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.

 

Science is finally taking a new approach, a CURE for religion.

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by reasonable

Countries vast in 'non-believers' seem to be doing just fine, such as Sweden & denmark AND they rank in the top for quality of life!
Just imagine if we followed their lead.


Well how about communism that between Russia and China has killed well over 100 million in their non religious endeavors. Japan wasn’t very religious during WWII and neither were the Germans, Pol Pot wasn’t either and neither was Genghis Khan. It seems normally when religion is absent things are much worst.

So in the examples you gave do you think it is a lack of religion or just social structering that has developed them to how they are. I would think religion, or lack of thereof, has nothing to do with it.


I don't see how you can compare non-religious from eons ago to non-religious now. There is a huge difference in why they are non-religious but I don't have time today to get back into this thread. I would say that the Atheist movement now is born out of wanting to progress humanity in the most civilized way possible through science, environmental concern and concern for fellow man, etc.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
People go out on a limb and beleive in something bigger than them, and now it's looked at as a disease that needs to be cured?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It would be far more likely that if this was so, it would be applied the opposite way. "Curing" the non-believer.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Reply to post by reasonable
 


Yes there is a way I know that.

"Cure" implies that there is a disorder or condition. Religion is neither of those, it is a choice. People who have adhd didn't choose it. People with alzheimer's or lou gehrigs DISEASE didn't choose it.

Respectfully, your moniker does you an injustice.

A2D


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
I don't see how you can compare non-religious from eons ago to non-religious now. There is a huge difference in why they are non-religious but I don't have time today to get back into this thread. I would say that the Atheist movement now is born out of wanting to progress humanity in the most civilized way possible through science, environmental concern and concern for fellow man, etc.


Is less than 100 years an Eon? Pol Pot was in the 70s, so that wasn’t too long ago and he killed close to 2 million over a couple of years, and we see it in Darfur today with a few million killed in a very non-religious event.

The problem is man is not very nice and it is great to push humanity forward anyway you can, but fundamental religion is not bad, but the way man manipulates it to his own personal agendas is what makes it bad. The problem is man will use any motivator he can and corrupt it to something that is extremely unlike its original form. We saw this with how communism replaced and outlawed religion and replaced it with nationalism.

Religion is just one motivator of many and curing religion will not cure all motivators nor will it cure man’s will to corrupt even the best intentions into some inhuman and evil. I think you give us too much credit to think that Atheists would be any different than what man has shown to be like for your eons.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
What gets me is when seemingly intelligent people who claim to champion rationality, logic and critical thinking turn around and completely fail to use the afformentioned by scapegoating a concept for the vagrancies of human nature.......



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by briantaylor
I think you might have missed the memo on this one...
The God gene doesn't exist.
A few years ago some "scientists" thought it did.
And while we are able to watch brains "light up" in certain areas when we think about god or faith, it is not caused by a gene.


i wonder if the same place lights up when kids think about their imaginary friend.
or if a widow thinks of her dead husband.

i wonder what area lights up when a man reflects upon his own divinity.. ...his connection to the field of existence that we are all made of..... his BEING that field...

p-p-pineal anyone???



ps I agree 100% that religion must end.


i agree.

replaced with a factual scientific method that brings our consciousness in harmony with one another and all matter/energy.

TRUE rele-gia

re-union with god.

-



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


That's great and all, but that part of the mind exists for a purpose and although religion is false, that's not to say there isn't a supreme being that we are all innately aware of. Shutting that down would be like removing the potential for spiritual awareness. I personally don't believe in violating people's free will. If humans have no more connection of the divine, even one as twisted as religion, it could cause a number of unforeseen problems. Remember, not everybody is as intelligent as those scientists. Some people are only restrained from heinous crime by their spirituality. Some people may even lose their entire reason for living if they suddenly lost touch with spirituality. It would be better if these scientists instead isolated the part of the brain that says "follow the alpha" and delete THAT, so people will be both liberated from religious AND government manipulation. I still believe it should be put to a vote.

