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.

 

Religion? Grow up

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
I'm not trying to be stupid or idiotic, but isn't Atheism a Faith? I mean that atheists have faith that God does not exist, they cannot prove he/she/it does not exist. So doesn't that make it faith, hence religion? Trying to find a clear understanding thats all.


Atheism is a lack of faith.
Do you have faith that Zeus doesn't exist? Of course not, because you have no reason to believe that he may exist in the first place, so faith is not needed. Such a belief is not as much a belief as it is a lack of belief.
The 'a' in atheism means "without", so atheism literally means "without theism".


 




Originally posted by asmall89
Tell me were your parents Christians or grew up in a Christian society? The morals that guide this country are founded greatly upon what the Bible & Ten commandments say. Laws against Stealing, Murder, stuff like that all part of the ten commandments, imagine that.


Yeah, imagine that... It's also written in the Egyptian book of the dead, which is basically an earlier version of the 10 commandments. We must have gotten our morals from dead Egyptians... without them, morals wouldn't exist
.

I'd say it's pretty basic stuff to know not to kill or steal. Such things go against society. We are societal creatures. Going against society is bad because we are societal creatures. So of course there will be laws written throughout history which align with the views of society. What gets my goat is that people actually think that the Bible was the first to mention such laws...



Originally posted by asmall89
Tell me what is so horrible about believing in something? You obviously do.


There's obviously a difference between believing in Santa Claus and not believing in Santa Claus, but I suppose the kid who believes in Santa Claus doesn't understand the difference...
There's a difference between believing in the extraordinary with no evidence and believing in the ordinary which has evidence...




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
So are you infact offer an alternative that destroys hope?
What are you offer other than this. I'll tell you what you are offering. Nothing. Your truth is that you have nothing. No thing to explain why we are how, how we are here, how we should be while here and what happens after being here.



You're right, many atheists won't pass off a 'why' or 'how', just a "maybe this is why" or "maybe this is how". This is sufficient for me, because I know that I am being honest with myself.
I can not know how our Universe came into existence, so I won't claim to know.

Why is there a problem with that?
Wouldn't the only problem be if we DID claim to know, as religions do?

That is being dishonest, not with others but with yourself.



Originally posted by atlasastro
I don't know why atheists bother expressing anything about religion at all.
If we accept atheism and accept there is no G*D and we are instead experiencing a determanistic reality ruled by the nature of the universe and not a G*D, then that very nature, its laws and rules, its parameters etc have determined religion as being a logical aspect of existence expressed by humans.


It's a hypothesis without sufficient knowledge. It was formed when we still thought the Earth was flat for pete's sake..
A guess isn't worth anything if the foundation it stands on is false or limited.
Religion is a guess, and it's based on a lack of understanding of our Universe as well as many assumptions which have proven to be false.
Humans are not thousands of years old, but millions. We have evidence of this.
The earth is not flat, and does not have corners, it is round. We have evidence of this.
Stars are not holes in a heavenly roof just outside our reach which could be gotten to by building a tower, they are balls of gas and energy burning billions of miles away.

I'm sorry, but religion is far from 'logical'.
Forming a guess without sufficient knowledge, and then clinging to that guess as if it's the absolute truth in the Universe is not logical.
It's just the opposite.



Originally posted by atlasastro
It has determined that our processes as humans would arrive at religious beliefs inspired by a G*D as an expression and as a consequence of cause and effect. So I can consider these religious beliefs as being entirely natural. Along with atheism.


It may be entirely natural that unicorns exist...
But I'm not going to go out into the streets and say "Believe in unicorns or burn in Hell for ETERNITY! [echo], [echo], [echo]..."



Originally posted by atlasastro
What you would then be argueing about is that nature itself, which has also seen the logic of atheism, is wrong in inspiring religion via the processes involved in humans, so if as an atheist you were critical of religion you create a problem for your own beliefs too. Because if this is the case then Atheism may also be wrong as an expression of nature via the processes of humans.


Of course! We can all be wrong!
Let's sing Kumbaya together!
But let's not claim something as an absolute fact when there is absolutely no way we could know.
Isn't that lying?



