And as already mentioned, it uses the word begin
And the word "pious."
There's plenty of people who are distressed, seek wealth, are curious, or seek absolute knowledge but who do not even think of turning to God on any of these matters.
And as already mentioned, it uses the word begin
The brightness of this world is tinged by its temporary nature, hence it is termed "material".
Being spiritual (and simultaneously covered by ignorance) its the activity of the conditioned living entity to jump from one situation to another to try and find and reciprocate with this spiritual quality ... but of course it never finds expression in the material world (hence samsara etc etc)
You know, in the end it will boil down to the fact that you believe in a god and credits it for the sun to shine. I do not believe in a god, i do not put credits on him for the shining of the sun. Wether is Apollo or Yahweh is irrelevant, narrows down to the fact that the sun has been there for longer than i can count and emmanates light as the product of a subatomic proccess that i am not in position (or hold degree) to question or discuss.
Oh and yes, it is an ego defence mechanism but still the definition is pretty cool: *Altruism
It is one of the tools to develop our conscience, by tools i mean way, as much as karma, philosophy or any other example you would care to mention, althought, it is the only one that can be used in a practical way to, let's dream a little, develop a mutual conscience altogether.
And when i said "we" it was us as mankind.
Morals and ethics come to take place, psychology is as well another tool for us to dispatch the Father figure, we do not need religion (as a result "God's" image as well) to tell us what's right or wrong anymore.
which of course is a lead in to the four other types who don't begin .... which somehow I don't think Balsy Walsy has the stomach for ....And the word "pious."
There's plenty of people who are distressed, seek wealth, are curious, or seek absolute knowledge but who do not even think of turning to God on any of these matters.
I've only offered one (1) (a single) (more than zero but less than 2) reference in this recent discourse, and spent the good part of the past 3 or 4 posts reiterating and explaining this one single reference (which you continue, as evidenced by this opening remark of yours, fail to even discuss ...)I'll take your failure to point out where as an admission that you never actually did.
Not really since I actually provided a reference (albeit one that you can't, won't and haven't read).Now that's irony.
Nothing about religious knowledge having recourse to no other means than faith ... that's for sureNo? Then what did you mean when you said I had no recourse other than what atheism had to offer?
If you are arguing that all reliable claims of knowledge be justified by empirical methodologies, sure.It's nonsense to say everything is made up of matter?
Given that the category of things that defy reductionist paradigms is probably about 10 times greater than things that don't, I can't understand why you would ask such a question.I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the state of the universe was in question. How do you figure there isn't evidence that everything is made up of matter?
lolWhite flag noted.
I know.I'm not even discounting the existence of a god.
The reason having difficulty with this subject is because you haven't, can't and won't read the reference.The existence of a god has literally no bearing on my position--which was, since you've as yet failed to address it, that religious beliefs are predicated on material matters.
Obviously you have never tried fastingWow. Unbelievably ignorant, LG.
If you fast, you may lose your appetite after a few days--for some it's longer--but it's not permanent. Whether it's due to ketosis or toxins in the blood, your appetite eventually returns. Even if you are one of those whose appetite diminishes during fasting, if you do it enough times, you're likely to find that your appetite stops going away.
actually its a reference from a seminal scripture in the lives of maybe 30% of the world's religious population ...What example? So far all you've shown is that someone in some old book might have alluded to there being more reasons aside from the material, based on some flimsy semantic argument.
lolAgain, special pleading.
Depends whether you can ask it without being loaded.Is there any question you answer directly?
Does the number of noses you have or the manner in which you define, qualify and identify your nose suddenly increase if someone points to their toes and says "this is my nose".This may be a perfectly sensible sentence in your mind, but to me it's gibberish. Feel free to speak in a language we can all understand.
LolNo, you're asking me to clarify your terms. You're just stalling.
I am saying that these things are commonly sought within the confines of the pillars of materialistic existence but such a search is futile since they exist beyond itYou said:
I am saying that we have no experience of need that doesn't have its related object.
If you are trying to say that the need for the consistent, reliable, etc has no suitable object in this world, then you are running against this general principle.
So you appear to be saying that even in this world, there are consistent, reliable objects - on the grounds that we have a need for them. Per your reasoning that if we have the need for something, this means that there is an existing object for it.
So if you're saying that even in this world, consistent, reliable objects exist, what are these objects?
My religion doesn't offer (as incompletely as i can surmise any metaphysical reality) continuation of my ego beyond this physical life. It does not offer comfort in this world, beyond THE SAME comfort that all of us are looking for, EVERYONE in this thread, which is a way to systematize the data we are receiving so that it can be called "sensible". For someone such as Balerion to suggest (by discussing religion as a tool always used for material gain) that all of us, atheist and theist alike, are not constantly creating ideology for this purpose, seeking for that comfort, is ridiculous, as if religious people were seeking something atheists were not. Many people don't worry about these things, but "making sense out of it all", (even by such anti-ideology as becoming a nihilist or materialist), is a fundamental need for those of us that actually care. Religion can be used simply for this purpose, and has been used this way by many people historically, so attaching material desires to all religion is basically creating a straw man, and muddying the water.LG said - whether a pursuit is categorized material or spiritual has absolutely nothing to do with how valuable a living entity grades it.
