(Religion=Delusion) = Delusion

Fahrenheit

yes, replying that since your argument is not specific, it’s not a requirement for a rebuttal

“

if you begin your day musing how, say, the legal system has its roots in mermaids, the value of your seeing in general is very questionable

“

if you think that if it wasn’t for mermaids the nature of the entire world’s sea-faring military vessels would be vastly different, I suggest you terminate your friendship with the local permissive pharmacist.

“

so your spiel about the golden rule being an innate moral bites the dust

“

duh
the evidence available said there was no evidence – hence it was kind of remarkable when it was “discovered”

“

Can you remember how you defined delusion and imagination several posts previous?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“
Sarkus

Ok, I’ll go back and just deal with points that are valid to the post and leave your vacillating atheism for some other rainy day

so what have you done to come across it?
I mean I have also not come across any proof for the brain having two hemispheres.
But I know that is because I have never attended any sort of biological dissection, so I don’t give brain surgeons a hard time about it.
So what’s your excuse?

“

yes and no
Pascal was wagering belief/acceptance.
I am wagering investigation
If one doesn’t make the grade for investigation, I guess one is just not very curious or something

no need to look too far
you have just under-ridden the claims of god’s existence in the above paragraph by declaring that knowledge of god bears no consequences to life
“

well I guess that’s why they have institutions or standards of practice.
I mean if you rock up to a medical school with a metal lathe, and insist that this is the only tool you are willing to use and that they qualify you as a doctor, they would probably suggest a career in boiler making or something (and that’s if they are kind)
“

go back to the Op of this one or the one about the irrational methodology of atheists and clearly indicate how the suggestion of the methodology is based on fallacious logic and circular reasoning.
Actually, as mentioned in the other thread, it is circular reasoning to establish that all things can only be said to be known if they are empirically verified, since that statement alone cannot be empirically verified … so while you are at it you might try and explain how you have not just shot yourself in the foot.

and if there is no chance of the favored methodology withstanding its own demands for evidence, serious problems ensue …

sure the evidence exists
but only those engaged in the sphere of application can approach it
everyone else deals with it on faith.

That’s the general standard for all spheres of knowledge.
At the very least, there are very good reasons why law courts call upon forensic scientists and not janitors to verify claims of evidence, even if the salary rate is six times more costly.

I guess you kind of breezed over the “application” part
“

if he wants to understand why he can’t join the SAS, it could be helpful
“

when a person refuses to open their eyes, it kind of makes you wonder how serious they are

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure.

The risk is staying in samsara forever and possibly be very unhappy, the reward is to leave samsara forever, never to return and be truly happy.

It is up to you though how much these things mean to you, how much you want them, and how much you are willing to invest to get them.

Again, as I said above - it's up to you how you personally evaluate matters of suffering and happiness, of ignorance and absolute knowledge.

No matter what evidence or claims other people and scriptures may provide - all that evidence won't mean a thing to you unless you have some personal interest in it being true, and true for you.

And considering that you have been engaging in these discussions for at least a couple of years now, I conclude that you apparently have some personal interest in these things. But it seems this interest hasn't become clearly formulated in your mind yet. Perhaps it is happiness you are after, wealth, knowledge, or Absolute Truth, all of them?

When you engage in these discussions here, you are engaging in some sort of mental or spiritual practice, right? And I presume you also read various books, articles, go to some lectures, etc.? This is part of a mental or spiritual practice, too.
What are your goals regarding this practice? Surely you don't think you already know or have everything ... So what is it that you hope to accomplish for yourself by engaging in these discussions, reading those books etc.?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you please list your notions about
what it means to believe in God,
what it means to practice a religion,
and what truth is and how one arrives at it?
Important - Just brainstorm, don't try to rationally filter or organize the thoughts as they come up, just make a list, as long as you can.


I'd like to comment on the part of your post that I am quoting above, but for this, I need to know of those notions that you have.

 

Then why are your replying?

Well it would, if I did, but I'm not gullible enough to believe in mythical creatures, for that I would need to be religious.

I don't, but ancient goat herders did. The very same type of people that think god/gods exist.

How so explain?

Did it, Well would you mind supplying a source/links thank you?

No could you show me? thank you.
I do however remember you defining imagination as delusion, well at least implying it, this is what I said "if you wish to call the Imagination, Delusion thats your prerogative."
Notice I'm suggesting it from you implication.

 

I would like to provide you with the vast swathes you seek - but there really is not the time, and I personally do not think this thread is the right place.

The first is the most difficult. Perhaps if you could define what you mean by God, that would help? Some "Gods" are plausible - but ultimately irrelevant (cause of causes etc); belief in some (those that can directly influence our universe and defy the laws) are irrational etc. And those for which we claim to know attributes such as "good", "benevolent" etc... also irrational to believe in.
The second is generally beneficial to those that need it (support, community, structure, direction etc) - although brainwashing would probably come into it somewhere, as you go down the scale from a "healthy" involvement to fanatic etc.
And truth is the objective reality that we can only interpret through our senses - and must take into account all the ways our senses can be fooled, and arrive at methdologies to minimise that as much as possible before considering something as "truth".

As said - really don't have too much time to go through the whole process you requested.

Feel free to pm me if you want more.