Originally posted by atlasastro
So while you may deny the existence of G*D, it is also moronic to argue that a belief in G*D is illogical as there must be a cause for this and a logic in its expression, as from an atheistic persective the very prescence of religion is an obvious aspect of the fabric of reality, an expression of nature itself regardless of any actual G*D existing. Of course this moronic behaviour is not applicable to the logic of a believer of G*D, who accepts a G*D existing, as nature has intended that they believe. Atheist are stuck as describing an effect of nature and its laws as being wrong by criticising religion in any way. Atheist just have to accept religion as it is, as being logical in nature as it is simply and purely a fact of existence.
Religion, purely as an expression of nature, can attack atheist logic because believers accept G*D as determining their existence and not nature, this attack on atheists logic is in and of itself justified as defending nature because atheism is attacking the logic of nature when any atheist criticizes religion, religion that is expressed by human processes determined by nature, its laws and parameters.



Not really sure what you mean when you say religion is a part of nature.
Is Santa Claus a part of nature?
Is a random guess without one iota of evidence a part of nature?

Sorry, but with the above logic, NOTHING is illogical, as everything we imagine is in our Universe, which is nature... Doesn't really jive with me.



Originally posted by atlasastro
Religion is here, it was always here, it will always be here.
Get over it.



Not if I have anything to say about it - muwahahaha! *runs off to the nearest church*



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
A rabbi, a preist, and an athiest walk into a bar, and the bartender says: "What is this, a joke?"

*********

OK, so yes, religions are conceived and propelled by man to meet a specific "need" set. Sure they are. (I liked the crack pipe analogy). Seriously, as illistrated on this thread, the biggest problem that emerges from "faith" is a total lack of tolerance, and I would point out: intolerance goes against the doctrines of most all religions. People won't just "grow up".

**********
Welfhard- It is just silly to assert that there is no truth to be found in quantum physics, and science IS expanding to include the impacts of human consciousness on the percieved reality of our universe. "What the Bleep..." is a main stream "primer" on the subject, so it is a good place to start.

Silent Thunder: I starred your Shakespear analogy, good stuff.


**********

We (humanity) are ingrained to seek...some of us seek truth by investing our energy into specific dogmas, some of us fill the "void" by writing on ATS, or buying stuff we don't need, (can we not see consumerism as a belief system?), but there is to be no consensous, primarily because all of these persuits cast aside what you already know, (your inner-knowing), and take away/wrongly influence the experience of you.

Enjoy wearing the meat suit, folks.


Edit to give propper author recognition for the Shakespear analogy, oops, and sorry.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Torsion girl]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Like most humans, I've struggled with various questions about existence, and religion is one of them.

The original poster, beside being inflamatory, was right in the respect that religions are man made. In my mind, based on my experience and studies, I've come to accept, or believe, that any religion is a "closed system". So you have to understand the difference between an open, unbounded system, and a closed, bounded system of beliefs.

Both can be based on truth, but the unbound system is nothing but truth and knowlege outside of any context or lineal time frame.

As humans, we need to understand the reality we find ourselves in by defining it with contexturally based boundries. The boundries, will define the system, and encompass all the knowledge of the religion within the boundry, as long as the boundry was accurately defined in the beginning. Unfortunately, these context based boundries change over "time". Leading to disagreements about the actual shape the boundry defines. So eventually, over time, there comes into being various shape differences between one bounded definition of the religion, versus another.

All these are still man-made, and they all exist within the original unbounded system.

For me, religions context is a time and culturally based, valid way to define spirituality, because I never forget the greater truth, that it is still within the unlimited pool of true knowledge, not defined or bounded.

That is my belief.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by GriffinRD]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


I should try to clarify myself about morals, I said really there is no line between right and wrong, and that it is our morals that tell us what is, that sometimes come from either our societal or religious beliefs. Not all societies are identical in what they believe to be right, but there are some large recurring ones especially pertaining to stealing and killing (unless it is in the name of religion, or beliefs). That goes into my theory that people are generally good and work for the betterment of society. All I'm saying is generally people who live in Europe and the West tend to have societies based on morals given to them by religious beliefs (which is mostly christianity). I mean the founding fathers were all Christians as were most colonials. I know other religions carry similar morals, but the most prevelant out here just happens to be Christianity.

