The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam.

reply to post by Lucifer777


Blatent, closed minded, atheistic, crap, spewing from the cognitive, of an atheist. And you chose to write a thread on it. Your screen name, is highly suggestive, that you believe Lucifer, to be God. This leads me to believe, that you personally, make no sense at all. Philosophies are merely man made religions. The contrast in your persona, does even these philosophies, an injustice.

reply to post by randyvs


Sound Argument vs. Hot Air

Atheist 1 : Theist 0

Originally posted by Equinox99

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Well essentially I consider Islam and Christianity to be the major religious threats in the world; adherents of both cults have influence over governments, armies and nuclear weapons; both have genocidal and apocalyptic End Times prophecies which predict their prevailance of their war gods over other religions and both are not just religions, but also systems of law which necessitate theocratic tyranny.

I think humanity in itself is a major threat to itself. However, when was the last time you seen a "civilized" Christian kill another for their religion beliefs?

A number of points.


1: The History of Christianity.

Christianity has a long 1600 year history since it's adoption as the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and it is has a long and bloody history of tyranny, holy wars / crusades, slavery (including Feudalism), genocides, Inquistions etc.

Christian monarchy has had 16 centuries to prove itself and it can hardly be considered a religion which has eradicated human evil , human suffering, misery and poverty, etc. The establishment of a global monarchy (the global dictatorship of a "king of kings) which is the Christian ideal seems only to be an ideal which would involve the regression back into the barbarism, savagery and religious fanaticism of the past.

2: The Enlightenment and the modern Moral Zeitgeist.

The "Moral Zeitgeist (spirit of the age)" is a term used by Richard Dawkins to describe modern morality, and as Dawkins argues (I paraphrase and expand) the morality of the modern European has been affected by the philosophies of the Enlightenment. the socialist, Marxist, feminist, trade unionist and gay rights movements, etc. If we are influenced by the morality of such movements it is "in spite" of Christianity not because of Christianity, for Christianity is a primitive, regressive, conservative (to conserve the values of the past) religion which has challenged all such progressive influences. Never the less the modern Christians are still affected by the humanist modern Zeitgeist, thus they are mostly "less" conservative than their ancestors, however polls still show that almost 80% of the US Christian population expect Jesus to return (despite him claiming that he would return before his followers had gone through all the towns of Israel 2000 years ago) and they are still succeptible to the authority of the Bible.


3: The Milgram and Joshua experiements (See the OP essay).

These two experiments indicate that human beings are succeptible to submission to even a malevolent authority Religious authority is of course the utlimate authority for a religionist, and religionists can be shown to justify genocide for religious reasons, when they would not normally justify genocide if there were no religious element.

You have asked the question of "When was the last time you seen a "civilized" Christian kill another for their religion beliefs?" however this is not really the question that the Joshua experiment asks; the students in the experiment were not "killers;" themselves; they were merely willing to justify genocide; we are currently in a state of war between primarily the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists and their Islamic enemies; wars are almost "always" fought at the bidding of economc elites for economic reasons, and the Iran / Afghan war is no different.

George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush was almost certainly not fighting for religion, but probably merely for the economic domination of the Iraqi oil industry and the Afghan heroin industry, which the black budgets of the Anglo-American narco-terrorists depend upon. "Religion" seems to be just a tool which political leaders utilise. and it is certainly the case that by waving the "God" flag that US politicians gain the support of large sections of the US population, which is predominately Christian. The armies of the Anglo-American state terrorists are accompanied by armies of chaplains and it is certainly perceived by the Christian masses that the genocides in Iraq and Afghanstan are justifiable; returning soldiers are generally treated as heroes and not as terrorists.and imperialist bullies.

They are waiting on a global Neofascist dictator (the king of kings) to appear and save them all; that is really a rather dangerous ideology, and they are mostly anti-Communists / anti-Socialists; they are really a major part of what is wrong with the world.

Have you done a proper survey to see how many are waiting for the King of Kings?

