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.

 

Religion causes otherwise moral people to do and say immoral things.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Religion (specifically mono-theistic religions) causes prejudice, it causes otherwise moral people to do and say despicable things because they truely "believe" they are doing the will of their SPECIFIC God.



My position is Agnostic Atheism, because there (currently) is no evidence of an omnipotent being, i will not submit to a belief without evidence. If evidence is provided i will happily renounce my Atheism. Modestly speaking, my approach is humble and honest. I won't blindly believe things. And i won't reveal wisdom which i could possibly not.

I believe in questioning everything, even scientific theory, this is what makes a good scientist, being reasonably sceptical.

Enjoy and please feel free to post your thoughts and opinions. All welcome.

Peace

A&A
edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


No one is going to prove to you anything, why are you looking and searching for things in such selfish ways?

Why would anyone need to prove to you, if you want to find it out than fine, but why should anyone have to prove it to you?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
i would agree were it not for the extremely obvious factoid that the inherent problem is a human condition, born from mass mind think. it's just as ugly and abusive when applied via other world views not related to monotheism. if you consider the behavior of large groups of people, convinced of just about anything, it begins to sink in.

stalin's russia springs to mind











edit on 7-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


I'm not asking for evidence, i'm merely explaining my position, this expression of freedom of speech will be punished in countries that are governed by "GOD" - Theocratic governed states.


Although there is much debate as to which states or groups operate strictly according to Islamic Law, Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of law and have religious police to maintain social compliance.


No women are allowed in a law court, this is because of a core belief in an ancient book, that alledgedly is the "word of God"

There is many more, and religion does cause separation and prejudice; you only have to look at the Palestinian conflict to see that, Muslims Vs Jews, because they were promised the land in their scripture!

A&A



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I knew this argument would come - "Atheism" has no goals, it doesn't seek to convert people. People don't kill in the name of Atheism.

I'm not saying that without God, there would be no horrible acts committed.

Good people will do good and the bad people will do the worst. But it takes religion for a otherwise morally normal people to do and say immoral things. If you watched my video and understood the arguments i feel you would not be so quick as to simply point out Atheists committing horrible acts.

And remember, religion does not automatically convert you to a "moral" person, just look at all these paedophile priests, even the Pope stated that "condoms are worse than aids". Although this is true, it's not an argument i would use against religion and morality.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 




Response to the connection associating atheism to horrific acts of genocide in history.
edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Ancient Greece and India were both pantheistic and paganistic. Yet women in their societies were like after thoughts. The male to female ratio was horrid, due to the belief that women were inferior, so inferior in fact, female children were killed at birth. this still goes on today in india. and in china (the one child policy has resulted in the removal of an entire generation of female children from their society and their orphanges are filled with unwanted female children, almost exclusively).



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


you miss the point. what i'm showing you is that group think is the problem, not religion. just like kids ganging up on the kid with thick glasses. heteros ganging up on gays. i just showed you in my last post, that the less than stellar treatment of women/females, by males, is not isolated to monotheism.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Of course its not, but in the West we have a free democratic society, because of it, we have had abolishment of slavery, equal rights and opportunities.

These come because of the secular nature of a democratic society. Theocratic encroachment is not welcome. In fact, had we still be governed under a theocracy, women would still be classed as inferior, blacks would be oppressed and homophobia would be ripe.

Thank "god" for freedom of speech and opposition to his very own thoughts and commands. Without free speech the minority would be unheard and never emancipated.

Hopefully one day, it will be considered as respectable to be an Atheist as it is to have blind faith in a invisible dictator.
edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


same premise. group think is group think. people are real quick to try to legislate each other's world views/philosophies/religions, out of the picture. the point of moving to the usa in the first place, was to escape all forms of tyranny, including tyranny where your TYPE of religion played a role in whether or not you succeeded or survived for that matter. protestants fled here to escape the papal authority and inquisitions. jews fled here to escape various problems as well.. agnostics, pagans and atheists, fled here, for similar reasons. the idea was to give everyone a voice and a chance at creating laws which were fair to all, and as you can see (and history proves), that's alot easier said than done.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


It's a lot easier said than done; but Atheism doesn't wish to encroach on democratic free society. Atheism has no goals, and doesn't have a specific moral or political ambition. It's simply the lack of belief in a Deity.

If you truly believe in a God, you ultimately wish everyone to abide by THAT God, this distorts your use of reason and rationality when debating what is best for humanity. For if you truely believed in Hell, would you honestly want non-believers to go there? Of course not, you wish to convert them.

And this is what i'm saying; Religion causes otherwise moral people to do and say immoral things.

I'm not negating that there is still problems without religion, i don't argue that. But atheism doesn't cause these problems, religion attempts to deter these problems with their moral teachings but it has adverse effects as you can plainly see around the world.

As i've said before, look at Islamic governed states; women are still beaten to death by stoning! I can see why an Atheist might flee a country like this; to escape the madness, the insanity.

"Morality is trying to do what is right regardless of what you are told, religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right."
edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


i don't believe in hell in the sense most do. in fact, i think it's a misunderstood concept relating to the subject matter you can review in my signature (click the picture, it's a link). but that's really not the point either. it doesn't matter if we have the same world view, is the point. the usa is a nation of varied world views, agreeing to live peaceably with each other for the advantages of fair and equitable laws, that don't remove them from fair and equal treatment and consideration due entirely to race, religion or gender. sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too. i know you would prefer it, but we all have our own preferred viewpoints. doesn't mean we should suggest the other fellows views should relegate him to a lower status (i do believe that would be called slavery. sorry, i'm not a goyim)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



that don't remove them from fair and equal treatment and consideration due entirely to race, religion or gender.


Of course they don't, i never negated that, and i wasn't asking for both having cake and eating it. Of course there is a gang mentality, but why do you think there's less gang mentality against ethnic minorities, homosexuals and cultures in Western society? It's because these positions have become undesirable, in many cases the majority agree that this type of xenophobia is unwanted.

Is a Jew welcome to pray in the same parts as Muslims in Palestine? Is a jew welcome in Britain to pray? Of course, in fact there are laws to allow freedom of expression(within reason), specifically freedom to practice whichever religion you want; be it Scientology or Christianity.

I would never protest against freedom of expression, i would definetly never condone violence against believers or non-believers. I respect the value that evidence and reason holds, if someone else thinks believing in things blindly should be respected, then they obviously do not appreciate the value of reason and evidence.

edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


your definition of "Blind belief" is probably not as cut and dry as you think. for example, group think leads people who don't necessarily agree, to go along for the purposes of social comforts. this can be seen in every type of world view, including religions/philosophies. i view atheism as a sort of religious philosophy whose primary component is that it has no primary component--other than lack of belief in anything that isn't smack in front of their noses. it's a testament to the irony of life, that this same philosophy is the one most likely to prove the existence of god (if such a thing is provable at all). and there are degrees of compromise present in them all

now take my definition of atheism and apply it to monotheism and you have the same exact situation, et. al, there's no primary component. the people are as varied in thought and opinion (and personal belief) as any given atheist. all the "religion" has done is succeed in herding them into a stereotype, for various purposes, most of which are not very pleasant, as group think is an impersonal thing. same applies to atheists, as is evidenced in group think examples in atheistic history.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



i view atheism as a sort of religious philosophy whose primary component is that it has no primary component--other than lack of belief in anything that isn't smack in front of their noses.


Again, atheism has no goals and no specific philosophy. Quantam mechanics isn't right in front of our noses, neither are radio waves, we still believe them, because of the conviction of demonstration and evidence.

Again, most Atheists are humble in character. In fact, Agnostic Atheism is the position that there (CURRENTLY) is no evidence for an omnipotent being and therefore there is no reason to believe (YET)

If humans provide evidence to the contrary, i will happily and honest renounce my Atheism.

Remember, i admit - i can't say whether God does or doesn't exist, this would be unwise, foolish and irrational, i could not claim to reveal wisdom of the source of reality of the universe. I won't proclaim to hold and reveal wisdom that i could possibly not know.

Again, i'm willing to grant the possibility of a intelligent supernatural dictator of all reality, only if you are willing to grant me the possibility that reality may not need a cause or creator, that it could be infinite.

If i was to believe in a God, i would have to believe that this being intelligently created a reality where planets are smashed, stars explode, gallaxies collide and cause destruction, children and animals are born with birth defects, and this being watches with indifference as 99.8% of species become extinct on a planet, and this is just one measley planet at the edge of the visible universe.

Even if i did hold this belief, i would not want to worship this being, just because he created my existence, doesn't mean it demands respect. This is the essense of totalitarianism, to be commanded to love that which you fear.
edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


that treads into murky waters, where you don't want me to stray as it would deviate your thread into some of my less than mainstream theories. i will share one idea with you, however, as i feel it applies to this conversation (philosophically):

schrodinger's cat. the best example i am aware of at this moment, to show the application of faith, in a science. it's about as far removed from empirical evidence as the concept of "prayer changes things." as a result, i'm really quite fond of it, as a thought experiment.


one problem i frequently encounter while discussing this topic with atheists/agnostics/pagans, is their insistence that the biblical texts and therefore all of christianity, judaism and monotheism, is whatever the papacy has historically said it was, which is just sloppy research and an even worse example of comparative analysis in action. even after proving that the founding documents do not say even a quarter of what the papacy enacted as religious tenets/traditions, they still insist on only viewing the belief system thru that lens, leading me to believe that the greatest support atheism has ever had against the validity of biblical history or anything related to monotheism, is from the popes.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   


^that's good too.
i think various ancient texts are trying to explain this type of thing, but translation bias has gotten in the way.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



schrodinger's cat. the best example i am aware of at this moment, to show the application of faith, in a science.


It's not really "faith" - blind belief. THere is some evidence to it. It states that an object has a potential and is disrupted by observation. The Qubit in Quantam computers is a bit that is a 1 and a 0 at the same time xD

This explains the double slit experiment in which photons travel as waves and particles, but only particles when when an observer is placed in the experiment.

Faith in regards to God is blind, we don't know the universe is not infinity yet, There's two possibilities as to the ultimate question "Does God exist?" either God exists or God does not exist, either reality was intelligently created, or it was not.

It would be absurd to suggest to compare the causation argument to quantam theory. For surely a God cannot exist intelligently while at the same time this God does not exist? I suppose this is equally as paradoxical as some of quantam theory!


This is a reasonable debate btw, where i draw the line is where people state they know the desires of the being they can't prove exists.
edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


OR the observer changes things.

(you left that part out. fer shame fer shame).



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Sorry, sorry, i admit - I don't have a great understanding of quantam theory and it has been a while since i saw the double experiment explained! - Maybe i should watch your video! Apologies.

Could you explain why this might support a "GOD existing" scenario

Peace

edit on 7/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join