Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Question
Sargoth
Member Posts: 558
Why do we need peace if there is no religion?
We do we have to be remembered if there is nothing left after we are dead?
If there is no higher power, why do we instill laws on ourselves to control our lives?
Why do we choose to not be entirely free?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Comments
Why must there be religion for peace? Peace is to live without negative conflict.
Why must there be religion for peace? Peace is to live without negative conflict.
So why then do we not exist in a state of conflict empowering the strong and bettering the race?
I include religion simply because there has always been religion. With religion removed, there is nothing to define right and wrong, so why do we exist in the manner that we do, letting the weak rise to power through their words and not the power of their body?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
I don't see how Peace can be absense of "negative conflict" ever...
We have negative conflict going down the road when someone goes too slow or cuts us off...
Peace to me is Absence of violence or of evil; presence of justice
If you love peace, then hate injustice, tyranny and greed – but in yourself, not in another,” said Mahatma Gandhi, the great peace and human rights activist
More recently I have come to believe that Peace is ONLY achieved when you FULLY destroy that which is the violence or evil, not simply try to get along with it. - who even thought that would work trying to get along with evil? oh wait, evil is an ideological concept created by religion...nm.
Why must there be religion for peace? Peace is to live without negative conflict.
So why then do we not exist in a state of conflict empowering the strong and bettering the race?
I include religion simply because there has always been religion. With religion removed, there is nothing to define right and wrong, so why do we exist in the manner that we do, letting the weak rise to power through their words and not the power of their body?
you have a point...
Without religion of any kind..
Darwin is God... Only the strongest survive. Why so much liberal hate on war then? :P
flaw in logic ever so present huh? LOL
You need peace to prepare for war. War whether between nations, countries or the everyday struggle for survival of the common man is defined by change. Peace is needed so we can recuperate and get ready for our everyday wars big and small. Religion is just one of the tools that you can use to bring peace.
Because that's immortality that a mortal can achieve. A deed or an action that is remembered as long as there are humans to remember it. The only thing that is left when we are dead is the mark we leave upon others, for good or for ill.
There is a higher power, it's called human. Sure it's not "God" but each human is the highest authority for themselves. The laws that you willingly enforce upon yourself, creates discipline and will that will help to fight the daily wars that each of us has to face.
The last question is intersting. To be entirely free you have to believe in nothing and hope for nothing, the moment you achieve that you are indeed entirely free.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I suppose that's the big galactic catch-22....
We'll see what happens in 2012, maybe the world will go ape-shit then. I've heard of people acting weird on a full moon, but we'll see what happens when Sol aligns in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.... Maybe we all explode. Happens every 26,000 years and it's called Galactic Alignment.
On a more on-topic note;
(This is just a couple remarks regarding the past, if you feel that I am trying to defend religion over atheism, then you are wrong and please don't drag it into that.)
Yes, you would think that true atheists and atheism being the belief of the scientific majority and political spectrum wouldn't feel they are not bound by morals. Hitler was a strange beast, he believed he was Catholic and defending himself from the Jews with the backing of the Lord. However, like the neo-cons of today, he had other strange beliefs "that got in the way" and brought into question the validity of his religious claims. For instance, he made people believe that "his race" and his "nation's race" were great Germanic descendents of the lost Atlanteans and that they were the purest bloodline to ever have existed, etc. Pretty interesting, considering this also descended into occultism.
Then there is Stalin, who for all intents and purposes was an atheist. He is also arguably worse than Hitler when it comes to sheer body count. Stalin didn't really have a target audience as much as Hitler did when it came to extermination. He certainly had a broader targeting reticule.
I feel that, when it comes to atheism and believing in true natural phenomena, that one can be just as chaotic as a false-theist. Most people believe in the saving of humanity and their fellow man, doens't matter if you're religious or not. People can easily descend into a chaos thought process. Even if you are not religious, you will feel guilt, regret and remorse for your actions if you ever do anything questionable. Of course, you can just as easily not feel that way, but you would have to be a cold, calculating individual.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Based on what? Why should I feel remorse for the removal of life, if there is no value on life?
