Religion Versus Cult: And Our Quest For Truth

[fahimknight]

RELIGION VERSUS CULT: AND OUR QUEST FOR TRUTH

By Fahim A. Knight-EL

There is an old African saying: “When they first came; they had the bible, we had the land. We now have the bible and they have our land”. The two terms religion and cult have created controversy throughout human history and philosophers have argued Theism, Deism, pantheism, monotheism, existentialism, etc., for a very long time and today there are new debates going on about the concept of Intelligent Design. Philosophy is defined as the “Theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe; a study of human morals, character and behavior”. This writer had a philosophy professor named Dr. Clack who taught philosophy at North Carolina Central University. Thus, in my junior year in college, I took a course under Dr. Clack titled the "philosophy of religion". This professor was a heavy thinker and with an extremely analytical mind.

The first day of class, he asked the question, did God create man or did man create God? Dr. Clack could not phantom some intangible and formless being or entity possessing more of a rational and logical explanation about human existence than the quantitative values associated with cause and effect. You are not taught to question religion, but only to follow the tenets and precepts espoused by the clergy and further conveyed in the various interpreted so-called holy books. (Reference: Joseph Campbell; “Myths to Live By”).

The class was taking totally out of their familiar theological and intellectual comfort zone of perhaps having for the first time, in their lives, to think for themselves, as opposed to having others to think for them, which they had become so accustom. Dr. Clack’s line of questions were an exercise in thinking more so than some atheistic attack on religion, at least after almost thirty-years later that came to be my conclusion of those deep philosophical discussions.

The majority of the students were Christians and this writer could tell by the expressions on many of their faces that they were baffled and at a lost for words. For someone to dare pose such an awkward and off limit question (at least from their neck of the woods) it was considered so-called taboo. It was equally amazing how this single question within a split second had visually turned their vulnerable belief system topsy-turvy and the only thing many of them had to rely on to answer this question was their holy book, the Bible, because they were taught early on that this book contained all the answers. (Reference: John G. Jackson; “Man, God, and Civilization”).

Thus, many of them started or made attempts to quote scripture as definitive response statements of truth and they started stating that the Bible was divinely inspired by God. This writer some time ago was given a book by a friend; it was written in 1928 by Dr. Bhagat Singh Thind titled, "Divine Wisdom" Thind writes from an Eastern base philosophy and he gives a dictum relative to good intentions and it sums up my views on religion.

Dr. Thind stated, "There is a story of a monkey who was tamed by his master and who was fanning the master while he slept. One day a fly seated himself on the nose of the master and, of course, he was disturbed in his slumber. The monkey was well-meaning and full of love. He said: 'I will kill that fly, because my master is feeling very much disturbed.' He took a big stick, aimed at the fly, and killed the master. Lots of people are sincere, all right, but they are fools. A man can be a sincere man and a fool man at the same time. As far as their sincerity is concerned, we can praise them; as far as the foolishness is concerned, we can only pity them." (Reference: Bhagat Singh Thind; "Divine Wisdom" pg. 9).

This writer does accept that there are good people that practice religion and no doubt, they have good intentions, but the above cited example, of the monkey and master led to the monkey having good intentions about killing the fly that was disturbing his master. His good intentions directed to him relieving the master of this pest by killing the pest, but he also killed his master in the name of good intentions.

Thus, as far as my fellow student’s lack of intellectual ability to defend and wrestle with a mindset like Dr. Clack they had relegated their arguments to mere emotionalism and became very defensive in posture. This only got them into further trouble with the philosophical minded Dr. Clack. He definitely did not buy into some religious history book that had some special sacred validity. The Bible, as well as all so-called holy books were perhaps viewed by Dr. Clack, no differently than he would view any other so-called secular history book written by men (in which history tells us they were not divinely inspired).

This writer knew that these above stated views according to Dr. Clack’s perspective had no moral entitlement or lofty divine privilege to reserve space in the minds of rational human beings and not go unchallenged and unquestioned. To him this was mere superstitious propaganda given credibility by earthly beings perhaps more for mischievous intent and purposes other than religious moral and ethical values.

Hilton Hotema in the “Genesis of Christianity” maintained that “the Priesthood frighten the people, and to keep the Priesthood in high places, and to drive the multitude into the church, for sake of profit and power.” Control benefits the status quo and those who possess the power, has always been at the center of religion and theologians have for the most part interpreted and waged war either covertly or overtly by reinforcing dogmas which benefited the symbols of power. (Reference: Hilton Hotema; “Genesis of Christianity”).

