Deism and Universism

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

There has been a lot of christian discussion's lately so I figured I would open up a discussion regarding my personal ideologies and put myself on the chopping block. These are my personal beliefs and ideologies. I feel like I am constantly on the offensive so perhaps it's my turn to be on the defensive, plus, I like discussing my ideas so people can find gaps in my logic and I can hopefully fill in the holes for myself.

I am a deist and I consider myself apart of the universist movement. I personally believe that there is a cosmic hiearchy of existence and the entity(s) that created this universe fabricated it in the same way a clockmaker creates a clock. The clockmaker hypothesis asserts that an individual can collect the necessary pieces required to assemble a clock, the clockmaker can assemble the pieces into a working clock and the clockmaker can wind the clock up and set it into motion. From this point on, the clock function's independant of the clockmaker and continues to carry out it's designated purpose; denote time.

This is analogous to our universe as it was created with the natural laws of the universe in place as an 'engine' for the universe. There is no intervention post-assembly as the universe is simply running it's course using it's designed engine; nature. We are a byproduct of the universe just as every other organism is. We are equipped with the machinery of logic, reason, consciousness, cognition, and free-thought which we should use to discover and understand our universe.

There are no absolutes in this universe, so using that logic, one would assert that our pursuit for truth must be active and everchanging. Religion seeks to stagnate and stifle progression and create a static canopy of 'truth'. This contradicts everything that I observe in the universe. The universe tells me that we must challenge everything until it can't be challenged anymore.

"Truth lives in motion, and dies in captivity."​

UNIVERSISM IS A SIMPLE LIFE PHILOSOPHY CONSISTING OF THESE FIVE TENETS:​

I. Universists are people who search for the meaning of our own lives while keeping our minds and hearts open to new avenues and new destinations.

II. Universists believe that no source outside of ourselves can accurately declare what is true in the ultimate sense. Furthermore, we re-evaluate our own beliefs with changing life experiences, remaining uncertain and curious even in the presence of apparent discovery. Whereas religion has sought to evangelize and preserve truths, we seek to personalize and change truths, understanding they are the unique products of diverse minds.

III. In every situation, Universists believe that moral judgments are the sole province of those involved. Behavior and its motivations occur in the context of unique circumstances and relationships and cannot be understood via universal religious codes or absolute philosophical principles. "Good or evil" is a false dichotomy that belies the complexity of our universe.

IV. Universists value institutions to the extent that they facilitate our ability to freely determine the course of our own lives while minimally interfering in others' efforts to do the same. No group is more important than the individuals that compose it.

V. Universists believe that we have the potential to realize our dreams, limited only by the physical properties of this universe. The physical universe is subject to our will.

http://www.deism.org

Does anyone find any flaws in my logic or model of the universe? This isn't to be taken as a scientific hypothesis as we understand that science is currently bound to the physical plane of this universe.

This is to serve as my philosophical ideological basis.

 

[TruthSpeaker1]

In every situation, Universists believe that moral judgments are the sole province of those involved. Behavior and its motivations occur in the context of unique circumstances and relationships and cannot be understood via universal religious codes or absolute philosophical principles. "Good or evil" is a false dichotomy that belies the complexity of our universe.

This is one flaw that I see in Deism. The principle of Good and Evil ONLY exists as a religious pretext. Without religion, this idea wouldn't even exist.

For example, outside of religion, nothing can be 100% good or 100% evil. A demon is 100% bad as an angel is 100% good. Outside of this, everything has it's good and bad properties, which in itself is subjective as well.

The sun is good in that it nourishes life. It is bad in that it emits UV radiation and causes skin cancer. A car is good in that it enables very fast transportation, it is bad in that it pollutes the environment. Every single secular object in our universe lives up to this example. Morality cannot exist without religion. <--- See absolute morality.

So with the thought of absolute morality in mind, this good and evil idea is an all-or-none concept. It can only exist in religion and is not definity not a subjective idea.

I pretty much understand what Deism is since I use to be one. Is univerism simply a movement of deism?

 

[punktuality]

Overall I quite like the idea but do find it somewhat flawed.
In some areas your philosophy seems too wide and in others too narrow.

