The vacuum of belief

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't. They are bitter and full of ego. His lack of understanding of the social contract is the biggest problem. "Taking what's yours" ends up in wealth consolidation and the 1 percent ruling over everyone else. He and Bannon have a lot in common.

Well, regardless of his bitterness and excessive ego, his words can be read on their own. Here is what he said on Christianity. It's my own paraphrasing so it's not perfect.

Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority.

This idea of making virtue out of submissiveness is very dangerous in society.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dfnj2015

The problem is also atheism has a couple of different paths. Those that hold no beliefs and those that believe God is impossible.

I have never met an atheist who believes you can prove a negative to be true. That is, I've never met an atheist who claimed they were capable of proving God does not exist. Again, this is a made up belief system by people who feel threaten by the idea that their own beliefs are in doubt. The denial of God's existence comes from the lack evidence. It's not a claim based on theology.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: dfnj2015

Just imagine a world where everyone you meet treats you and everyone else like each of us is the most sacred object in existence. Just imagine a world where we have no enemies and thecommunal form of God again exists.

When did any of that exist?

I don't know of any religion that has practiced the behaviors you mentioned; including Christianity.

-dex

Instead for everyone else to be what you want, you have to start with yourself.

It is pointless to worry about everyone else because you cannot control them, only they can do that. People who have no moral center themselves tend to buy into authoritarianism because they feel compelled to try to impose a moral order of sorts on the world around them. That is what authoritarianism is.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority.

Uh, no, Christianity was not born in response to Roman oppression.

The Bible has always taught that a lust for anything worldly can only lead to destruction.

1 Peter 2:10-11 Dear friends, I warn you as “temporary residents and foreigners” to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against your very souls. “Once you had no identity as a people; now you are God’s people. Once you received no mercy; now you have received God’s mercy.”

1 John 2:15-16 Don’t love this evil world or the things in it. If you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. This is all there is in the world: wanting to please our sinful selves, wanting the sinful things we see, and being too proud of what we have. But none of these comes from the Father. They come from the world.

Proverbs 11:28 The person who trusts in his wealth will fall, but the righteous will flourish like green leaves.

Matthew 6:19 “Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal.”

1 Timothy 6:9 But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction.

Luke 9:25 It is worth nothing for you to have the whole world if you yourself are destroyed or lost.

1 John 2:17 The world is passing away, and all the things that people want in the world are passing away. But whoever does what God wants will live forever.

Colossians 3:2 Keep your mind on things above, not on worldly things.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

originally posted by: luthier
The problem is also atheism has a couple of different paths. Those that hold no beliefs and those that believe God is impossible.

just want to clarify for you, as dfnj2015 said, you will find very few atheists making the second claim.

the first part i also take issue with, because as an atheist i have plenty of beliefs about ethics and morals. you might loosely group them as humanistic, but they are beliefs nonetheless.

a reply to: fiverx313

In the subject of philosophy there are two schools of atheism, which refers to a schism of thought.

This is why you see it discussed hard, soft and many other descriptors.

It's very different to believe the invention of God(s) is not possible and to just not believe.

What was Fred? Which version was he?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dfnj2015

The problem is also atheism has a couple of different paths. Those that hold no beliefs and those that believe God is impossible.

I have never met an atheist who believes you can prove a negative to be true. That is, I've never met an atheist who claimed they were capable of proving God does not exist. Again, this is a made up belief system by people who feel threaten by the idea that their own beliefs are in doubt. The denial of God's existence comes from the lack evidence. It's not a claim based on theology.

If you think the concept of a designer (God) is about a religion you completely misunderstand philosophy at its core.

From Diagoras to Fine Tuning

The subject of Cosmology is not easy. It's hard for true believers and skeptics alike.

The math of bosonic theory gets pretty tough to follow. But seeking symmetry comes up with something pretty far out.

When you rely on math to create cosmology, the necessary symmetrical form becomes a model that sounds pretty much as scyfy as Valhalla.

The mind is the key. The viewer and knowledge of the code.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

I was actually referring to the OP's implied assertion that this Nirvana has existed at some point in history. I don't know of any time in our past where we were not at war with one another.

Instead for everyone else to be what you want, you have to start with yourself.

I agree. To attempt to attain the heightened state of awareness discussed in the OP, we must start with knowing ourselves.

In my case, I don't like myself very much. So he and I don't get along too well. We don't talk much. He never writes. I never call.

It is pointless to worry about everyone else because you cannot control them, only they can do that. People who have no moral center themselves tend to buy into authoritarianism because they feel compelled to try to impose a moral order of sorts on the world around them. That is what authoritarianism is.

The interesting thing is that even the very concept of "moral center" is not well defined. Different people define it in different ways. There are some things at the core of any definition of morality; like murder and rape for instance. But more esoteric concepts may be perceived differently; like abortion and same-sex marriage for instance.

Even those who cling tightly to their concept of ethics, or the moral edicts of a religion, are susceptible to falling into authoritarianism. Especially if there appears to be some important alignment with the authoritarian's espoused moral center. The "group-think" of other individuals who follow the same authoritarian leader serves to reinforce the individual's moral definition.

Thanks,
- dex

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: fiverx313

In the subject of philosophy there are two schools of atheism, which refers to a schism of thought.

This is why you see it discussed hard, soft and many other descriptors.

It's very different to believe the invention of God(s) is not possible and to just not believe.

What was Fred? Which version was he?

i just don't think you're representing them accurately. there is not a belief in 'nothing' or a firm belief that god is impossible and we will prove that somehow.

if you mean nietzsche, i have not studied him and can't speak for his personal beliefs. i'm talking about what people actually think and how they actually live, now.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm neither a christian nor a deist. Perhaps instead of atheism I should have used "materialism".

a reply to: fiverx313

That is not true. Maybe you haven't studied the subject.

There are a great number of people who feel there is no God. That God is not a possible solution to cosmology or even to human creation. Implicit vs explicit atheism.

A great deal of people who think they are atheist are agnostic to also confuse matters

originally posted by: Incandescent
Interesting.

I suppose the counter-argument would be that we ought not believe a delusion (God exists) just because the absence in belief of God (atheism) causes an objective moral void.

and it's awesome to have a counter argument but
The question still remains, you have answered nothing and not addressed the situation
The moral void causes serious conflict
Nietzsche was right, God is dead and now there is a huge mess and it can't be cleaned up

Great post about the philosophy and the moral vacuum left behind
Nietzsche was trying to explain what he saw. The op was explaining Nietzsche and asking for solutions

Oddly enough, even with God, humanity was still at conflict, churches have been at conflict with each other for mellinia, the human condition

a reply to: Raggedyman

Solutions are already available.

We just choose to not teach them.


The social contract

The categorical imperative

Ethics and moral philosophy can be taught without God by using the social contract as a "why" you act and moral philosophy as "how" you act "categorical imperative.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Raggedyman

Solutions are already available.

We just choose to not teach them.


The social contract

The categorical imperative

Ethics and moral philosophy can be taught without God by using the social contract as a "why" you act and moral philosophy as "how" you act "categorical imperative.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

We still need police and a justice system in our societies
By all means teach the categorical imperative, but then it needs to be enforced, even within the church.
People are broken

To make it clearer, I agree with you, just think it's idealistic as opposed to a possible reality

a reply to: DexterRiley

The trick is to be comfortable with your morality to the point where you know where the boundaries for you are.

I could care less what you do to yourself although that's not entirely accurate in the sense that I do care. I don't want anyone to hurt themselves or do things to hurt themselves, but if that's what you're bound and determined to do, then it's not my place to physically stop you.

Say you want to drive and not wear your seat belt. That should be your choice. It's not my place to make laws to seek to protect you from your own stupidity.

Again, we end up splitting hairs here though because to say that something like drug addiction is victimless isn't entirely true. You may not feel your addiction hurts anyone but yourself, but emotionally you are hurting all your loved ones who see you carefully destroying yourself, but again, where do we draw the line? We can't physically stop you from using if you won't.

But I'm straying very far off topic.

If you are comfortable with who you are and where you stand, you are less inclined to want to force everyone else to be like yourself is my thought. If you're secure with who you are, why the need to hide yourself in a herd of others who think and act just like your do in order to reinforce the notion that you've got it all right?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Of course we do. The police are part of the social contract. You give them authority in return they aren't to abuse it. We are seeing a breakdown on both sides in that relationship. A dangerous negative feedback loop. We offer up some of our freedoms for the greater good in the social contract. We get protection from marauders.

Some people are nuts about taxes being too high (and they may be) but the reality is they pay for your roads, and the goods that are protected by the navy etc. The exploration of what the social contact is, I believe is a good thing to teach in school. Perhaps teaching what Jefferson and Washington thought about as well as the nes and dates of battles is important.

a reply to: ketsuko

I could care less what you do to yourself although that's not entirely accurate in the sense that I do care. I don't want anyone to hurt themselves or do things to hurt themselves, but if that's what you're bound and determined to do, then it's not my place to physically stop you.

I don't know if that comment is specifically addressed to me. However, if you are of the opinion that I am destined for self-harm, I believe that you have read more into my writing than is there.

Again, we end up splitting hairs here though because to say that something like drug addiction is victimless isn't entirely true. You may not feel your addiction hurts anyone but yourself, but emotionally you are hurting all your loved ones who see you carefully destroying yourself, but again, where do we draw the line? We can't physically stop you from using if you won't.

Again it's a bit confusing whether you are talking to me, or using this as an example of the loss of a moral center. It doesn't directly apply to me though.


However, if what you are saying is that it is not the place of the government, or any other individual, to enforce their notion of morality on me, as it pertains to my treatment of myself. Then I agree.

If you are comfortable with who you are and where you stand, you are less inclined to want to force everyone else to be like yourself is my thought. If you're secure with who you are, why the need to hide yourself in a herd of others who think and act just like your do in order to reinforce the notion that you've got it all right?

If one truly knows oneself, that is true. However, there are a lot of people who claim to be secure in who they are, and where they stand. Yet, they go out of their way to push their beliefs onto others by introducing legislation and otherwise attempting to control the narrative.

In an ideal world it would be commonplace for us to be secure in our beliefs and not need the comfort and support of a like-minded group. But I think that because we live in a world that is full of uncertainty, people will continue to need to be part of the herd.

Interesting concepts. Thanks,

-dex

What if all beliefs appear within a vacuum?
Can the vacuum be disbelieved?

If you meet Buddha on the road - kill him. If you meet God or Jesus on the road - kill them.
Why believe any 'thing'.? God, Buddha and Jesus are all concepts - 'things'.

What is there really?
What is actually appearing may appear to be real - but it is gone - what is appearing is moving and changing.
What is it that is always present - the seeing and knowing of what is appearing.

'We are looking for what is looking' St Francis of Assisi.

Is 'That which is seeing and knowing That which is appearing presently' a belief?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

We constitute our own reality. It's impossible to know things as they are on their own.

I think you can find this in Kant's critique of pure reason as the difference of noumena and phenomena.

What is belief? Are we able to alter reality? What is the quantum function in the placebo effect? Does belief in the cure cause healing? If so what does that mean is taking place?