Religion is Man- Made

[henry quirk]

Dontaskme wrote:
*My personal philosophical ideas

*Here they are...

All I want is for the pain, and suffering in the world to stop. Especially the suffering of animals, but how can we make it stop, we can’t can we?

I just want it all to stop.

Yes, that is one part of my philosophy, which is concern for the suffering.

Is there a problem with this philosophical view? *please enlighten me with your ignorance.

*Not possible. You're in a dark closet, by choice, and will see nuthin' till you come out into the light.

The productive thing, for me, is to have (more) coffee and wait.

[RCSaunders]

Ic..thanks for being here.

All I want is for the pain, and suffering in the world to stop. Especially the suffering of animals, but how can we make it stop, we can’t can we?

I just want it all to stop.

Life's tough.

It's not the hotel California. If you don't like it, you can leave anytime.

I'm sorry you don't like reality. I hope you don't intend to foist your utopian dreams of a safe wonderful painless riskless paradise on anyone else.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks for being nice though, it’s rare to see it nowadays…

Sadly, that's true. The best exchanges are civil, aren't they? Even when people disagree, they don't have to be disagreeable.

The fact is, there are no winners in an argument/debate or whatever world view is being exchanged. An argument implies opposition. Ultimately, there is only your truth.

No, not at all. I've had many discussions with people in which opposite opinions were the starting point, and when the result came out, one side really made its point and the other moved, or both moved to some degree in the other's direction. The difference between such productive discussions and unproductive ones is exactly what you mention: the desire to "win," rather than to uncover the truth mutually. If "win" is in view, then reasonableness goes out the window. If truth is the concern of both interlocutors, the discussion can be ever so intense, and yet both parties can benefit.

But to resign ourselves to the axiom, "There's only my view, and there's only yours," amounts to saying, "I can't learn, and neither can you." That's not a good thing for either side. After that, a "win" is no longer of any consequence. Both sides are losers.

One hallmark that always shows when the discussion has fallen to an unprofitable level is the use of ad hominem comments. They show that spite has entered the fray, and propositions are being ignored. Another is relativism. When relativism comes in, it's always so the side that is losing propositionally can save face and escape from the weight of logic. A third would be misdirecting, meaning when the original proposition has suddenly been abandoned for an irrelevant one...But none of these are necessary, none contribute anything to progress, and all of them betray that the discussion has abandoned interest in truth and has become unprofitable.

Unfortunately, we see a lot of such debates here. But they're not the only kind that can be had.

[Eodnhoj7]

There's a million definitions for all kinds of things. Most of them totally useless. God in this case being a non-entity can be defined in any way we wish. The human mind is extremely adept in creating definitions out of nothing, which changes nothing except its conceptualization.

To argue that God does not exist is to first define what God is thus resulting in the concept of God. God then exists as a concept therefore has an existence. To negate something is to first admit it exists in some form or function.

Since when can a concept have existence except as a concept, that is, only as a mental image? I can imagine dead people alive and talking to them but they're still dead so obviously I'm only talking to a mental image of someone. Imagining it, conceptualizing it is not in the least unusual. Believing it's actually happening is another story entirely.

Put another way, a spade is a spade is a spade! If someone hits you over the head with one, you'll certainly feel it. If you only visualize that happening, you won't feel a thing! If a concept could kill, we'd all be dead by now!

A thought is an actual event. One definition of God is Divine Mind. The thought of God necessitates God exists as thought. So when the atheist tries to refute the existence of God they must first acknowledge God exists as thought thus leading to a contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

- To disagree with something because it is man made is to disagree with all the inventions one uses in there everyday life.

- To disagree with something because it is man made is to disagree with one's own interpretations as they are man made.

- To argue God does not exist is to first point to something which exists, ie a concept of God, and call it God.

- The continual rejection of definitions of God requires to continually redefine God thus always have an existing definition.

All concepts arise through the use of language which are heard as meaningful or meaningless words. All of which is just sound, which is empty at it's core.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. . which is . . There is no knowledge of reality. There only appears to be, seemingly.

Only ignorance is original.

Yet this is knowledge thus your words are empty according to your stance.

[Dubious]

To argue that God does not exist is to first define what God is thus resulting in the concept of God. God then exists as a concept therefore has an existence. To negate something is to first admit it exists in some form or function.

Since when can a concept have existence except as a concept, that is, only as a mental image? I can imagine dead people alive and talking to them but they're still dead so obviously I'm only talking to a mental image of someone. Imagining it, conceptualizing it is not in the least unusual. Believing it's actually happening is another story entirely.

Put another way, a spade is a spade is a spade! If someone hits you over the head with one, you'll certainly feel it. If you only visualize that happening, you won't feel a thing! If a concept could kill, we'd all be dead by now!

A thought is an actual event. One definition of God is Divine Mind. The thought of God necessitates God exists as thought. So when the atheist tries to refute the existence of God they must first acknowledge God exists as thought thus leading to a contradiction.

There's god existing and there's the thought of god existing. The contradiction is your conflating of the two as if they were somehow equivalent. Most of what happens in the mind never happens externally.

[Belinda]

I find it really amusing that a person with clear skills in writing as IC, is such a poor judge of the most basic facts of reality.

Funny coincidence .. I was just having the exact same thoughts the other day.

The mind boggles, that perfectly decent, articulate, and gentle men still believe in invisible people. I happen to get the vibe Ic is nice person, but the beliefs ...

.

The bible was written based on a very old and long defunct view of the world. It piles contradiction on contradiction. No true biblical scholar would accept the idea of the bible as written being a dependable story except for what history and archeology confirms.

To think that Jesus, a back alley preacher, is the son of the OT god who created the universe with its hundreds of billions of galaxies containing many billions of stars and even more planets but decided to elect his Chosen People here on earth somewhere in the Middle East is no-longer simply ridiculous but crosses the border into insanity.

Also in equal measure is the disgusting idea that only belief in Jesus can save your soul. The rest are write-offs regardless of their belief in some other divinity or divinities whose name wasn't Jesus; if that were true, one might as well have been an atheist.

I questioned IC on this kind of extreme incongruity, but he never once deigned to reply, the reason for which is simple: admitting it makes Jesus look like an unjust asshole OR negate it and his entire belief system falls to ashes. No wonder there was never a response, in spite of claiming to have three of them.

The only way to defend that kind of distorted belief system is through more distortions, lies, deceit, and a really shameless hypocrisy, all of which IC is past master at. He only responds in a normal manner when the subject is not about religion. Considering what religion has done to the human mind, Hitchen's statement that it poisons everything is 100% accurate...especially the kind which forces belief on ONE deity for redemption.

It goes to show some minds are much more easily poisoned than others.

Did Jesus say he was the begotten son ,or the 'son' like I might say I am a 'daughter' of the enlightenment?
When Jesus said you can approach God only via Jesus , Jesus meant that God is beyond man's understanding. J was a good Jew, and presumably recognised only Judaism. Can't you interpret the theme without stumbling among the details?

[Immanuel Can]

Did Jesus say he was the begotten son ,or the 'son' like I might say I am a 'daughter' of the enlightenment?

Ask the Pharisees. They tried to kill him just for saying it. So apparently, they understood very well.

When Jesus said you can approach God only via Jesus , Jesus meant that God is beyond man's understanding.

Ummm...no...He was awfully clear about that: "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me." (Jn. 14:6) That would pretty much rule out that sort of interpretation.

J was a good Jew

The Pharisees didnt' think so. The Romans didn't think so. And today's religious Jews don't think so. But you can say so if you wish.

I would say the opposite is true: any form of Judaism is to be judged itself as "good" or bad depending on whether or not it accurately reflects Ha Shem. (a Jewish name for God, meaning simply, "the Name.")

[Eodnhoj7]

Since when can a concept have existence except as a concept, that is, only as a mental image? I can imagine dead people alive and talking to them but they're still dead so obviously I'm only talking to a mental image of someone. Imagining it, conceptualizing it is not in the least unusual. Believing it's actually happening is another story entirely.

Put another way, a spade is a spade is a spade! If someone hits you over the head with one, you'll certainly feel it. If you only visualize that happening, you won't feel a thing! If a concept could kill, we'd all be dead by now!

A thought is an actual event. One definition of God is Divine Mind. The thought of God necessitates God exists as thought. So when the atheist tries to refute the existence of God they must first acknowledge God exists as thought thus leading to a contradiction.

There's god existing and there's the thought of god existing. The contradiction is your conflating of the two as if they were somehow equivalent. Most of what happens in the mind never happens externally.

False all our interactions occur through memory of empirical events. We react with the world through thought. The thought of God guides peoples actions.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme wrote:
*My personal philosophical ideas

*Here they are...

All I want is for the pain, and suffering in the world to stop. Especially the suffering of animals, but how can we make it stop, we can’t can we?

I just want it all to stop.

Yes, that is one part of my philosophy, which is concern for the suffering.

Is there a problem with this philosophical view? *please enlighten me with your ignorance.

