Atheism vs. Religion

Quote:

On 2009-01-03 00:20, Pure Perception Records but.. If people are searching to the east for answers, who cares, at least they are searching! the thing that scares me the most is atheism. which has become very prominent in western society, and could come to really hurt us in the future. if you truly seek though you should give your own culture a try. not hearing from someone else but reading it on your own. -Kameleon

Hurt us how?

Here's a quote from Dawkins' The God Delusion. It's long, but READ IT.


"[A] horrifying study by the Israeli psychologist George Tamarin":

Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli school children, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction. . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'. . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword. . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: 'Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?' They had to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 percent gave total approval and 26 percent total disapproval, with rather fewer (8 percent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:

In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.

Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in category C, who gave total disapproval, did so, in some cases, for backhanded religious reasons. One girl, for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because, in order to do so, he had to enter it:

I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.

Two others who totally disapproved did so because Joshua destroyed everything, including animals and property, instead of keeping some as spoil for Israelites:

I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.

I think Joshua did not act well, as he could have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites.

Once again the sage Maimonides, often cited for his scholarly wisdom, is in no doubt where he stands on this issue: 'It is a positive commandment to destroy the seven nations, as it is said: Thou shalt utterly destroy them. If one does not put to death any of them that falls into one's power, one transgresses a negative commandment, as it is said: Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.'

Unlike Maimonides, the children in Tamarin's experiment were young enough to be innocent. Presumably the savage views they expressed were those of their parents or the cultural group in which they were brought up. It is, I suppose, not unlikely that Palestinian children, brought up in the same war-torn country, would offer equivalent opinions in the opposite direction. These considerations fill me with despair. They seem to show the immense power of religion, and especially the religious upbringing of children, to divide people and foster historic enmities and hereditary vendettas. I cannot help remarking that two out Tamarin's three quotations from group A mentioned the evils of assimilation, while the third one stressed the importance of killing people in order to stamp out their religion.

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 percent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgments that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.


Now that's fucking scary!

On 2009-01-05 23:42:21, ohmshantiohm wrote:
Very scary indeed. I myself though could never be an atheist. I dont know how I would live my life not believing that there is a greater power.

On 2009-01-06 10:58, shahar wrote:
"I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays."
-Henny Youngman, comedian, actor (1906-1998)

On 2009-01-06 20:28, ouroboros wrote:
You are the Father and Son of God
Knowledge is divided between phenomenology, science of the changeable and ontology, science of the unchangeable. Ontology is the realm of being and phenomenology that of becoming.
Phenomenology is the mixin and constant flux of the five elements: solid, liquid, gas, space and heat. The five elements are interdependent and are created from one another.

For anything to be solid, it must have been liquid previously.

For anything to be liquid, heat is required. For eons, the sun has caused the earth to revolve in a manner that H20 remains in liquid form in a narrow temperature rrange of zero to a hundred degrees. This is a feat of wondrous exactitude as temperatures in the cosmos range from negative to positive infinity.

In order to have heat, some combustive gas is required.

All this interplay occurs in space, which is the womb or mother element. Matter occupies infinitely less than one-zillionth of cosmic space, where the leela of phenomenology takes place. Science limits itself in scope to this zillionth of cosmic space occupied by matter.

Hence, it has been said thsat science is an incomplete philosophy, but philosophy is a complete science. Ontologists posit that we are pure spirit, trying to learn how to be human. At brith, we are pure; pure consciousness. The difficulty lies not in being pure consciousness, but in being human. Completely alien to our being, we are constantly trying to master manmade functions ranging from table manners to law, family governance to human love.

Ontology is the science of the unchangeable, undivided, pure consciousness. Knowledge of pure consciousness makes us realize that the entire universe is nothing but consciousness. I am That. I am the entire universe, and the functioning of the universe is my responsibility. The brain is incapable of grasping the essence of ontology.

This is because it only categorize, divide and choose, assuming seperateness, that there are two to choose from. The higher the IQ, the more divisive the brain. Since pure consciousness is One, the brain cannot grasp it in a thousand lifetimes.

To know your Being or virginal ontological state is to resolve, 'I am a pure virgin'. A virgin is one who is untouched by man. Hence, no thought emanating from any man can touch you. No political, economic or scientific theism penetrates your pure state. The very concept of a universe is a creation of man; even the Creator is a creation of man. If the universe and God do exist, they are a part of your pure consciousness. Once stabilised in your virgin state, everything that emanates from you is pure. Thus, Christ emanates from the Virgin Mary. This is no mere historical phenomenon; it is happening moment to moment, even as you grasp this, as only your virgin purity can. If only Christ had said, "You are the Son of God", instead of seeing purity only in himself...

What the world calls knowledge, ontologists define as ignorance. Armed with this ignorance, they can be billionaires, presidents or physicists. Even as they watch, their wealth will be surpassed, nations subjugated, scientific ideas bombed. They are at the feet of the masters of ontology, the masters of truth. Newton defined truth as 'that which is invariant in all frames of reference'. All frames of reference lean on the inventive constructs of time and space.

Ontologists would simply say that they are changeable and hence are untruths - even by Newton's definition. Know the truth, and truth will set you free.

bOoM