The most influential beings may not even exist.

It is interesting to me how the most influential beings on earth are nearly all, if not all man made entities.

I do not make this supposition out of knowledge, but rather it is derived from logic and probability. If only one, or zero religions are actually correct - which could be the only case if we are observing a single universe and dimension - there are a lot of lives lived and unfortunately a lot of lives taken in the name of something or someone which is entirely fiction.

History books are chalked full of examples of acts done in the name of one's God(s), whether they believed their God to be far away in the heavens, or whether they believed a human could be bestowed with such a gift - these beliefs have influenced our world in an incredible amount of ways.

From buildings and temples built, to battles and wars waged, you can often link an event to the religious beliefs of a culture, or leader.

Part of my centrist ideology is to reject man-made religions. I certainly do not know the answers to the universe, but I also have taken a position to judge that others do not, either. I neither accept nor reject the notion that we could have been created, and some form of master plan is in place for us.

I do, however, believe in God(hood) - with scientific studies suggesting that our conscious may never truly end, and with the scientific proof that energy cannot come to an end, I've chosen to believe that "God" is more a state of mind, it is more an evolutionary path than anything else. It is an eventuality based on maturation - whether it is time or experience or the two combined, I believe that we ourselves, or perhaps our energy eventually transcends into something greater. Something higher than sentience and consciousness.

With this thought in mind, I present the thought that we should be masters of our own lives, and live according to our own will, and not the will of anything or anyone else. I do not seek to deny morality, ethics, nor even creationism but rather seek to enhance those experiences. If we were created in the image of a God, if we are meant to emulate and be like a creator - wouldn't it be beneficial to empower ourselves in such a position and take responsibility for our actions, in accordance with the free will we have?

If we were not created, wouldn't it be an evolutionary achievement to become our own masters, to find our own way, to base morality and ethics based on our own perceptions?

I leave it up to you to answer these questions - I have my own answers to such questions in accordance to my own life and desire - what do you desire?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Peace be with you.

-TheCentristPhilosopher

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

the biggest influence for me is also a man-made construct. It's nothing "concrete" in the physical sense, but it is very real to me.

My biggest influence is the philosophical idea of FamCore (Family - "core", supporting fellow mankind - F.A.M. = "For All Mankind")

So to answer your question , Famcore.

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

Part of my centrist ideology is to reject man-made religions. I certainly do not know the answers to the universe, but I also have taken a position to judge that others do not, either. I neither accept nor reject the notion that we could have been created, and some form of master plan is in place for us.

The organizations and teachers that lead you to "in" dependence instead of "de" pendence upon them, their message or organization are the real ones. Over time these make you less dependent on them, not more.

How dependency making is the church. To be saved you have to keep going there, they depend on membership for their existence. Real teachers are poor and have few followers.

They teach you how to live and then send you on your way. They give you back to yourself.

a reply to: FamCore

Speaking literally, all things we experience are man-made - I do not seek to undermine philosophical discussion, nor an exchange of ideas, nor even an attempt to define ones lives according to their beliefs. I actually seek to uplift all of these ideas, and see the worthiness within your own idea, I believe altruism to be an extremely admirable trait, one that requires a higher form of maturity and for ones self to recognize the ways in which the can contribute within a society.

Thank you for sharing.

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

Thanks for leading this discussion and making me think - keep sharing your knowledge and ideas

a reply to: intrptr

Real teachers are poor and have few followers.
They teach you how to live and then send you on your way. They give you back to yourself.

This rings true on many levels. Thanks intrptr

a reply to: intrptr

I believe in God so here is my perspective as explained to me by a beloved Pastor.

It's a difference in "a church" and "to church". "A church" is a building where people of like minds gather together to worship in a centralized location. "To church" is to gather which can be done anywhere so long as it is two or more people discussing God. Technically, we church quite often on the religion board.