In December 2006, a year-end poll conducted by the Associated Press and AOL found that 25 percent of Americans said they believe that Jesus would return in 2007. If we’re to believe the poll is an accurate representation of the United States population, that’s a quarter of the country, or 75 million people.

“You people are seriously disturbed,” howled blogger Cenk Uygur on The Huffington Post. “You think a magic man is going to appear out of the sky and grant you eternal bliss. If the man’s name was anything other than Jesus, that belief would get you locked up as a psychotic.”

Well, maybe not locked up anymore, but possibly some strange glances. Perhaps a sounder statistic comes from a 2006 survey for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. They found 79 percent of American Christians believe in the second coming, and 20 percent believe it will happen in their lifetime.

www.thirdeyemag.com...

... according to a 2004 ABC News poll, the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah’s Ark—this is Noah’s Ark, now, so we are talking about people who believe that one guy built a 450-foot wooden boat and somehow put two of every animal (and seven of every "clean" animal) on it, including the animals living on continents that hadn’t been discovered yet (which means he also must have discovered and explored all of the Americas and Australia, not to mention climbed the Himalayas what for to fetch the yaks), and kept them all alive and fed and playing nicely with one another for forty days, and then got them back to where they all lived, and okay # this, because we refuse to be reduced to pointing out flaws in the story of Noah’s Ark (although here is a link to a piece by someone who was good enough to do this)—is… 60%.

That’s sixty percent

.. “AT LEAST two-thirds of the Americans who believe in God at all are literally insane.”


www.rationalresponders.com... ot10_stupidest_religious_beliefsquot

Noam Chomsky:


"We must bear in mind that the US is a very fundamentalist society, perhaps more than any other society in the world – even more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia or the Taliban. That's very surprising. About half of the [US] population believes that all living species were created 6,000 years ago in their current form.

It's entirely possible that Ahmadinejad and George Bush are spiritual brothers.

It is likely that they both believe that the Second Coming is near. It may be the Mahdi, or Jesus Christ, or somebody else, but pretty soon, everything is going to be solved, because all the glorious and miraculous things will happen exactly as predicted. All religions know this and believe in this.

Therefore, it does not really matter what you do today – whether you blow up the world with nuclear weapons, or destroy the environment, or anything – because all this would be taken care of.

As I have argued in the OP, part of the problem with the person suffering from religious psychosis (which is probably the majority of the US population) is that once you accept one irrational and ridiculous religious belief, it is a "slippery slope" to accepting almost any irrational religious belief and the religious justification for war such as George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush's wars.

I very much doubt if anyone could be elected as a head of state in Europe or even taken seriously who claimed that he heard voices in his head from Jesus telling him to wage war, but in the US, it is entirely another matter. Thus there can be serious genocidal consequences of religious fanaticism, and further religious fanaticism is often "not" perceived as religious fanaticsm, but as being "normal" and in accordance with the model of the religious schizophrenic,Jesus.


While I do agree that Communism should be the way to go I know we can't go that route without someone trying to become a tyrant dictator. It has happened in history and will happen again in the future, it is who we are.

The vast majority of Communists are Republicans; they are not football hooligans, but rather intellectuals, political philosophers and humanitarians who wish to see a world devoid of poverty, war and human suffering. Personally I don't think that Anarchism would work properly for the masses until you have an educated, scientific, rational, socialist population; apart from economic problems there are still so many social problems such as violence, hooliganism and overpopulation; one cannot expect the current modern population of Europe to behave like residents of the Israeli Kibbtzim, many of whom were raised on such collectives since childhood; at the this stage of history, evolutionary socialism seems a more rational approach, and slow gradual voluntary collectivism; this is particularly urgent in the Third World but the political will does not exist to impliment such changes.

I should point out that there are many Anarchist Christians and Christian Marxists (Liberation Theologians), but I do not consider their Communist beliefs to be "because" of Christianity, but rather "despite" Christianity; they are simply humanitarians who have been influenced by the Enlightenment socialist political philosophies, but they do seem to be the most progressive, humanist and rational of all Christians.

