JB4. Totalizm versus atheism
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JB4. Totalizm versus atheism

The severe punishment, which always is served for breaking moral laws, turns them into the primary source of division of all people and all intelligent beings, into two basic camps: (1) believers, and (2) atheists; or into (1) totalizts, and (2) parasites. This is because there are two possible explanations of the computer-like mechanism, which executes the punishment for breaking moral laws. Because this mechanism operates like a single huge natural computer, in both these explanations the mechanism can be called with the same name "God". But both these explanations differ from each other in how this name "God" is defined. In one of these camps (i.e. in the parasitic one) this "God" is simply interpreted as a huge complex of algorithms and execution mechanisms, which do not have their own self-awareness, thus which operate in a machine-like manner. Therefore this parasitic interpretation sees its parasitic "God" in a limited, atheistic manner - just simply considering it to be a kind of huge "natural computer", which does not have its self-awareness, its goals, its plans, etc. In turn in the other of these two interpretations (i.e. in the totaliztic one) this "God" is considered to have a self-awareness and to be a kind of superior "universal intellect" that behaves like every other intellect, including that of humans. Therefore, this totaliztic camp of intelligent beings sees its totaliztic "God" in the same manner as Christianity does, i.e. it believes that this God has the self-awareness, plans, goals, strategies, etc.; i.e. it has everything that every human intellect also has, plus it has some additional special attributes of God, which human intellects do not have.
The above illustrates that the existence and operation of moral laws must cause the formation within various civilizations as many as two opposite definitions and interpretations of the idea of God. One of these, our present terminology could call "atheistic". It limits God to be simply a kind of logical mechanism embedded into the natural computer called universe.
According to it, God it is NOT a human-like intellect, carrying its self-awareness and identity. Also the operation of this natural computer is an outcome, not a source, of the operation of our universe. The other one, in our present terminology could be called "deistic". It acknowledges the existence of a superior being, usually called with the name God, which displays a human- like intellect. God has in this interpretation His own self-awareness and His own identity. Furthermore, it is this intellect that created laws, which now govern our universe accordingly to His intentions. Therefore it bears the authority and control over these laws. Thus the operation of the universe is the outcome, not the source, of the operation of this intellect.
In the light of these two interpretations of God, which both stem from the existence and operation of moral laws, also the term "atheism" needs to be redefined. In this new definition "atheism" is not only the manner of describing world around us without the use of idea of "God", but also the limited manner of defining the idea of "God". As this was deduced above, "atheism" can also be a system, in which the idea of "God" is used, but this atheistic "God" is deprived the attributes of an universal intellect, especially the attributes of self- awareness, identity, and authority over the moral laws. Therefore, in the view of this monograph, there are two different forms of atheism: crude and subtle. In the crude atheism the existence of God is denied. Thus adherers of the crude atheism simply claim that God does not exists at all, and use another terms like nature, natural laws, universe, force, etc., to express what usually is described with the term "God". In turn in the subtle form of atheism the existence of God is acknowledged, but the authority and/or identity of God is denied. Thus adherers of the subtle form of atheism are acknowledging that some thinking component of the universe does exist, and they call this component with the term "God", but they either deny this God the authority (i.e. they request that this God is to be worshipped, while laws to be obeyed are these proclaimed by humans on the God's behalf), or deny his identity (i.e. they claim that this God has no self-awareness, thus behaves in an automatic manner like a computer-type machine, not like living intellects).
Of course, the fact that the "subtle form of atheism" does exists, and is externally similar but internally opposite to "deism", introduces enormous implications. One important such implication is that all religions on Earth needs to be reclassified. This is because many religions and cults, in spite of using the idea of "God", and in spite of making their believers to do various things for this "God", actually are fully atheistic, or more strictly in their core missions they actually deny the authority and identity of God. In order to illustrate this subtle denial on an example, if the present "green movement" would call nature with the term "God", then it would turn to be another religion, because it would keep its adherers preoccupied with doing various things to that "God", or in the name of that "God". However, in spite of making its adherers very busy with serving this "God", still this "green movement" would remain "atheistic", because it would deny its "God" to have authority over the laws of the universe, and deny its individual identity (now hypothetically consider what could happen if the Nazi political party would start call their Hitler with the name of God - could we without the knowledge of moral laws distinguish such "Nazi religion" from some of the existing barbaric religions or cults, and could we expose that their "God" significantly differs from totaliztic God). Of course, if we carefully look around, we then notice that actually we are surrounded with a whole ocean of people, philosophies and religions, which practice such subtle form of atheism. For example, to this category belong all people, who see their God as a blind force, power, sets of laws, or nature (e.g. consider so-called "force" from "Star Wars"), not as a super intelligent superior intellect, or a thinking being. To this category also belong members of all barbaric religions, cults, and philosophies, who deprive their god the consistency and ability to control morality, love, justice, laws, rules, etc., and insist that their god asks them only to kill for it, to spread destruction and brutality, to pacify, to show blind obedience, to bow, etc.
The other important implication of the existence of "subtle form of atheism" is that by denying God the authority and/or identity, this form simultaneously denies the need to obey moral laws. After all, in the understanding of such subtle atheism, "God" is simply a kind of a huge "natural computer", and therefore for such a "machine" does not really matter whether we obey, or not, the laws that this machine is supervising. What only matters, is to not let the machine to punish us for disobeying these laws. For this reason adherers of the philosophy called here "parasitism" (which is fully described in chapter KA /?/), feel excused from a pedantic obeying of moral laws. Thus they lead lives of intelligent parasites. Although many of them do not break moral laws by themselves, they eagerly make their slaves to break these laws for them (so that the punishment for breaking these laws does not affect these parasites, but is served to their slaves).
As the above explains, the manner in which someone sees his/her God is defining whether this someone has inclinations to obey, or to break moral laws. This in turn means that our internal attitude towards God defines whether in the final count we adhere to the philosophy of totalizm, or to the philosophy of parasitism (which is a reversal of totalizm). Our believe in God, along with the sense of responsibility, is a kind of "moral skeleton" which defines a type of our moral behaviour, which we follow in our adult life. For this reason, totalizm puts a strong emphases on learning not only moral laws, but also the truth, that the obedience of moral laws is simply a totaliztic way of manifesting our obedience to the will and intensions of the universal intellect (God).

=> JB5.
Antworten to top

Gehe zu:

Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste