"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke

submitted by muellermeierschulz from self.quotes

all 39 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jet199 14 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 5 fun -  (33 children)

You know this guy was a paedo, right?

No wonder he wanted everyone to question their morality.

[–]JasonCarswell 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (24 children)

True.

Doesn't mean he's wrong.

[–]jet199 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Doesn't mean he's wrong but he's hardly insightful or original either. That's what groomers often do. They spout Hallmark level banalities which seem deep if you know no other philosophy but are actually derivative and often complete nonsense when applied to the complexities of the real world. Osho is a good example of these types. This kind of thing should be a big red flag.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

" That's what groomers often do. They spout Hallmark level banalities which seem deep... "

That's what all public figures do. Science-fiction authors, celebrities, politicians, etc.

It's not worthy of a big red flag. However, one should always carry a little orange caution flag to plant anywhere and everywhere. Skepticism in all things is healthy.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Just going to note: public figures are disproportionately pedophiles.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I would not argue with that.

I wrote the first encyclopedic article and lists on the pedophocracy:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Pedophocracy
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_acknowledged_pedophilia_elites
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_alleged_pedophilia_elites

While very incomplete, I find the topic beyond repulsive so I haven't properly updated them in a looooong time with all the shit I've since collected to add.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Nope, most just say obviously stupid shit.

This kind of patter takes effort and practice to get right.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I agree to disagree as I see no such nuances here. Religion is bullshit.

[–]PeddaKondappa 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

He is wrong. The concept of "objective morality" is incoherent without religion, and Abrahamic monotheism in particular. No wonder, the overwhelming majority of atheists are moral nihilists, and the few atheists who argue for moral objectivism (like Sam Harris) are morons who cannot answer basic questions of metaethics and moral epistemology.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

The concept of "objective morality" is incoherent without religion, and Abrahamic monotheism in particular.

So you think all non-religious people are inherently evil? You hate your fellow man because they don't believe in the same stories you do? Sounds like your sense of morality was hijacked by religion

[–]PeddaKondappa 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

So you think all non-religious people are inherently evil?

No, but I think all non-religious people are incapable of articulating why their moral beliefs are objectively true, and other moral beliefs are objectively false. As a result, I believe that non-religious people will more easily fall for propaganda pushed by elites due to a lack of grounding in objective moral truths, resulting in rapid shifts in the moral landscape of society. For example, just a few decades ago the very concept of "gay marriage" was viewed as totally aberrant by average people, and the only people who supported this were some deviants who also supported abolishing all age of consent laws (like the sodomite French "intellectual" Michel Foucault). But now, within my own lifetime, virtually all normies in the West have come to accept gay marriage as not only acceptable, but a "human right" that must be upheld my violent force if necessary. Regardless of what you think about such a massive shift in morality, do you think a highly religious society would have shifted their morals so easily?

This not mean, however, that all religious people are "good people" or that all non-religious people are "bad people." Rather, my point is that religious people can argue for the objectivity of their moral beliefs, and thus not be swept up by the zeitgeist. That's why the only people in the West who still have a strong moral code that is resistant to elite propaganda are ultra-traditional religious communities, like the Amish and Mennonites. Their morality is objective and unchanging, not subjective or relativistic, and does not change according to the whims and fancies of the time. And the ultimate basis of their steadfast morality is the creed of Monotheism, of a singular, eternal, divine Creator whose Word is coterminous with Natural Law. (Note that I am not even a Christian, so do not interpret my statements as some kind of Christian propaganda)

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

No, but I think all non-religious people are incapable are articulating why their moral beliefs are objectively true, and other moral beliefs are objectively false.

Well that's rather a priori if you're a christian because you believe god has to be at the center of everything, so anyone who doesn't say the same seems lost to you. That's a kind of circular reasoning.