EDIT: By the way, I don't think we should take this too seriously. A lot of evidence seems to suggest that the brain is only a medium for information and that the data is actually streamed through the whole of the brain, not compartmentalized, and perhaps is even part of an information field local to the life form. So I really can't take this too seriously. I just wanted to add that because my own post didn't sound tongue-in-cheek enough when I reread it.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


The pineal, right. That's why I didn't like the sound of this. I don't want anybody who thinks they know what's good for me better than I do trying to shut down my third eye.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 21cdb
Religion has all the answers!

Science has all the answers!


Sounds like someone's religion is science.



Science and Religion are best friends until Capitalism Hijacked the Science



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Though it is true many conflicts have involved religious differences, I fail to see how they cause conflict. Many other conflicts have been about power, land, national pride, seeking the "betterment" of mankind (Think of Hitler's eugenics and the Marxist revolutions). It seems to me that in the end conflict stems from conflict - two people or groups have different ideas about what is right or how things should be and decide that the argumentum ad Bacculum trumps all others.

After religion is eliminated (assuming that's possible in the first place), will wars cease? Or will conflicts about which God is real be replaced by conflicts about how to best "progress humanity in the most civilized way possible through science, environmental concern and concern for fellow man, etc?" People will have differences, as always, and thinking that they can all be settled in a nonviolent and rational way is denying human nature.

In short, if it cannot be proven that religion is intrinsically bad and not just another facet of human conflict, is it justifiable to "cure" it without any consent?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
maybe religion is a shoulder for some people that need it.
plus they dont have to believe..what a scam



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
Science and Religion are best friends until Capitalism Hijacked the Science


No they weren't. Religion set us back 2000 years because of the science we lost. By the time 1 CE rolled around, heliocentric solar system models had been conceptualised. The Earth's shape and size was accurately calculate. We had both steam power and rail (though it didn't occur to anyone to put them together). Even ideas about atoms and evolution, life on other planets had been discussed.

The amount we lost is in calculable.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Ahem, the first Library of Alexandria was lost to political strife. Not religion.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


And then virtually every rediscovery to follow it was blocked by the anti-intellectualism of the church. Kepler and Copernicus to name a few. There is still an astrology thing in my local paper every day.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Too bad astrology is not "religion". And if Copernicus and Kepler were blocked then why praytell do we know of them?


[edit on 24-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


We know about Kepler (to Christianities chagrin) because his theories WORKED.

Science will beat the fantasy/hate/bigotry of religion because science produces something that actually works. Religion produces nothing of any value, except for stupid cattle which are easier to control.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


This is where I hear more scapegoating right? But what you fail to be able to realise that the two are not necessarily in opposition.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Too bad astrology is not "religion".

No, not really, but that's not the point I was making. This was a superstition derived from the oldest religions and yet people still tolerate this stuff.

Dara O'Briain said

Right now, I'd take psychics, astrologers and priests and I'd put the all in a big sack, tie off the top and I'd hit them all with sticks..

.. and I really wouldn't worry who got the worst of the belting.

To any other the people who to the difficult questions in life; the 'What comes after death?', 'What happened to my dead loved ones?' or 'How can I stop myself dying?', the difficult questions, gives you some easy bulls@#t answer and you say "Well have you got any evidence for that?" And they say "There's more to life than evidence....."

"Get in the feckin sack."



And if Copernicus and Kepler were blocked then why praytell do we know of them?

A better question would be who do we not know of, what buried heretical work are we oblivious to that we should know. We were lucky that some heretics' reputations proceeded them. Back in ancient Egypt when the priest wanted to bury someone, they go across the land erasing evidence of his/her existence - they knew how to obliterate the influence of heretics.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 





I don't see how you can compare non-religious from eons ago to non-religious now. There is a huge difference in why they are non-religious but I don't have time today to get back into this thread. I would say that the Atheist movement now is born out of wanting to progress humanity in the most civilized way possible through science, environmental concern and concern for fellow man, etc.
i thought i cured you of this nonsense, you crack me up.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join