Theism is Primitive Thinking

You are spiritually greedy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, should we then take a universal middle ground pronouncing god neither irrelevant nor relevant?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not possible since we are delivered smack bang in the middle of the material universe with senses raring to go. IOW even if we do (or can?) take the view that god is neither relevant nor irrelevant we certainly can't wager the material universe and its fruits in the same fashion.

Its kind of like along with whatever ideas we have about god's ir/relevance comes a parallel idea about the jurisdiction of he universe and our role in it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately, no, I am not, but I certainly aspire for it.


CC mad 8.70 “‘Pure devotional service in God consciousness cannot be had even by pious activity in hundreds and thousands of lives. It can be attained only by paying one price—that is, intense greed to obtain it. If it is available somewhere, one must purchase it without delay.’”

 

That's the kind of hypocracy I'm talking about. Any of those "problems" miraculously aren't problematic when they serve the needs you value.

 

I would agree with your conclusion if it weren't based on (as you note) what seem to be claims.

No scientist would make any claim of universality, and certainly not of objectivity (in the ontological/epistemological sense in which you're using it).

Empiricists claim that our experience is the only source of knowledge; the models they make from this collected knowledge, are constantly subject to revision and 'claim' nothing more than probabilistic powers.

A silly, and unpopular position, that doesn't represent the beliefs of practically any current practicing scientist.

The 2nd and 3rd link are superfluous, as anyone who is remotely familiar with any of these 3 would also be familiar with the other 2.

In any case, thanks for proving my point: only that which is subject to the Verification principle can be cogent. This is the criterion of empiricism as practiced. There is no claim to any 'universality' at all.




... and now, although enjoying this digression, I must try to get the thread back on the rail....

 

Mod Hat,

Guys, there's been nothing over the past 24 hrs that has been strictly on topic.
Let's leave the 'god exists/doesn't exist' debate elsewhere.
Of course, given the failure of the OP to provide sufficient focus, it's understandable, but the topic here is not theistic thinking per se, but rather how this kind of thinking can be understood from a mental evolutionary POV.

 

Being subject to revision is not the same thing as avoiding the claim of objectivity. I am not saying you said that it was, but I find your notion of what scientist would do does not fit with my experience. It seems to me they are laying out THE WAY THINGS ARE with a proviso that future evidence may modify or contradict this model. But the model/description is intended to be objective and universally usable, including for example by a blind alien gas based species, though perhaps the diagrams and text would have to translated into Braille.

And to tie this all in with the OP primitives were and are empiricists. Compared to the average primitive, modern people are much more likely to run around and expend great energy in relation to abstract concepts. And very few could make a decent bow and arrow. Even primitive religions were much more experience based. One can argue, and many do, that the experiences were not correctly interpreted - for example that 'internal experiences' were considered information about the external world (sorry about the philosophical can of worms these terms bring up, but I am not using them to put forward an argument but rather to characterize the arguments of others). Modern people seem quite capable of believing in things that cannot be falsified or sensed even by rather refined technological devices: free will, for example. They manage this rather well even without religions.

 

ok fine...lol

to state theism is primitive thinking..
theism= belief in god.
primitive thinking= non-evolved process of thought or thought processes that doesn't consider any advance in knowledge since ancient times..

its hard not to argue for or against without bringing god into it,since the issues is related to those who believe in god..unless the title was made to insult those who believe in god in which case only those who agree with you are allowed to post, and it wouldn't be a very long thread then...

as a believer in god,i would have to argue against that statement as i am a seeker of understanding..i wanna understand everything..
and that statement is an insult to my intelligence (who cares..you believe in god!)
so i have to question the ppl who show such a lack of respect to me(and those who believe in god but don't wanna 'do as your told' by religion)..
to try and show the difference between a religious person and a believer in god..(two separate things)

if the title was 'is religion primitive thinking' i would pry agree with alot of points made against religion..it would not be nessecary for me to be defensive about a subject i agree with..but thats not the title..

the title begs ppl who believe in god to come to defend themselves..of course most believers would recognize it as an attempt to yet again persecute them..not me..(maybe im stupid that way)..i like to argue..not afraid of controversial subject matter..not afraid to post my opinion on alot of things..you don't have to agree, i just ask that you TRY and understand..im not here to force any beliefs on any of you.or to tell you your wrong..you are not my responsibility..you are responsible for your own attitudes and beliefs..
and in the same note..if there is anything i say that would lead you to a closer understanding of what god is about..again, you are responsible for your own beliefs and attitudes..not me..('think for yourself' not 'blame me')(how does that line up with primitive thinking?)

test all things hold onto what is good
(don't forget the second part...)

 

Hence the real discussion is about which values are actually more encompassing than others, namely, an examination of the results of intense desire when it comes in contact with its object

 

sure, its the nature of philosophy to move it on, but the technical difficulties still persist

I'm simply indicating the wider social context that these movements occurred in to show how influential they were

There certainly is such a claim. If there wasn't it wouldn't be possible for physics to have revolutionized all the other sciences in the way that it has. (what to speak of determining the validity of all claims of truth off the back of physics)

 

And that's precisely it!

There is no epistemological/ontological sense for which science (aka empiricism) can approach the topic of the OP, so its futile to being it forward to belie the question or context of god.

IOW calling upon empiricism to invalidate the essential claims of religion is like calling upon a tape measure to invalidate the claims of a thermometer.

:shrug:

 

No that's not what I implicate. Both theist and atheist alike are inflicted. That's what I said.

The ones who know this and want redemption and believe in its possibility will get it.

 

Those are quite obviously traits that are essential to our suffering and demise.

 

We can recognize why we are the way we are. Identifying the problem is the biggest part of the solution.

 

Lie. Greed enslaves and kills people.

 

One persons greed is another's deficiency. I believe that's inherent in the definition.

 

If it weren't for greed, there would be plenty to go around.

 

And therefore does not follow its own doctrine.

 

If your highest potential is to take more than you need at someone else's expense then congrats, you're a thief.