First Commandments of the New Religion.
I. Believe in nothing without proof.
II. One should close one's mind to all possibilities.
Looking for a name for this new religion and more precepts to follow.
What does this religion worship?
You got the first bit right. Believe nothing. That actually means be open to every possibility should it prove a high probability of reflecting reality.
Belief is redundant, can be dangerous as we see from our Muslim friends this time, and is limiting. It's also never required. You would be unwise to believe something speculative. People get themselves in trouble for that all the time. And it is redundant to believe a fact. It requires the knowledge that it is a fact for it to be accepted. Belief one way or the other is irrelevant. It changes nothing.
One name for this relatively new religion that takes it's wisdom from Science and attempts to live by the scientific method is Rational or Scientific Pantheism. I've written a few hubs about it.
What does it worship? Knowledge and understanding. It also celebrates the amazing fact that we are alive and that all things are intimately connected.
I. Believe in nothing without proof.
We could be dreaming at any given moment. Maybe we could pinch ourselves every five minutes to remove all doubt and empirically prove that we are awake, at all times. The proof being, black and blue, from head to toe, by the end of the day.
III. Sources such as You Tube, The Bible, On-line references are not to be referred to / trusted.
IV. Trust and believe without question whatever theories Science postulates / Scientists reveal.
Edit: * Look at the facts and come to your own conclusions. (Thank you, Janesix)
V. Do not teach children or others anything in regards to Moral Boundaries as they are natural / built-in to Human Nature.
* All people have the right to follow whatever boundaries they so choose.
* No one is to impose one's own sense of what is right onto another.
Except, of course, we have a democracy where boundries are implemented based on what the most people agree is "morally" right.
The New Religion will abolish them.
ALL drugs will soon be legal.
Punishing anyone for ( scratch: the natural right of free-will)
EDIT: Punishing anyone for True-Instinct based behavior will soon be done away with.
( Unless they proclaim that humans do not have freewill!!! !!! I am not sure!)
Maybe they will make free-will illegal.
In which case, all problems solved.
I 'm getting confused.
What is "natural right of freewill behavior'?
Doing what one likes. As in, one has the natural right to act according to whatever one deems appropriate in any given scenario.
How is that a natural right?
What is a "right", anyway?
VII. Concrete Reality demands Absolute Equality. However, Natural Rights do not exist.
We can do what we like as long as no one stops us. Rights are taken, demanded, agreed upon, and given or taken way. Rights are no good to you if you can't use them, even natural ones like eating. While it is a necessity it isn't a right unless it is protected.
Rights don't exist outside societies. A dog hunts and kills for food. It's not it's right,its it's nature. A right is an entitlement. Those don't exist outside a cooperative structure.
Free will is a nonsense phrase. We all have will, and it is the manifestation of who and what we are. Our will is unique because who we are is unique, because our conditioning is unique and our genetic predispositions are unique. But there is nothing free about it.
We all do things we decide we want to do. Do you like ice cream? What flavor do you like? What made you decide to like it? Oh.. that's not something you decided. You just like it.
We don't choose what we like, yet we do the things we like or think best. How is that free will? It certainly is will. But not free.
Free will might be doing something for really no reason at all that relates to nothing, without a history behind any of it.
In other words, something useless.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a selfless act. I've written a hub by that title should you be interested in my reasons for saying that.
Do you believe in true-instinct morals? What are they based on?
Do You believe in The Ten Commandments?
Do you believe in peace for all?
Do you believe in the rights of life, liberty an the pursuit of happiness for the individual?
Do you believe these rights are to be taken by the strongest?
Given by God?
Do you believe the Rich are to be exempted and vilified because obviously they are greedy U-know whats?
Do you believe the Golden Rule is to be followed/applied by/to everyone?
Same as yours: Self interest, because that's what a moral code is. Empathy, reason, a natural hate for the unfair, the greed of the world, the cruelty. The desire for a better more understanding, just society. More rights and freedoms. A better place for my grand-kids. All self interest.
All rights benefit all, even if no one uses them.
