That’s the problem. Human sacrifice seemed “right” to some people.
The thing is, how can you possibly know what is evil and what is good, if all yo have to go on is your own perception?
I meant “simply is,” as in no need for further explication. As to “seeking good,” I will again point out that two interpretations of “seeking good” can be necessarily mutually exclusive.
I won’t try to respond to this metaphor directly, as there are too many loosely defined terms. I will ask, however, how you know this. How do you know that our guitars are not tuned properly? Maybe everyone is in perfect tune. What do you see about the world that suggests to you that *everyone * needs to pursue this search?
Can you provide any evidence that atheism is sold on a scale approaching one billionth of that of religion? Where are the coffers to match the Vatican’s? Where are the billions of adherents? Where is the dogma? Where are the miracles? The demands that someone live his life just so?
I don’t think it diminishes our seeking good. We can still prefer to associate ourselves with the good part of a universe that “just is.” In fact, I think that’s probably a more noble pursuit; to acknowledge that our existence comprises both good and bad and to make an effort to be a part of the good despite the continuous presence of bad. There is no way to escape the effects of bad, but you can do your best to actively affect the good.
I think that is the point. Call it rightness, harmony, being in tune, whatever, eventually we all will be understood and felt, and lived in the same way.
Wrongness would be actions out of harmony with this universal understanding. Part of my feeling about it is that we are all connected beyond anything we can do to disconnect. So literally when we act to harm others we are harming ourselves as well.
Surely the harm is so unequal as to be meaningless. Idi Amin Dada should have been devoured many times over. Hitler should have been murdered six million times. You see where I am going with this. In your example, “harm” is a false equivalency.
And again, there is nothing to suggest that “harmony with the universe” does not entail actions that you perceive as very wrong, but others perceive as very right. Virtually anything can be described as being harmonious with the universe.
Prezactly. In fact, I’d say that you cannot have “harmony” without all of the elements of our existence. Aligning with the “good” in the world is a personal value decision, i.e., you may think abortion is bad and I may think it’s good. Both value judgements are accurate.
And the belief is that even though humans have different perceptions of good and evil, ultimately there is one true common good that is true for all. So we move forward on the journey to discover and live this truth. Along the way we share the journey with others. Although our perceptions are not exactly the same by sharing the journey and interacting we help each other move forward.
Seriously? The world seems in perfect harmony to you?
It’s not a matter of knowing even though it can feel that way. That’s where faith comes in. Faith in what is resonating within us. Faith in what we are learning about ourselves and experiencing in life. Faith in a sense of purpose and meaning that calls us forward.
The problem, as I have noted, is that the paths different humans choose to take can be diametrically opposed. Aztecs believed in ritualized murder/suicide, Christians find both to be abominations. It is all well and good to assert that we will all eventually end up in the same place, but if such divergent paths can lead there, what is the point in preferring one over another? For all you know, not seeking God is the best way; ignoring God completely the most perfect worship.
I never said that, and it does not take a very close reading of my post to realize this. What I did say is that “All of our guitars are in tune” is as likely as “All of our guitars need tuning.” “Harmony” is so ill defined as to be useless.
This statement:* Nothing resonates in me, therefore I now know God,* is completely consistent with your statement.
In my admittedly imperfect understanding we are each responsible for our own state of being and direct action that springs from it. Hitler didn’t personally kill six million people. He issued orders based on his own state of being, and each person involved along the way made a choice. What would he have been responsible for if nobody obeyed? A bad attitude?
Jesus indicated that hatred was the same as murder. Why? Because if we embrace and justify our hatred of others that becomes our state of being. There can be no harmony and no moving forward if hatred is in our hearts and we refrain from murder only under threat of law. Then we need only change the law to justify murder. Can you think of any examples where that has happened? If we truly are transformed within to feel our connections with others and we really see them as an extension of ourselves, a cell in the same body, hatred is eliminated.
and again, it’s faith that there is indeed an ultimate truth and supreme good that is the same for all existence, that we are all moving toward. It’s personal and subjective and so is the evidence that affirms faith. Interacting and touching others in a way that feels in tune with that faith.
Oh, come on now. Is this response serious? Assuming it is, substitute John Wayne Gacy. Whatever harm came to him was tiny compared to the harm he caused others. He only died once, was not tortured, raped, etc.
OK. Plug Hitler back into it.
Unless the path to harmony involves murder. Who can say it doesn’t? (With reference to the OP. Bear in mind that he proposes no named “God,” so appeals to Jesus seem off point.)
Whatever does the law have to do with it? Are you suggesting that laws are by nature in harmony with the universe?
And again, I can hold that concept to be true and still hold that, for example, “Defeat of all our enemies is the ultimate good.” What about a culture that believes that the greatest good a human can perform is to die in battle? Are the warriors not the ones closest to God?
I’ll try. In this thread we are discussing the different interpretations and value of faith.
it occurred to me that the faith as described in Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. doesn’t have to be the faith that clings to beliefs even when existing evidence shows they are incorrect. It doesn’t have to mean, “we’re right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong” It doesn’t have to mean “we’re not changing our beliefs ever”
Faith can be that we act on what we perceive to be right and true now at this moment with whatever our concept of outcome might be. Each action and it’s consequence, each experience brings new information for us to consider and process so that our next choice may be different because our understanding of what is right and true has changed.
That is what I prefer to call true faith rather than the perverted meanings it has taken on with all the negative connotations. We can hold beliefs provisionally knowing that we have more to learn and understand , but act on faith with the beliefs we hold right now. That is a faith that is universal for all and embraces learning and progress.
It’s the universal and progressive nature of thios faith that makes me prefer to call it true faith.
Got it, with the exception of certainty in that which we do not see. I think that kind of faith probably is universal. However, I’d probably clarify the term as “non-spiritual faith” so as not to muddy the waters. In a thread that discusses the god concept, it would be easy to confuse the two.
If you read my response to **Kalhoun ** you’ll see more of how this works. IMHO of course. We each are responsible to act on what we believe to be true. Our true actions lead to new experiences that lead to new perceptions of what is true. Each path is unique to the individual for only they can look within and determine what they perceive to be true. Years ago I was a Christian and was being true to my beliefs of that time. Now I no longer embrace those beliefs and although my beliefs are quite different, at each point I was being true to myself. So for some being an atheist is indeed the true path for them. For others it is not. Still, we can both be headed for the same destination.
I find it amazing and beautiful that there can be a oneness and yet we can pursue very different paths to get there.
I think preferring one path over the other is inevitable for the individual. What we need to understand is that we don’t know the the proper path for others.
Did you grasp my meaning when I asked if you thought the world was in harmony? if you did then it must not be so ill defined.
This is meaningless to me. Does it mean something to you?
I don’t see atheism as a “product” but I cannot say the same for religion. Atheism is the lack of product. The books on the subject are merely an attempt to show religion as the snake-oil operation it is. More comparable to a “truth in advertising” campaign. For instance, you may have been taking a vitamin supplement for many years. The PSA is simply saying that there is no evidence that the supplement performs as advertised.
I’m pretty sure I never indicated that actions received had to be the exact equivalent of actions actions committed. Where are you getting this?
If you have a point to make please spell it out. Hitler’s state of being on it’s own may have been no different than others who never became rulers. It was only through interaction with others and their cooperation, or their fear of opposing, that allowed what happened to happen. He is responsible for his own choices but not the choices of those that cooperated. Not the choices of those who might have opposed him earlier but looked the other way.
You made the Jesus God association not I. Keep in mind that the belief is that there is a universal truth, and harmony that applies to all. A person may indeed feel that murder is their truth, perhaps for reasons of justice. That choice brings it’s own consequences.
Not at all. Laws change. IMO they reflect the state of being of those who follow them, change them, enforce them with their particular bias. Laws can make an invasion of another country and the killing of it’s citizens legal, but not moral or in harmony with universal truth.
The point I was trying to make is that when we transform the inner person to see and live our connection with all, that will be reflected in our laws as well.
Am I denying widely varied perceptions of what is good exist? No. IMO universal truth is, the true enemy and the true battle is within, and once we conquer that we understand that other people are not the enemy, but just fellow humans fighting the same inner battle. If that is indeed universal truth all other philosophies and beliefs lead there. Believe it or not.
Who’s to say you ask? I’m to say…for me. You’re to say for you. Nice arrangement ain’t it?
Oh no. By* true* faith I meant spiritual faith for those who embrace spirituality, and fortunately, a faith we can share with those who don’t care for the spiritual label. Ain’t that great?
My preference, as impossible as it seems, is to try and correct the perversion of the definition of faith. An emotional need to believe something that evidence indicates is not true, is not faith. So lets stop calling it that.
“What we do not see” in this case may be a metaphor for what we do not {yet} understand. Looking at the world as it is now I might not have a lot of evidence that striving for love and truth are worthwhile efforts, yet, I can still act with certainty that the effort is indeed worthy.
There can’t be much doubt that a huge part of religion is a product to be bought and sold. I might say that with books like The God Delusion and Atheist Manifesto, atheism can become a product as well, but honestly it is a million miles away from what religion has been doing for generations.
I also think it’s a mistake to think that product is the only element of religion which is why I dismiss Clothahump’s blanket generalizations. For many people it is the vehicle for their spiritual journey and their relationship with however they perceive god. Their sincerity and whatever growth and benefit comes from that is not altered by the existence of the product of religion.
Wait a minute. Spiritual-based faith has nothing in common with faith that is based in the real world. A spiritualist may be able to grasp both types of faith, but they cannot be one and the same or agreed upon by both the spiritualist and the humanist. It’s impossible.
I am using the words “god” and “religion” interchangeably here (though I realize some people do not). In that respect, god is the product and books written by atheists are the PSA.