Religious societies are very easy to hijack in to a war stance. Especially when their religion has primed them to be a victim or a martyr, and primed them with the idea they need to "fight back". You simply tell two different religions this same thing, and then you have endless wars to fund the banks and military-industrial complexes.

The problem isn't religiousness or lack of religiousness, the problem is people let their minds get hijacked by others. Then they're easy to control by those who want to control others. This can happen in a religious or a non-religious context.

[–]PeddaKondappa 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I am not a Christian. I have clearly specified that in my post.

I agree that people can easily have their minds "hijacked" by religions or other ideologies. That's because the majority of people in any society (especially the women) are normies who will blindly follow the reigning orthodoxy for social acceptance and validation, whether that be some religion or some other ideology like Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, etc. The difference is that religion, particularly Abrahamic religion, implies as a necessary consequence the existence of an objective moral law that is above and beyond any secular rules or authorities. Thus, highly religious Christians and Muslims would never accept the legitimacy of any modernist regime, while most atheists would happily accede to the New World Order.

By the way, the dominant ideology used to justify wars in the modern world is not religion, but liberalism. Most wars in the modern era are justified based on "human rights" and "defending democracy," not "We are true believers and our enemies believe in a false God." The Western wars in the Middle East are essentially liberal crusades, couched in liberal language. Their purported goal is to "liberate oppressed people from dictatorial regimes." I have seen constant agitation by liberal scum for sanctions and even military action against Iran, on the grounds that "the evil Iranian regime oppresses women and gays." And this language is highly effective on most liberal Westerners, who, even if they otherwise oppose war for humanitarian or other reasons, nonetheless support regime change in Iran and other such places. So if you are truly so concerned about the propaganda employed by the ruling elite to justify war and sanctions, then you should renounce the liberal language of "human rights" and the Enlightenment concepts that they are ultimately based on.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

" while most atheists would happily accede to the New World Order. "

Pulled out of your ass with nothing to back it up.

While I'm first to admit that doubting an invisible impotent God is the lowest hanging fruit on for skeptics to pick and many don't doubt beyond this, at least they're doubting and not sheeple herded by our Lord and Shepherd. Any skeptic worth their senses and reason will also be wary of authority in all other forms - including the corporatocracy and their New Normal World Order.

All wars are started by false flags (deceptive lies) by Machiavellian (liar) war mongers. That doesn't mean that human rights and democracy are bad things. It means the masses are not skeptical enough to see through the hypocritical manipulation and are having their good natures taken advantage of by evil "leaders". Liberals come in all flavours, from scum to saints, like all of humanity. The liberalism is only for the ruling class' corporatocracy who simply want to be free to take what they want.

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

By the way, the dominant ideology used to justify wars in the modern world is not religion

Then why is US foreign policy largely determined by Zionists trying to fulfill biblical prophecy?

Also my point still stands, regardless of if you're Christian or Muslim or Jewish.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism was simply the Darby, Scofield dispensationalism that Zionist Jews placed into the bible. They give around 6% of all funds to Israel, the rest is Jewish organizations at 94%. Jewish Zionism is the problem and Christian Zionism (unbiblical/antichrist) through Jewish Zionist manupulation of the bible is simply a symptom of subversion and infiltration.

Zionists are not trying to fufill prophecy, they are tricking Christians in order to establish "Greater Israel," it is just a means to an end for the Israeli government and the zionists that support them.

You're right, the problem is Christians let their minds get hijacked by Zionists.

Yeshua said to turn the other cheek. All early Christians before the Church were anti-War. They voted for no man to rule over them, for their kingdom was not of this world. The religious Jews and zionists, Jew and non-Jew believe their kingdom is of this world.

We build a kingdom, now unto Christ through Him and rightful living but the kingdom is spirit, not physical.

It makes plenty sense why many Jews want all of this. The Hasidic Zionist Chabadniks who back Putin, Netanyahu and Trump, want a world tuled by Jews.

