Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Religion Vs. Morality

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 12:24 PM
link   


In an age of skepticism (certainty is impossible) and nihilism (nothing means anything), many people are desperately searching for a guide to life, a philosophy.

As Ayn Rand wrote in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It: “A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy.

Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined convictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance.”

Instead of turning to reason, many are turning to what they think is an alternative: religion. It is easier, and it’s what they hear everywhere: Politicians, community leaders, and even professors all tell them that that there is no rational certainty, thus leaving them with the implication that to have principles means to accept religious dogma.

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy because it attempts to provide a theory of the nature of man, man’s place in the universe, and a guide to human action. But religion admittedly has no rational basis, meaning: no basis at all. “Faith” is merely someone’s assertion (without evidence) that something is true. As a “guide” to life it couldn’t be more dangerous.

And it is becoming an increasing danger to Americans as the 21st century opens. The religious right’s efforts to enforce religion and destroy our rights is all around us: laws preventing abortion and assisted suicide, censorship, school prayer in public schools, laws
against homosexuality, laws mandating the teaching of “creationism.”


Found this site while surfing felt it would be a good topic for discussion.....

Any thoughts?




posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 12:32 PM
link   
we are sheep

deep down we want someone to tell us what to think
- where to go
-- what to say
--- who to like
---- who to hate
----- what to believe
------ what happens next

history proves this

i deny anyone to prove otherwise


so the 'intellectuals' can churn their brains into butter pondering the deepest importance of such things, but in the end, we just need to be told what to do



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I dont think thats true. Do you need someone telling you what to do?

I dont buy the Masonic line that we need to be ruled. I think we feel this way because we have been covertly taught to look for guidence from rulers, who are supplied to us, by the very same masons.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The whole point of religion is to form a morality that suits God, or suits those that created the God we believe in. For not all truths can possibly be known especially when we consider which truths we claim to be that of God. I think most of the religion we see today is based on morality and not on the pride of loving ones God. I think in reality most people use religion as a ploy or an easy way around moral dogmas. All they have to do is quote a passage or ask their clergymen for the clarity and answers they want to hear or seek to believe.

That is my belief. That belief being that in today's world people want an easy way out. They don't want to live like true men of God, like Abraham. They want to use some reference other than God. They look for an answer now, not later. For it is known that God will not give one a judgement until when reaches him. However the clergy will always be happy to provide that judgement we so often seek. The problem is that no clergy can tell us what God thinks anymore than we can. So one must not allow the clergy to get in the way of one's pursuit of God. I don't think that God wanted it that way anyway.

I take much faith in my will and my opinion of what God wants for me and others and do not overtly seek it from anyother. I like to keep my connection to God personal and constructive. That cannot be if I allow the clergy or even public opinion to distort my views on these matters. For if I were to do so then I would be lacking faith. Would I not???

So what I use is morality and the love of God. I don't feel that anyother means of enlightenment towards the One great Light is necassary. There should be no middle man. (Just as goregrinder says.)

(That is just one man's opinion, nothing to take seriously.)


Love,
Abraham Virtue


PS---Great topic Toltec



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Here is the link on the site....

religion.aynrand.org...


arc

posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 03:23 PM
link   
interesting viewpoint quoted there Toltec

It is a shame that so many religious people are thought to be 'sheep' just because they try and follow another's teachings. Perhaps the issue is not 'do you believe', but 'how you believe'. Do you learn, question, ponder, apply and re-evaluate the teachings of whichever God you worship, or do you blindly follow and occasionally fail to understand the deeper meanings behind the scriptures and parables?

I don't think those non-religious types are any more innocent of the 'crimes' illustrated above. Religious or not, for most of us our belief systems are aquired through life from many varied sources and interpretations of morality. Those who expose a particular psychological or philosophical ideal can be as guilty as the most evangelical of sheer blindness and narrowmindedness



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 05:04 PM
link   
This is just my uneducated thought on this:

Morality is an inherent part of 'human nature', of Self. It is a 'self-governing' mechanism but is also learned and taught. Our parents teach of us 'right' and 'wrong', the places and people we come in contact with daily teach and enforce 'morality'. Religion, also, teaches us of morality on the physical being as well as the spiritual being. Furthermore, just what 'exactly' is "rightness" or "wrongness"? Is this NOT intrinsically defined by 'us'?