The clockmaker hypothesis asserts that an individual can collect the necessary pieces required to assemble a clock, the clockmaker can assemble the pieces into a working clock and the clockmaker can wind the clock up and set it into motion.

When was the last time a clock that I made questioned who made it. I think this idea questions and belitles 'free will' somewhat. If I am a cog in a clock then why am I here asking myself these questions? Are my questions and thoughts just a cog in the clock? Not wanting to turn this into a free will debate... just pointing out that your statement voids the attractive notion of free will.

Religion seeks to stagnate and stifle progression and create a static canopy of 'truth'.

No, religion seeks anything but answers.. many and most religions today seem misguided of this but all religion has its roots in the same place as science... people want to understand and know WHY? Religion as an entity does not seek anything. Your own philosophy may be classed as a religion... thus cancelling itself out.

Universists believe that no source outside of ourselves can accurately declare what is true in the ultimate sense.

To use a multi-dimensional analogy to argue this point:
Imagine a worm like creature with only 1 sensory organ somewhat like smell.
This creature only see's the world in 2 dimensions due to it single sense and lack of stereo perception. We see the world in 3 dimensions because we have more senses and can combine our stereo senses to create a 3 dimensional image of the world. Now imagine an intelligent creature with even more senses, perhaps a way of taping 4 or more spatial dimensions. I think it is niave to think that the ultimate truth is even graspable by us in the same way that the worm cannot comprehend the third dimension that we take for granted. We can percieve what is subjectively true to us... but the ultimate objective truth is a much more daunting goal to reach for when you are capable of undertanding there amy be more to the world than you are capable of understanding.[/QUOTE]

"Good or evil" is a false dichotomy that belies the complexity of our universe.

One truth I can completely agree with you on.

Universists believe that we have the potential to realize our dreams, limited only by the physical properties of this universe. The physical universe is subject to our will.

I find this statement a bit limiting, if not a total contradiction? I can realise my dreams via will alone... but am constrained by the limits of the world. So I can only relaise what is possible...not what is impossible? Makes sense but when you think about it and break it down it sounds a bit 'simple' really. "
"I can make this apple move up by picking it up with my hand... but if i want to make it levitate and explode mid air I cant, because the universe wont let me!"... well yes that is true.

I sound a bit critical... but I do like your ideas... They just seem to have some limiting laws for a philosophy that seems to seek to be as open minded as possible...

 

[knight_marshall]

i agree that the philosophy is limiting, and in places flawed, but overall I do appreciate the major idea's, and find them similar to my own.

I personally believe that there is a cosmic hiearchy of existence and the entity(s) that created this universe fabricated it in the same way a clockmaker creates a clock... [cut] ...There are no absolutes in this universe, so using that logic, one would assert that our pursuit for truth must be active and everchanging.

Contradiction. No absolutes implies infinite does not exist other than symbolically, and therefore any creator must themselves have a creator, as existance never began but instead has always existed (unless, like me, you believe infinity does exist within a reality, but that a reality exist's within another reality, infinitely)

Religion seeks to stagnate and stifle progression and create a static canopy of 'truth'. This contradicts everything that I observe in the universe. The universe tells me that we must challenge everything until it can't be challenged anymore.

If there are no absolutes, then everything is infinitely challengable, and infinitely progressable. Religion doesn't seek to stagnate and stifle progression... it is the outcome of generations who have grown tired of the never ending search, combined with the teaching of those who have realised the lack of absolutes and attempted to help those unable too see it. Unfortunately (and obviously), no religion has survived flawless, as humanity has evolved.

I see no major flaws, allthough quite often i stop and say 'wait, what about...' So much is this the case that i'd better need to understand your model of reality and existance. To me, the five tenets you mention are slightly abstract and without actual definition of any point, so much so that they allude to other things that possibly contradict the original statement, while staying ambiguous enough to not really mean anything at all, depending on how you take them. And while I enjoy this style of evolvable ideals, I find them pointless/unusable.

I'm definately gonna have to post my philosophy soon, I've almost finished writing it, so the basic idea shouldn't be too far away.

Oh...

No, religion seeks anything but answers.. many and most religions today seem misguided of this but all religion has its roots in the same place as science... people want to understand and know WHY?

True, but when society could find no answer (because sometimes there just are none) religion provided a lie to create an image of safety, perhaps selfishly (for converts) perhaps destructively (cummon, every ruler since rulers were invented used religion for destructive purposes), and perhaps to allow society to move forth, not held back by their own ignorance. And yes, I'll admit that perhaps relgion didn't create a lie...

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

This is one flaw that I see in Deism. The principle of Good and Evil ONLY exists as a religious pretext. Without religion, this idea wouldn't even exist.

For example, outside of religion, nothing can be 100% good or 100% evil. A demon is 100% bad as an angel is 100% good. Outside of this, everything has it's good and bad properties, which in itself is subjective as well.

The sun is good in that it nourishes life. It is bad in that it emits UV radiation and causes skin cancer. A car is good in that it enables very fast transportation, it is bad in that it pollutes the environment. Every single secular object in our universe lives up to this example. Morality cannot exist without religion. <--- See absolute morality.

Morals are situational and subjective. Homicide is considered the most evil act a person can commit universally, however, homicide can be considered lawful and good if it's commited in the face of self-defense. If a man shoots at me and misses and I shoot and kill him, homocide is morally justified.

If you are a Christian you would probably consider sex out of wedlock to be immoral and evil, however, if you aren't a Christian, sex out of wedlock might be considered moral and justified.

So with the thought of absolute morality in mind, this good and evil idea is an all-or-none concept. It can only exist in religion and is not definity not a subjective idea.

Morals can exist outside of religion as a system of guidelines and principals to prohibit one person from infringing on another person. You can't escape the fact that our actions affect other's so we must learn to logically and reasonbly decide how to carry-out our lives without impressing upon others. The difference is that each person uses the gifts of logic and reason to decide upon what's morally good.

"Morals are doing what's right, regardless of what you're told.
Religion is doing what you're told, regardless of what's right"

The idea is that noone can tell you what's moral or immoral, it's up to you to decide. Religion has defined it's moral base time and time again and time and time again religion wages war on religion based on these moral definitions.

The Christians think the Muslim's are immoral, the Muslim's think the Jew's are immoral, etc. We had religious war throughout history and it's going on still today.

I pretty much understand what Deism is since I use to be one. Is univerism simply a movement of deism?

Universism is a movement which encompasses atheism, deism, taoism and agnosticism primarily and the focus is the eradication of religious oppression and that everyone should accept the diversity of humankind and foster the individual search for truth.

Religion seeks to stifle progress and stagnate our free-thought. Religion defines what is true and what isn't, what's good and what's evil, what you should do and what you shouldn't do -- this creates a static canopy looming overhead, trapping you from progressing.

When a group of people claim they have the answers and fight everyone that opposes their idea of the truth, it's not religion, it's oppression.

The fact is, no one knows for sure.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

When was the last time a clock that I made questioned who made it. I think this idea questions and belitles 'free will' somewhat. If I am a cog in a clock then why am I here asking myself these questions? Are my questions and thoughts just a cog in the clock? Not wanting to turn this into a free will debate... just pointing out that your statement voids the attractive notion of free will.

The analogy isn't literal. The idea is that whichever entity created this universe, created it with the natural laws of the universe in place and has not intervened since it's creation. The universe is not a clock in the sense that's purpose is to keep time, it's purpose is to follow the natural laws.

The idea is to consider the universe a self-sustaining creation, similar to a clock in the sense that a clock keeps time based on the laws it's given to follow and the universe simulates itself independantly by abiding by the natural laws that it's given to follow. The laws are the engine of the universe, without them, I would assume it would be a different place.

Organism's are a byproduct of the overall picture. We are far to microscopic/cosmic to grasp the entire picture of our universe, so logically one would assume we are not the center of this universe. Instead, logic dictates that the universe itself is the center and it's natural laws serve as the engine for it's progress.

No, religion seeks anything but answers.. many and most religions today seem misguided of this but all religion has its roots in the same place as science... people want to understand and know WHY? Religion as an entity does not seek anything. Your own philosophy may be classed as a religion... thus cancelling itself out.

Religion doesn't 'seek' answers. Religion 'has' the answers and tells everyone else, "Hey, we figured it out, stop searching just come listen to us we will tell you how it is." If any practice falls into this category, I consider it a religion.