I don't attend a church in a the sense that I go to a building every week but I do church quite often in that I have a few people whom I openly discuss my faith with. This Pastor was the only one I ever heard openly say "Split a piece of wood and I am there, turn a rock and I am there." I don't need a building for me to be able to be in my faith. This Pastor also said this. He taught the church as it is it to be a fellowship a place to gather at and do the works God set for us. Helping others and spreading the word being of top priority.

Long story short, Christ didn't need a building to pass along his message and neither do I. I am only going to pass it along to those who want to hear. He essentially did the same thing. The people who wanted to hear went and did and those who didn't well you get what I am saying I hope.

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

I present the thought that we should be masters of our own lives, and live according to our own will, and not the will of anything or anyone else.

That is certainly a fine thought. If you ever find a way to translate it into action, please be sure to let me know.

*

a reply to: intrptr

Real teachers are poor and have few followers.

Why do they have to be poor?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

I present the thought that we should be masters of our own lives, and live according to our own will, and not the will of anything or anyone else.

That is certainly a fine thought. If you ever find a way to translate it into action, please be sure to let me know.

*

a reply to: intrptr

Real teachers are poor and have few followers.

Why do they have to be poor?

It is imperative that "spiritual" "teachers" are poor, humble, and meek, and (of course) that they make their students to follow on such nonsense, because the very system that spawned such beliefs wants so, otherwise the power their "masters" have over them would turn to dust.
Oh man, that is completely obvious.

a reply to: yosako

Oh man, that is completely obvious.

Well, you certainly haven’t helped make it so. I can’t understand a word you’re saying.

Want to try again, maybe without the smileys this time?

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

With this thought in mind, I present the thought that we should be masters of our own lives, and live according to our own will, and not the will of anything or anyone else.

Then you'll be needing to go live in a cave somewhere. Not necessarily a cave, but away from other people. Because as long as there are other people involved, you won't be able to live according to your own will. Unless you're a total dick.

And that's the reason people invented gods. To give them a reason to not be a dick.

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

It is interesting to me how the most influential beings on earth are nearly all, if not all man made entities. I do not make this supposition out of knowledge, but rather it is derived from logic and probability. If only one, or zero religions are actually correct - which could be the only case if we are observing a single universe and dimension - there are a lot of lives lived and unfortunately a lot of lives taken in the name of something or someone which is entirely fiction.

Okay so I can agree that logic would dictate that the majority of God/Gods are false as many times the ideas are contradictory.

Part of my centrist ideology is to reject man-made religions. I certainly do not know the answers to the universe, but I also have taken a position to judge that others do not, either. I neither accept nor reject the notion that we could have been created, and some form of master plan is in place for us.

If this is part of your ideology does that mean even if something you classified as a man-made religion was true, you would still reject it?

I do, however, believe in God(hood) - with scientific studies suggesting that our conscious may never truly end, and with the scientific proof that energy cannot come to an end, I've chosen to believe that "God" is more a state of mind, it is more an evolutionary path than anything else.

Well it seems you have redefined Godhood to be energy, and you have attribute the property of being eternal to energy. Then you redefine God to be a state of mind of humans. You may choose to believe that but what reasons do we have for accepting that belief as true?

With this thought in mind, I present the thought that we should be masters of our own lives, and live according to our own will, and not the will of anything or anyone else.

Do as thou willst . Thanks Aleister Crowley. You are the master of your own life, but it's selfish to live for only your self. Christians do God's will because they have a relationship with him, and they love him and want to do things that make him happy. When you love someone it is your will to do what makes them happy out of love not because you have to. My problem with your position is it opens the way to say if you will to be a serial killer/rapist then go and kill, maim, and rape and don't let anyone stop you. Reality does not work this way. We are not the masters of morality. Our will has nothing to do with what is Good and Evil. Your position simply seems false in every way.

wouldn't it be beneficial to empower ourselves in such a position and take responsibility for our actions, in accordance with the free will we have?