This writer believes that Dr. Clack was trying to lead us to a better understanding of the scientific method of reasoning according to the authors Otto T. Solbrig and Dorothy J. Solbrig in their book titled, "Introduction to Population Biology and Evolution" stated, "The scientific method is based on observations of nature, hypotheses formulated to explain those observations. and experimental testing of deductions from those hypotheses. New observations are constantly being compared with old observations and theories. Errors are detected and theories are modified as new information becomes available. Consequently the scientific view of the world is provisional and uncertain. This uncertainty does not deny scientific progress but, rather makes it mandatory, since misconceptions, which are inevitable, given the fallible nature of humans, are constantly being cleared up. Scientific precepts, like common sense, are opinions, but opinions based on observations rather than arbitrary dicta." (Reference: Otto T. Solbrig and Dorothy J. Solbrig; “Introduction to Population Biology and Evolution" pg. 25).

Yet, simultaneously religion had been leading the masses to negotiate their earthly existence by appealing to a heavenly requirement that is rooted in someone's interpretation of what is determined as good and evil. Religion does not free individuals it does just the opposite, it enslaves and compel human beings to conformity which is often steeped in religious anxiety teachings.

Wikipedia defines a Cult in this manner: this quote was taking from the work of Louis Jolyon West "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community". (Reference: Wikipedia on line research site-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult).

Man originally established external belief systems because he was in search for answers to explain his existence and the universe; this mental exploration only left him with more questions. Thus, from this essential question arose perhaps a loosely religious structure and gave way to the inception of a culture of religion that would be based on a so-called divine hierarchy, headed by a Supreme Being with infinite wisdom and possessing extraordinary powers and abilities. This is probably more characteristic of Western religious culture.

This arcade social arrangement allowed man to satisfy his inquisitiveness and to establish a superficial affirmation institution which to answer the six basic questions of who, what, where, why, when and how. Sociologist would perhaps refer to this as Ecclesia; it "Is a religious organization that claims the membership of everyone in a society or even in several societies. A powerful, bureaucratized organization with a hierarchy of full-time officials, it gives complete support to the state authorities and expects the same from them in turn. People who are born into a society with such an "official" religion become members almost automatically." (Reference: Ian Robertson; "Sociology" pg. 416).

The professor continued to systematically deconstruct all of their religious arguments, as the students tried desperately to convince their constituents and the professor that the words written in the Bible were absolute. This writer in the deepest recess of his mind knew that Dr. Clack's over-all intellectual position held substantial credibility and was irrefutable within the realm of logic. This writer subconsciously at that moment had a mental paradigm shift and made a silent psychological commitment to never again allow untried and untested ideas to be imposed on me including my own faith tradition.

This class led me to become a Free Thinker, I did not say, I became an atheist or an agnostic, but I have no phobias or bias opinions of those who are—they have a right to intellectually weigh-in on the subject of God and religion and I am completely comfortable with their conclusions; even if those conclusions may differ from my religious worldview. This writer after coming in contact with Dr. Clack was willing to consider the possibilities and not negate trains of thought that might-be contradictory and opposed to tradition.

This was not just a creation versus evolution discussion, but perhaps for the first time it was getting people to think and at that point mentally I had broken with tradition and had come to the realization that religion was a straitjacket—with four defined walls and there were no allowable room for one to deviate and those questions that arose to challenge theological and/or religious inconclusiveness were systematically relegated to faith.

This furthered muddied the water for me, but I looked up the word Faith in the dictionary and it defined Faith as "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof." So accepting this definition of faith, religion can offer a religious culture base on a set of teachings, values, norms, mores,' folkways, etc., but a logical explanation isn't a necessary prerequisite to justifying an overall belief system, in fact Faith defies the question of logic. There are certain things giving in all religions that aren't up for discussion, it requires silent devotion and the search for answers (proof) isn't important within the religious scheme and often any contradiction deviating from the popular view will be viewed with suspicious and met with resistance.

Yet, you will often hear the word tolerance being tossed around and associated with the religious worldview, as though it has a ting of meaningful conviction and a level of truth intent. Religious tolerance is only an acceptable attitude agreed upon by the religious clergy to protect the central theme and there is no room for judgmental attitudes and broadmindedness; these attributes are unwelcome.