Lux

Re" the following statement in the previous post:

"While I do agree that Communism should be the way to go I know we can't go that route without someone trying to become a tyrant dictator. It has happened in history and will happen again in the future, it is who we are."

I should have put this in a quotation box as it is a statement by Equinox99 which I was reponding to, but in error I did not put it in a quote box, so it gives the impresson of being attributed to me. It is too late for me to edit the previous post.

Originally posted by dominicus
Well if there is an ocean of consciousness ...then that ocean itself is definitively above and beyond all of these individualized aspects of the whole...... and having access to the whole ...would automatically make one beyond "modern, rational, educated, scientific, ethical" ...as well as exoteric religious schizophrenia and prior to any belief structures.

It is clearly seen from here that my true nature is not the mind and its thoughts, belief-systems, etc. It is merely a tool of communication. It is seen that this Ocean of consciousness is where we all come from, it trumps all things, and eventually when science catches up ...it will prove this Ocean as well.

I think I have made it clear that despite being an anti-religionist, I am not at all a materialist. Consciousness is a great mystery and of course it it not "material;" it is certainly produced by the very complex piece of organic matter called the "brain," but the brain is not consciousness; it is merely the producer of consciousness. Even our Internet communications are not purely "material;" it is two consciousnesses communicating and this cannot be weighed or measured. Consciousness is for me the greatest "miracle" of the gods of nature (i.e., Mother Nature). It really should not occur, but it does.

Personally I believe that a great deal of delusion, religious fanaticism and religious psychosis is caused simply because of a lack of education and specifically the understanding of neurology, psychiatry, psychology, psychology of religoin, and the effect of certain chemicals on the brain. I have had a liftime of very bizzare experiences which a religionist might define as "spiritual" experiences, however I have simply learned not to trust such experiences as being "real," any more than my dreams are real, since such experiences vary from person to person, from region to region and from religion to religion. Such experience have however been very interesting and they help me to understand the mind of a person who suffering from religious psychosis and delusions. Since I have never been a Christian my experiences tended to confirm my essential "Crowleyanty" whereas a Christian might find their "Jesus faith" to be confirmed by such experiences and similarly with a devotee of Ganesha, Hanunam or any of the numerous deities and cults. Such experiences my seem to confirm one's own particular name brand of cultism, but in fact they are a very unreliable means of doing that, even if it seems otherwise, just as the hallucinations of schizophrenics seem very real to them.

From:
metrostateatheists.wordpress.com... igious-people-schizophrenic/

Hallucinations are as real as any other experience to the person with schizophrenia. As many as 70% hear voices, while a lesser number have visual hallucinations. –Auditory hallucinations can be either inside the person’s head or externally. When external, they sound as real as an actual voice. Sometimes they come from no apparent source, other times they come from real people who don’t actually say anything, other times a person will hallucinate sounds. –When people hear voices inside their heads, it is as if their inner thoughts are no longer alone. The new voices can talk to each other, talk to themselves, or comment on the person’s actions. The majority of the time the voices are negative.

No. I am not advocating that we round up all the religious people and institutionalize them. That would be plain stupid. However, what I am attempting to show is that religious thought operates like a mental illness. Religious thought must be challenged no matter how much they will kick and scream about their feelings being hurt because of it. ”The time of respecting beliefs of this sort is long past”-Sam Harris

Lux

reply to post by randyvs


Think everyone ignored this post.

ROFL.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by randyvs

 

Think everyone ignored this post.

ROFL.

No, I didn't

reply to post by AllIsOne


Of course you didn't. Randys sweeping generalisations, unlettered discrimination and arguments probably appeal to you.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

Of course you didn't. Randys sweeping generalisations, unlettered discrimination and arguments probably appeal to you.

You got me mixed up my friend. Read what I typed ...

reply to post by AllIsOne


You said you didn't ignore it. In respose to my "everyone ignored that statement".

No problem, you probably just wanted to oppose my statement.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You still make no sense at all.

Look at the second post on page 9 ...

reply to post by Lucifer777


You are simply reciting Christianity as a primitive thinking but clearly think that the new age philosophical crap is different in a better way. Replace Christianity with any belief or an atheistic mentality in the same ages and see the true nature of humanity.

