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.

 

Can there be civility without spirituality? (A Religious Troll Thread, LOL)

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShortMemory

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ShortMemory
 


I think I agree with that, but how do the folks that claim to have no spirituality or no religion whatsoever function in our society?

I believe they do indeed have religion, but they don't realize it.
Because religion in a sense materialises spirituality in a different way.. We already have it and personally I think it accounts for a lot of human psychology such as things like inspiration, the need to advance and possibly evolve etc.. A lot of people probably don’t see it until religions show them. But instead of helping them develop or use it I see religion as immobilizing it and obviously capitalizing on it. There is a fine line between sitting on pews and mass suicides even tho people won’t admit it.

no one has religion. Religion has them.




You say and their is a fine line between mass suicide and sitting on pews. How so?

What I find sad about religion is that so many ministers and churches have taken the truth of the word of God and fashioned it into their idear of God for several reasons. I myself was a catholic and blindly followed their faith without questioning it. Then I picked up the bible and came to the sad conclusion that they have so perverted the truth with lies and manipulation I ran from them.

Now I study the word of God on my own but follow a Pastor that teaches the bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse in its original languages for correction when need be. My point is I am closer to God now then I ever was in any organized religion and believe that Christianity is not a religion at all but a way of life.

I also truly believe that if the churches of men had all taught in this fashion then their would be hundreds of millions more people living a moral Christian life.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShortMemory
There is a lot of evidence that society and religion have in fact ruined what your talking about..
I mean look at other animals, do you see monkeys waging war?


Yes, absolutely. If you are familiar with some of the work done by Jane Goodall, she specifically mentions this, "fights" between competing bands--kind of like that opening scene in 2001. There are similar accounts among baboons. I stress that these are about competing bands, not individuals. I think that qualifies as "warfare."

However, you have that pretty universally among animals, from predators to ungulates. Strongest male not only wins; he dominates the entire band and drives other males off. The same is true of baboons and elk.

I don't think you see cooperative warfare until you get to primates (I may be wrong.) but what I mean is that a baboon troop, for example, will unite against an interloper where the stronger males, who compete with each other, will unite to fend off a threat, either another baboon interloper, or perhaps a lion or tiger. The troop moves in a very controlled fashion with guards and vanguards protecting the children and females in the middle.

In fact, I just remembered a conversation with a fish biologist friend of mine who did a PhD on sea anemones. He said the 'warrior' anemones tended to congregate at the outside of the colony, protecting them from prey, where the smaller anemones were inside the fold, so to speak, just like a baboon troop. So I guess we can't confine this to primates. (I have a hard time visualizing how sea anemones fight, but I swear that's what he told me.)

"Warfare" among the most primitive tribes was very much like described above. In the New Guinea Highlands, for example, war between groups was conducted one death at a time. The other tribe killed one of your guys, so you plotted until you got to kill one of their guys. Because of the kinship structure there was a lot of intermarriage, so you were basically fighting your cousins. This kept the death toll down. It was basically the Hatfields vs. the McCoys.

None of this contradicts your basic assertion that organized religion has caused a lot of death and destruction. I agree with that. But religion doesn't have an exclusive on warfare. and neither does Homo sapiens.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
In my opinion, it's the other way around.
Most people, including the OP, probably think that without a religion they'll find themselves behaving like human beasts, and only the fear of an eternal punishment is keeping their evil nature in control. This is one of the most harmful ideas that theistic religions seeds in our mind, in order to control us: that our inherent nature is basically bad. And of course, it means that our only salvation is that specific god, if we follow it's rules.

My opinion, supported by eastern philosophies (like buddhism, taoism, part of hinduism and so on) is that in fact our true nature is good, compassionate and joyful. At our core we are good beings.
So people who behave morally even without a religion are doing what is only natural to do, because at a very deep level it corresponds with their true nature. We feel good when we are able to help others. We are able to love, to sacrifice, to create, to make miracles; we always did it, no matter the religion or the culture we belonged to. Those are the things that give our life a meaning. And those things are OURS, they do not come from an external source. The theist religions are only exploiting those qualities for their own profit ;they are keeping us in guilt and fear, because otherwise there will be no need for religion.




There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness.
Dalai Lama


The problems starts when a god pops up, blaming, threatening and claiming that he's the only good thing in the universe. It kinds of goes against common sense; no wonder it takes lots and lots of faith to stay in a theistic religion, to overcome that constant inner voice telling you that maybe you're not that bad after all.

