Designer Religion

[SnakeLord]

You are yet to actually put up an argument why god is fictional - you haven't given any reasons beyond "God is in your imagination - I just proved it becasue I just said it was in your imagination"

Until such time where there is evidence to suggest the existence of something, it belongs on the fiction shelf. If we were to assume the positive, we'd be in big trouble. Some guy could come up and say; "I saw a flying pig", and we'd assign it the positive without him needing to establish that claim as reality in any form whatsoever.

Now I most certainly did not deny belief in gods before someone made the claim that they existed, and as such the onus is on those making the claims to substantiate those claims. Until they can do that, gods belong on that same shelf along with minotaurs, leprechauns, worzel gummidge, catweazle, the teletubbies and everything else that stems from the imagination of man.

Again, another wild statement

Nonsense. You made the claim that there are people who can 'detect god's presence' and thus are "qualified". As a man that deals with those that hear voices and 'detect presences' on a frequent basis, I thought it amusing that you would, (I assume without the required qualification), think you're in a position to make such a judgement concerning their 'abilities'. From a professional standpoint, I can say it doesn't "qualify" them for much more than a straight jacket - and yet you, the unqualified, think you can justify a 'get out of the institution' free card.

Off the top of your head, tell us how many saintly persons, philosophers or even scientists (in other words people who hold credible positions in fields of knowledge, whether historical or contemporary) you can think of who attest to a firm conviction of th e presence of god??

I can tell you of 60+ people that have heard voices telling them to kill people, hurt themselves, steal hamburgers.. you name it. I suppose in your unqualified opinion, you'd call these people "qualified" too?

- exactly who is on the list that you draw from to make your claims?

It's a part of my job to deal with those that hear voices. You would probably be the first telling me how insane these people are, and yet, in your unqualified opinion, completely ignore others that have those same issues for no valid reason whatsoever.

- it appears to me that you are just running on cliche and stereotype

Nonsense. I am giving you the opinion of a qualified individual in response to your unqualified opinion that these people are 'top notch'. A few pills and god wouldn't talk to them anymore.

- its just like a person using a bespectacled skinny old man with fuzzy hair and a lab coat as the prototype for contemporary science.

To get into the stereotype argument briefly: They work, otherwise they would never have made it to stereotype level. That's not to say they apply to all, but they have an actual basis.

Snake man, the problem of discussion is that you have no idea of what the process is to approach god

Of course not. You yourself told me that, and I quote: "it is impossible for the unqualified to approach god" and that the unqualified can't understand scripture. I notice you haven't responded to it, but it certainly seems to cause problems with your statement about practical application - which I cannot do because as I am unqualified it is impossible for me to approach god - and there you are trying to get me to take a practical approach to do that which you yourself have already told me is impossible. It's daft beyond belief.

Undoubtedly you'll ignore that little issue and then go on to say that to find god one must simply be honest and humble and ask if he's there. Tried and tested pal, you're wrong. Oh wait, no you're not.. I'm unqualified and as such it's impossible for me to manage a way to find god.

and you just imagine it is something like sitting on your butt and reading books (which is the way that most mundane knowledge is acquired) - This is equivelant as squinting at the sky to make atronomical calculations. Spiritual life is actually dependent on practical application

Dude, what you're saying is irrelevant and inconsequential. It is impossible for me, the unqualified, to find god.. remember?

Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
-BG 4.10

It's like an exam. Picture this from a human perspective.. I love my daughter more than anything on the planet - and yet when she looks for me I refuse to go near unless she passes a thousand tests. If she does those tests but I'm not there, everyone just tells her it's because she didn't try hard enough - and so on down the line until some plonker comes along and tells her it's impossible for her to find me.

In otherwords if you are attached to temporary things

You're not? (Pm me, I'll give you my address. Send me your tv, clothes, car, house, money, books, dvds, computer, internet modem). K?

fearful (symptom of ignorance)

Know how many times god says he wants man to fear him in the bible? Several hundred. He puts it above love and everything else. See, you agree the religious are ignorant.

and angry (mature stage of lust)

Anger/lust aren't generally the same thing.

Needless to say, I did not give myself these emotions - they were instilled in humans at the time of creation - and even god himself suffers from them.

you have not moved an inch in the name of spiritual life and your attempt to know god is like a moth's attempt to understand the sun

I can't! You said it was impossible. However, you're wrong in your statement. Not that there's anything wrong with assumptions, but you could have asked first and then you wouldn't have made the blunder you have.

Well what do you think scripture is?

A collection of texts written by early man who thought the world was a pancake that had a sun revolving around it. They needed to provide whatever answer they could from their (complete lack of) understanding.