It is written in the Talmud. In order to do this, one must become a Noahide.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]PeddaKondappa 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Not an argument. The notion of an "invisible sky god" like Zeus or Indra is purely pagan as a concept, and has nothing to do with the refined Monotheism developed by great philosophers like Plato, Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas (whose IQs are probably three standard deviations above yours). If you understand logic and the principle of causality, then the necessary existence of a Supreme God becomes self-evident, and this God cannot be described as a "man in the sky" or any other nonsensical pagan or atheist description.

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Your argument is not valid either. Resorting to insults doesn't win points. You have yet to relay logic to morality via Monotheism.

    God is not self evident - at all. God is a figment of your imagination and a social virus.

    The Epicurean paradox still holds up...

    Either God cares but is impotent to help us all or God is all powerful but doesn't give a shit.

    Life and fortune is random. God is supremely absent.

    [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Not long ago, after WWII, all men wore short hair. Anything else was considered abnormal and freakish. Meanwhile, all throughout history you'll find endless portraits with men with long hair, depending on the period. Just as fashions come and go, so do the concepts of what is considered "deviant" or appropriate. These days it's inappropriate for teens to be getting married (or other things) in a much more complex world full of random citizen "strangers" and potential for abuses.

    If your marriage is threatened by other people's marriages then you've got bigger problems than they do.

    War is criminal yet accepted. Gays are not "normal" (ie. average) but adoring love and consenting lust are hardly criminal. People who wear glasses are imperfect too, yet they are not demonized. Everyone is "different" in numerous ways. It depends what the tolerances are of the times. Presently the Trans Agenda further erodes the family unit and communities with their weaponized social engineering shit. Consider who controls the banking, the media, and the government - Zionists. They lies and lies all the problems.

    [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    Fuck God(s), religion, scientism, blind faith, dogmas, masters, servants, all that shit.

    I'm an athiest. Sam Harris is a pompous idiot. He does not represent all atheists, though I bet he wishes he did.

    I am still ethical and moral.

    Natural Law = Do not harm others (including theft and deception).

    Fundamental, simple, elegant.

    [–]PeddaKondappa 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm an athiest. Sam Harris is a pompous idiot. He does not represent all atheists, though I bet he wishes he did.

    Sam Harris is at least smart enough to understand the importance of objectivity in moral theory, which is why he argues for an objective morality separate from religion (though he fails miserably at this).

    Natural Law = Do not harm others

    Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For one thing, there have been numerous men throughout history who don't give a damn about your moral formula, and I think you would be hard-pressed to explain to someone like Genghis Khan or Tamerlane why they should relinquish all of their power and privilege (which is based on domination over others) and live like an ordinary person. Second, it is not exactly straightforward what constitutes "harm" and what doesn't. For example, does usury count as "theft", and therefore as "harm"? What about adultery or fornication, even if entirely consensual? If a wife cheats on her husband or a husband cheats on his wife, is the other spouse being "harmed"? Are their children being "harmed" by their actions?

    I would argue, based on religious laws which I hold to be reflective of objective moral truth, that usury and adultery are both harmful to society as a whole and are emphatically immoral, and that people who are guilty of usury and adultery should be punished severely. But most atheists don't seem to have much of a problem with these things, considering how rampant usury and adultery are in modern Western society.

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree. Nothing is simple. Except that foundational fundamental of Natural Law that applies to all species. Deviants from it will not continue to thrive and evolve.

    Good point about the king of the hill not relinquishing their power. Religious morality from an invisible ineffective God sure won't convince them to change their behavior - unless you've first instilled in them a strong dogmatic social virus to make them superstitious. Doesn't mean they're correct - it just means they're limited.

