| |
|
Golly, but these things can move on sharpish when you're off having fast fun.
To respond briefly to a couple of points raised:
If morality is divinely prescribed, what exactly does that mean?
I'll tell you what I understand, though it may not represent anything other than that (indeed, how could it?)
If morality is divinely presecribed then it means that the morality as revealed by the Deity in question (and there, of course, is the real crux of the problem and solution...how and by whom or what is it revealed?) is a part of the natural order of the Universe just like gravitation, electromagnetism or what have you. It means, effectively, "Cut me and I bleed". Since there is no separation within the system whatsoever, all of that which is done is also done unto the doer (doer, done and done-by being separated only by the 'dream of separation'...ouch, sorry)
Thus, the question of 'reward' and 'punishment' is a bit of a misleading metaphor. Is it fair to say a wall 'punishes' you if you head-butt it? Well, yes, in a certain context. But otherwise, no, not at all. You punished yourself, assuming you knew what the setup was. Head. Wall. Butt. Ouch. Neither does your arm 'punish' you by bleeding if you slice it with a knife. Or does it? More definitions. But, fundamentally, it's a simple cause-effect scenario. Do this, and there will be Pain/Suffering. Do this and there will not. Steal from somebody, you are stealing only from yourself, and thus Everything/Everyone, because the Universe is, er, Uni. Kill others, you are killing yourself, Everything/Everyone. Get lost within the egoic desires and attachments, ego chasing results and 'what's in it for me?' and become alienated from the present moment, the clarity of now, the Light of Gaaaaahhhhhhhd.
(You might remember, if you've ever read the Bible or other similar tomes, that in the Beginning God created the Heavens and Earth and it was all good. Everything. Absolutely everything in Creation is/was Good. So what is 'Bad/Evil' then, if all of Creation is Good? It;s a meditation, all right)
(I'm not a Bible Thumper, btw, in spite of this post. I don't read it, and haven't read it. Just various bits as they crop up in my various researches).
So it's not so much a case of:
A given act will lead to reward or punishment, either in one's present life or in an afterlife or subsequent incarnation, by the act of a given deity?
A given act will lead to reward or punishment, either in one's present life or in an afterlife or subsequent incarnation, by a mechanical but mystical process? - Ev
Because these are all egoic concerns. 'What's in it for me?' The notion of divine morality is such that it negates the self. There is nothing in for you, because you have to let go of 'you' altogether. Sacrifice. Crucify yourself. Die to yourself. It's that equation again:
Go dies so that
we can live so that
we can die so that
God can live.
Thus:
Why should one want to "know and attain the mind of that [deity]"? For a reward? For self-satisfaction?
No. To function perfectly and in accord with Universal Laws (like gravitation, electromagnetism etc.) on a human level...because to interfere creates discord within harmony. Like the new musician in the group who doesn't know the set properly and keeps hitting bum notes, or riffing when they should be supporting, or vamping when they should be soloing. Not up to speed with the very subtle, underlying harmony. The underlying harmony, the beauty of a perfectly improvised piece by musicians who are really cooking, aware, in the moment, responding to the Totality of the subtelties at play and being played, fitting in to the harmonious whole without asserting too much nor too little, knowing when to push, when to pull, when to cresecendo, when to diminuendo, when to coda, when to change key, how to use the modes to create interest, how to stick to the tonic to resolve tension. Not Off on their own ticket. Believing themselves to be more important than the whole.
To accept the everpresent perfection for what it is. Completely. All of it.
Wu Wei, not doing, to Be, truly Be. Because anything else is discord within otherwise perfect harmony. It's not about the self at all. It's about the cosmic scale of being 'part' of Eternity. Understanding that there is nowhere else, and there is no other time and that Right Now is the only opportunity you have or will ever have.
It's difficult to convey properly, obviously. Sorry if I'm mangling it. Or boring you.
For who cares:
One who sees only random forces behind why we humans find ourselves here is ultimately bound only by his or her own wants.
We might as well point to this sentence to explode everything else in the quoted section. The second clause doesn't logically follow from the first and so everything else he writes is based on a false premise.
This is all so abstract and wafty when talk of morality and arbitrary or prescribed notions unless we concrete it with an example.
I have one.
Do you, who cares, or indeed any of the other self-identifying atheists in the thread, upload or download files (music, movies, TV shows, warez, games, whatever), in copyright, published, to or from filesharing networks? Denying the creators / copyright owners / publishers of their living?
I suspect at least some of you do, right? So there we go. The laws of your social contract forbid it, but you do it anyway. Why?
The Rabbi would say because you are 'ultimately bound only by {his or her} [your] own wants.'
A devout Jewish/Christian/Moslem would not do it because to do so is Divinely prohibited...
Interpreting through the gloss of my understanding above, to do so is infringing your won rights, and creating discord and unharmonious cause/effect chains throughout the Universe. Because morality has a basis in Reality, and is not just arbitrary and subject to alteration according to whther it benefits 'you' and, to your current perception 'harms' no-one else.
It's not a perfect example, but it's one I thought you might be able to relate to. It affects me as well, since I make the bulk of my living out of royalties.
You may want to look at this: Negative Proof. An (weak) Atheist is simply someone who doesn’t have any set of beliefs regarding deity: Atheism is not necessarily the positive assertion that there is no god, but rather a demand for evidence for such a being.
OK. I'm looking. The bottom of the first opener states very clearly:
"However, the converse is also true, according to the
So the burden of proof, once again, reverts to the 'Believer' (remember, I don't 'believe in' God or Gods. Not my understanding. We've done all that though.) But this is to misunderstand the experience of God. It is not something poeple can demonstrate to each other. It is something you either experience or you don't. Something you demostrate to yourself, or is demonstrated to you.
This is why I think it is misleading to speak in terms of 'belief' - it leads to the Dawkins assertion that a very large swathe of the human population are 'delusional'. Which could be equally argued in reverse by those who have experienced 'God' (a term I'm really starting to detest, and can see why people reject it outright).
Dawkins clearly believes he is engaged in his own form of rational jihad or crusade, funny enough. Many people, theist and atheist alike, just think he is a hubristic, jumped up dick. Others like him. Good for him.
I still find it fascinating that he should have suggested genes had 'personality' in order to make his point.
Negative proof, argument from ignorance, burden of proof, warrah warrah fishpaste. To frame the religious experience in terms of a scientific paradigm is to fundamentally miss / ignore one of the most famous edicts from the beardy Nazarene who got rather famous for banging on about It so much:
"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17: 20, 21.)"
'Kingdom' is a translation from the Aramaic malkuthach, and qabalah fans fans will recognise 'Malkuth' in there...it means 'Kingdom', right?
Weeeeeelll, sort of. The root of the word implies 'can do' the 'rulership' principles which the ancients saw all about them in Nature. Malkatuh was the name of the (many thousands of years pre-Christ) Great Mother in the Middle East...Mother Nature, if you like. So it can mean 'Kingdom / Queendom', or even better, 'Ruling Principle, System by which Shit Gets DONE'.
Also, Yashua never used the word 'God'. There is no such word in Aramaic. Every reference made is to Alaha.
This means 'One'. Or 'That'. (Point anywhere)
What is the first most important commandment?
'To love the One, That which Is, with all your soul (Nephesch -'Being the physical life of the concrete, it constitutes the soul of man's elementary existence') , and the second is to love those who are compelled, by Mysteries and Fates we know naught of, to live alongside us'
Whatever else you might think of religion and notions of God, that ain't a bad thing to suggest. I have a lot of time for the (possibly invented, who knows?) wisdom of Yashua.
So it's a bit like, as the examples we've been given already, demanding proof of somebody that there is such a thing as Happiness. Or Grief. Or Jealousy.
I'd like to point out to who cares and whoever else that the quote from the Rabbi is not necessarily reflective of my own thoughts. It was a highly contentious piece that served to establish the extreme edges of the morality side of the definitions I attempted back on about page 9 or 10.
I was responding to Nutrient's implication that atheists do.(share a single belief system)
I think you misunderstand me, and it realtes to this notion that atheism isn't / is a belief.
Firstly - who cares, Ev, Quantum, whoever else - you all identify as 'atheists'. Strong, weak, whatever. You are atheists.
What does this mean? Perhaps you could help me out - in order to be 'without' the 'theism', you must have first of all established, to your satisfaction, what that is? So what is it? What, exactly, are you 'without'? That should get us a bit further. Can you define what you are 'without', and demostrate how being 'without' it is not a belief (Chamnbers : a principle or idea, etc accepted as true, especially without proof • 2 trust or confidence • 3 a person's faith. 4 a firm opinion.)
the 'there is no such thing as an atheist belief' angle would seem to be something of a red herring, in my opinion.
i think there is no such thing as an agreed belief about anything, really.
I quite agree.
Right. Yet this doesn't help us re: atheists sharing a belief system or philosophical framework so Nutrient would still seem to be foundering there.
I never asserted that atheists share a belief system or philosphical framework. My definitons, perhaps unwisely, strayed into 'morality', as I thought it would be an interesting logical step to see where it lead. I never suggested 'all atheists have these morals' or 'these notions of right and wrong'. If you'd care to demonstrate how those definitions are erroneous, in your view, go ahead. Quote them, and adjust.
I'm not able to get to the webnet much at the moment, so apologies if I'm really scarce for days on end, and can't respond...
TTFN |
|
|
