70 replies to this topic

[googleme]

zac, those arguments, while they may sound legit, are very elementary and common.

we are very ethnocentric in our thinking; what makes this worse is the monotheist tradition that blinds us from the rest of the world...all that diversity in philosophy, all of it is quelched, through all sorts of forces, by the monotheist philosophy.

the most ancient cultures, those of the chinese and hindus, show absolutely no trace of monotheism. yet the monotheist prophets claim 120,000 prophets were sent down to earth by God to spread this message. history and anthropological studies show this is a big fat lie; the japanese are buddhists, shintoists, the native americans believe in spirit gods, the chinese believe in ancestral morphological gods, the native africans each have their own diverse philosophy unfounded from monotheism.

the big difference between monotheism and the rest of our diverse world is it's proselytizing nature. through proselytizing (missionaries in every corner of the world) and warfare has propelled this tradition through our generations. whereas hindus never put up dawah booths to seek converts.

anyways, morality is a very relative term. we only have a few universal constants such as marriage and burial ceremonies. other than that, almost everything else is fair game.

[zaccariah2005]

ok, I don't think I spoke as clearly as I should have. So, I am going to give it another shot. I, for one, believe that morality is not exclusive to religious people. I believe that a moral sense is natural and that everybody has it. Naturally, we all feel that it is wrong to do bad things to other people. I understand that point. But, when somebody is religious, then, he tries harder in refrainng from doing these things. Your conscience annoys you more when you are religious. Anybody who was religious at some point in their lives would agree with me.

But, Mr. Harkavy still makes a point when he says that this not reflect your moral sense as you are doing it because you fear god. Even if that is true, so what? It does not mean that the religious person does not have a moral sense. That moral sense is natural. So, if Mr.Harkavy is right, then you have four different types of people; theists with a moral sense, theists without a moral sense, atheists with a moral sense and atheists without a moral sense. Religion does not have a bad affect on this. If anything, religion, generally, serves as positive reinforcement. And when I say "without a moral sense", I mean people who lose their moral sense because of things like greed, pride and envy.

And I have atheist friends. A lot of them are not "evil." My religion teaches me that everybody is born pure. It is society that changes people. I believe that my religion can serve as a safeguard for me against the things that can change me for the worst.

[Iram =)]

googleme, on Feb 21 2007, 08:31 PM, said:

the most ancient cultures, those of the chinese and hindus, show absolutely no trace of monotheism. yet the monotheist prophets claim 120,000 prophets were sent down to earth by God to spread this message. history and anthropological studies show this is a big fat lie; the japanese are buddhists, shintoists, the native americans believe in spirit gods, the chinese believe in ancestral morphological gods, the native africans each have their own diverse philosophy unfounded from monotheism.

the big difference between monotheism and the rest of our diverse world is it's proselytizing nature. through proselytizing (missionaries in every corner of the world) and warfare has propelled this tradition through our generations. whereas hindus never put up dawah booths to seek converts.

Actually, traces of monotheism CAN be seen in Hinduism, and possibly other religions that are seen to be polythistic. Hindus believe in the Creator and the Absolute God called "Brahman." This god has no gender, or physical features, and the other gods that Hindus believe in are, therefore, merely manifestations of this ONE god, Brahman. Is it possible that the person who originally began this religion was a Prophet? Anything is possible.

[beckettwatt]

Iram =), on Feb 23 2007, 11:37 PM, said:

Actually, traces of monotheism CAN be seen in Hinduism, and possibly other religions that are seen to be polythistic. Hindus believe in the Creator and the Absolute God called "Brahman." This god has no gender, or physical features, and the other gods that Hindus believe in are, therefore, merely manifestations of this ONE god, Brahman. Is it possible that the person who originally began this religion was a Prophet? Anything is possible.

Nearly all of the world's faiths share eerily similar parallels, as was first demonstrated by Bulfinch's mythological collections (implicitly, of course, and on a limited scale) and more obviously James Frasier in The Golden Bough (which this discussion has compelled me to reread, actually; yes, parts have been invalidated a la early editions of Gray's Anatomy, but it's still a vital "bedside reference" a la The Joy of Cooking or Wikipedia). Ergo modern anthropology.

Barring extraterrestrial visitation (including both the humanoid, coporeal "Annuakai" of Zecharia Sitchin infamy AND mystical beings like Yahweh or Aphrodite, whatever floats your boat), it can be safely assumed that the early humans came into contact with prodigious amounts of naturally occuring psychoactive chemicals in a myriad of mediums, most obviously fungi. This had a profound impact on human development, possibly even allowing us to articulate words and complex syntax for the first time. Once man became cognizant of the nature of these experiences, he wrote of them (holy literature) and developed rituals surrounding their veneration. It would be counter-productive to "get high" (in the modern parlance) on a regular basis; additionally, the phisyological and psychological potency of psychedelics declines inversely with the amount consumed -- before long, they were not interacting with deities but merely "hearing colors".