Where I live woman demanded the right to go topless at beaches. They won that right. Men were excited about it. I have yet to see a topless woman at my beach, and the law was passed twenty years ago. They just wanted the right.
"Do you believe in true-instinct morals?"
It is my opinion, rather than belief, that morality is instinctive and based in the objective state of the human condition. Harm is objective even though it is happening to a subjective being.
My personal moral code is simple: do no intentional harm.
Do You believe in The Ten Commandments?"
Two out of ten are relevant.
"Do you believe in peace for all?"
I would love to see it.
"Do you believe in the rights of life, liberty an the pursuit of happiness for the individual?"
I think rights are wonderful.I'm not even American.
"Do you believe these rights are given by God?"
No, unless by god you mean the nature of existence.
"Or taken by the strongest?"
If you can't use a right you think you have, you don't have it.
"Do you believe in the golden rule is to be followed/applied by/to everyone?"
Mine? Do no intentional harm? It would be nice. The christian one is flawed. But it was a good effort.
"Do you believe the Rich are to be exempted and vilified because obviously they are greedy U-know whats."
Case by case basis.
Who defines what "harm" is?
What if what you think is not harm, is harm to someone else?
A teacher prides herself in teaching her children. She holds their attention very effectively.
They listen to her as they dare not look right or left.
She has trained them not to take their eyes off of her by a reward and punishment system she has devised. But, as a substitute teacher, when I walk into her class room and take over, I notice the kids are suffering. They are being harmed by sitting, listening, doing everything according to her will hour after hour. NEVER their own. Never! That is harm.
And she knows it not. She thinks she is teaching them what they must learn, never knowing she is suppressing them psychologically and physically
to their own detriment,
through her ignorance.
...it is no longer in my best interest. I will pay for inferior services. I had superior services before it became mandatory.
If everyone refused to pay, it would be in their own best interest.
We need a revolution.
hah ha ha good luck with that!
The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
I can't comment. I don't know the details of your system. All I know is mine, and I'm grateful for it.
But, the people are willing to pay into it where you are. They have faith in the system and they really trully think they will get something out of it. Something they could never pay for otherwise.
If we don't pay into ours, we get fined.
It doesn't sit well with me.
Only as a comment based on what I've heard, I don't think I'd like your system either.
We don't get fined, we just have to pay full price if we aren't registered. We pay through our taxes so it's dumb not to be registered. I pay around 350 a year toward it through provincial tax.
We also have health benefits we pay for at work. They cover drugs, glasses, dentists, which aren't covered by healthcare unless you are in hospital,on pension or on welfare.
Hey, not everyone likes it, it isn't perfect, but if I'm going to pay taxes the government better give me services for it, and healthcare is a service I can actually use. I'm sure I'll be needing it again as I get older.
Taxes were raised to pay for illegal aliens, not health care… they raised health care rates to pay for health care.
Doesn't sound all that rational. But again I'm not up on the details. For instance: Why would illegal aliens need to be paid for, in what way?
... they are given free health care, welfare, citizenship, education. Now they 're being issued driver's licenses and the right to vote.
Basically, we citizens are being robbed so that their votes can be bought. The bet is that they will become registered Democrats... and this includes the DREAM Act kids.
According to Me.
"Myth: Opponents claim the DREAM Act is 'amnesty.'
Myth: Opponents claim the DREAM Act would encourage more students to immigrate illegally, and that applicants would just use it to petition for relatives.
Myth: Opponents claim the DREAM Act would result in taxpayers having to subsidize student loans for those students who register through the DREAM Act.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12 … -dream-act
According to the White House
If you intentionally break someone's arm you are obviously doing that person objective harm. I am talking physical harm. I'm also talking intent, because we often do harm without intent.
Mental harm is more subjective, but never the less has important objective elements.
Theft does real harm as well, for obvious reasons
Leaving something worse off than it was before you handled it is doing harm. Doing so intentionally to another subjective being is immoral. Breaking a plate intentionally isn't. Unless you break it on someone's head. It's not that complicated.
are moral boundaries instinctive according to this new religion?
