Religion is Man- Made

[Dontaskme]

Well, in the ideal, I agree. Good things should last.

But even the things that fade, get hurt, get stained or decay, or even die can be good.

You know that if you've ever owned a dog.

Oh well, life is just amazing then isn't it, it's all so good because I have a dog.

I didn't say that.

But if you've had a dog (ir cat) before, you know that eventually they pass away. And as sad as that is, you know that, as the old poem says, "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all."

There is suffering in loving a dog. But the joy is worth it. And there is joy in raising a child, but also pain. There is pain in being educated, and joy when you graduate. There are lots of ways in which sorrow and happiness get mixed in life.

So I'm just suggesting that to see only the pain is one-sided.

I don't agree that "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." It's just too sentimental, it's not in my opinion the work of rational sense, it's like saying, hurt me, hurt me, I love it, please keep doing it, I loved being repeatedly whipped, just so I get to eat a cupcake when it stops.

To say it's all worth it is fine for the one who thinks it's all worth it, but it's not ok to impose something that is deemed worth it on another non-existent being through the act of procreation, because that person might not feel the same way about whether pain and suffering in life is worth it. They might have a little more intelligence than that and think what the fuck is this hell hole, who the hell thinks this is a good idea? they might even decide it's not for them and commit suicide. So imagine that scenario, watching your own child hate it's life to the point it has to kill itself. Do people really think about that when they choose to populate the earth with more sentience feeling things, already knowing they too will be susceptable to the same pain and suffering, but it's ok because you think it's all worth it. Is it ethical to impose your belief that it's all worth it onto the non-existent, who do not get to choose whether or not they want to be born? they do not get to choose whether or not it's all worth it. I think it's better to have never come into existence at all. Worth and value are only ever meaningful in the context of a situation is not good. This is because we have evolved to be knowledable through language on a human level. That is a fact.

Ultimately, life is a constant struggle to survive, where we are always striving for some basic comfort and pleasure,always running away or trying to avoid dire and bad situations, it's a fools paradise. Animals have it the worse, there are no wild animal hospitals in the jungle or on the plains. They die painful lingering death all alone. Humans torture them for money and entertainment and food. They steal their teeth, horns, hides, etc... And that is another reason people are religious, because it makes them feel better about the reality of life for sentient creature, it's not pretty. I won't go into the gory details as there are too many, but you probably get the gist.

[Dubious]

...in the long run it's the arguments one makes which reflects the person.

But the person remains irrelevant to the argument. So reject the person, fine: but the argument stands or falls on its own feet.

Up to a point, yes! But it's the arguments one consistently makes which finally denotes the person. How can it not since it describes his way of thinking and method of argumentation.

[Dontaskme]

...in the long run it's the arguments one makes which reflects the person.

But the person remains irrelevant to the argument. So reject the person, fine: but the argument stands or falls on its own feet.

Up to a point, yes! But it's the arguments one consistently makes which finally denotes the person. How can it not since it describes his way of thinking and method of argumentation.

That's a valid and good point. Especially when people claim they are the author of their thoughts, which means the creator of the ideas are going to get a good whipping for their ideas, the ones they believe to be theirs. In my opinion people are so dumb when they winge and moan when they get called out for their BS. Most people are quite irrational, very rarely intelligent.

One simply cannot moan and winge like a spoilt toddler when they are called out for their BS...especially when one claims they are the original authour of their ideas. They have to learn to take the whipping, if they cannot, then they are just stupid.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, but "consciousness" is not a lone property. It's always "consciousness OF something," and that something is some reality that is certainly not merely linguistic.

No, thats not actually true.
There is a "state" of pure consciousness where there is no one left to be conscious of anything - and, there is also no thing to be conscious of - yet, there still is "consciousness" - but it is without any opposite.
This "state" could be compared to deep sleep, yet without "loosing" consciousness - there are no sense impression, there is no thought, yet consciousness is.
Once this "state" has been experienced it is perfectly clear that consciousness does not belong to a thing or being (meaning: it is perfectly clear that a human being does not have its own, individual consciousness), yet, our conceptual interpretations of conscious experience seem to describe the exact opposite: "I have consciousness" is a normal statement, understood by most humans, yet, it is (at least based on the experience of pure consciousness - and when properly investigated, also for our normal waking mode of experiencing reality) not correct.

