V
V
Guest
On Jan 14, 8:25 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:24:10 -0800 (PST), Jack <cawo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
> >> taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.
> >That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,
> >must view every action as amoral. However, if you mean "immoral",
> >perhaps you would care to explain why this would necessarily be the
> >case?
>
> Why are so many theists such in-your-face nasty, bigoted liars?
Without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk. The conundrum of the
mind manacled, defiance based, spiritually sick atheist is this. They
need spiritual values to be at peace - yet their own defiance blocks
them from seeking and finding these values.
The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find
peace. If any theist questioning their faith should wonder onto
alt.atheism, for instance, they could see this for themselves with
many spiritually sick example members and their projection of this
spiritual sickness and self hate onto others.
What is missing in these atheists lives?
Do they need to get religion?
Not necessarily.
As we see, many people claiming to be religious are just as bad off as
atheists or sometimes worse.
"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
want to go back."
Spiritual values is what they are short on.
One time an atheist responded to this post saying: "Not having any
beliefs in gods means one must be mind manacled and deluded? I don't
think anyone here is naive enough to fall for your crap, but the more
interesting question is, do 'you' actually believe it?"
Well, it is not the belief or lack of belief in any gods that defines
the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick atheist. The
foundation of such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound
judgment, rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of
opinion that roots itself in egoistic pride.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=627.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0
Such atheists full of defiance and devoid of spiritual values are
'dogmatic skeptics', whereas atheists that are open to spiritual
values are of the order of 'skeptical skeptics.'
The spiritual based atheists have not forgotten 'All Deities reside
within the human breast' as Blake wrote.
There is a world of difference between the two types of atheists...a
night and day difference.
The spiritual based atheists 'deifies humanity and peace' the defiance
based atheist 'deifies their ego' and loses any connection with
humanity and becomes a haggard, shell of a human.
A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts.
Until they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer
(peace) they seek.
It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing
between them and happiness.
So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of
spiritual values.
One thing only goes so far with giving a person a good life. If inner
peace was to be found in a test tube - you would have mixed up a batch
by now.
The vast majority of atheists I have come across seem to be like
animals caught in trap, squirming and writhing in every direction,
looking, grasping outside of themselves for freedom from this trap to
find a modicum of inner peace.
But the trap is an 'inner one' and all their efforts grasping outside
of themselves are futile.
Always remember, passions are rooted in the self and the self is
always is in flux which accounts for the rise and fall of these
passions.
Whereas, truth is stable - for the truth is that which does not
change.
Seek balance. Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect, but
we can all do better at being humane if we try. And as you develop
humane qualities these will support your program for inner peace.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
varieties.
But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is
whether they are a 'spiritual and truth based atheist' or 'defiance
ego based atheist.''
I have to laugh sometimes when I read the fantasies of atheists that
think atheism will take over the world.
It would take a different brand of atheist to persuade many to change
if they investigate the online atheists to any degree.
In short, if you wish to drop the atheist delusion you have been
carrying around for so long, you must become spiritual and truth based
atheists to offer something to the religious crowd - instead of the
defiance based, hate fueled atheists that many of you are.
And this advice goes for theists as well...throughout history, when
were tyrants ever satisfied with just one death?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4006812a06f9ddf
What is a defiance based atheist?
Let me give you an example via some discussion with Neil Kelsey
If we look at Neil Kelsey's youth he showed defiance from the start.
He knew at a young age God was repulsive without even studying
religious thought and told his parents what to do when it came to
marching orders.
Neil Kelsey: "Dragged to Sunday school 3 times, hated the songs,
thought God was repulsive, refused to go ever again."
V: Now at adulthood, Neil Kelsey carried this defiance with him and
refuses to let others think for themselves and demands all think as he
does or else. This is how ego based tyrants have ruled throughout
history...with fear and pain.
Neil Kelsey: "Theists like you (V) should be given electric shocks
every time they use parables. That is my new policy."
V: When the discussion turned to moral values and virtue I
wrote...Professor Peter Kreeft remarked on the subject of morality:
First level morality could be called survival morality - lets not hit
each other on the head so none of us will die. Second level morality
could be justice morality - lets not hit each other on the head
because it is not fair or not right. Third level morality could be
called 'transcend the ego' morality - lets not hit each other because
we love each other.