The more this writer gathers his thoughts and how we define Cults, it is evident that the two—meaning organized religion and Cults share some similarities in the overall concept of religiosity and both are more closely akin to the mandate of having to unconditionally adhere to a set of agreed values that are closely guarded, which certain aspects isn't up for discussion and/or negotiation. However, in Western culture, we are taught, assuming that if a group or organization is defined and characterized as a Cult—there is a negative stigma or connotation attached and we automatically compartmentalize this to be something that has deviated from mainstream thought and function within the realm of a subculture or counter-culture.

Wikipedia further define a Cult as, "A group's cult status begins as rumors spread of its novel belief system, its great devotions, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful or beneficial effects on members or its perceived opposition to the interests of mainstream cultures and governments. Persistent rumors may follow relatively small and recently founded religious or non-religious groups when they are perceived to engage in excessive member control or exploitation” Logic is defined as a”sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim." (Reference: Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult ).

Logic viewed as a philosophy is defined as the “branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning." Cult if we can define it by Western definition perhaps would encompassed ancient civilizations such as Egypt (Kemet), China, India, Persia, etc., in which the majority of our present day religions, cultures, and sacrament rites proceeded, developed and evolved as we know it in the West from these various ancient societies. (Reference: Kersey Graves; “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors).

But it is very interesting how the West became the greatest influence in which thought and institutions were corralled and took on new meanings reflecting the dominant society and culture interest. And from this a body of religious ideas left its maternal origin of Cult societies and transitioned into being so-called legitimate organized religion, accepted as mainstream expressions of faith tradition. However, the Cults from which they sprung immediately became demoted as illegitimate and pagan and more so than that, become demonized and classified as being anti-establishment. (Reference: Gerald Massey; “Ancient Egypt the Light of the World”).
Perhaps these ancient civilizations did not necessarily need some single Supernatural Being, but understood best and accepted the delicate relationship balance—between nature, the universe and himself. They were able to explain and articulate their existence by viewing their lives, not as some detached entity who were in an antagonistic and entrapped evolutionary predicament, but instead, often embraced the reality that there lives were inclusive of the natural order of things—reflecting a microcosm of the macrocosm universe, which ultimately was an extension of the cycle of life.

It was what the Western world perceives as Cults that gave life to religion, a lot of religious folklore and mythology teachings are steeped in the tradition and histories of Cults. There is little doubt in this writer's mind that the majority of our religions, if closely examined parallel more ancient civilizations. Cults have subtly bought into the language of definition as assigned by the status quo and as religion continues to gain societal momentum; the so-called Cults have not reminded the religious zealots that they owe them a debt of gratitude.

Our media perception of Cults are unfair, bias and possess negative implications, but religion is more or just as guilty of creating fanaticism, human division, war, extremism, intolerance, human suffering and doing it all in the name of God. There is one name for it, religious totalitarianism. Yes, Cults have inflicted similar acts of man’s inhumanity to man; but even in these instances religion is not permanently subjugated and dismissed as being inheritably evil and unredeemable. However, Cults that violates the so-called societal norms based on the political, economic and social rules that create similar infractions are doomed to a lifetime of ridicule and unacceptability.

Dr. Clack’s teachings and words loom’s even higher to me in 2008 as it relates to the concepts of religion and God. This article was partially motivated by the overt hypocrisy that this writer sees in religion and of course reflecting back on the visionary professor Dr. Clack. He might-be quite happy, if he ran across this article written by one of his former students who made the transition to becoming a Free Thinker.

Karl R. Popper in his article titled, “Is There An Ultimate Source of Knowledge?” Stated, “I believe that it would be worth trying to learn something about the world even if we merely learnt that we do not know much. This state of learned ignorance might be a help in many of our troubles. It might be well to remember that, while differing widely in the various little bits we know, in our infinite ignorance we are equal. If only we look for it we can often find a true idea, worthy of being preserved, in a philosophical theory which we must reject as false. Can we find an idea like this in one of the theories of the ultimate sources of our knowledge. I believe we can; and I suggest that it is one of the two main ideas which underlie the doctrine that the source of all knowledge is super-natural. The first of these ideas is false, I believe, while the second is true”.

Popper continues: “The first, the false idea, is that we must justify our knowledge, or our theories, by positive reasons, that is, by reasons capable of establishing them, or at least of making them highly probably; at any rate, by better reasons than that they have withstood criticism. This idea implies, as I suggested, that we must appeal to some ultimate or authoritative source of true knowledge; which still leaves open the character of that authority—whether it is human, like observation or reason, or super-human (and therefore super-natural). The second idea—whose vital importance has been stressed by Russell—is that no man’s authority can establish truth by decree; that we should submit to truth; that truth is above human authority. Taken these two ideas almost immediately yield the conclusion that the sources from which our knowledge derives must be super-human; a conclusion which tends to encourage self righteousness and the use of force against those who refuse to see the divine truth.” (Reference: Tim C. Leedom; “The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read” pg. vii).