When you understand Consciousness, Itself, FULLY, then you will start to begin to EXPLAIN who and what Consciousness IS, and 'I' AM, EXACTLY?

To understand and explain what is being suggested here - would require a knower.

So the claim and belief in this 'knower' , implies 'the knower' exists because it knows it exists, and so therefore would be able to recreate itself. So if what you have stated here, is not just an assumption, but your belief Age, that consciousness can be understood and fully explained, then just try recreating ''A Consciousness''. . and when you've finnished, put this consciousness in a jar with lid firmly closed, so it doesn't escape, take a picture of it, and then post the picture on this forum, so we can all take a look at it.

We'll be waiting to see it's image, and hopefully you'll be able to share the recipe with us, just like you said previously about sharing.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe you should read the whole post….

Yeah, I did.

And apparently didn’t understand it… no problem.

No. Understood it, recognized it, and knew what to make of it.

It's not the first time I've run into it.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't agree that "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." It's just too sentimental, it's not in my opinion the work of rational sense, it's like saying, hurt me, hurt me, I love it, please keep doing it, I loved being repeatedly whipped, just so I get to eat a cupcake when it stops.

Not at all. It's just saying that some things hurt, but are worth the hurt. Athletes subject themselves to all kinds of pain, voluntarily, in order to get fit. They accept the cost. Women who get pregnant know they're going to get hurt as well; and they rejoice in it, because a child is coming to them. A father who is raising a child is going to get hurt by that child, because every child misbehaves; but he deems it worth it. A person starting a new business knows its going to take hours and hours of toil, and push her to the edge of bankruptcy; and yet she is excited to do it. And so on.

I think the view that says "Life is Hell" has two faults, really: one is that it badly underestimates the possible joys of life. The other is that it really doesn't take Hell seriously enough.

[Immanuel Can]

...the arguments one consistently makes which finally denotes the person. How can it not since it describes his way of thinking and method of argumentation.

No, there's no "point" at which an argument fails merely because of the person who spoke it. That actually never logically is entailed.

Feel free to reject me, or anybody else you dislike. But if, for no other reason, you reject an argument and then later find out it's true, then it can only be yourself you hurt.

[Belinda]

...another's perspective is part of absolute truth.

Well, THAT another has a perspective cannot be denied. It is "true that they have a perspective." But that fact doesn't imply the perspective is true. For it is often manifestly the case that that perspective is errant, or even false or deluded.

A drug user who develops paranoia has a very strong "perspective." And no doubt it's "real" to him. But he may be totally deluded. The goblins and zombies he's totally convinced are chasing him may be no more than figments of his confused state.

And if you think about education, what does it mean but that the original perspective of the learner is not quite adequate to the truth. She "learns" that while she many have thought one thing, the truth is something less obvious; and so she becomes wiser, better informed and smarter.

Were all "perspectives" equal, the phenomenon of human learning, of education, would be impossible. Each "perspective" each person might have would be just as good as the scientific or factual truth; and so there would be nothing to "learn," no way to improve on that initial "perspective."

And that's manifestly not how things are, I think we both agree.

That is true what you write here Immanuel.
We are only human, so our perspectives are incomplete and sometimes irrational. No man can ever be a whole, infinite, and eternal perspective.
I agree with you in your final paragraph above. The way I'd express it is that reason and knowledge are the best indications of truth that we can humanly have. And BTW language and facility with language are only a small part of knowledge and are best described as skills.

[Dubious]

...the arguments one consistently makes which finally denotes the person. How can it not since it describes his way of thinking and method of argumentation.

No, there's no "point" at which an argument fails merely because of the person who spoke it. That actually never logically is entailed.

I never said that an argument fails because of the person who spoke it. That would be absurd. However it proves once again why any ad hominem used to describe you ceases to be that and becomes in fact a truth statement.

[Dontaskme]

I don't agree that "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." It's just too sentimental, it's not in my opinion the work of rational sense, it's like saying, hurt me, hurt me, I love it, please keep doing it, I loved being repeatedly whipped, just so I get to eat a cupcake when it stops.