Neil Kelsey: "Professor Peter Kreeft is a Christian. This is an
atheist group. Why would you think someone who bases their morality on
the Bible and the supernatural has anything relevant to say to an
atheist? Why are you promoting Christian values? Some agnostic you
are. Some freethinker you are."
V: I did not know Professor Kreeft was a Christian. I had listened
to a lecture series from the library on the Philosophy of Religion -
Faith and Reason he authored. He gave no indication of what religion
he was. I did not need to know his religious convictions to come to a
conclusion about what he said. I look at what was said and not at who
said what Neil.
Neil Kelsey demonstrates how the mind manacled, defiance based
atheists gets blinded by prejudice and ego at every turn. Atheist are
mind manacled to what is said and are blocked from truth by their own
ego based prejudices.
Atheists say they operate on truth and not by faith. But, that could
not be further from the truth.
If we look at the 3 examples Kreeft gave, all 3 can be tested by
practical application. Even the 'transcend the ego' concept can be
tested by any freethinking atheist.
All they have to do is practice kindness and being charitable to
humanity as opposed to practicing hatred and ill will. Then they can
test this out for themselves.
But their mind manacled by chains forged in the fire of hatred and
prejudice refuses to entertain any freethought that does not have a
foundation in hatred and ill will towards mankind. You see, it is not
knowledge and peace that their atheism is based on...it is hatred.
Even if the atheist does not wish to test level three morality, level
one and two have nothing to do with spiritual values. Yet the mind
manacled, defiant atheists throws the whole lot out because they get
blinded to the discussion due to prejudice and small minded thinking.
No, Neil, a good agnostic is open to the discussion from all sides. A
proper atheists and theist would be as well.
For how could an atheists claim to serve truth, when they shut their
mind to the discussion and block out anything that their ego demands
them to.
I guess in your mind a good atheists is a yes man that runs by herd
instinct and nothing else. No judging truth on it own, truth is
defined not by testing, but by guilt by association in your mind
Neil.
Freethinker is a popular term thrown around atheists and agnostic
circles. I use it myself to describe myself.
http://www.freethoughtforum.org/about/freethought.aspx
I've only used Neil Kelsey as one example here and he not singled him
out despite his claims that I am vindictive. Neil Kelsey was given the
opportunity to write a rebuttal and have that rebuttal linked to this
post but he refused. Just as I offered the same rebuttal time to other
atheists I mention in my posts.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....e8c18/d22376eaa1088a3a?hl=en#d22376eaa1088a3a
If I wanted to write a book on the subject I could have offered you an
almost endless supply of examples.
For instance. I posted on the subject of "Peace Tools for Atheists,
Agnostics and Believers" to the 'alt.atheism' to open up some dialogue
on what tools are available for the atheist or agnostic to use to
generate inner peace in place of organized religion.
In my post I covered many tools from simplicity, compassion, classical
philosophical studies, ethics, mindfulness, reciprocity, charity,
accepting impermanence, developing gratitude and contentment, cutting
back on craving and desires, working with natural law, balanced
living, etc.
I illustrated how I use freethinking to take tools for peace wherever
I find them without prejudice and evaluate the tool on it own and not
under guilt by association. All the tools I discussed were available
to use without the belief in God.
I received the following responses to my post on inner peace tools:
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "So ****ing what? Keep it to yourself and
nobody will know what an asshole you are."
Kate wrote: "I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me
physically ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little
kiddees he has candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know,
most of the atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning
misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own
self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "What the **** has philosophy got to do
with your in-your-face psychopathy?"
Michael Gray wrote: "Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately
nasty, lying Christian? . Please go away. No-one is buying your
poisonous diatribe. Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?"
John Baker wrote: "First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the
freaking public library. Keep it short and to the point. Second,
you're full of ****."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "We know this deliberately nasty,
slandering liar is a Christian by his fruits...a liar as well as an
idiot...don't be so ****ing stupid."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if
it hit you over the head, whining hypocrite who needs to get the log
out of his own eye before accusing us of a projection of his own
deficiencies."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "a few hundred lines of irrelevant bullshit
by a whining hypocrite who
doesn't practice what he preaches, deleted"
Robibnikoff wrote: "Shaddup, you dick."
Michael Gray wrote: "There ain't nothin' lamer than a jabriol
****wit"
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "Whi give a ****, in-your-face stuipid
moron?"