Deist's believe that we don't know the answers and the only way to get closer to the answers is to never stop searching. The only things that we know as facts today are the things that haven't been proven wrong, yet. Simply, we agree that things are true but we don't know.

Religion stifles the search for truth because the truth is 'known', deism fosters the search for truth because we proudly embrace the fact that we simply, don't know.

To use a multi-dimensional analogy to argue this point:
Imagine a worm like creature with only 1 sensory organ somewhat like smell.
This creature only see's the world in 2 dimensions due to it single sense and lack of stereo perception. We see the world in 3 dimensions because we have more senses and can combine our stereo senses to create a 3 dimensional image of the world. Now imagine an intelligent creature with even more senses, perhaps a way of taping 4 or more spatial dimensions. I think it is niave to think that the ultimate truth is even graspable by us in the same way that the worm cannot comprehend the third dimension that we take for granted. We can percieve what is subjectively true to us... but the ultimate objective truth is a much more daunting goal to reach for when you are capable of undertanding there amy be more to the world than you are capable of understanding.

The quote that you are responding to simply refers to humankind. The idea is that no other human can tell you what's true, only you can ultimately decide what's true and what's not true. The idea of ultimate truth that we are referring to is the best truth that you can personally decide upon.

This has nothing to do with entities or beings more capable than we are.

I find this statement a bit limiting, if not a total contradiction? I can realise my dreams via will alone... but am constrained by the limits of the world. So I can only relaise what is possible...not what is impossible? Makes sense but when you think about it and break it down it sounds a bit 'simple' really. "
"I can make this apple move up by picking it up with my hand... but if i want to make it levitate and explode mid air I cant, because the universe wont let me!"... well yes that is true.

I sound a bit critical... but I do like your ideas... They just seem to have some limiting laws for a philosophy that seems to seek to be as open minded as possible...

It is simple and broad because universism encompasses everyone who wishes to be a part of the movement.

You have to remember that certain religions feel that things in this universe are not ours.Essentially we are asserting that this universe is ours and we should discover it and use it as an aide.

It's one of the five tenent's so its purpose is to be simple and broad as the movement is simple and broad.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

i agree that the philosophy is limiting, and in places flawed, but overall I do appreciate the major idea's, and find them similar to my own.

I believe that it's just the opposite, it's open ended and limitless.

Contradiction. No absolutes implies infinite does not exist other than symbolically, and therefore any creator must themselves have a creator, as existance never began but instead has always existed (unless, like me, you believe infinity does exist within a reality, but that a reality exist's within another reality, infinitely)

I believe there are absolutes, however, we are still searching for them. I also believe in a cosmic hiearchy of existence, meaning, the only logical conclusion I can draw from our universes' origin is that something of greater intelligence and power than us created this universe. I don't not wish to call this entity God as I can't be certain that this entity is the final product.

I simply believe an entity greater than us created this universe but it's highly possible that the entity which created this universe is the byproduct of an even greater entity and so on and so fourth. Since I can't possibly speculate as to what's beyond this universe, I feel it's impossible to speculate what existence truly is. We only know what it is to exist on planet earth, as simple as that. I refuse to believe that existence is as simple as organisms on planet earth and an all powerful god looming overhead.

I believe the cosmic hiearchy extends much greater.

If there are no absolutes, then everything is infinitely challengable, and infinitely progressable. Religion doesn't seek to stagnate and stifle progression... it is the outcome of generations who have grown tired of the never ending search, combined with the teaching of those who have realised the lack of absolutes and attempted to help those unable too see it. Unfortunately (and obviously), no religion has survived flawless, as humanity has evolved.

Growing tired and giving up the search doesn't justify religion's oppressive nature. Foster the search, don't stifle it.

I see no major flaws, allthough quite often i stop and say 'wait, what about...' So much is this the case that i'd better need to understand your model of reality and existance. To me, the five tenets you mention are slightly abstract and without actual definition of any point, so much so that they allude to other things that possibly contradict the original statement, while staying ambiguous enough to not really mean anything at all, depending on how you take them. And while I enjoy this style of evolvable ideals, I find them pointless/unusable.

The five tenants are of the universist movement, so they are broad and simple -- this is done on purpose to include anyone and everyone that wishes to be apart of the movement.

