Upon our culture's transcendental morality

@OogieBoogie No, because Buddhism is included because of the belief in something more than what atheists believe. JP is speaking against them because they deny that transcendental basis for anything at all in our culture and society. And moreover, the forcing thought is all about that. The denial of the existence of the transcendental anywhere in a human being's existance. It's like saying that denying that there's nothing out that can't be explained, measured or thought of. And that anyone who thinks differently is obviously without any rationality and thus shouldn't be having rights any more either because of that. No rationality, no right. That's how the atheists are moving against believers these days. On here and in the real world with all the force of that single thought. It's nothing to do with withholding mankind any knowledge. To know that one can't know everything is a right now but perhaps not any more in future because of the obvious fantacism of certain atheists. To act on thought comes with morals, and where do those come from then, that's the question JP poses

@val70 From an ideological point of view I can understand your issue with people rejecting your belief in transcendental morals and a spiritual basis of society.
But you, while feeling threatened by rationalistic and atheistic thinking try to create a hierarchy the other way round, engaging in the same thing you accuse atheists of doing.

Morals do not necessarily have to come from faith in something higher or transcendential. They can come from feelings such as love and empathy, from the belief in community and each other or in a political ideology. Morals are shaped by many variables and are a complex matter. Which morals are in place on a societal level depends on the government and population of a country and is the product of a process that keeps shaping and reshaping morals.
In all your deep thinking your expressed thoughts or at least Petersons thoughts you shared are very much simplistic.

@val70 But some theists are just as fanatical about their beliefs, and literally kill, enslave and slaughter in the name of their belief.


Morals come from indoctination mostly, what we are nurtuted to believe. Put on top of that personal experience and culture, and we are almost molded before we grow into adulthood, in what we believe.

I dont think Buddhists deny trancendentalism in our society, i think they are all for it....they just dont push it on people like others do.
In fact, they lead by example within themselves.

I dont know who made you think forcing thoughts is against spiritual betterment or enlightenment, but thats not true.

Forcing ones thinking beyond what one already knows ....is creative, is reasoning, is personal, is striving for deeper understanding of self, or the world, and is used in many areas of life, including spirituality.
Some use morality in this process, some dont.
Not all 'acting on thought' automatically comes with morals, some use only reason and analysis.
Morals are not logic, they are ethical ideals based on personal standards.

In fact, forcing his thought on spirituality, life , and self is the exact thing Buddah did to learn deeper meaning to life.
To such an extent it became a way for transcendence.

JP has many good ideas and and insights, i quite like a lot of what he has to say .
But , as you mentioned 'thinking is good'. And one needs to use critical thinking when listening to such people....not eveyone is right all of the time for everybody.

@Gloomy No, I don't feel threatened by that thinking but their claim that I'm nothing because I actual aren't bound to it. They feel somehow threatened by myself claiming that I have the right to be different. And yes, it's my belief that morals come from something transcendential. My right to think that and it isn't without rational. A very important thought that last one. Where does love or empathy come from? The selfish gene? No, morality isn't a construct as such, well, it's not lived like that. No-one is claiming that morality needs to be revisted to get the old thinking out of it. Luckily no-one has done that yet recently again. Just imagine someone actually believing that having morals is to be in the bounds of servitude. I seem to remember that was one of the tenures of Marxism or Nazism. Having morals isn't about anything as simpel as putting ingredients together, but it's indeed very easy to reject. I never try to claim someone's argumentation is simple except here perhaps. It isn't nice and it smacks as belittling

@val70 Who claims you are nothing? And people are different in general within their thoughts, looks, preferences, .....
By saying you have the right to be different what do you mean?

It's definitely Nazism since Marxism is, while a scientific analysis very human oriented trying to find solution for human suffering.
It's not about putting ingridients together and I don't think morals are not something we have entire control over since they have a lot to do with socialisation, personal experiences and so many variables.
I did not make this claim to sound condescending but I perceive it as too simplistic in order to be meaningful or constructive. What would be your core argument on this matter?

What morals in partucular are you talking about?
Like every system of thought, we built on what came before us and we make changes, improve it or leave it the same. And this all in a rather theoretical sense because morals are still so very different for everyone with only some basic consenses in society.

@OogieBoogie Where am I pushing my believes into your face? I just told you that Buddhism is about living trancendentalism too. Were I to be Roman Catholic I would have sinned there. What is forcing thought upon the other again and again is the shouting of theist to someone who believes in God, whatever he might be, because it suits ones own ego because it's calling the other a believer in gods which some of us clearly aren't. It's such chosen slaps in the face that I was talking about. It's shouting the other down. Who's the other? Well, that's the question one would have normally replied lets say twenty years ago. Now it's the theist label. Good, now accept the fact that that is shouting the other person down. You say next that morals are not logic, and that they are ethical ideals based on personal standards. I wanted dearly to discuss this subject matter futher. Lets do. Alright, it's not logical. What is it then if not to be explained logically? Are you claiming that they weren't grown through centuries of human activity? Ethical ideals from where? You dispute the fact that back in time anything trancendental did have a participation in shaping those ideals? Where can you find the absolute nono that hurting someone is bad? If we are defined only by our genes, and it's all about the ego, well, how did we actually begotten the state that we are now in? Where did our human rights come from? Some say that the origins of Human Rights are ideally pinpointed to when the troops of Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. Cyrus freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. There was an obvious problem going on formulating those rights last century with the actual preclusion of any religious or metaphysical answer why those rights were there at all. The drafters of the convention solved the problem "by indicating that human beings have rights because of their inherent dignity—because human beings, due to qualities they possess (i.e., due to human nature)—have a special value, a distinctive worth, that in each case and without exception should be respected and nourished". Thus the UDHR’s first words proclaim the “inherent dignity” of each member of the human family. Love thy neighbour as you love yourself

@Gloomy No, I may have fears and they may be translated in the objection to terms used against me. I'm not a theist, but a believer in the one God. People who use the term theist do that in the full knowledge that it is wrong. I'm not claiming my believes should be theirs, but I'm going to stick up for my rights here and everywhere. One isn't either an atheist or a theist. It's like calling someone who believes in something but not God, an ietsism. Even Monty Python didn't dream that one up. Somehow along the way people have lost the clue about what language does. I do like your last two points. I'll try to think about those and come back to you. I'm getting ready for work right now. Have a great night or day there!

@val70 i didn't mean to insult you when i used theist, i just dont know wnich theology you adhere to. I slme Catholics get insulted if you call them Christian . Not to mention all the specific Christian and catholic types.

i just finished work....Friday night for me...yay

may your shift go quickly .

@val70 there's alot to discuss in this .
im not ignoring you, its jist that its Friday night .
Gimme a day or so and ill digest what you've said .

@OogieBoogie Same here. Lunch period