Is it important to know what is really real?

[TurkeyOnRye]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

For one that philosophically believes in God. it appears to me that both destination and the search for Truth are one and the same.I know very little about Zen. Perhaps you have a thought about Zen and the search for Truth? One of my problems in reasoning is that I do not know enough about other people's ideas. Does Zen have a God(s)?

Humanism I know about. If I were a humanist, I would be confessing that there was not a God or a giver of moral codes. All these would have to originate with man's reasoning without God. God for me serves mankind as an ultimate premise to all reasoning; therefore, the belief is that to eliminate humans {who are full of error, mistake, due to the lack of non static premises in reasoning**, is a good thing.This type of reasoning is called "Premise theology." Without adequate premises for reasoning or changing premises of logical concepts, premise theology says that reasoning leads to philosophies of darkness. Existentialism might fall into this category, for as you point out, "that this moment is what matters" and background and prior premises are not important.

I tend to believe that a strong belief in God is an asset to reasoning and to logic. What do you think about this? Do I miss something in thinking that atheistic philosophies and existentialism lack a system of logic?

Spiritman

For your first question, no Zen does not have a god. The word zen is used to describe meditative practices in Buddhism normally according to the dharma. I don't follow the dharma but rather follow the overarching ideal of zen, which is mindfulness and meditative living.

Buddhism may be considered pantheistic in a sense, though I would never say that in normal conversation. Buddhism is largely an atheistic philosophy. The question of god is simply irrelevent, an unnecessary question.

I've been searching for truth for what seems like almost a straight decade. The only thing the search lead me to was a cliff and extreme nihilism. It only occurred to me recently that the only truth we can know is what is right in front of our faces right now.

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Is there a rational basis for asserting that things which never change are more real than things which change? If so, can you give an example of something that doesn't change?

Absolute truth does not change. Science discovers truth which does not change. If truth changed than science would never really know when something was discovered. Can you or will you provide absolute knowledge of something whose premises for existence always changes? Morality rules which come from God do not change but moral relativity rules change to make the Cambodian killing fields appear to be morally justified. We do not need that type of humanistic morality that changes to meet the needs of capricious men. In modern society can you name instances where killing the innocent was the high moral thing to do?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

Absolute truth does not change. Science discovers truth which does not change. If truth changed than science would never really know when something was discovered. Can you or will you provide absolute knowledge of something whose premises for existence always changes? Morality rules which come from God do not change but moral relativity rules change to make the Cambodian killing fields appear to be morally justified. We do not need that type of humanistic morality that changes to meet the needs of capricious men. In modern society can you name instances where killing the innocent was the high moral thing to do?

Please demonstrate how humanism justifies atrocity.

[TurkeyOnRye]

Originally Posted by Storm

Please demonstrate how humanism justifies atrocity.

I'd like to hear that as well. I personally don't condone any form of violence.

Also, god-based morality is highly sporadic. Some people interpret it one way, others interpret it another way. There's no doubt people's interpretation of "God's word" (the Bible, Koran etc...) is under constant flux. Morals from a "divine" source are just as volatile, if not more so, than secular humanist morals and they are just as likely to be corrupted to promote one's own agenda.

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Storm

Please demonstrate how humanism justifies atrocity.

To the Communist in Cambodia the killing fields was not an atrocity but a needful thing. That was the atrocity and is not this the atrocity of humanism that it has no provisions to combat the theory that might makes right? Adopting the moral relativity theory of humanism paved the way for the mass murder of millions of Jews in Germany. I think that was an atrocity, don't you?

When war criminals are tried for mass murder, they are not tried by humanistic standards and moral relativity. The criminal attempts to justify his crime by referring to doing what was best for the state or following orders given by the state. But when he is tried by the moral rules of Western Civilization, the war criminal is tried by the absolute and unchanging rule of thou shalt not murder even when you are following orders.

War criminals are not generally tried by humanistic standards because these standards change, especially when people are unwilling to take responsibility for their crimes. This is the atrocity of humanism and we would be interested in hearing an explanation of why this is not true about humanism, if you have one. Keep in mind that humanism is a minority opinion in the Western Civilization. Experiments in society of adopting humanism as the moral code have been great failures at protecting minorities from atrocities.

It should be an awakening experience to here humanistic war criminals and other offenders of the law to declare that they have rights when they are called before the courts. Humanist do not believe in universal rights until they are called to accountability; then, the humanist have all kinds of rights such as freedom of speech, of address, and the presumption of innocents.The humanist never wants to be tried by his own standards.

Spiritman

[Storm]

You have no idea what humanism is. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Do some research.

[Storm]

Here, I'll get you started. From the great Wiki:

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism can be considered the process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[3]

[Spiritman]

The purpose of this thread was for the op to make friends through intellectual discourse and mutual respect for the ideas of others. Being new to the RF, it may take some experience to learn how to present a different point of view in a manner not to attract intellectual hostility. We'll keep trying until we get it right.

Just how important it is to know what is really real is a question that we do not think has completely been explored as yet. To us it is important that we recognize appearances of reality from being different from actually real things. In our last response it was pointed out that the humanist liked his code of ethics as long as it satisfied his own lust for power that made him right; but, if called to accountability for fulfilling his humanistic philosophy, he often cried out for protection by rights that were self evident that all men should have.

Self evident rights are premised by God and can not be taken away from man whereas humanism is based on the ever changing conditions of society and work to serve the baser lust of humans. We understand that many of you will strongly disagree but you have not yet explained why you disagree to any intellectual satisfaction. If what has been said about humanism and changing premises is not true, this thread is open for this discussion. Being new to the RF, we do not know how to handle hostility properly so let's keep the discussion on higher ground, please.
Spiritman

[Storm]

It is not intellectual hostility to ask you to support your arguments, nor to point out that you are misrepresenting the views of others.