Balerion said - Of course it does. Every religious dilemma is either explicitly material or can be boiled down to primitive material fears and desires (Do you want life or death? Do you want to be enlightened or ignorant? Do you want pain or comfort? And so on). Claims to values beyond these are either without substance or themselves expressly material.
well the devil very obviously believes in God. I think you point at something that is important though, which is that there is a large difference between the philosophy of a devil and the philosophy of an atheist, which some theists don't seem to recognize, fueling misunderstanding. And theist and atheist alike both seem to fail to see just how much this devilish force operates in most humans whether religious or not, although the religious of course have a somewhat more devilish behavior, since they also supposedly have knowledge, and yet still defy God.Ever heard "The devil is very good at quoting scriptures"? The devil is the archetypal atheist: he knows God, he knows the scriptures and theology, but doesn't want to serve God. But you, simply given the devil's ability to quote scripture, would classify him as someone who believes in God ...
I am saying that these things are commonly sought within the confines of the pillars of materialistic existence but such a search is futile since they exist beyond it
I am saying that we have no experience of need that doesn't have its related object.
If you are trying to say that the need for the consistent, reliable, etc has no suitable object in this world, then you are running against this general principle.
well the devil very obviously believes in God.
I think you point at something that is important though, which is that there is a large difference between the philosophy of a devil and the philosophy of an atheist, which some theists don't seem to recognize, fueling misunderstanding.
And theist and atheist alike both seem to fail to see just how much this devilish force operates in most humans whether religious or not, although the religious of course have a somewhat more devilish behavior, since they also supposedly have knowledge, and yet still defy God.
The OP, and this thread, has proven the point which motivated posting it. That atheists have a decidedly childish concept of god, and that that contributes to a lack in understanding of conscience.
As usual, you completely miss the point. The secular and scientific is relevant because it is so ubiquitous, and it is the same with the ~80% belief in god.
It is just too ubiquitous to not effect your life in some way (gay rights, for example).
Hence you posting in a religion subforum. Maybe you forget that you are posting in a forum on the subject of religion (specifically theology, since it is on a science forum). The theists who post here have sought out a science forum, either to proselytize or because science interests them and is not mutually exclusive with religion.
But it is a hasty generalization to say all theists "push their religion" on others. And there are even forum guidelines against preaching and proselytizing. But if it bothers you so much, why do you post so much, even starting your own threads, in a Religion forum? Where would you post this stuff if this science forum did not have a religion subforum? Like theists seeking out opposing views to refine their own, would you seek out religion in its own forums if not made so readily available here?
Seems you benefit from this subforum, even though you devolve into railing against its inclusion here.
Again, Religion subforum. Take it up with the forum admin if you have a problem with that. "regardless of any opposition"?! You seriously cannot be so deluded to believe that there is, or even would possibly be, no opposition to theism here. There is constant and vehement opposition to theism here.
And? Again, a perceived opposition. So you only verify my earlier point. And their time spent here, on a science forum, is not representative of the bulk of their bandwidth. The very large majority of theists could not care less about apologetics.
But I see you have given up on addressing the OP altogether in favor of simply religion-bashing. Typical.
Please then wynn, between the classifications and denominations we may find, which as far as i can think of are but not limited to, theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, deist, which one you think gets close to your path of choice? Enlighten me please.
And I still don't consider myself a theist. I think that anyone who considers me a theist has very low standards for what it means to be a theist.
/.../
I don't think it's so simple.So what's up with that? If the theism/atheism distinction is a binary one,
People are complex - you're familiar with the idea of human life being a "mixed bag."
In the abstract, the theism/atheism distinction is indeed a binary one, but the way things work out for actual people, is that an actual person usually has a mix of theistic and atheistic tendencies. It's rare to find a fully consequent atheist and it's rare to find a fully consequent theist.
Often enough, one can easily enough spot atheistic tendencies in a person who claims to be a theist; and one can easily enough spot theistic tendencies in a person who claims to be an atheist.
The black-and-white thinking that many people engage in when it comes to this topic appears to be indicative of the psychological defense mechanism of splitting.
which one you think gets close to your path of choice?
As i said, Jesus was altruist, if it's so bad, why the intrinsic predicates of an altruist are preached by most (if not all) religions?
Most of the saints in Christianism upholded altruism. Btw ...
" It is one of the tools to develop our conscience, by*"tools"*i mean*"way", as much as karma, philosophy or any other example you would care to mention" How this does not relate to the OP?
If you think thay my point is too hermetically intrincate i do apologise, but i'm not prone to repeat myself at the present moment.
I am a former Christian as i said somewhere else and you might be aware of, so i fit myself in the archetype of atheist you mentioned.
