still here. still working it through.

[Shnozzola]

can you address the fundamental question, schnozz?

In no way does the absence of god lessen the power of love.

I absolutely love life, and realize the importance of loving my fellow man - and, for me, realizing there aren't any deities - never were - makes love seem that much more important to me.

for simplicity, where is the power of love in the last example?
during the 20th century, the nazis exterminated some 6 million jews, a vast success in evolutionary terms. in poland, jewry was essentially eradicated.
this was a behavior completely consistent with evolution, in which closely-related groups eliminate more distantly-related groups.
how is this consistent with the power of love, as you see it?

The power of love is not in the last example - Nazi bullet to the head.  Is "a bullet to the head" good for evolution or not?  I don't know, so it is only my opinion that love is important.

Let's go down the Nazi tangent:

   Not only do Hitler and the Nazis win, but indeed human beings that are called Jewish are eradicated.  People that are quietly Jewish will remain undiscovered and wink at each other in passing, maybe even quietly meeting to practice Jewish customs.  Meanwhile, undesirables such as "mentally deficient" or "homosexual" are also eradicated. Of course we know that mental problems and homosexuality is a natural part of humanity, so Hitler and Co. will continually have to monitor people forever.  But going on, by selecting for a blond haired blue eyed race of white people, and further selecting for intelligence, even eliminating below a certain IQ, humanity does advance faster than it is now - what does the word "advance" mean?  Advance to what? 

   My mother is a piano teacher.  She has recitals a couple times a year where maybe 50 people are in attendance.   The children are nervous, practicing over and over.  One of the girl's my mom teaches has Down's syndrome.  While the students perform petrified, this young lady smiles and laughs at the audience the whole time, easily being able to memorize the piece and play without looking at her hands.   Everyone learns from her.

my own thinking is, when we learn to enjoy the irony that nothing matters, yet everything matters, that's the best we can do.

[GratefulApe]

.

[Airyaman]

I find this sad. So strange as I am Atheist and believe world is a better place if we lose religion.
How do you feel Kev? Happy in yourself?

Only the heartless among us would smile as one struggles with a defining part of their lives. If it was a truly harmful component, we could I think, but not one that is seemingly not harming others.

For the most part, that is how I view religion. I don't want people to judge me for my lack of religion, so I equally try to respect that they have it in their lives. Being a former theist helps sometimes, unless the reason you left was painful. My departure from religion was not due to a bad experience, it was just a stunning lack of tangible evidence to sustain its reality.

[kevin]

I felt I had a connection to a god too. It was very real to me, and I would tell everyone of my faith, trust and relationship with this god. I was convinced of the reality of this god in my life but it was not something that I could show beyond what was in my head.

it's different with the friends. we use corporate discernment, so contacts and leadings are often shared and experienced by more than one particpant. still, the events are always subjective, and subject only to inductive verification. dunno what to think of the withdrawal. that's the question for which i can't supply an answer. it has to arrive externally, and it hasn't lately.

Are we wrong to see something as wrong when we see it as wrong? That is what this boils down to. We can only truly view life through our own personal lens.

but see, that is a premise, not a conclusion, airyaman. if a theist doesn't accept that premise, then the conclusions derived from it aren't proven to be true. it's believing only in a local definition of right and wrong, rather than a universal one. if we act as though it's possible to say someone else's actions are wrong, then we believe in the universal definition, whether we admit it or not. our beliefs are illustrated by our actions, not by our words.

Is torture wrong? I tend to think so, because I don't want to be tortured. On the flip-side, I have not done anything that I feel is deserving of me being tortured. If someone tortured a person because they were a certain race, color, religion, sex, etc. than I would feel strongly that this was a bad act. If they were tortured because doing so might prevent the harm of countless other people, I might hesitate to judge the action as evil though it would still remain a struggle.