Think about this: how different our society would be if the first commandement would be, instead of " you shall love your god...", "you shall love, respect and protect every human being"? How many of our painful complexes would disappear if we would be told that we are wonderful beings, and our true mission in life is to discover that?
What if we would put that tremendous amount of faith in OUR good, divine nature?




...I believe people who choose to act in a civilized manner must have some sort of religion, whether they know it or not.

Because deep inside you really believe we are bad, and the good things we do are only coming from religion. Yet, is us who invented religion, isn't it? Over and over again, during the whole human history...

I see spirituality as a way to discover ourselves, AND the divine, whether they are one or they are separated. And I see religion as a refuge for those who cannot face themselves.
Because it takes courage, determination and a lot of faith in yourself to be yourself; to overcome all the guilt and shame that is put on us since the day we are born by religion. And I agree that not everyone is up to that. So they stay within their religious frame, , believing that salvation will come from outside themselves, while the rest of us are looking for it within.

Hope it makes sense. I've been watching people all my life; I've seen them doing wrong, and also doing incredible good. Empathizing, unconditionally loving, sacrificing, forgiving. We have it all inside; it's only a matter of choosing how we want to be.

Thanks for a meaningful thread.
edit on 27-10-2011 by WhiteHat because: lol, the ideas keep coming

edit on 27-10-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Well I read through it and the posts and no one countered your argument really, most just strengthened it.

What the point you were driving at, IMO, was that someone from the term you specified as "gnostic atheist"
would be untrustworthy on the basis that they would have no obligation to hold themselves to a higher standard.

I hope I have that right.

Okay so, I think this can be disproven from a scientific perspective.
If a person just looks at the scientific facts, and sees no god in them they could be trusted most likely, as some scientist are today. Although they might have no belief in a god, they do behave in a socialy accepted manner.


Also to take into consideration is the economic perspective. It is economicaly most beneficial to work in the best interest of the group. Sometimes this is not always the case, but that doesn't necessitate the jump to sociopathic actions if somoeone is logical, because the group dynamic would be affected in a negative way, and perhaps lending a negative portrail of the perpatraitor.

These two things are not completly seperate.

I hope I have added a bit to the discussion.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
What about the people who have no religion, and no spirituality, but believe we were created by someone, or something that doesn't require worshiping, and there is no threat of punishments for bad behavior and no bribing to be good or go to hell?

That would be me and I've said it before on this board that I am the most honest, compassionate, caring, trustworthy and moral person I know. I can't name a single one of my religious friends who's morals equal mine.

I can't understand why it's so hard for people to comprehend that someone can be a good, decent, and moral person without religion.




All Morals in modern society are rooted in some religious belief, and without morals, aka religion, a person cannot be civilized or trustworthy.


All religious and spiritual people are civilized and trustworthy ( NOT!)....all non religious and non spiritual people are not civilized or trustworthy. (NOT!)

You can't make that generalization and neither can I.

Religion and morals are two totally different words with totally different meanings. In fact, if you look at their definitions , neither word is used to describe each other.

I have morals because it's the right thing to do, not because I fear something or because I want a prize.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
If I am understanding you correctly. You are saying humans would never have figured it out on our own. It just isn't in us innately or inherently to develop civility. To develop character and ethics over time. We needed outside help, or we would never have gotten this far.

On the contrary. I believe it is nationalized and institutionalized religion that is the destroyer of civilizations, the thief of human souls, and the oppressor of the human spirit. And that it is only the evil among us who could have devised such a cunning and depraved system to enslave and oppress the masses.

Someone had to convince everyone how evil they were, so they could then give them precepts and laws to live by which would make them good. And under a punishment and reward system at that.

My guess is, we were doing just fine until someone decided to make us "better".



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 



My opinion, supported by eastern philosophies (like buddhism, taoism, part of hinduism and so on) is that in fact our true nature is good, compassionate and joyful. At our core we are good beings.


You are right in your assumption of me. Without some spiritual connection I would probably behave like an animal. I would behave more like the ancient heroes in mythology. I would consume and conquer and I wouldn't limit myself in any way. BUT, I act civilly, not for a reward in Heaven, and not for a threat of Hell, but because I believe like you mention above. I believe we are all spiritually connected and a piece of me resides in all of you and vice versa. I believe there is a universal bank of knowledge or energy. I believe when we die or we are born, we leave and rejoin that bank. It isn't exactly reincarnation, and it isn't exactly a supreme being. I believe prayer works, and I believe I have had prayers directly answered, but not from a "being."