John Baker wrote: 'I'd almost feel sorry for him if he wasn't such
a disgusting piece of ****."
Robibnikoff wrote: "I hope that stupid ****er (V) doesn't think I
actually read all that dog **** he posts."
Robibnikoff wrote: "....no one gives a **** what you think."
Stoney wrote: "Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a
wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I
trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters."
I did not receive one reply offering to discuss this topic, only
abusive replies condemning me and my offer for the discussion of
finding inner peace.
All these replies came from non-freethinking, mind manacled, defiant
based atheists.
How do I know they are such?
Because of their replies.
I do not expect for anyone to agree with any or all of my tools.
But if we disagree with a concept, we must have another concept to
replace what we have torn down in our minds as wrong. How do we know
what is wrong unless we know what is right?
With this group, all they could offer to replace my tools were 'ad
hominem' arguments to destroy me and not destroy the concepts.
Such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound judgment,
rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of opinion that
roots itself of egoistic pride.
Through a life based in condemnation prior to investigation, they do
not see that as they go to extreme measures to have no connection with
spirituality, their actions also causes a lose of connection with any
humanity.
Robibnikoff explained the plight of the mind amcled, defiance absed,
spittly sick athestr it best when she wrote: "I hope that stupid
****er (V) doesn't think I actually read all that dog **** he posts."
She knows what I say is all wrong, without even reading it.
Reminds me of another mind manacled atheist Enkidu.
Enkidu writes: "You (V) have nothing to say that we haven't heard
before, nothing to say that hasn't been say better by others, and
nothing to say that was worth hearing when said better by others. Your
pathetic little turds of truth are unoriginal , irrational, ill-
conceived, ill-received, and devoid of value. But no, with all the
understanding of diarrhoeic bull's ass, you continue to spray ****
with abandon. " (condensed)
Edkidu's condition of self deification is discussed here:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
I would tell all the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick
atheists - sure, tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride.
But so did torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we
need a different way to find self worth.
As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well.
As you give so you receive.
Is that from the bible or karma? No, it is just universal law.
Do we like to be beaten down?
Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.
It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.
When I posted this paragraph earlier, a mind manacled atheist piped to
accuse me of hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick
it up to eat it.
Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.
If you can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger fish
to fry you will see a world of difference in your peace practice.
The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
about by eating a potato.
The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of inner Peace
tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how they work, I
just know they are.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.
All of us are not so fortunate in this respect and run on herd
instinct.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
But, when the true freethinker is shopping around for tools to build
their palace of inner peace, they can decide what goes into that tool
box and do not have useless tools thrust upon them.
Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the time
being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken and
useless.
Traditional freethinkers (atheists) do not accept me as one of their
group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to
garner wisdom to live at peace.
Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that comes from
religion.
Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a freethinker...but I must block out
everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and
whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation?
Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And
realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside within the
human breast."
Yes, if it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have
to look as far as the religion of humanity.
But just paying secular humanism lip service will not do any good.
Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.
Spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix. One atheists gave
his views on this subject of discussing spiritual tools to live by:
Al Klein writes:
"What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the
word, one can't know what you mean. Why study something for which you
not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"
Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the
wind is hard to define.
Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen and the unknown, how can
we define them perfectly?
If we could do that they would not be spiritual studies.
You can't see why one person is loving and kind and another person is
a fiend of perennial shame, hate and destruction.
Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into a kind and
loving human.
We can describe spiritual concepts and the journey that made the
change possible, but it is impossible to put our finger on it all
exactly.
Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, an imperfect
process in this life.
But just as we can see the effects of the wind, while being blind to
its source; we can most definitely see the difference in people that
incorporate spiritual values within their lives when compared to
people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values.
Their are many fields of spiritual studies.
We can separate the studies into two main fields; the corporeal and
the meta-corporeal.
Some of these studies deal with energy fields, meditative states of
consciousness, out of body and near death accounts, psychic research,
etc.
Most of my work is in the corporal realm since that deals with inner
peace. I leave the advanced studies to those better qualified for it
than myself. Britain and the US both have centers for psychic
research. Plenty of information is out there if you are interested in
studying it.
"No man is so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other
counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for
a master." Ben Jonson
No one said we have to 'investigate it all,' but we do have to give it
some thought if we wish to be at peace.