Morality to me tends to be very circumstantial.

i think you have denied the circumstantiality of it by expressing an opinion. if there is any definition of right and wrong that can be justifiably applied to you by someone else, then you have no logical way to assert circumstantiality. if it is possible for you to deserve something, or not to deserve it, then there is an abstract framework in place, whether you can describe it or not. that abstract framework is an external, universal morality of right and wrong.

if it didn't exist for you, morality could logically be described as whatever actions tended to secure your own survival, and those of your relatives. a circumstantial definition would be as good as any other. but you assert it in theory while denying it in your examples.

not trying to be argumentative. i'm exploring the idea, not anybody's personal characteristics.

[kevin]

Kevin, have you considered the case of Job?

lol, jst

Job 1:8  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?


yes.

i have considered job long and hard. there is nothing in jewish scripture that causes me greater difficulty than the moral dilemmas presented by the calamities imposed upon job, his family, and his servants by a supposedly loving and personal god.

god did not permit satan to tramatize job-- the scripture itself identifies jehovah as the cause and agent of job's misfortune:

Job 42:11  Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.


job's question is different from mine, in any event. job is advised to curse god and die, but the existence of god is never in question, merely the nature of his relationship with humans. in the book of job, the issue of how god justifies misfortune is ultimately settled by the assertion that god is bigger and more powerful than job-- he can impose evil because of who and what he is, and humans are to receive it because of who and what they are. job's questions regarding the morality of god are never answered. job is merely silenced by a display of power.

while that is an interesting question, it does not provide a framework for morality that is acceptable to me even in the case of an existent god. the actions of god in the book of job are morally wrong, when judging god by the conscience that god is said to have given us. if god transcends good and evil, then neither defines his nature, and no abstract beliefs of our own can reflect a general truth.

notice in the last chapter that job has all his possessions, family, and servants replenished by god. there is no mention of right or wrong or restitution for the previous slaughter of his family and servants-- they are destroyed utterly, as mere props in a display of power.

[kevin]

That's good, and I wasn't trying to accuse you of using God as an atm machine or anything.

It's the whole "I don't believe in a god, but I still participate in the religion" I guess. Unless I misinterpreted you.

there are lots of atheist friends, garja, as well as christian, jewish, pagan, and agnostic friends. henry cadbury was an agnostic, of all people, one of the translators of the revised standard version.

whether god exists or not, the phenomena asserted by the society are believed to occur by non-theist friends, not all of whom are atheists.  non-theism in the society of friends is not necessarily a denial of god, but an assertion that god may exist in ways that the usual definitions cannot encompass. it's a larger category than atheism, and includes it.

[kevin]

I find this sad. So strange as I am Atheist and believe world is a better place if we lose religion.
How do you feel Kev? Happy in yourself?

why, cat? what is there to be sad about? i haven't lost anything i didn't genuinely have before. i'm merely adjusting my point of view to accommodate a different understanding of nature.

[kevin]

Dear Lord, smack Kevin, just a light smack, just hard enough to force him to pry his mind off of his fantasy r?sum? and to begin to glorify and enjoy you. Amen.

hello, eyes.

you haven't addressed me, so i won't presume to comment.

[Case]

Hi Kevin!

Good to see you are still here! 

[Inertialmass]

An older sister of mine seriously wanted to be a Catholic nun, but sometime in her late teens turned atheist.  She's had the career of professional scientist.  When she had her first child she joined up Unitarian Universalist expressly for the "creedless" socialization benefits.  Now she and her adult children label themselves happily UU atheists.  I could see myself doing the same if I needed the social intercourse and didn't live so far out in the woods. 

[kevin]

The power of love is not in the last example - Nazi bullet to the head.  Is "a bullet to the head" good for evolution or not?  I don't know, so it is only my opinion that love is important.

in fact, the bullet to the head is quite good, for the evolution dominance of aryans. not so good for the evolutionary losers, who were jewish. but in fact, there is a great deal of love in the last example-- love of self, love of aryanism, love of dominance, and so on.

my own thinking is, when we learn to enjoy the irony that nothing matters, yet everything matters, that's the best we can do.

maybe so, but there's nothing in that opinion that extends beyond your own world. is it right to care about syrian refugees? or the fate of dalits in northern india, or world climate change? is there a reason to care about infanticide, or wars of aggression?

how does one choose sides in issues such as these?

[kevin]

Hi Kevin!

Good to see you are still here! 

i come and go, pilgrim. currently i'm here for a bit.

[Case]

Hi Kevin!

Good to see you are still here! 

i come and go, pilgrim. currently i'm here for a bit.

I've been gone for a while. I'm currently waiting for a plane and thought I would drop by for a bit. 

[kevin]

i hate airports. seen a million of them. i've been flying since airplanes looked like this:

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Kevin, have you considered the case of Job?

lol, jst

Job 1:8  And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?


yes.

i have considered job long and hard. there is nothing in jewish scripture that causes me greater difficulty than the moral dilemmas presented by the calamities imposed upon job, his family, and his servants by a supposedly loving and personal god.

god did not permit satan to tramatize job-- the scripture itself identifies jehovah as the cause and agent of job's misfortune:

Job 42:11  Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.


job's question is different from mine, in any event. job is advised to curse god and die, but the existence of god is never in question, merely the nature of his relationship with humans. in the book of job, the issue of how god justifies misfortune is ultimately settled by the assertion that god is bigger and more powerful than job-- he can impose evil because of who and what he is, and humans are to receive it because of who and what they are. job's questions regarding the morality of god are never answered. job is merely silenced by a display of power.

while that is an interesting question, it does not provide a framework for morality that is acceptable to me even in the case of an existent god. the actions of god in the book of job are morally wrong, when judging god by the conscience that god is said to have given us. if god transcends good and evil, then neither defines his nature, and no abstract beliefs of our own can reflect a general truth.

notice in the last chapter that job has all his possessions, family, and servants replenished by god. there is no mention of right or wrong or restitution for the previous slaughter of his family and servants-- they are destroyed utterly, as mere props in a display of power.

Yes the situations are different but not necessarily dissimilar.  Job thought God was punishing him.  You are entertaining the idea that God has left you.  I would like to help but with our differing views, I don't know how much help I would be.  Perhaps you could spend some time with the scriptures if you are not already doing so.  God is known to speak through them.

My inbox is always open.

[kevin]

the scriptures are always useful, and interesting, too, jst. but i also read scriptures of other faith traditions, and in the absence of a living god, they have equal weight, were i to set them side by side. both the quran and the mahabharata are said to have been dictated by divine inspiration. and at least one christian deuterocanonical work claims itself to be divinely inspired.

i don't know very much about the pali canon.

by themselves, writings are dead things. even christian doctrine asserts that scripture must be read in the manner in which it was given, by the agency of the holy ghost. in the absence of the latter, the texts themselves have no power.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Why do you read scriptures from other religions?

[kevin]

why do you read scriptures from only one? assuming that's what you do, of course.

i learn from trying to understand how other people have believed they perceive god.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I have read some of the Quaran.  I didn't make a practice of it and don't read it now because I don't have a reason to do so.

May I ask what it is you learn?

[kevin]

one thing i learned is that some religions hsve a great deal in common in theory, even though they differ in practice.

caitanya hinduism has much in common with tradiional quaketism, in that a spark of divine influence is present in allpeople, and drvotion ideally consists of conscious connection with this spark at every moment. but the ides of karma is not a common connection.

islam seems only superficially connectd with judeochritianity, mostly extracting the lesser doctrines and combining them. like old judaism, its a religion of rules, not reasons. and like augustinian christianity, its a religion of predestination and judgement in the afterlife.

theravada is not really a religion, as practiced in southeast asia. no deity is necessary, and the practice is more like studying physics. so there arethings to learn that are independent of religion.

all of it isuseful in understanding why other people in the world do the things they do.

[catwixen]

I find this sad. So strange as I am Atheist and believe world is a better place if we lose religion.
How do you feel Kev? Happy in yourself?

why, cat? what is there to be sad about? i haven't lost anything i didn't genuinely have before. i'm merely adjusting my point of view to accommodate a different understanding of nature.

I thought those who believed in god would feel a presence with them. Feel less alone or something  I guess I am imagining a loss for you there.
Maybe your belief was a more cerebral thing?

Thanks Airy for your response.

[kevin]

no, the presence is essential. its how we are led.

so im working it through.

but if it was never really there, losing the supposed connection is growth, not loss

[Kiahanie]

Hiya, Kevin. I didn't expect to hear this when I came back. But then anything that does not change is dead, and you certainly never have been that.

I notice some non-theist attempts to provide an absolute or universal moral framework, causing me to think their non-theism is epistemological rather than ontological. Don't know where you are on that spectrum at this point. I tend strongly toward the ontological.

I believe we consciously and/or unconsciously create that framework for ourselves. I've got no problem judging others, and in the appropriate circumstances I will take action to change their behavior to what I consider morally appropriate. I fully expect others to take the same approach with me. Nothing personal, just moral realities at play. Ideally the harmony of that process plays out as complementary chords, but too often the harmony only appears after discord is resolved.

I have experienced a declining connection with That Within since I've been sick. My response so far has been to trust the leadings I felt before until otherwise led. My situation differs from yours in that I did not attach a universal framework to my values (or vice-versa), but only regarded the framework as binding on me, and I find that Quakerism gives me the spiritual language to express that.

I don't have any advice to give. There is no path. We make the path when we walk." (Antonio Machado)

So just keep on keepin' on.

[kevin]

perhaps we do create a moral framework for ourselves, kiahanie. if we do, though, it's no more and no less valid than any framework anybody else creates for their own selves, anywhere.

if that's the case, then there's no difference between us imposing our beliefs on someone, and that someone imposing his beliefs on us-- the actual nature of the beliefs is unimportant. the logical conclusion is that if there is no right or wrong in the question, then whose beliefs are the ones to follow is a function of power. if i can force you to follow my beliefs, then i am justified in doing so, and also in punishing you for resisting.

this line of reasoning yields inescapable comparisons:

-- if you're living in ISIS-controlled territory, then throwing gay men off the rooftops is the right way to treat them:

Spoiler

[close]

-- if you're living in columbus, ohio, near where i live, then integrating gay men into normal society is the right way to treat them:

Spoiler

[close]

each approach is right, for those people holding it. this is a special issue for quakerism, because as quakers we hold coercion to be wrong-- to force a choice upon another conscience goes against the idea that they should be allowed to follow the Light as it leads them.

if my measure of the Light tells me that throwing gay men off the rooftops is Good, then how can anyone else justifiably impose a different idea on me?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

one thing i learned is that some religions hsve a great deal in common in theory, even though they differ in practice.

caitanya hinduism has much in common with tradiional quaketism, in that a spark of divine influence is present in allpeople, and drvotion ideally consists of conscious connection with this spark at every moment. but the ides of karma is not a common connection.

islam seems only superficially connectd with judeochritianity, mostly extracting the lesser doctrines and combining them. like old judaism, its a religion of rules, not reasons. and like augustinian christianity, its a religion of predestination and judgement in the afterlife.

theravada is not really a religion, as practiced in southeast asia. no deity is necessary, and the practice is more like studying physics. so there arethings to learn that are independent of religion.

all of it isuseful in understanding why other people in the world do the things they do.

I have noted similarities too.  Just a few days ago I watched a documentary about "untouched" tribes living in complete isolation.  One tribe made contact with the outside.  The show didn't go into details about their religion but they do have a belief in life after death.  It seems religion is as universal as language.  This isn't what I would predict for a world where there is no God.  What do you think?

[kevin]

you can make an argument that a tendency to invent religion is a characteristic of human beings. dawkins argues that in one of his tedious books.

but if that is true then the common atheist claim that we are all born atheist is false. in fact, we would all be born religious instead, or at least tending that way.

i think that a belief in an afterlife is almost always present, in any culture. what that afterlife consists of varies, but almost always seems to be dependent on one's actions in this life. dawkin's theory doesn't explain that part.

[Case]

you can make an argument that a tendency to invent religion is a characteristic of human beings. dawkins argues that in one of his tedious books.

but if that is true then the common atheist claim that we are all born atheist is false. in fact, we would all be born religious instead, or at least tending that way.

i think that a belief in an afterlife is almost always present, in any culture. what that afterlife consists of varies, but almost always seems to be dependent on one's actions in this life. dawkin's theory doesn't explain that part.

I think any atheistic evaluation of religion / belief in an afterlife must consider how these beliefs have affected our survival as a species. If religion is something that is virtually universal across all human cultures, it must relate to the concept of survival of the fittest, right?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Kevin, can you think of any reasons why God would stop leading someone, or appear to stop leading someone?

[Garja]

Kevin, can you think of any reasons why God would stop leading someone, or appear to stop leading someone?

Because that's what figments of your imagination do?

[Kiahanie]

perhaps we do create a moral framework for ourselves, kiahanie. if we do, though, it's no more and no less valid than any framework anybody else creates for their own selves, anywhere.

Yup.

if that's the case, then there's no difference between us imposing our beliefs on someone, and that someone imposing his beliefs on us-- the actual nature of the beliefs is unimportant.

For an "objective" observer, yup. But I have not mentioned imposing beliefs on others.

the logical conclusion is that if there is no right or wrong in the question, then whose beliefs are the ones to follow is a function of power.

I suggest there is "right and wrong in the question", just not an absolute antecedent for those notions. "Whose beliefs to follow" will depend on the individual. Some go along with power or institutions or their social group. Others follow their own beliefs. I try to be one of those.

if i can force you to follow my beliefs, then i am justified in doing so, and also in punishing you for resisting.

I have not suggested forcing beliefs on anyone, just a change of behavior. You can believe in human sacrifice, just don't practice it.

this line of reasoning yields inescapable comparisons
if you're living in ISIS-controlled territory, then throwing gay men off the rooftops is the right way to treat them:

No.  Power does not determine what is (subjectively) "right": it only sets the conditions under which we live and make decisions.

Let's phrase it this way: Some people living in  ISIS-controlled territory (mostly the controllers) believe throwing gay men off rooftops is the right way to treat them. ISIS does attempt to enforce behaviors consistent with their values, but ISIS does not reflect community values in their territory. Rooftop executions are not a common belief in ISIS-controlled territory, just a belief of the conquering power.

-- if you're living in columbus, ohio, near where i live, then integrating gay men into normal society is the right way to treat them:

That is indeed an example of community values. I hope.

each approach is right, for those people holding it.

That's true for those people holding it because "right" and "wrong" are subjective qualities.

this is a special issue for quakerism, because as quakers we hold coercion to be wrong-- to force a choice upon another conscience goes against the idea that they should be allowed to follow the Light as it leads them.

This we will need to take up later. I have heard Quakers define "coercion" in terms ranging from persuasion and argumentation, to shouting, to physical force, and to threat of death. When I understand how you understand coercion, I'll probably have something to say about the issue of coercion and how I regard it.

if my measure of the Light tells me that throwing gay men off the rooftops is Good, then how can anyone else justifiably impose a different idea on me?

I don't capitalize Good, and I don't know how you would handle that situation, but I have no problem interfering with behavior that crosses the boundaries of my moral foundation.

That foundation is based on the experience and consequent belief that there is That Within each of us that is shared by all others. This is supplemented by the observation that this planet (I don't know about the rest of the universe) seems very life-friendly. A  life of harmony in the Light seems to require that I also support life, that I support those things that nurture life and oppose those things destructive to a fulfilling life.

I am glad to see that Columbus, Ohio has adopted life-affirming and nurturing policies regarding gays. For me, that is morally different from throwing them off rooftops. I have no problem in working for legal systems and policies that require people to behave in ways that are not detrimental to nurturing and life-fulfilling conditions for others.

I wouldn't have any problem trying to prevent anyone from throwing anyone off a rooftop.  Would you?