But as with Morality and issues of "wrongness' or "rightness", you have the samething with Religion. I personally feel that religion as a whole is somewhat purposeful but to be more specific, organized religion is a problem. Organized religion is not a solution; they are the problem. Not all religions, but most and certainly, most of the largest. Organized religion or religion in general --- and to clarify, let it be said I am refering those religions which teach a doctrine of exclusivity. In other words, "our religion is the only true religion"; the kind of religion that teaches separatist philosophy and exclusive theology.

What we have in the case of most of our largest and most influential organized religions, is the blind leading the blind.....

Organized religions as we currently create it is largely an exclusive experience. It is exclusive to the individual or the group experiencing it. We have not found a way to include everyone in the same experience -- that is, society as a whole -- because we have not found a way for everyone to agree on How the experience should be experienced.

Organized religions, by their very nature, exclude as many as they include. This would be non-problematic if religions were tolerant of those they exclude, yet far too often this is not the case.

Religions, which we count on to teach tolorance and morality, have not learned how to practice eitherof them, and so, teach just the opposite.

All behaviors are the results of beliefs, and we cannot make lasting changes in behavior or morality without addressing the beliefs that underlie those 'behaviors'. We must transcend our stereotypes and the attachments we have to our opinions, beliefs, morality, etc. We cannot change the world without changing ourselves first!

Personally, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' path to G-d. No path to G-d is more direct than any other path. No religion is the one true religion; no people are the chosen people; and no prophet is the greatest prophet.

G-d is not a singular G-d; Super Being, living somewhere in the Universe or outside of it, having the same emotional needs and subject to the same emotional turmoils as human/Man. That Which Is G-d cannot be hurt or damaged in any way, and so, has no need to seek revenge or impose commandments, judgements, or punishments.

"We are not our bodies. Who you are is limitless and without end."


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-7-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 09:27 PM
link   
In the early 70 the US government began converting the manner in which it recorded conversations related to government activities from analog tapes to digital recordings. As a result of this action it was discovered that members of the KGB and CIA were working together to support the hostilities developed between Russia and the United States.

During that same decade it was also discovered that members of what was known as the Black Panthers were working with the KKK. This in respect to plans made to break the United States up into sections where each race would reside and control.

The problem with institutions is that there is always a chance that someone who claims to be part of the solution is part of the problem. And as well as those who are prepared to support them if the believe the solutions will never be found.

The problem we as a world have is that this matter transcends race, creed or color.

Religions are based essentially on the words of Prophets, men like Jesus and Buddha. They used words and languages which from the context of even the people who apply the same languages today meanings have changed. And while some argue that in general the meanings have not changed specifics can make a
difference.

This is why I feel understanding as much as possible about all religions can be important. A very important things that comes about as a result of this is learning the differences and similarities.

Have attached a site which I admit is very long is respect to text. The reason I am presenting it is that it offers insight as to how other religions (in this case Buddhism)
offer ideas which not only offer constructive information but as well are very critical.

By including it I am not suggesting that in order to respond one should read the link but what I am suggesting is that as stated above the problems our world has is pervasive and is transcendent of any institution.

Any thoughts?

Lecture in Sydney



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I found the information on Falun Dafa to be quite LONG, as you said.
Was an interesting read though.


I have often thought that if we took the essence of all world religion's and applied them into one religion, you quite possibly could have the 'true' religion or perfect religion, so to speak. There are so many truths in so many religions but yet there is division; there is difference.

Do you practice Falun Dafa or have thought of doing it, Toltec? Just asking. Interesting though, thanks.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Falun Dafa is a very ancient philosophy learning as much as I can about such forms of thought has always peaked my interest.

As the name I have chosen for myself suggest Nagualsim is what I have spent most of my life understanding.

Keep in mind that while the books of Carlos Castineda present a general interpretation.

Nagualsim is not really a system of faith, like and Falun Dafa it is a philosophy practiced by the elite of Toltec culture (my first exposure with respect to this philosophy began at the age of three).

When taking into consideration the origins of the Falun Dafa my impression is one cannot help but respect what they have to offer, like the Shinto system of belief they offer unique perspectives into understanding our surroundings.

To be honest though, my impression is that God gave each culture a piece of the pie and only through an understanding of each culture piece. Will we as individuals perceive the meaning of the whole pie.

By the same token I do feel there is an "anti-pie," as well as those amongst us who feel that its relevance exceeds any value of what God calls good.

Defining them in respect to one culture or ideology or for that matter any perceived alliance is a mistake made, which will not result in a solution.



Any Thoughts?





new topics




 
0

log in

join