The goal is to allow diversity, not oppress it. If we lay down rules and guidelines that are strict, then we just create another dogma for people to follow.

It's a movement of individuals who want to change the idea that we must abide by certain dogma's, instead, we want to make it known that it's up to you to decide, not people buried in the ground and books with words in it.

These people and books are only a tool, they are not the answer.

I'm definately gonna have to post my philosophy soon, I've almost finished writing it, so the basic idea shouldn't be too far away.

I'd be down to hear it. Keep in mind, I didn't write the five tenent's which is why I posted the website for it. I believe in the tenents, however, so I integrate them into my belief system.

Oh...

True, but when society could find no answer (because sometimes there just are none) religion provided a lie to create an image of safety, perhaps selfishly (for converts) perhaps destructively (cummon, every ruler since rulers were invented used religion for destructive purposes), and perhaps to allow society to move forth, not held back by their own ignorance. And yes, I'll admit that perhaps relgion didn't create a lie...

I don't want to say religion's "lie", simply, they stop the search because they "know" the answers.

A Christian will tell you that he/she "knows" the Truth because God is Truth and the Bible is God therefore the Bible is Truth.

They aren't lying, they believe this in their heart -- the problem is, I don't believe it so they shouldn't stop me from searching.

 

[Akoto]

Religion seeks to stagnate and stifle progression and create a static canopy of 'truth'.

Force=Mass*Acceleration

As best as we have been able to figure out, this is a constant universal rule that is always true.

Or atleast thats what it has been in the past, but is not nessisarily true. Religion is simply as set of rules and principals of which to live by, which can be extremely useful when living in a machine as flawed and inacurate as the human body. Whith that in mind, you could view science itself as a religion, which seeks universal truth and constant rule to Universe. The only difference is that science is logicaly based and relyed solely in emperical evidense, instead of blind faith based on the words of former wise people.

Heck, even your views can be considered religious.

The clockmaker hypothesis asserts that an individual can collect the necessary pieces required to assemble a clock, the clockmaker can assemble the pieces into a working clock and the clockmaker can wind the clock up and set it into motion. From this point on, the clock function's independant of the clockmaker and continues to carry out it's designated purpose; denote time.

So basicly your saying you belive God created the Heaven and the Earth. At a semingly arbitrary point, God just happened to sneese all matter, energy, and rule into existance. Makes perfect sence to me, but thats also very close to the Christian view.

"Good or evil" is a false dichotomy that belies the complexity of our universe.

Yet such as thing obviously exists, if only from a single view point. But then that begs the question: where did that viewpoint come from?

I belive there is a singular univeral "Good" and a singular univeral "Bad" of which we derive all other assumptions, regardless of our awareness of this thing. It is the one true thing that everyone can agree on and interact with.

Think about it: If two people cannot agree on anything, there is no argument, only blind contradiction. Eventualy, one of thoes people gets pissed off and punches the other guy in the face. Person two cannot honestly disagree that that punch effected him in a negative way. This is the only thing both people can agree on, and is therefore the basis for all other arguments or interactions between particles, people, or anything what-so-ever.

The idea is that whichever entity created this universe, created it with the natural laws of the universe in place and has not intervened since it's creation.

Yeah but obviously the reminant of that initial 'punch' is still around, so doesnt it make sence that that punch is infact what we call God, and any interactions with that punch were previously ordained by God?

 

[qwedsa]

This is one flaw that I see in Deism. The principle of Good and Evil ONLY exists as a religious pretext. Without religion, this idea wouldn't even exist.

For example, outside of religion, nothing can be 100% good or 100% evil. A demon is 100% bad as an angel is 100% good. Outside of this, everything has it's good and bad properties, which in itself is subjective as well.

in that example, good and evil still exist outside of religion. all you said was that its illogical to state that the entirety of something can be good or evil

considering that good/evil are subjective states felt by people who don't believe in god or some other religion, how could you say morality could only exist with religion? we see numerous counter examples every day

 

[qwedsa]

Force=Mass*Acceleration

As best as we have been able to figure out, this is a constant universal rule that is always true.

it predicts what we will observe

beyond that, you really can't say what's actually "out there" (past our subjective realities, the 'objective' reality)

 

[Akoto]

^True, but we have nothing to suggest otherwise so we assume that formula to be universaly true, regardless of the fact that it probably is'nt.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

For clarity:

I posted the five tenents of universism as a guideline for the overall idea of the movement. It's important to understand that this movement embraces and encourages each individual to develop their own lense to view reality with. I am providing my lense as well as the mentality that we should foster the search for each individual while minimally imposing on others.