The author Walter Williams in his controversial book titled, "The Historical Origin of Christianity" stated, "Whether you set these religious in a present or historical settings, where their true attributes can be extracted and displayed, you will find these attributes to be cold, calculated, deceptive and devious lies. Western religion is the ultimate deceptive psychological ploy, primarily because religion professes to encompass the word GOD. Therefore, to accept another religion over Western religion is to be ridiculed and reduced to an uncivilized savage. To deny these Western religions altogether is to damn your soul to eternal suffering. Cosmetically, these religions are embodied with high principles and valued ideas, but underlying this surface is the most devastating psychological ploy imaginable. Unsuspectingly, believers offer little resistance to their acceptance of these religions because, typically, religion is introduced to them by their parents. The orchestration and embellishment of these religions are a primary function of the mass news media to visually bring myths and lies to life, to lend validation to them and make them believable in the eyes of the masses." (Reference: Walter Williams;” The Historical Origin of Christianity" pg x & xi).

Dr. Clack stated he had more empirical proof that cause and effect gave more definitive answers to explaining our human existence and our relationship to other creatures, as well as to the universe than the God and religious theories. He definitely viewed the science and the universal laws of possessing more definitive credence than unproven faith that was rooted in myths, fairy tales, magic, tradition etc., unscientific "beliefs" that are substantiated by "faith" which often defies logic and reason would not be acceptable in his world.

In the book authored by T. Williams, Richard B. Pilgrim and Ronald R. Cavanaugh titled, "Religion: An Introduction" stated, "Religion as a specific system of belief in God, including a group doctrine concerning Him, and His relations to man and the Universe". Clack through philosophical deductive reason drew the conclusion that man needed to explain his own existence and therefore invented religion and the concept of a Supreme Being with omnipotent ability and pointed to him to explain what he perceived as the unexplainable—this not only included his origin but how do you explain our five (5) billion year old planet in all its magnificence? It became easy to say God was responsible and this answer has quasi satisfied a large portion of humanity’s inquiry to know. (Reference: T. Williams, Richard B. Pilgrim and Ronald R. Cavanaugh; "Religion: An Introduction” pg. 6).

Fahim A. Knight-EL Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of good will of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpret the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlighten world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EL can be reached at fahimknight@yahoo.com.

STAY AWAKE UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

5 thousand words and nothing said. I smell Ph.D. My goldfish knows more.

What idiot would entertain the thought, "Did God create man or did man create God?"? For more than a few seconds anyway?

[fahimknight]

Thank you for your reply. Your response is atypical of the Superstitious religious advocates. I made my point very thoroughly, but your response lacks any real criticism (you did not cite any examples). So I have to assume, this is an emotional response from a person who has been duped by religion and is perhaps taking offense to a free thinker like myself for challenging this opium called religion. Why would you assume that I was a Ph.D? I do not know many Ph.Ds who have the courage and ability to think outside the box. Perhaps you need to read all my post on the Icke website and then may be you can determine my train of thought. Lastly, what do you have against a person holding Ph.D?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

Your welcome.

Who are you writing for? You know,, it is people that you have to communicate with? I find it straining to decipher even one sentence. I'm just honest enough to let you know.

That's why I smell Ph.D. Men and women who have graduated after more than 20 years of highly formalized education (Control dynamics and brainwashing) tend to be very involved in their own egos. I've noticed this, and it is logical, since the only way to get a Ph.D is to play to the system, ie lose one's soul. They lose touch with the outside world. That's what I'm reading.

[dedicate]

He's gone. We probably wont be seeing much of him around. He's much too important to waiste his time pratting around on some website, with the lowly and intellectually challenged, people like me and others who are superstitious and "straight jacketed" by religion.