A Hindu sage once told me "Just as water floes downhill without effort
but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the
human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without
effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than
our base desires."
As such without effort the defiance based atheists sinks deeper and
deeper into sickness and tragedy as time goes by.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e77181f1188b4804/8d580376205a536b?
The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
at peace.
This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can best be
visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the
spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves.
At the top goes Higher Power / God of Peace and God of Nature /
Yahweh / Buddha / The Dharma / Nature / Karma / Universe or whatever
you choose as the unseen force behind all.
On the bottom right corner of the triangle goes other people. On the
left bottom corner of the triangle goes yourself.
Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps develop
compassion for others and humility within ourselves.
We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs
and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with
all.
Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the same
breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards
others. It is much better to develop compassion for others.
For as we develop compassion for others we develop peace within, just
as it is a law that when we develop hatred for others we develop
hatred within.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=628.0
No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be
open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth
and sustenance for life - as no one person is god.
As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the
road takes me.
I discriminate against no one.
As such, I study with the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the
Muslims, the Taoists and even find truth as I study with the
atheists.
I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide
spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his
life by the golden rule. A theist then injected that the golden rule
came from the bible, which made the atheist wince.
The atheist seemed to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not
like to run his life by anything that came out of the bible. When it
was suggested that the concept of golden rule might be from an earlier
source than the bible, then the atheist was relieved.
This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light
resides?
Is it ego based or truth based?
When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible
he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not approve
of, he was upset.
How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yet
only build a hovel for another?
By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a
life at peace, and the other person only seeing prejudice, problems
and doing nothing.
Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect
as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also
has many "perfection's" within it as well.
We can still be open to peace generating tools from any of the
religions and spiritual traditions that are available to us if we are
serious about being at peace.
This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.
In the Sermon on the Mount, it was reported that Jesus said:
“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to
them” (Matthew 7:12).
Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as “The Golden Rule,” and
is more commonly quoted as: “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.”
Is the story of Jesus a myth?
I don't know, but there seems to be real and substantive reasons for
the myth theory to be true.
In any case, I can put principles before personalties and look at what
was said instead of who said what to get at the bottom line truth.
Even if Jesus was myth, it has no bearing on the practical application
of the golden rule of reciprocity anymore than the practical
application of Taoists beliefs that come from the myth of Lao Tzŭ.
Wisdom and truth transcend personalties.
Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity
~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause
him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient
Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.
~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another
whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
Zoroastrianism.
? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.
~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,
new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.
~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist
or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you?
This truth is universal in nature as it is based not on being of a
certain religion, other than that of the religion of humanity. In this
case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to your life
irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.
I had to chuckle one time when an atheists argued that the golden rule
is not perfect, so he said he does not follow it. When I questioned
him about what he does follow as well as the state of perfection that
applied to his life, all he could do was reply with ad hominem
attacks.
If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we
will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything
outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us.
The nature of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look
towards direction and forget perfection.
I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this
point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul." The only thing we
need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our
spiritual practice and our life.
Regarding the golden rule?
It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is a most useful tool to live
a life at peace by.
And when we combine it with other tools such as universality, natural
law, contrasting the greater good with the greater right, flourishing
of the species theory, etc., the synergistic effect is close to
perfection as humans can get with this subject.
But it takes some thinking and one will not see it without an open
mind.
I believe this is why religion was created in the first place. Most
people cannot give this subject of morals the time needed, so religion
is a condensed and easy to assimilate form of prepackaged morals. You
only hope the packing was done right from the start as we can see that
many religious devotees of the past have use it as a scapegoat to do
harm to others.
I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I
receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no
goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding
peace.
Sure, I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right enough' to be
able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I waited for
perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.
Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with
the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not
to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."
This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists
lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting
concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations.
The atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket
dismissal of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could
offer no substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb
to personal attacks on me.
We can examine our actions to see what useful tools for finding peace
we offer to others. This evaluation says a lot about our own practice
of generating inner peace.
When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
reap self destruction of inner peace.
I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life
adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals)
and become practice based secular humanists as a good first start.
(Note the stress on practice and not on lip service...for without
application knowledge is useless.)
The 'informal creed' of atheism.
An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.
An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now.”
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"
• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.
Council for Secular Humanism
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
Urban Homesteader
Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind-
manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist.
