Hutch said:
Truth is not subjective - there is only one truth, whether we know of it or not. I can find little distinction between 'absolute' truth, 'universal' truth or just plain old truth. What is your absolute? God? A mystical universal ether? Or simply an intangiable 'substance' which we can never hope to interact with but is nevertheless there? Is it a backdrop on which our little cosmic dance happens or does it pull the strings like your so-called God? Your speil seems as though you are simply putting forth an argument for divine intervention and creationism. You hate the concept that anything can happen in this world through it's own making.
Relative truth is dependent on other things. Absolute means that it is independent of circumstances. That is the difference. A universal truth is dependent on the circumstance of the universe. Therefore such a truth is not absolute. That is what I am saying.
The Absolute, as I am referring to it, is the concept of real substantiality behind the flicker of so-called existence you experience through the senses. The further you consider the nature of this Absolute, the more you will realize that It cannot be devoid of any quality since all qualities in this relative world must have origin in the Absolute. Therefore the Absolute must be intelligent, which leads into a concept like 'God'.
There is no substantiality to the claim that things happen in this world through it's own making since there is no substantiality to this world in and of itself. The concept of the Absolute constitutes that substantiality. God therefore becomes the substantiality behind the universe and thus the concept of the universe existing on it's own accord is utterly defeated. Everything we know to be true in this universe through sense-experience is relative, which means it is dependent on so many other things. It is quite a leap of faith to posit that the universe is nonetheless independent and self-made. All you've done in this case is indirectly admitted the concept of the Absolute, but then turned around and negated it by merging it into your imaginary concept of "universe".
Hutch said:
As for me imposing my own morals onto others - what are morals anyway? You talk as though your morals have been taken directly from the metaphorical mouth of the absolute. There is no such source of morals. Morals are concerned with the judgement of goodness and badness of human action or character. Where do these morals originate? From the thoughs of and interactions between humans, both now and in the past. Animals often seem as though they possess few morals. Is that because we are 'special', the 'absolute's' nifty little creation that sits atop the evolutionary ladder? No. It is because our complex society requires morals in order to avoid utter chaos. Your claim that Athiests can never be responsible because their view on life continually changes is a double edged sword. Why are there so many bitter disputes between religious groups over the years when most of them believe in the same God? Because they interpret what He says in order to suit their own convictions. A lawyer would have to dedicate his life and then some analysing the variety of interpretations and amount of loopholes contained within scripture.
Animals basically do four things. They eat, sleep, mate and defend. Humans also do these things, but because we have a more developed intelligence we can understand what is self, what is Absolute, and the relation between the two. Consequently, we can understand an objective sense of morals, at least theoretically at first. Since you imagine an absolute "universe" and since this "universe" is ultimately devoid of all qualities, you can concoct your own morals. How convenient for you. This is to presume yourself to be greater than the universe, which you accept as absolute. Despite that you are without knowledge and dependent on so many things, you act as though you are master of the universe. Most people do this. It is not that most people actually think that they are God. It is just that they act as though they are or can become God without really thinking about it at all.
Hutch said:
Yes, the illusion of independence is dangerous for some. For many people the subconscious reason for the belief in a higher being or 'absolute' is that it makes them feel save and provides them with thoughts of belonging to this world.
Actually, no. There is no sense of belonging to this world. Nor is the understanding of the Absolute dependent on any amount of sentiment, as you imply.
Hutch said:
Instead of perceiving humans (and every other organism for that matter) as being a mass of volatile chemicals drifting around in this world with no purpose, we dream up a 'reality' in which we belong.
You have dreamed up that living organisms are a mass of volatile chemicals. You have dreamed this up in face of what we can know through simple observation of the nature of consciousness versus the nature of sensual experience. We know, by study of the nature of consciousness, that we do not belong to this world of sense-interaction.
Hutch said:
I worship and serve myself, and no - I don't think I'm that fucking good. My point is that worshipping and serving this 'absolute' or 'God' serves no purpose whatsoever. If it makes you feel good, then fine, worship this God of yours but I'm a realist and it is not I who will wake up one day and realise he's been living an illusion.
You may not think that you are anything. Consciously you may think that you are just another person, but through your actions you presume yourself to be that fucking good and more. You speak of purpose but you don't even know what is the goal. Without understanding the goal, you cannot know anything of purpose. Your so-called "reality" consists of the senses interacting with the sense objects, both of which are fleeting and thus non-substantial. You say it is not you who will wake up and realize this fact. You know, you shouldn't be so negative.
