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.

 

On the basis of Morality.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Considering thus far you have had atheists and a pantheist/deist/go-his-own-way-weirdo answer do you really expect it to have been answered?




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


ah, yes, I've heard of that group. I cannot stand most of them locally, but am friends with a few in the group.

I cannot answer your question because I'm not religious as such; just spiritual.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I believe that evolution doesn't completely rid out religion, because their are those, who assume that, well maybe god has done it.

But religious philosphers, will always be quick to change with the tide.

It is easy, it's been done before, the church was threatened by the church when they opposed a universe without the earth in the middle.

The pope has already started worrying about aliens, and has said that the possibility of alien life is okay.

www.independent.co.uk...

Better, their trying to be ahead of the next pitch thrown at them.
Just In Case!

It doesn't refute completely the abilitiy for their to be a great deity, but again this is about morals not specificities of other things.

Just to comment though.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Republican08
 


Considering thus far you have had atheists and a pantheist/deist/go-his-own-way-weirdo answer do you really expect it to have been answered?


You know, I do expect someone with cahones to answer.

I do support atheist brotherens to answer, although I suppose I am on ignore list of all religious people here!

Someone will answer and we can naw and bit at that. We as in me and others, not you, unless you play devils advocate.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


i started watching the youtube videos you sent me to and i was quite disappointed right off the bat from the theists. i was really hoping theyd bring out something new for me to ponder. i guess they never will..



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


1) Religion is not exclusively a spiritual thing so kindly stop equating it as such. ANYTHING can be a religion.
2) It's central to your reasons for starting this conversation was it not? That morality does not necessarily have a divine origin thusly it refutes the claims of those who find themselves your opposition?

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Also I find it ludacris that a great many atheists hold that "religion" is dogmatic and criticise thusly then criticise when "religion" moves forward with current advances in "knowledge". It really shows how this is more about an attempt to make another group convert to their beliefs.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Considering thus far you have had atheists and a pantheist/deist/go-his-own-way-weirdo answer do you really expect it to have been answered?


So, am I the pantheist or the deist or the go-his-own-way-weirdo (or all of the above).
I would take honor in any of those cases.


Originally posted by Republican08
Just as a note.
I still have not received a answer to the question mentioned in the OP.


But you have...

You posited the question, "What moral action, can you do as a religious person, that I as an Atheist, would be unable to do?"

I haven't seen a single post by anyone but yourself that has avoided that question and been off-topic.

Satirical answers aside, as far as I am concerned, the answer to that question is that there is no moral action that a religious person can do that anyone else couldn't chose to do of their own volition and will.

I suppose if one wanted to be candidly honest and group all religious people unfairly into the same boat, you could say that a religious person could do a selfishly superficial moral action with the expectation of eternal reward that an Atheist couldn't do, but that would be a gross misrepresentation of a stereotype and not correct either politically or universally.

So, I'm going to stand by my previous response and by what I have put forth in this post and say that it is a Rhetorical Question because it has no answer, as there is no thing that a religious person can do morally that a non-religious person couldn't chose to do.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


He's grown on me as well.

I have to say, it's really not hard to debate theists. All their arguments come from skewing the facts, lying, misleading, creating non sequiturs, playing with words, etc.

And of course, they all have an agenda (convert you). I don't think any of them are terribly flexible in their beliefs (which kind of defeats the purpose of debate, doesn't it?). They just want to show everybody why they're not crazy for believing in an invisible hominid that lives in the clouds and influences the world.

The truth of the matter is, theists don't have "facts" to back up their position. That's why they teach "faith" as a virtue. If they had real evidence, facts, proof, they wouldn't need to teach people that "believing without evidence" is a good thing.

So what can you expect from them in a debate? Not much.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


I was talking about me *all of the above*. But I do welcome a fellow "bird" of a feather.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


And if you stepped beyond your box you might see how simular theists and atheists can be.
Rhetoric of a differing color and texture to be sure but rhetoric all the same.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I kinda think that morality, in a basic sense, would be out of self interest. Like, I try to imagine living in a world without all of our infrastructure/institutions, and in that little ideal of mine, well, the fact is that we can't really do everything on our own.

We can't all be good at everything, we can't all grow and make everything we need. It would be more advantageous to cooperate with one's neighbors to build your shelter, trade food and other necessities. I think it's survival that would cause us to be 'moral'.

Of course, not everyone would be 'moral'. Some people would try to [expletive] other people over, but unless they were really good at it, they wouldn't be able to survive for long, or have a family and provide for them.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by eMachine
 


There is a youtube video, hard to find i'm sure of.

Where an ape is shown a treat underneath a quite heavy box, the ape himself cannot open the box.

When another ape is put into it, the ape tries and tries to open the box, and eventually will 'grab' the other ape and insinuate the other ape help with opening the box, the other ape does it and they open and get a treat.

Now one ape is absent, and a human is present, will the ape call upon the human, yes, almost instantly the ape grabs the human in a urge to help open the box.

Now with this, the ape sees the human or ape as a necessity to it's livelihood. If another obstacle is present, it would be better to have an advocate to the first apes side now!.

Trade is still to advanced for this.

For the simplest it is acheivin and sharing. Not I have this, would you like it too.

But more of a we can only achieve this together, basic mentality.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I'm not saying we're different. I'm just saying "believing without evidence" is a really dumb philosophy.

You can HOPE for something to be true, without any evidence. If that's what it takes to get through the day, then why not use it? But to claim that this is anything more than wishful thinking is where I draw the line.

I myself hope there is a god, and I hope I get 72 virgins even if I don't blow up a crowded market full of infidels. I also hope that i'll win the lottery. I hope that I never die. I hope that I won't be sick tomorrow when I wake up.

I don't embrace this hope as a truth. That I don't need the evidence that I will win the lottery, live forever, not get sick, etc -- all I have to do is have faith and that will make it so... That's delusional.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Republican08
 


2) It's central to your reasons for starting this conversation was it not? That morality does not necessarily have a divine origin thusly it refutes the claims of those who find themselves your opposition?

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Most of those, do suggest that morality is of a divine origin, in your words. Those who find themselves in uncertainty, and a troublesome state, suggesting that morality is why a god exists, those are the ones the thread is toward, but as stated is open to all those who pose a subject content to the threads op as well.

So you are right to post here


Those in counter with the questions, ultimate answer really, are to look at this and inquiry themselves, and more likely inquire me for a wrong doing.

If you find morality is not your main reason for believing in a divine being, what is?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Yet if you are an atheist you believe that there is nothing as far as the question of a "deity/god/prime mover/what-the-heck-ever" minus any form of real proof to back the belief. All the while jumping into a petty conflict that need not be except that some people on both sides feel the need to judge and attempt to blundgeon others into their belief systems. All the while complaining about the crimes their opponents commit while committing the same ones.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Perhaps because morality like good and evil is purely a man made construct, how ever it came about, and I do not attach the idea of a deity with a misguided view that we are somehow the specialestest thing in the cosmos?


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I'm extremely sorry WITS. Haha neat acronym!

What is your religion, philosophy, take?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I'm not saying we're different. I'm just saying "believing without evidence" is a really dumb philosophy.



It is 'dumb'.

Although, we don't have evidence for anything as of now, the species is young, the logical thing would to accept nothing as factual.

And keep it out of the youths heads until the facts are all in, and there indisputable.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Looking at my profile eh?

Um, I eskew labels? I use a compound one in this thread but that doesn't truly describe me completely. Though I could say that Socratic views are the basis to be more telling: "The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing." now apply that to everything even somethings you don't feel fit.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join