The nile turning red with blood.. god's hand or pfisteria? Answer me honestly: Do you think these ancient people would have been able to diagnose pfisteria?

Once you've answered that ask yourself why you, (if you're one of those), deny modern day understanding and science, (evolution? what nonsense), and yet accept without question the word of some ancient fool that believed the world rested on the back of a giant turtle, (or whatever other various bit of bullshit).

If you don't apply the process you don't get the result. In otherwords if you begin from the very onset with the conviction that you will not be submissive to scripture (or saintly people) then you won't get the result of the knowledge that it offers

Again.. YOU said it was impossible.

I don't know what process you are alluding to to perceive faries, except perhaps to take lots of hallucinogens

Look, you're not qualified and so can't approach fairies.

So easy to spit on any other bit of fiction and not even notice the idiocy in accepting your own.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I did read the whole report. It highlights that a significant number of people in the Muslim world support violence in defence of Islam.

We're in danger of gross hipocracy here:
A significant number of people in the Western world support violence in defence of democracy...
A significant number of people in the Western world support violence in defence of our National interests...
Is it so different Kenny? What were we (US/UK) doing invading Afganistan and Iraq if not 'supporting violence in defense' of what we value?! (oil?)

What we call morals is in reference to behavior towards others in our society. This is no different to the animal kingdom. The way a dog learns not to shit on your carpet, or a monkey shares food with a fellow monkey who helped him obtain it.

I think you would struggle to prove kin selection or reciprocity as the sole motives for human "morals". Humans often sacrifice themselves, or their own interests for their ideals.

That's a good one! So what instruments did these qualified persons use to detect God's presence, and how was this recorded for others to observe? Please, give me some information so that I can detect God's presence for myself.

The instrument is Yourself! The method, results and conclusions are recorded in various scriptures among other places. How do you "detect God's presence for yourself". Here's a clue...

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

"A Course in Miracles Ch18.4.1"
The desire and the willingness to let it come precede its coming. You prepare your mind for it only to the extent of recognizing that you want it above all else. It is not necessary that you do more; indeed, it is necessary that you realize that you cannot do more.

You just require a little willingness to find out...

 

[KennyJC]

What were we (US/UK) doing invading Afganistan and Iraq if not 'supporting violence in defense' of what we value?! (oil?)

I think we've been over this before.

Firstly, Afganistan was sparked when fanatic Muslims flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of people, and the Taliban were in cahoots with Bin Laden and refused to give him up. Both the Taliban and Bin Laden were clearly motived to violence as a result of religion, as were the hijackers.

The 'retaliation' of the United States (particularily in the case of Iraq) was secular? I think not. Despite the fact that oil was obviously a prime motive, there is no way they would have been able to go to war in Iraq if it was not for the overwhelming support from the Christian right with a fundamentalist Christian at the helm. No way, no how.

Every step of the way you have the irrationality of religion pointing to war. How on Earth you can call this a secular war I don't know.

I think you would struggle to prove kin selection or reciprocity as the sole motives for human "morals". Humans often sacrifice themselves, or their own interests for their ideals.

All human morals stem from those which can be seen in simpler form in the animal kingdom.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think we've been over this before.

Firstly, Afganistan was sparked when fanatic Muslims flew planes into buildings and killed thousands of people, and the Taliban were in cahoots with Bin Laden and refused to give him up. Both the Taliban and Bin Laden were clearly motived to violence as a result of religion, as were the hijackers.

The 'retaliation' of the United States (particularily in the case of Iraq) was secular? I think not. Despite the fact that oil was obviously a prime motive, there is no way they would have been able to go to war in Iraq if it was not for the overwhelming support from the Christian right with a fundamentalist Christian at the helm. No way, no how.

Every step of the way you have the irrationality of religion pointing to war. How on Earth you can call this a secular war I don't know.



All human morals stem from those which can be seen in simpler form in the animal kingdom.

You are really ignorant about history; who funded the Taliban and the Mujahideen? Who put Saddam in power? Read a little bit more about where these "terrorists" came from.

 

[KennyJC]

You are really ignorant about history; who funded the Taliban and the Mujahideen? Who put Saddam in power? Read a little bit more about where these "terrorists" came from.

Yes I am well aware of how the Taliban and Saddam got started. What does this have to do with the cause of religion in the conflict I stated in my last post?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think we've been over this before.

Every step of the way you have the irrationality of religion pointing to war. How on Earth you can call this a secular war I don't know.

Its very easy to blame religion;

Why don't you go through these and tell me where religion played a role?

http://www.ghostchild.com/media_archive/files/Genocide Related/ChronologyofTerror2.html

 

[KennyJC]

Its very easy to blame religion;

You deny that it wasn't a prime motive (on both sides) in terms of the Iraq invasion?