Not at all. It's just saying that some things hurt, but are worth the hurt. Athletes subject themselves to all kinds of pain, voluntarily, in order to get fit. They accept the cost. Women who get pregnant know they're going to get hurt as well; and they rejoice in it, because a child is coming to them. A father who is raising a child is going to get hurt by that child, because every child misbehaves; but he deems it worth it. A person starting a new business knows its going to take hours and hours of toil, and push her to the edge of bankruptcy; and yet she is excited to do it. And so on.

I think the view that says "Life is Hell" has two faults, really: one is that it badly underestimates the possible joys of life. The other is that it really doesn't take Hell seriously enough.

No joy without pain, listen, if you want the pain for the reward of joy, then fine, your willing to accept the price of joy. Personally, I'd rather have neither, and wouldn't be any worse or better off.


All I'm saying is, just because you think it's all worth it, doesn't give you the right to play God and expect another person to like it by dragging it from it's non-existence into your existence just because you think it's worth it....so save your sentimental crap for Jesus, that imaginary friend you hope exists who will save yourself from the despair of real reality.

Dont play devils advocate...and try to convince people pain is all worth it...that's evil.

Proof there is no intelligent creator God is right there, the universe doesn't have a mind to care about suffering, only you do. And you are not separate from the universe, all you are dealing with here is your delusions of grandeur.

[Dontaskme]

That is true what you write here Immanuel.
We are only human, so our perspectives are incomplete and sometimes irrational. No man can ever be a whole, infinite, and eternal perspective.
I agree with you in your final paragraph above. The way I'd express it is that reason and knowledge are the best indications of truth that we can humanly have. And BTW language and facility with language are only a small part of knowledge and are best described as skills.

And your response is just another example of what a human bimbo looks like.

[Walker]

That is true what you write here Immanuel.
We are only human, so our perspectives are incomplete and sometimes irrational. No man can ever be a whole, infinite, and eternal perspective.
I agree with you in your final paragraph above. The way I'd express it is that reason and knowledge are the best indications of truth that we can humanly have. And BTW language and facility with language are only a small part of knowledge and are best described as skills.

Because religion is man-made, wouldn’t it follow that the human qualities you name transfer to, and apply to religion?

[Dontaskme]

Yeah, I did.

And apparently didn’t understand it… no problem.

No. Understood it, recognized it, and knew what to make of it.

It's not the first time I've run into it.

It's not the first time I've run into people spewing religious dogma either. But men are arrogant believing they know it all, when they have only showed up a few seconds ago. They have never been alive before but for some known reason they believe they have it all figured out. You guys are so funny.

I used to be like you IC... all for Jesus and goodness, until one day, just recently actually, I woke the fuck up, when the stark realisation dawned, that I was flogging a dead horse believing all this BS.

[RCSaunders]

There is a "state" of pure consciousness where there is no one left to be conscious of anything - and, there is also no thing to be conscious of - yet, there still is "consciousness" - but it is without any opposite.

Do you often have this experience? My Father had it before he died. It's call lewy body dementia. You really ought to see someone about it. It's fatal.

A bit strange that you can still joke about it even your father died from it…. By the way, my father died from Dementia as well… wasn’t a joking matter though… (but maybe that’s how you react when you have nothing intelligent to say… maybe better not say anything at all?)

My father's dead. He doesn't care. I lived in a family of very realistic happy individuals who regarded sentimentalism a disease. My father would have been the first to joke about his own death, as I do mine. Dementia is nasty and for those who suffer it, death is a blessing. There is very little difference between birth and death except at which end of life they are. Only life matters, not what is before or after it.

Tennyson said of his mystical experience (in a letter to the prominent 19th century physicist Professor John Tyndall), “By God Almighty! there is no delusion in the matter! It is no nebulous ecstasy, but a state of transcendent wonder, associated with absolute clearness of mind.”
And:
“the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away into boundless being; and this not a confused state, but the clearest of the clearest, the surest of the surest, the weirdest of the weirdest, utterly beyond words, where death was an almost laughable impossibility, the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life…”

Do you think Tennyson had dementia as well?

Probably!

[Sculptor]

I think the view that says "Life is Hell" has two faults, really: one is that it badly underestimates the possible joys of life. The other is that it really doesn't take Hell seriously enough.

So in what way am i supposed to take Hell more seriously??

You can only make that statement if you think you know what Hell is. So tell us, oh great one!