Ok, not really an intentional Troll, but it is a thread about why I believe some sort of spirituality is entirely necessary for a civilized society,
and also why I believe people who choose
to act in a civilized manner must have some sort of religion, whether they know it or not.
The Conspiracy comes in when people believe they don't have a religion, but they still act in a civilized manner. I believe everyone is indoctrinated
into religious belief, even if they don't realize it or admit it. So, I want to explore the nomenclature and logic behind people's actions and
My Thesis here is this, “All Morals in modern society are rooted in some religious belief, and without morals, aka religion, a person cannot be
civilized or trustworthy.”
Don’t get all sawed off yet, read a little further for some clarifications, and then flame me after fully informed, LOL!
First off, let me define a few terms. I might use religion
interchangeably. I do not intend the use of “religion”
to mean one of the worlds dominant religions such as Christianity or Buddhism. I mean it in the manner that the individual believes in something
supernatural and beyond the physical realm. I don’t want to be caught up in semantics. I do not believe a god must be named and personified to be
a god. It could be a thread of consciousness connecting people, it could be a universal source of energy and enlightenment, it could be a physical
incarnation such as Jesus, it doesn’t matter to me. If someone believes in something beyond a finite physical existence, then, for me, it satisfies
the requirement of “religion.”
I have always believed ”Atheism”
was the absence of religion, but ATS has proven that
theory wrong. Although Atheists do not believe in a supreme “being,” Apparently they can be spiritual and believe in something supernatural; they
just don’t believe in any particular popular incarnation of god. I can respect that, and even agree with it. But, it leaves the question of what
to call someone completely without spirituality? Some of you may already know, or think you know the answer. I didn’t, so I researched it.
Apparently it is not “Agnostic”
as I have also been led to believe. Agnostics simply
believe that the nature of a god is unknowable. I entirely agree with that sentiment. Agnostic is synonymous with “heretic,” “cynicist,”
“secularist,” and other names. The belief that there might be something we don’t understand, but it is unknowable, and indefinable seems to
also be synonymous with my own belief, and the broader definition of Atheism. So once again, what do we call someone completely without spirituality?
Well, according to some more research on Wiki
, there are terms such as “Agnostic Atheist,”
“Hard Agnostic,” or “Skepticists,” but they all hinge on being unable to define or “know” a deity. None of the terms rule out the
possibility of some supernatural spirituality.
So, to cut to the chase, the strongest version of nomenclature I can find is
person “knows” there is no God. They don’t subscribe to any possibility there may
be a god that is beyond comprehension. For my
understanding and clarity, they believe in a Cosmic accident, a pure evolutionary development, and a purely carnal existence. (If someone can point me
to a better label
for such a person, please let me know.) This is the nomenclature and definition of a person that I believe cannot be
civilized, and if such a person believes in this manner, then by logic, I cannot understand how they can live within the laws of man and common human
kindness, and so I surmise that either they are mistaken in their own identity, or they are an undiscovered
Now, this may sound harsh, and it is certainly up for debate, and that is the purpose of this thread. I refer back to my original thesis,
“All Morals in modern society are rooted in some religious belief, and without morals, aka religion, a person cannot be civilized or
I believe an adaptation of Game Theory
and a purely logical perspective on
a situation by situation basis can prove that no Gnostic Atheist can logically live within the confines of modern civilized culture and law.
I would like to be proven wrong, or made to understand how a person can logically make a conscious choice, when they fully know
nothing after death, to limit themselves in the ways society requires. How can they choose to work a mundane or unfulfilling job? How can they
choose to be monogamous? How can they choose to put money away for savings or retirement? Some will say they choose to act as part of a community to
maximize their own benefit. That is a valid argument, but what about charity? Why would anyone logically give anything away to someone else if they
gained no tangible benefit from it? Some will say they do it for their legacy, or to set an example for their family. I disagree, if they truly
believe as a Gnostic Atheist, logically speaking alone, it would be a poor example to teach their family to give things away when they could get
further ahead by being more stingy and selfish. Following the laws of man will keep them out of trouble, but what about when nobody is watching?
With a purely logistical outlook and a gnostic atheist belief, why would you ever choose
to be honest? You and your family get further ahead
by taking the opportunities that present themselves. There is no logical benefit to being honest when nobody is watching. An animal wouldn’t do
it. An animal would steal your food, or your mate the second they thought they could get away with it without repercussions. They have no moral
code, they live to consume, breed, and experience as much as possible before they die. Any human that claims they do it for any other reason must be
referring to some type of ingrained religious aspect they are unaware of?
So, can a Gnostic Atheist behave using a purely logical decision making paradigm and not live as a Sociopath? If so, HOW? And WHY?
I hope to be enlightened by this thread, ...or... illuminate an involuntary religious undertone to all of humanity if my theory cannot be
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
As a disclaimer, I hope this thread can maintain a civil back and forth discussion, and as a Mod, I feel my threads should be held to an even
higher level. I hope we don't have to shut down my thread. As always, I won't be modding in any thread where I am participating, but it would be
embarrassing to have one of my threads shut down by the other staff, so please keep it civil everyone!
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 27-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)