The first thing we have to understand that none of these faiths has anything to do with Real God or The Divine Conscious Light.

On the contrary they are all methods of trying to control the Divine by reducing "IT" to the human tribal scale only.

The "gods" that they worship are all projections of the tribal ego in its search for power.

Secondly they all share three basic assumptions, namely that we are inherently separate from The Divine, the world process altogether, and all other human beings.

The Divine as an entirely objectified other, the world as entirely objectified other, and human beings as entirely objectified other.

These presumptions of separateness are shared by all cultures to one degree or another, but they have been developed to an extreme degree by these three monotheisms---and of course in the case of the christian offshoot or extension, scientism.

Where there is an other, fear spontaneously arises.

And what is more any and everything that is thus objectified immediately becomes your enemy with which you are always in conflict with, and which you seek to control and eventually destroy.

We are thus at war with quite literally everything: the Divine, the world altogether and all sentient beings. And have been for a very very long time.

This all encompassing war has reached its inevitable ENDGAME moment. Thus:

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html

ALL of our thinking, whatever its presumed intentions, is an extension of this control and power seeking asana---a consolidation of our separativeness, of the steel-hard-cage in which we are all trapped.

The joke isn't "Abrahamic thinking", it's David Young.

The real question worth considering is how or why anybody would take this piece of unsubstantiated tripe seriously.

Religions are a means of telling humans how to behave and think, but so are all the other ideologies such as social, political and even ecological. You are probably right to suggest that these ideologies have actually stopped many of us from thinking for ourselves.

A more effective question might be to determine “why” we humans need ideologies in the first place. It would be reasonable to suggest that human sapience comes as a package, included in that package are the good bits like love, compassion, heroics and so on. Unfortunately, there are also the bad bits like greed, envy and anger. For thousands of years, great thinkers and prophets have tried to give us an understanding “self”, of both our good and our bad bits.

More recently our societies have sought to institutionalize the rules we need to mitigate our bad bits, hence the emergence of social, political, religious and ecological ideologies. These are the rules with which each ideology requires us to comply.

Given the shear volume, complexity and variety of rule sets, is it any wonder that some of us just “pick” one that sort of suits us. We then stop thinking for ourselves and go with the flow of like minded groups.

We are not a benign species, yet! So some of us will continue to need one or more of the available “ologies”. However, all is not lost. Our social environment is changing rapidly, reality is causing our species distress and that, according to Darwin, will bring about genetic cognitive changes in the same way it has done with our physical genetics.

When we get rid of the “baggage” of our bad bits, we will be free to think for ourselves rather than opting for some other humans’ ideas. At which point all the “ologies” will no longer be needed as we become a benign species.

Those who need “ologies” see no reality and will therefore not change. i.e. become extinct.

Got any more “ologies” David

Something about your Article interferes with my "Thinking" .
After WW2 the West having a Guilt Complex about the Holocaust decided to confiscate a large section of Palestine and give it to the Jewish Culture . What did the Palestinians gain ? I don't know but they live in poverty in rubble homes ,according to my TV , I am asking ; did they get ripped off ? This is a Property Despite not a Cultural Clash .

Again the Middle East is not a Cultural Clash it's Property Dispute
OIL .....did they get ripped off ? Do they just "Think" they did ?

Can this all be compared to the Oz Aboriginals in a Cultural Clash with Multi-Cultural Oz and China who probably will get to own the Iron Mine and the Iron ?

What has Abraham got to do with any of this and what would his actions be if he were to return ?

"The purpose and result of Abrahamic thinking is the removal of personal responsibility."

You are going to have to more carefully define Abrahamic thinking I think.

Wasn't it Abraham who introduced the idea of one God? The immediate consequence of which is that it eliminates the competing idea of "my God is better than your God" between the different religions and sects.

The idea that mankind has one God makes him (ie mankind) responsible for his own intrinsic actions. It has to. It's the non-monotheistic religions that either have the effect of, or are a symptom of, a lack of personal responsibility.

Five Stars, Great piece Mr young.

@RobP, Abraham copied the one god idea from tribes in northern Iran. The typical polytheist religions tended ( if my understanding is correct ) not to have such a clear cut approach to right and wrong.