Why don't you go through these and tell me where religion played a role?

http://www.ghostchild.com/media_arc...yofTerror2.html

It's not as if I am not known to criticize American policies. Their religion is obviously a prime motive in cases like these up till the present day. As I said, if it wasn't for the Christian right in America, I have no doubt America would be more peaceful like secular Europe has become.

If history is anything to go by, the more secular a nation becomes the less likely the need or want for war. America or the Middle East are hardly secular seeing as politics and foreign policy on both sides is corrupted by religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

You deny that it wasn't a prime motive (on both sides) in terms of the Iraq invasion?

You think Bush wanted Saddam because he is a Muslim? Really? And Saddam hated Bush because he's a Christian?????

And he killed the Kurds because...?

And he wanted to attack Kuwait beacuse...?

It's not as if I am not known to criticize American policies. Their religion is obviously a prime motive in cases like these up till the present day. As I said, if it wasn't for the Christian right in America, I have no doubt America would be more peaceful like secular Europe has become.

If history is anything to go by, the more secular a nation becomes the less likely the need or want for war. America or the Middle East are hardly secular seeing as politics and foreign policy on both sides is corrupted by religion.

You are in la-la land !

Here is the most comprehensive list of world wide massacres I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres

People kill each other for too many reasons all of them related to POWER.

* don't forget to look at the number of people killed*

 

[wsionynw]

You just require a little willingness to find out...

Ok. God just spoke to me, he had a lot of very interesting and important things to say. He said the Bible is full of lies and I should ignore it completely.
Do you believe me Diogenes' Dog?

 

[Sci-Phenomena]

Disband organized religion, is causes more trouble than it "fixes"

 

[KennyJC]

You think Bush wanted Saddam because he is a Muslim? Really? And Saddam hated Bush because he's a Christian?????

More to the point, would they want mutual destruction if they were both of the same religion? Or that Bush would sling Christians in a concentration camp? I think not.

People kill each other for too many reasons all of them related to POWER.

Of course they do, however, you have still not addressed my point as to why highly secular countries are missing the degree of conflict that is seen in highly religious countries like the USA and Middle East.

 

[S.A.M.]

More to the point, would they want mutual destruction if they were both of the same religion? Or that Bush would sling Christians in a concentration camp? I think not.




Of course they do, however, you have still not addressed my point as to why highly secular countries are missing the degree of conflict that is seen in highly religious countries like the USA and Middle East.

Who fought in the two World Wars?

Who gave soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq ( Both Desert Storm and War on Terror) Were there no secular countries involved?

And you seem to forget that these countries in Africa and the Middle East ( and also the US) were originally colonized and the genocides committed there were by the same people who belong to the secular countries! Do you mean to say that the basis for all these was religion?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

 

[(Q)]

Here are some links which explore your questions:

And from your links, I gleaned this quote:

"The Western world has since concentrated its intellectual energies upon the study of the quantitative aspects of things, thus developing a science of Nature, whose all too obvious fruits in the physical domain have won for it the greatest esteem among people everywhere, for most of whom "science" is identified with technology and its applications. Islamic science, by contrast, seeks ultimately to attain such knowledge as will contribute toward the spiritual perfection and deliverance of anyone capable of studying it; thus its fruits are inward and hidden, its values more difficult to discern."

 

[S.A.M.]

Maybe you could clarify what exactly you mean by alignment?

I'm thinking of alignment in terms of being parallel; i.e. co-existing, but I'm guessing that's not what you are trying to ask.

did you see this post?

 

[(Q)]

Maybe you could clarify what exactly you mean by alignment?

I'm thinking of alignment in terms of being parallel; i.e. co-existing, but I'm guessing that's not what you are trying to ask.

A set of values is assigned, for example, whether they be principles, morals, or business mission statements, that is irrelevant. The values must be shared by all those who are jointly working towards the same goals in order for the organization to be aligned.

 

[S.A.M.]

A set of values is assigned, for example, whether they be principles, morals, or business mission statements, that is irrelevant. The values must be shared by all those who are jointly working towards the same goals in order for the organization to be aligned.

But isn't that rather a constricted view of scientific thinking? After all, all science essentially begins with a theory, which is turn is restricted by available knowledge and the tools available to test that theory. As knowledge grows the possibilities of exploring the theory also grow, with a greater chance of reaching to a conclusion with better more exact tools. Science being what it is however, no conclusion can be absolute, as it would then lead to the error of not seeing what is because you are so certain what it should be.

