bearded face in the sky, whose believers are very hypocritical when it comes to magic, who tells people how to live. Can I also point out that in the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus 25 44-46, condones slavery. How moral is that?
Hitler? Morals are completely subjective, what is not subjective is people's well-being. If your actions harm another person then it could be argued that it is an immoral action. On the other hand if you were to harm someone who are about to hurt others, this could be seen as a moral action. Therefore morals are subjective unless you want to add 1000 caveats to make your position more clear.


Morals can be complicated (as your hypothetical "harm someone before they hurt others" illustrates), but that doesn't mean that they still don't ultimately boil down to "Treat others the same way I wish to be treated" and/or "Treat others with respect".

For me to follow those simple rules does not depend on me doing so only because I think God would be pissed at me if I don't; I would be pissed at myself if I don't. By the way, "harm someone before they hurt others" doesn't require a belief in God, nor does it require one to be atheist.

If there is a God who rewards me for common decency or punishes me for immoral acts, then so be it. However, even if there is NOT a God around to punish me for disrespecting my fellow humans, I would want to still keep following the path of general common decency because I personally would not be able to excuse myself if I acted otherwise.

I don't need God or the fear of going to hell to make me feal bad for doing bad things.

Exactly.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: Woodcarver




My point is that people do use their religious influence to push legislation.


Of course.




Are you saying that everyone should just be able to do whatever the # they want?


Again,bad tactic and bad form to either twist my words or try to put them in my mouth.
I have said what I have said and now question your comprehension.




The Notion that I should not pay attention to what other people are doing is outlandish and absurd


You have heard my opinion and I have heard yours.
Time for me to move on,you clearly have your mind made up and I am not going to waste my time to point out what has already been pointed.

Good luck.
You literally told me not to concern myself with what other people are doing. How did i twist your words? You are clearly not good at this conversation thing.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join