So, while I agree with what you are saying, I still think it strengthens and supports my original argument. That spirituality and belief system is a form of religion. Without that connection, we would behave like animals. The strong would survive and reproduce and the weak would be victimized and perish. There would be limited cooperation only where it was beneficial to the individuals, but there would be dishonesty and corruption behind the cooperation.

Just my opinion of course, but that is how I see thing if there was no spiritual connection whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by KingAtlas
 



If a person just looks at the scientific facts, and sees no god in them they could be trusted most likely, as some scientist are today. Although they might have no belief in a god, they do behave in a socialy accepted manner.


I agree with you that it happens, but the extension of my argument is that those rational scientists are still clinging to an indoctrinated idea of right and wrong that has roots in religion. If they were truly behaving on observation and logic alone, they would see that things like charity are a waste of time and resources. They would see that protecting the weak is damaging the DNA pool. In my opinion, they are still victimized by religion so long ingrained into their psyche that even the most intelligent among us don't realize the roots of our notions of right and wrong.

Can you justify something like charity on a purely logical basis?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 



On the contrary. I believe it is nationalized and institutionalized religion that is the destroyer of civilizations, the thief of human souls, and the oppressor of the human spirit. And that it is only the evil among us who could have devised such a cunning and depraved system to enslave and oppress the masses.


I think we can agree on that notion, but probably for different reasons. I entirely agree that institutionalized religion is the destroyer of civilizations and a thief of souls, but it is also the root of notions that we take granted.

Without ever having any type of religion or spirituality develop, the human race might be stronger from a genetic and physical aspect, but it wouldn't be nearly as evolved or civilized. The natural course of things might have allowed for more death from disease and disaster, but less death from war and politics. We would likely be bigger, stronger, and more immune to disease because of selective breeding and competition. We would more resemble our ape cousins, but at the same time, we would never have evolved social programs, charities, hospices, etc. There would be no benefit to prolonging life long past the productive years or protecting the weakest of our species.

So, while religion has likely created massive amounts of strife and war, it has also created an environment that values all life and gives us a reward and penalty system for disregard of one another's value as a being.

I believe a spiritual connection exists in all of us, and one day, when we became aware of that connection, we became self-aware, and civilized. All of the institutionalized religions are a result of us trying to define what we intuitively know. We aren't very good at defining it, and some people have bastardized all of the religions and caused them to be corrupt and manipulative, but the fact is, we did develop religions because we had an innate knowledge of ourselves and our creator that separated us from animals.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by virraszto
 



All religious and spiritual people are civilized and trustworthy ( NOT!)....all non religious and non spiritual people are not civilized or trustworthy. (NOT!)

You can't make that generalization and neither can I.


I said, to be an apple you have to come from a tree. That is true. I didn't say all trees make apples, that is an incorrect generalization.

I said, a person without morality (aka religion/spirituality) cannot be trusted. I did NOT say all people with spirituality are trustworthy. I also did NOT say all people that appear to not have spirituality are untrustworthy (although I do believe that to be true).

The difference, I believe those people that claim to not have any spirituality whatsoever, and still appear to be trustworthy fall into two categories. Either they are sociopathic and they are merely mimicking societal norms to fit in and achieve their own agenda, or they actually do have some form of spirituality, and they can't define it by any organized religious standard, so they think they don't have any.

In my opinion, it is a very rare subset of people that actually fit the definition I laid out for a gnostic atheist. In reality, I think the vast majority of people, even atheists and agnostics believe there is something undefined, that we cannot know, but it still exists.


I have morals because it's the right thing to do, not because I fear something or because I want a prize.

So back to the original question. What is "right?" By whose definition if not a spiritual one? How do you justify right and wrong using pure logic and nothing spiritual? I believe any argument you come up with to answer those questions will be disproven by logic, and can only be justified using emotion and spirituality.

edit on 27-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 



I think morality comes from the social contract that people made to live in groups which facilitated survival.


I think this is one of the best arguments. The "social contract" argument. BUT, how does "trust" play into that social contract? We know there are those among us that will be corrupt and manipulative. We know a separation of classes will develop. We know that despite our legal definition of "equal," in regards to rights, we are not equal in regards to skills and abilities and genetics. Some people are smarter, taller, faster, stronger, or more immune to disease, etc., etc.