What you are doing is saying these guys are evil so come join my group and drink from our kool-aid instead of theirs. The fact is every side has its good and bad, there is no side that is pure good and no side that devotes more good than the other. You argue that Christians will kill for the bible, well cite me one source where a Christian has killed in the name of the bible in the more modern regions. Not many Christians believe in the end of the world mumbo jumbo and if it came and they picked up the arms to kill another human than they aren't doing it for God.

The bible clearly states don't kill and if people choose to kill than they have broken the vow to being a Christian. God will not ask us to kill because it goes against the 10 commandments and the message of love thy enemy.

These two experiments indicate that human beings are succeptible to submission to even a malevolent authority Religious authority is of course the utlimate authority for a religionist, and religionists can be shown to justify genocide for religious reasons, when they would not normally justify genocide if there were no religious element.

No! you can't justify genocide through religion or through any means. This statement can also be made for your pagan thinking, but either way you can't justify genocide through religion. You can try and some might follow but others will not.

You have asked the question of "When was the last time you seen a "civilized" Christian kill another for their religion beliefs?" however this is not really the question that the Joshua experiment asks; the students in the experiment were not "killers;" themselves; they were merely willing to justify genocide; we are currently in a state of war between primarily the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists and their Islamic enemies; wars are almost "always" fought at the bidding of economc elites for economic reasons, and the Iran / Afghan war is no different.

Than maybe the Joshua experiment is asking the wrong question. And NO! We are NOT in a Christian battle with Muslims. America is not a Christian country anymore, if you ask hardcore Christians they will think it is, but the majority will tell you America is NOT a Christian country. Many believe in separation of church and state and that is what is practiced in America. Even the Christians practice it.

Both experiments are ridiculous and I don't even know why you used them. 1) The Joshua experiment where you ask Jews, not Christians, about genocide, of course they will side with "God's" choice. 2) The Milgram experiment shows that humans will follow any authoritative figure like Stalin, Mao, and Pot as well. It doesn't prove your philosophy that all Christians and Muslims follow a genocidal influence.

And there is a major contradiction in your post.

they were merely willing to justify genocide; we are currently in a state of war between primarily the Anglo-American Christian state terrorists and their Islamic enemies

And than you say:

wars are almost "always" fought at the bidding of economc elites for economic reasons, and the Iran / Afghan war is no different.

You are trying to connect an economic war with Christianity vs. Islam. This war is about installing puppets in the Middle East, nothing more. I am from Iraq and I acknowledge the new government is an American lapdog.

The armies of the Anglo-American state terrorists are accompanied by armies of chaplains and it is certainly perceived by the Christian masses that the genocides in Iraq and Afghanstan are justifiable; returning soldiers are generally treated as heroes and not as terrorists.and imperialist bullies.

Prove it. Go ask Christian Americans if they justify, through religion, the genocides in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the majority says yes we justify it than you have proven your point. But I want fair answers not asking 100 people and only showing 4 people justifying it.

Not all Christians feel the soldiers are heroes and you are just throwing ill-omitted facts.

25% of Americans feel Jesus will return, 100% of Mayans think quetzalcoatl will return, Muslims think Mahdi will return so what is your point. Because 25% of Americans thinking Christ will return will justify genocide? JEsus said love thy God and thy neighbour, not when I return we shall fight side by side.

See you are equating the old testament murders with the revelations. But nowhere in the revelations or the new testament does it say to kill your enemy. If God wants to kill my enemy than that's God's deal not mine, I am never justifying killing another human being for personal gain.

However, I will say that I can justify killing and enemy if my family is threatened. Now this, is where the money is at to invade other nations. False flag attacks can rally up EVERYONE in the nation not just Christians.

From my perspective it looks like you have been fed a constant biased view. I have been through many beliefs but stuck with Christianity because I have my reasons. I think any religious ideology has a chance of being dangerous if it picks the right vulnerable people.

