I think I should clarify what I mean by understand. A person may understand that it would be advantageous to lose ten pounds so decides to diet. He then understands that he loves chocolate chip cookies and eats a box of them. So in reality he understands both.
It is the same with our intentions. What do we really understand if we live in opposition to ourselves in the way Paul described as the “wretched man?”
JT
Do you really believe I thought you may be amystic?
Quite true. We don’t “do” anything. Lacking consciousness, everything happens as it does with the rest of organic life. We don’t have a central “I” that can “am”. We are, as Buddhism suggests, a plurality. So since we are what we do and don’t really do anything, as we are, we are nothing. Welcome to the human condition.
Not to sound melodramatic but how about we just well ban religion, people dont come across religion by themselves and certinly its rare people create new faiths, if we just educated everyone to be moral athiests there becomes little conflict.
Now we’re getting someplace. We need a new religion based upon moral Atheism and many experts leading the way in educating the public. It should follow the Eightfold Path of Buddhism with, of course, the appropriate modifications naturally resulting from the benefits of contemporary thought replacing outdated misconceptions normal for ancient ignorance.
Fortunately, being gifted with a plethora of “experts” willing to take on the thankless task of educating, The public can become enlightened as to what it means to be really “right” as determined by “committees” organized for the purpose of making these modern truths comprehensible for the public so it can finally be able to grasp what it really means to be “right” and to cooperate on that basis.
Just think: in the future it will be unnecessary to ask a friend “how do you feel?” It will become natural to instead ask “how are you acting today?” where the friend will answer proudly in one form or another: “I am acting right”. It really is so simple; why must we make the realization of the common good so difficult?
How wonderful! Now all we have to do is consider the best way to dispose of the idiots that through their ignorance only serve to delay progress towards the common good. I’m hopeful that we will be able to locate an “expert” in these matters as well to provide sound advice and options regarding this delicate matter.
Of course it’s absurd. This is why some expert will pick up on the idea, write a book, appear on Oprah, and make thousands from those professing unconditional love.
on top of that, even those practicing civic virtue do not hit the heights of morality…and therefore of mature spirituality, and therefore of happiness. what will your teacher of atheism say is the purpose in being ethical?
my real name
“You may say to yourself: am i right, am i wrong…” – Talking Heads
I’m not used to such sweeping statements from you, would you like to give us an idea on how you mean that?
Ethics are an expression of culture, of a common knowledge or standard, and therefore ethics do have a cultural background. But I find that many humanists have an ethical standard that is acceptable - especially in the light of my position, that there are many reasons for not being a Christian.
Of course, reactive Atheism is often dislocated and hasn’t found an ethical grounding, such as during the rise of Communism when only materialistic values held ground and Communism was more comparable to a machine than to humanity.
Bob beat me to it. I’d really like to know how you arrive at atheism=immorality. It would seem that you’re implying that morality can only be derived through religion.
Some would argue that true morality is our basic nature, and that any man-defined concept of morality is that which is immoral, in that it brings self or external coersion into play. Pre-scribed morality is pro-scription, and is false on its’ face.
Thanks you for saying you are not used to sweeping statements from me. I’m used to thinking of ethics in the sense of natural law or virtue ethics. If there is a God, then gratitude to him is a duty versus the vice of irreligion, or, ingratitude to God. In virtue ethics it would be a defect in the virute of contemplation.
Bob, i’m surprised at your phrasing. Are there no Christian humanists? Or must they be martyred to become fully Christian? (More) This is a particularly interesting turn of phrase since I’m presently reading a book Integral Humanism, by a Catholic philosopher – deals a lot with Communism in the book too, as you turn to mention below.
As for ethics and culture, i’m sure you’ve read more on it than i, but in a natural law approach, we have universal needs, and i think, possible different ways of furnishing those needs in different societies, and therefore different laws upheld by the natural needs of man. but in a Christian point of view, the atheist is not positioned to achieve all his supernatural ends.
Well, wasn’t Marxiasm born out of a Feurbachian-influenced materialism?
I answer that in the above post, but one thing I don’t know yet from that book i mentioned, is whether man’s purpose can be achieved by being “spiritual, but not religious”. It probalby helps some people to have a religious community, since man is gregarious.
What you’re saying must be really deep, because i don’t understand it.
If morality is our basic nature (and it might be), what’s wrong with bringing self (our basic nature) into it? It it is man-defined (defined by our basic nature), how will it be different from our basic nature?
I imagine first you’d have to define your conception of man’s purpose. Like for me, man is dual natured so has two purposes. The first is to serve the earth as does all organic life and community is very important to establish guidelines for people to live together so that the energy results of their life processes, breathing, eating, drinking, sex. death, etc., as with the rest of organic life, can maintain a certain balance within all its diversity to be of use to the earth.
Man being dual natured also has a spiritual potential or the possibility of cosmic service beyond the confines of the earth which requires the change of man’s nature, being, to accomplish. For that goal religion can no longer be subjective or man made but must reflect the objective knowledge not originating with man to provide the help necessary for the overwhelming majority. At this level, religion and spirituality are just two complimentary aspects of the same quality opening the path that leads to the way.
IMO first we must begin with an objective impartial inner look at our nature and see if our inner nature, as it is, is our basic nature? Consider how St.Paul describes it:
I can only speak for me but I find this true with me. As a result,all this talk of morality can only have an earthly value through the culturally conditioned behavior. This is fine for the earthly side of our life or our service to the earth. But for our being to develop so it can reflect a conscious purpose higher than in support of the needs of the earth it requires more than correct external reactions but becoming gradually able to separate the wheat from the tares, the real from the unreal within our being, reconciling the inner struggle Paul describes that maintains the status quo of our inner hypocrisy that denyies the reality of our basic nature.
Our present condition may maintain the level of our morals and in this way help us as to our earthly purpose through our bodily functions. But for those that search for something more, it requires a type of inner cleansing and invitation to a quality of inner reconciliation that is the basic function of the essence of religion in order to help “be able” to acquire it.
…In other words, the difference betweeen the active life and contemplative life,
similar to as set out by Aristotle and by Aquinas. A good distinction.
It is out of grave concern for a world being torn into bits by religious divisiveness that I am spreading the word about a new book that is a powerful guide to discovering God on one’s own. Written as a bridge between traditional organized religion and mystical spirituality, God Without Religion invites readers to examine their beliefs and explore the nature of the divine. Author Sankara Saranam (a former monk of the swami order and the son of self-exiled Iraqi Jews) welcomes the reader’s willingness to question, and offers seventeen universal techniques for developing a personal relationship with God. The book is an honestly written accounting stemming from Sankara’s deep faith in a higher power, if not necessarily in any one institution that claims to serve a higher power.
Called ‘a spiritual masterpiece’ that is ‘a direct path to God’ and a way out of ‘religious shackles and abuse,’ God Without Religion: Questioning Centuries of Accepted Truths was written especially for people who believe organized religion continues as the cause of humanity’s worst wars and most acute suffering, and who seek a more expansive relationship with God. I invite you to learn more at godwithoutreligion.com
So, K, who gave your guy the authority to start his own religion?
It is a new religion, not a non-religion, right? Doctrines and all?
At any rate, he seems to be negating the truth of any one faith –
which seems to be a new doctrine of faith.
Isn’t he just peddling old-fashioned hatha yoga without Hindu mythology?