What gives value to life?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Based on what? Why should I feel remorse for the removal of life, if there is no value on life?
What gives value to life?
Well, that's subjective. This is why I call it the "big catch-22", because to be a true atheist you would place absolutely no value on life, and would not hesitate to commit heinous acts of murder, etc.
You can have morals while being an atheist, morals that are not bound by cosmic religious law, but it (in my opinion) contradicts what true atheism is. Look at eugenicists if you want to see what it means to be a remorseless, cold and calculating atheist. There are some who believe in "eugenics for the survival of man and all species" or they just believe they do so to save the Earth. Yet, what is the point of having Earth if life on it does not matter.
Based on what? Why should I feel remorse for the removal of life, if there is no value on life?
What gives value to life?
Life has no objective value there isn't any logical reason to kill or not kill someone, but due to natural selection humans are group animals, we are compelled by emotion to not harm people, as not killing each other aids in our survival. Humans would really only kill each other if the person was "defective" missing the ability to empathize or if we were convinced the other person was a threat to ourselves or others, and in the latter we could still feel bad about it.
You feel remorse because you are compelled, life has no meaning but humans give meaning to it.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Based on what? Why should I feel remorse for the removal of life, if there is no value on life?
What gives value to life?
Well, that's subjective. This is why I call it the "big catch-22", because to be a true atheist you would place absolutely no value on life, and would not hesitate to commit heinous acts of murder, etc.
You can have morals while being an atheist, morals that are not bound by cosmic religious law, but it (in my opinion) contradicts what true atheism is. Look at eugenicists if you want to see what it means to be a remorseless, cold and calculating atheist. There are some who believe in "eugenics for the survival of man and all species" or they just believe they do so to save the Earth. Yet, what is the point of having Earth if life on it does not matter.
So how about this? Why do we not kill those who murder, rape, steal, or any that violate these 'rights' that we hold to? I would hazard that people are afraid of our mortality. If we are just afraid of our own mortality that we cannot remove those people that would violate our 'rights' then we are weak as a race. On the other hand I suppose that we also have some sort of thought that there is a chance for redemption, for people to change, if so, then why do we allow repeat offenders? Why is there a life time sentence for people instead of the death penalty? If we do not have to answer to a higher authority then why do we not be the higher authority and execute those who we give the life time sentence to? Like Bernie Madoff, why not just execute them? Is it not that we wish to exact greater revenge and a baser emotion to inflict as much punishment on life time sentence people? At that point, does it not make us worse to lock up people for life instead of executing them?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Based on what? Why should I feel remorse for the removal of life, if there is no value on life?
What gives value to life?
Well, that's subjective. This is why I call it the "big catch-22", because to be a true atheist you would place absolutely no value on life, and would not hesitate to commit heinous acts of murder, etc.
You can have morals while being an atheist, morals that are not bound by cosmic religious law, but it (in my opinion) contradicts what true atheism is. Look at eugenicists if you want to see what it means to be a remorseless, cold and calculating atheist. There are some who believe in "eugenics for the survival of man and all species" or they just believe they do so to save the Earth. Yet, what is the point of having Earth if life on it does not matter.
That is just nonsense, there isn't a true atheism, because there is no it. Atheism is not believing in god/s, nothing else, or ideology to follow.
Meaning is manufactured by our brains true that there is no objective meaning, but even if you recognize this you can't just not find meaning in anything anymore, humans are purpose creating creatures it is how we function, to not find any meaning in anything would require a chemical imbalance. The difference is that you don't view the meaning you create to be objectively true for everyone. There is a big difference between nothing has meaning and I don't see meaning in anything.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
All in my opinion of course.
you think the universe ends when you die? of course there are things left after you die. compost and worm food for one.
because altruism is selfish
what? i am free to follow laws or not, there is consequences I weigh on each outcome. I am free to choose. I am also free to propose arguments as to why a law should be repealed or changed.