I think it is alright to have a misson statement but one that is so exclusive that it ignores other possibilities? How is that beneficial? Can we really say with absolute conviction that we know all that was to be known about the physical world?

 

[(Q)]

But isn't that rather a constricted view of scientific thinking?

I don't understand the question - is what a constricted view?

After all, all science essentially begins with a theory

Actually, it begins with an observation followed by a hypothesis to explain the observation, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction, which is then tested with the repeatable results making the hypothesis a working theory.

which is turn is restricted by available knowledge and the tools available to test that theory.

What do you mean by 'restricted'?

I think it is alright to have a misson statement but one that is so exclusive that it ignores other possibilities?

How about a mission statement which seeks only to find answers?

How is that beneficial?

We can learn everything there is to learn.

Can we really say with absolute conviction that we know all that was to be known about the physical world?

Of course not, that will take some time.

Science will get us there, religion will not, since religion claims to have all the answers.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't understand the question - is what a constricted view?



Actually, it begins with an observation followed by a hypothesis to explain the observation, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction, which is then tested with the repeatable results making the hypothesis a working theory.

Yes but the hypothesis is based pretty much on what knowledge is already available.

What do you mean by 'restricted'?

In the sense of not being open to new interpretations of old theories or alternative explanations for the same observations

How about a mission statement which seeks only to find answers?

Is that true science? I would consider a mission statement to explore the possibilities more productive; because less certainty means more doubt and doubt is very important because it prevents you from taking the obvious explanation as the absolute one. Isn't it better to have an answer that leads to more exploration and further questions?

We can learn everything there is to learn.

We can also reject perfectly good possibilities that may be connected because we are so certain that we have resolved the question to our satisfaction.

Of course not, that will take some time.

Science will get us there, religion will not, since religion claims to have all the answers.

Does it; how? Isn't the primary requirement of religion faith?

 

[lightgigantic]

Nonsense. You made the claim that there are people who can 'detect god's presence' and thus are "qualified". As a man that deals with those that hear voices and 'detect presences' on a frequent basis, I thought it amusing that you would, (I assume without the required qualification), think you're in a position to make such a judgement concerning their 'abilities'. From a professional standpoint, I can say it doesn't "qualify" them for much more than a straight jacket - and yet you, the unqualified, think you can justify a 'get out of the institution' free card.

I haven't got the time at the moment to respond to this in detail - and it would probably be way too long (and i have a funny feeling this will be quite long already) and drawn out to read so rather than attempt to approach everything you said i will try and re-clarify what i said by touching on a few of your main issues-

Regarding qualification and knowledge - its not such an esoteric thing - persons who undertake the process to be qualified have the opportunity to become qualified - its common sense - wouldn't you agree that it impossible for a carpenter to be a neurosurgeon - the reason is that the carpenter didn't apply the process to become a neurosurgeon.
The process of religion is basically a process of emancipation - your statements about anger, attachment and fear indicate you have no knowledge of practically applying emancipation - obviously in this world we don't own anything (born with nothing and die with nothing) but at the same time it is constitutionally impossible for us to renounce this world either (since we depend on it to survive) - the proper application of emanicipation is utilization, the middle path between the diametricly opposed extremes of renunciation and sense enjoyment. Duality is the enemy of spiritual endeavour

Why someone would want to do this (get free from duality) is to purify the consciousness - in other words in spiritual life there are existential conditions for knowledge. You have to act in a certain way to know something - because the knowledge of spiritual life pertains to consciousness and not dull matter ( consciousness is superior to dull matter we can bring dull matter within our direct perception - telescopes, controlled atmosphere lab experiments etc - but how do you propose to perceive what you are perceiving with? This is why science cannot locate the source of consciousness - or at the very least they can not assemble consciousness from reconstructing the gross elements of a living organisms body)

.... In other words by purified consciousness you can actually perceive the nature of consciousness - epistomologically that may sound like a contradiction, until of course you introduce the idea that god is also there in the equation (God being possessed of a superior level of consciousness that doesn't fluctuate between illusion and liberation like the living entity's). So religion is the process to bridge the gap between the living entity's consciousness and god's consciousness (Latin root relgia - connection - same with sanskrit Yoga - yoke or connect).

Anyway if you think it is something like "hearing voices" that is as crude as piling firewood under a nasa rocket set for outer space

"Just as those with ordinary vision see the sun's rays in the sky, so the wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Visnu. Because those highly praiseworthy and spiritually awake brähmanas can see that abode, they can also reveal it to others. [Rg Veda]"

And that avenue of connection is catalysed by accepting the instruction of a qualified person, just like the connection to knowledge for a neuroscientist is catalysed by going to university and studying under qualified persons.