AA#2
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:24:10 -0800 (PST), Jack <cawo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
> >> taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.
> >That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,
> >must view every action as amoral. However, if you mean "immoral",
> >perhaps you would care to explain why this would necessarily be the
> >case?
>
> Why are so many theists such in-your-face nasty, bigoted liars?
Without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk. The conundrum of the
mind manacled, defiance based, spiritually sick atheist is this. They
need spiritual values to be at peace - yet their own defiance blocks
them from seeking and finding these values.
The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find
peace. If any theist questioning their faith should wonder onto
alt.atheism, for instance, they could see this for themselves with
many spiritually sick example members and their projection of this
spiritual sickness and self hate onto others.
What is missing in these atheists lives?
Do they need to get religion?
Not necessarily.
As we see, many people claiming to be religious are just as bad off as
atheists or sometimes worse.
"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
want to go back."
Spiritual values is what they are short on.
One time an atheist responded to this post saying: "Not having any
beliefs in gods means one must be mind manacled and deluded? I don't
think anyone here is naive enough to fall for your crap, but the more
interesting question is, do 'you' actually believe it?"
Well, it is not the belief or lack of belief in any gods that defines
the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick atheist. The
foundation of such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound
judgment, rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of
opinion that roots itself in egoistic pride.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=627.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0
Such atheists full of defiance and devoid of spiritual values are
'dogmatic skeptics', whereas atheists that are open to spiritual
values are of the order of 'skeptical skeptics.'
The spiritual based atheists have not forgotten 'All Deities reside
within the human breast' as Blake wrote.
There is a world of difference between the two types of atheists...a
night and day difference.
The spiritual based atheists 'deifies humanity and peace' the defiance
based atheist 'deifies their ego' and loses any connection with
humanity and becomes a haggard, shell of a human.
A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts.
Until they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer
(peace) they seek.
It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing
between them and happiness.
So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of
spiritual values.
One thing only goes so far with giving a person a good life. If inner
peace was to be found in a test tube - you would have mixed up a batch
by now.
The vast majority of atheists I have come across seem to be like
animals caught in trap, squirming and writhing in every direction,
looking, grasping outside of themselves for freedom from this trap to
find a modicum of inner peace.
But the trap is an 'inner one' and all their efforts grasping outside
of themselves are futile.
Always remember, passions are rooted in the self and the self is
always is in flux which accounts for the rise and fall of these
passions.
Whereas, truth is stable - for the truth is that which does not
change.
Seek balance. Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect, but
we can all do better at being humane if we try. And as you develop
humane qualities these will support your program for inner peace.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
varieties.
But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is
whether they are a 'spiritual and truth based atheist' or 'defiance
ego based atheist.''
I have to laugh sometimes when I read the fantasies of atheists that
think atheism will take over the world.
It would take a different brand of atheist to persuade many to change
if they investigate the online atheists to any degree.
In short, if you wish to drop the atheist delusion you have been
carrying around for so long, you must become spiritual and truth based
atheists to offer something to the religious crowd - instead of the
defiance based, hate fueled atheists that many of you are.
And this advice goes for theists as well...throughout history, when
were tyrants ever satisfied with just one death?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4006812a06f9ddf
What is a defiance based atheist?
Let me give you an example via some discussion with Neil Kelsey
If we look at Neil Kelsey's youth he showed defiance from the start.
He knew at a young age God was repulsive without even studying
religious thought and told his parents what to do when it came to
marching orders.
Neil Kelsey: "Dragged to Sunday school 3 times, hated the songs,
thought God was repulsive, refused to go ever again."
V: Now at adulthood, Neil Kelsey carried this defiance with him and
refuses to let others think for themselves and demands all think as he
does or else. This is how ego based tyrants have ruled throughout
history...with fear and pain.
Neil Kelsey: "Theists like you (V) should be given electric shocks
every time they use parables. That is my new policy."
V: When the discussion turned to moral values and virtue I
wrote...Professor Peter Kreeft remarked on the subject of morality:
First level morality could be called survival morality - lets not hit
each other on the head so none of us will die. Second level morality
could be justice morality - lets not hit each other on the head
because it is not fair or not right. Third level morality could be
called 'transcend the ego' morality - lets not hit each other because
we love each other.