[fahimknight]

No, Dedicate you are absolutely wrong I think formalize education has its place; it dependents upon one's worldview whether or not they become part of the problem or part of the solution. Thus, I have met some highly trained people who were intellectually insane and I have met some laypersons who had not attained any academic letters, but I would consider them highly educated. I do not think its fair to pigeon hole somebody because of training and/or there lack of. We are at war for the hearts and minds of humanity and I am sorry, I just see organized religion as being an antagonistic contradiction in human development. Thus, ordinarily, when I get the atypical argument that you are presenting, it is based on one trying to create other intellectual distractions in order to hold on to these superstitious beliefs and really can not defend the fairy tale (religious stories) that has been passed on based on tradition. I challenge religion in scope and intent. Now! What is your argument? I do not write for a specific intellectual class; I believe people on this site are quite intelligent and I am not in the business of assuming what the IQ is relative to this cyberspace audience. I am still confused, what do you have against a person holding a Ph.D? Your rationalization was of a generalization and broad; please be more specific and redefine your argument relative your position on religion.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

I have nothing against someone holding a Ph.D. But like i said, it is going through a conformist brainwashing system that gets one a Ph.D. As bad as any organized religion it is! And I see that in your essay.-- and not because you reject religion do I say this. You don't have to be an intellect to reject religion.
I see posts degrading religion here on this site 10 times a month. Always somebody wants to bash religion in one way or another. I think there are three threads active now on this same theme.

I have a lot of problems with people like that. For example, you use the word "organized" and "traditional" as an adjective before the word religion. Is there any other kind? If there is, than what about that? If there is no other kind, then why use the adjective?

But I haven't got a problem with orgainized or traditional religion. I have a problem with bad religion, or religion when it does not work for people. There is that. I tend not to tag religion as organized though. I find that term as applied to religion misleading.-- only because almost anything on Earth can be said to be "organized"/ and what's wrong with that?.

Then, I wonder... if you have spent 20 years studying books and discover how limited your knowledge is,, then what gives you the right to bash religion which you haven't studied?

Religion is a part of life. It is the intellectual part of man which has been trained by today's society to reject religion. (Actually,, the person has to keep a balance not to be too overly intellectual and not too overly "IN the Faith") Those who reject religion, reject a part of life.

[oiram]

For me this is a absolute valid question!
The first day of class, he asked the question, did God create man or did man create God?

In reality no one can answer this question. "No one"

Did man wrote all books I say yes 100%.
Except if some Aliens left Books behind for us to read!
My personal feeling & view is that man did not originated on this Earth.
Are all Religious organizations 100% controlled & run by man "Yes"

Did I get my opinion from Books no because I hate reading books.
Only my Basic training, life experience & my logical mind guided me through my life.
Also my mind is always open for new upgrades.

So if there is someone tomorrow which proves to all that Religion including all stories told is just a totally man made creation it's OK with me.

Should there be a God standing in-front of me tomorrow I will open my door if he is a good entity also I got a million questions for this entity.

My first question would be why did he create so many idiots on earth.
I would say the answer will be clear "I did not make idiots because all have the same basic tools from birth & if there are so many idiots it's because they have chosen there own way to represent idiots toward there fellow man.
Very easy for me.

Do I believe in destiny & that we have a function "Yes I do".
Who controls my life I would say I do 95%. The rest is out of my hands because of other idiots or equipment failure.

Now I just answer simply by using my logic.
Let me put it this way if no one ever told me in my live the word God with the attached story then the word God would have no meaning to me at all.

In this concept I would say God is a creation by man.

Do I believe that we all have a common source wich created us I would say yes many million years ago.

Is this source still controlling us now & today? = With all the free will we have all over the place I would have to say "NO".
Should I be wrong then this God must love crazy people because he made so many of them. :D

Should there be a source which is able to see us in our life's then I hope that I will fall into the category to be a opened minded logical positive person which gives respect to other Humans which also show me respect by there actions or responding to my action toward them.

The funny thing with this is that a person which shows respect to someone does not necessarily gets respect in return.
But a person which shows respect does not have to respect people which are disrespectful in return.

It's natural that people will have different opinions because they all have a free will.
As long there is no fiscal action only opinions should not get others to get fiscal.
Opinions are only words moving air.
If someone needs a God entity to go through life so be it; no harm done to anyone but don't ever force others to take you're personal opinion.

I will never expect from anyone to follow my opinion but I would be happy if I meet others which are on the same wave length like me.

If someone tells me that I am stupid because I don't follow any Religious organization is OK with me.
Because only I am the judge over my self & it's my personal self confidence which tells me if I am stupid or not.

Note: when I use the word stupid or idiot it's not related toward people which follow any Religion because there is nothing wrong with it.
I relate this to the fiscal action people use to enforce there own personal believes onto others.

As long I see that Religious followers & there leaders on all sides support directly or by association wars, murdering, lying, injustice & forcing there believes onto others I can not give Religions the thumbs up & no one should force me in any type or form to show respect to something which supports anti human practices.

