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.

 

Calling all atheists

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Xtrozero, That make sense. In fact I run so much through my head before I do most everything. So, I do agree with you.




posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

ColeYounger
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





an absence of belief in God has no bearing on the existence of God...


Well spoke. This is precisely why I like the "Monte Cristo" quote.

Edmond Dantes: I don't believe in God.
Abbe Faria(the priest): It doesn't matter. He believes in you.



I was mocked and insulted earlier in the thread for using this quote! I'm encumbered with a sensitive nature, so it hurt my feelings a bit.


Because it's a cheap remark.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



I'm not really sure what you are getting at

I'm talking ideas and concepts. When I said ''theistic beliefs make room for the existence of non-believers'', I simply meant the existence of non-believers has its place within the bounds of what religion teaches.


edit on 5-1-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


In that context, what you just said is a Tautology, because the atheist belief makes room for the existence of believers as well. It's called gnostic atheism. So you just said something that is always true. Fantastic, but how about adding to the discussion?
edit on 5-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I don't believe in a 'creator god' so I guess you'd call me an atheist. However, I read and practise ethics and philosophy from sources of many religious paths. I just don't happen to believe that there is any 'creator' that decided one day (or seven) that he would create the universe and each and every creature and feature in it and that he directs the whole show from outside of his creation.

That said, I do believe in many unseen aspects of reality including beings of greater understanding and compassion for life.

Anything that you worship (not in word but in deed and action) is your god. Whatever works for you is fine and I see many religious believers that their faith works very well indeed for them. That type of belief doesn't work for me and however much I'd like it to work for me, it doesn't and I become a hypocrite if I 'pretend' it does.

There is a great and vast universe out there that I cannot comprehend (as an eariler poster pointed out) and I tend to find gloming on to anothers 'god' to be somewhat lazy even if convenient because, for me, it is the journey, the search for Truth the constant striving for more skill and compassionate behavior and thinking the whole point of religion or spirituality in all forms. It make take a scientific, rational, materialist path - as in Raja or Jnana Yoga (I have some trouble distinguishing between the two), or by other means that are suited to our own personality and temperment.

I don't believe we are made in gods' imagine but that we made our gods in our image in order to better relate to that power.

I'll leave you with a quote from Emmett Fox an early 20th century popular Christian writer from the January 2nd Entry in "Around the Year with Emmett Fox" about search for this power that works in our lives:

"But where is this wonderful Power to be contacted? The answer is simple - this Power is to be found within your own consciousness, the last place that most people would lok for it. Within your own nentality there lies a source of energy stronger than electricity, more potent than high explosive; unlimited and inexhaustible. You only need to make conscious contact with it to set it working in your affaires."

The stream of life/existance - are you floating along or fighting the current? What works, what makes you and the world around you better or what doesn't work and what makes you and the world around you a worse place. Going with the stream of, dare I say, evolotuion and creation or fighting it at everyturn to protect your ego.

Yes, I'm an atheist but it works for me and keeps me growing.

Another quote (of a quote LOL) that describes it much better:

www.ramakrishna.org...



Karma-yoga believes that the ego is the sole troublemaker. But when transformed through yoga, the same ego becomes a friend and troubleshooter. The follower of karma-yoga faithfully performs his or her actions and renounces their results by making an offering of them into the fire of Self-knowledge. Swami Vivekananda, the great teacher of yoga and Vedanta, teaches us two ways of practicing karma-yoga and nonattachment:

One way is for those who do not believe in God or in any outside help. They are left to their own devices; they have simply to work with their own will, with the powers of their mind and discrimination, thinking, “I must be non-attached.” For those who believe in God there is another way, which is much less difficult. They give up the fruits of work unto the Lord; they work but never feel attached to the results. Whatever they see, feel, hear, or do is for Him. Whatever good work we may do, let us not claim any praise or benefit for it. It is the Lord’s; give up the fruits unto Him.



edit on 5-1-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I have some sympathy with the Op as the thread in question did ask for mainly christians to reply and we should respect that. I am agnostic / atheist and feel that if someone states on a conspiracy web site as fact - religion or non religion, then it should be up for scrutiny.

And this is where the debate goes it is really religion versus science. Which is a shame because the bible is actually a very interesting book from an historical content point of view and is very good at challenging what we believe is good behaviour. sometimes, I dont think we (atheists) give it the credit it deserves.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by TruthLover557
 


It seems strange since we don't believe we are going to Hell. Is that it?

Well I agree with boymonkey74's post but I'll add my wording.

It's what it represents. Someone that says that is essentially saying you're a disgrace of a person and you deserve to burn. The fact atheists don't believe it is irrelevant, it's the fact atheists know the religious person does.
edit on 5-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Lucid Lunacy and boymonkey,

Essentially the entire point of Christianity is that everyone is a disgrace of a person and deserves to burn. The next time someone makes a comment like that, ask them if they think they deserve to burn also.

If they think they don't, then they probably don't understand Christianity or aren't Christians. If they think they do, why would feel insulted?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by templar knight
 


Here's the thing with that. I've gotten some good advice and wisdom from video games and movies, but I don't go around referencing Requiem for a Dream every time I'm in an existential crisis.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ColeYounger
 


There are some people that say they are atheist just because they hate/ not believe in religion. That is about as far as they go just like most Christians believe just for the sake of believing. There is no research done by either of them. Like Mark Twain said There have been innumerable Temporary Seekers after Truth.
Maybe that post that got you angry is the crack to get you do some research as in whether the bible is the word of god. It is not what we believe that gets us in trouble it is what we believe that just ain't so. We are playing with a deck of cards with a lot of them missing this is why I am agnostic.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Just to clarify, I am an Atheist. I'd like to place a few comments on your observations and accusations, if you wouldn't mind.


ColeYounger
First and foremost…
Rejecting anything and everything that you consider theological, religious, or spiritual
doesn’t automatically make you “scientific-minded”.


I completely agree! Although, I personally haven't met anyone who considered themselves Atheist, and thus scientific in any form.



ColeYoungerOn the contrary, it makes you close-minded. It actually makes you unscientific. Real scientists seek the truth, and don’t reject something out of hand because it isn’t plainly visible or proven. A real scientist could look at a tree and at least entertain the idea that there could be a designer, an intelligence, a creator behind it.


This, however, isn't entirely correct. Yes, a scientist should never say "never" or "always", for there cannot be true certainty in nearly anything - in regards to studying natural phenomenon. Although, to say that "there could be a designer!" while looking at anything, is illogical. It's Illogical due to the fact that we can study other means to why a natural thing or phenomenon exists, without having to imply a supernatural force to it.

A "scientist" that says to herself/himself that a supernatural being could have designed it, is a Intelligent Design "scientist". If you were to ask any respected and reputable scientist if they take into account the possibility of a supernatural entity that created whatever it is they study, I assure you, the answer will be no.

Not because they are atheists, but because there is no point of entertaining an irrational idea. If they were to consider that, then why not consider that the tree was made by faeries? There simply is no point to implying such things when it comes down to science.



ColeYounger
Second….
There are people much smarter than you who believe in God. There are physicists, mathematicians and biologists with stellar I.Q.s who believe in a creator. Are they being scientific and unscientific at the same time?


A belief in god does not demean scientific mentality and practice. However, If they imply that supernatural causes are the reason why a specific phenomena functions the way it does, then yes, that would be unscientific.



ColeYounger

Finally…
Feel free to believe that “spiritual” = “unscientific”. Go ahead and believe that when you die, it’s The End, and you’re worm food. Go ahead and believe, essentially, in nothing beyond our limited consciousness and awareness.
In your defense, it’s human nature to doubt. Even Mother Teresa had a ‘dark night of the soul’ where her faith was weakened. Many saints have experienced ‘spiritual dryness.’ The Apostle Thomas, the doubter, was the one who got to touch the wounds of Christ.

I’ll leave you with a quote from “The Count of Monte Cristo”

Edmond Dantes: I don't believe in God.
Abbe Faria (the priest): It doesn't matter. He believes in you.


Let's change that quote around shall we?

You: I believe in a christian god
Faerie Believer: It doesn't matter what fake god your believe in, faeries believe in you.


