Spiritual Reorientation 2: No Excuses

originally posted by: _damon
Good or bad are really just human illusions. They are in no way universal. A simple proof is that most often than not, what is considered good is what benefits humans (oh really) and whats evil is what is against humans (so.. everything that is not human? how convenient.) It gives them the illusion of comfort that when they do this or that, it is good, it is divine, it improves their karma, it grants them a way to heaven, it is expected of them,.. it gives them peace of mind.

Good and Bad are not just human illusions. Social animals agree that it is bad to kill one of your own because that does not suit the survival of the species. This is not just a human concept but a concept for social species to survive. Social animals (except for defects such as sociopaths) also have something called "empathy" which is the root of all basic morality (don't kill, don't steal, etc.)

originally posted by: _damon
The same happens with "bad" and every other subjective notions. And there is nothing stopping this utter madness because it is how it is. But better believe in a god and a satan than take responsibility for your mistakes eh? The hypocrisy!

What determines a 'mistake' without good and evil? Nothing matters.
Why are you referring to 'responsibility' as if it is something good if good and evil doesn't exist?
Why does it matter if someone is a 'hypocrite' if good and evil doesn't exist?

Without good and evil nothing matters people are just doing whatever, there are not 'responsibilities', 'mistakes', 'good deeds' or 'bad deeds' there are just actions happening.

originally posted by: arpgme
Social animals agree that it is bad to kill one of your own because that does not suit the survival of the species.

A male lion kills all the cubs if he has just taken over a pride. Humans would put him in prison or have him executed. The lion is ensuring the survival of the species by killing cubs that come from an 'inferior' male however the 'good' would not be seen by the human because of 'empathy'.

Social animals (except for defects such as sociopaths) also have something called "empathy" which is the root of all basic morality (don't kill, don't steal, etc.)

I watched a program about primates and it showed that the boss monkey got first dibs on the food and then he allowed a few special others to join him - and the monkey who was not allowed any food made a call which signified that there was danger coming and all the monkeys ran away - he then went in and ate the food. Humans would declare this as stealing and call it 'bad'?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

That is selective empathy, it is not empathy for all beings. This selective-ness is the same thing in humanity which causes a lot of suffering.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Itisnowagain

That is selective empathy, it is not empathy for all beings. This selective-ness is the same thing in humanity which causes a lot of suffering.

The mind works in opposites (duality) - but who can really know what is good or bad?
The belief in good and bad, better and worse; is the suffering.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

 

You're a fine intellectual, but a terrible mystic you are.

Because I refuse otherworldly pleasures? Spirituality isn't confined to mystics, liars and takers of narcotics. I choose this world.

Perhaps too many have made the same choice.

"'The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.'

(John Archibald Wheeler) 'Someday we'll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we may say to each other; 'Oh, how could be have been so stupid for so long? How could it have been otherwise!'"

www.spaceandmotion.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain


The lack of empathy (sympathy/compassion) which leads to hurting others also creates suffering.

originally posted by: Aphorism

No Excuses

1.

There is no God, no father, no judge. There is no absolute good, no absolute evil, no sin. There are no hidden dimensions, other planes or spiritual worlds. There are no saviours, no prophets, no oracles. There is no divine commandment, justice, karma, natural law, great chain of being, and especially no reward at the end of all this. There is no book because there is no author—no tablets, no guidance, no truth. Paradoxically, we, all of us, are alone. ...What now?

Your first claims fail and here is why.

You can not prove nor disprove any of them.

This is why metaphysical arguments are worthless, and only good if someone chooses circular argumentation and blind ignorance.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Aphorism

No Excuses

1.

There is no God, no father, no judge. There is no absolute good, no absolute evil, no sin. There are no hidden dimensions, other planes or spiritual worlds. There are no saviours, no prophets, no oracles. There is no divine commandment, justice, karma, natural law, great chain of being, and especially no reward at the end of all this. There is no book because there is no author—no tablets, no guidance, no truth. Paradoxically, we, all of us, are alone. ...What now?

Thanks, RealTruth.... your reply made me laugh.

Your first claims fail and here is why.

You can not prove nor disprove any of them.

This is why metaphysical arguments are worthless, and only good if someone chooses circular argumentation and blind ignorance.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Aphorism

No Excuses

1.

There is no God, no father, no judge. There is no absolute good, no absolute evil, no sin. There are no hidden dimensions, other planes or spiritual worlds. There are no saviours, no prophets, no oracles. There is no divine commandment, justice, karma, natural law, great chain of being, and especially no reward at the end of all this. There is no book because there is no author—no tablets, no guidance, no truth. Paradoxically, we, all of us, are alone. ...What now?

Your first claims fail and here is why.

You can not prove nor disprove any of them.

This is why metaphysical arguments are worthless, and only good if someone chooses circular argumentation and blind ignorance.

Your claim fails and here's why.

You cannot prove or disprove that I cannot prove or disprove any of them.

It's a metaphysical assumption based on zero grounds.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

 

You're a fine intellectual, but a terrible mystic you are.

Because I refuse otherworldly pleasures? Spirituality isn't confined to mystics, liars and takers of narcotics. I choose this world.

Perhaps too many have made the same choice.

"'The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.'

(John Archibald Wheeler) 'Someday we'll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we may say to each other; 'Oh, how could be have been so stupid for so long? How could it have been otherwise!'"

www.spaceandmotion.com...

Very eloquently said and I agree completely.

a reply to: Aphorism

Anyone who claims to be able to intellectualise spiritual truth is being arrogant. It is beyond the confines of human logic and the limitations of the physical brain.

To deny spiritual truth using the same intellect just shows you are walking down the path to oblivion.

a reply to: earthblaze

Anyone who claims to be able to intellectualise spiritual truth is being arrogant.

Yet in the very next couple sentences, you do the exact same:

It is beyond the confines of human logic and the limitations of the physical brain.

To deny spiritual truth using the same intellect just shows you are walking down the path to oblivion.

Arrogance and contradiction is much worse than just arrogance. See you on the path to oblivion.

a reply to: Aphorism

Not a contradiction. You are just playing with semantics to attack someone that does not subscribe to your own distorted and aberrant beliefs.

a reply to: earthblaze

Not a contradiction. You are just playing with semantics to attack someone that does not subscribe to your own distorted and aberrant beliefs.

Actually, I'm attacking your ideas here. No humans were harmed in the process, unless they go out and hurt themselves. And this is not semantics. It is a glaring contradiction. One moment you say intellectually articulating "spiritual truth" is arrogant. And then in the next sentence you begin to articulate to me what "spiritual truth" is. How do you know that "spiritual truth" is beyond the confines of the human brain and logic, unless you used your own human brain and logic? And how do you know that to deny "spiritual truth" with the same intellect shows I'm walking down a path to oblivion, if you haven't already used your intellect to come to this conclusion?

To approve of spiritual truth using the same intellect just shows you are walking down the path to oblivion.

We can be arrogant together.