If there is no God, Who Governs Right or Wrong?

[flying fish]

---

Yea, their concept of religion is "you are god and i am god". PEOPLE BEHAVES WHAT THEY BELIEVE. so you are asking people to become Buddhist? I said it before brad if I were to choose my religion except the current one I'd rather choose Buddhism. But I am happy where I am now. You just cannot take this happiness away from me brad because I know this is for me. I am the captain of my soul. Being indifferent is the only thing I can be neutral. Its not that I am closed minded brad, or you may call me whatever... I don't care.. I read a lot about any other religion brad. But they all have flaws to me... This is my decision brad and I found peace and joy with it... What more could I ask for?

Im not taking away your happiness brod, im happy for you.
I am not implying that people should become buddhist; what i was trying to get at is the factual system of religion that is working in achieving peace & harmony. And making most of their followres gentle,loving & w/ great tolerance to other religions; hence the question who governs this & that w/o a god has been answered by the buddhist.
We are equiped w/ the necessary tools to govern our lives,
as what youve said "I am the captain of my soul" one way of saying im the governor of my life.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

"i am the president and vice-president in the house. but my wife is the treasurer." -anonymous

[handsoff241]

I'd be happier if we continue this conversation without the bit harsh side comments.

The GOOD and BAD things we discover are the ones you are talking about the KNOWLEDGE you are talking about . Now you are stressing out that its your knowledge that dictates which is GOOD and which sis BAD . It is actually a comprehension of MORAL STANDARDS , now if that action is something out of the KNOWLEDGE you are taking about and you cant justify it if its right or wrong , its your CONSCIENCE that justifies it . The KNOWLEDGE never over rules the CONSCIENCE and its as simple as that.

Knowledge(knowing) cannot and will not over rule conscience, for the two are different faculties of human abilities. I assert that knowledge is the basis for knowing what is right or wrong, good or bad, in a manner of summing it up, because of the following:
1.) In order for your conscience to justify, you need to have this so called contrasting factors, remember the conscience justify by means of what you know that is morally good within a specific culture.
2.) Knowing, comprehending and deciding what to do, this time comprehending what is good or bad, requires that you must, at first hand, and idea of what you are trying to attain, a decision which needs support facts from the subjects of that judgment ei you need to know about a certain moral and contrast it to your decision.
3.) Wisdom or the ability to comprehend, requires that you are comprehending something, and in order to comprehend something, you need to know something.

COnsidering you knew what you are talking . How about those people without the knowledge?

Innocent, I'm not a big fan of the saying that law enforcers use to intimidate unsuspecting law breakers; "ignorance of the law excuses none", that statement is plain stupidity supported by generations of stupid lawyers.
If that saying/statement is generally available and applicable to all why bother teaching us the laws?

Its deep inside in them that God or w/o God , as an example , to kill a person is always wrong . You dont have to read a book and find out that killing is not a good thing to do .

I say this explicitly, that if we would have lived in a world without the realization of morals and gods, there would not, by any chance, exist a single idealism pertaining to death as morally wrong and sinful, death is nature itself recomposing.

Read the statement again , you are lost .

Yes, I admit(Hellblazer would be happy reading this); I did mix up the idea. Still I do insist on my explanation, with a little offset with regards to the main posts. My mistake is that; you did not gave an exact age of when we will have our own mature consciousness and I made it a point that it was a child. My apologies.

Because her conscience is guiding her . Dont relate all knowledge as to all knowing acquired but the natural , set of morals we have the day we existed . KNowing is different from knowledge .

Knowing is the act of aquiring(becoming conscious of) knowledge. All knowing is a state of having consciousness of all knowledge. Your conscience is an innate ability, that if justify, will rely greatly on what certain knowledge you are aware of. The set of morals may have existed ever since but knowing those morals ei being conscious about it, with respects to culture, is a vital procedure for your conscience to justify.

[flying fish]

"i am the president and vice-president in the house. but my wife is the treasurer." -anonymous

Yes i think its women who governs whats ryt & wrong; off sa ko kay i have a divine message asking: asa paka, where is the cereal?
meaning uli na,haaay

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Yes i think its women who governs whats ryt & wrong; off sa ko kay i have a divine message asking: asa paka, where is the cereal?
meaning uli na,haaay

you see, who needs a God when we have women who dictates to us what's right or wrong. hahaha! good night, mr.fish.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

@handsoff: it's ok, hands. no sarcastic personal glee or fetish here at seeing someone making apologies.

[handsoff241]

My point here brad is that the buddhist proved it already that human beings are capable of attaining peace, love & harmony minus the concept of god,

I have said this before, that if Buddhism was such a mystic in peace and harmony, how come they are not the majority in this world? They would have had attracted millions of peace advocates throughout the entire globe.
Humans cannot attain peace, love and harmony for the reasons presented by the entities being attained themselves.
1.) Peace is a never ending process; attaining peace for one's self is not peace at all. If peace is attained by a single person and the teaching will be passed on to another and everyone would attain it, we would not be living in a world where we are today. Buddhism's idea of peace is of temporal nature, though they aim to surpass peace as an average man would think, still their peace is of temporal nature. Why? Having peace within your while being unproductive or less productive is not peace as a whole. That is the same reason why Siddhartha resorted to his middle ways. Peace within you is not peace outside of you. Therefore someone must maintain that balance of peace within and environmental peace. Man cannot balance the distribution of peace by himself, if he can, there would be no neccesity for a realization, yet alone an idea of god.
2. Love is a 2 way relationship, it is communal in nature; one cannot love alone. That is reason why God(i'm ont being bias again) created us. Because love is communal and it needs 2 to love. The monk's teachings are correct love towards and love inwards a communal aspect of it. But human as a race needs to love as one and must love someone as a race; in order for us to love in harmony.
3. There are a lot of harmonious relationship we can talk about. But again, generally man as a race and as one being must be harmonious with something that is capable of being in harmoney with all of us, could be nature or the energies, but more than that. Buddhism's teachings rooted from a single man's desire to be free from earthly connections, and evolved into an attempt of communal massive harmony. The root itself is imperfect.

[handsoff241]

@handsoff: it's ok, hands. no sarcastic personal glee or fetish here at seeing someone making apologies.

Sorry for the misleading post sir hell.
The first line was meant for springfield, I actually edited out some side comments from him.

I have nothing against you for I consider you a friend.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Sorry for the misleading post sir hell.
The first line was meant for springfield, I actually edited out some side comments from him.

I have nothing against you for I consider you a friend.

no probs, hands. it's ok.

[Sinyalan]

I have said this before, that if Buddhism was such a mystic in peace and harmony, how come they are not the majority in this world? They would have had attracted millions of peace advocates throughout the entire globe.

It is because it is not indoctrinated, forced and not created to be popular but to be accepted as your own choice.