Originally posted by karl 12

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
Arthur C. Clarke

I'd certainly agree with that comment -Arthur C Clarke was a very wise chap.
Of course you do not need to belong to a religious sect/cult to have respect or admiration for your fellow man ....and any organised institution that says 'their way is the only way' is just spouting off well rehearsed (and very predictable) religious propaganda to bolster their attendance numbers.

I think one of the most telling quotes I've heard about organised religion is that its just a very convenient way to feel superior to others.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Well I am certainly familiar with Mr. Clark's views on religion. It permeates all of his works, of which I have many. I feel just the reverse about religion in that religion is a way to feel inferior to others and to serve. In my religion we are all brothers and humble ourselves before our God and man. I am no better than anyone else and continuely strive to be better. Organized religion should never make others feel less than they are... if it does than it is in the wrong and should be re-evaluated. Christ taught that all our brothers and we should help and love each other. That is something that Mr. Clark never fully understood and I am sorry for that. I think he was thinking more about places like the Vatican that place more emphasis upon power and money than what they are actually supposed to be teaching. My teachings come from Christ and they are restricted to love, tolerance, and helping of others... anything else is just wrong in my view.

If mankind is to survive (as a doomed world),
then religion must continue.

If Mankind is to be in constant conflict,
then religion must continue.

If the world is always to be divided,
then religion must continue.

If mankind is to stay in its brainwashed state,
then religion must continue.

If crimes in the name of god are to continue,
then religion must continue.

religion...... what would we do without it?

Originally posted by Maya432
....

religion...... what would we do without it?

my educated guess is we would fight over land, resources, politics, race, and the next door neighbours wife.

As history has shown. without religion, the crap of the last century would still have happened. 2 world wars, Vietnam & Korea. The two gulf wars. all these were not over religion.

It's too easy to 'jump on the band-wagon' on here with regard to religion. :-) .

Take care
Wayne

[edit on 27-12-2008 by reiki]

Originally posted by Maya432
If mankind is to survive (as a doomed world),
then religion must continue.

If Mankind is to be in constant conflict,
then religion must continue.

If the world is always to be divided,
then religion must continue.

If mankind is to stay in its brainwashed state,
then religion must continue.

If crimes in the name of god are to continue,
then religion must continue.

religion...... what would we do without it?

If mankind is to continue needing a scapegoat to blame for its ills, then religion must continue.

Originally posted by reiki

Originally posted by Maya432
....

religion...... what would we do without it?

my educated guess is we would fight over land, resources, politics, race, and the next door neighbours wife.

As history has shown. without religion, the crap of the last century would still have happened. 2 world wars, Vietnam & Korea. The two gulf wars. all these were not over religion.

It's too easy to 'jump on the band-wagon' on here with regard to religion. :-) .

Take care
Wayne

[edit on 27-12-2008 by reiki]

Right on Reiki... exactly my thoughts. And to add to that let me say that without religion it would be a hell of a lot worse now because so many people would not have something increase their morals.

God is real, but he is the Oneness, the Awareness not the materialized God that were actually the aliens who came like thousands of years ago who conducted experiments on apes to create what we are as a species today. There is a Satan and demons, but it is a myth created by the reptilians who rule this world to make the good reptiloids look like evil sadistic monsters (which these reptiloids evolved before humans and are native on Earth but becaues of a catastrophe or something they have to stay underground). Though there is evil and it is called the dark side. You know that light at the end of the tunnel when someone dies? That is an evil being trying to seduce us humans to join him again in his continual conquest and torture of beings he kidnapps and controls in his attempt to conquer this galaxy. His name is the "All-Seeing Eye" and I guess is the real supernatural entity that is the closest threat as Lucifer will ever be to the humans currently on Earth. But I guess the Awareness could come in the form of messiah, but watch out cause the Antichrist could come in the form of MEssiah too...

Originally posted by Alienmojo
without religion it would be a hell of a lot worse now because so many people would not have something increase their morals.

So are you saying atheists are less moral; or cannot become more moral? The reason I ask is, when I ponder what are considered to be moral actions, they pretty much appear to be applicable outside of a religious "umbrella." In fact, most moral actions appears to be a result of one's seeking cooperation and/or reciprocity from other members of society, as well as an awareness of the consequences of such actions.