"The typical polytheist religions tended ( if my understanding is correct ) not to have such a clear cut approach to right and wrong."

Kenny,

That's probably true, but the polytheists used to do some pretty bad things to one another in the name of, or inspired by, their God or Gods. What's worse, this or the "Abrahamic" way of doing things? It really depends on the times/circumstances.

Probably the ultimate bad act was what the (polytheistic) Romans did to the Jews and Jesus.

Someone help me out here. I’m trying to find a qualitative difference between this article, and pieces like Peter Sellick’s “The impossibility of atheism” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8444&page=0

Both articles make improbable claims based on dodgy premises. In the present case it’s “The Abrahamic system of thought is based on the concept of right and wrong.” I can think of lots of biblical examples exploring conflicts between two “right” actions: Abraham’s interrupted sacrifice of his son Isaac, and Jesus’ intervention in a public stoning, to name both a New Testament and an Old Testament example. At best, this assertion needs a lot more support than is provided here.

Sellick’s article, on the other hand, is built on the premise that atheists don’t disbelieve in the same god that christians believe in: “the God that the atheists do not believe in is not the God that Christians worship.” Eh?

The silly unsupported claims in both articles are equally stupefying:

Young: “It is probably too late to stop the process in Australia because Abrahamic thinking has infected the Indigenous population to the extent that it cannot recover.”

Sellick: “To be a real atheist would be to find that this man Jesus is the enemy of life; to have a character that is pure darkness.”

Both articles have provocative titles, purport to argue from logical principles and take an unproductive confrontational stance towards those whose belief system is different from the author’s.

The only real difference I can find between the two is the quality of the writing. Sellick’s lofty prose reads like it’s been bouncing around the vaults of a cathedral or two. Young’s is still skulking in the crypt.

Ultimately though, the truest truth is in David Young’s article: “This is the reason we so often go round and round in circles.”

Indeed.

O Shite. Being compared to Sells. I will have to watch that.

O Shite indeed, Daviy.

Speaking of "abrahamic" right and wrong I quite like this reference and what it reveals by a (at least in some circles) influential christian "philosopher".

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=682#more-682

Ho Hum- Alden Swan makes a very pertinent comment there:

"If someone is completely satisfied that God doesn't exist, then talking about his non-existent morality is a little like a guy who spends all his time talking about the girl who just dumped him; it sounds a bit obsessive. Or, it's possible that some may be looking for moral reasons to reject a belief in God, in which case it would seem that morality is more of an issue than they admit."

He's right.

But, after a quick skim of the article and then the comments, it completely confirmed my view that a lot of atheists (not all, but a lot) hate the idea of God because they can't stand the idea of a being greater than themself. They like being the be all and end all and can't stand the idea of serving someone greater than they

Absolute rubbish Trav. Atheists simply can't believe in something for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for anything supernatural, so they don't believe. There is nothing more to it than that. Ascribing motives to atheists seems to come from your own insecurity.

Mr Young seems to have overlooked the two absolute fundamentals undepinning Western thought and influencing the expression of those influences throughout the Western world.

Firstly Christianity which we absolutely recognise as denouncing Abrahamic thought and practises. See Christ's Sermon on The Mount. Try to understand that was why, not the Romans, but the Jews had him condemned to death. They feared his teachings and understood his law, which we basically follow, would led to the demise of not only Abrahamic ways but also Judaism. Which history show has occurred.

Secondly the great influence of the Greek heritqage which holds, the exact opposite to Abrahamic thought, we have more than a little influence over our own destiny through our application of logic and debate. Abrahamic thought teaches the almost predominance of predestination as shown in the prophesies of the Word of Abraham ie the Old Testament of the bible.

It's no wonder we're becoming muddled.

I know of no school which undertakes studies the development of western culture and philosophy. I often see the mistaken belief we draw more on the ancient Hebrew text than from the New Testament of Christ.

Teach those and we'll all start thinking again.

Miranda,

There's plenty of evidence if you'll open your eyes. You just reminded me of a famous quote: "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

However, that was a completely irrelevent tangent you went on. Why? Because whether or not there's evidence has nothing to do with whether atheists like the idea of a being greater than themselves.

