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.
Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
You jews hate Jesus so much that when he IS allowed to exist, you call him evil.
You are an immature poseur drowning in your semitic lies.
Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
You jews hate Jesus so much that when he IS allowed to exist, you call him evil.
You are an immature poseur drowning in your semitic lies.
Yep I just love calling Jesus evil. That's what I do daily. When you get down to it Jesus can not be the Messiah or God.
www.messiahtruth.com...
Picture it as idol worship. You might have a high amount of faith but your just worshiping another religious artifact. Why do you think Muslims don't allow drawings of religious figures? They wouldn't want to picture Muhammad with a bomb? No! Because they want to make themselves more true then anyone else.
www.messiahtruth.com...
Originally posted by davidmann
Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
You jews hate Jesus so much that when he IS allowed to exist, you call him evil.
You are an immature poseur drowning in your semitic lies.
Yep I just love calling Jesus evil. That's what I do daily. When you get down to it Jesus can not be the Messiah or God.
www.messiahtruth.com...
Picture it as idol worship. You might have a high amount of faith but your just worshiping another religious artifact. Why do you think Muslims don't allow drawings of religious figures? They wouldn't want to picture Muhammad with a bomb? No! Because they want to make themselves more true then anyone else.
www.messiahtruth.com...
Yes, you and your race did kill the evil Jesus. But those Christians come in handy when the jews, you and yours, need to spill a little American blood, don't they.
Originally posted by davidmann
You jews hate Jesus so much that when he IS allowed to exist, you call him evil.
He really ripped you guys a new one, eh?
You are an immature poseur drowning in your semitic lies.
Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
You jews hate Jesus so much that when he IS allowed to exist, you call him evil.
He really ripped you guys a new one, eh?
You are an immature poseur drowning in your semitic lies.
[edit on 5-9-2010 by davidmann]
This is my first post.
If religion were to be disproved, I think I might stop caring about the consequences of things, since in the long run, it wouldn't really matter...
We, that is ourselves, our consciousness, would simply be accidental manifestations as the result of moving bits of carbon based matter... we could still claim that we're humans and we have certain rights or freedoms or whatever, but we wouldn't really. We'd just be bags of chemical reactions.
We'd would also still have morals, but those would be what society agrees upon. The idea that morals are simply constraints society agrees upon has never really appealed to me as an authoritative force... It doesn't really make a hard argument against any particular action as an absolute, or even in general, since the moral system itself is subject to the whims of society. Society changes, and thus, what is unacceptable one day, is tolerated the next.
I'd do what I want, with as much disregard for the consequences as possible.
I would request a reasonable commentary from anyone out there.
I hope the foregoing does not disappoint.
what difference would it really make to the business of living?
Why shouldn't bags of chemicals, if they are capable of sentience, of living and loving and thinking, not have rights or freedoms? What is the added ingredient that makes a 'human' out of a bag of chemicals? Soul? Is there such a thing? How do you know?
Empathy, altruism, fairness, reciprocity, cooperation, tolerance and all our other moral characters are in fact evolved instincts. This is the true basis of human morality and--unlike social mores or even religious ones--it is solid as a rock.
More often, on the whole, it is a bad thing, as when religious teaching codifies and institutionalizes bizarre dietary rules, slavery or blood sacrifice.
Moreover, you'd have no God to confess to and be shriven by--your Christian Get Out of Jail Free card would have been trashed. Racked by guilt and self-disgust, you'd soon stop behaving like a creep and go back to being your normal, naturally moral self.
Originally posted by The Western Sage
What is my motivation?
As for survival, mating and so-forth, consciousness isn't required for that. single celled organisms do. The culture of which you speak would indeed have only immediate meaning, and nothing we could make, no idea, object, etc, could have any lasting meaning.
Ideas like "we the people" become less compelling when "All for me" is an equally competitive mantra (so long as both are pragmatic).
The good things in life would ultimately be relative, based entirely upon the blind watchmaker.
The question should be, I think, why do bags of chemicals deserve such freedoms? Is it because evolution has programmed us to demand such rights, and as such, we aren't actually "free," but following protocols hardwired into our DNA. Why should the individual matter in the face of the survival of the whole, so long as it can be convinced that it is content, and it is productive?
Other questions I think worth asking is, at what point do you deserve rights? Are these rights merely what we think they should be? If we were to come across an alien civilization whose concepts of rights and freedoms differed radically from ours, whose would be more correct? If they are both equal, and the other civilization chose not to respect our ideas of rights, could we really call foul play?
I would not say that [our moral instincts] are rock solid. Highly ingrained perhaps, but not inseparable from human beings.
We developed those characteristics accidentally, because they happened to favorable in the environment we were adapting to. If you were to put us in an environment unfavorable to those conditions, would we really hang on to those characteristics?
I would agree that I would go back to my naturally moral self, assuming I didn't refuse to stop. I would still do some of the "corrupt" things, as long as I could get away with it and it benefited me or my kin in some way. I could see myself doing altruistic things when it suited my purposes. Maybe I wouldn't go out and rob, but I would try to rip off people when I could (again as long as it benefited me). And the worst thing about that behavior is that I could justify that, since there are others in society doing it right now (not saying that they are only secular. There are scumbags, like the TV preachers, who prey on well meaning people, just as there are secular businessmen ripping off underpaid natives in far eastern countries.)