Maybe only when one acts according to one's free will, will one get into trouble.
Therefore the New Religion could actually expect practitioners to follow their moral instincts as opposed to free will.
VI. Follow your inbuilt natural instincts as far as moral code. Free-will does not exist. If you imagine you have free-will, it is a nonsensical delusion and as such, it is to to be ignored.
I doubt that morals are instinctive. I thought everyone had an inborn sense of right and wrong. I used to think so until I realized many people don't have the same morals that I have.
For instance, I think it is morally wrong to have an abortion unless there is a medical crisis for the mother. Obviously, the majority of people in the united states think it's ok to kill babies because they vote for laws to protect their "rights" to kill babies.
Morals are built-in / instinctive.
If you are not pro-choice, you are committing the sin of independent thinking…i.e. free-will thought.
You are not a candidate for this religion, Janesix, Sorry. (Almost, but not quite.)
If morals are built in, why do different people have different morals?
But, this is what the atheists have told me over and over. That morals are built in!
I don't know!
Where do morals come from, if not instinctive?????
What is the "moral" reason behind Pro-choice?
Why do YOU not subscribe to the reason?
"But, this is what the atheists have told me over and over. That morals are built in!
I don't know! " Not all atheists. Wilderness, for one, thinks that everyone has different morals and has said so on multiple occasions.
" Where do morals come from, if not instinctive?????
Reason?" There seems to be a continuum of "rightness" For instance, "most" three year old will naturally help someone without reward. I've seen studies on it. I think it has to be a mixture of natural altruism, learned behavior, and experience.
"What is the moral reason behind Pro-choice?
Why do YOU not subscribe to the reason?" Here I have no clue why anyone would think it is morally superior to kill an unwanted baby. Or even that it is OK.
True Instinct Morals:
2. Economic Equality
3. No Self Interest
4. Political loyalty is due to those who who work for economic equality.
5. Work for the good of ALL as a unified entity, not for the individual as a single entity.
6. "Peace will rule over war."
7. If anyone accidentally or intentionally perceives God, that person is immediately disqualified as a member of "Recipe for Peace." (This is the new name of this movement. Can't really be called a "religion," after all.)
What is the *reason* for these, so far?
The reason, as far as I can tell, is to establish PEACE for all.
Where do you think morals come from, Kathryn?
No one having self interest is then in everyone's self interest? Peace certainly is, or would be.Perhaps self interest isn't all bad?
It's actually the reason we do everything. There is no way around it. You can't separate yourself from your acts. Perhaps the only selfless acts are accident's? Not what you have in mind though, eh?
This is a movement based on the concrete reality of utopianism.
Self-interest is not allowed in the name of peace for all.
I don't think you understand this movement.
I detect you are not interested in joining. If you were, you would give up self-interest.
Do you believe in universal health care?
Then your saying it is in everyone's self interest not to have self interest, which is a logical problem, or more properly: a problem in the logic. It's contradictory. It negates it's own premise because world peace would benefit most of us, and is in our self interest. So negating all self interest negates the desire for world peace.
"Do you believe in universal health care?"
I don't have to believe it, I have it. Do I like it? You bet. Wouldn't be alive without it.
For the sake of establishing that which can never exist:
The Concrete Reality of Utopia
Ha ha ha! LOL!
Actual morals come from Love.
Is LOVE the same for all people?
Love must be tempered with reason.
I think this is the junction, (where love and logic meet,) where things get upturned and blown every which way.
We really need to know REALITY.
Well, people have the same chemical responses that produce the feeling of "love".
...oh do they?
and what research do you have to prove this proposed "fact?????"
I'll wait until you march to the library and come back with quotes from a legitimate source.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … -oxytocin/
Sorry, I had to use the Internet due to lack of funds for a bus pass to the library.
Now it's your turn to produce evidence that GOD IS LUV.
Sorry my computer would not go to that site at this moment. But I like your suggestion:
Prove God is Love.
More importantly, however, we need to comprehend actual reality.
