The Meaning of Life

[chaz wyman]

Again you resort to a poor personal attack without opening your mind and discussing my opinion.

I'm discussing your opinion that all religion is bad. That's blatantly false.

No your not discussion anything - you are simply contradicting.

As example, some religious people feed the homeless.
After 2000 years you might have thought that rather than become one of the richest organisation and the biggest land owner in the UK, they would have actually done something about it - but there are still homeless people all over the world. There's nothing colder than charity.
By your one sided lack of reasoning, feeding the homeless is now bad, a cynical attempt for world domination etc etc. Some people feed the homeless because they can feel the pain of being homeless, and that's all there is to it.
You are dreaming. The church owns millions of acres of empty land and 100s of empty properties. Secular housing associations and town councils do much better.

My opinion on religion is garnered of a lifetime's experience and study. You do not have to agree with it, but you have failed to argue against it.

You claim a life time of study, but you write as if you've never actually met any religious people.
I've met far too many. They are self serving obnoxious and high minded moralists. They match the servility of a servant of an imaginary friend with the arrogance of entitlement they have because they believe they will live forever
There are literally millions of religious people all over the planet who are too busy serving their neighbors to evangelize you, or argue about ideology.
Most people are religious out of habit and rarely think the thing through. If there are millions of them- then there are millions back-biting and attacking other religionists for slightly different beliefs. Shia fight Sunni, Muslim against Jew, Christian against jew and Muslim, Protestant against Catholic, there is no end to this madness.
It's also true that there are millions of butt hole religionists. I completely agree, and don't dispute this at all.
People who will believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities. The madness is constantly immanent is the fractured, incoherent, and incompatible belief systems.
Religion serves no purpose; “Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.." Hitchens asks, but he often used to add name a wicked or evil action made by a religious person that is wholly attributable to their belief and you can find many , many examples without hesitation.
For all the strife it causes, anything positive you can find from it can be performed better by secular organisations and secular persons.

Go in to almost any congregation, and you will find some people who are sincere about religion's idealistic goals, love and service etc, and you will find other people who are ideological hard heads seeking to control the minds of others etc.
Then after saying their prayers, they can go back home in the knowledge that their duty to god has been done, and they ca rest for the remainder of the week and do nothing but attack queers and people of other religions.

Both kinds of people exist in religion, just as they do outside of religion.
QED, religion serves no purpose except to propagate out of date moral systems and lies about cosmology and the origin of the life.
Some atheists are sincere thoughtful people attempting to develop their understandings, while others are angry adamant blowhards repeating memorized slogans.
Where did you remember that little ditty from?
You are committing the sin of starting with a conclusion, and then gathering evidence to support your favorite conclusion. That's not reason, it's ideology. You are free to have a one sided ideology that ignores evidence, but you are not free to label that ideology reason.
Nope. I have good reason to dislike religion - because it is what it is.

ANd you seem to be living in cloud cuckoo -land by accepting dogma that destroys the reasoning capacity of the human spirit.

I'm attempting to cure you of a dogma that has destroyed your reasoning capacity, on this particular subject. On other subjects, you reason perfectly well.

You have already made your mind up about my lack of reason before you have even taken the trouble to investigate it. That is rather pathetic.

[Bernard]

Neither are for me, they're both equally indulgent human detritus.

[chaz wyman]

Neither are for me, they're both equally indulgent human detritus.

Sorry - are you saying that 'love' and religion are both human detritus?

Are you a sad and unloved loner?

[Bernard]

Its about what the social order does with words and great the meaning they can carry- normalises them, makes them trite, frivolous or attaches them to meaningless violence.

[chaz wyman]

Its about what the social order does with words and great the meaning they can carry- normalises them, makes them trite, frivolous or attaches them to meaningless violence.

What on earth are you talking about?

Surely someone loves you?

[duszek]

Do you mean that you understand Shakespeare´s old English and read him in order to become more serene and optimistic ?

I always try to mean exactly what I say. I did not say that and did not mean it. But there is a serenity to S. But no, I rarely read him, except the sonnets. S wrote plays and these were intended to be seen, therefore I see his plays as often as I can. I like to get at least two or three a year.

Or did you read S. the last time when you were at school and after that
"Never more, never more" ... ?

I did not encounter him at school. Although I now have a good education, my school years were not very good.

Are there any books which provide wellness for the soul ?
Which one could read in slow motion and thus inhale like a medecine ?

There are no such books in particular. Book reading is good for the spirit generally, but is find books that try to manipulate or steer the "soul" seem disingenuous. ANy good read in which I find myself taking the same path as the author is good. It does not matter where you go , as long as it is somewhere out of yourself.

I see no big difference between "spirit" and "soul".

If a spirit dwells in a human body you can call it a soul.
If a spirit dwells outside of a human body you can call it a ghost.

There are languages in which it is almost the same word:

duch (spirit) and dusza (soul).

The word "dusza" was probably created under the influence of the christian religion: in Latin there is spiritus and anima. And spiritus is the Holy Spirit too, Spiritus Sanctus, and so a human soul should be expressed in a slightly different way. That´s is what I suppose but I cannot prove it.