"Ascribing motives to atheists seems to come from your own insecurity."

Actually, it comes from reading what atheists say. Straight from the horses mouth. If you spend enough time watching debates and reading atheist blogs, you'll see my point has some merit.

Here's an example. Vox Day (author of The Irrational Atheist, blogs voxday.blogspot.com) was responding to a question where he was asked: If God gave you irrefutable and undeniable proof that he was the God of the Universe, and then asked you to kill all the children in the world under 2 years old, would you do it? Vox's answer- Yes. So some atheist writes a blog going on and on about how immoral that is, and how he'd never ever do it, (despite the fact that the message came from God and that said atheist would be a mere ant in comparison to the God who'd be instructing him.) It was incredibly obvious that said atheist has issues with authority, which is the very point I'm making here.

That scenario is an interesting thought experiment. Regardless of how impossible it seems, even to the most devout religious believers (eg: a good grasp of biblical theology, in context, will show that the Christian God, most likely would never ask anyone to do this today), the fact is that IF there was a being, ANY being, who created the universe, and gave you completely undeniable proof of their identity and asked you to do something, you'd do it. End of discussion. You wouldn't whinge, you'd just do it. No matter what that being wanted you to do.

Unless, of course, you had serious issues with authority and were very much wrapped up in your own prideful morality ;-).

Trav, look, I understand that you really, really believe in god and want everyone else to do the same. But you are arguing from false premises. It is silly to say that atheists don't like authority and therefore are not open to the idea of god. That doesn't make any logical sense, because the two things are not connected.
The idea of a god expecting one to commit infanticide is not an interesting thought experiment - it is meaningless without having a basis in reality. When you say "...the fact is that IF there was a being, ANY being, who created the universe, and gave you completely undeniable proof of their identity and asked you to do something, you'd do it." But Trav, there isn't such a being. There is no proof that such a being exists. There is simply no evidence, so why pretend? It is nothing to do with one's attitude to authority and you are not entitled to draw any conclusions about my or any other atheist's attitude to authority based simply on the fact that we require some factual basis for the views we choose to adopt.
I find it simply sad that you suggest that the Christian god "most likely would never ask anyone to do this today" - that is, kill children. The god of the bible certainly did, but for some reason (to accommodate your own sense of morality no doubt) to say that this has changed.

Trav, Methinks you really ought to read by blog reference Common Sense Atheism re the genocidal nature of the old testament biblical "god".

And of the nature of the "god" that the said christian philosopher advocates too---essentially the same genocidal "god".

Miranda writes

'find it simply sad that you suggest that the Christian god "most likely would never ask anyone to do this today" - that is, kill children. The god of the bible certainly did, but for some reason (to accommodate your own sense of morality no doubt) to say that this has changed.'

I take it she ignores the thousands of unborn babies murdered as a sacrifice to convenience and women's rights (wrongs) each year. I doubt whether you will find followers of Christ involved in this genocide. Then again don't let truth get in the way of your bigotry.

David Young obviously has no idea about how irrational, dogmatic and unscientific secular humanism is. It leads to brainless assertions dressed in pseudo science and blinds its followers from seeing the obvious. If any of today's leaders were nearly as intelligent or wise as Abraham the world would not be in the mess it is now. Instead we have replaced healthy thinking with perverted pride that causes men to be arrogant enough to think they have solutions outside of their Maker. The UN is a fine example of humanism. It has as much corruption if not more than the Catholic church had and parades a sickening false morality. That is the best humanism can come up with. Most can't even keep their word in marriage or love their own children and yet they think they can solve the world's problems. The genocide in thinking begins when we humans think that we are a lot cleverer than we are. That is the stinking thinking that leads to greed, pride, immorality, murder, hate and self righteousness. David has learn't little from history. Live like heathens you reap violence, hate, family breakdown and heartache. Show a little humility and follow God's way's you reap love prosperity and peace. A little honest study of history will reveal that.

Interesting posts to my article.

<But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.>
Genesis 2 .17

That is the core of Christianity. Do not get into good and evil. But Christianity (Judaism/Islam) and our whole way of societal thinking is based on good and evil (right and wrong). We are doing the exact opposite of what we have been told.