How does telling people to do whatever they want and listen to no one else a position in which we would be taking responsibility for our actions. On that view there is no reason to feel bad about doing something evil to someone, as you were simply doing whatever it was you wanted to do if it offends them who cares its your way or the highway.

I leave it up to you to answer these questions - I have my own answers to such questions in accordance to my own life and desire - what do you desire?

My desires are unimportant. You seem to simply want to believe things you like rather than wanting to believe things that are true.

a reply to: Phage

Without God objective morals don't exists. So unless there is a God there is no reason to avoid being a total dick.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Without God objective morals don't exists.

You know this, how?

So unless there is a God there is no reason to avoid being a total dick.

Of course there is. Society could not function under such conditions. Of course, some people don't understand that. Some need the threat of eternal damnation to keep them in line.

a reply to: Phage

Without God you have no objective standard to that would allow you to measure right and wrong. You can have your own subjective opinion, but that would mean morality is ultimately illusory.

Of course there is. Society could not function under such conditions. Of course, some people don't understand that. Some need the threat of eternal damnation to keep them in line.

Your assuming that Society not functioning is a good reason not to do something. That is a completely subjective position without God. I could say we should be dicks so that society would not function. Because the non-functioning of society is a good thing. You need an objective standard for a reason not to be a dick because you need moral obligations .

P.S. I see no reason on an atheistic perspective of the world to attribute any form of intrinsic worth to human beings. What would be the basis for the belief that human beings have value?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Without God you have no objective standard to that would allow you to measure right and wrong.

I don't need God to tell me that hurting others is wrong. Society could not function if people thought otherwise.

Your assuming that Society not functioning is a good reason not to do something.

No. It is a fact. Humans evolved as social, and cooperative animals. A lot like wolves, in fact. That's probably one of the reasons there are domestic dogs. Wolves have social rules (what you call morals).

I could say we should be dicks so that society would not function. Because the non-functioning of society is a good thing.

No, you can't. Because antisocial behavior is not a survival trait.

What would be the basis for the belief that human beings have value?

Family and other members of the tribe are valuable to the survival of the tribe and therefore one's personal survival.

a reply to: Phage

I don't need God to tell me that hurting others is wrong. Society could not function if people thought otherwise.

We are not discussing epistemology. You see you have a built in assumption here. You are claiming that it is Good for Society to function, but what is the standard you are measuring that against? Is that your opinion or is it objectively true the its Good for a Society ? If you think it is objectively true, why do you think that?

No. It is a fact. Humans evolved as social, and cooperative animals. A lot like wolves, in fact. That's probably one of the reasons there are domestic dogs. Wolves have social rules (what you call morals).

Being a social animal doesn't mean it is Good for your society to function. It means you have a natural drive to cooperate for survival but that doesn't mean that natural drive is Good. You are arbitrarily deciding that an increase in survival rate of a population is Good and the Decrease of a population is bad. You haven't given any objective standard to measure that against. If morals are just products of evolution then they could have easily evolved differently. For example, we could have evolved to rape as many females as possible for propagation, and to kill other peoples children to further our genes in the gene pool. In fact that could be the Good way to live and loving and respecting others could be bad. You still haven't given a standard outside of your opinion to say what we ought to do.

Family and other members of the tribe are valuable to the survival of the tribe and therefore one's personal survival.

Ok but if humans don't have value, futhering the survival of more invaluable things doesn't really make you intrinsically valuable. You seem to be a bit off base as to what I am asking for. Why should we care if humans survive or not?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You are claiming that it is Good for Society to function, but what is the standard you are measuring that against?

I answered that previously. A healthy society benefits the members of that society. The members of society are individuals. People. Me. What benefits me (and my family, and my friends) is good. Cooperation helps me, and my family, and my friends. Cooperation requires rules. Some people don't seem to understand that though, but the idea of eternal damnation (whatever that means) scares a lot of them.

It means you have a natural drive to cooperate for survival but that doesn't mean that natural drive is Good.