It's ridiculous, and most importantly, an impeccably stupid thing to say to someone who doesn't also believe in what you believe in. Why would anyone ever think that has an effect on anyone who doesn't believe in what you believe in, unless other people who also believe in what you believe in are there to here it. As if that's a trump card, no comeback, type saying.

You could apply this exact quote to yourself, while another person of any other religion or belief system said that "it doesn't matter" part, and have the same nonsensical result.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Imagine if we spent this much effort on real problems, rather than debate something that cannot be known to exist. Questioning each other's faiths is a waste of mental resources. The religion of silence is still the greatest religion man will ever know. Of course by consequence it is the least practiced.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Aphorism
Imagine if we spent this much effort on real problems, rather than debate something that cannot be known to exist. Questioning each other's faiths is a waste of mental resources. The religion of silence is still the greatest religion man will ever know. Of course by consequence it is the least practiced.


Considering the detrimental impact that modern religion has had on man, and I suppose the history of religion in general, I would argue that to debate the subject is of high importance.

That is not to say that religion would end war, per se, but that the rate of advancement is being severely hindered by its existence. Not to mention education.

So, once again, the debate of religion is of high importance.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



Essentially the entire point of Christianity is that everyone is a disgrace of a person and deserves to burn. The next time someone makes a comment like that, ask them if they think they deserve to burn also.


Trust me I am entirely aware of this. I am no stranger to their theological positions.


If they think they don't, then they probably don't understand Christianity or aren't Christians. If they think they do, why would feel insulted?


No it's still disrespectful even if they think it of themselves. I would feel disrespected vicariously for them!

The idea is yes we are all falling short in the eyes of god, we are all basking in sin, right from the onset. We need to repent and accept Jesus yadda yadda. I get it. So Even Steven eh?


Sorry but no. That whole bit is predicated on the notion we are broken and bad and unworthy of love from an apparently all-loving being. I will not subscribe to that. That's a horrendous view to have on Humankind. It's immensely disrespectful. Some religious reconciliation does nothing to squelch that insult.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 



I am what I guess should be called Agnostic. I don't believe in God or any deities for that matter but, I am open to the possibility


Agnostic atheist. As most atheists are, including myself.

For me the possibility exists only because knowing that which exists outside the physical Universe would be unknowable. Who knows. Not me. Not the religious person.
edit on 5-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
The most difficult thing to accept is ALL of mankind is born with a religious nature.It is "natural".Natural doesn't necessarily mean beneficial or good.It is humankind's "base" nature.It will be done away with.It has it's purpose and when it has served that purpose it will die(or more accurately be destroyed).

Everyone believes"their religion" No two persons religion is alike.They may have a common"institutional" religion however most of those are extremely splintered and again no one "believes" the same "doctrines.

Even those that don't believe a "religion" are religious.In essence everyone (believes and is) "My God".That is the core of their religious system which is blindness.It's a classic case of not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way.

So all the finger pointing and endless useless conjecture about belief and non belief is futile.It is ALL the same thing in different clothes.Mans religion…is all completely false.Man does not know themselves at all so consequentially it is IMPOSSIBLE to "know" the creator God.Man can only "believe" their religion.

Belief is the anthesis of knowing.Belief cannot "know" it is always speculation tainted by a "personal" agenda.Again that in itself is not evil it is normal for all humankind.No one has escaped that condition it is axiomatic to being human.

To believe the creator God is not 100% aware and in control of that condition is the degree of blindness of the religion.The reality(which is impossible to believe only to know) is ALL of the physical realm (universe) is a type of womb/ matrix and mankind (and all of creation..i.e. physical matter) is in the process of being conceived.

There is nothing that exists "in" the physical realm that is solid.It is ALL 99.999999999999% at minimum empty space.That is a fact not conjecture.In other words everything is mostly "dead" empty space …including man. Mankind is NOT a body ,soul and spirit "trinity….The body is physical matter,the soul is that matter living, the spirit is the life of the soul.They are 1 not 3.

Man does not have a soul or spirit they ARE a soul because of spirit(life).That spirit is the spirit of man not God as some religious people falsely believe.

