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.
originally posted by: DumpMaster
a reply to: BooCrackers
Your 95% staistic is wrong. You're saying 95% of the people worship only 1 deity, many worship many deities.
People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on others, correct and great. Problem is read what I wrote in my post above yours where harmless beliefs are killing innocent people elsewhere.
What if I'm wrong? Well evidence and proof says I am not. Religions have no proof or evidence otherwise they would stop asking people to have faith. If there was proof or evidence of any religion being real I would follow the proof and evidence because only the truth matters.
Jesus was a character made up of many previous characters through history. Study some history and you will find many "jesus's" throughout time, but way before your jesus.
Hell is also a fictional place used in indoctrinating children and people into the religious scam. There is no evidence or proof of any such thing. Most religions do not have a hell.
Hope that clears things up.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer
Yes. Without question. That is how nature is.
When a hurricane kills thousands is it evil? Or a cat that plays with its food? Nah evil is a human concept. I am not saying it doesn't exist. Kind of like baseball. Without human concepts it doesn't exist. It's the way we classify brutal acts. The universe is loaded with those.
Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad. Baruch Spinoza
originally posted by: DumpMaster
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer
Nothing wrong with the word sacred but I see what you mean. I just don't know another word that means of extreme value or something like that. What I meant was this is all you get, once it's gone it's over and there is nothing else so you have to value it in the extreme.
The Nazi regime, that is because of religion. Christianity is to blame for that. In the bible it talks about different races and their values. Hitlers was trying to purge the "other races". He was very religious and into occult stuff as well. He especially hated "jews" because of the bible.
Their actions were evil because they murdered and tortured people for their beliefs. I make that claim because they thought something that was untrue was right, then murdered others because of it. That sounds pretty evil to me.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer
A mental construct.
Spinoza was a brilliant thinker and not sure what you think was flawed?
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TheOnlyAnswer
Yep.happens in the natural world as well. It's a lack of reason and return to the animal state.
So if Spinoza isn't correct why do different societies and religions have completely different or opposite views of "sin"
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LittleByLittle
I like the categorical imperarive to figure out what actions make sense.
Neutral is really the base in your model. Both mutual and parasitic are somewhat subjective unless it's a very obvious situation.
I could collect interest on your loan build a public library and buy myself a land Rover. I guess I would be both mutual and parasitic.
I could also siphen off the town's drinking water for my crops and feed my family and sell the rest to the town at a reasonable price.
If I use the categorical imparitive I would say that's a bad idea.
I get what you are saying though and agree to a point.