 

I have responded to this. I have stated that the instigators of violence had enough. I see no reason to believe that when others have enough these first, often greedy and power hungry people, will now somehow be satisfied. Their satisfaction is not created by some of the citizens in the other countries lack or have. You could at least state why you think the rich will stop wanting to have enormous surpluses when they see others have something. Oh, those Latin Americans now have adequate infrastructure and resources, let's leave them alone. As far as I can see keeping up with and staying ahead of the Jones' is one of the factors here. I also don't see how others having more than before makes the grabbers less greedy and prone to violence. Further the ability of people to feel they are missing something seems endless and a rather creative ability.

Sounds like I shouldn't use that study to back up my ideas. Not that it contradicts them.

Sure, in many cases it was the potential for 'lost profits'. In other words they saw how much money they 'could' make and considered this psychologically and morally already made money. Then anything that got in the way needed to be removed.

Greed, power, an inability to distinguish adequate from oversurplus, an inability to understand their own real needs, perhaps, and assuming that more money then they have now will satisfy these needs - that might be addressed by actually sitting down with their kids and being honest for example or whatever. I do not think these people are especially self-aware.

They generally vote to have government allocate funds toward violence. I am not saying they are dangerous to sit next to at a party.

1) I hope I am wrong but no I do not think this would end conflict. 2) I also think that destabilization and keeping a lack of balance is a trademark quality of many of these people so I also believe we are talking about a very hypothetical future state. 3) I see a restlessness and conceptual violence - that via outsourcing leads to real, physical violence (often far away) - and I do not see this disappearing soon.

Let's take a look at the 20th century. Albeit less modern than the 21 first, but a century with more technology, more ability to distribute resources and pull resources from the environment than any century before that. Nevertheless an unbelievable century of violence.

I feel like what you are putting forth as a hypothesis has some merit. Or to put that more exactly, I think it should make a huge difference if everyone has adequate resources. The human mind, as far as I can tell, comes up with ways of seeing what it has access to and ownership of as inadequate with great ease. I can see having a more optimistic position than mine. I cannot see however being remotely sure. History provides enough example of people with a lot being violent. That their violence would subsize when others have more does not seem logical to me. This opens the gate for more rationalizations that these others have too much, or took it from us, etc. I also think that tempermentally there is a propensity to be violent in many - who seem unfortunately able to rise to the top in a variety of government forms - that seems to me more an addiction and attraction to the dynamic of having enemies. I do not see this hinged to resources. It seems more like a lifestyle. They get happy when the violence breaks out. They are more at home in it. It is easy for them to manipulate 'the people' using arguments based on resources or race or the other side's propensity toward violence. I do not see this stopping when everyone has resources. In fact I see this lifestyle as being immune to such states of balance and also preventing them.

Now I will stop. In any case you helped me to be more conscious of what leads me to believe what I believe, so for that I am grateful. My suggestion for you would be to think about why you think the ones who have enough will stop being violent when other people also have enough and also what makes you so confident this future state of adequate resources for all is possible given how threatening this would be to the temperments of so many in power in the world today.

Cheers.

 

There is the problem of how to be serious - what it means to be "serious", though.
It seems we have a kind of instinctive understanding of what "being serious" means - but what exactly is "being serious" comprised of? It is probably made up of certain attitudes and actions, no?

 

well suppose I am serious about going to watch a movie - I would check out all the movie listings, maybe read a movie review or two, see who the main actors, see what times and locations are suitable for me, etc etc
.... or suppose I am serious about taking on a particular vocation - I would find out the prerequisite skills for performing it, find out where I can acquire those skills, lodge a few inquiries from people already in the field, etc etc

Basically to be serious means that one seriously apply oneself to application and investigation. Everyone is serious about something ... and as a side note, some things that one gets serious about can negate the possibility of being serious in another field ... or at least severe clashes of interest will arise.
For instance, if one is serious about performing in the Olympics while also having a serious interest in amphetamines, the result could be disastrous.
Similarly, if one is not serious about applying themselves to religious discipline, yet is serious about talking about how they know all about it or providing a social/athropological/cultural context for how theistic texts appear, it tends to indicate that their serious interests lie elsewhere (unfortunately there are numerous "serious" persons like this in academic fields related to religion)

 

Would it then be correct to say that in order to be serious about religious discipline, it is necessary that a person be able to have and clearly express their need (or overwhelming desire) for the results that the discipline promises?

If a person does not have an overwhelming need to be happy, wealthy, knowledgeable and to know the Absolute Truth, then they won't be (able to) be serious about religious discipline?

 

Not necessarily,

A person's motivation for strict adherence to religious customs could be rooted elsewhere, i.e. social acceptance, politics, money, etc.

Observe secular politicians who attend worship on a regular basis, or clergymen who have been exposed/convicted for years of child molestation.

 

In that case, the person adheres primarily to social acceptance, politics, money, etc., and the adherence to religious discipline is merely a means to that.

The issue raised by me earlier was about seriousness about religious discipline as such.

 

Well, it seems like certain things come easy to certain people.

 

sure
if you don't know what the ideal is, how can you move towards the ideal?
(of course you can argue that there is an advanced ideal to religion which is beyond mere happiness, wealth, curiosity and knowledge of the absolute, but these are fine starting points and certainly require a degree of piety to be pursued along side religiousity - for instance many people want to be rich, but many people do not wish to pursue that desire in accordance with religious ideals)