Mans "life" is like a baby being conceived.It is "alive" however it is "in the womb" growing a"different" kind of life.Some are just a seed that has not impregnated a egg.Some are an impregnated egg(a zygote) some are a embryo(a zygote that is dividing cells ) some are a fetus(with grown body parts) however NONE have been born anew.NOTHING man can do will cause any of the stages,(especially religion)

Of course this is a metaphor however an accurate one.The process of life is consistent in it's stages.It is impossible to circumvent any of them or control them.Just as when we were zygotes we exercised no control over the growth process.If possible I suggest to not contemplate the process(it can't be known).Nothing we do can alter it.Mans "religion" is the hull of the seed that must be "shed" and destroyed for the seed to grow.

There is no "real "(solid) enlightenment or ascension or awakening or born again etc, etc in this physical realm.It is the illusion (more accurately delusion) of the womb/matrix.The world outside is not knowable from the inside.It is solid and ALIVE and multi dimensional... the physical realm is the valley of the shadow of death….empty space..the void…

The good news is …ALL of mankind will experience(live) in the solid realm.Everyone will be born anew in their own timely manner.The solid realm is NOT a trip back to this physical realm in a "cycle"....Thank the creator God!!


edit on 5-1-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Rex282
The most difficult thing to accept is ALL of mankind is born with a religious nature.It is "natural".Natural doesn't necessarily mean beneficial or good.It is humankind's "base" nature.It will be done away with.It has it's purpose and when it has served it that purpose it will die(or more accurately be destroyed).


I disagree, Mankind has an intrinsic relation with superstition, not religion. It is our superstitious nature that allows us to formulate religion and supernatural ideologies.

There is no child on earth that is born into a religion. There are only parents that indoctrinate those children into their religious perceptions. However, there are those who are more likely to become religious for various neurological circumstances, but that does not equate to being born religious.




Rex282
Even those that don't believe a "religion" are religious.In essence everyone (believes and is) "My God".That is the core of their religious system which is blindness.It's a classic case of not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way.


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Ghost147

Rex282
The most difficult thing to accept is ALL of mankind is born with a religious nature.It is "natural".Natural doesn't necessarily mean beneficial or good.It is humankind's "base" nature.It will be done away with.It has it's purpose and when it has served it that purpose it will die(or more accurately be destroyed).


I disagree, Mankind has an intrinsic relation with superstition, not religion. It is our superstitious nature that allows us to formulate religion and supernatural ideologies.

There is no child on earth that is born into a religion. There are only parents that indoctrinate those children into their religious perceptions. However, there are those who are more likely to become religious for various neurological circumstances, but that does not equate to being born religious.




Rex282
Even those that don't believe a "religion" are religious.In essence everyone (believes and is) "My God".That is the core of their religious system which is blindness.It's a classic case of not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way.


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.


It is the continuance to the first statement you quoted,....All of mankind are born into"their" religion".The first stage of the physical realm "life is self awareness of being "My God".Babys exist only for themselves.THEY are "their" God... "My God".

That is at the core of all religion in the form of when it is accepted in belief of "institutional" religion to rejection of it.It is all forms of the same thing.It is human nature...unavoidable...it is ALL blindness in different forms of the same thing.

We all have been indoctrinated in one way or another by a "multitude of sources" causes completely out of our control.The biggest delusion of all is that man has a will free of cause.The fact is man can only make choices with their will however none of them are free of an original cause that is not their own.This is a concept impossible to rectify with the mind.It will automatically reject it and justify it's "free will".

This is the "core belief" of a mans religion that is patently untrue and can't be overcome BY the will because it can't be believed..only known.Man kind does NOT have a will free of cause simply because they haven't been born yet.Conception is happening "to them" not "by " them.Just as no one "caused " their own conception they are not causing "this " conception either.When we were being conceived in the womb of our mother we were not the cause of ANYTHING.....Life(spirit) was...it was the "natural stage of growth...and the same process(stages of growth) are happening now...and mankind is COMPLETELY unaware what they are..it is impossible .We can't "observe" our growth and cause it no matter what anyone believes.


edit on 5-1-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy

No it's still disrespectful even if they think it of themselves. I would feel disrespected vicariously for them!