    Yes, nothing is simple regarding "harm". Currently our corrupt matrix of oppressive systems kills by a thousand paper cuts. Endless laws, rules, and red tape. How can one person defend themselves and their family against the establishment injustices? Soooo much grey area. Religion will not simplify this conundrum. Centralizing humanity in cities is a recent situation afforded us through technology. This proximity to a vast anonymous citizenry without a sense of community is certainly a problem that religion, philosophy, and morality have yet to properly deal with - including problems with the family unit, ephemeral relationships, jealousy, and stable upbringings. It's not cheating if you have permission in the open. Tried and true religious-based traditions can certainly help, but we need more. Myths won't help.

    Usury is usually done with leverage under pressure. It's exploitative and harmful.

    [–]DisgustResponse 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Fat people wearing T-shirts in public is harmful to society.

    [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

    Fat people not wearing shirts in public is even more harmful to society.

    [–]Countach_3D 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    We get it, everyone's a "pædo," one under every bed

    [–]Leo_Littlebook 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    No he was really a pre-pubescent boy raping scumbag who moved to SEA to pursue his perversion.

    [–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    This is so maddening.

    Men say no one takes the abuse of men seriously.

    A woman points out a guy was a paedo who ruined many mens lives by anally raping them when they were kids and you can see his worldview in his writings, it's not separate.

    Men say, oh but he wrote a book which inspired a film I like so he's all good.

    Then in the next breath they'll be raging about elite paedo rings and how evil all the people who do nothing are.

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    " you can see his worldview in his writings, it's not separate. "

    Proof?

    No one said his sins were justified by his talents. Don't add shit to the pile.

    Separate the works from the man's sins and provide proof if they are connected.

    Bryan Singer is a pedo too. It doesn't mean the X-Men movies he directed were loaded with pedo shit. They are great movies. He's still scum. And yes, there is that Nazi-pedo movie he did that does connect these ideas.

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    He moved to Sri Lanka and dived there, possibly into boys.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke

    [–]muellermeierschulz[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    That is not clear: a, b.

    Clear is that he laid the foundation for the greatest science fiction movie of all times.

    [–]jet199 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Let me guess it was about having a hidden identity the person couldn't even face himself.

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Be a contrarian if you like, but Clark was an undeniably brilliant hard-sci-fi author.

    [–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Morality is Christ. And Following Christ is a religion in disipline.

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

    Naw.

    Natural Law = Do not harm others (including theft and deception).

    Fundamental, simple, elegant.

    Christ's teachings, among others, are good, but often excessive, redundant, and unnecessary.

    [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    There is an element of "do thou what you wilt" is the rule of the world—satanism—that is built in to this fallen world. Not harming others also implies doing what is only best for yourself and not thinking about those around you.

    Christ teachings are excessive, yes, for someone who is not disciplined, but Christ also preached the rule of love unto strangers and even your enemies, that you help the poor and vulnerable.

    That is completely lacking in a greed filled world or a "do thou what you wilt" world, as long as you do not harm others.

    Have you read the entire New Testament?

    [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    " Not harming others also implies doing what is only best for yourself and not thinking about those around you. "

    No.

    That's how you choose to read it. It does not "imply" anything. You are implying it.

    If you harm one's community that affects everyone in that community negatively. Do not harm your community is a part of "Do not harm". There's no shortage of ways to harm one's community, but here are a few: usury, bad influence on youth, jealousy/envy, adultery, hoarding, etc.

    However, I would take the Satanist "Do as thou wilt" (ie. "Don't tell me what to do") as a personal third after "Do no harm" and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" which get hierarchical veto power. But that's me. Fundamentally the other two are redundant after "Do no harm".

    Fuck the "love thy neighbour" shit. "Accept thy neighbour" is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more practical and realistic. Save love for those who earn and deserve it. Don't waste love, but don't scrimp either. Be open but not vulnerable. Balance.

    I have a Bible with my name in gold on the front, from my Mom. I have zero interest in reading it or I would have.

    [–]Callmesavior 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Religion my ass. I cant believe tgere is still peopke believing this jesus thing. Must be really miserable,huh?

    [–]Sonofzeus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Early life