I can tell you of 60+ people that have heard voices telling them to kill people, hurt themselves, steal hamburgers.. you name it. I suppose in your unqualified opinion, you'd call these people "qualified" too?

But they are crazy people - sounds like you work with the mentally insane - Imagine if I took a selection of crazy people with ideas about cia cover ups and ufos and genetics and used them as a control group to establish the credibility of genetical reserach - I am sure if you gave such a group the same medication they wouldn't talk so much about genetics too

- I am talking about persons who actually have credibility in th e field of religion - like for instance do any of these 60+ people have students or a congregation? (not that a following is evidence of qualification, but it can be initially helpful) Have they pulished anything in the field of religion that has born an influence on practioners? are they accepted as leaders in the field of religious knowledge?
And most importantly who is their teacher? There is no question of being qualified in ANY field unless you can indicate the historical continuum you are coming from (unless of course you just want to be a qualified slinger of groundless opinions)

To get into the stereotype argument briefly: They work, otherwise they would never have made it to stereotype level. That's not to say they apply to all, but they have an actual basis.

Stereotypes work? Well does that mean I can also judge genetical reserach by a collection of the before mentioned conspiracy concocting lunatics?
There is a statement of fallacious conclusion "To judge a genre by its worst stereotype" Why should I have to justify the credibility of religion with the lowest denominator? Would you justify science by the same means?

Of course not. You yourself told me that, and I quote: "it is impossible for the unqualified to approach god" and that the unqualified can't understand scripture. I notice you haven't responded to it, but it certainly seems to cause problems with your statement about practical application - which I cannot do because as I am unqualified it is impossible for me to approach god - and there you are trying to get me to take a practical approach to do that which you yourself have already told me is impossible. It's daft beyond belief.

Its not that you cannot become qualified it is that you choose not to - just like the carpenter chose not to be a neuroscientist.

Undoubtedly you'll ignore that little issue and then go on to say that to find god one must simply be honest and humble and ask if he's there. Tried and tested pal, you're wrong. Oh wait, no you're not.. I'm unqualified and as such it's impossible for me to manage a way to find god.

Lets begin from the point that god is a person - I know that you don't accept that god is a person (how could someone who does not accept the concept of a president accept the idea that george bush is a president?), but for the sake of argument just accept that god is a person so you can understand something about the nature of how he is and how he is not approached ....

Finding god is similar to finding the president of the united states - suppose you want to "directly perceive" the president just to make it clear in your mind that all these media presentations and newspapers you hear about someone called the president actually exists - you wouldn't be able to get past the first the first of his 10 000 secretaries - If you want to meet an important person you have to be qualified - Would you expect the president to visit a person just to prove that he existed - Surely he would think "If he cannot detect my presence by the results of my activities" (In otherwords that the country is actually being managed - the streets are clean, no bands of thugs blowing things up in tanks etc) "what business do I have with such a person." But if there is a person who had something that was parrallel to the president's interest (like say finacial capital or something) then the president would be eager to meet such aperson - in otherwords you can only see the president if he wants to see you, so to switch the comparison, the best way to see god is to act in such a way that god wants to see you - if you don't want to act in such a way that is your decision - in other words it is an epistomological choice for a reduced ontological perspective

Now you may argue that science grants a greater ontological perspective , but that is just a result of your choices and is only an opinion you cannot validate - you haven't applied the existential conditions to understand the religious ontology, and instead imagine what are its length and breadth and then proceed to debunk the imagined religious paradigm which you are not qualified to even enter.
Or in other words you are straw targeting
I could do the same thing and just imagine what goes on in the name of science, even quote a few incidents that actually happened, and jump up and down on the smouldering ashes of my cinders of imagined science but it would prove nothing, except that I wasn't qualified to enter the field of scientific enquiry

 

[KennyJC]

Who fought in the two World Wars?

Who gave soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq ( Both Desert Storm and War on Terror) Were there no secular countries involved?

And you seem to forget that these countries in Africa and the Middle East ( and also the US) were originally colonized and the genocides committed there were by the same people who belong to the secular countries! Do you mean to say that the basis for all these was religion?

Firstly: I am not concerned with wars in the past as only recently has secularism gained any power.

Secondly: I have already gave my reasons why I think wars such as the recent war in Iraq are due to religious beliefs. There would have been no invasion of Iraq if the USA was a secular country. The Bush administration is not stupid despite popular opinion - They know what they can get away with due to the support of the Christian right. In no way would liberal voters or secularists agree with such a war. Why on earth do you think someone like Bush would come into power in the first place? Take a look at the Christian right...