Can you explain how a belief in an ephemeral "god", heaven, or hell, increases morality, outside of what is considered fair, altruistic, human actions? The flip side, can you offer some thesis why an atheist may have some difficulty arriving at a moral decision?

Have you ever looked into some of the evolutionary theories about "religiosity"? It's thought by some that "religion" is some sort of by-product, or leftover, of long past culture or society, and has simply survived to this day because of its lack of "test."

Finally, there is no direct correlation between a lack of religiosity and a lack of morals. No action or thought that is considered religiously moral cannot be performed or thought by an atheist.....and tellingly, the results are indistinguishable from each other; the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the sick are cared for. Just cut out the delusional "middle man", have more of your own time on Sunday morning, and be a human.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Alienmojo
without religion it would be a hell of a lot worse now because so many people would not have something increase their morals.

So are you saying atheists are less moral; or cannot become more moral? The reason I ask is, when I ponder what are considered to be moral actions, they pretty much appear to be applicable outside of a religious "umbrella." In fact, most moral actions appears to be a result of one's seeking cooperation and/or reciprocity from other members of society, as well as an awareness of the consequences of such actions.

hi,
hope you don't mind me responding here, :-) . For sure, being atheist does not mean a person is less moral. However, in a world full of diverse needs, diverse ways are sometimes needed for a person to realise the 'qualities' we are alluding to. There is no right or wrong way in this. And this is where religion, some of them, have created all this. One way is NOT the only way. An atheist can, imo, have the same, even more, 'great' qualities as someone spiritual.

If anti-religious ( i don't like that label, but yo uknow what i mean, :-) ) say vocally that religion is not needed, religious people are right to say it is. Me, as i'm not religious, i say it's right for some. Who do we think we are to suggest what every single person in this world needs? That's ridiculous, and is pure ego. We can't credibly say religion is not needed because we don't resonate with it.

In reality, greed, resources, and politics cause the most modern wars. Are we also gonna ban them? To ban the diversification that religion brings, brings us one more step to a NWO. where everyone has the same belief, and lifestyle. This goes against everything we are meant to want.

Can you explain how a belief in an ephemeral "god", heaven, or hell, increases morality, outside of what is considered fair, altruistic, human actions?

The reason is because, once a person realises there is something greater than themselves, and listens to the universal message of religion, hitherto people may develop qualties they didn't have. Ego, where a person thinks they are the centre of importance, can possibly diminish somewhat. some people require this path, this vehicle, all humanities needs are not the same.

The flip side, can you offer some thesis why an atheist may have some difficulty arriving at a moral decision?

It is not about religion or atheism, as to why one person may/cannot arrive at this moral decision. It is about each individuals own personality make-up. Some are already born with these morals. I know some non-religious, or spiritual folks, who you could swear were most definitely spiritual. Some folks are already like this, some can develop this in other ways, some need religion. we cannot, and should not take away a part of that from humanity.

take care
Wayne

Originally posted by reiki
hope you don't mind me responding here, :-)

Heck no....always feel free to offer an opinion.

However, in a world full of diverse needs, diverse ways are sometimes needed for a person to realise the 'qualities' we are alluding to

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.

We can't credibly say religion is not needed because we don't resonate with it.

Yes, it can credibly be said. You said, "For sure, being atheist does not mean a person is less moral." Ergo, religion not needed.

To ban the diversification that religion brings, brings us one more step to a NWO. where everyone has the same belief, and lifestyle.

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.

The reason is because, once a person realises there is something greater than themselves, and listens to the universal message of religion

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?

Some are already born with these morals.

I believe you may have insulted billions of people currently living, and yet to be born. Everybody is born with "these morals." Granted, the brains of very young children don't quite have the capacity to work with them right away (effectively pointing out the cruelty of inflicting religious dogma on children), but effective parenting and guidance can produce quite fine citizens without any need for a religion.



[edit on 30-12-2008 by MrPenny]

[edit on 30-12-2008 by MrPenny]

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.

wayne








[edit on 30-12-2008 by reiki]

[edit on 30-12-2008 by reiki]

religion will be the down fall of man !