Neil Kelsey: "Professor Peter Kreeft is a Christian. This is an
atheist group. Why would you think someone who bases their morality on
the Bible and the supernatural has anything relevant to say to an
atheist? Why are you promoting Christian values? Some agnostic you
are. Some freethinker you are."
V: I did not know Professor Kreeft was a Christian. I had listened
to a lecture series from the library on the Philosophy of Religion -
Faith and Reason he authored. He gave no indication of what religion
he was. I did not need to know his religious convictions to come to a
conclusion about what he said. I look at what was said and not at who
said what Neil.
Neil Kelsey demonstrates how the mind manacled, defiance based
atheists gets blinded by prejudice and ego at every turn. Atheist are
mind manacled to what is said and are blocked from truth by their own
ego based prejudices.
Atheists say they operate on truth and not by faith. But, that could
not be further from the truth.
If we look at the 3 examples Kreeft gave, all 3 can be tested by
practical application. Even the 'transcend the ego' concept can be
tested by any freethinking atheist.
All they have to do is practice kindness and being charitable to
humanity as opposed to practicing hatred and ill will. Then they can
test this out for themselves.
But their mind manacled by chains forged in the fire of hatred and
prejudice refuses to entertain any freethought that does not have a
foundation in hatred and ill will towards mankind. You see, it is not
knowledge and peace that their atheism is based on...it is hatred.
Even if the atheist does not wish to test level three morality, level
one and two have nothing to do with spiritual values. Yet the mind
manacled, defiant atheists throws the whole lot out because they get
blinded to the discussion due to prejudice and small minded thinking.
No, Neil, a good agnostic is open to the discussion from all sides. A
proper atheists and theist would be as well.
For how could an atheists claim to serve truth, when they shut their
mind to the discussion and block out anything that their ego demands
them to.
I guess in your mind a good atheists is a yes man that runs by herd
instinct and nothing else. No judging truth on it own, truth is
defined not by testing, but by guilt by association in your mind
Neil.
Freethinker is a popular term thrown around atheists and agnostic
circles. I use it myself to describe myself.
http://www.freethoughtforum.org/about/freethought.aspx
I've only used Neil Kelsey as one example here and he not singled him
out despite his claims that I am vindictive. Neil Kelsey was given the
opportunity to write a rebuttal and have that rebuttal linked to this
post but he refused. Just as I offered the same rebuttal time to other
atheists I mention in my posts.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....e8c18/d22376eaa1088a3a?hl=en#d22376eaa1088a3a
If I wanted to write a book on the subject I could have offered you an
almost endless supply of examples.
For instance. I posted on the subject of "Peace Tools for Atheists,
Agnostics and Believers" to the 'alt.atheism' to open up some dialogue
on what tools are available for the atheist or agnostic to use to
generate inner peace in place of organized religion.
In my post I covered many tools from simplicity, compassion, classical
philosophical studies, ethics, mindfulness, reciprocity, charity,
accepting impermanence, developing gratitude and contentment, cutting
back on craving and desires, working with natural law, balanced
living, etc.
I illustrated how I use freethinking to take tools for peace wherever
I find them without prejudice and evaluate the tool on it own and not
under guilt by association. All the tools I discussed were available
to use without the belief in God.
I received the following responses to my post on inner peace tools:
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "So ****ing what? Keep it to yourself and
nobody will know what an asshole you are."
Kate wrote: "I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me
physically ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little
kiddees he has candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know,
most of the atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning
misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own
self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "What the **** has philosophy got to do
with your in-your-face psychopathy?"
Michael Gray wrote: "Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately
nasty, lying Christian? . Please go away. No-one is buying your
poisonous diatribe. Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?"
John Baker wrote: "First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the
freaking public library. Keep it short and to the point. Second,
you're full of ****."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "We know this deliberately nasty,
slandering liar is a Christian by his fruits...a liar as well as an
idiot...don't be so ****ing stupid."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if
it hit you over the head, whining hypocrite who needs to get the log
out of his own eye before accusing us of a projection of his own
deficiencies."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "a few hundred lines of irrelevant bullshit
by a whining hypocrite who
doesn't practice what he preaches, deleted"
Robibnikoff wrote: "Shaddup, you dick."
Michael Gray wrote: "There ain't nothin' lamer than a jabriol
****wit"
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "Whi give a ****, in-your-face stuipid
moron?"
John Baker wrote: 'I'd almost feel sorry for him if he wasn't such
a disgusting piece of ****."
Robibnikoff wrote: "I hope that stupid ****er (V) doesn't think I
actually read all that dog **** he posts."
Robibnikoff wrote: "....no one gives a **** what you think."
Stoney wrote: "Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a
wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I
trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters."
I did not receive one reply offering to discuss this topic, only
abusive replies condemning me and my offer for the discussion of
finding inner peace.
All these replies came from non-freethinking, mind manacled, defiant
based atheists.
How do I know they are such?
Because of their replies.
I do not expect for anyone to agree with any or all of my tools.
But if we disagree with a concept, we must have another concept to
replace what we have torn down in our minds as wrong. How do we know
what is wrong unless we know what is right?
With this group, all they could offer to replace my tools were 'ad
hominem' arguments to destroy me and not destroy the concepts.
Such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound judgment,
rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of opinion that
roots itself of egoistic pride.
Through a life based in condemnation prior to investigation, they do
not see that as they go to extreme measures to have no connection with
spirituality, their actions also causes a lose of connection with any
humanity.
Robibnikoff explained the plight of the mind amcled, defiance absed,
spittly sick athestr it best when she wrote: "I hope that stupid
****er (V) doesn't think I actually read all that dog **** he posts."
She knows what I say is all wrong, without even reading it.
Reminds me of another mind manacled atheist Enkidu.
Enkidu writes: "You (V) have nothing to say that we haven't heard
before, nothing to say that hasn't been say better by others, and
nothing to say that was worth hearing when said better by others. Your
pathetic little turds of truth are unoriginal , irrational, ill-
conceived, ill-received, and devoid of value. But no, with all the
understanding of diarrhoeic bull's ass, you continue to spray ****
with abandon. " (condensed)
Edkidu's condition of self deification is discussed here:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
I would tell all the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick
atheists - sure, tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride.
But so did torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we
need a different way to find self worth.
As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well.
As you give so you receive.
Is that from the bible or karma? No, it is just universal law.
Do we like to be beaten down?
Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.
It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.
When I posted this paragraph earlier, a mind manacled atheist piped to
accuse me of hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick
it up to eat it.
Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.
If you can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger fish
to fry you will see a world of difference in your peace practice.
The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
about by eating a potato.
The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of inner Peace
tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how they work, I
just know they are.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.
All of us are not so fortunate in this respect and run on herd
instinct.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
But, when the true freethinker is shopping around for tools to build
their palace of inner peace, they can decide what goes into that tool
box and do not have useless tools thrust upon them.
Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the time
being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken and
useless.
Traditional freethinkers (atheists) do not accept me as one of their
group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to
garner wisdom to live at peace.
Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that comes from
religion.
Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a freethinker...but I must block out
everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and
whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation?
Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And
realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside within the
human breast."
Yes, if it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have
to look as far as the religion of humanity.
But just paying secular humanism lip service will not do any good.
Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.
Spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix. One atheists gave
his views on this subject of discussing spiritual tools to live by:
Al Klein writes:
"What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the
word, one can't know what you mean. Why study something for which you
not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"
Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the
wind is hard to define.
Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen and the unknown, how can
we define them perfectly?
If we could do that they would not be spiritual studies.
You can't see why one person is loving and kind and another person is
a fiend of perennial shame, hate and destruction.
Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into a kind and
loving human.
We can describe spiritual concepts and the journey that made the
change possible, but it is impossible to put our finger on it all
exactly.
Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, an imperfect
process in this life.
But just as we can see the effects of the wind, while being blind to
its source; we can most definitely see the difference in people that
incorporate spiritual values within their lives when compared to
people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values.
Their are many fields of spiritual studies.
We can separate the studies into two main fields; the corporeal and
the meta-corporeal.
Some of these studies deal with energy fields, meditative states of
consciousness, out of body and near death accounts, psychic research,
etc.
Most of my work is in the corporal realm since that deals with inner
peace. I leave the advanced studies to those better qualified for it
than myself. Britain and the US both have centers for psychic
research. Plenty of information is out there if you are interested in
studying it.
"No man is so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other
counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for
a master." Ben Jonson
No one said we have to 'investigate it all,' but we do have to give it
some thought if we wish to be at peace.