[chaz wyman]

Do you mean that you understand Shakespeare´s old English and read him in order to become more serene and optimistic ?

I always try to mean exactly what I say. I did not say that and did not mean it. But there is a serenity to S. But no, I rarely read him, except the sonnets. S wrote plays and these were intended to be seen, therefore I see his plays as often as I can. I like to get at least two or three a year.

Or did you read S. the last time when you were at school and after that
"Never more, never more" ... ?

I did not encounter him at school. Although I now have a good education, my school years were not very good.

Are there any books which provide wellness for the soul ?
Which one could read in slow motion and thus inhale like a medecine ?

There are no such books in particular. Book reading is good for the spirit generally, but is find books that try to manipulate or steer the "soul" seem disingenuous. ANy good read in which I find myself taking the same path as the author is good. It does not matter where you go , as long as it is somewhere out of yourself.

I see no big difference between "spirit" and "soul".

If a spirit dwells in a human body you can call it a soul.
If a spirit dwells outside of a human body you can call it a ghost.

There are languages in which it is almost the same word:

duch (spirit) and dusza (soul).

The word "dusza" was probably created under the influence of the christian religion: in Latin there is spiritus and anima. And spiritus is the Holy Spirit too, Spiritus Sanctus, and so a human soul should be expressed in a slightly different way. That´s is what I suppose but I cannot prove it.

As I do not think that the immortal soul is a meaningful idea, I very occasionally use the term 'spirit' to express a quality of feeling and well being. I do not accept that these feelings exist without the physical structure of the human body with all its neurones, hormones and other nerves etc.

[duszek]

So for you

spirit = soul = psyche ?

Yes, why not.

So what books are good for the psyche or psychological / spiritual development ?

Many years ago I used to read Agatha Christie´s books inspite of occasional crimes there. It was the cosy atmosphere that I wanted, to warm my soul or psyche in it. Hoping for not too much bloodshed, barking and ugly to disturb me there. Like a cat trying to reach a fireplace unobserved. Agatha obliged. Someone was dead occasionally, but not shockingly.

[chaz wyman]

So for you

spirit = soul = psyche ?

Yes, why not.

So what books are good for the psyche or psychological / spiritual development ?

Many years ago I used to read Agatha Christie´s books inspite of occasional crimes there. It was the cosy atmosphere that I wanted, to warm my soul or psyche in it. Hoping for not too much bloodshed, barking and ugly to disturb me there. Like a cat trying to reach a fireplace unobserved. Agatha obliged. Someone was dead occasionally, but not shockingly.

No. psyche is literally Greek for soul. Spirit is more vague.
Psyche has been apprehended for psychology - a 'science' that does not rely on the immortal incorporeal aspects of the 'soul', but there is still much in the way of connotation of the religious aspects.
So I don't really have a word for what I mean, so I tend to use spirit as in "animal spirits".

As for books - I find that nearly all fictional books are good for it. They take you out of your mundane head-space more thoroughly than other media, and so long as they do not try to impose ideological or political views that I find unacceptable then I can find them restful.

[Felasco]

You have already made your mind up about my lack of reason before you have even taken the trouble to investigate it.

I've read what seems like thousands of your posts on this subject. They're all the same. Little more than an epic emotional outburst.

[chaz wyman]

You have already made your mind up about my lack of reason before you have even taken the trouble to investigate it.

I've read what seems like thousands of your posts on this subject. They're all the same. Little more than an epic emotional outburst.

You are simply not telling the truth.
I cannot possibly credit you with any respect when you face me with such a bold lie.

[Felasco]

You are simply not telling the truth.

I'm not telling a truth you wish to hear.

Let's see if I understand you before continuing further. I see our conversation this way....

CHAZ: All religion is bad.

FELASCO: Some religion is bad.

Is this a fair summary?

[chaz wyman]

You are simply not telling the truth.

I'm not telling a truth you wish to hear.

Let's see if I understand you before continuing further. I see our conversation this way....

CHAZ: All religion is bad.

FELASCO: Some religion is bad.

Is this a fair summary?

No
That's how you wish to characterise me, because simplifying it makes it easy for you to thrash out like a monkey , and not actually engage your brain, and consider ideas that you might not have previously considered.

Let me try a summary myself.

Chaz: Religion is bad for specific reasons and in ways that can be enumerated and conveyed by observation and argument.
Fiasco: Chaz is an hysterical moron.

[Felasco]

Chaz: Religion is bad for specific reasons and in ways that can be enumerated and conveyed by observation and argument.

My question remains unanswered.

By your above statement do you mean ALL religion, or SOME religion?

The fact that you've dodged this very simple and clear question reveals that you are intelligent, and understand the danger you are in here.

If you mean SOME religious thought and activity, we completely agree, and there is no need for further debate.

If you mean ALL religious thought and activity, the burden for proving such a huge sweeping claim, including as it does billions of people over thousands of years, falls upon the person making the claim.

[mickthinks]

The fact that you've dodged this very simple and clear question reveals that you are intelligent, and understand the danger you are in here.

Welcome to the PhiNowPhorum, Felasco. I see you've met chaz "the Dodger" wyman. Many of us have given up trying to have a productive discussion with him, but maybe you'll have better luck.