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.

 

Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

page: 22
30
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I belive in social programming. Many of the outlets of social programming are: The media, other people and the government. All outlets provide obscurities in our social cues, obscure system tools and obscure action cues. All of these obscurities make up our communications system. Our system is FULL of obscure things and causes us to not be able to function properly in our almost all environments within our reality.

To counter act this obscure social programming - you must Identify your problems, self-discipline in your actions, discipline in your effectiveness (errorlessness in social cues) gain enlightenment which is also intelligence in philosophy and gain intelligence in technical thinking. These are the 4 snoitnecsa (read backwards...this is because of NSA echelon)

Everybody is effected by social programming because the human intellect attribute is low, due to our naturally low grade system tools. Human System tool will be low grade if we were perfect in communication or if we were as cavemen in communication. They would be low grade even if we were perfect in the 4 snoitnecsa. The human intellect attribute is low also because of the limitations of language and the "being of perfection" of humans which is opposite of true eccentricity. An example of true Eccentricity is which is shown by the species of Star Trek known as the "Vulcans".

That's all I have to say, I hope this helped with your journey from changing from obscure to normal and possibly higher than normal.


edit on 15-2-2014 by RevelationsDivad because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2014 by RevelationsDivad because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



... devalue women and brainwash them into being subservient to men ...


The crux of the matter, just one more aspect of the gender wars brought to you in living Technicolor by media moguls. Divide and conquer.

Someone mentioned American Indians earlier but neglected to point out that the tribes were primarily matriarchal societies. Women pretty much ruled the roost and they raised warriors, not wimps. Its government that prefers its men to be whiney petulant wimps, not women. Government rules the news. Keep that in mind.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

racasan

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 


You said a society without religion would fall apart. I showed societies that are primarily non-religous that are not only not falling apart but are doing better than societies that are primarily religious. You say that is "amateurish". Whatever logic helps you sleep at night.


But there is more to it than this. The moral fibre of the world depends on the spiritual substance of the world. If mankind loses its spirituality this moral inheritance will evaporate.

Great but that's speculative. No evidence for any of that.

No evidence of your biblical god nor his morality.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Raptor Jesus also disagree with you. They believe in secular humanism. They created the World they would know. Prove that wrong.


Avoid Harris, he, like Dawkins, is simplistic to the point of embarrassment.

Thanks for the suggestion but no thanks. My experience has shown me otherwise. Instead I will enjoy the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, David Dennett, Dan Barker,Lawrence Krauss. Their debates and their books.


At the time of Christ the Roman Empire ruled. What kind of world do you think we would have today if this empire had been allowed to continue? Do you think, without the Church's influence, it would have suddenly become moral or would its darkness have continued to the present day? If it did Europe today might be in complete darkness. An Orwellian prison.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



the Church - right
KNOW YOUR POPES - enjoy
www.facebook.com...


Yes, there have been evil popes. So what? There have been evil non religious as well, Stalin, Hussein, Hitler (nominal religious). Evil has sometimes entered the Church. It is a pity but that does not make the Church evil. It makes it imperfect. There used to be Communist spies in the U.S. Does that make the U.S. Communist?


Then by that argument, there are many other institutions just as adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities you place on the church. None are any less perfect than the church - that is to say, the church is as guilty as any of them.


I only used the Church as one example. There are many other examples I could have used, as sources of morality. If mankind is not spiritual it will not be moral. It will be overcome by evil. Humanism cannot overcome evil because evil is a spiritual reality.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


We just had this discussion. You have been provided with examples of nonspiritual societies that functioned just as well as, if not better than, a spiritual society.


If you are talking about the societies mentioned in the quote from Sam Harris, no, these are not nonspiritual. They have a rich inheritance from Christianity. Consider North Korea instead, where religion is suppressed.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


Since your Google button appears to be broken, I'll help you out:

commonsenseatheism.com...

www.danielmiessler.com...

www.alternet.org...

Don't forget to actually read the articles, as well.