The idea is yes we are all falling short in the eyes of god, we are all basking in sin, right from the onset. We need to repent and accept Jesus yadda yadda. I get it. So Even Steven eh?


Sorry but no. That whole bit is predicated on the notion we are broken and bad and unworthy of love from an apparently all-loving being. I will not subscribe to that. That's a horrendous view to have on Humankind. It's immensely disrespectful. Some religious reconciliation does nothing to squelch that insult.


Why is that disrespectful?
I mean, look at us. As a race, we, humankind, are broken and bad. (And I'm not saying this out of some weird self-loathing; I consider myself a "good person" by human standards.") Sure, I suppose it's insulting, if you take insult to that sort of thing, but it's also kinda the truth. What does "love" and "worthy" have to do with each other, anyway? What have you ever done to be worthy of love? Is love some sort of currency, where so many good works = this much love and affection? If you do all the right things, do I owe you love? (I'm not talking about our relationship with God here, I'm talking about interpersonal relationships.)
edit on 5-1-2014 by StalkerSolent because: Do I owe ATS love for making this legit website? :-P



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



Why is that disrespectful?

Because it's not an assessment based on an individuals deeds and actions. It's a blanket statement on everyone, regardless of them. A good person is still basking in sin and falling short of god's good grace despite any good deeds and actions in life unless those deeds and actions fit a specific religious criteria. It fails to acknowledge
goodness in people yet touts it's the embodiment of it.


I mean, look at us. As a race, we, humankind, are broken and bad.

This is a thought experiment
Like who's the optimist, pessimist, or realist. Cup half full half empty kinda stuff.

Those same 'broken and bad' people also live life's without crime, create art, love their families, and sometimes are just happy and enjoy the sun on their shoulders while they carry out work and hobbies. Humankind is full of examples of people not being 'bad and broken'. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water.


And I'm not saying this out of some weird self-loathing

Positive? That isn't the impression I get from the whole of Christendom. I think that's precisely what these beliefs instill.


I consider myself a "good person" by human standards.

Would you consider yourself a good person if the only variable that changed was religious belief?


What does "love" and "worthy" have to do with each other, anyway?

Unworthy is the implication. Unless you repent and accept Jesus and or the other religious steps required you're not under god's good grace. What love has to do with that should be obvious. If you do so you join god, essentially join love (since it's the source), otherwise you continue to be eternally parted from that love (hell). So…. being a good and loving person isn't enough to be worthy of that love. Again not something I believe, it's insulting because others believe it of us.


What have you ever done to be worthy of love?

Not the most compassionate attitude my friend. Let me instead extend this to everyone just as the religious do with their whole 'everyone falls short and is basking in sin' and ask you a question:

What has a baby every done to deserve love?

What has a baby every done to not deserve it?


Is love some sort of currency, where so many good works = this much love and affection? If you do all the right things, do I owe you love? (I'm not talking about our relationship with God here, I'm talking about interpersonal relationships.)


I like how you added the last bit excluding god (religious god) from your arguement. You did because your questions obviously apply there as well.

Honestly I am not entirely sure how these questions correspond to my posts. I don't think there is an obligation to love everyone. What is required of someone to earn their love has no set formulae. I acknowledge love is a good thing and it exists in the world. I acknowledge love and morality does't require any religious belief. Maybe you can paraphrase the last question for me.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Rex282

It is the continuance to the first statement you quoted,....All of mankind are born into"their" religion".The first stage of the physical realm "life is self awareness of being "My God".Babys exist only for themselves.THEY are "their" God... "My God".


I realize that it was a continuation of your first statement. I was referring to the line "Even those that don't believe a "religion" are religious."

Your excessive use of metaphorical words and phrases along side literal ones makes everything you say disorienting. Needless to say, your elaboration on that point, again, didn't clarify anything.

Are you arguing that everyone is religious, regardless if they say they are not religious, literally? or is everyone religious, metaphorically? Because you keep stating both.
edit on 5/1/14 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   


Because it's not an assessment based on an individuals deeds and actions. It's a blanket statement on everyone, regardless of them. A good person is still basking in sin and falling short of god's good grace despite any good deeds and actions in life unless those deeds and actions fit a specific religious criteria. It fails to acknowledge
goodness in people yet touts it's the embodiment of it.