Force=Mass*Acceleration

As best as we have been able to figure out, this is a constant universal rule that is always true. Or atleast thats what it has been in the past, but is not nessisarily true.

Correct -- It's a universal assumption that is probably true. It's only a universal rule currently, because we agree it's a universal rule through objective observation.

For instance, an objective observation might be that everyone see's the same elephant. When in reality, everyone hears everyone else say that they see the same elephant. That is the definition of objectivity.

Religion is simply as set of rules and principals of which to live by, which can be extremely useful when living in a machine as flawed and inacurate as the human body. Whith that in mind, you could view science itself as a religion, which seeks universal truth and constant rule to Universe. The only difference is that science is logicaly based and relyed solely in emperical evidense, instead of blind faith based on the words of former wise people.

Philosophy is "simply a set of rules and principals to live by"; religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power(s) that control human destiny and since this belief is held to the highest degree, anything associated with such a belief system is considered the final word. Religion assert's what's good and bad, what's true and not true, how to live and what will happen if you don't live the proper way. However, how do we know this is the truth? Is it because you tell me it's the truth because your religion says so?

Religion doesn't search for truth or foster the search of others, it seeks to stifle the search as they have the answers you are looking for, however, those are their answers, not mine. If Religion is "simply a set of rules and principals to live by" and the search for truth, then why is religion the cause of so many wars and problems? Wars and problems between opposing religions who are fighting because each side believes that their god has given them the answers and the rules to live by and that anyone not abiding by their gods rule, opposes gods rule.

What about the dark ages? That was a magnificant display of religious oppression in full swing.

The point is that I don't believe in living by dogma's unless you have personally decided that a particular dogma is the truth. It can't be told to you, you have to decide for yourself.

Heck, even your views can be considered religious.

Explain how? I don't believe in an entity that intervenes nor does this entity possess omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. Simply, this entity possess enough intelligence and power to create this universe, that's it.

I am not asserting that my personal views on existence are the correct way to view existence, I am asserting my individual ideas and concepts that I personally believe in and that I believe everyone should foster the search for everyone else. This means discussing our ideas and concepts, question everything that you are told, remain skeptical in the face of discovery, never stop searching.

The universe is active and everchanging which means our search must be as well.

So basicly your saying you belive God created the Heaven and the Earth. At a semingly arbitrary point, God just happened to sneese all matter, energy, and rule into existance. Makes perfect sence to me, but thats also very close to the Christian view.

I don't believe in God, in fact, I don't believe in any higher power. I believe that there is an entity capable of creating this universe. I don't believe that this entity created "the heaven and the earth", I believe that this entity created the universe with the natural laws set in place as an engine and that everything that has come into existence as a result of the universes engine. I believe that we are a byproduct of the universe, we are not the purpose.

There is no intervention post-creation, there is no implied intent that we know of, the only intent is individual and for each person to decide.

Christian's believe that bibleGod created Earth specifically for us and that this is our domain to rule over. Christians believe in a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Christian's believe that bibleGod intervenes and has ordained specific rules to live by and punishment for those who defy his words. Christian's believe that bibleGod's intent is for us to follow his rules and go to heaven.

How is this similar in any sense whatsoever?

Yet such as thing obviously exists, if only from a single view point. But then that begs the question: where did that viewpoint come from?

I don't understand this question.

I belive there is a singular univeral "Good" and a singular univeral "Bad" of which we derive all other assumptions, regardless of our awareness of this thing. It is the one true thing that everyone can agree on and interact with.

This is the point -- our awareness is subjective and individual. If there is a singular universal "good" and a singular universal "evil", it is up to each individual to discover what this is.

If you look back on the history of civilizations, you will not find a single universal moral truth. The Romans encouraged the raping of Sabine women, the Mayan's embraced the ideas of cannabilism and sacrificial killings, Christian's embraced the idea of war and murder during the crusades.