That was harsh, but it's okay, there's no how for you to know that i even tried priesthood in a local Catholic Church where i used to live, my dream was to study theology and preach around the globe, silly? Yea, but i was young.And I am quite sure that with some digging, we could discover that you never were much of a Christian to begin with.
I've only offered one (1) (a single) (more than zero but less than 2) reference in this recent discourse, and spent the good part of the past 3 or 4 posts reiterating and explaining this one single reference (which you continue, as evidenced by this opening remark of yours, fail to even discuss ...)
Not really since I actually provided a reference (albeit one that you can't, won't and haven't read).
You simply say "no problems" as if your assurances bears some sort of philosophical merit
Nothing about religious knowledge having recourse to no other means than faith ... that's for sure
If you are arguing that all reliable claims of knowledge be justified by empirical methodologies, sure.
Given that the category of things that defy reductionist paradigms is probably about 10 times greater than things that don't, I can't understand why you would ask such a question.
I know.
You are discounting metaphysics while simultaneously making metaphysical claims (ie: "everything is made up of matter " ... despite a complete absence of evidence to back this claim up ... assuming you aren't going to try placing a second bullet in both your feet by arguing from an absence of evidence)
This is the irony.
The reason having difficulty with this subject is because you haven't, can't and won't read the reference.
You own this problem, not me.
Obviously you have never tried fasting
actually its a reference from a seminal scripture in the lives of maybe 30% of the world's religious population ...
actually its mega-super-special pleading to suggest that your off the cuff remarks about religion are somehow magically empowering enough to nullify the example of over half a billion people
... but anyway, having stout reserves of ignorance is certainly a prerequisite for discussing things you haven't , can't and won't read I suppose ..
Depends whether you can ask it without being loaded.
But actually I did answer it ....... unless the difficulty you have in reconciling the numerous claims about god being necessarily singular is also the same sort of problem you have in addressing the necessarily singular nature of your nose
Does the number of noses you have or the manner in which you define, qualify and identify your nose suddenly increase if someone points to their toes and says "this is my nose".
Or do you feel confident in your knowledge of noses to discriminate on this subject?
Apologies if this subject matter is too deep for you to penetrate.
Lol
You said there is a mutual exclusivity between claims of this type of awareness.
I am just asking you to clarify these two terms, since so far you haven't displayed a brilliant track record in comprehending (which for some funny reason, you can't haven't and won't).
So, whenever you are ready, feel free to put these two terms in your own language so we can see if there is any distance between your ideas, and say, the ideas of maybe half a billion people whom you are trying to caricaturize..
trying to be clear about this incorrect idea -
My religion doesn't offer (as incompletely as i can surmise any metaphysical reality) continuation of my ego beyond this physical life. It does not offer comfort in this world, beyond THE SAME comfort that all of us are looking for, EVERYONE in this thread, which is a way to systematize the data we are receiving so that it can be called "sensible". For someone such as Balerion to suggest (by discussing religion as a tool always used for material gain) that all of us, atheist and theist alike, are not constantly creating ideology for this purpose, seeking for that comfort, is ridiculous, as if religious people were seeking something atheists were not. Many people don't worry about these things, but "making sense out of it all", (even by such anti-ideology as becoming a nihilist or materialist), is a fundamental need for those of us that actually care. Religion can be used simply for this purpose, and has been used this way by many people historically, so attaching material desires to all religion is basically creating a straw man, and muddying the water.
wynn said:I hope you are aware that altruism is one of the ego defense mechanisms.
That was harsh, but it's okay, there's no how for you to know that i even tried priesthood in a local Catholic Church where i used to live, my dream was to study theology and preach around the globe, silly? Yea, but i was young.
"*It is one of the tools to develop our conscience, by*"tools"*i mean*"way", as much as karma, philosophy or any other example you would care to mention" I am repeating myself.
"The OP put forward the idea that humans can develop their conscience with the help of the concept of god.
You seem to be suggesting that this is not necessary, and that the alternative is to develop one's conscience without the help of the concept of god. Some such alternatives mentioned thus far have been karma, classical literature, and a few others. If you have another alternative, then do speak up about it."
"You didn't read the thread"
If so, you didn't read the thread as well, or is just not paying due attention, being elusive. I think it's the latter.
And, your despondence to not answer to the questions i made directly just proves my point.
I do not believe in any kind of superior deity/entity, i am an atheist. PERIOD. Any other implication that may further come alongside subjectivity and personal understandment of what is atheism does not change the fact that as a result of me, not believing in any kind of superior deity/entity makes me, an atheist. And to say that 'I wasn't much of a Christian to begin with' clearly implies that you may be taking this to a personal aspect since you are aware of what being a 'Christian someone' -besides the religious association- represents, and disregards any fact that may imply that i may have been a real practicing Catholician, as i was.
That suggests ethical egoism, the idea that all moral actions are performed by the actor for his/her own self-fulfillment.
We can define 'altruism' as something like "unselfish concern for the welfare of others, selflessness". It's "the opposite of selfishness, and involves doing for others without any expectation of reward". (That's lifted from a couple of dictionaries.)
Or put another way...
"As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings...