A Challenge for Believers in God.

Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves is not upon what basis are our own morals and ethics derived from but rather what morals and ethics did our supposedly omniscient creator hold when he willed us into existance?

This short passage from Fulke Greville's closet drama Mustapha may help understand what I'm getting at.

"O wearisome condition of humanity!
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot and yet forbidden vanity;
Created sick, commanded to be sound."

reply to post by bogomil


Hahaha, Yes you're right it can easily be inverted. Though since i haven't seen a decent answer as of yet, why not throw it out there eh.

I think one should have his own beliefs on the concepts of God as long as that belief doesn't adversely affect other peoples lives. I've explained my position on God to many people and its never once had a detrimental effect on anyone's life, but there's always been a positive outcome. I do have a slightly different view then most though.

Explaining a theory of God that has no ill effects is a moral act, and something which a Non- believer is not capable of doing. If you don't believe in your own words, you can't possibily change a persons mind on said subject.

Similiar of course to an athiest explaining the absence of God to a believer through various arguements about the bible... or suffering in the world etc etc.... which you and i have already been through

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

this is reminiscent to an older thread about atheism's missionaries that I once read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

personally I still believe atheists make poor missionaries, no matter which way they try to justify it.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

atheism's missionaries

Then Dawkins is a "missionary", Sam Harris is a "missionary", Daniel Dennett is a missionary; It's easy enough to apply the term missionary for anyone who has an opinion or a concern for a specific ideology. Fortunately that's not what it means to be a missionary. By your definition; i would be a Anti-Fascist missionary, i would be an Anti-Homophobic Missionary. LOL.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


well I do not believe the words missionary and anti go well together, the word missionary implies charitability. Seems you would be more referring to an activist.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Then i guess i'd agree that Atheists make poor missionaries; but great activists; especially with their concerns for the socio-political effects of Religion and a faith based mentality.

guess I should address the original question of the topic a little more clearly. a professed Atheist can not do one thing and it is a special thing that true missionaries can, that is show compassion and respect for other belief systems than their own.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


I disagree -

As an Atheist; i treat all religion equally; unlike many religious fanatics.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Then i guess i'd agree that Atheists make poor missionaries; but great activists; especially with their concerns for the socio-political effects of Religion and a faith based mentality.

Atheism has all the answers lol! somewhere...

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

I disagree -

As an Atheist; i treat all religion equally

I am sure it is very compassionate and respectful.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Atheism doesn't have any answers. It doesn't claim to. Atheists MAY claim "There is no God" but they are just as irrational as Theists; answering questions that can't be answered.

Man has answers; somewhere.... the questions may not have been asked yet; or the answers to the questions may not havn't been realised.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Atheism doesn't have any answers. It doesn't claim to. Atheists MAY claim "There is no God" but they are just as irrational as Theists; answering questions that can't be answered.

Man has answers; somewhere.... the questions may not have been asked yet; or the answers to the questions may not havn't been realised.

maybe there is something to be learned from one another after all... nice to meet you, I am a "human"

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Definetly. I am human too, comrade; pleased to meet you.

Peace.

A belief is a thought that is connected to a sense of hope, that hope can include God, however, even other things can be included as a part of belief in general.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["I think one should have his own beliefs on the concepts of God as long as that belief doesn't adversely affect other peoples lives. I've explained my position on God to many people and its never once had a detrimental effect on anyone's life, but there's always been a positive outcome."]

I have no doubts about that being true in your case, and that's why you are one of the good guys in my book. (Don't mistake my grumpiness for ill-will. I'm very often grumpy for very little reason).

Quote: ["I do have a slightly different view then most though."]

Imo it would be wrong to use the missionary mindset as a 'counter-polar' measuring-tape, i.e. profiling oneself against extremists. In my experience a majority of mankind is rather 'live-and-let-live', if they aren't indoctrinated and have the practical option of living in relative peace.

Quote: ["Explaining a theory of God that has no ill effects is a moral act, and something which a Non- believer is not capable of doing. If you don't believe in your own words, you can't possibily change a persons mind on said subject.

Similiar of course to an athiest explaining the absence of God to a believer through various arguements about the bible... or suffering in the world etc etc.... which you and i have already been through"]

True. And as a continuation of this, which by now ought to be rather obvious question: How does one PRESENT self-proclaimed 'absolutes'.

As 'gnostic' statements: "There IS NO 'GOD' (period)" or "We ARE ALL SINNERS", to take a few such unfounded statements.

Such statements (as harmless as they may be in a purely verbal context), still being expressions of megalomania, consequently also derogation of opposition; and in some contexts as e.g. amongst different religions openly insulting. A buddhist as someone, who has stopped somewhere along the spiritual path, not quite finding 'christian truth'. In other words, a buddhist somewhat and somehow 'inferior'.

So my present little 'campaign' is: Where is the line between 'offering' and 'pushing'.

As missionaries (according to my thoughts on it) are missionaries from 'mindset' rather than from 'truth', they are naturally not interested in defining a 'offering/pushing' situation, which possibly could limit some of the missionary options.

Hence we see the endless stream of evasive, and very tactical maneuvers, through which missionaries usually try to AVOID any compromises on human co-existence.

"It's MY way, or anti-my-way".

A public manifestation of 'agnostic' attitudes comes hard to the missionary mindset (privately anyone can be as rigidly doctrinal as wanted, but that's not enough for the invasive missionary).

And if any theist missionary here feel offended by this:

"Missionary dudes and dudettes; .....YOU try to 'debate' with a hard-core missionary Stalinist, who's using your own methods and tactics", and let me be a fly on the wall.

Well A; what do you think?

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Then i guess i'd agree that Atheists make poor missionaries; but great activists; especially with their concerns for the socio-political effects of Religion and a faith based mentality.

Atheism has all the answers lol! somewhere...

I am personally neither an atheist, not can (or will) I try to construct a uniform category of all 'atheists'.

But imo are contemporary atheists quite good at saying: "We simple don't know"; abstaining from the the bad habit of theist promoters of self-proclaimed absolutes, who fill knowledge-gaps with doctrines.

If you want to follow up the last half-sentence, I can easily demonstrate why such a method is worthless.

Originally posted by SystemResistor
A belief is a thought that is connected to a sense of hope, that hope can include God, however, even other things can be included as a part of belief in general.

Using language as a tool instead of a mean of rhetorical semantics (or worse .... scholastics), it is functional to make some commonly agreed-on distinctions between the various positions on 'truth/reality'.

Starting from 'faith', which only depends on completely subjective values (nothing wrong with that for the individual); ... proceeding to 'belief', which partly relates to 'objective' knowledge; ...... to 'hypothesis' which conceptually looks acceptable, but needs to meet certain 'proof'-criteria, ..... to 'theory', which has been tested in some way.

As to 'absolute or ultimate exclusive truth/reality', this only exists in some mindsets needing psychological safety, and is in a rational context the question of an epistemological perspective, where no-one sofar has presented anything conclusive or definite.

reply to post by bogomil

I have no doubts about that being true in your case, and that's why you are one of the good guys in my book. (Don't mistake my grumpiness for ill-will. I'm very often grumpy for very little reason).

You be whatever you like my friend, i take no offence to anyone unless they attack me...

Imo it would be wrong to use the missionary mindset as a 'counter-polar' measuring-tape, i.e. profiling oneself against extremists. In my experience a majority of mankind is rather 'live-and-let-live', if they aren't indoctrinated and have the practical option of living in relative peace.

I agree with that though as you said "if they're not indoctrinated"... the problem is 90% of this world has some sort of indoctrination. So i would tend to disagree as well because the majority of man kind does not have the "live and let live" mindset. I'd say most would say... "you must live according to God/allah" or what have you's specific set of rules which are almost never according to what it reads in scriptures, and are almost never "live and let live"

True. And as a continuation of this, which by now ought to be rather obvious question: How does one PRESENT self-proclaimed 'absolutes'.

I only have one absolute and that is love... How do i present it?

Well, if all man kind loved each other as they loved themselves, there would be no war, no criminals, no poverty, no starving people etc etc.... The only real way to bring peace to this planet is that way, through love and respect (something which will never happen, but none the less) I call love the only absolute because its the only answer to that statement. If you love all man kind as yourself, you can not commit such acts on another person, its physically impossible.

As 'gnostic' statements: "There IS NO 'GOD' (period)" or "We ARE ALL SINNERS", to take a few such unfounded statements.

Neither of which are proveable... My absolute is proveable.

Such statements (as harmless as they may be in a purely verbal context), still being expressions of megalomania, consequently also derogation of opposition; and in some contexts as e.g. amongst different religions openly insulting. A buddhist as someone, who has stopped somewhere along the spiritual path, not quite finding 'christian truth'. In other words, a buddhist somewhat and somehow 'inferior'.

Every religion has its flaws, christians mostly seem to have an issue with... "our way is the only way, nothing else is right" But that statement is in fact a flaw according to their "God"... Christianity usually leads those that follow it to judgement of others, which is one of the main aspects of Jesus' teachings. Somehow they usually manage to overlook that fact, which always amuses me to no end.

So my present little 'campaign' is: Where is the line between 'offering' and 'pushing'.

Oh come now thats quite simple... Explain don't direct... Let people make up their own minds on what you say, as opposed to forcing an idea down someones throat. Let people question you freely on your beliefs, if you know and understand them you shouldn't have an issue explaining your position on them.

If they disagree with what you say, let them... And of course be open to the idea that you may be wrong.

As missionaries (according to my thoughts on it) are missionaries from 'mindset' rather than from 'truth', they are naturally not interested in defining a 'offering/pushing' situation, which possibly could limit some of the missionary options.

Hence we see the endless stream of evasive, and very tactical maneuvers, through which missionaries usually try to AVOID any compromises on human co-existence.

"It's MY way, or anti-my-way".

As i've said, no one has factual answers... If they believe they do, they're only fooling themselves, which unfortunatly ends up fooling others as well.

So... again the only absolute is love, we've discussed this before. All else is purely speculation, and even with scripture theres no solid way to prove anything.

Be love

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote (concerning mankind's intrinsic ability of 'live-and-let-live"):

["I agree with that though as you said "if they're not indoctrinated"... the problem is 90% of this world has some sort of indoctrination. So i would tend to disagree as well because the majority of man kind does not have the "live and let live" mindset. I'd say most would say... "you must live according to God/allah" or what have you's specific set of rules which are almost never according to what it reads in scriptures, and are almost never "live and let live"]

First one of my usual very-broad-context approaches (not meant to end in a blind alley, a fool's errand or to magic the present perspective away).

At the end of the day, cosmos is (from the outpost perspective of epistemology) also an 'indoctrination' situation. Following a metaphysical argument to its rational limit, gravity is a local inner-cosmic phenomenon, probably not valid at an alleged trans-cosmic existence level. I.e. gravity imposes a 'tyranny' on our routinely imprinted ideas of 'reality'.

In a perspective of a claimed more extensive reality than just the cosmic one, gravity is a 'local' manifestation ....as are e.g. the biological needs of living beings.

From the basis of human knowledge/knowledge-seeking capacity, completely 'objective' positions on anything doesn't exist. Only relative positions.

Back to planet earth: The live-and-let-live option has had a long and difficult birthing period, fighting against primitive survival instinct (individually and as a herd-manifestation), and only recent (fought for) intellectual freedom and its resulting science/logic/technology manifestations has made live-and-let live a functionally environmental popular choice for greater population groups.

A short digression: The claims of the 'noble-savage harmony' (recently propagandized in the 'Avatar' movie) are romantic fictions. Much of it was very brutal, though it contained sensible elements, regarding the available options of those environments.

So live-and-let-live isn't a ready-made absolute, it has to use mankind's ability for self-organization to survive. As it is still in competition with a minority of mankind operating from reptile-brain impulses.

Quote: [" I only have one absolute and that is love... How do i present it?"]

By not turning it into an EXCLUSIVE absolute. Doing so results in bizarre anti-intellectual and (sometimes) anti-physical attitudes. The real answer lies in TRUE syncretism both at a very simplistic level, but also at the outermost end of abstract speculations. The enforced syncretism of new-age ideological blender-homogenizing everything is worthless, even dangerous.

Maybe it's easier to turn the situation around, and consider the equally disastrous results from an intellectual exclusive-absolute manifestation. The truly horrible tyranny of former times 'scientism' (an offspring of reductive materialist philosophy). "If you can't take it apart and look at it through a mcroscope, it doesn't exist."

Quote: ["Well, if all man kind loved each other as they loved themselves, there would be no war, no criminals, no poverty, no starving people etc etc...."]

It's a pretty idealism, but there will always be some guys being interested in the same attractive woman, and in some way taking peacock postures to impress her. The instincts from the plumbing will drown both intellectual and 'higher' love considerations. The best is to direct the peacock behaviour into 'civilized' manifestations, e.g. by not killing your rival and use less violent sales-techniques.

Quote: [" The only real way to bring peace to this planet is that way, through love and respect (something which will never happen, but none the less) I call love the only absolute because its the only answer to that statement."]

The 'rational approach, as manifested in utilitarian morality, is actually easier to promote, as contemporary culture increasingly trust rational methods. For what it's worth, it's intellectualism, which brings food on more tables than ever before, not 'love'. And repeating this point, this is a pragmatic observation, neither excluding 'love', nor proposing intellectualism as THE absolute.

It's just profiling a contemporary pragmatic positioning of mankind's choice (WHEN and where the reptile-brain types are neutralized).

Quote: ["Neither of which are proveable... My absolute is proveable."]

Where has an exclusive love-absolute manifested as a functional life-style for bigger groups of mankind. Even Jains, the planet's most advanced group of ahimsa-practitioners, acknowledge the need of intellectual inclusion and also allows violence as a very last resort.

Quote: ["Every religion has its flaws, christians mostly seem to have an issue with... "our way is the only way, nothing else is right"]

I can only agree, that this is THE main-problem. But the pauline doctrines can be pretty harmful by themselves also.

Quote: ["But that statement is in fact a flaw according to their "God"... Christianity usually leads those that follow it to judgement of others, which is one of the main aspects of Jesus' teachings. Somehow they usually manage to overlook that fact, which always amuses me to no end."]

In the cosy protection of egalitarian society, it can be funny. I doubt it was/is equally funny for those living under theocracy.

Quote (on the difference between offering and pushing religion): ["Oh come now thats quite simple... Explain don't direct... Let people make up their own minds on what you say, as opposed to forcing an idea down someones throat. Let people question you freely on your beliefs, if you know and understand them you shouldn't have an issue explaining your position on them."]

You have earlier acknowledged the imposing of indoctrination. To let people make up their own minds requires (as I've said) an environment, where this is possible. The repetitive propagandistic slogans from missionaries are meant to make such a 'free-choice' environment impossible, and the herd-instinct in mankind still reacts to such.

My answer is not an 'education of the masses' (which eventually will be fascistic also), it's MAKING education available as an option. And if you don't get educated when very young, also the option of becoming so later in life.

Quote: ["If they disagree with what you say, let them... And of course be open to the idea that you may be wrong."]

There are no 'rights' and 'wrongs' eventually, fitting everybody. There is only the relative right/wrong of letting people choose. We're back to square one: Telling someone, with loud volume and ten times a day, about invented/subjective black/white options, is not giving anyone much space for choosing.

reply to post by bogomil

The live-and-let-live option has had a long and difficult birthing period, fighting against primitive survival instinct (individually and as a herd-manifestation), and only recent (fought for) intellectual freedom and its resulting science/logic/technology manifestations has made live-and-let live a functionally environmental popular choice for greater population groups.

Perhaps that is true but this "ideal" isn't a majority belief or attitude. Its more like, live and let live... as long as the subject has similar beliefs / ideals as the person making the decision. I won't even include racial bias because its blatently obvious how that works for the most part.

So live-and-let-live isn't a ready-made absolute, it has to use mankind's ability for self-organization to survive. As it is still in competition with a minority of mankind operating from reptile-brain impulses.

This is also a main theme for many religious scriptures... To over come out natural instincts and learn to live as "God" intended so to speak.

By not turning it into an EXCLUSIVE absolute. Doing so results in bizarre anti-intellectual and (sometimes) anti-physical attitudes. The real answer lies in TRUE syncretism both at a very simplistic level, but also at the outermost end of abstract speculations. The enforced syncretism of new-age ideological blender-homogenizing everything is worthless, even dangerous.

Its not exclusive, the idea only excludes those who do not understand the concept.

If you say the real answer lies in True Syncretism, why would you call it worthless, and even dangerous. This can't be a real answer if its also worthless... Love is a simple concept... you're just complicating things.

Maybe it's easier to turn the situation around, and consider the equally disastrous results from an intellectual exclusive-absolute manifestation. The truly horrible tyranny of former times 'scientism' (an offspring of reductive materialist philosophy). "If you can't take it apart and look at it through a mcroscope, it doesn't exist

This has no valid use in this conversation.

It's a pretty idealism, but there will always be some guys being interested in the same attractive woman, and in some way taking peacock postures to impress her. The instincts from the plumbing will drown both intellectual and 'higher' love considerations. The best is to direct the peacock behaviour into 'civilized' manifestations, e.g. by not killing your rival and use less violent sales-techniques.

Attracting a mate will obviously be a competition, but there comes a point where she chooses. In reality women choose their mate, men have no say in the matter. Once that fact is realized and she picks between the competitors, the loser should respect her decision and move on. Theres never a need for violence or disrespect.

The 'rational approach, as manifested in utilitarian morality, is actually easier to promote, as contemporary culture increasingly trust rational methods. For what it's worth, it's intellectualism, which brings food on more tables than ever before, not 'love'. And repeating this point, this is a pragmatic observation, neither excluding 'love', nor proposing intellectualism as THE absolute.

You see why i call it "THE" absolute though. We're not talking about what puts food on the table here, we're talking about a mutual respect for all man kind, not letting people suffer because its more convienent to do so. This is not a world wide concept but if it was the world would cease to have the social issues as we currently do. Being intelligent unfortunatly does not always include empathy or concern for others, as a matter of fact is usually quite the opposite. "Intellectuals" tend to be quite self centered believing their ideas are better then others. They also tend to push their ideas more so then others which alienates those that do not understand.

Intellect is by no means an absolute, it just further seperates us as a species.

It's just profiling a contemporary pragmatic positioning of mankind's choice (WHEN and where the reptile-brain types are neutralized).

This is a simple choice, and has nothing to do with a persons intelligents. Perhaps their moral position, but not their intellectual capasity.

Where has an exclusive love-absolute manifested as a functional life-style for bigger groups of mankind. Even Jains, the planet's most advanced group of ahimsa-practitioners, acknowledge the need of intellectual inclusion and also allows violence as a very last resort.

Nowhere as far as i know actually, i didn't say its something that exists currently... only that its proveable.

I can only agree, that this is THE main-problem. But the pauline doctrines can be pretty harmful by themselves also.

I couldn't care less about pauline doctrine. As i've stated many times before... the only parts that matter in the bible are the parts where Jesus supposedly spoke the words that are written. IF christians followed those words there would be no conflict between different sects of this religion.

You have earlier acknowledged the imposing of indoctrination. To let people make up their own minds requires (as I've said) an environment, where this is possible. The repetitive propagandistic slogans from missionaries are meant to make such a 'free-choice' environment impossible, and the herd-instinct in mankind still reacts to such.

This i agree with, but again these people choose not to think for themselves, only because its more convienent then reading for themselves. They still have the choice to leave said establishment. Fear of the reprecussions of leaving the church is the only thing that keeps most people there.

What if im wrong.... i might end up in Hell. Most if not all religions pray on mans fear of the unknown, but yet again they always have the choice to face that fear.

My answer is not an 'education of the masses' (which eventually will be fascistic also), it's MAKING education available as an option. And if you don't get educated when very young, also the option of becoming so later in life

true.... very true.

There are no 'rights' and 'wrongs' eventually, fitting everybody. There is only the relative right/wrong of letting people choose. We're back to square one: Telling someone, with loud volume and ten times a day, about invented/subjective black/white options, is not giving anyone much space for choosing.

Well again i disagree... There is a right and wrong that fits everyone. Unfortunatly not everyone agrees with what is right and what is wrong.

Mutual respect for all is the "right" way... Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Selfishness, greed, hatred, envy and other such "human" traits get in the way of that ideal though.