War is justified murder because one side disagrees with the other side.

What are these 'universal' moral truths of good and evil, exactly? Morals are situational, not universal.

Think about it: If two people cannot agree on anything, there is no argument, only blind contradiction. Eventualy, one of thoes people gets pissed off and punches the other guy in the face. Person two cannot honestly disagree that that punch effected him in a negative way. This is the only thing both people can agree on, and is therefore the basis for all other arguments or interactions between particles, people, or anything what-so-ever.

If two people cannot agree on anything, then those two people maintain seperate belief systems and should respect this diversity. This doesn't mean people shouldn't express themselves or ideas, however, people shouldn't oppress others for maintaining their beliefs.

A Young Earth Creationist is never going to agree with an Evolutionist -- A Muslim is never going to agree with a Jew -- A drug addict is never going to agree with an anti-drug advocate -- A staunch pro-life supporter is never going to agree with a woman in the middle of an abortion.

The difference is that instead of imposing on and oppressing each other for our seperate beliefs, we exhibit a bit of tolerance.

Yeah but obviously the reminant of that initial 'punch' is still around, so doesnt it make sence that that punch is infact what we call God, and any interactions with that punch were previously ordained by God?

Can you clear this up for me, homie?

I am at work so I hope my replies are sufficient. I enjoy discussing this shit with you guys.

 

[doesntmatter]

just to kinda of push the discussion further.

are there any rules at all?

say there is a mentally ill person who looking through their own lense, can see it morally fitting to kill an innocent person. say through their eyes its fine to rape a small child, they have not only made a choice to do so, but because they made the choice in complete confidence that it is moral by their standards, does this mean that they are still following these points correctly?

you say its situational, but a situation can be looked at from so many different perspectives.

 

[Akoto]

If Religion is "simply a set of rules and principals to live by" and the search for truth, then why is religion the cause of so many wars and problems?

Cause people are greedy selfish assholes and the heads of church have everything to gain by dominating all other viewpoints. Doesnt nessisarily have to be that way tho.

Explain how? I don't believe in an entity that intervenes nor does this entity possess omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. Simply, this entity possess enough intelligence and power to create this universe, that's it.

A religion doesnt have to have a perfect God or even an metaphysical Lord of some sort as its head. Ghandi is a good example of this. People follow his teachings religiously and form church-like things for him, but no rational person actualy belives he was anything more than a man.

The universe is active and everchanging which means our search must be as well.

So what we need is a dynamic objective world religion, as opposed to autocratic dogmatic selfish ones all squablling over the same crap.

What are these 'universal' moral truths of good and evil, exactly? Morals are situational, not universal.

I dunno, but there must be something we can all agree on to be good, or atleast some fundamental dividing point between the two (good being the side you happen to fall on), cause where else would the concept have come from?

A Young Earth Creationist is never going to agree with an Evolutionist -- A Muslim is never going to agree with a Jew -- A drug addict is never going to agree with an anti-drug advocate -- A staunch pro-life supporter is never going to agree with a woman in the middle of an abortion.

Unless you punch them in the face. My point is, there are no two entities in existance that cant agree on anything.

Can you clear this up for me, homie?

If God created everything, then He should be able to predict at any point in time what will happen. So then wouldt it make sence that Gods apparent interventions were pre-ordained and existant?

I dont really belive its quite like that persay, but there you go.

 

[Akoto]

just to kinda of push the discussion further.

are there any rules at all?

say there is a mentally ill person who looking through their own lense, can see it morally fitting to kill an innocent person. say through their eyes its fine to rape a small child, they have not only made a choice to do so, but because they made the choice in complete confidence that it is moral by their standards, does this mean that they are still following these points correctly?

you say its situational, but a situation can be looked at from so many different perspectives.

That kinda dabbles into utilitarianism where there are varying degrees of morality, depending on how many benefit or loose from a particular action.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Cause people are greedy selfish assholes and the heads of church have everything to gain by dominating all other viewpoints. Doesnt nessisarily have to be that way tho.

It's because the people of each religion believe they have been given the word of god (or gods) and since this is the law of man, anyone who opposes this law, opposes their lord(s).

