Religion

[(Q)]

The first thing to be done is redirect monies that go to the churches of the world to go directly to feeding and educating those children.

The first institution to fall should be the Vatican. Sell off all their assets and use the monies to help find cures for those diseases.

 

[duendy]

what are you rambling on about, how can you do, whatever you like with material reality, you cant change whats real, only your subjective mind can alter your reality.

me)))))its not rambling fool. listen. EXPLOIT material reality. are you pretending to be ignorant or what?

I think you've mistaken the religious forum fo the political one, what does my objectivity/subjectivity, have to do with ecosystems/corporate concrete hells. just because I use my objective mind, rather than cloud my vision with fantasy does not mean, I dont delve into my subjective side, and also I'm a humanist/atheist do you know what that means, I have more care for man and his enviroment, in my little finger than I million xians, I just dont go round sucking on a security blanket called religion.

me))))))))you like to put things in separate boxes dont you my 'caring humanist'. whys it you sound like the xistian yo hate. hypocritical?

what soul, some evidence of one existing, would help you case.
lets not get into who's, dirty and who's not, I think we all know who are the more pure, dont we.

no. what are YO ramblin on abou now. i aint a mindreader

 

[geeser]

its not rambling fool. listen. EXPLOIT material reality. are you pretending to be ignorant or what?

have I upset you, the discussion was in regard to the objective and subjective mind, not the exploitation of the planet. what has the subjective mind, to do with that.

you like to put things in separate boxes dont you my 'caring humanist'. whys it you sound like the xistian yo hate.

dont hate anybody, however can dislike, but hate is to strong, no man is worthy of hate.

hypocritical?

how so.

no. what are YO ramblin on abou now. i aint a mindreader

a mind reader to what. you said

no yu believe your 'objectivity' is 'real' and will carry on the dirty work of your soul-dead 'heros'

I said

what soul, some evidence of one existing, would help you case.
lets not get into who's, dirty and who's not, I think we all know who are the more pure, dont we

so in answer to that statement, "the non religious, are the more pure."

 

[duendy]

of course i will get pissedoff if you accuse me of 'ramblin on' when realliy its you not gettin me. better you say you dont understand?

i am saying that you cannot have objectivity without subjectivity, right?

if you believe you can is when the one-sidenes and trouble begin. if you see/understand and treay Earth, Nature, etc like an object without subjectivity is when you EXPLOIT it.....which is what is going on

yo seem to be confused and wonder what tis has got to do wit 'religion'? well if you cared t research intopatriarchal interpretation of religion you will know tat tey also denounce Nature and dream of some spiritual realiy. ie., thy are being more so SUBJECTIVE--also sides

so both belief systems, the patrirchal religios and scinetific materialist are like mirror refelctons of each oter. both one-sided, and oppressive

 

[geeser]

duendy, I have never once said, that you should only rely on your objective side, all I said is one should have dominion of the other, thus you will act according to whats right, for you, and not what other may say or do, take nobodys word for anything find out for yourself.(in my case objectivity take president over my subjective side.)
I agree there are people who are single minded, either on the objective side or the subjective, they do tend to stamp there feet and say my ways the right way, dont we call these type of people fundys or zealots, however that is the foolish standpoint, better to be open minded, is it not.

PS
there does seem to be an awful lot of these people, in public office, dont you think.

 

[duendy]

duendy, I have never once said, that you should only rely on your objective side, all I said is one should have dominion of the other, thus you will act according to whats right, for you, and not what other may say or do, take nobodys word for anything find out for yourself.

me))see what you said? 'dominion' of th other---ie., 'subjectivity'. THAT is exactly what is going on, and has been for many centuries. an deification of 'logic/reason/objectivism' an denigratrion of emotion/feeling/subjectivity. the SUPPRESSINGof it thru FEAR of it. tis is wat i am saying.



(in my case objectivity take president over my subjective side.)
I agree there are people who are single minded, either on the objective side or the subjective, they do tend to stamp there feet and say my ways the right way, dont we call these type of people fundys or zealots, however that is the foolish standpoint, better to be open minded, is it not.

me)))))))yes , fundamentalists, fascists, they are IN CONTROL right now!

PS
there does seem to be an awful lot of these people, in public office, dont you think.

as said. we are RIDDLED with that mindset

 

[c7ityi_]

duendy, spirit and matter are one.

i've become a god now, i'm so happy!
will you too become?
life is a paradise.

i always was god... i had just forgot it.
that's why... those who fall in love... they often feel like... they've met.
of course i've met... myself... god.

 

[thedevilsreject]

duendy, spirit and matter are one.

i've become a god now, i'm so happy!
will you too become?
life is a paradise.

i always was god... i had just forgot it.
that's why... those who fall in love... they often feel like... they've met.
of course i've met... myself... god.

you are a real dumb prick

 

[MadMaxReborn]

While also realising that there is room for only 1. Once it is found there are other religions that conflict yours, intolerance is born - as are wars and death for anyone that disagrees with you. Indeed not only other religions, but anyone who's view of what "morality" encompasses differ from yours.

P.S That's a universal "your", I don't mean you specifically.

That is a problem too broad to attribute to religion. The exact same thing can be said about political views. The US has a view of democracy that other countries are resorting to war to keep that political view from spreading to them.

Max

 

[Pi-Sudoku]

Are you Baron Max under a different name?

 

[spidergoat]

yes spider ignorance is bliss, but it has'nt helped humanity advance one iota, all we have is a world, that is two thirds populated with happy halfwits(it's redneck heaven), however, man is now getting the education, and science is allowed to progress. pretty soon man wont need the comfort blanket they call religion.
as knowledge brings an immence sense of well being, why should we remain blissfully ignorant.

In many ways "advancement" is a sham. We only need to advance because of the bad effects of previous advancement. There are many things I wish to remain ignorant of; the lives of the creatures I ate, the problems of every single person, the mites that live in my eyelashes...

Science itself has come upon a limit of it's understanding. The positions of sub-atomic particles can only be estimated as probabilities. Uncertainty may be something we just have to live with.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Are you Baron Max under a different name?

No.

 

[thedevilsreject]

religion is for dumbasses who like to like to follow the trend rather than people who go against the norm and decide against a religion

 

[MadMaxReborn]

religion is for dumbasses who like to like to follow the trend rather than people who go against the norm and decide against a religion

If there are only two choices--go with the norm and go against the norm, and both options are being chosen--then regardless of which you choose you are following a trend.

I guess that a third possible choice would be to be completely and utterly original, but that is beyond human ability, and therefore not a plausible choice.

 

[duendy]

If there are only two choices--go with the norm and go against the norm, and both options are being chosen--then regardless of which you choose you are following a trend.

I guess that a third possible choice would be to be completely and utterly original, but that is beyond human ability, and therefore not a plausible choice.

no it's not. to be orginal just means to see thru te tired old game of the literalist religionists versus the scientific materialistsand vice versa