FYI, if you are going to use a Christian don't use George Bush, he was an idiot since birth. How many people opposed the war? How many Christians? If you claim Christianity and Islam are hypnosis indoctrination than what does that make new age thinking?

You are trying to replace a 1995 Mercedes Benz with a 2011 Benz, meaning that You are trying to replace one indoctrination with a newer one. In end we are all human and as Milgram experiments shows, we are susceptible to authoritative lies and deception no matter who you are. You can be atheist and if you are taught to hate Christians than you will. You could be pagan who is taught that buddhists are evil than that is what you think, and etc.

reply to post by Equinox99

No! you can't justify genocide through religion or through any means. This statement can also be made for your pagan thinking, but either way you can't justify genocide through religion.

Yes you can, Matyrdom and Jihad. If you believe you are doing God's "will" then you will go to the "super special" afterlife. This can give people the justification to murder, go to war, or even punish someone with death.

Religion has caused many wars and confclits over time, genocide is not an uncommon result of religious conflict or crusade.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Equinox99

 

No! you can't justify genocide through religion or through any means. This statement can also be made for your pagan thinking, but either way you can't justify genocide through religion.

Yes you can, Matyrdom and Jihad. If you believe you are doing God's "will" then you will go to the "super special" afterlife. This can give people the justification to murder, go to war, or even punish someone with death.

Religion has caused many wars and confclits over time, genocide is not an uncommon result of religious conflict or crusade.

Yes, religion has caused many wars through out history. Christ did not teach a religion. He taught against religion. He taught that God is within all, to not turn to another man about God because he is within you.

He was Anti-Religious, which was why the Jews had him murdered.

He was also against the Roman Empire. He taught to love one another and to take care of one anther. He taught that we are all equal and deserving of unconditional love and forgiveness. These things would destroy an Empire if they were allowed to blossom. Which is why he was called an enemy of Caesar and Pilate agreed to Murder him.

Do people go against his teaches to commit atrocities? ABSOLUTELY

What better way to discredit your enemy than to do horrible things in his name?
What better way to distort the teachings than to usurp them, twist them, and make them an object of hate?

Christ is a liberator of Man. He gave two Great commandments: Love God (found within) with all your being, and your neighbor as yourself.

Every sermon was an explanation of these two things.

You cannot be an enemy of Christ, he loves you all. The man you hate, the man you discredit, the man you rail against and defame is the Man who would give his life that you would be free of this tyranny which keeps you held down in oppression.

Who here can accuse HIM of wrong doing and actually back it up with some evidence?

Bring it! I will advocate for Christ!

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM

Yes, religion has caused many wars through out history. Christ did not teach a religion. He taught against religion. He taught that God is within all, to not turn to another man about God because he is within you.

I don't care about Christ. I'm still an Anti-Theist. I can't prove whether Christ existed or not, i appreciate at least SOME of the messages in the story.

I just believe that Vicarious Redemption (Sacrifice for our sins) is immoral preaching. I don't believe in the immaculate conception, and even if true - virgin birth doesn't add credibility to any metaphysical claims.

There are much better examples of humanism than some ancient biblical story, whether it was true or not. Much more profound stories of fiction that show a greater love and compassion for the human being, and it is expressed in much more beautiful ways. I don't care about Christ, and frankly, i'm sick of hearing ahout him.

You should watch "The Man from Earth" - That is your exact message, i just still don't care about Jesus, he MAY have been a man, Socrates MAY have been a man, i still trust his words more than Jesus.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I don't care about Christ. I'm still an Anti-Theist. I can't prove whether Christ existed or not, i appreciate at least SOME of the messages in the story.

I just believe that Vicarious Redemption (Sacrifice for our sins) is immoral preaching. I don't believe in the immaculate conception, and even if true - virgin birth doesn't add credibility to any metaphysical claims.

There are much better examples of humanism than some ancient biblical story, whether it was true or not. Much more profound stories of fiction that show a greater love and compassion for the human being, and it is expressed in much more beautiful ways. I don't care about Christ, and frankly, i'm sick of hearing ahout him.

