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.
Luke 17:20-21
King James Version (KJV)
20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
The voice that truly tells us how to look after ourselves in the face of danger – may that danger be what ever it is – could that behaviour, to be in touch and in honour of that inner knowledge and to cultivate it, be called spiritual?
*
The main tenets remain the same in all religions.
*
My apologize to the OP for subverting this thread, especially when religion was not the main focus of the topic.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by juveous
The main tenets remain the same in all religions.
If this is true, is it not because we humans all share a common basic morality, one that is instinctive to us, and which all religions are obliged to take account of if they are to succeed in recruiting believers?
To me, if a given (person) assumes that some biological source (is) not only the original progenitor of basic morality but perpetually and significantly influences the displayed, observed and defined "moral or immoral behavior", then the "biological aspects of the argument" search boundary would seem to bestow great importance upon physical [genetic] influence on moral behavior. In other words, I accept the premise that assumptions an explorer chooses to apply to their explorations will significantly influence and even partly determine their ultimate findings and/or conclusions.
Are you referring to the potential source of the "peace of mind" a true believer enjoys?
*
What difference does it really make if that is the case?
Originally posted by Astyanax
It makes all the difference in the world, because it removes one of the arguments frequently offered for having a religion in the first place. One can no longer argue that religion makes us better people, or at least better-behaved people. That obliges us to ask of those who choose to believe: of what use is religion to you?
Your responses in the thread so far have been of the ‘people need religion because...’ variety. It may impose some clarity on our understanding of your position if you were to tell us why you need religion. Or don’t you? And if you don’t, what makes you believe that other people do? What makes you different in this regard?
.......a student said, "Religion soothes you."
Religion soothes you.
Okay, Karl Marx, maybe it is the opiate of the people, but if you're in pain you need an opiate. So religion soothes you.
For example, in an attempt to discern the degree of “morality” [apparently] being displayed, the explorer inevitably weighs encountered “evidence” against whatever directly related subject matter he/she sees fit to apply as their "control sample" or, in other words, their comparative benchmark. Now, for me, this approach to discerning the “probable truth” concerning the source of morality is, quite literally, replete with personal judgments, assumptions applied to accepted benchmark evidence and individual choices made BEFORE the (assumed) actual evidence is encountered. Once the evidence is encountered and weighed, the conclusions cannot represent anything but what is “contained” by the explorative strategy itself; and this premise most certainly includes ALL information inserted into the mix as various comparative benchmarks, personal judgments and assumptions which have been applied to the actual exploration.
To say that good morals are instinctive does not help in preventing immorality.
It makes no difference whether there are instincts or not, because religion is trying to keep a base on what may be right or wrong, and offer ways to follow it.
I don't need religion, it is not a necessity to my being, however I understand it's place in society for those that can use it for their sake. I don't even know if I would say that other's need it, but that is arguable.
*
I would like to further debate with you the point, that the inner voice of knowledge is instinct and that instinct is an evolved physical response. Wouldn’t that mean, that my instinct only works when I’m faced with experiences my physicality has already experienced?
Or do I need to understand, that these experiences and responds are in my genes? how on earth could they have gotten there in the first place if they never change. did my first ancestor experience everything that is possible? (please do keep in mind that I do not understand genes really) maybe truly God is my first ancestor.
after these my experiences I can only conclude one thing and that thing would be powerful enough ‘to sell it to the masses”: religion is a drug. it works on our chemical household. we are addicts to our own chemicals, that’s why we dwell for ever in a certain mood, specially the bad ones, and hardly manage to change our habits.
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and pluck the living flower. Source