I thought you said you knew Christian beliefs? Christians believe that the blanket statement is true because it applies to all individuals. And Christianity also makes it very clear that good deeds don't get those individuals into God's grace...it is Christ's sacrifice on the cross. (There are disputes about the role of free will, but the Bible is replete with passages rejecting the efficacy of "good deeds" to get people to heaven.)



This is a thought experiment
Like who's the optimist, pessimist, or realist. Cup half full half empty kinda stuff.

Those same 'broken and bad' people also live life's without crime, create art, love their families, and sometimes are just happy and enjoy the sun on their shoulders while they carry out work and hobbies. Humankind is full of examples of people not being 'bad and broken'. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water.


No, it's not. Humankind is full of examples of awesomeness that falls short. See, that's the thing, I think all of us (except the sociopaths, perhaps?) have fallen short of our own goals at least once. We wish we had done something else. At the very least, we don't think we're perfect.

Yes, we do all sorts of awesome things! But...we're all broken...defective. Even if it's just a little bit. Or do you believe in perfect people?



Positive? That isn't the impression I get from the whole of Christendom. I think that's precisely what these beliefs instill.


Yup. Quite positive. But I don't think I'm an unbiased source.



Would you consider yourself a good person if the only variable that changed was religious belief?


I don't think I'm a good person (by God's standards.) But by man's standards...yeah, I think I'm pretty awesome. I mean, IDK, what makes a person good? Being funny? Being nice? Being compassionate? I'm not Mother Teresa, but I do OK. And I don't steal, lie, or cheat, (I don't even swear) so that makes me a pretty good person, right? Once, I even bought someone gasoline in a parking lot because they said they needed it. So, yeah, I think I am a credentialed "good person." (I mean, what do you think?)




Unworthy is the implication. Unless you repent and accept Jesus and or the other religious steps required you're not under god's good grace. What love has to do with that should be obvious. If you do so you join god, essentially join love (since it's the source), otherwise you continue to be eternally parted from that love (hell). So…. being a good and loving person isn't enough to be worthy of that love. Again not something I believe, it's insulting because others believe it of us.


Um...right.If God is a perfect Being, it stands to reason He cannot endure corruption. Ergo, separation from love (hell.) So, there needs to be a way to perfect us. I don't feel insulted.



Not the most compassionate attitude my friend. Let me instead extend this to everyone just as the religious do with their whole 'everyone falls short and is basking in sin' and ask you a question:

What has a baby every done to deserve love?

What has a baby every done to not deserve it?


Nope, not compassionate, but when I speak in terms like "worth" and "deserve" I'm dealing in hard factors, not sentiment. And you tell me: what has a baby done to deserve love? Because from where I stand, it has done nothing to deserve love. If I love it, I do so out of my own free will, not out of any sense of obligation.


Is love some sort of currency, where so many good works = this much love and affection? If you do all the right things, do I owe you love? (I'm not talking about our relationship with God here, I'm talking about interpersonal relationships.)

I like how you added the last bit excluding god (religious god) from your arguement. You did because your questions obviously apply there as well.

Honestly I am not entirely sure how these questions correspond to my posts. I don't think there is an obligation to love everyone. What is required of someone to earn their love has no set formulae. I acknowledge love is a good thing and it exists in the world. I acknowledge love and morality does't require any religious belief. Maybe you can paraphrase the last question for me.


It does correspond to God, (we can get to those questions in a minute, because as you astutely pointed out, they do apply) but I was curious about your personal beliefs about love. You said you don't think there is an obligation to love everyone. We agree on this. Do you think you have an obligation to love anyone? Personally, I guess you could make a case I'm obligated to love my parents/family. Maybe. Otherwise, I feel love is a choice I should be able to make because I want to, not because I'm obligated, not because someone has "earned" it. (When I say someone has earned my love, what I mean is that I choose to love them, perhaps because of what they have done, but NOT because I am obligated to.) But maybe you differ?




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join