You should watch "The Man from Earth" - That is your exact message, i just still don't care about Jesus, he MAY have been a man, Socrates MAY have been a man, i still trust his words more than Jesus.

edit on 20/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Ok, so you do not have any charges to bring against Christ himself. No problem. If you are tired of hearing about him, why do you keep coming back to these threads and spurring conversation about him?

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Lucifer777


Lucifer, you really seem to be full of yourself. You are a typical European elitist that believes in the superiority of his culture.

How many countries did Europe steal from to get the relative wealth it has today, so that you can swoop in and grace other "inferior cultures" with your presence? How much damage did Europe's colonial system do to these "inferior cultures". Western civilization was built on the backs of its less technologically advanced darker skinned brothers. The exploitation still goes on today.


You know how I can spot a militant atheist on ATS?

The cough.

You guys quote mine the Bible so often you all have Black Lung.

Oh, and here's a link to help remove the cherry stains from all your picking link

Your a communist. How's that working out for the world?

Mao Ze Dong? Joseph Stalin?

The problem with this world is every ideology will get hijacked and manipulated by men seeking power. If you don't understand this you are naive.

Sexual freedom?

Aids.

Wow. I feel so free.

For as smart as you are, you don't seem to understand what genocide is.

the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group

God spared Egyptians and Canaanites.


Richard Dawkins. By the way wasn't he host of Family Feud?




You Atheists are funny. You act like you are free, independent, original thinkers.

The reality is most of you are simply parroting the philosophy of the moment.

Polly want a cracker?

Originally posted by Lucifer777
 
Religious Archons "are" a very dangerous form of authority; submission to religious Archons can often have murderous and genocidal consequences. Unfortunately the victim of religious mind control can be made to carry out the most evil forms of behaviour, while thinking that they are doing "good" and are saving the world; just as it was for the children of the Hitler youth, religious fanatics are often so hypnotised, indoctrinated and submissive to authority that they actually think that they are "saints."

Unfortunately the two largest religions in the world (Christianity and Islam) are both militant, apocalyptic and their adherents have control over nations, armies and nuclear weapons.

I can agree, in part, with the argument you present in this thread concerning organised religion based on the Abrahamic faiths. I would caution that such a broad and inflexible leveling critique, the premise of which is the totalising fundamentalist irrational Judaeo-Christian worldview and it's toxic memetic discharge into the global semiosphere is a tad fundamentalist in itself, and opposed to the true objective, rational discussion of the subject.
True, you point to some degree of irony in your presentation, but the battle mode you indulge in, taking no prisoners, still leaves little room for manoeuvre in debate. It's a tad too Manichaean for me, in the more political sense.

I do see that the "holy war" aspect of the clash of civilizations is present as you say, more being sold as such, the absolute clash of theocracies, but to my mind it's not religious at the core, it's really corporate, and I don't know for sure that the "voice of God" rhetoric George W. Bush used to such effect is anything he truly believes in. Bonesmen seem, after all, to be such masterful, cynical meme manipulators. Cold economics and geo-politics have to factor in for me as the prime motivator.
 

Originally posted by Lucifer777

B: Philosophy.

Understanding philosophical method seems to me to be essential in combatting religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

If a philosopher attempts to hold two contradictory positions, then this is usually pointed out to them by other philosophers as being ridiculous. The difference between the philosopher and the religious fanatic is that the philosopher can appeal only to the highest authority of human intuition and "pure reason." Philosophy essentially teaches us how to "think" for ourselves and how to construct arguments. There is simply no room for philosophy in the world's major religons, since the victims of these religions must simply abandon reason and rely on the ramblings of primitive religious fanatics.

The main problem here is that some major figures of the assembled Judaeo-Christian creeds have advanced philosophy to a great degree. Such as:

Augustine of Hippo.

Ibn Khaldun, the great Islamic polymath, bequeathed the modern philosopher of history his toolkit, especially in the macrohistorical form; and in the social sciences.

Thomas Aquinas - his thought resonates in philosophy down to the present day. See the work of Umberto Eco (an ex-faithist) on this, I have read quite a bit of his work and the legacy of Aquinas features heavily.

William of Ockham - Okcham's razor. Enough said about a legacy there.

In terms of occult thought, many of the most prominent of the "underground stream" identified as followers of Christm however irregular they were in practice (as compared to the tyrannical straightjacket of orthodoxy) and however they applied their readings of scripture (hermeneustics and such).

John Dee, the great seeker of ultimate knowledge heavily identifed as a Christian, though unorthodox, and his endeavours fuel much the Western Esoteric Tradition to this very day.

Marsilio Ficino - the one who probably was most responsible for the rebirth of the hermetic way in the Renaissance was also a follower of that "religious schizophrenic" you mention.

I've only mentioned the thinkers I'm more familiar with, off-hand, but the enitre tradition of philosophy stems from the fundament of theology, or is at least intertwined with it, if the primacy of one over the other truly can't be ascertained in the distant past, before the advent of the written word.

I can see what I think is your main thrust here, that bowing to the false authority of organised religion is antithetical to intellectual emancipation; but I see a danger that your absolutistism is perhaps at odds with the remembrance of the origins of the intellectual mind and it's rich history. With truly impartial investigation.
Of course I see that philosophy should be a progression, an evolution of mind, of ideas, and that such primitive crutches as worship of any capricious diety, or dieties, and the offering of money to such a thing's representatives on earth (both being borne of the minds of grasping humans), should be jettisoned.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Linguistics 101

Language is a lie. Words are weapons and the tools of mass hypnosis.

I see this as a fallacy myself. It's the kind of thinking endemic within the conspiracy community.

Instead, I would say that words are neutral tools, whose proper use can facilitate the most wonderful meetings of minds, true and open communication to achieve understanding between peoples, to communicate truth, beauty, the spectacle of the unfettered imagination, revelation, exposures of abuses of power by the establishment; that kind of thing.

Language is only as much a lie as the intention is to use it.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

However....I think that there are memetic reasons as to why most people in nations where Christianity is the main religion would be shocked by such genocidal quotations from the Koran, and yet they are less shocked by similar genocidal quotations in the Bible; I think it is simply because the Biblical faith is accepted and "established," and the "model" of an ideal human being is a 2000 year old fake healer, fake miracle worker and religious schitzophrenic (nb., it has been estimated that 25% of all schitzophrenics are suffering from "religious" schizopherenia; i.e., they hear voices from god, etc.), the Jesus of the Gospels.

In this context as well as the broader scope, could I ask you what your view and understanding of schizophrenia is exactly?

Anyway, intriguing thread, well worth the entertainment value alone seeing opposing creeds bash each other. I used to do a lot of this kind of thing myself, zoning in on the Masons and other fraternal types, the militant dialectic can be quite cathartic.




.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Yes, religion has caused many wars through out history. Christ did not teach a religion. He taught against religion. He taught that God is within all, to not turn to another man about God because he is within you.

I don't care about Christ. I'm still an Anti-Theist. I can't prove whether Christ existed or not, i appreciate at least SOME of the messages in the story.

I just believe that Vicarious Redemption (Sacrifice for our sins) is immoral preaching. I don't believe in the immaculate conception, and even if true - virgin birth doesn't add credibility to any metaphysical claims.

There are much better examples of humanism than some ancient biblical story, whether it was true or not. Much more profound stories of fiction that show a greater love and compassion for the human being, and it is expressed in much more beautiful ways. I don't care about Christ, and frankly, i'm sick of hearing ahout him.

You should watch "The Man from Earth" - That is your exact message, i just still don't care about Jesus, he MAY have been a man, Socrates MAY have been a man, i still trust his words more than Jesus.

edit on 20/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Consider the Golden Rule:

The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[2] an ethical code, or a morality,[3] that essentially states either of the following:

1.One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)[2]
2.One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule)
The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.[4] A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group. The Golden Rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts.[2][5]

The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms).[2] As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s).[2][6] The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.[citation needed]

Examples of statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in Ancient Egypt, for example in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."[7] Rushworth Kidder states that "the label 'golden' was applied by Confucius (551–479 B.C.), who wrote a version of the Silver Rule: 'Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us.'" Kidder notes that this framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions".[8]

.........

