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.

 

So, What happens to you if/when religion is proven false?

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

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...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

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.


I might be Jewish by blood but if you haven't gotten it yet I'm Atheist. I don't believe in an Evil or Good Jesus. So now there are two Jesus's?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
This is my first post, so I don't really mind if it gets lost within all the... creative personal stereotyping, as my PC friends might put it... er, assuming I had PC friends. I'd like to answer the original question of what I might do if all religions were disproved beyond a doubt. And at this moment, I'm going to assume that this includes all past, present, and future religions anywhere and everywhere within the knowable universe. However, I'm going to try to run my thoughts from our level of current scientific knowledge, since I can't say I know the future of science. Sorry if this seems a bit extreme, but I think it helps explain my answer a little bit.

If religion were to be disproved, I think I might stop caring about the consequences of things, since in the long run, it would really matter, as most usable energy would run out at some point. Sure, we could try in the long run to preserve and extend this energy, but what for? At that point (the possibility of religions being rendered false) we, that is ourselves, our consciousness, would simply be accidental manifestations as the result of moving bits of carbon based matter, possibly to with the "purpose" (no design here, just lack of a better word) of moving the bits of matter around a bit more than they could before. Sure, 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. My athiest friends have tried to convince me it works, and I'm not say that's not the way it is now, just that 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.

Ahem, sorry if I got off track there explaining the why, but I'd like you to know why I'd do what I do in that scenario. And when I say I'll stop caring, I mean that I'd do what I want, with as much disregard for the consequences as possible. I'd try to do things that would be deemed as "corrupt" in business and politics to get ahead. I'd probably become more active in libertarian efforts to promote abortion rights for both women and men (her body, but half his DNA. Doesn't make sense, but why not? Even if it becomes a human being, it doesn't really have humanity), socialistic efforts to euthanize the weak or practice eugenics (produce the best for society and whatnot), authoritarian efforts to invade the privacy of individuals (precrime, etc.). In short, I'd probably strive for either a society like Brave New World, or something a bit more realistic, like the governing system of an amoral universe like Warhammer 40000 (minus the magic, religion, etc.).

If this sounds a little unsavory, I'll agree it is. And while this are the logical conclusion I can draw, which I think would be the correction ones for the world you are hypothesizing, I don't know if I could actually do those things.

I am a Christian, if you couldn't tell. A fairly devout one, I'd like to think. I also try to be a philosopher. I would request a reasonable commentary from anyone out there.

The Western Sage




[edit on 5-9-2010 by The Western Sage]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by The Western Sage]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 

Dawkins? Look at the link.

Though it's possible he's a Gong fan.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

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.

What kind of anti-Semitic filth is this?


Stick to discussing religion, not members' races.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

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]


My Brother, do you profess to follow Jesus, yet talk to your Brother so?

Was Jesus' testimony, not one of love?

And more especially to love those who transgress against you?

Then why the hate? Is this not a Brother of yours, perfectly able to make up his own mind what to believe, and how to believe it?

I think that is what the Christ would do. Love all how he wanted to be loved.

Just a thought my Brother.

With Love

Your Brother

[edit on 5-9-2010 by IAMIAM]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Western Sage
 


This is my first post.

Welcome to ATS, O Sage.


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...

Religious people often say this. I don't understand why. If the God hypothesis were disproved once and for all, what difference would it really make to the business of living? You would still be impelled by nature to survive and reproduce, and to go about it via the elaborate, multifarious rituals of human mating--on which nearly all culture, from warfare to scientific research to pro football to Romantic poetry, is based. None of the present activities of life, except for the directly religious stuff, would lose their meaning. How could they? Their meaning is not transcendent, it is condititional and pragmatic, existing in the here and now. Why do you demand a Higher Meaning behind it all to make you happy?

If God were proved dead, friendship and love would not lose their savour. The good things in life--sensual and aesthetic pleasure, mental and spiritual uplift--would remain good to the taste. The promise and the danger of life would not, in practical terms, be altered a jot. Life would still be as pregnant with meaning and consequence as it is now. So what, exactly, would have been lost and why should it make you stop caring about the consequences of things?


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.

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?


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.

Perhaps this is where your problem lies. Allow me to reassure you. Our moral nature is not, and never was, the creation of society--or of religion. It is part of our evolutionary inheritance as social animals, in particular social primates. 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.

