The atheists monopoly of true morality....

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Actually, absent God, is not the human being just a "thing" and a very small and insignificant thing at that (and then you die)?

Yes.

The idea that we are not also spiritual beings seems to me absurd and not the least bit congruent with our own human experience.

"Spirituality" means different things to different people. You can be an atheist and still be spiritual, in its broadest sense.

Furthermore, the notion that we are not in relationship with and to the Source as the Absolute Godhead and Creator is also absurd.

That's what you choose to believe and that's great - everyone has a right to what they believe, and I respect that, as long as they put some actual thought into it. Life is rough - whatever works for you to get through it is good by me (well, within reason, I suppose)...

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


I believe that mankinds's egocentricity allows themself the feel-good benefit of categorizing morality as a learned trait, and they can crowd our view with as much hyper-bole about sociology as he or she wants. That includes being over-specific aout the vectors that "defined our medium". It can in fact be conveniently shuffled into a "well-known" vat of reason that, when dunked, will result in the same slimy, crispy-chunky coating that we all like to debate about. But to over-obsess on what we know without understanding the least rules that govern from the spiritual side, and spiritual law that governs all ... my gosh, I think I'd rather attribute who I am to that which I do not know all that much about, and therefore, am ignoant of for the time being. Now, many years later, all I can say is that sort of thinking really payed off.

Read, say Spiritual Laws by Emerson and you'll know what I'm talking about. Any of his essays, really.

So far today through reading a couple atheists threads today, I've learned that atheists are smarter than religious people AND more moral.



I've known smart and ignorant atheists, smart and ignorant religious people. I've known moral and corrupt of both persuasions as well. I think using your belief system or lack thereof to elevate you over others with different world views is silly, but that's just me.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Actually, absent God, is not the human being just a "thing" and a very small and insignificant thing at that (and then you die)?

We are what we are regardless of belief, but if we are things, so be it, we are things, but why would we be not human beings absent a god? You assume there is a god, I assume there may not be one. That would make us 'human being things' would it not?

The idea that we are not also spiritual beings seems to me absurd and not the least bit congruent with our own human experience.

For some, belief in a god is absurd.

Furthermore, the notion that we are not in relationship with and to the Source as the Absolute Godhead and Creator is also absurd.

Why is that?

Asking an atheist to prove that there is no god is an argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is with the believer. The inability to disprove does not prove.

reply to post by earthalien50


I think it has a lot more to believers knowing what they know, and leaving the rest of you to it, these days.

Know what athiests?

My religion is too good for you. You don't deseve it. Who invited you, do you think anyone wants to convince you what to believe when you are that unspeakably casually rude all the time? Your fruit already shows, thank you : we now know who you are and what you are abou. See how that one _actually_ works? Not your theory on your behaviour, how it actually plays out.

I think I like that Christian take a lot more these days. Please correct me if you see fit.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by mr10k

 

From where I sit, you, and other atheists make quite the assumptions.

No. I'm laughing at the absurdity of that statement. It's the equivalent of saying "Prove that God doesn't exist." Do you seriously expect someone to go out and get evidence that SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST? I can't even wrap my head around how irrational and illogical that sounds.

reply to post by mr10k

I was referring to "need a crutch to be moral". Reminds me of "need a crutch because they're afraid of death". These are things I once considered, as a teenager, and then I grew up, opened my mind and made an honest inquiry.

pol pot and stalin where both atheists.

the horrors that both these men committed are beyond anything witnessed in human history.

point is free will.

you can choose, out of your own free will to be right with God, or as atheists do, ignore that little hiccup to their plans, and believe they are capable of determining what is wrong or right.

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Actually, absent God, is not the human being just a "thing" and a very small and insignificant thing at that (and then you die)?

Yes.

To each their own, but from what I can tell, as a human being, I'm not a "thing" but am a spiritual being made to reflect an aspect of the creator and am intrinsic to an eternal cosmic evolutionary process, not an "it" or a "thing". Who can, from the perspective of the qualia of their own self conscious awareness, refer to themselves as a "thing"?

I am amazed at what we are prepared to reduce ourselves to in an effort to eliminate a creator God from the equation. Heck, if it was shown that our very existence demonstrates the existence of a creator God, atheists would be prepared to argue in the other direction even if it meant arguing for their own non-existence ie: flee into an atheist foxhole.

reply to post by randomname

pol pot and stalin where both atheists.
the horrors that both these men committed are beyond anything witnessed in human history.

*sigh*

Hitler was a vegetarian, thus all vegetarians are possible genociders?

Pol/Stalin killed not because they were atheist but political interest. Research from unbiased sources before jumping on the retarded bandwagon..

Originally posted by randomname
pol pot and stalin where both atheists.

the horrors that both these men committed are beyond anything witnessed in human history.

point is free will.

you can choose, out of your own free will to be right with God, or as atheists do, ignore that little hiccup to their plans, and believe they are capable of determining what is wrong or right.

Yes, Pol Pot and Stalin were two of the most horrible humans that ever were born.

That being said, Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest who made religion illegal so he could gain control.

Neither proclaimed that everyone had to be atheist.

I am totally floored by your remark that atheists believe that they are capable of determining what is right or wrong. Of course they do! It is called freedom of choice. Is it evil to place logic above faith?