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[11] (c. 640–568 BCE)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[12]
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[13] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origin in the third century of the common era.[14]
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates[15]
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[16]
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[17]), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus[18]
"One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." – Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)
....

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[38]


en.wikipedia.org...

TaoismSee also: Taoism
The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
—Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
—T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien
[edit] WiccaSee also: neopaganism
See also: wiccan rede
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will.

And see also my essay: "Is the New Testament Fabricated & Fraudulent?" on: www.davidicke.com...

Since the New Testament can be shown to be a fabrication compiled at the time of Constantine and which contains aspects of "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" ("Life of Constantine", cited in above essay) it is entirely unsurprising that it contains a number of commonplace philosophical maxims.

Part of the problem of the world's three most popular religious texts (the Bible, the Koran and the Vedas) is that they "do" contain ethical maxims, which even humanist philosophers would accept as being "truthisms." These philosophical truthisms are then combined with all manner of barbarism, primitive religious beliefs and laws demanding execution for rather silly matters such as the victimless "crime" of blasphemy, or for perfectly natural erotic behaviour.

Consider the words of Mohammad:

"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.
—Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”

However, as you are well aware, this is combined with the most atrocious advocations of Holy War against non believers, the advocaton of slavery, sex slavery, homophobia and misogyny. Thus when one combines universal ethical maxims with a primitive and barbaric system of law, when the religious fanatic is challenged, they may well spout out a few ethical maxims advocated by Mohammad to suggest that he was quite a decent person.

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[38]

Similarly in Hinduism; the Hindu scriptures detail, for example, what kind of child should be sacrificed to which partcular deity, and they contain justifications for racism (caste-ism) and descriptions of all manner of barbarism and holy war.

Similarly with the Gospels. The fictional Jesus is portrayed as a person whose religion was not Christianity, but the savage, primitive and barbaric religion of Judaism; as to why the Roman authors who fabricated the Gospels protrayed him this way, may well be due to the existence of earlier texts which were revered by early Christians who probably did have texts which referred to a Messianic Judaic religious fanatic, and this may well be the "Gospel of Q (see en.wikipedia.org...)"

When we combine the "Golden Rule" with Jesus' position that the "Law and the Prophets" should be adhered to fundamentally, since adherence to the Judaic Law (the 613 Laws of Moses) would have genocidal consequences, the inclusion of the Golden Rule and other common philosophical maxims and ethical parables becomes a problem, since when the religious fanatic is challenged over the barbarism of the Judaic Law and the obviously provably false claims of Jesus (such as that his followers would be able to perform miracles), they often revert to reciting the various ethical maxims of Jesus which were common to numerous other philosophers.

With regards to comparing Socrates to Jesus, I think that the religious fanatic Jesus would hate you and that Socrates would love you. There is no "philosophy" of Socrates, with regards to a defined political or moral philosophy; it is more of a "philosophical method;" which subjects every idea to intense scrutiny, which challenges the "gods" and which chalenges and ridicules any idea which does not conform to human reason and intuition. If Socrates were alive he would be a Nietzschean.


Lux

Originally posted by Lucifer777
When we combine the "Golden Rule" with Jesus' position that the "Law and the Prophets" should be adhered to fundamentally, since adherence to the Judaic Law (the 613 Laws of Moses) would have genocidal consequences,

One lie spoils the whole broth!

Jesus said, 'The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it' (Luke 16:16, NIV throughout)

The Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of equality. It is the Kingdom where Mankind lives under God's Law, to love one another. The "Law and the Prophets" were up to the time of John. Christ came and replaced them with the law of the Kingdom of God. That law is simply to love one another.

Judge NOT, Love all, be at peace

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


There are plenty of passages in the NT where Jesus claims that he is the only way. How do you justify this with your claim that Jesus was non-religious? It's sounds rather "exclusive" than "inclusive" to me ...