You still don't get my point. Mankind is kept alive because God is in the world. God's Light and Grace keep humanity safe. If mankind turns away from God it will fall into darkness. This is already happening in parts of the world. One link you provided mentions Denmark and Sweden. These are moral because, down through the ages, Christianity provided them with a moral foundation. They still have this inheritance. And besides, who is to say that many people in these societies are not religious or spiritual or believe in God? Someone once said that 100 truly good people can save the world. But if there is nobody in the world who is good - truly, spiritually good - what will become of the world? It is pointless referring me to articles such as these because the arguments in them are superficial and don't take into consideration the WHOLE WORLD AND ITS HISTORY. They are naive arguments. This is why I say Sam Harris & Co. are naive. The world has inherited its entire history. This is what needs to be taken into account. Anything else is cherry picking.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

racasan

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 


You said a society without religion would fall apart. I showed societies that are primarily non-religous that are not only not falling apart but are doing better than societies that are primarily religious. You say that is "amateurish". Whatever logic helps you sleep at night.


But there is more to it than this. The moral fibre of the world depends on the spiritual substance of the world. If mankind loses its spirituality this moral inheritance will evaporate.

Great but that's speculative. No evidence for any of that.

No evidence of your biblical god nor his morality.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Raptor Jesus also disagree with you. They believe in secular humanism. They created the World they would know. Prove that wrong.


Avoid Harris, he, like Dawkins, is simplistic to the point of embarrassment.

Thanks for the suggestion but no thanks. My experience has shown me otherwise. Instead I will enjoy the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, David Dennett, Dan Barker,Lawrence Krauss. Their debates and their books.


At the time of Christ the Roman Empire ruled. What kind of world do you think we would have today if this empire had been allowed to continue? Do you think, without the Church's influence, it would have suddenly become moral or would its darkness have continued to the present day? If it did Europe today might be in complete darkness. An Orwellian prison.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



the Church - right
KNOW YOUR POPES - enjoy
www.facebook.com...


Yes, there have been evil popes. So what? There have been evil non religious as well, Stalin, Hussein, Hitler (nominal religious). Evil has sometimes entered the Church. It is a pity but that does not make the Church evil. It makes it imperfect. There used to be Communist spies in the U.S. Does that make the U.S. Communist?


Then by that argument, there are many other institutions just as adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities you place on the church. None are any less perfect than the church - that is to say, the church is as guilty as any of them.


I only used the Church as one example. There are many other examples I could have used, as sources of morality. If mankind is not spiritual it will not be moral. It will be overcome by evil. Humanism cannot overcome evil because evil is a spiritual reality.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


We just had this discussion. You have been provided with examples of nonspiritual societies that functioned just as well as, if not better than, a spiritual society.


If you are talking about the societies mentioned in the quote from Sam Harris, no, these are not nonspiritual. They have a rich inheritance from Christianity. Consider North Korea instead, where religion is suppressed.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


Since your Google button appears to be broken, I'll help you out:

commonsenseatheism.com...

www.danielmiessler.com...

www.alternet.org...

Don't forget to actually read the articles, as well.



Here is a quote from the second link you provided-

"No surprise here. I wish the world would pull out of the downward spiral of building jails and churches to house the millions we’re producing but can’t take care of. Quite simply, religion leads to suffering because it encourages the intellectual weakness and dependence of its followers.

Educated and independent people are 1) less likely to be religious, and 2) less likely to be taken advantage of by their governments."


This is utter hogwash. Propaganda. The Church made modern science possible. It made education possible. In past times the Church funded science. Some of the world's greatest intellects believed in God - Einstein, Kurt Godel, Newton...



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 



This is utter hogwash. Propaganda.


But telling people they'll burn for all of eternity if they don't put their faith in God and their money in the collection basket isn't propaganda?


The Church made modern science possible. It made education possible.


Here, have some more research.

www.wired.com...


In past times the Church funded science. Some of the world's greatest intellects believed in God - Einstein, Kurt Godel, Newton...



. . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it. - Albert Einstein



Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include:

4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.[1]

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property


I've included these points because I feel they are worth examining.


Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic


Hmm. It's fascinating how many Christians' modern ideals are fraught with heretic details. In the same breath that they praise their faith, they toss in qualities and opinions that are quite clearly at odds with the established doctrine. It seems Newton really was ahead of the curve.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I am not trying to say that Einstein, Godel and Newton were Christian. They believed in God, they were not atheist. Newton's 'heresy' has nothing to do with this. Your link is more cherry picking. By and large, the Church funded and encouraged science and made modern science possible.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I am not trying to say that Einstein, Godel and Newton were Christian. They believed in God, they were not atheist. Newton's 'heresy' has nothing to do with this. Your link is more cherry picking. By and large, the Church funded and encouraged science and made modern science possible.



Did you just ignore the link about all the scientists that were persecuted? Theism cannot take credit for modern science anymore than communism or nazism can.
edit on 15-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

racasan

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 


You said a society without religion would fall apart. I showed societies that are primarily non-religous that are not only not falling apart but are doing better than societies that are primarily religious. You say that is "amateurish". Whatever logic helps you sleep at night.


But there is more to it than this. The moral fibre of the world depends on the spiritual substance of the world. If mankind loses its spirituality this moral inheritance will evaporate.

Great but that's speculative. No evidence for any of that.

No evidence of your biblical god nor his morality.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Raptor Jesus also disagree with you. They believe in secular humanism. They created the World they would know. Prove that wrong.


Avoid Harris, he, like Dawkins, is simplistic to the point of embarrassment.

Thanks for the suggestion but no thanks. My experience has shown me otherwise. Instead I will enjoy the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, David Dennett, Dan Barker,Lawrence Krauss. Their debates and their books.


At the time of Christ the Roman Empire ruled. What kind of world do you think we would have today if this empire had been allowed to continue? Do you think, without the Church's influence, it would have suddenly become moral or would its darkness have continued to the present day? If it did Europe today might be in complete darkness. An Orwellian prison.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



the Church - right
KNOW YOUR POPES - enjoy
www.facebook.com...


Yes, there have been evil popes. So what? There have been evil non religious as well, Stalin, Hussein, Hitler (nominal religious). Evil has sometimes entered the Church. It is a pity but that does not make the Church evil. It makes it imperfect. There used to be Communist spies in the U.S. Does that make the U.S. Communist?


Then by that argument, there are many other institutions just as adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities you place on the church. None are any less perfect than the church - that is to say, the church is as guilty as any of them.


I only used the Church as one example. There are many other examples I could have used, as sources of morality. If mankind is not spiritual it will not be moral. It will be overcome by evil. Humanism cannot overcome evil because evil is a spiritual reality.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


We just had this discussion. You have been provided with examples of nonspiritual societies that functioned just as well as, if not better than, a spiritual society.


If you are talking about the societies mentioned in the quote from Sam Harris, no, these are not nonspiritual. They have a rich inheritance from Christianity. Consider North Korea instead, where religion is suppressed.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


Since your Google button appears to be broken, I'll help you out:

commonsenseatheism.com...

www.danielmiessler.com...

www.alternet.org...

Don't forget to actually read the articles, as well.



You still don't get my point. Mankind is kept alive because God is in the world. God's Light and Grace keep humanity safe. If mankind turns away from God it will fall into darkness. This is already happening in parts of the world. One link you provided mentions Denmark and Sweden. These are moral because, down through the ages, Christianity provided them with a moral foundation. They still have this inheritance. And besides, who is to say that many people in these societies are not religious or spiritual or believe in God? Someone once said that 100 truly good people can save the world. But if there is nobody in the world who is good - truly, spiritually good - what will become of the world? It is pointless referring me to articles such as these because the arguments in them are superficial and don't take into consideration the WHOLE WORLD AND ITS HISTORY. They are naive arguments. This is why I say Sam Harris & Co. are naive. The world has inherited its entire history. This is what needs to be taken into account. Anything else is cherry picking.


To sum you up, "A society without religion will fall apart, except when it doesn't." Seriously, you can't make a statement like, "A society without religion will fall apart," then make caveats and rationalizations when someone provides proof to you of a primarily secular society that not only isn't falling apart, but is more successful then non-secular countries. By the way, Japan was on that list of secular societies and while Christianity did get a toehold in Japan it was NEVER at any point in history a primarily Christian country. So the existence of that country on the list literally proves you wrong in every way.

Also, I'd like to know how you think there is a difference between countries like Norway and Sweden and the United States. You claim Norway and Sweden's morals are built on Christian values and morals so that is why they are successful despite being secular. But the United States (predominantly religious) is becoming morally bankrupt as it loses its religious base. You know the SAME religious base that supposedly instilled morals and values into Norway and Sweden. You have a logic breakdown and through your rationalizations and trying to justify your flimsy premise you fail to see this.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I believe this an exact breakdown of the effort we have seen;www.newhorizonsstannes.com...
It is quite detailed and fits exactly with what I have seen happening since the 60s.,I came across it in Cooper's book.
This page is an elaboration of PART of the original system discussing diversion and tech to deploy it.
edit on 15-2-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

racasan

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant
 


You said a society without religion would fall apart. I showed societies that are primarily non-religous that are not only not falling apart but are doing better than societies that are primarily religious. You say that is "amateurish". Whatever logic helps you sleep at night.


But there is more to it than this. The moral fibre of the world depends on the spiritual substance of the world. If mankind loses its spirituality this moral inheritance will evaporate.

Great but that's speculative. No evidence for any of that.

No evidence of your biblical god nor his morality.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Raptor Jesus also disagree with you. They believe in secular humanism. They created the World they would know. Prove that wrong.


Avoid Harris, he, like Dawkins, is simplistic to the point of embarrassment.

Thanks for the suggestion but no thanks. My experience has shown me otherwise. Instead I will enjoy the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, David Dennett, Dan Barker,Lawrence Krauss. Their debates and their books.


At the time of Christ the Roman Empire ruled. What kind of world do you think we would have today if this empire had been allowed to continue? Do you think, without the Church's influence, it would have suddenly become moral or would its darkness have continued to the present day? If it did Europe today might be in complete darkness. An Orwellian prison.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



the Church - right
KNOW YOUR POPES - enjoy
www.facebook.com...


Yes, there have been evil popes. So what? There have been evil non religious as well, Stalin, Hussein, Hitler (nominal religious). Evil has sometimes entered the Church. It is a pity but that does not make the Church evil. It makes it imperfect. There used to be Communist spies in the U.S. Does that make the U.S. Communist?


Then by that argument, there are many other institutions just as adequately equipped to handle the responsibilities you place on the church. None are any less perfect than the church - that is to say, the church is as guilty as any of them.


I only used the Church as one example. There are many other examples I could have used, as sources of morality. If mankind is not spiritual it will not be moral. It will be overcome by evil. Humanism cannot overcome evil because evil is a spiritual reality.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


We just had this discussion. You have been provided with examples of nonspiritual societies that functioned just as well as, if not better than, a spiritual society.


If you are talking about the societies mentioned in the quote from Sam Harris, no, these are not nonspiritual. They have a rich inheritance from Christianity. Consider North Korea instead, where religion is suppressed.
edit on 15-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


Since your Google button appears to be broken, I'll help you out:

commonsenseatheism.com...

www.danielmiessler.com...

www.alternet.org...

Don't forget to actually read the articles, as well.



You still don't get my point. Mankind is kept alive because God is in the world. God's Light and Grace keep humanity safe. If mankind turns away from God it will fall into darkness. This is already happening in parts of the world. One link you provided mentions Denmark and Sweden. These are moral because, down through the ages, Christianity provided them with a moral foundation. They still have this inheritance. And besides, who is to say that many people in these societies are not religious or spiritual or believe in God? Someone once said that 100 truly good people can save the world. But if there is nobody in the world who is good - truly, spiritually good - what will become of the world? It is pointless referring me to articles such as these because the arguments in them are superficial and don't take into consideration the WHOLE WORLD AND ITS HISTORY. They are naive arguments. This is why I say Sam Harris & Co. are naive. The world has inherited its entire history. This is what needs to be taken into account. Anything else is cherry picking.


To sum you up, "A society without religion will fall apart, except when it doesn't." Seriously, you can't make a statement like, "A society without religion will fall apart," then make caveats and rationalizations when someone provides proof to you of a primarily secular society that not only isn't falling apart, but is more successful then non-secular countries. By the way, Japan was on that list of secular societies and while Christianity did get a toehold in Japan it was NEVER at any point in history a primarily Christian country. So the existence of that country on the list literally proves you wrong in every way.

