Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
- Thread starter river
- Start date
there is the Jungian idea that the mythological archetypes our conscious minds use to interact with the unconscious (or perhaps it is the other way around) are absolutely necessary parts of "natural human behavior", parts that we are not going to evolve away from, and that the de-mythologizing of religion that has occurred is just another way in which the re-labeling of our unconscious energies has resulted in such unnatural human behavior as the usage of the phrase "only mythology" by the de-mythologizers (religious and irreligious) describes. Also, not sure how humans could copy ape behavior, if evolution applies, then they are just retaining behaviors that were instinctual, and simply not fully evolved away from, so they would be primitive human behaviors, not ape behaviors. The zoo reference you made reminds me of a book i read stating the real problem with humanity is that we used to have about 2 acres of land for each human and in modernity we now have .2 (can't remember the numbers, but that is the gist), so we are just behaving like any animal that is put in a habitat that is way too small for it, i.e. horribly.
Also, to river, how is religion in any way NOT humanity defining it's own behavior? Unless you believe the religious revelations are actual messages from the beyond, it is precisely humans being self-defining.
aka enter metaphysics (and probably a more ineffectual manner since you don't mind treading on other people's metaphysical toes ... so to speak)
:shrug:
And what you do is also based on metaphysics; just not the Abrahamic kind of metaphysics.
Who do you think you are that people should want to "think upon what you're saying in a calm way" and then "discuss it with you"?
What can you list as your credits and accomplishments, who can you list as your references, so that people would have good reason to "think upon what you're saying in a calm way" and then "discuss it with you" - even as you put forward a position that is in stark opposition to what they believe and value?
??
Respect based on theft?? What is that??
Lost?
Can you point out a time when life wasn't a struggle for survival?
The brain is more than the conscious mind. There are also a considerable brain power, below the threshold of consciousness. If I jump from behind a door and scare you, the unconscious mind will react before the conscious mind becomes aware. The conscious mind may become aware of squealing like a child and become embarrassed. In that respect, many things below the threshold of awareness is higher/faster than conscious.
Religion has a connection to the unconscious areas of the brain. For example, defining natural human behavior, or behavior that requires no social mops, should be innate to the brain, since it stemmed from millions of years of evolution and should be ingrained in genetics. But since it is below the threshold of consciousness, one assumes this does not exist, but is relative. However, genetic theory does not allow genes to delete/change so fast. One hand of science fights the other hand. What is relative is will power and but not innate behavioral genetics.
Religion is more in turned with our innate behavior, below the threshold of awareness and will power; the inner man. Mop intensive behavior should not be called natural, by science, or this will turn part of science into a mythology that worships monkeys. This mythology is oblivious to the fact that nature does not need mops to pick up after real natural behavior.
Although it is useful for humans to push the frontiers of behavior, it also useful to define the ground state; mop free.
Religion has a connection to the unconscious areas of the brain. For example, defining natural human behavior, or behavior that requires no social mops, should be innate to the brain, since it stemmed from millions of years of evolution and should be ingrained in genetics. But since it is below the threshold of consciousness, one assumes this does not exist, but is relative. However, genetic theory does not allow genes to delete/change so fast. One hand of science fights the other hand. What is relative is will power and but not innate behavioral genetics.
Religion is more in turned with our innate behavior, below the threshold of awareness and will power; the inner man. Mop intensive behavior should not be called natural, by science, or this will turn part of science into a mythology that worships monkeys. This mythology is oblivious to the fact that nature does not need mops to pick up after real natural behavior.
Although it is useful for humans to push the frontiers of behavior, it also useful to define the ground state; mop free.
Why ?
Okay but not based on any type of religious doctrine
I don't present anything , other than god , that is in stark contrast with what most people value , which is life , justice , safety , education , health and prosperity
Inotherwords I can't think of a society that does not frown upon theft , hence a starting point
Are you saying that religion is really about survival ?
My philosophy ( or to some metaphysics ) is based on Humanity not some religious doctrine
If they meet , so be it , but that was NOT my intention , nor will it ever be
Correct. That's what was inagurated approximately 2000 yrs. ago at the Incarnation. If it depended on man to acheive your idea, it would never happen. Consider that your idea is nothing new, the only problem is man's inability to implement it. Case in point your characterization of religion as it is practiced by man. It assumes composition of the same basic 'stuff' as those who are not religious. Essentially it is doomed from the start, being plagued by the very evils common to mankind as a whole. It took an act of God to bring about something wholly other, not the human race as it is on it's own, but as a catagorically different human race i.e. as it is in the Resurrected Christ, the God-Man.
Actually the GNOSTICS were far more advanced than the Abrahamic religions and they knew it so over time , these religions wiped out , or at least tried to , wipe out Gnostic teachings
It is the Abrahamic religions that have brought out the evil in Humanity
kx000
Valued Senior Member
It's a big fragment of human culture, weather it be retarded or not, it need be recognized precisely to what it is.
You mean for what it is ..don't you ?
Please supply legitimate evidence for this statement or it will be considered preaching. Alternatively, you can edit it to make it conform to the rules of SciForums, which precludes propaganda, preaching, proselytizing and evangelizing.
Practically impossible to hold a philosophical stance (what to speak of a metaphysical one) without drawing upon some sort of "doctrine" or other. IOW its becoming more and more clear you are simply expressing a bias ( ie "I like philosophical system A which means I don't like philosophical system B) as opposed to having something exclusively philosophical to say.
IOW you are talking more about politics than philosophy.
Straw man. He never said his position didn't draw upon any doctrines, he said it wasn't "based upon religious doctrines." There is a difference. You can draw upon the empty words of a fortune cookie, but that doesn't mean it's based on that, and a fortune cookie certainly wouldn't count as a religious doctrine even if it were the basis for a position.
Of course, it's entirely possible to formulate a philosophical position based purely upon experience. And since most people read neither their faith's holy text nor the texts of major philosophers, it's safe to say that this is how most people devise their personal philosophical positions.