Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Growth of Atheism and What it Means for Our Future

page: 4
61
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
It wont make any different either atheist is getting more and become majority or not to the future. What will be a matter is the number how many ignorant people in both side.

Beside atheism is another form of religion who put their believe on faith without solid prove. If from atheist side offer a better world with their values, i think it is the right time to start compile the moral value and social value as an atheist. Start write it down so the form is getting clear what to offer. If only depend on national law, regional law or multinational law, lawyer behaviour would become more dominant.




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Yreply to post by Nomadmonkey
 


Well, life is a spectrum. Not a duality. Get used to it.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kp1987
 


Oh thank you for the laugh man. I hope you meant to. The childish "I know you are but what am I." style closing comment was awesome.


But, more on topic. Religion is manmade. Some people that believe in this or that god will tell you that. Does not this mean there is no such thing as "god(s)"? No.

It's is illogical to assume otherwise. It is also illogical that in order for some god to exist it must nursemaid us and protect our foolish butts from ourselves.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Incidentally, on the subject of antireligious mumbojumbo. I find hilariously ironic that certain people can claim to not believe in magic. Then proceed to say that a concept actually makes anyone do anything.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I think that the argument held between self-proclaimed athiests and self-proclaimed Christians (at least Christians, with open enough minds to be reading the ATS forum), is not where the point I made earlier about a societies, or any societies dominant moral compass, really comes to into play.

Christians (and I am not one) are held together by one book. It is the bible. This book, like it or not, is a self-contained book of concise (and contradictory, at times) moral stances. For example, the bible says not to steal. It says not to murder someone in the heat of the moment. Later on, it says that if someone does cross you, to even forgive them. It also says vague things about not laying with another man, but if you are a Christian, you have to take this whole book as being the word of God.

So, today, if you are born into a Christian household, you kind of take for granted where the morality of not stealing a toy from the neighbor and lying about it comes from. That's because by now the Christian moral compass is woven within the social behavior/conduct of the United States, because, again, like it or not, when this country was founded until about the 1950s/1960s, this country was made up predominantly of self-proclaimed Christians; it was a Christian country. That doesn't mean I'm inferring that everyone who lived in the United States was a Christian, but pretty much.

What is religion's gift to a society? It offers the people of that society with more to do with their time (i.e. laboring) a foundation of a moral code. You see, societies are not ideal things. They are made up of many different people. One would even say a vast majority of individuals who make up societies are poor, under-educated laborers. That is why religion has been called the opiate of the masses. It gives people who can't be burdened with these thoughts, a foundation of conduct.

Ah, but back to the topic. When a person in the United States reaches athiesm, yes, reaches, it is a far step of self analysis that even most in the mainstream religion will never attempt. This has involved questioning, identifying and ultimately rebelling against the mainstream religion they themselves have come from.

They come to this enlightened naivete by saying, "I, who am intelligent enough to self analyze and define myself, have reached atheism. Everyone should be an atheist." But not everyone can. You see, there is a difference between the atheist who has reached atheism, and the atheist who would be gifted atheism in the absence and abhorrance of a religion. You say, "Well, I believe that cutting other people with a knife is wrong, because when I cut myself it hurts." You falsely try to assert that other individuals, left to their own devices to create a moral compass of their own would come to the same conclusion as you. You, who have self-analyzed, who can self-analyze, are not those who deny a religion and all tenets in it without real knowledge of what that religion was trying to accomplish or control.

I say that Aleister Crowley said that in the new age, "Do what thou wilt shall be the rule of the law." Each individual's will shall be, to that individual, their own law. The burden of proof, friend, the proof of an existence of agreed upon moral polemics amongst atheists rests with you. If you ask the Christian, the Jew, or the Muslim, much as you look down on them for the superstitious belief in an invisible God, where his or her moral compass is, they need only hold up one book.
edit on 13-6-2011 by franklin555 because: Forgot a word.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I'm just going to repeat what I believe the OP's main point was; of an idealic future where atheism is the main "belief" system, that is, if 95%, let's say, of the masses were atheists, either by laziness, or by choice.

Now, you say that atheists will modify their behavior so as not to be percieved externally as selfish so as to be percieved as "good". So that one, if he was to be considered "good" would have to learn, very quickly, to pretend to be "good", with no consequence societally as to whether internally, he or she was "bad".

I guess I would ask the question on everyone's mind:

How or why would an individual seek to be a wholly "good" person? What would be worth gaining from acting "good" at the same time as thinking "good"? Wouldn't it just be easier to never second guess your internal monologue, whether or not you knew it had "bad" tendencies, as long as you could keep up the appearance of "good" by mimicking the "good" behavior of others?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nicolee123nd
Some people may see the growth in nonreligious people as a bad thing, weather it's for the sake of their religion or that they just don't like atheists. But I see this as a good thing. I'm an atheist, and I'm gonna admit, I think religion is holding us back from advancing, scientifically and spiritually.

An atheist population can become more scientifically advanced, mostly because religious activists won't get in the way. For example, the only reason evolution is a theory and not a law is because there are too many creationists in the equation. Face it, there's too much evidence and nothing to disprove evolution. Aside from evolution, there would be so much more scientific opportunities for the future, such as stem cell research, better birth control, origins of life on earth, searching for life on other planets, origins of the universe, and so much more. All because the Bible isn't stopping us anymore.

Without religion (Christianity in particular), we could have a better society overall. No longer would gays, women, blacks, and anyone else looked down on in some religions be considered lesser citizens. Kids wouldn't be bullied for their beliefs. It's a fact that, if there was no religion, most wars wouldn't have been fought. Some say 90% of wars are started because of religion, some say only 15%, but there is no way to tell really.


If atheists like you are our future, we are doomed. You fail to understand the most basic things about human nature. You are so hateful of religion you buy into a vision of an atheist utopia when one can never exist. This appears to be common in most of the outspoken atheists I have seen. Such arrogance. You just can't comprehend that the society you live in was created under Christianity. Its values were created by god-fearing men who were wise enough to have an open mind without losing sight of why human beings need standards of behavior. You foolishly advocate for the removal of outside standards of behavior, like a monkey arguing its tree doesn't need a trunk or roots, just tasty bananas.

I.. have stopped caring. I don't care anymore. The human race just fails completely. We got lucky for a while, now it's all going to hell and people simply aren't smart enough to understand why.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I'm an atheist, I don't think the disappearance of religion would be a bad thing, but I would not want it forcefully removed from society, If people want to believe in fairytales, then let them, as long as they don't harm anyone else. It is religious fundamentalism that is the real danger, people who cannot except another persons view point, and are prepared to kill and die for that belief, that's how wars start. Religious people do have a tendency to force their beliefs on others, due to the fact that most religions are a form of fascism where you have to follow the rules or go to hell, and denounce anyone else with different believe, it would be a shame if we atheists began behaving like them. Hopefully with more people becoming atheists, religion will be less relevant in political decisions and the knee jerk reactions of the fearful and the paranoid, will not be forced upon the logical and critical thinking. I live in the UK and the atheist population has grown and grown, although we still have many annoying people who bang on about how great God is.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
 


star for you atheist!


i guess we should all just, stfu, right?


i'm all for that. except hari krishnas and aztecs.


edit on 13-6-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Its because THEY would rather die.

Thats the problem, just like its always been... thats why they constantly murder their opposition and call it divine justice.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by nicolee123nd
 


Without organised religion, society would become absolutely morally bankrupt.
One fascist world government would dominate and we would become no more than robotic drones mindlessly following its rules.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by franklin555
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I think that the argument held between self-proclaimed athiests and self-proclaimed Christians (at least Christians, with open enough minds to be reading the ATS forum), is not where the point I made earlier about a societies, or any societies dominant moral compass, really comes to into play.

Christians (and I am not one) are held together by one book. It is the bible. This book, like it or not, is a self-contained book of concise (and contradictory, at times) moral stances. For example, the bible says not to steal. It says not to murder someone in the heat of the moment. Later on, it says that if someone does cross you, to even forgive them. It also says vague things about not laying with another man, but if you are a Christian, you have to take this whole book as being the word of God.


It the "contradictory" part that counts, however. Slavery: good or bad? The Bible swings both ways (Slavery of the Israelites = bad, slavery of everyone the Israelites dislike = good, Roman slavery = mneh...). How about Murder? Same thing. Rape? Same thing. Wanton genocide? Oh, the bible loves it some genocide (After all, they're not really people if their religion is slightly different from yours.)

Frankly a magic 8 ball is a more dependible moral compass.


So, today, if you are born into a Christian household, you kind of take for granted where the morality of not stealing a toy from the neighbor and lying about it comes from. That's because by now the Christian moral compass is woven within the social behavior/conduct of the United States, because, again, like it or not, when this country was founded until about the 1950s/1960s, this country was made up predominantly of self-proclaimed Christians; it was a Christian country. That doesn't mean I'm inferring that everyone who lived in the United States was a Christian, but pretty much.


This same morality exists in societies far removed from the Abrahamic faiths; in fact it existed far prior to them. Odds are it existed before some hairy biped first thought up the idea that the sun was magical, or whatever kicked the whole thing off. Hell, we see empathic and reciprocal behavior among other animals.

Religion simply hijacks impulses that are already there, and all to often, corrupts them. Witness how "Christian America" clings to its piety... but wants televised warfare and death sentences so all can enjoy both viserval vengeance and the wanton destruction of infidels.


What is religion's gift to a society? It offers the people of that society with more to do with their time (i.e. laboring) a foundation of a moral code. You see, societies are not ideal things. They are made up of many different people. One would even say a vast majority of individuals who make up societies are poor, under-educated laborers. That is why religion has been called the opiate of the masses. It gives people who can't be burdened with these thoughts, a foundation of conduct.


Marx referred to religion as the "Opiate of the masses" as a criticism of the institution, referring to its tendency to make people into unthinking, unfeeling blockheads who just shuffle around without ever living. Hard to be alive when your entire belief system only matters when you die, after all.

The cure to poverty and poor education is certainly not a book of make-believe being pimped by a parasitic class of men in dresses and funny hats demanding tithes.


Ah, but back to the topic. When a person in the United States reaches athiesm, yes, reaches, it is a far step of self analysis that even most in the mainstream religion will never attempt. This has involved questioning, identifying and ultimately rebelling against the mainstream religion they themselves have come from.


Saying "No, you're wrong" isn't actually an act of rebellion.


They come to this enlightened naivete by saying, "I, who am intelligent enough to self analyze and define myself, have reached atheism. Everyone should be an atheist." But not everyone can. You see, there is a difference between the atheist who has reached atheism, and the atheist who would be gifted atheism in the absence and abhorrance of a religion. You say, "Well, I believe that cutting other people with a knife is wrong, because when I cut myself it hurts." You falsely try to assert that other individuals, left to their own devices to create a moral compass of their own would come to the same conclusion as you. You, who have self-analyzed, who can self-analyze, are not those who deny a religion and all tenets in it without real knowledge of what that religion was trying to accomplish or control.


Thing is, people aren't left to their own devices. Every person is a part of some society. All of these societies agree to a few basic things - murder and assault are wrong, theft is wrong, etc. They agree to these principles not because of some magic book of hullabaloo, but because a group of human beings just can't function if these constants are regularly violated. It has nothing at all to do with religion. In fact as i have pointed out, it's often religion that causes the violations of the "basic rules" in a society. Because religion allows for all sorts of clauses and loopholes. "Jews killed Christ, so we can treat them how we like." "The Dalit are unclean because of their actions in a previous life; they are below us in all ways." "Those people with only one god are morons, and we need to purge them before it spreads"


I say that Aleister Crowley said that in the new age, "Do what thou wilt shall be the rule of the law." Each individual's will shall be, to that individual, their own law. The burden of proof, friend, the proof of an existence of agreed upon moral polemics amongst atheists rests with you.


Easy enough. Like I asked another; if it weren't for religion, would you be a mass-murdering cannibal-rapist? Aside from perhaps some unfortunate people who do have a legitimate psychological defect, the answer has always been, "no, I would not be anything like that."


If you ask the Christian, the Jew, or the Muslim, much as you look down on them for the superstitious belief in an invisible God, where his or her moral compass is, they need only hold up one book.
edit on 13-6-2011 by franklin555 because: Forgot a word.


Which one? Old Testament, New Testamant, Book of Mormon, Hadith, Sunnah, Koran, Talmud? King James, Douay Rheims, Warsh, Hafs, Ibn Dhakwan, Babylonian, Jerusalem? Which books inside those books? Genesis, K'tuvim, The Jinn?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Rather broad brush stroke there don't you think eh? Do we really need to go over the erronous nature of sweeping generalizations again werty?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonofPeleus
reply to post by nicolee123nd
 


Without organised religion, society would become absolutely morally bankrupt.
One fascist world government would dominate and we would become no more than robotic drones mindlessly following its rules.


Almost right. Kudos.

But actually, I would state it more generally: Without a coherent system of beliefs and standards, which benefit mankind when applied at the societal level, and which remain safe from any tampering actions of the corrupt and evil forces in mankind, society would become morally bankrupt... fascist world government, 1984, Brave New World etc.

Militant atheists love to proclaim "THERE IS NO GOD!" And my response would be: "And?" If they happen to be right (which, by the way, is impossible to prove) -- then what? What's their replacement for religion? They don't have one. Atheists who advocate mass acceptance of atheism live under the foolish assumption that the world would get along just fine (they usually would say "far better") without religion. They're terribly, terribly wrong. Am I the only ex-religious person who still understands why religion is needed? I know for a fact that I am not, but I am seemingly in the minority, which makes me sad. More evidence of the terribly poor level of "societal comprehension" of the human race, when even intelligent people fail to see the glaringly obvious.

What is needed in their lives isn't bible thumping, but just a basic study of history and human nature, seen with an unbiased view. For every atrocity committed by "religion" (and all religions are far from the same, by the way) there exists far more good. But like the nightly news, only the evil is dwelt on and recognized.

I can envision an idyllic society without religion. It would be a society where a good group of men (driven, by the way, by many of the principles and underpinnings of religion/faith) have gotten together to change and rewrite the human genome. With the genome we have now, you better forget it. But of course you won't forget it, which is why you're foolishly helping pull society off the cliff, whether you realize it or not.

Oh, and do I advocate the rewriting of the human genome -- no, because I just can't imagine any group of people good enough and smart enough to do it correctly and for the right reasons.

So atheists, the next time you advocate the abolition of religion, be prepared to offer something to replace it other than vacuum. Society abhors a moral vacuum.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
You raise something interesting.

You said it's now not so taboo not to believe in God. Yet it's taboo not to believe in evolution

If you don't belive in God you have to believe in evolution. Kids get spoon-fed this rubbish and are not intelligent enough to work out at a young age that evolution never happened and can't happen and there is no evidence of it other than concocted stories and conjecture. Remember of course that it was and still is a 'theory.'

Evolution requires progressive change. Did you know they say some of the big dinosours magically became very large, yet there is no progressive evidence of that change. Fish became land animals, yet there is no progressive evidence of this at all. Think about a fish having to grow legs to walk on land. Fair enough, but until it grows legs it has to walk around on fins. Yet every fish that would try to walk on fins would need to get out of the water. Why would it want to get out of the water? Anyone figure this out? And then when it did it would die because for millions of years it couldn't walk on fins so died. But if it didn't live how would it transfer the knowledge to grow legs instead of fins. And why would it want to leave the water when the water keeps it alive. Ah the mudskipper I hear you say. yes, but where is it's predessessor? Did they all die off with no eveidence? Ah, that requires faith then.

What about the fish in the Indian Ocean that died out millions of years ago according to scientists but still lives today.

There are countless things unexplained that cannot be explained. Please someone refer me to a cronological evidence of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, 6 etc etc etc for any current species. show the fossil evidence of progressive stages of fish to land animal. You can't. yet there would be billions of those creatures at every stage over millions of years wouldn't there.

Sorry but don't critisize the Christainas or anyone else who belivees in a God saying they belive in a fnatasy hen evolutionists (and Athiests) believe in something more perposterous than a higher power.

How audacious to think we are the highest form of existence, and then put all other possible higher forms ( Aliens) as only existing in our plane of existence. How audacious of us.

I'm not promoting creation because I can't prove that as it's a faith thing, but I'm sick of evolution being touted as fact when it's totally unprovable and even more illogical than a superior being and requires even more faith than a religious person needs to believe in a creator.

So all the religious who 'convert' to Atheism have increased their faith capacity many times over for the reason that only God or evolution gave us what we have.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

Sneaky Randy, editing to add this after I went to bed.


No doubt that if you ban religion you have to ban all religion.
Also don't we have a bad enough idenity crisis going on this planet already?

I would never want a society to ban religion and I don't think I've ever said that I would. The world should consist of people from a whole spectrum of belief systems, including those who lack belief. Any monolithic aspect to culture would just be boring and stagnant.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nomadmonkey
 


Not at all. What it means is we are sick and tired of Political 2 faced B.S speech. Splitting hairs and trying to make it sound like two different sides of the same coin.

So you recognize that there's a problem with the dualistic nature of the political paradigm, but then you turn around and try and force a discussion about belief back into it? That, my friend, makes no sense. I'll say it again - theism/atheism relates to belief or a lack of belief, gnosticism/agnosticism relates to certainty or a lack of certainty. Sorry if that's overly complex for you, but it's a valid separation of two different concepts. Just like being fiscally liberal/conservative or socially liberal/conservative and not trying to pigeonhole people into "liberal" or "conservative" boxes.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Dissent
 


Ill try to explain it more clearly. its clear that you don't understand me, but i was vague.

I appreciate that.


If demons are real, they feed on negative energies to mantain their power. The same way good gods feed on prayers, faith, and good deeds. If they are real. Now, It doesnt matter if you believe in these evil spirits or not, they can still feed off you, whether you a god-fearing christian, a buddhist, a satanist, an atheist, agnostic, whatever. Beings from another dimension wouldnt care what a mortal human's beliefs are.

OK, and I understand what you're getting at here. These demons would literally get no energy from atheists in terms of worship (prayers and faith), and atheists are no more or less moral than anyone else in society. So I'm still not seeing how atheism leads to "devil worship" and "producing evil".


That would lead me to believe that if there were ever a rapture, when the good souls are taken from the earth, even an atheist could be taken. I'm in no way saying that "atheist are evil", I'm just saying the may be more apt, given the right situation, to cause lots of problems, for better or worse. but i'm gunna stay bias on that.

But that's exactly what you said earlier - you said that atheism leads to "devil worship" and "producing evil".


Im sure you know what a "band wagon" is.

I do. Given how little the overall number of atheists has changed, I'm not sure how you can claim that it's a case of people flocking to an ideology that's popular just because it's popular. You yourself called it the fringe.


And i've been hearing Some "there is no god" messages in music lately, teenage music. Like a song called "Morte et Dabo" by Asking Alexandria, The first one that caught my attention.So Teenagers listen to this stuff, And it gets in there head. before they have even tried to acknowledge the existence of some other worldly being, and they settle on "there is no god". Later On, some guy comes along and he announces the first church of atheism ( i know that makes sense, but maybe its not called a church) Either way, maybe these kids with that idea of atheism flock this guy, and he preaches the veiw of the world from the eyes of the atheist. Atheism just became a religion. As much of a contradiction as it is, its just an example.

Given the imagery in the lyrics that song, I'd hardly call it an atheist song. It's pretty clearly an "I hate God" song. Atheists don't hate God any more than they'd hate any other creature they lack a belief in.


As for morality, I'm not sure where it comes from, But im Certain that a person who worships a good, just god would more on the good side than a satanist (bad side). By that logic, i supposed a atheist would be on the "Fringe", right in the middle, if not more on one side than the other. they could go either way, as anybody could.

Like I said earlier, I'm fairly certain that you couldn't distinguish between an atheist and a theist strictly by the morality of their actions. Atheists have essentially the same moral compass, just a lack of a god as the source of that moral compass.


After all this i am inclined to change my opinion of Atheism, and i thank you for that. It seems any belief can be used as a weapon against people. As for my beliefs being LaVayan, Maybe, Satanic, no way in hell.

Glad I could bring you around a bit. Honestly, we're not a bad lot! In the case of LaVey, I think he uses Satanic imagery to represent the base aspects of humanity as opposed to being a literal representation of Satan.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by nicolee123nd
 


For example, the only reason evolution is a theory and not a law is because there are too many creationists in the equation.

This is simply not true and shows a lack of understanding of the basics of science.

In science, a law is a statement which is always true under specific circumstances. In science, a theory is a unifying framework which brings together facts, laws, and hypotheses to explain some facet of nature. The theory of evolution contains scientific laws. Laws are subordinate to theory. I wish I didn't have to copy and paste the following as much as I do:

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by franklin555
 


I'm just going to repeat what I believe the OP's main point was; of an idealic future where atheism is the main "belief" system, that is, if 95%, let's say, of the masses were atheists, either by laziness, or by choice.

I'm an atheist and I'd hardly call that future "ideal". As I said in an earlier post, any monolithic aspect to a culture is boring and stagnant.


Now, you say that atheists will modify their behavior so as not to be percieved externally as selfish so as to be percieved as "good". So that one, if he was to be considered "good" would have to learn, very quickly, to pretend to be "good", with no consequence societally as to whether internally, he or she was "bad".

How or why would an individual seek to be a wholly "good" person? What would be worth gaining from acting "good" at the same time as thinking "good"? Wouldn't it just be easier to never second guess your internal monologue, whether or not you knew it had "bad" tendencies, as long as you could keep up the appearance of "good" by mimicking the "good" behavior of others?

No, I didn't say they would modify their behavior to be perceived as good. I said they would be indistinguishable in their actions from someone who derives their morality from a belief in god(s). Your entire argument starts with an assertion that atheists are bad people pretending to be good to fit in with society. That's just a bigoted statement. Atheists are moral for, essentially, the same reasons that theists are - self-preservation and empathy towards other people. For an atheist, the self-preservation part is couched in terms of physical well-being. One could easily make the argument that, for a theist, self-preservation is equally important, but in the sense of the afterlife - if you don't do good things, regardless of whether you want to do them or not, you don't get to go to Heaven.

Again, same moral compass, two different sources.





new topics




 
61
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join