Also, I'd like to know how you think there is a difference between countries like Norway and Sweden and the United States. You claim Norway and Sweden's morals are built on Christian values and morals so that is why they are successful despite being secular. But the United States (predominantly religious) is becoming morally bankrupt as it loses its religious base. You know the SAME religious base that supposedly instilled morals and values into Norway and Sweden. You have a logic breakdown and through your rationalizations and trying to justify your flimsy premise you fail to see this.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


I said society will become morally bankrupt without true spirituality. Religion is another question. I am not saying Christianity is the only moral foundation. Japan had Buddhism and inherited its moral values. Christianity gave Europe its moral foundation.

You say;


But the United States (predominantly religious) is becoming morally bankrupt as it loses its religious base.


Yes, and it is because it is losing its spiritual base that it is becoming corrupt. That is my point. The U.S. differs from Sweden and Denmark, obviously. Why has its religious/moral foundation failed it? Perhaps because there is so much money and power in the U.S. There could be many reasons why the U.S. descended into corruption so quickly. It would have been corrupted even faster without its moral, spiritual foundation.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

EnPassant



But the United States (predominantly religious) is becoming morally bankrupt as it loses its religious base.


Yes, and it is because it is losing its spiritual base that it is becoming corrupt. That is my point. The U.S. differs from Sweden and Denmark, obviously. Why has its religious/moral foundation failed it? Perhaps because there is so much money and power in the U.S. There could be many reasons why the U.S. descended into corruption so quickly. It would have been corrupted even faster without its moral, spiritual foundation.


You act like the United States is the only country crippled by corruption from money and power greed. Japan's debt to gdp is currently 211.70%. The EU, which you may recognize as the economic body that governs countries such as Norway and Sweden, is contemplating on doing European wide Cyprus cuts. Give me a break, you suffer from the world revolves around America syndrome. This just isn't true and the actions of one country aren't dooming the rest of the world. There is just as much of what you consider "evil" in the rest of the world, YET secular countries maintaining high standards of equality and health despite this. You ignore all this to try to paint America on some moral descent into the seventh layer of hell or something. Because frankly that is what morally bankrupt means. Devoid of morals. Yet this isn't true either. There is just as much good things going on in this country being done by secularists and non-secularists. Your argument is flawed.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

EnPassant



But the United States (predominantly religious) is becoming morally bankrupt as it loses its religious base.


Yes, and it is because it is losing its spiritual base that it is becoming corrupt. That is my point. The U.S. differs from Sweden and Denmark, obviously. Why has its religious/moral foundation failed it? Perhaps because there is so much money and power in the U.S. There could be many reasons why the U.S. descended into corruption so quickly. It would have been corrupted even faster without its moral, spiritual foundation.


You act like the United States is the only country crippled by corruption from money and power greed. Japan's debt to gdp is currently 211.70%. The EU, which you may recognize as the economic body that governs countries such as Norway and Sweden, is contemplating on doing European wide Cyprus cuts. Give me a break, you suffer from the world revolves around America syndrome. This just isn't true and the actions of one country aren't dooming the rest of the world. There is just as much of what you consider "evil" in the rest of the world, YET secular countries maintaining high standards of equality and health despite this. You ignore all this to try to paint America on some moral descent into the seventh layer of hell or something. Because frankly that is what morally bankrupt means. Devoid of morals. Yet this isn't true either. There is just as much good things going on in this country being done by secularists and non-secularists. Your argument is flawed.


They don't call the US dollar the world reserve currency for the heck of it, the world has revolved around the corrupt insolvent paradigm of US financial hegemony for over 70 years now and those nations/peoples that have the temerity to reject that corruption, which was created by the Bretton Woods treaty, are the recipients of US bombs. Secular, schmecular, NOTHING can corrupt the morals and values of man as fast as usury and insider trading, regardless of what he calls himself.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I know. That wasn't my point. I was trying to show to the person I was responding to that he is looking at America in a vacuum. He makes it sound like the changing actions of our country due to adopting a more secularist society are dooming it into moral bankruptcy. I argue that he is putting too much weight on the events in our country when it can be shown that other countries have their own problems and can still find the time have good morals without religion. Not to mention he is trying to warp direct evidence that contradicts his worldview into somehow supporting it.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


I know. That wasn't my point. I was trying to show to the person I was responding to that he is looking at America in a vacuum. He makes it sound like the changing actions of our country due to adopting a more secularist society are dooming it into moral bankruptcy. I argue that he is putting too much weight on the events in our country when it can be shown that other countries have their own problems and can still find the time have good morals without religion. Not to mention he is trying to warp direct evidence that contradicts his worldview into somehow supporting it.