This creates opposition of ideas and beliefs which shouldn't exist. They are simply beliefs and ideas, nothing more.

A religion doesnt have to have a perfect God or even an metaphysical Lord of some sort as its head. Ghandi is a good example of this. People follow his teachings religiously and form church-like things for him, but no rational person actualy belives he was anything more than a man.

The only definition I use for religion is any movement or practice that involves an autocratic dictator and the belief that their truths, laws and moral codes are universally correct and that anyone who opposes their beliefs, shall be imposed upon and oppressed. If a practice considers anyone not apart of their movement an enemy and seeks to impose and oppress those not involved, then it's a religion. This dictator can be Adolf Hitler or it can be bibleGod himself.

I assert that all Gods have religions but not all religions have a god.

So what we need is a dynamic objective world religion, as opposed to autocratic dogmatic selfish ones all squablling over the same crap.

The goal of the Universist movement is to aide in the creation of a worldview that allows for dynamic change, the personal search for truth, the embracing of diversity among all life and a common purpose. There is no commonality among humans as autocratic dogmatic religions stifle exploration and discovery.

However, since our purpose is not to oppress or impose upon others, we simply deliver our message and those who wish to join us may and those who don't are free to do as they wish. We will continue our search and continue to introduce this worldview. We simply ask that we are left to our search without imposition of others.

I dunno, but there must be something we can all agree on to be good, or atleast some fundamental dividing point between the two (good being the side you happen to fall on), cause where else would the concept have come from?

I default to Moral Relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

If God created everything, then He should be able to predict at any point in time what will happen. So then wouldt it make sence that Gods apparent interventions were pre-ordained and existant?

I dont really belive its quite like that persay, but there you go.

I don't believe in God. I believe in an entity capable of creating this universe. This simply asserts that there is an entity more intelligent and powerful than us but isn't necessarily the final product of the equation. The equation can be expanded but we currently don't posssess the knowledge to expand upon this equation.

You can cultivate a bacteria colony inside of a peatry dish but that doesn't mean you have omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence in relation to that bacteria colony, do you?

Unfortunately, since we can't create universes ourselves, this is the best analogy I can come up with.

 

[Akoto]

It's because the people of each religion believe they have been given the word of god (or gods) and since this is the law of man, anyone who opposes this law, opposes their lord(s).

Do you honestly belive the heads of church actualy belive all that they preach?

I don't believe in God. I believe in an entity capable of creating this universe.

Yeah, most people call such an entity God.

 

[doesntmatter]

I


The only definition I use for religion is any movement or practice that involves an autocratic dictator and the belief that their truths, laws and moral codes are universally correct and that anyone who opposes their beliefs, shall be imposed upon and oppressed. If a practice considers anyone not apart of their movement an enemy and seeks to impose and oppress those not involved, then it's a religion. This dictator can be Adolf Hitler or it can be bibleGod himself.

so by that definition you can't tell anyone about your universism belief system?
otherwise Christians "should" be doing the same(not that they all do). i was taught lead through actions. i was taught to never judge anyone regardless of race or religion. just let my actions speak for themselves.

ofcourse i haven't been proud of all the things i've done, but thats why i dont' try and say "well this person is trying to tell me something that doesn't make sense to me so they must be forcing it on me"

just speaking from my standpoint, but Christianity doesn't teach US to judge others. we are not to impose or opress anyone according to the Word. we are shown whats wrong, and PEOPLE take it upon themselves to judge and contemn people because of this. its human nature. dont' blame Christianity for it though, humans can corrupt anything.

that rant was off topic though and i apologize, just felt like saying it.

anyways, so what if Hitler's lense showed a perfectly moral explanation for his actions.

yeh, say its utilitarian. just proves that there are common beliefs. now whether you thinkg they evolved, were put there, or both is another discussion.

 

[qwedsa]

as long as we're on morality, i'd like to give my perspective on this

morality/immorality is not an attribute contained within any object or action; its basis is an emotional/chemical reaction in the brain

thus, when you see morality or immorality, your mind is engaged in projection. you are experiencing morality as if it's out there, you're tricking yourself. this is called a delusion

 

[Akoto]

^A statement like that requires alot more than words. Got anything to back it up?