I understand what you are saying about believing in the extraordinary vs fact, but the thing is it has not been proven that there is no higher intelligence to the universe. No one knows what the religious figures from the past really did. That's why I brought up the Quantum Physics which basically says our intention and consciousness has an effect on our world and if one could manipulate the shape of the molecules in water with just a thought, what else could be possible? We simply do not have all the answers yet, and thats all religion and science try to offer, the answer to why?

People who believe in atheism, quantum physics, christianity, or what have you are no better than one another, people should just learn to accept that no one has all the answers.



[edit on 7-4-2009 by asmall89]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
I understand what you are saying about believing in the extraordinary vs fact, but the thing is it has not been proven that there is no higher intelligence to the universe.


But why assume to the contrary? It's not been proven that there is an invisible monster in my closet either, but I don't consider it to be real.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Fine if you want to believe that there is an invisible monster in your closet, thats your choice, if not thats fine too. It's your closet I assume you'd know best.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by asmall89]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by asmall89
 


There is the rationale of faith, "let's just believe."

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Regardless of whether or not you're correct, you also proved my point.

With translation, you gave a slight to my message.
If that can be done with basic human-to-human communication.

I don't even want to imagine what would happen if a being beyond our comprehension communicated with us.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
I mean the founding fathers were all Christians as were most colonials.


That's a commonly held belief but it's false nonetheless...
Most of the founding fathers were deists.



Originally posted by asmall89
I understand what you are saying about believing in the extraordinary vs fact, but the thing is it has not been proven that there is no higher intelligence to the universe.


True, which is why I'm not saying that it's a fact that there isn't a god.
There may be pink unicorns out there somewhere, but does that change the fact that it would be silly of me to proclaim in the streets that pink unicorns are a fact?

Personally, there are some things that I would expect to see if there was a God. Just like there are some things I would expect to see if Santa was real. None of these things I see, so there is my conclusion.




Originally posted by asmall89
We simply do not have all the answers yet, and thats all religion and science try to offer, the answer to why?


Science tries to understand it, Religion tries to sweep it under the rug by proclaiming an answer which has no evidence.



Originally posted by asmall89
People who believe in atheism, quantum physics, christianity, or what have you are no better than one another, people should just learn to accept that no one has all the answers.


I agree that no one is better than another person, but our beliefs certainly are.
I'll respect someone far more who has a belief backed by evidence then I will someone who has a belief 'backed' by faith... That's a belief backed by a belief. It's circular. It's illogical.

I believe this because I believe this.
That's faith...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2300
 


I did grow up...
With a beautiful sustaining belief in Christ.
I knew before Sunday School there was a Christ and this belief saved me when I was very young.
Later when I went to Sunday school I’d ask questions the teachers didn't want to answer and tell them things they didn't want to hear.
My God wouldn't burn babies and mommies and daddies in hell just because they didn’t believe in Christ.
When I went through living hell as a older child and young adult - Christ was there too.
I never blamed God, I never railed at God.
I didn’t know why I was chosen to live in hell and hunger and pain, but I always saw someone worse off around me.
Later as a young adult, I didn't loose my faith because faith didn’t loose me.
I didn’t do drugs, I didn’t mess around so thank God I have a head on my shoulders now free from the scars of drugs and my body and mind have never been through the indignity and pain of STD/AIDS.
I met a wonderful man, married him.
Immediately our life became a living hell other than our love for each other.
For ten months our home was attacked by something, well, something I wont talk about, but, we were definitely under the gun of something pure evil.
My husband died at the end of the ten months.
But, my belief was there with me and the promise I’ll see this man again is as true to me as the air I breath.
I have grown up - with a Christ that came to me as a tiny child, no man made religion, no socially acceptable this or that and I can’t imagine my life without Him.
Christ is as real and alive as you or I or my iguana Karl.
I feel sorrow for people who don’t have Christ as I do.
But not all people are the same, maybe you don’t need Him.
I do.
You ever change your mind He'll be there waiting.


peace



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


You think that some beliefs are better than others? Thats what you guys are complaining about Religions doing! Now you are saying you feel the same way?
But I forgot just as long as your right and they're wrong it doesn't matter what you say or do, right? I agree that some religious beliefs have more evidence than others, but the same can be said about science, a lot of it is theory not fact or Laws.

