The evidence that life as it is usually lived - the pursuit of work, relationships, food, hobbies, sports, art, social activism and such - is as good as life gets, is also lacking. Mystical, supernatural, pick a term of your choice.
The Relevance of the Concept of God
- Thread starter Syne
- Start date
The evidence that life as it is usually lived - the pursuit of work, relationships, food, hobbies, sports, art, social activism and such - is as good as life gets, is also lacking. Mystical, supernatural, pick a term of your choice.
Buddhism is more like a philosophy, not a metaphysical assertion. It requires no evidence. No one need believe it. All is says is, do this, and this, and this, and you might be happier.
What is "reasonably defensible"?
None, other than the fact that Capracus' only argument seems to rely on conflating the concept of god with religion in general.
So that would include tarot, psychics, numerology, the tides before gravity was understood, etc.. All religions. Since you refuse to differentiate terms (and keep adding new terms you wish to conflate), there is no intellectually honest discussion to be expected from you, and thus no reason to continue engaging your pointless digressions.
Budddha's mystical cosmology isn't the core of his teaching.
The idea that philosophy is open to objective assessment is fairly naive, in my opinion. But anyway, are you saying that, although it claims to be a religion, religious humanism, is in fact not a religion? If your definition of religion excludes commonly known and accepted religions, you might want to think about a reassessment of your criteria.
not sure how you test the ego, id, and super-ego scientifically. Freud apparently didn't expect his theories to be testable. I doubt many of them are.
here is a quote relating to that -
How about a proposition that is logically consistent with the present day state of knowledge.wynn said:
You’ve become so preoccupied with what you deem your concept of god is not, that you’ve neglected to present a satisfactory description of what it is.Syne said:
When their practitioners continue to justify the legitimacy of these concepts in the face of knowledge to the contrary, they become the fodder for religion.
Fine, then just stop conflating obsession with perceived conflation with a meaningful defense of you argument, and instead focus on (quit avoiding) the more relevant questions.
Since you’re advocating conscience development through a concept of god, do you practice this method yourself? If so, what are the details of your concept?
The cosmology defines the conditions that must be addressed through the prescribed methodology of the religion/philosophy.spidergoat said:
How else would you suggest to assess philosophy?cole grey said:
There are different interpretations of religion. I use the term religion to define philosophical movements based in mysticism; others choose to apply it more broadly. If you'd really like to muddy the waters it could conceivably extend to any social movement. For the sake of clarity it might be more useful to use the term qualifier + belief system.
The lack scientific rigor in Freud’s methods and findings don’t insulate them the process of scientific validation. At some point their will be a functional understanding of the brain that will establish the relevancy of Freud’s interpretations, and as a scientist Freud likely expected as much.cole grey said:
Nice to see you have finally admitted there are Buddhist gods.
Actually, what it shows is that you don't know the definition of theism.
I don't believe so, the cosmology is peripheral. The condition that Buddhism addresses through it's methodology (effective or not) is suffering.
Buddhist gods are a perversion of Buddhism. Earlier texts were clear about not worshiping "gods", specially Buddha himself. And yet, people not only built little Buddha statues, they built massive ones too. Idolatry is stupid, but prevalent in many, if not all, religions.
Whose knowledge?
And why should those people's knowledge be considered paramount and the standard for everyone else to submit to?
Q is not a god of any kind. Q is an incontinent elderly man who blogs from a nursing home. His nurses think he is a pain in the ass, and have to wipe his ass once a day.
At least his shit comes out his ass, yours comes out your mouth.
probably the way people usually do it, which is by being based in what their internal compass tells them, what their predispositions lead them to, without proof or empirical data beyond simply non-falsifiable interpretation. There is logic involved, but i would say that most of the great philosophers presented ideas that were internally logical, and can only be called wrong based on more interpretations of empirically non-verifiable data. It isn't science. There should be a poll here on how many people think philosophy is a science requiring empirical data. I believe it would make a lot of people think deeply about how they assess their own ideology.
i am not using the words metaphorically. I am not asking for us to redefine certain religions or secular social movements. If you actually don't want to muddy the waters you could use accepted terminology, or ask that for the sake of understanding some point, others temporarily use your definition, because there is nothing really wrong about it, besides the fact that it excludes some religions apparently. I am just saying don't expect people to accept your definitions that you use to make some particular point as if your definition is the definition, the way you do with your discussion here by saying philosophical satanism is mystical, or buddhism has deities in it which are analogous to other modern religious deities. From what i have seen, the deities described in buddhism serve basically no purpose other than to tell stories and make points about them.
and for now most people just accept these ideas as part of the landscape, ideas the non-scholars don't deeply understand, ideas many of which are simply interpretations which are not falsifiable, and can be used to describe any process in the brain which is not within the subject's awareness. Sounds like religious ideology, which deals with the external rather than the internal (and is even sometimes just thought of as an interpretation of the internal). I am as willing to drop other interpretations of God the way i have dropped the actual man-like being who lives up in the sky, when the science falsifies my ideology.
You're determined to get permabanned, aren't you?
Until you can successfully differentiate simple, distinct terms, the bias that motivates your conflation (let us see... "concept of god", "god", "religion", and "mysticism... so far) will remain a hindrance to any discussion with you.
And you cannot get out of your ignorant conflation by merely saying "you too". That only illustrates the uselessness of humoring you and the lack of intellectual honesty that is all I can seem to expect.
It is easy to ignore you when you make it so obvious that you do not pay any attention to the context of a discussion.