Amos

But should educators not know that the stronger we have to be the weaker we must feel?

Adrian Selby

Isn't that just the challenge of living a good life? I don't think its very morally courageous to live a good life because of the fear of hell, but it takes strength of will to believe something is good for its own sake and stick to it regardless of the materialistic temptations hinted at here (keep up with the Jones')

It is harder without the fear of God, that doesn't make it less worth the striving for, and perhaps that is the responsibility of educators in a secular society.

Adrian

A3

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PsycheDelia:
[QB]A3:

A person with a strong internalised code of good or bad is as unlikely to give in to that impulse than the person who believes that 'this is not all that there is'.

Now you are giving an example of someone with a strong internalised code, how many do you know? Don't think for a moment that I am saying you have to think MY way or you're doomed. There are many, many religions and I would almost say, some are better than others, but none are any garantie of an great afterlife. We are in this world on our own recognisance (sp?)
I think there are many people in jail who wouldn't be there if they had received the right guidance. The twelve steps of AA are based on the acknowledgment that there is a higher power, that we can not do it all by ourselves. As long as we don't think there is a problem, there is no help.

As for the CrossingOver show. As I said before there is no, and never will be any proof of the fact that we have a soul or spirit or that there is an afterlife. It is impossible for something natural to sense something spiritual.
My wife had a Near Death Experience when she was a young girl. Over the years she met no one, in our outside her church, that could verify what she knew was an actual experience. Intul she read what Swedenborg wrote about it 250 years ago. But the afterlife is highly personal. I cannot do or say anything that would have someone else change their mind. In fact you don't have to believe it after you die.

A3

A3

Hi Adrian,
(I have to learn how to do this quote thing) You say:
It is harder without the fear of God, that doesn't make it less worth the striving for, and perhaps that is the responsibility of educators in a secular society

I call it the seatbelt phenomena. First we have to be forced to do the right thing (because it is the right thing to do) and then we "love" doing it. First we have to be forced to put our seat belt on, and once we are use to it we feel naked without it.
Children first have to be tought (forced) to obey, to share etc. If that does not happen they are going to have a tough life. As parents we teach them for their sake. The educational system teaches you to pass a test, not to live properly.
A3 (short for Adriaan

Amos

Very true Adrian. The fear of hell should never be a motivator but the aim of perfection should be and it is by intuition that we should be led towards this perfection. Our souls have sight of this and religion is not meant to instill fear but to flash images of reality and always encourage us to search for them. That is, if faith seeks understanding that which religion points at must be understandable or it becomes a dead end and faith liability. I fully agree. The images projected by faith must truly become a negative stand in the rout of discovery. Yes, kind of like the grain of sand in the oyster shell that we must charm into the pearl we are meant to be.

From "Intimations of Immortality" lines 165

"Our souls have sight of that Immortal sea


and later (lines 187-88)

In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.

A3

The best faith is what we have chosen and gained in freedom. There will always be questions, valleys and mountan tops, but after death, the only thing that will stay with us is what we have made our own in freedom. Self-compulsion sometimes has to be used but that is still in freedom; miracles are no longer performed because that would take our freedom away.
What Adrian said is one of the most important tenants. When we do good it has to be for the sake of the good and not any reward. Because then we still do it for ourselves.
A3

Laurentius

AVE
The discussion has swerved toward religious faith, and some of its logic foundation. Religious or not, faith represents a non-critical adherence (mostly emotional, that is irrational) to a theory. My opinion is that one first adheres intuitively & emotionally to such theory and then he/she channels all his/her knowledge and rational efforts toward discoursively justifying his/her faith.

For a Secular Humanist, there is no way afterlife should give any meaning to his life. If, in addition, he tends to be a Nihilist as well, the Secular Humanist will most likely see the meaning of his life inescapably fade away. Does this mean that in the absence of afterlife the meaning of one's life is lost? Then what makes him still "tick"?
AVE

1sec

Is this supposed to be a trick question? You can believe either in god or in yourself. Since your are not a beliver, what makes you "tick" is the trust you put in yourself.

I want to thank my teachers that have encouraged me to believe in myself, in my own abilitiy to succeed through my own efforts.

So, gravity or no gravity, put your faith in yourself, develop your own philosophy as a strategy to reach your goals, and go for it.

Just go on with your life.

A3

Dear AVE
. It seems to me that this can be applied both ways. People that don't believe in God have this non-critical adherence to a theory that, what, things started with an accident? a big accident with an even bigger bang? We made ourselves? What else is there?
Look at a flower, look yourselves in the eye, a quote from Swedenborg says: "Thought based on what the eye sees closes the understanding. Thought based on what we understand opens the eye."
A3

Vitae

Laurentius;
This is possible. But why, Laurentius, do you think one could not one adhere intuitively, rationally and emotionally simultaneously?

[quote]Then what makes him still "tick"?

I think perhaps, Our 'Thought' (reason and emotion) and how we use it, and our 'Wills,' of which there are many in existence, all of different strenghts ,(and therefore primacy) at different times during our lives.

Please explain 'secular nihilistic humanist'; I am not a philosophy student, just one of the 'herd.'

I have also just engulfed four brandys, so please keep it in simple language, if you can, of course.
I am on a journey to understand.

Ave Laurentius

1sec
Define your 'god' 1sec; I am curious.
We all have different 'gods' don't we? Anything can be made into a 'religion' or a 'god' once we start worshipping it above all else, don't you think?

Perhaps both 'theists' and 'atheists' are merely 'misnomers' for 'illusory dichotomies' based on ONLY the 'will to power perspective' and No other 'wills?'

Regards