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.

 

Freedom And Faith

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
If, in one’s mind, one thinks of ‘faith’ to be synonymous to ‘creed’ (what people often also call ‘religion’) one might be thinking, what does freedom and faith has to do together? After all, faith often includes constraints that limit your freedom. Often these constraints are externally bound, deducted from scriptures and executed and imposed upon one by the communion of faith. In this case, it is true that there is not much freedom on it, especially when it is executed and imposed by violence and force. Luckily in our civilizations, this is rarely the case.

So freedom of faith is freedom nonetheless. A person is free to choose from spectrum of creeds, what suits and speaks to one most. If we are to sustain freedom, we cannot force anyone to, or not to, believe. For example, if one is atheist and opposes any religion in the extent that one would be ready to prohibit religions, yet promoting freedom one would be guilty of hypocrisy. Following happens in communist countries (which are luckily very few) without any hypocrisy, because communist countries are neither free nor religious, except that the communism in itself is creed as are some forms of atheism as well.

But this is not actually the point why I am making this thread. By freedom and faith I want to imply on something I deem to be very important. After awaking from deep state of thoughtfulness just moments ago, I realized that all external prohibitions of both freedom and ethics are artificial and vain. They can be even malicious and harmful. I realized that external moral codes and religious codes are the very things which prevent me of being free. I can do whatever I want, even harm others if that is what I want. I am only bound by laws of existence (=laws of nature) and those internal prohibitions imposed upon me myself. Because I know something, like the law of causality, and because I don’t want to suffer, therefore I prohibit myself from harming others, because it would eventually cause suffering to me also (perhaps in the form of revenge, jealously and so on). But would a need rise to harm someone (for example as self-defence) I wouldn’t have any moral objections to resort in violence.

Human being can only be peacefully suppressed by giving promises of something that makes suppression worthwhile. Various creeds promises paradise, other beliefs will promise you superhuman powers – whatever the external constraint is, it promises you something that you think as worthy. But this is really psychology of children; I get you do something if I give you this lollipop (which eventually is dangerous as it is harmful to teeth, besides it is an illusion, sweet for awhile and doesn’t last long). With creeds however, you don’t even get the lollipop. The promised land of lollipops awaits you in the afterlife which of course is another nonsense invented to cover a lie with a lie.

I am not trying to convert anyone – that would be another violation against my internal constraints. Just wanted to share few thoughts and hope, that someone might find them ‘resonating’. If not, big deal


-v




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Good post, I tend to agree wit hmuch of it. One question,and it is kind of off topic a bit.
You spoke about harming others,and not doing so because of the law of casuality,or basically becaue it will somehow come back to bite you. This is true,but also is kind of how a sociopath thinks,isn't it? Where does empathy fit in ? If you knew for certain that you could hurt or even kill someone who had offended you in some way and suffer absolutley no adverse affects from it,would you proceed without any qualms?
I know that for myself, I would need to be in fear of my life or physical injury before I would be willing to inflict serious harm on someone even if I knew I wouldn't be punished. How do these feelings fit in to your way of thinking?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by xxclaro
 


Since you put it that way, it sure sounds like sociopathic or psychopathic. But no, I wouldn't harm even a fly even though I know that it will produce no direct harm for me. I also tend to think in lines of causality, that the good I do, may come back to me - yet I am not expecting it. I like to do good out of no motivation whatsoever. Way I see it, congrulating myself after good deed will just boost my ego.

I think that we all are "in the same boat" so to speak; we are all part of this vast and glorious universe and through this we are all the same. Would I want to harm myself by harming others? The answer is obvious.

Thank you for your question - I hope the answer clarifies my stance on this.

-v



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Good, oldfashioned pragmatism isn't to be despised.

If people have food on the table, roofs over their heads and decent egalitarian legal systems, they will be less inclined to go on crusades. That's observable.

This is neither an idealistic nor 'natural' ultimate 'law', but if it attracts a sufficient part of mankind, it will grow into a co-sensus, only threatened by extremist fanatics in possession of various doomsday tools.