Society and religion subvert, and sometimes pervert, natural morality. This is often a good thing--one of the 'commandments' of natural morality is 'treat incrementally more distantly related conspecifics with increasing enmity', and this we have subverted to allow us to live in large, non-kin-group based societies. More often, on the whole, it is a bad thing, as when religious teaching codifies and institutionalizes bizarre dietary rules, slavery or blood sacrifice. But most socially damaging of all is the faith that encourages us to look to some god to take our guilt feelings away from us, rather than accepting the judgement of society and atoning to our fellows for the wrong we have done. You cannot trust a person who speaks to God in his mind, and who believes God speaks back to him. Such people have embraced immorality at its very root, deluding themselves in order to justify themselves to others.

The anthropological fact is that religion leverages morality for its own purposes, which are often inimical to us humans; for morality itself is already in our genes.


I'd do what I want, with as much disregard for the consequences as possible.

I doubt this very much. You might do so for a day, or a week, or a month. By then, if the real consequences of your actions hadn't killed or otherwise incapacitated you, you would probably be feeling extremely sorry for yourself and the others you have hurt. 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.

Or you might be so traumatized you seek your own end. I suppose the suicide rate among religious people would spike viciously immediately after the discovery that their faith was a vanity and a delusion. Regrettable, no doubt; yet those who choose death because they cannot face the realities of life must always expect an admixture of contempt in our pity for them.


I would request a reasonable commentary from anyone out there.

I hope the foregoing does not disappoint.

[edit on 6/9/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Again, a Jew isn't a race, it's a member of the religion of Judaism. You're not a Jew by blood, you're not bound to Judaism or connected in any way just because your family are practicing Jews.

Just the same as if my parents were Atheists, i would not be an Atheist "by blood"



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





I hope the foregoing does not disappoint.


It is a perfectly reasonable commentary.




what difference would it really make to the business of living?


I can understand what you mean by this. life would go on, as it always has. For me, to take a line from theatre, what is my motivation? As far as current science indicates, consciousness does not seem to be independent of the body. Take away the body (brain) and take away the mind. 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. It comes down to semantics, and the core basis for life for me. Its the philosopher in me that causes me to be fixated upon that.
If you'll excuse me, I'll ignore my religious motivations for now.




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?


The question should be, I think, why do they 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?




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.


Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I would not say that they 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? some, perhaps most would, but the march of progress does not stop, and some group would adapt and evolve to do away with such things. They might even still be genetically human, missing the genes required for such traits.




More often, on the whole, it is a bad thing, as when religious teaching codifies and institutionalizes bizarre dietary rules, slavery or blood sacrifice.


Still running under the idea that religion is real here.

I would say that while these things were done in a religious aspect, that part of it was the sheeple affect. Calvary charges are another good example of such stupidity. Or for another example, we could look to the atrocities committed for nationalism or the State in countries like China, USSR, Early 20th century Germany, or America during the America-Indian War. None of these could really be said to have been done for religious purposes, yet they still occurred.

Cont. Below



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by The Western Sage
 


If anything I could make the claim that society perverts morality for its own personal use, and that religion was the result of its first misguided attempts to do so.




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.


I mentioned my doubts as to whether or not I could actually do such things, but if I were able to, there would be the chance that since I would no real higher authority, 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.)

Thank Astyanax



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by The Western Sage
 


Yes, I could tell you're a devout Christian. A devout Christian did just ruin our pleasant evening tonight. All cause you guys can't have fun. The new rule is to respect others as long as their rights do not override the rights of others. The fun was drinking and merry-making. Some people just don't get it.

As for the OP's post, I would say that I would be vindicated. I get it. It's all a farce. A control mechanism to keep us controlled. But if we do prove that we could behave well and good even without it - if we're actually mature enough as a society to function without it, then TPTB wouldn't care less and dispose of it. I'm quite confident this is the case.

Trial and error they play. Now they probably feel that civilization as a whole is mature enough, why not play the free will trump card? Would you let a kid drive a car whence you know very well he's not ready to take on such a responsibility? No, of course not.

Wait untill post puberty of course.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

You’re missing the whole point of organized religion. Even Marx recognized that organized religion is the opium of the masses. Even dictatorships and pseudo-atheist states tacitly support religion because it is much easier to control people who will refrain from stealing and murder without a gun to their head.

Personally I believe that a truly atheist world would be much worse than it is today since individual self-interest would rule. Take for example the classic reference to Star Trek TND as an example of a utopian solution. Most of the members of the TND world are officers of the Federation or held accountable to it. The Prime Directive is either a pseudo-religious doctrine or at the very least a philosophical one. It certainly doesn’t support the evolutionary model of self-preservation which is required to continue to exist under any atheist existence of man.

