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.

 

The Atheist Alternative: The 10 Commandments.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["I agree with you my friend. That is why it is best to not have wisdom reflected in words, but rather by deeds."]

On this, I also agree with you (as an expression of religionist attitudes in a social context).

The conceptual, 'academical', approach runs on other lines, where e.g. faith as opposed to logic eventually must lead to a common reference-point beyond any of the intial positions (if any communication is to have meaning at all).

So in the best of all worlds criteria about criteria about criteria will end in what's called epistemology, which is very lofty, often circumstantial and usually requires a lot of essense-extractions on the various academic disciplines involved.

Obviously not being a subject of general public interest, but nonetheless of great importance in a world of growing 'rational knowledge' and polarized positions (which now have e.g. nukes at hand as the ultimate 'argument').




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The Golden Rule is a great moral blueprint to follow but it seems its only as good as the party this is applying to. For sado mascohists like Charles Manson we would have to rationalise the Golden Rule. That's why i believe there is no absolute or objective Morals.


My friend, I would like to offer some food for thought here.

Do you know why Charles Manson is the way he is? Do you know what hell he has faced in life to lead him to the point that he is at? Do you know for a fact that if born with the same faculties and tormented with the same hardships, that YOU would not make the same choices?

Of course not. You cannot imagine what it is to have walked in his shoes. He has made the choices he has because he never received truelove to know any better. Given his treatment, being locked in a cage with others battling similar demons, he probably believes love does not exist, and if he does, it is a distortion of love.

This is why those who know what love is have a duty to show it to all, that they may learn.

I do not know what struggles you have endured in life either that have lead to the opinions you have. Thus it is not important to me that you believe in God. What matters is that you know love, and through love will know God in your time and way.

We do not need to judge one another my friend, no not even Manson. It is our judgements against each other that have let the love grow cold between us.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

and you demand that anyone (such as myself) who disagrees with you hold to that same belief.


I never make demands or commands, that is fascist in nature. I believe everyone has the right to there own opinion.


Oh, I'm sorry. Who was logged into your account when this was posted?


At least Evangelical believers are consistent with their belief in the word of "GOD". Many vague believers cherry pick the parts they like, which in turn is making a new denomination of the religion. Like Mormonism or other versions of reformed Christianity. You are just editing the original scriptures, choosing philosophy and morals that fit our current accepted worldview.


Whoever it was clearly demands that anyone who is not a fundamentalist, like they are, is a "vague believer" who "edits the original scriptures, choosing philosophy and morals."


A moral Atheist would never try to convert anyone on their death bed either.


What does that have to do with anything? And, good grief, I can't think of a stupider thing to attempt, "moral" or not.

"Okay, I know that you're dying, and that you're a Christian, but you really need to give up this faith stuff and just go off into oblivion."

"Gosh, you're right, what was I thinking?" ** dies **



Atheism is the one perspective where you can never know that you are right. That's not a criticism, that's just an observation -- if you're wrong, you're going to find out. But if you're right, it's lights out and you won't even have a chance to shake your fist at the heavens to say "told you so!"


For sado mascohists like Charles Manson we would have to rationalise the Golden Rule. That's why i believe there is no absolute or objective Morals.


Then why are you picking on Charles Manson? Without objective morality, how can you claim that he is evil / wrong / kooky? Just because you say so? Who made you the arbiter of morality, because I'm sure that he thinks he's a-okay, and your claim is weaker than his, because you are not him.


Please, you are really being the bigot here. Christopher Hitchens only criticises that which he understands. He does this with reason and evidence. It is not blind belittling. He's trying to educate and inform his listeners, Both religious and non-religious.


Once again, you keep showing, over and over, that you have no idea what the word bigotry means. Please, look it up. You don't see the condescension in Hitchens' video, because you agree with him, but I guarantee that if someone made the exact same video, using the same language, imagery and claims, denouncing atheism, you'd be offended.

I don't fault him for demeaning people of faith, because he really doesn't have much of an argument without it. Faith is what people believe, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you, because it makes sense to them, and the only seeming thing that evangelical atheists trot out time and again are fallacious arguments about invisible fairies and pink unicorns which have no purpose beyond belittlement.

In my experience, though, trying to feel better about yourself by making others feel bad about themselves isn't very rewarding.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


He's a psycopath, obviously we have to reason that, and you just have.

My argument still stands, morals cannot be absolute or objective. There is no evidence that they come from "on-high" - They are abstract manifestation of human understandings and social adherences;-

Law and order is similar in regards to forming a common understanding of social responsibilities in a given community;

The drinking age in some countries may be 18, some may consider it "immoral" to drink under 18. Some may not, it's quite relative.


In regards to murder, I can't find a single society on earth which accepts this behaviour as moral. Does that make it absolute, of course not.

Objective or "absolute" morality is an illusion. If you'd like to go into this further - I am happy to do so. But that is entirely different debate. I was trying to clear up misunderstandings as adjensen is adament that i am a "bigot"

I'm sure you understand my point here.

Do you think i'm a bigot? I know you have different beliefs to myself but i don't belittle you for that reason, ever.

Peace brother,

A&A
edit on 30/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Do you think i'm a bigot?


I think you are my Brother, as is Manson, and I love you both equally, with all my heart.

Thus, I do not think anything evil of either of you.

But, you know this already.


With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Re Adjensen:

You wrote:

["I am not an extremist, but I don't really care if people get put off by them, because, once again, I am neither nurse maid nor arbiter."]

Hope this following comment won't appear as binding for you: I see this as lifting faith/logic differences out of the social context, and placing these differences in a frame of abstractions. No objections. And I repeat my honorable intentions of not enforcing you into a black/white frame. Protests from you on this will be considered seriously.

Quote: ["That annoys people, for some reason, but it seems to annoy non-believers more than believers (as is sort of evident in this thread."]

Completely opposite to the present kind of thread, there's an equal amount of pro-religionists threads, which irritate non-believers by the 'absolutes' presented. The polarizations only grow. I'm more than willing to listen to any bid on how to stop this general situation.

Quote: [" But I hope that we can agree that, while extremism in any form is not a good thing, it is foolish to dismiss any subject, purely on the basis of the fact that extremists have some association. I have seen people who are ridiculously over the top on the subject of animal rights or the environment, but this does not prevent me from donating to the Sierra Club or the Humane Society"]

I've been a self-chosen vegetarian the major part of my life, I own an ecological farm, I'm an environmentalist, I am an amateur reiki-healer and know something about natural medicine. I also very much dislike militant vegans, green fascism and the 'natural food and medicine' freaks, who prevent people from seeking help in orthodox medicine.

Quote: ["But on the other hand, if one allows the statements of one person, or even a group of persons, to reflect on something as a whole, dismissing the positions of those who are not "ridiculous", one is guilty of prejudice, and it's their failing, not the failing of others."]

But that's how mankind usually functions. When Hitler (I'm NOT making a comparison to you) made his inflammatory speeches, millions of suddenly zombified idiots started screaming "Sieg heil".

My own academic background is 'soft' social sciences, and the psycho-social manifestations of mankind definitely plays an important part in the general situation according to my studies.

Quote: ["I am not a subscriber, in any way, of the claim that "he who shouts the loudest carries the argument." This seems to be the prevailing state of the American political environment, and I have no interest in seeing it apply elsewhere."]
I'm honestly glad to hear somebody say that, because US attitudes of that kind have recently started to manipulate Europe (e.g. a few examples of 'deals' with the local ultra-right, where local constitutions ar threatened).

You collect 'stars'? (Humour): I give you one.

(PS I actually have a moderate rightist political position myself. But don't tell anybody).



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


That's disapointing that you would categorise me as a Bigot because i have a few problems with organised religion's dogma. It's quite a shame.

I've said many times before i'm more than happy to live in a religious and NON religious society, but i expect the right to be free from it if i choose. This is not bigotry.

Religion is not free from criticism. Criticizing religion ideology is not bigotry, especially when the criticism is within reason.

Sorry my friend, you have disapointed me this time.

Thanks for joining in anyway.

A&A



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

Bogomil, i appreciate your information and un-agressive stance, I want to hear your opinion?

Is Adjensen right to call me a bigot?

You know my concerns with organised religion and dogma, my concerns are considered "Bigotry" because it hurts the feelings of someone who abides by ideology.

I might have offended Hitler by disagreeing with him, this is not bigotry. And by no means am i comparing organised religion to Nazism.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Re Adjensen:

You wrote:

["But surely you can see this as impossible. I agree with IAMIAM -- Christ's teaching is not open to "interpretation" -- it is plain, simple and clear. Love God. Love everyone else."]

'Love god', no problems, if I'm not enforced to do it (but we should have passed that by now). Christ's teachings do nonetheless seem open to interpretations, so there'll be the problem of defining who the 'true' christians are.

Quote: ["Short of removing independent thought, you cannot formulate anything that cannot be "misused" and the more specific that you become, the wider the loophole is."]

True. I have long time ago stopped believing in ultimate answers and/or solutions. Any step towards 'clarity' (e.g. by having a common communication-platform from a general-semantics applied language) can be a step forward.

Quote: ["....that person has fundamentally rejected Christ."]

I agree with your basic premises, but there seems to have been an awful amount of these non-true-christians around. So I still hold, that commies clean up communism, science cleans up science and religion cleans up religion. There's some self-interest in that.

edit on 30-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


That's disapointing that you would categorise me as a Bigot because i have a few problems with organised religion's dogma. It's quite a shame.

I've said many times before i'm more than happy to live in a religious and NON religious society, but i expect the right to be free from it if i choose. This is not bigotry.

Religion is not free from criticism. Criticizing religion ideology is not bigotry, especially when the criticism is within reason.

Sorry my friend, you have disapointed me this time.

Thanks for joining in anyway.

A&A


My friend, where have I said such things about you? In all the conversations that we have ever had, where or when have I ever said anything evil about you?

You asked if I considered you a bigot, and I replied that I do not think anything evil of you.

Does the word bigot ring of evil to you? Does it bring you pain to be categorised as such? If so, then you know I cannot think you a bigot.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I asked you if i was a bigot, not if i was evil. Evil is subjective. If i was homosexual, many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would believe i was evil. I don't care about such subjectivism. And i'm definetly no Satan worshipper (i don't believe in deities)

You agreed that i was a bigot.


a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race


I'm not ignorant in regards to evidence, philosophy. You provide me a good reason and some evidence, why would i be intolerant of your ideas?

If i was a bigot, i would find it hard to progress my ideas. It's not that i won't throw off the "Atheist-Shackles" it's that my own self honesty won't allow me to. I have no evidence to make even a guess, why would i lie to myself?

I've said before i'm an AGnostic Atheist - If anything, this means i'm keeping an open-mind.

How is this bigotry? And of course i don't like being called a bigot, for the same reason i don't like being called a facsist. Why? Because i'm not either of these!!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
You agreed that i was a bigot.


Then I apologise with all my heart. I do not think you are a bigot and I certainly did not mean to imply that I thought such about you.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Thanks

I don't look "down" on any religious or "spiritual" person. But for the purpose of debate, i can't guarantee i won't hurt feelings where disagreements are concerned. People hurt my feelings too, I just have to respond the best i can without calling people unreasonable names for their disagreements.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Re Awake_and_aware

Instead relating to Adjensen directly, I will do it through a quote from you:

["My argument still stands, morals cannot be absolute or objective. There is no evidence that they come from "on-high" - They are abstract manifestation of human understandings and social adherences;-"]

There's still the vagueness about whether religious 'absolutes' shall be approached from an abstract or social perspective. Commenting from a social perspective, the liberal, egalitarian principles are compromises, which states boundaries for individual claims of 'privilege'. On the other hand these principles also protect the individual from competitors. That's the sofar best model mankind has chosen, when given the option of choice.

Just as Awake_and-aware states.

A later quote from Awake_and_aware:

["Is Adjensen right to call me a bigot?"]

In all fairness, I must state where I 'come from' on this. With a preference for deductive logic above claims of the 'invisible' part of existence, I have some bias.

Being a sometimes sharp-tongued, sarcastic and confrontational person myself, I do not think I'm condescending, when I say that Adjensen often manifests the same traits. He's quick to take offense, and gets into demagogic moods, where his self-appointed rules are the only ones applicable.

I did notice the 'bigot' facet, when it started. I find Adjensen's attitude debate-tactical, not relating to how I define proper semantic contexts. Now Ad, you can turn your wrath towards me, if you like.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Thanks

I don't look "down" on any religious or "spiritual" person. But for the purpose of debate, i can't guarantee i won't hurt feelings where disagreements are concerned. People hurt my feelings too, I just have to respond the best i can without calling people unreasonable names for their disagreements.

Peace.


You seem rather troubled by the label being applied to you, though I've given you a number of opportunities to either recant or explain the things that you have said that demonstrate religious intolerance. Badgering others into saying that "if bigotry is evil, and I don't want to say someone is evil, then you are not bigoted" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Again, why did you claim that I was a poor Christian because I am not a fundamentalist? Do you judge all people according to your personal standards in this manner?

Why is Christ's teaching not a better, and more inclusive, commandment than the ones you propose in the OP?

Finally, in your .sig, you promote:

Atheist Videos! Fight the war! Arm yourself; words are ammunition!

Who are you fighting your war with? Why? What words are ammunition, and for what?

If I started talking about fighting a war against the atheists, would you think me a tolerant person? What about if I talked about fighting a war against homosexuals, or women, or liberals?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Being a sometimes sharp-tongued, sarcastic and confrontational person myself, I do not think I'm condescending, when I say that Adjensen often manifests the same traits. He's quick to take offense, and gets into demagogic moods, where his self-appointed rules are the only ones applicable.


Well, that's a bit unfair. I'm rarely quick to "take offense", indeed, I rarely take offense at all, because I learned long ago that taking personally anything anyone says in an anonymous forum is foolish. Paper tigers, most of whom would scurry off to the shadows if you said "boo" to them in real life.

And I most assuredly do not apply "self-appointed rules", not intentionally anyway. Kindly point out such rules that I apply, apparently unfairly.


Now Ad, you can turn your wrath towards me, if you like.


My complaints with you have never been matters of belief, but ones of fact, and even those have been more matters of conclusion and interpretation that seem to drift off without resolution. But this is not a thread that has raised any of them, so no "wrath" looms on the horizon.

Not that there would be any anyway. Paper tiger, you know.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



You seem rather troubled by the label being applied to you, though I've given you a number of opportunities to either recant or explain the things that you have said that demonstrate religious intolerance.


Look, i've explained myself more than enough.

If the bible says God tells Abraham to kill his son, and i believe this to be immoral and disgusting, so what? I admit to being intolerant of this part of religion. This is immoral intolerance. I'm not a bigot.

If religious folk don't believe in evolution, i will stand up and say that they are condemning FACT, this is the kind of prejudice religious causes. I'm not saying YOU PERSONALLY. But i'm saying i am concerned with some of the ideology and some of the prejudice that ideology might cause.

Of course i would be intolerant of a particular religion, because it is practicing immoral preaching. Religion is not free from criticism.

Comdemning homosexuals is another problem i have with religious dogma. This is not intolerance, quite the opposite. If anything, it is intolerance of the intolerant ideas of the bible.

I have logical and empirical concerns with religion's claims. I'm sorry if that offends you, I'm sorry if you see this as intolerance because i disagree with religion.

THIS IS NOT BIGOTRY. THIS IS DISAGREEMENT AND CONCERNS WITH (SOME) IDEOLOGY EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE OR OTHER SCRIPTURES. AND SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL IDEOLOGY.

I won't explain myself any further...

If a person believes homosexuals are bad or sinners i will be intolerant of that person, religious or non-religious. But it's normally religious that causes this prejudice. I am against that ideology. I won't be tolerant. That includes if it comes from religion.

RELIGION IS NOT FREE FROM CRITICISM.


Again, why did you claim that I was a poor Christian because I am not a fundamentalist? Do you judge all people according to your personal standards in this manner?


I said you had "vague Faith"; you believe SOME of the words of God, but disagree with some of them. Hence, you do not believe in all of the words of your chosen religion.

Some people may not believe in Miracles, but definetly believe in God. This is admitting that you disagree with some of the scriptures of your own religion.

This is the difference between an Evangelical Christian and your average non-church going Christian. Fundamentalists like Evangelicals take every word literally. This can have harm as you can see.




Westboro Baptist Church (Evangelical Christians)
edit on 30/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Who are you fighting your war with? Why? What words are ammunition, and for what?


My argument is that the pen is mightier than the sword. Because violence is contemptable and not needed.

There seems to be a correlation with abundance of knowledge and lack of religious belief on this planet.

I'm not saying this stands in the favour of Atheism or non-belief. But indeed some of our greatest minds have (at least) doubted scriptual claims based on contradictory logical, historical evidence. I don't believe they were ignorant or bigots. They had to accept new knowledge than their own to progress their findings. This is not bigotry.

It really is disapointing that you'd waste much of this thread arguing that i am infact something that i am not. I'm not fascist either, saying it doesn't make it so.
edit on 30/1/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
This thread is a wonderful example of why Labels are so dangerous. Labels are destructive, particularly when they are used as walls between the hearts of Man. While I may be a follower of Christ, I do not need a label to be so. No one needs a label. We are too diverse of creatures to subscribe to them. There is one label that applies to all, and that is Man. Of course this will only keep us divided from our Alien Brothers and Sisters so perhaps even that label is not a wise one.

I AM

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Coudn't agree more, I'm sick and tired of labels and the polarisation/duality is causes.. I don't even see the need for label Atheist. I don't have a word of my non-belief in Santa Claus, Faries or Goblins.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join