Actual reality is based on possibilities.
Concrete reality is based on only that which is seen, felt
or theorized about… based on known equations and all that.
I am saying there is an unseen reality and we MUST comprehend it.
The question is how can the unseen reality be perceived.
According to the new religion emerging, we can't.
End of story.
Deal with it.
All I can say about that is "I disagree" .
Did you notice that everyone who claims an unseen reality always "see" different things?
IF there were an unseen reality, it would have laws as well.
Would you like to discuss: "How to know God, The Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali"?
Go get a copy. It is translated with commentary by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood.
Maybe sometime, but I'm not in the mood to delve into a new book right now. When I do I will pull this thread back up.
I thought you were going to go with the Kybalion and hermeticism to be honest.
- are they adequate for you?
Please refer books.
I have read quite a bit about hermetic laws, and I've read the Kybalion, but It's been a long time and I don't recall much of it.
Oh, well, I'll look into these to determine what is in the recesses of your mind…
Should be interesting.
Thanks for sharing.
Well, in this movement self-interest is not acceptable. The "Recipe for Peace" requires an orientation toward working for the benefit of others, as in socialism. You, Slarty O'Brian, are hereby banned from joining. Yay!
(Unless you believe those women OWE it to all you men to exercise their rights to go topless!)
"US-VISIT is a U.S. immigration and border management system. The system involves the collection and analysis of biometric data (such as fingerprints), which are checked against a database to track individuals deemed by the United States to be... illegal immigrants."
"A 2005 Center Backgrounder was critical of the program. Specifically, it said that that most Mexican and Canadian arrivals are not checked and the exit checks are extremely sparse. Since that time, the number of checks increased, but the Center has asserted that much more work is needed."
"The author of the report, former Foreign Service Officer Jessica Vaughan, said: 'Lack of attention to the overstay problem continues to compromise our efforts to... control illegal immigration. At the moment, in a dangerous international environment, we are admitting about 200 million temporary visitors a year, with virtually no way to keep visitors from staying beyond their authorized visit, and no way even to count the number of visitors who overstay.'"
"DHS estimates that at least 30 percent of the approximately 10 million illegal immigrants living in the United States are probably visa overstayers."
"The center said that if current immigration policies are held in place, future immigrants and their descendants would increase the U.S. population by approximately 100 million people over the next fifty years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for … on_Studies
Gee-willikers .. this reminds me of the ashram days... and woodstock nights ... and DC weekends ...
You're right… this movement, which I have dubbed "Recipe for Peace", has been around for a long time… It is not new and it cannot be considered a religion.
Thank you for clarifying, mishpat.
PS Are you for or against Obama care insurance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr … e_Care_Act
In my opinion, Recipe for Peace is a Recipe for Disaster…
So is Obama Care.
Time will tell.
your interest is amazing. look so!
<a herf="http://mostwareupdate.blogspot.com//">Free Most Software Updates<a/>
by Jacqui2 years ago
Why is it assumed that Morals are dictated by Religion? Doesn't that scare you?It is mentioned a lot that Morals are dictated by Religion, and the inference (or the direct statement occasionally) is that therefore...
by Abdus Salaam2 years ago
Morals are dictated by religions, without using scripture, how would an atheist discourage incest?
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
Questions:!. How are Morals established in a Society.2. Are good and decent actions fostered in the youth through training and guidance? 3. Are morals and boundaries natural to a human being and built within his nature...
by lanablackmoor5 years ago
Do you think religion compels morality, or does morality determine religion?Obviously the relationship is somewhat multi-directional for most people, but I'm wondering which you think is more powerful. Do people usually...
by SpanStar5 years ago
Compared to people in the past would you say modern-day people are more moral than those since the days of Pharaoh up until present day?The crimes of modern-day man are too numerous to list here.
by spiderpam8 years ago
I found this poem and thought I'd share it. "Are you a sleeping Christian?Can you not discern the times?If you were watching for Him,you'd surely see the signs! They mock our Christian morals,and hate our friends,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.