I know that wasn't your point, it was mine. That's why I made it instead of you.


Obviously there are good people in the world who make no bones about their lack of faith in a "god" or a "creator" or a "hereafter". This is not to say they wouldn't scream "oh god" if and when gravity sent their aircraft plunging to earth. And it is not to say they don't have some kind of values, if only looking out for their own mortality and financial success. And staying out of jail.

That aside, in a world where depreciating fiat money is allowed to become the almighty and success means setting aside values in order to satisfy one's immediate needs and/or self gratification, morals oftentimes takes a back seat. At least when there is no overriding belief in something that prevents it. That's the world we live in.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Being that corruption has existed as long as money has existed, I'd say that a community being secular or not has little to do with its moral state. Case in point, the Catholic church of the middle ages and its indulgence program. Here is an example of a religious organization, with all the morals that it preaches and all, letting those very same morals take a backseat to money and power. Therefore, secularism has little to do with whether a society is bad or not.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnPassant
 



The Church made modern science possible. It made education possible.


But telling people they'll burn for all of eternity if they don't put their faith in God and their money in the collection basket isn't propaganda?


Considering that no single person has said this,
in the past six years I've been reading ATS,
that no one has said this, in this thread,
that no Christian I have ever met said
this either...

I'm just gonna go with characterizing the quote in red above as a broken record.

If that means that someone is or is not brainwashed, and carrying the water for somebody else without knowing it, or not; is an exercise I will leave up to the reader.

Mike Grouchy


edit on 15-2-2014 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

AfterInfinity

EnPassant
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I am not trying to say that Einstein, Godel and Newton were Christian. They believed in God, they were not atheist. Newton's 'heresy' has nothing to do with this. Your link is more cherry picking. By and large, the Church funded and encouraged science and made modern science possible.



Did you just ignore the link about all the scientists that were persecuted? Theism cannot take credit for modern science anymore than communism or nazism can.
edit on 15-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


No, of course not. They can't take credit. There is no such thing as Theism, except in the abstract. I don't have any idea what kind of cloister gathering the writer has in mind where these so-called Theists are trying to take credit for modern science. But I do know that when it started, free and mandatory education for all, most of the Universities were built with Church money.

Mike Grouchy



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by frazzle
 


Being that corruption has existed as long as money has existed, I'd say that a community being secular or not has little to do with its moral state. Case in point, the Catholic church of the middle ages and its indulgence program. Here is an example of a religious organization, with all the morals that it preaches and all, letting those very same morals take a backseat to money and power. Therefore, secularism has little to do with whether a society is bad or not.


Agreed, but god, the creator, the great spirit or whomever does not now and has never ruled the Church(es), its the organized by men part where the whole thing went off the rails. I would even say that the rejection of religion in general is more a reflection on that organized by crooks part than anything else.

ETA: and you can add governments that are organized by crooks, or taken over by them to that list of bad guys.
edit on 15-2-2014 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Mods have already said on ATS they have had to remove that many times on ATS but because they moderate it so you don't see it.
I have had it said to me also on ATS and in my work, on the street and on my bloody doorstep so don't tell me people don't say it!.
edit on 15-2-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


No, I never said Christianity owns morality. Christianity borrowed from many things. Yes, morality existed prior to Christ. See The Axial Age

Good.

I am happy you acknowledge morality existed prior. This means morality is not dependent on Christianity. This means it's entirely possible for morality to not depend on Christianity now. Entirely possible the societies I gave you contain people who's morality is not dependent on Christianity.

By the way from that Axial Age time frame and possibly before. We have the Jains. They were not monotheistic. Check out this bit of morality and compare it to the 10 Commandments.

I'm going to use a Sam Harris quote since you seem found of him


“If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
edit on 15-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join