However I can hear the atheists screaming that not believing in God isn't an automatic rejection of morality and secular compassion. My response to that is that I despise philosophers more than the leaders of organized religion. I know that it is a cynical statement but while the leaders of all major religions have lead millions of people into war, no one has ever followed a philosopher to their death.

One only needs to look at the Obama Administration’s subtle change in wording when referencing the US Constitution. They refer to “Freedom of Worship” instead of “Freedom of Religion” which allows for a personal belief in God while outlawing any Religious Organizations.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Western Sage
What is my motivation?

All the same ones you have now. Survival, procreation, status, power, pleasure, comfort, happiness, justice, friendship, love, peace of mind. Why should any of them disappear because religion is proven false?


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.

I fear you have not understood me. Nearly all human culture is the result of male sexual competition. Most cultural achievement--meaning everything from war to being able to improvise a killer saxophone solo--is driven by male status competition through fitness advertisement with reproductive success as its ultimate goal. These are, I'm afraid, somewhat technical terms, but if you would like to learn more about them, a good source is a book by the evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller called The Mating Mind.


Ideas like "we the people" become less compelling when "All for me" is an equally competitive mantra (so long as both are pragmatic).

'We the people' is a lot more compelling that 'all for me' when blatant selfishness is likely to turn every other man's hand against you. Don't forget: we are social animals. With long memories and a propensity to bear grudges.


The good things in life would ultimately be relative, based entirely upon the blind watchmaker.

No, they would still be the same good things, because our judgements of what is good and bad are entirely dependent on momentary circumstance, personal history and evolutionary inheritance. We don't need God--or rather, someone purpoting to speak as His mouthpiece--to tell us what is good for us. Instinct conjoined with knowledge and reason are enough.


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?

This is nothing to the point. Is it the existence of God that causes human beings to deserve rights? If God didn't exist, would we cease to deserve them? Why?


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?

Again, nothing to the point. We don't need alien civilizations; we have terrestrial ones whose 'concepts of rights and freedoms differ radically from ours' and we have seen the many different ways in which such confrontations play out. Aliens would have different biologies and evolutionary histories from ourselves anyway, so the cases are not comparable.


I would not say that [our moral instincts] are rock solid. Highly ingrained perhaps, but not inseparable from human beings.

I'm afraid you are wrong. These are essential elements of what make us human. They are part of the extended human phenotype. Obviously there are defective individuals born from time to time, but the winnow of nature sees to it that they rarely propagate their genes.


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?

Perhaps if you waited a few tens of thousand years you would begin to see some variation. Evolution is a pretty slow process. Unless the girls went for it, of course. Then you might get some results due to Fisherian runaway.


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.)

In other words, you would behave just as people do now.

[edit on 6/9/10 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The converse is also a good question.

What happens to you if my religious beliefs are found to be correct.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
You're not getting the answer you want to your question, because of this quote....

"say a time travelling device fell onto your lap, and out of curiousity, you checked out all the religious stories to find out none of it happened..just some leaders making stuff up to control the cults and whatnot."

With the mind boggeling technology that many believe exists and which is talked about on this forum all the time, there wouldn't really be any way to prove that this "time travelling device" wasn't rigged for deception.

"He will deceive with miracles"

Back to your regularly scheduled program

[edit on 6-9-2010 by shasta9600]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
To answer the question in its basic form...There would be war between the faiths and against science at which point the Vatican would request the new revamped modern day equivelant of :



At this point we shall all be pushing up the daisies, or in my personal belief in a better state of being.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
If man were inherently good, nothing at all would happen but TPTB know better. They know they have to give the masses a reason to behave, to act accordingly. I mean look at all the past civilizations. They all have religions that tell of the creation of the man/universe and of an afterlife. The creation myths allow man to not focus on something so hard to understand, however they discourage analytic and critical thinking skills. The afterlife myths play into our emotions and desires.

The road to everlasting afterlife is through dutiful worship of the God. I think this is what religion plays on: peoples love of life and living. If you tell people there is no afterlife, ghosts do not exists, the only thing out beyond Earth is a massive black void people would feel like whats the purpose.

Thats why I don't debate the religious(or spiritual) because I know they need that. Some people need a answer for everything and rather than research and discuss possibilities for our being here they would rather leave it to one(or many) Creator. Rather than face each day with a clear mind they look to cards with drawings on them that have no significance on anything.

I think there are so many similarities in all religions. No one not even scientists have the correct answer.
At the end of the day its all just a bunch of theory.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
There is nothing funnier than following an argument between people of faith and uneducated athiests.
Some of you anti religious types should read what you write, you spew as much dogma as the the most fervent religious follower.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join