Jesus existed, that is pretty much a proven FACT, people have FAITH that he did miracles. Muhammad did exist and had a vision, but people have faith it was from Allah. Quantum Physics does say that things like walking on water may be theoretically possible too. People have faith that more could be possible with intention mentioned in Quantum Physics.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by asmall89]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
I agree that some religious beliefs have more evidence than others, but the same can be said about science, a lot of it is theory not fact or Laws.


In science, a theory is something that is supported by the facts, inline with observations and makes accurate predictions. Theories are not guesses, not even intellectual guesses, they are accurate explanations.


Jesus existed, that is pretty much a proven FACT


Lol. I didn't respond to this earlier but I feel I should now. There is squat evidence that the Jesus of the bible actually existed. Where is your evidence.

It should also be said that proof and evidence are not the same thing. Proof is a mathematical concept.


people have FAITH that he did miracles.


People have faith that he existed.


Muhammad did exist and had a vision, but people have faith it was from Allah. Quantum Physics does say that things like walking on water may be theoretically possible too. People have faith that more could be possible with intention mentioned in Quantum Physics.


Show me where you get this walking-on-water-because-of-quantum-physics idea.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
You think that some beliefs are better than others?


Yep, what's wrong with that?




Originally posted by asmall89
Thats what you guys are complaining about Religions doing!


No I'm not, I think you're confused about what I was saying.
What I'm talking about is being dishonest, with yourself and others. Claiming something as fact when there's no way you could know. And furthermore not even admitting that theres no way you could know, just passing it off to a feeling or a 'knowing', which we know as humans is flawed to begin with.

A belief that is supported by evidence is better than a belief which is not supported by evidence, because it is more than a belief when it is supported by evidence.



Originally posted by asmall89
But I forgot just as long as your right and they're wrong it doesn't matter what you say or do, right?


Not at all. It's not about being right or wrong as much as it's about being honest.
I'm honest enough with myself to admit freely that I don't know how our Universe came into existence. I have my theories, but I don't proclaim them as fact. And moreover, I don't tell others that if they don't believe my theories they will be punished for eternity.
There's a pretty big difference you seem to be missing...



Originally posted by asmall89
I agree that some religious beliefs have more evidence than others, but the same can be said about science, a lot of it is theory not fact or Laws.


Wait... religious beliefs have evidence now?
I'm guessing said evidence could also be credited to coincidence?




Originally posted by asmall89
Jesus existed, that is pretty much a proven FACT


Far from it.
And the fact that you believe it is a fact is proof to me that you don't know your facts.
The only real 'evidence' of Jesus are contradictory writings which were written years after his death.
About as much evidence as Hercules has, to be blunt...

But if you want to call that a proven fact, go ahead, maybe people will buy it if you say it loud enough (wait, I think this has already happened
)...



Originally posted by asmall89
Quantum Physics does say that things like walking on water may be theoretically possible too. People have faith that more could be possible with intention mentioned in Quantum Physics.


Once I see it demonstrated in a lab (walking on water), I'll agree with you...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2300
 

Well, I did not read many posts before I could see this topic was going to be very in depth and personal to everyone. So about the opening thread I can definitely see your point. I personally don't have faith in any kind of supernatural conscious being that controls everything, but it is comforting to sometimes think that way even with no proof or even slightest indication of there being such a one. In fact everything that we think we know is only just our perceptions and could be in fact proven completely false if there is an omniscient being...so really I don't have any beliefs except that I am existent and yes (for those who hold their belief that it is impossible to not have a belief) it certainly is possible to not hold a religious belief (that was a tongue twister).



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

I'm honest enough with myself to admit freely that I don't know how our Universe came into existence. I have my theories, but I don't proclaim them as fact. And moreover, I don't tell others that if they don't believe my theories they will be punished for eternity.
There's a pretty big difference you seem to be missing...