Originally posted by mr10k

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by mr10k

 

From where I sit, you, and other atheists make quite the assumptions.

No. I'm laughing at the absurdity of that statement. It's the equivalent of saying "Prove that God doesn't exist." Do you seriously expect someone to go out and get evidence that SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST? I can't even wrap my head around how irrational and illogical that sounds.

That's a two-prong statement, maybe He does but you don't, can't, or won't acknowledge the signs? If someone has what we like to term a "seared concience" about morality issues, then they are prone to build up layers of derision against any idea that presents itself as conncted to God ... it's uncool to be polite or moral these days, remember, so any appeal to popularity (also a logical fallacy) is a guaranteed plug for your side against God.
How pointless to prove unless you interview with a properly representative poll.

The second prong is to prove God. Why are you pretending that great and incredible proof through testimonies, essays, books, lives served in devotion, and all manner of web pages, ATS threads, blogs and news articles aren't already in existance which more than adequately do so. You know it's only a matter of someone presenting them. Once you can separate the concept of one's personal religion from the obviously exploited religious authorities and establishment, you can put people in perspective as who they really are, not some propeganda-monster that agitators lve to construct. That new pope creeps me out!

I think it would be kind time to recall that a great many scholars exist among Christianity, which we are prone to travel across over the years in our ongoing studies, who we will not bar our minds from reading because we are not filled with the blinders of those. Christian material is wide and varied, but I think most of us will agree, that the general consensus says we will neither go beyond certain moral doors to open avenues such as "The Necromicon", or Aleister Crowley, or other degenerates from Zeitgeist operations or other anti-humanity organizations. Exceps as agents strong enough to encounter them, see them on their own terms, and to make assessment of their hideous (usually self-pronounced) natures. Our heavenly allies make this possible! They firmly oppose the fricture at the very spirit for which we stand for, and want to keep harmonious and alive, in our own safe environments. This isn't a weakness in human nature, to exhibit a peaceful nature, it is an extreme strength. We live with a very living shield around us when we will not allo our minds to embrace what our senses insist are bourne of uncceptable evil ...

reply to post by Northwarden

Your assumption about spirtual laws is as bad as the atheist assumption that they are born moral. Both are assumptions. The only proof we have of anything is empiracal. We have SEEN what humans become if they are raised without benefit of moral training. Those spiritual laws do not seem to be implanted in them the same as being born morally good does not seem to occur. Sorry, to me both sides lose to the only empirical evidence available.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


I didn't say moralborn was my stance, I think children could be born into genious, if the parents were genious by age 4 or 5, as Swedenborg claims, with the proper and ethical minds at work. That works both ways, so people grow up late and hopefully stay out of trouble.

Originally posted by randomname
pol pot and stalin where both atheists.

the horrors that both these men committed are beyond anything witnessed in human history.

point is free will.

you can choose, out of your own free will to be right with God, or as atheists do, ignore that little hiccup to their plans, and believe they are capable of determining what is wrong or right.

Really?

Jos 11:11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.

Jos 11:12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, [and] he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.

Jos 11:15 As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.

Jos 11:16 So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same;

Jos 11:17 Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.

Jos 11:18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.

You mean except all the murder and carnage in the Old Testament, right?

Revised : If you want to be a part of Christianity, you're welcome to try and become one, but if you don't want to join, you're not allowed to join.

I understand your problem with religion as I have a few of my own, but one thing that's always puzzled me is where morality comes from. What are your thoughts on that?

reply to post by Bone75

Trial and error. Things that tended to be good for the group allowed to flourish. A hunter that shared his kill with the group ended up with a much stronger group backing him. A group that allowed internal fighting such as over a woman would tend to become a weaker group and die out. Over time we learned and grew and our children learned by watching. How did Kipling put it about the wolf? The pack is the priority of the wolf for without the pack the wolf would die. He wrote it better. Then we codified it so people did not get punished for not being aware. Laws were started as we found out new things that were better for the group as a whole such as allowing those that did the hunting the choicest of the meats and as much as they needed to maintain their strength for the good of the tribe.

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


OP, as a Theist I won't piss on your need to be almost as cool as us, but you I encourage to be so awesome, without the hang-ups of Religion.

DAMN YOU FOR YOU DOING WHAT THE LORD HAD INTENDED WITHOUT OUR INFLUENCE, AND MERELY SEE THIS AS THE PINNACLE OF A COURAGEOUSLY EMPATHIC SOICETY!!!. lol

Caring for people, and showing compassion, were sown into the seeds or Morality before Scripture. Don't feel burdened unnecessarily with The Fundamentalists. They are cracked in the skull. Jesus Wanted a land with Goodly Atheists they at least have a Soul. hehehe Think on that.. I admire your post, and return with a "Religions are like assholes" Everyone has one. True Awesome, comes down to the individual, Atheist, Theist, or Pagan.

God Speaks to Me, and he says I have more in Common with Pagans and Atheists. Despite My "Belief" of a Creator. Old Churches & Religions need to perish, Humanity needs to thrive, as God had placed them on the planet, to explore themselves and their world, without repercussion. Thank God we are here, where every punk-anyone, gets a shot at being stupid and philosophical like me, and still be GOODLY.