While the concentration of extremists with totalitarian ideologies appears to be somewhat higher on debate forums (the only place, where the can mission without responsibility), sociopaths only represent a few percent of mankind in reality.

So we still have a chance to survive.

One optional suggestion is to put all politicians and preachers in special camps, when they reach a certain amount of influence. They would still be allowed to govern and preach, but with a much higher degree of transparency.

As ATS seemingly has a majority of US contributors, I find it necessary to point out, that this is an effort of humour.
edit on 15-12-2010 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Originally posted by bogomil
If people have food on the table, roofs over their heads and decent egalitarian legal systems, they will be less inclined to go on crusades. That's observable.


True. Yet there are ways that can overcome such satisfaction, one of them is fear. This is obviously the method used nowadays in "civilized" countries, it goes by the name of "terrorism".


Originally posted by bogomil

While the concentration of extremists with totalitarian ideologies appears to be somewhat higher on debate forums (the only place, where the can mission without responsibility), sociopaths only represent a few percent of mankind in reality.


Definately, there's lot of good points in that quote. I tend to think that the "idealistic extremists" are much louder in their expression than the more "normal" posters, and therefore in their loudness, they appear to be greater in numbers what they actually might be. It seems to me that there are more reasonable and "silent" people following the debate than there are idealists.. Yet these silent observers rather engage in so active posting.

-v



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Re v01i0

As an extension of your points, I have found, that the good old R.A.Wilson 'fnords' (wider defined) is a good indication of extremist campaigns.

The more 'fnords' (induced zombiness by mass-hypnosis or loud repetion of propaganda key-clichées) the more likely an intensification of extremist activity.

Either as a last 'heroic' stand of a dying extremism (in which case the propaganda will be desperately absurd, there's nothing to loose); or if power is inside reach, more careful propaganda so as not to scare allies away.

But as with your OP, this is not my point, only the canvass.

You presented one of the moot points between 'elitists versus egalitarian liberals' best expressed by: "Us or chaos". Endlessly embroidered on by extremists with rhetoric and semantic twists. (Examples exist both in political and religious contexts).

And it's both sad and characteristic, that the (admittedly) complex question of intrinsic human potential for ethics is ignored. There's material for a long and deep analysis of this option (human 'natural' ethics), and your thread should have attracted scores of answers.

But the interest is as usual centered on the pie-throwing opportunities on more black/white simplistic threads. I myself would welcome a change from the vulgar approach, with a creative and constructive debate on the subject of the OP. Preferably lasting more than the few days of attention-span so common on public forums, where thread-zapping has become a lifestyle.

So if there are anybody around (apart from v01i0) who has passed beyond the verbatim level of 'Cosmic cap'n blood and gore' I'm game for digging deeper.

I find the: "No, you are the fascist, because you prevent us from being fascists" both repetitive and meaningless. In the end it's a question power, and how power is handled.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Thanks for you reply.

As you see, this thread has been moved to "general chitchat", so perhaps it is in essence too complex to arouse decent inquiry. I have asked the mod to move it on the philosphy forum, because I personally think that this ain't "exactly" every day chitchat. I made the mistake to post this on the "conspiracies on religion" -forums, I should've known better and post it on philosophies to begin with...

On the topic: It is indeed sad that we generally dismiss the possibility of intrinsic ethics of human being. However, I can see the other side as well, that at the current state of affairs (in the world), there are not too many people capable of independent reasoning and hence laws and other moral codes are required. But perhaps with proper effort this state of affairs could be changed, and even maybe we are going towards it.

Personally, I am leaning towards anarchism, but this is not yet possible on larger scale (as explained above).

In the OP, I forgot to mention that I feel that jurisdical laws (at least in my country) are not constraint to me. I have rarely come into conflict with them, as I tend to see their social value and that they include things that I have already experienced correspoding with my ethics (well, that can also be cultural indoctrination). However, should I come in conflict with juridistical laws, I think I would have no bad conscience about breaking them.

-v



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Re v01i0

It's just to accept, that scratching the surface is the most popular approach.

That is until some extremist uses 'us or chaos' for the 117th time as an off-topic defense on the next elitist campaign. But there it will drown in the general semantic noise.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join