Looking through the posts to this and other articles it is all Abrahamic. The Christians argue in the Abrahamic style. The atheists argue in the Abrahamic style. Everyone is arguing in the Abrahamic style. And if you want to see the results watch the 6.30 news. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Pakistan and so on. It is all the result of thinking in terms of right and wrong.

The only difference between Darfur and OLO is one of degree.

The Sermon on the Mount tells us exactly how not to think in the Abrahamic way. I agree with Jesus all the way. But look what the Christian church has done to the teachings of Jesus with its right and wrong.

But I am not getting at Christians or anyone. I want to get across the idea that it is possible to thing without right and wrong.

We have choices. We can solve the problems we have in this world or we can argue right and wrong. If we argue about right and wrong nothing is going to be solved. Are we going to use OLO to trade insults or openly discuss difference to find common ground?

Trav and Miranda don't you realise the God of the Old Testament, and Christ as the Christian true God, are not the same. And that the West rejected the God of the Old testament in favour of Christ as God. And He never asked poeple to kill their first born or any child... And we Westerners go along with his philosophies.

No Ho Hum Christ as God is not and never was in any way genocidal nor infanticidal.

Herein lies the problem ... a lack of comprehension. You all equate the old testament god with Christ. Simply a contradiction.

Runner
Spot on ... first post.

Some wrong ... second post

BTW I'm irrelegious but belive in Christ as God. Now that doesn't fit any common mode or labelling ... does it?

"<But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.>
Genesis 2 .17

That is the core of Christianity."

No it's not ... it's the core of Judaism.

The core of Christainity and western belief is 'The Sermon on the Mount'... and the Greek heritage ensures we do eat of that 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' and that we will thrive by doing so.

Regards Keith

I think that runner is so wise that he must be Abraham reincarnated.

However, I worry about the welfare of any sons he may have.

Trav, I agree with you . What a lot of tripe, there are jumps in logic and of course he is trying to use Abrahimic logic to defeat Abrahimic logic.

*I take it she ignores the thousands of unborn babies murdered as a sacrifice to convenience and women's rights*

Well the proof of the pudding is of course in the eating. What we
see from you runner, is mere rhetoric. If you really are concerned
about all those babies, as you claim to be, why not save them and
feed them?

You could for instance sell your computer and save another couple.
Clearly you prefer to fool around on OLO then save the starving
babies, so all your bleating is not much more then hot air,
quite frankly.

CJ Morgan
'I think that runner is so wise that he must be Abraham reincarnated.
However, I worry about the welfare of any sons he may have.'

This is the best compliment you have paid me. If only it was half true. And don't worry about my sons. The sacrifice provided by God was enough to cover their sins as well as yours.

Yabby

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Don't you realise that most abortions in Australia are for convenience not because their is not enough money to go around. Check out the adoption queues. If selling my computer would save one life I would be more than happy to do so.

Keith - when christians publically and definitively disavow the old testament and everything it stands for, you might have an argument. But pick up any bible, and there it is, in all its genocidal, spiteful and repugnant reality. It is a cold, harsh, nasty book. But christians still stand by it. That is a problem for christians to sort out. Both the old and new testaments are the product of ignorant and credulous times, although certainly they have different messages and tones. However, there is still some crazy stuff in the new testament as well. Seen Revelations recently?

runner: << If selling my computer would save one life I would be more than happy to do so. >>

Quick, runner - sell your computer and donate the proceeds to Oxfam!

I'm sure the cash would be enough to provide food for some starving kid somewhere for a while, and the rest of us would have the added benefit of not reading the drivel you post here.

Interesting post David.

While not Abrahamic in religious belief it seems I do believe there is considerable merit in the 10 Commandments.

Nice and simple .

I often wonder if the war mongers in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim Faiths really believe they are going to heaven.

Logic makes me doubt it .

*Yabby
Your ignorance knows no bounds.*

Err Runner, your fanaticism seemingly knows no limits!

It is up to women to decide, how many children that they
can afford to feed, clothe and raise. You don't know each of
their personal circumstances, so cannot judge.

I know of no 80'000 new couples a year in Australia, applying to
adopt a baby. We saw what happened last time, ie. they landed up
in Catholic orphanages, ligned up for abuse by the Catholic clery.

As CJ correctly points out, every Dollar donated to Oxfam will
feed another starving mouth, so please practise what you preach.

The house, the car and the furniture, they all clearly have no
value, compared to those starving babies. Start selling Runner,
don't just preach empty rhetoric on OLO, for there are hungry
mouths waiting for your donation. Just ask Oxfam.

By the way Runner, it is not over for you yet, lol.

When that so called "evil" Obama regime changed the
rules on embryo research, the truth came out on
CNN.

It seems that something like 600'000 eight cell
embryos are in frozen storage in the US. Unless
they are used for research, it seems that eventually
most of them will be dumped.

The religious right over there, started a campaign
to "adopt an embryo" and you have made it clear in the
past, that you think that 8 cell embryos are "unborn
children".

Sadly, when reality hit, only around 70 embryos a
year have been adopted, despite all the religious
rhetoric.

Now rather then letting all these 600'000 "unborn
children" die, you really need to save them. To
put it bluntly, if your wife's womb is not occupied,
could she handle a couple of batches of sextuplets
in a a row?

Clearly you would have no trouble in feeding and raising
them all.

Your destiny awaits Runner. Save them all!

DAVID YOUNG -: Can the human race handle thinking, or is it too into the Arabhamic way that it can only handle Dogma? Thinking would require total personal responsibility. Whatever we did would belong to us. With thinking the first thing would be, what do we want? without any idea of right or wrong.

The answer to your first question here David is obviously NO. Masses of people cannot handle the truth without dogma. The real reason most races (that means all humans) have sanctioned wars and genocide through their governments and armies thoughout the centuries terrifies them. After all which one of us would admit to sanctioning murder, we are all decent loving people aren't we? The fact that it is not about right and wrong is also another truth we can't handle because if we are not in the right,(justified),it again forces us to see ourselves as capable of the mass murder of men, women and children in the pursuit of our own survival and prosperity. As Clint Eastwood said in the movie Unforgiven. "Im not like that anymore." It's not true that we're not like that anymore either.

Look to your Biology books, man like every other species protects his children above all others, then his next closest cellular relatives his cousins,Aunts extended family. Next closest, his tribe to whom he is most recently linked through tribal intermarriage.

This means to ensure their survival at the optimum level we must have control of a territory that provides the resources we need for them to multiply and prosper. Our biology frightens people, they want to change it or reason it away. It doesn't fit in with their idea of loving, reasonable human beings, hence the need for Dogma.

CJ -: Your fight for a sustainable population would be one way to keep plentiful resources available for all and so dampen down man's territorial tribal hostility(racism). Overriding stupid religious leaders and providing freely accessable fertility control worldwide and urgently would be another way.

DAVID YOUNG -: The developing course of industrialization and modernization has not led to the unification of humankind.

Mankind has never been unified at any stage in history. We have always been biologically, a fierce survival animal. This idea that people have that factories(industrialization) and modern living could somehow change mankind's scripted biology completely baffles me.

How could something that's only happened in the last hundred years or so do that? It would take one hell of a lot more years of evolution before it was possible, if ever.

Ah, c'mon sharkfin,

We are going into space together with our old enemies,surely it's worth a try .

I agree on the animal instincts but we are supposed to be at the top of the chain .

Dear Kartiya Jim,
Thank you for your reply to my post. You are right we should never give up trying to bring about freedom from conflict and war but I wish the whole world could come at the problem from an unemotional and more science based appraisal of it. Why can't we step back and ask ourselves why as a species we act this way. As the famous television physcologist (Dr. Phil) says, you can't change what you won't acknowledge). That's why I thought this was a good article by David, if only mankind could think without the need for Dogmas and self delusion. A massive amount of people seem to be unable to handle horrible realities, they prefer their own explanations.

The fact that we are at the top of the chain as you say, on the one hand causes us to delude ourselves more about our superiorority and so we are less able to handle unpalatable truths that fail to back up our view of ourselves as superior, but on the other hand as you pointed out it does give us hope in our ability to keep on trying and one day work out a way to live in peace.