A Hindu sage once told me "Just as water floes downhill without effort
but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the
human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without
effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than
our base desires."
As such without effort the defiance based atheists sinks deeper and
deeper into sickness and tragedy as time goes by.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e77181f1188b4804/8d580376205a536b?
The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
at peace.
This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can best be
visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the
spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves.
At the top goes Higher Power / God of Peace and God of Nature /
Yahweh / Buddha / The Dharma / Nature / Karma / Universe or whatever
you choose as the unseen force behind all.
On the bottom right corner of the triangle goes other people. On the
left bottom corner of the triangle goes yourself.
Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps develop
compassion for others and humility within ourselves.
We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs
and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with
all.
Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the same
breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards
others. It is much better to develop compassion for others.
For as we develop compassion for others we develop peace within, just
as it is a law that when we develop hatred for others we develop
hatred within.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=628.0
No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be
open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth
and sustenance for life - as no one person is god.
As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the
road takes me.
I discriminate against no one.
As such, I study with the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the
Muslims, the Taoists and even find truth as I study with the
atheists.
I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide
spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his
life by the golden rule. A theist then injected that the golden rule
came from the bible, which made the atheist wince.
The atheist seemed to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not
like to run his life by anything that came out of the bible. When it
was suggested that the concept of golden rule might be from an earlier
source than the bible, then the atheist was relieved.
This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light
resides?
Is it ego based or truth based?
When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible
he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not approve
of, he was upset.
How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yet
only build a hovel for another?
By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a
life at peace, and the other person only seeing prejudice, problems
and doing nothing.
Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect
as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also
has many "perfection's" within it as well.
We can still be open to peace generating tools from any of the
religions and spiritual traditions that are available to us if we are
serious about being at peace.
This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.
In the Sermon on the Mount, it was reported that Jesus said:
“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to
them” (Matthew 7:12).
Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as “The Golden Rule,” and
is more commonly quoted as: “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.”
Is the story of Jesus a myth?
I don't know, but there seems to be real and substantive reasons for
the myth theory to be true.
In any case, I can put principles before personalties and look at what
was said instead of who said what to get at the bottom line truth.
Even if Jesus was myth, it has no bearing on the practical application
of the golden rule of reciprocity anymore than the practical
application of Taoists beliefs that come from the myth of Lao Tzŭ.
Wisdom and truth transcend personalties.
Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity
~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause
him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient
Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.
~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another
whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
Zoroastrianism.
? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.
~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,
new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.
~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist
or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you?
This truth is universal in nature as it is based not on being of a
certain religion, other than that of the religion of humanity. In this
case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to your life
irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.
I had to chuckle one time when an atheists argued that the golden rule
is not perfect, so he said he does not follow it. When I questioned
him about what he does follow as well as the state of perfection that
applied to his life, all he could do was reply with ad hominem
attacks.
If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we
will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything
outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us.
The nature of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look
towards direction and forget perfection.
I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this
point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul." The only thing we
need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our
spiritual practice and our life.
Regarding the golden rule?
It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is a most useful tool to live
a life at peace by.
And when we combine it with other tools such as universality, natural
law, contrasting the greater good with the greater right, flourishing
of the species theory, etc., the synergistic effect is close to
perfection as humans can get with this subject.
But it takes some thinking and one will not see it without an open
mind.
I believe this is why religion was created in the first place. Most
people cannot give this subject of morals the time needed, so religion
is a condensed and easy to assimilate form of prepackaged morals. You
only hope the packing was done right from the start as we can see that
many religious devotees of the past have use it as a scapegoat to do
harm to others.
I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I
receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no
goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding
peace.
Sure, I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right enough' to be
able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I waited for
perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.
Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with
the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not
to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."
This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists
lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting
concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations.
The atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket
dismissal of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could
offer no substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb
to personal attacks on me.
We can examine our actions to see what useful tools for finding peace
we offer to others. This evaluation says a lot about our own practice
of generating inner peace.
When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
reap self destruction of inner peace.
I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life
adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals)
and become practice based secular humanists as a good first start.
(Note the stress on practice and not on lip service...for without
application knowledge is useless.)
The 'informal creed' of atheism.
An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.
An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.
An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now.”
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"
• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.
Council for Secular Humanism
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
Urban Homesteader
Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind-
manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist.
AA#2