Yeah thats pretty much what I've been saying... that no one knows everything... if you think I'm a hardcore Bible Thumping Christian your wrong... I just think Jesus existed, had a good message, and did some miraculous things. Have I said a word about you being punished for eternity for not believing in him? Does Christ really say that? No... he says ask for forgiveness for your wrong doings, be humble, and love your neighbor... people are the ones that distort it. I'm sorry if anyone ever said you'd be punished for eternity for not believing in christianity. That's rediculous.



Originally posted by asmall89
Jesus existed, that is pretty much a proven FACT

Far from it.
And the fact that you believe it is a fact is proof to me that you don't know your facts.
The only real 'evidence' of Jesus are contradictory writings which were written years after his death.


Actually you need to do some research. Historians debate about it but they pretty much accept that he existed, they just don't know if the authors are elaborating it. It's like the Arthur Legend, they think the man existed, but people added so much to the Legend (like Thomas Malory) and so little historical evidence is left behind. Remember this guy probably lived 400 years after Jesus too. People can't find much more evidence for Joan of Arc but its pretty much accepted that she lived as well.

The thing is in 70 AD Jerusalem got ransacked by the Romans and a lot of things were destroyed. Which probably included a lot of relics & christian writings. Maybe even from Jesus himself. (You don't think a man of that wisdom was somewhat literate?) They have already found a coffin & remains with "James the Brother of Jesus" written on it. There are plenty of Roman historians of the time referring to him. There are more than just the four gospels, (even Judas had one). Yeah no one can find a body... but according to the bible, we wont. So either someone hid it, he didn't exist (not likely), or he really did come back from the dead.

The bible does has a moderate consistancey to be historically accurate, with events pertaining to Moses, Solomon, etc.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by asmall89]

[edit on 7-4-2009 by asmall89]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
The thing is in 70 AD Jerusalem got ransacked


Funnily enough that also about the same time that the gospels were written, according to the bible scholars, by unknown authors. And because it was all written so long after Jesus' alleged life and by people who never actually saw the man in the flesh, it's entirely hearsay, not evidence at all.

Where do you do your research?


found a coffin & remains with "James the Brother of Jesus" written on it


I'm pretty sure that was a discredited hoax, dude. Besides the route name 'Jesus' came from the Hebrew "Yashua" which was pretty bloody common.


There are plenty of Roman historians of the time referring to him.


There are 3. Two of which refer to a 'Christos' or something the like, which meant 'Anointed one' which is not a name but a title given to noblemen and kings alike, like Lord or Duke. The third reference is debated as being a hoax.

They were also written well after the events, so are still hearsay.


There are more than just the four gospels


Which also contradict each other.


The bible does has a moderate consistancey to be historically accurate, with events pertaining to Moses, Solomon, etc.


What? Who believes in these figures? There is even less evidence put together for either of these two.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by asmall89
The thing is in 70 AD Jerusalem got ransacked


Funnily enough that also about the same time that the gospels were written, according to the bible scholars, by unknown authors. And because it was all written so long after Jesus' alleged life and by people who never actually saw the man in the flesh, it's entirely hearsay, not evidence at all.


70 AD isn't so long after his death, he was said to be dead around 36 AD thats only about 34 years after. Did you ever think someone had to rewrite them? Transcribe them so they have more copies? That's a fairly common practice.


Which also contradict each other.


They do? Really... they both state Jesus was a man, of incredible wisdom. Who taught love & forgiveness. They only parts where there is contradictories is where the writers are interpreting what Jesus said or did in a way that they believe is correct. Maybe they contradict some things he did, but they all said he existed. Am I wrong about that?



What? Who believes in these figures? There is even less evidence put together for either of these two.


Jews, Christians, oh yeah and historians. Oh really? Pretty sure Solomon existed, ever heard of Solomon's temple? The wailing wall?
Pretty sure the Pharaoh realized a lot of the Jewish slaves were being lead away from Egypt, oh yeah that's right he chased after them with his army. There are Egyptian sources confirming it.

You completely ignored Joan of Arc and King Arthur btw. Whom probably have less historical support than Jesus. Oh and Santa Claus was technically real too, he was called St. Nick. I have decided to make a thread on this subject, I will do a lot of research and see what I come up with.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmall89
70 AD isn't so long after his death, he was said to be dead around 36 AD thats only about 34 years after. Did you ever think someone had to rewrite them? Transcribe them so they have more copies? That's a fairly common practice.


Still doesn't make not hearsay. Still doesn't make the authors not unknown. They're all narratives, rather than eyewitness accounts, like a story.



Which also contradict each other.


They do? Really... they both state Jesus was a man, of incredible wisdom. Who taught love & forgiveness. They only parts where there is contradictories is where the writers are interpreting what Jesus said or did in a way that they believe is correct. Maybe they contradict some things he did, but they all said he existed. Am I wrong about that?


There are numerous gospels omitted from the bible which tell all sorts of variants from the original. Some tell that the Jman didn't die on the cross at all, but was replaced by a doppelganger. Add to that, Mathew was based on Mark's writings. All of the other gospels were written much later as well.



What? Who believes in these figures? There is even less evidence put together for either of these two.


Jews, Christians, oh yeah and historians. Oh really? Pretty sure Solomon existed, ever heard of Solomon's temple? The wailing wall?


Sorry about the loaded question. There is no significant real world evidence suggesting there ever was a temple made by King Solomon. But as for Solomon himself.

Historical evidence of King Solomon, independent of the biblical accounts, is scarce. Nothing indisputably of Solomon's reign has been found.
en.wikipedia.org...


Pretty sure the Pharaoh realized a lot of the Jewish slaves were being lead away from Egypt, oh yeah that's right he chased after them with his army. There are Egyptian sources confirming it.


Care to share?


You completely ignored Joan of Arc and King Arthur btw. Whom probably have less historical support than Jesus.


I know King Arthur is considered to be 9 parts myth and 1 part ambiguity. I know that stories regarding his life are myths, every one does so it hardly matters. However, I don't know anything about Joan of Arc, so I can hardly comment.





There were many many messiahs in those days, all manner of followings and sects with their leaders, and many of them would have good things to say. Hell, many non messiahs had good things to say, people we know actually existed. But there is no real extra-biblical evidence to suggest he existed, let alone did miraculous works.




[edit on 8-4-2009 by Welfhard]

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I've scanned through the four (so far) pages....

Personal observation: This thread will follow a usual pattern -- it will stray off-topic, get gently nudged back....but like an unstable orbit, will eventually de-volve into chaos.

Religion is a touchy subject, isn't it?

We sit here, at our keyboards....and each have a view. Most mainstream religions today are divided into various 'branches'...(I was going to write 'sects', but feared that would be offensive to some).

Again, some 'mainstream' religions, besides devolving into 'branches', also can be prone to further 'branching' into what we call 'cults'. And on it goes.....

It would be interesting to use an experiment conducted some decades ago, in a Grade School, where-in a certain classroom of children were told that those with blue-eyes were superior to all others.

(YES! This is appalling behavior on the part of the teachers and administrators involved, as they quickly learned.)

Short story, it revealed how Humans will use a perception of 'superiority' to quickly choose to 'reign' over others whom they feel to be 'inferior'.

THIS is a micro-cosm of how 'religion' seems to manifest.

A group who feel a certain 'superiority' over another group band together...and all then, we see the divisiveness ensue.

I'll let everyone 'chew' on this idea....feel free to disagree.

But, before I finish, the notion of 'atheism' being a so-called 'faith' is false.

I have yet to see an 'Atheist' go door-to-door to 'preach'...nor do I ever see any 'Atheists' coming to town with signs and pamphlets in order to 'promote' their so-called 'beliefs'.

Instead, what I see is rationality. Clear thinking, without the use of 'magic' or 'miracles'....it is, literally, a 'non-need' for some Supreme Being as a Manipulator.

I'll tell you, though....IF the Atheists are wrong.....once shown 'proof' of their error, will be the quickest to understand. Of course, I doubt, very much, the brain-washed masses of the Earth will be so easily convinced....



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join