Yes, there is an innate drive to cooperate. From the standpoint of survival that is good. What is the alternative to survival? The idea is not that complicated.

For example, we could have evolved to rape as many females as possible for propagation, and to kill other peoples children to further our genes in the gene pool.

Probably not. A limited gene pool is not conducive to survival of a group or species. Survival of a group aids survival of its individuals. The actual practice would be to attempt to increase the gene pool, to bring outsiders into the group as much as possible. Unless they were dicks. Because dicks aren't good for the group.

Why should we care if humans survive or not?

I like surviving. I like being around people who also like surviving (and aren't dicks).

a reply to: Phage

I answered that previously. A healthy society benefits the members of that society. The members of society are individuals. People. Me.

Okay, but just because something benefits you doesn't make it objectively good. You are assuming a moral code in your basis for a moral code. It doesn't work. I get you think your answering the question but your not.

Yes, there is an innate drive to cooperate. From the standpoint of survival that is good. What is the alternative to survival? The idea is not that complicated.

You seem to forget that I am asking for basis of these things. If you are making the claim that actions that increase survival rate are Good, then you are also making the claim that actions that decrease survival rates are bad. This is completely subjective to you unless there is some type of standard outside yourself that your appealing to. Sure cooperation helps survival . Why ought I increase the survival of others? There is no moral obligation to do so just because natural selection says our species number may dwindle if we act that way. It doesn't make it immoral just because it might harm your species . What if harming my species is what I view as a Good life? You could disagree but on an atheistic view there is no basis for thinking you are right and I am wrong. Its purely subjective and lacks an objective basis.

What is the alternative to survival? The idea is not that complicated.

No the idea isn't complicated but its completely begs my question. Survival rates are not an objective basis for morals, when you say that you do nothing but assume the very thing I am asking you to provide. I've ask you for the basis of morals. The basis of morals cannot rely on a moral claim other wise it just begs the question. What is the standard you are measuring against when you say its Good to increase survival rates?

Probably not. A limited gene pool is not conducive to survival of a group or species

You seem to think that evolution has a care about what you turn into. First we most definitely could have evolved these traits, as other animals do rape to increase the rate of propagation and lions kill the cubs of other lions when they take over a pride. There is no reason these same behaviors couldn't be the proper way for us to act as well.You still have no moral basis or a basis for intrinsic value of humans.

The actual practice would be to attempt to increase the gene pool, to bring outsiders into the group as much as possible. Unless they were dicks. Because dicks aren't good for the group.

Sure we could bring outsiders in, but if they have blemishes in their genes we should gas them to keep our species gene pool free of things like deformities and weaknesses.....the reason I can just come back with the opposite view is because you haven't given any objective standard by which morals and human value could be evaluated against.

I like surviving. I like being around people who also like surviving (and aren't dicks).

And here in lies my point. You like it, but that isn't an objective standard. That is subjective. Objective means it isn't privy to your own personal ideas and opinions. Its outside of yourself. You said I ought to care if humans survive because its what you like. Lets say I like watching people bleed and die. So does that now mean the standard of morals is to watch people bleed and die or your doing somethign wrong? No because you are providing arbitrary standards and no objective basis. You haven't answered the question but I am starting to wonder if yo can ever grasp the concepts I am putting before you.

a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

And the thing is, even real physical entities like ourselves or others around us, these entities don't exist as we think they exist. We can try to know ourselves but there is a limit to what we can know. The way you see yourself is different than what you really are. What you really are is non-verbal, and from the moment you put words on something that is non-verbal, you deform it, you transform it, you idealize it, you limit this real thing to a very limited container, to a word. Everything goes through the filtering of the brain. Whatever you say about something, it is always false and/or incomplete.

I am good, I am bad, I am the best, I am a loser, I am kind, I am treacherous, I am intelligent, I am stupid, I am a 'human', etc.. These qualifications are so very limited that the moment they are pronounced, they already have no value any more.