*Not possible. You're in a dark closet, by choice, and will see nuthin' till you come out into the light.

This is your phobia, not mine.

I live in the real world as it actually is, not in the world of human man made lies and delusions.

This is my philosophy.

[Dontaskme]

Ic..thanks for being here.

All I want is for the pain, and suffering in the world to stop. Especially the suffering of animals, but how can we make it stop, we can’t can we?

I just want it all to stop.

Life's tough.

It's not the hotel California. If you don't like it, you can leave anytime.

I'm sorry you don't like reality. I hope you don't intend to foist your utopian dreams of a safe wonderful painless riskless paradise on anyone else.

I’m sorry to hear you feel this way. I do understand, but your comments are your phobia, not mine.

I live in the real world, not the fakery and pretence that is human perception. I live in the real world, where I’m living my best life ever so far. Who’d have believed that was possible. I know the suffering is here to stay, and as much as I really really do hate it with a passion, it’s woven into the very fabric of life itself. Life is pure evil.

I also happen to think that life is a very dumb, obnoxious and stupid game to play. Utopia would be my idea of hell too. And that’s why I feel it’s ok to feel the way I do because after all, that’s exactly what’s happening and could not have been any other way.



.

[henry quirk]

Yes, that is one part of my philosophy, which is concern for the suffering.

Is there a problem with this philosophical view? *please enlighten me with your ignorance.

*Not possible. You're in a dark closet, by choice, and will see nuthin' till you come out into the light.

This is your phobia, not mine.

**I live in the real world as it actually is, not in the world of human man made lies and ***delusions.

*This is my philosophy.

*picayune, child-like, over-reactions; hyperbole; narcissism; and nihilism ain't philosophy

**not as an adult

***that, currently, is the entirety of you

[Dontaskme]

Sadly, that's true. The best exchanges are civil, aren't they? Even when people disagree, they don't have to be disagreeable.

The fact is, there are no winners in an argument/debate or whatever world view is being exchanged. An argument implies opposition. Ultimately, there is only your truth.

No, not at all. I've had many discussions with people in which opposite opinions were the starting point, and when the result came out, one side really made its point and the other moved, or both moved to some degree in the other's direction. The difference between such productive discussions and unproductive ones is exactly what you mention: the desire to "win," rather than to uncover the truth mutually. If "win" is in view, then reasonableness goes out the window. If truth is the concern of both interlocutors, the discussion can be ever so intense, and yet both parties can benefit.

But to resign ourselves to the axiom, "There's only my view, and there's only yours," amounts to saying, "I can't learn, and neither can you." That's not a good thing for either side. After that, a "win" is no longer of any consequence. Both sides are losers.

One hallmark that always shows when the discussion has fallen to an unprofitable level is the use of ad hominem comments. They show that spite has entered the fray, and propositions are being ignored. Another is relativism. When relativism comes in, it's always so the side that is losing propositionally can save face and escape from the weight of logic. A third would be misdirecting, meaning when the original proposition has suddenly been abandoned for an irrelevant one...But none of these are necessary, none contribute anything to progress, and all of them betray that the discussion has abandoned interest in truth and has become unprofitable.

Unfortunately, we see a lot of such debates here. But they're not the only kind that can be had.

Blah blah blah…. There are no winners.

Nothing to profit. Nothing to learn, and nothing to understand.

Human relationships are nothing more than a parasitic feeding frenzy, prostituting them selves to one another just for the fleeting experience of feeling that little twitch in their A hole. All very superficial, and dull.

[Dontaskme]

*Not possible. You're in a dark closet, by choice, and will see nuthin' till you come out into the light.

This is your phobia, not mine.

**I live in the real world as it actually is, not in the world of human man made lies and ***delusions.

*This is my philosophy.

*picayune, child-like, over-reactions; hyperbole; narcissism; and nihilism ain't philosophy

**not as an adult

***that, currently, is the entirety of you

Your phobia, not mine.

[henry quirk]

This is your phobia, not mine.

**I live in the real world as it actually is, not in the world of human man made lies and ***delusions.

*This is my philosophy.

*picayune, child-like, over-reactions; hyperbole; narcissism; and nihilism ain't philosophy

**not as an adult

***that, currently, is the entirety of you

Your phobia, not mine.

to the audience...

Note how she cycles thru lil self-comfortin' catch-phrases (your phobia, not mine and smell your own shit).

She unconsciously telegraphs her state of mind (fear) and her self-assessment (shit).

She's sittin' on a fence's edge...interestin' to watch the balancing act...will be even more so to see which way she finally falls.