So, the social contract has limitations, and there is really no benefit to the society as a whole to support the weak and unproductive, infertile, or disruptive elements. In our modern society we believe those people have rights anyway, but in a purely logical society absent spirituality, would our social contract still require we waste resources on those individuals?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by darkendmetal
 



As far as morals go, it is perfectly normal for a 6 or any other number on that scale to have morals and to have or not have religion. Some religious people even have morals that directly conflict with those that their religious texts lay down.

Morality does not come from religion. I do my best to be a good person because I enjoy it, I like helping others, I like doing right, I despise cheaters, I despise liars. And I don't do it for want of heaven or fear of hell!


To you, I would say your morals are your religion. If not, then where do they spring from? I agree that every major organized religion has extreme flaws. I don't agree with any of them, and yet I am still a very spiritual person. I know there is more than a physical realm of existence. I suppose I would be a 1 on your scale, but my god doesn't fit any religion that you can name... or ... maybe it fits them all? I believe it is beyond a human comprehension, and this lifetime should be spent polishing one's spirituality, so hopefully you can comprehend it by the end of this lifetime.

But from a Stephen Hawking point of view, or a 6-7 on your scale, why would someone believe in a notion of right and wrong without believing in a spiritual connection to their fellow man? If we are all independent physical beings with limited time, how can one logically justify voluntarily giving away resources or time? No reward, no karma, no benefit to one's self in any way, so why do it?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Can you justify something like charity on a purely logical basis?


Lol, no one acts on a purely logical basis. Every single "logical" action of ours is backed up by some feeling or instinct. There is no logical reason for trying to survive, if you really think about it. But we have this deep instinct, or desire to stay alive, so surviving becomes suddenly logical. We use our brain to get what our heart desires.
So in this respect, charity is probably based on an empathic feeling. We can identify with the most unfortunate, we realize that their pain could be our pain. Just the same we can identify with an old person, and help it cross the road or carry it's bags, without even thinking why we do that.

As for your answer to me,




I believe we are all spiritually connected and a piece of me resides in all of you and vice versa. I believe there is a universal bank of knowledge or energy. I believe when we die or we are born, we leave and rejoin that bank.


..well, that's yours also. And you chose to live according to that belief because somehow it resonates with the "good" part in you. It makes you feel better than just living like an animal. What I'm saying is that spirituality comes from WITHIN us, it answer a deep need of our being. Religion it's also an answer (twisted, I must admit) to that need. We see it and recognize it outside only because it already exists in us. We, humans, invented it.

Of course that some form of restriction and education must exist in a society; we can only hear that spiritual voice when we are mature enough to overcome impulsivity and egocentrism. But we learn and improve all the time.
edit on 27-10-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
By the Way,

Thank you to everyone for way better responses than what I expected!!!
ATS is the most intelligent community on the net! I have been to Mensa meetings, FreeThinker meetings, Florida Bar meetings, and more, and ATS rivals them all!!



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 


I think I completely agree with you, and yet we don't seem to be on the exact same page, LOL!

"Empathy" would be a connection that we all share. I think to feel empathy, we would first have to admit that we have something in common with that person, and that a personal sacrifice on our part would benefit that other person in some manner, and we will ultimately be rewarded for that behavior, even if it is just the reward of a good feeling inside.

I believe exactly what you say about how we "humans" instinctively or intuitively know that we long for a religion, or a spiritual connection, or something. I do believe as you say, we humans invented religion. BUT, we humans did not invent that instinct or intuition. We observed and felt that instinct and intuition, and it led to the creation of religion and culture and civilization, but where does the instinct come from?

It must come from the supernatural, or at least the unobservable doesn't it? For all humans to have a similar innate longing for a connection and an explanation and a purpose, doesn't it indicate something beyond our physical realm? So, to fill that longing, we create religions and morals and cultural norms, and we strive to do the things that give us inner rewards. We do the things that feed our innate hunger to feel connected and "good."

So, admitting to that feeling, and that shared longing is essentially admitting to something beyond the physical realm, something spiritual, something religious.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I think now I understandd what you mean.


Originally posted by getreadyalready
For all humans to have a similar innate longing for a connection and an explanation and a purpose, doesn't it indicate something beyond our physical realm? So, to fill that longing, we create religions and morals and cultural norms, and we strive to do the things that give us inner rewards. We do the things that feed our innate hunger to feel connected and "good."