From here, the tribes took wildly divergent paths, depending upon the profundity of their experiences. Through yoga, meditation, and conservative use of marijuana, it is believed that a number of Hindu yogis are capable of secreting the psychedelic chemical DMT while in entranced states. Most of these holy men live[d] on remote ashrams and were isolated from governmental influence or control. Yage tea, pscilocybin mushrooms, and mescaline/peyote continued to play a centralized role in the lives of Native Americans in both continents until the industrial age, albeit with the assistance of a professional "priest" or "trip sitter" (depending upon your viewpoint) known as a shaman. It is not coincidental, in my opinion, that the earliest civilizations (Sumer, Egypt, Rome, China) all suceeded in fermenting and inbibed alcohol while concurrently managing to publicize religion as a semi-autonomous part of government: through alcohol, individuals could experience some of the less desirable (or more desirable, once again depending upon your viewpoint) physiological effects of the psychedelic experience; the hollow glean of institutionalized religion satisfied the mystical component in the same superficial manner. (The mysteries of Elysium in Ancient Greece are a notable exception, but their influence did not linger under Roman control).

Most importantly, government could now impose an unenforcable moral law through that component. For example, there is nothing intrinsically abnormal about homosexual behavior -- in fact, a number of species are bisexual, while others contain large exclusively homosexual elements, as modern biology has established -- and a revolt would ensue if the army was sent into the bedroom (especially considering that a number of soldiers probably enjoyed the practice!). Its condemnation -- not to mention the branding of socioeconomically successful women as harlots and whores -- as a moral sin through the amendment of the aforementioned holy texts was a sad watershed for humanity. The "primordial Gaia" figure was slowly supplanted by such endearingly lovely cocksmen as Zeus (today residing in Beverly Hills as Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband, heh heh), Yahweh ("wrathful and vengeful", extreme voyeuristic tendencies, dropped fire and brimstone on Sodom -- watch out, Frisco! -- also had a penchant for dismembering the breasts of harlots if memory serves... he would have been a natural for Hershall Gordon Lewis!), and Zoroaster (Yahweh's kinder, gentler cousin; nonetheless, he will manifest as a sort of demented Pulp Fiction Samuel Jackson crossed with Blue Velvet Dennis Hopper figure during the apocalypse. And you wonder why Nietezche dug him -- nilhism was his middle name, baby!).

Periodically a voice of reason would emerge -- the pre-Constantine Christians, Rabelais' (and later Crowley's) assertion that "doing what thou wilt is the whole of the law", the emergence of secular humanism, Carl Sagan, etc. -- but we've mostly remained entrenched. And yes, "do what thou wilt" is equally as faulty in its breadth and influence -- taken literally, it condones rape, murder, and physical assault -- but if interpreted by a sensible mind in a sensible fashion, a fundamental order shines through. (It also entails tolerating the beliefs of others, and while I've probably offended a lot of people here, I'm not trying to prostletyze, although some of this is inadvertedly preachy. In any event, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to believe that Ed Wood created the universe, than so be it).

Any thoughts?

[Hypergrl41]

Fearing God actually makes you even more righteous because you believe a little lie is going to get you punished someway somehow so you try not to say it. I've lied because I'm an imperfect human and I'm expected to sin. I feel really bad afterwards but it's not only because of my fear of God but because of the harm I did to the person I lied to and to God. That's why I think nonbelievers can be righteous too . Yet, I think that nonbelievers are influenced by religious teachings because the society we live in is one consisting of various religions. Your conscience is full of all the morals your society has taught you and if you live in a society influenced by religion like ours, your conscience is also influenced by those religious teachings. The other part of your mind is made up of your personal feelings and desires. Therefore, when you make a choice , you either listen to your conscience or that other part of your mind. For that reason nonbelievers can be righteous too. This is just me trying to use Freud's theory to explain morality. I would have to fully understand the theory to explain this better, though . Anyway, the point is that you don't necessarily have to fear God to prevent yourself from doing something wrong . Also, you can have your religious morals and then other perspectives of what's wrong and right. For example, you can be Christian and at the same time tolerate other individuals such as homosexuals and atheists for the way they are or accept ideas such as Freud's theory! The reason why missionaries try to convert others should be because Jesus wanted us to spread his teachings and the word of God. Now the fact that many Christians have taken this obligation too far and used it to justify other goals, not mandated by God, is another story.

[bestusernameever]

money is the root of all evil

[esong27]

This thread is dragging on and on. It will be closed eventually. Just a warning to let you all know.

[djharkavy]

bestusernameever, on Feb 24 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

money is the root of all evil

LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.

[esong27]

Asparagus is the root of all evil.

But seriously, this is all subjective...

[NickC]

djharkavy, on Feb 24 2007, 08:01 PM, said:

LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.

I agree, everything revolves around one word: MONEY.

[z2z007]

Obviously, you failed to listen to esong's warning.

-Thread Locked-