Originally posted by MrPenny
Anybody can, and should, model and teach the 'qualities' that are sought in a moral, altruistic society. No dogma, catechism, or madrasas,
is needed to impart those lessons. This is proven in the ability of atheists to behave in moral ways, and to impart those behaviors to offspring.
Those 'qualities' are innate....we, as humans, are born with them. Religions did not invent morals; they are universal concepts. I'll discuss the
'diversity' thing later.
you're doing it again. there are many avenues for folks to develop the morals we are speaking off. To automatically say 'No dogma, catechism, or
madrasas, is needed to impart those lessons' simply because some do it without religion, does not mean religion is not needed for others.
Yes, it can credibly be said. You said, "For sure, being atheist does not mean a person is less moral." Ergo, religion not needed.
I'll point out bluntly what is wrong here. you're assuming that because one set of folks can do something one way, all can. Every single human on
this planet is at their own level , personally, morally, spiritually, whatever. This is why diverse ways are needed to accomodate multiple people.
That doesn't make any sense to me. How would freeing millions from the dogmatic teachings of mainstream religions produce people with the same
beliefs and lifestyles? Organized religion is exactly the opposite of diversity and in fact promotes "same beliefs and lifestyles". I'm
not sure you really thought that one over well.
you're quite right, you aren't sure. With no religion what is left? Politics? Race? I'm not sure if you realise, but humanity has long gathered
into groups. Be it, race, beliefs, sport, gendar, sexuality even. This goes far deeper than this soap-box 'ban religion stuff'. If religion was took
away today, banned, mankind will still have that 'group' instinct it has. It will merely swell the ranks of the other groupings in existence, or
create new ones. The problem is not religion, it is humanity. You're not seeing it like this, which is why we are having this little debate, :-) .
Re: NWO. how easy is it to have a NWO if there are many large scale groups, as in religion, that can't agree on the colours of the rainbow? It is
more difficult. Now, take away those groups, well, it is one more huge hurdle out of the way for them. hence,. i have a point.
How will that person realize the "greater than themselves" thing? Will they see it, smell it, touch it? Or, when they are children, will priests,
ministers, and parents scare the crap out of their progeny with threats of going to "Hell" or "eternal damnation", as their own parents and
authority figures did?
Ok. spirituality is an experiental path, as is the divine, that creative force, zero point/point of creation (Quantum Physics). I'm a spiritual
teacher, there is no way however, i can tell a person effectively what it is. They need to experience it. So, a person who hasn't expereienced it,
probably hasn't tried even, so it musn't exist. hmm.
forget about the propaganda in the media that is portraying religion. Idiots exist in religion sure, to an eductated person however, this does not
take away any effectiveness for it's meaning. The NWO wannabes needs religion gone. they wants us all to believe the same. They need all politics
gone. All currency gone. All nationality gone. Think about it. This anti-religion stuff is helping them.
I believe you may have insulted billions of people currently living, and yet to be born.
You speak for the whole human race now? Cool.
Just remember, you're way is not the right way or only way. My way is not the right way or only way. Religion is not the right way or only way. All
ways are right for different people. Choice rules.
[edit on 30-12-2008 by reiki]
[edit on 30-12-2008 by reiki]