So, admitting to that feeling, and that shared longing is essentially admitting to something beyond the physical realm, something spiritual, something religious.


It's just the term "religious" that threw me out, since it carries so many bad connotations.
In that context, yes, we are on the same page.
So would follow that those of us who follow that inner "goodness" are more trustworthy than those who don't. Also agree. Even if we all have our slips...
And I think that only personal experience can show us if that "something" we long for it's to be found inside us or from an external source. Because, ironically, when you discover your true nature, all the conflicts with a divine being also disappear, and you can let yourself be one with everything.

Thanks for the insight.
edit on 27-10-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
By the Way,

Thank you to everyone for way better responses than what I expected!!!
ATS is the most intelligent community on the net! I have been to Mensa meetings, FreeThinker meetings, Florida Bar meetings, and more, and ATS rivals them all!!


And we didn't even called for Phage...

(sorry, couldn't help it)

edit on 27-10-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by darkendmetal
 


To you, I would say your morals are your religion. If not, then where do they spring from? I agree that every major organized religion has extreme flaws. I don't agree with any of them, and yet I am still a very spiritual person. I know there is more than a physical realm of existence. I suppose I would be a 1 on your scale, but my god doesn't fit any religion that you can name... or ... maybe it fits them all? I believe it is beyond a human comprehension, and this lifetime should be spent polishing one's spirituality, so hopefully you can comprehend it by the end of this lifetime.

But from a Stephen Hawking point of view, or a 6-7 on your scale, why would someone believe in a notion of right and wrong without believing in a spiritual connection to their fellow man? If we are all independent physical beings with limited time, how can one logically justify voluntarily giving away resources or time? No reward, no karma, no benefit to one's self in any way, so why do it?


Thank you for your reply.

My morals are not my "religion," they are my morals. They are what I believe as right and wrong. Where do they spring from? From my parents, from society, and from my viewpoint on everything I have viewed growing up, everything I have thought about. They don't just poof out of thin air, I didn't decide one day that freedom is right and enslavement is wrong. Experience has taught me that. I am 0% percent spiritual, I might even go so far as to say I don't even know what spirituality is, but I have no desire to know either. I'm happy, I have values, morals, and goals that I strive for. I believe this is our ONLY lifetime and that we should spend it in pursuit of happiness, accomplishment, experience, and great memories. You don't get those things by behaving badly with terrible morals. I didn't know it inherently, I didn't learn it from the bible, most of it I learned myself through introspection, and believe me, I've had a lot of time for that.

I'm not sure why you brought Stephen Hawking's name in... To be honest, I'm not terribly familiar with the man, I haven't read any of his works, though I know he's an eminent scientist. I don't believe in a spiritual connection to my fellow man, there may be some such connection, but I just don't see it. Then again, I'm not spiritual, I don't have any real concept of it. Yes, I am physical, and yes I have limited time, and I intend to use it well by not abusing it.


edit on 10/28/11 by darkendmetal because: (no reason given)


Also I would like to say that some things I do because I have a very strong conscience. There are many things that if I did them I would feel terrible about them for a very long time, such as harming an animal, or being cruel to my grandparents.
edit on 10/28/11 by darkendmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It’s inherent in humans to want to be liked and loved because we are social animals who natural choose to live in groups and we also want the groups we live in to be as large and socially unified as possible

Anything which improves our chances of being liked and loved is adopted and incorporated into our ways of acting with others and the things we choose to adopt are going to be the things which (given the circumstances we might find ourselves in) create the most socially unified group
unfortunately this means that even ludicrous ideas such as christianity and islam will be adopted under the right conditions

The most successful religions play on the human desire for love and acceptance and group unity – it’s the bait the creators of the religions use to lure followers (fear is used to keep the followers in line once they are on the hook)

It’s also why followers of cults or religions are constantly trying to get others to join the cult – it has nothing to do with saving people or helping them become better people - it’s about the followers wanting to be in the biggest monkey pack as possible



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I personally believe in karma and reincarnation, but that is not what causes me to be honorable and good. I am honorable so that I can respect myself.

I truly don't believe there is such a thing as true religion anymore. True religion is about loving yourself and others, not worshiping some deity and praying for all your problems to be miraculously fixed. I only know one true christian who loves everyone equally.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Akhkharu19 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join