[dedicate]

"fairy story".. what fairy story is that? Maybe you are thinking about the fairy story where the comet hits the Earth and extints the planet some 4 million years ago,, or the one where the monkey becomes the man. 'Fairy stories' ha aho .. or maybe the fairy story about chemotherapy.. or vaccines. Or maybe the made up story of slaves building the pyramids with rope and pully.. those are good ones.

See the point? Intellectual world has it's faults. Religion world has it's faults too. But never would i reject the intellectual world just because it has man-made faults. And never would I say the entire intellectual world is faulty because of it. But people often make that mistake concerning religion. Just because science and related subjects are incorrect about somethings, does not make it wrong about everything, does not mean science should be discarded. Same with Religion.

[fahimknight]

Dedicate; you really have no defense for religion; it is all concocted magic designed to make people feel good and rob them blind. Let me give you an example, if you look at most global conflicts that is taking place around the world today, you will often find at the basis of this conflicts, is religion (which is systematically used by the Invisible Rulers to keep humanity divided and mentally and really physically enslaved). They use these so-called "Holy Books" as control mechanism and slavish drive us in various political, economic and social directions. Your are argument is weak and you are trying to hold on to the tradition of magic and superstitious beliefs, but you have no defense other than people have the right to practice their feel good faith tradition. You are right about that point. Yes, I side more with logic and science and I am not willing to allow myself to be duped by the clerics of "tricknology". I know it is difficult for some to depart from tradition, but just look at man's inhumanity to man that is done in the name of God and religion. For example, Constantine and Church in 325 A.D. concocted the Christian creed (they built Christianity on lies and religious deception). Why do not you religious zealots begin a campaign to right (write) the religious historical wrongs? Plain and simple, give the people the truth, Isa Ben Yosef (Jesus the son of Joseph) did not teach the lies that is attributed to his ministry. Let’s start right there. You know William Cooper author of "Behold A Pale Horse" was a highly trained and educated man, but he does not fit into the description of how you view academic training. I think Cooper academic learning assisted him in decoding the symbolism and the hidden agenda. The paths we all choose depends upon one's understanding of reality—some will embrace the human struggle others will betray the human struggle, it has nothing to do with your criticism and mischaracterization of one attaining a Ph.D. somehow this makes them more susceptible to become reactionary. The enemy has co-opted all types of people, some are part of academia and others are not. I do not have a problem with the pursuit of learning be it formal or be it outside the conventional four wall classroom settings that we in the Western World associate with learning. The question should be, what side are you on?

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

Dedicate; you really have no defense for religion; it is all concocted magic designed to make people feel good and rob them blind. Let me give you an example, if you look at most global conflicts that is taking place around the world today, you will often find at the basis of this conflicts, is religion (which is systematically used by the Invisible Rulers to keep humanity divided and mentally and really physically enslaved). They use these so-called "Holy Books" as control mechanism and slavish drive us in various political, economic and social directions. Your are argument is weak and you are trying to hold on to the tradition of magic and superstitious beliefs, but you have no defense other than people have the right to practice their feel good faith tradition. You are right about that point. Yes, I side more with logic and science and I am not willing to allow myself to be duped by the clerics of "tricknology". I know it is difficult for some to depart from tradition, but just look at man's inhumanity to man that is done in the name of God and religion. For example, Constantine and Church in 325 A.D. concocted the Christian creed (they built Christianity on lies and religious deception). Why do not you religious zealots begin a campaign to right (write) the religious historical wrongs? Plain and simple, give the people the truth, Isa Ben Yosef (Jesus the son of Joseph) did not teach the lies that is attributed to his ministry. Let’s start right there. You know William Cooper author of "Behold A Pale Horse" was a highly trained and educated man, but he does not fit into the description of how you view academic training. I think Cooper academic learning assisted him in decoding the symbolism and the hidden agenda. The paths we all choose depends upon one's understanding of reality—some will embrace the human struggle others will betray the human struggle, it has nothing to do with your criticism and mischaracterization of one attaining a Ph.D. somehow this makes them more susceptible to become reactionary. The enemy has co-opted all types of people, some are part of academia and others are not. I do not have a problem with the pursuit of learning be it formal or be it outside the conventional four wall classroom settings that we in the Western World associate with learning. The question should be, what side are you on?

-----------------------------------------

"No defence for religion".-- is that the statement of a "free-thinker"? Sounds like you are going to dismiss what ever information I present.

And your not asking the questions that show you to be anything but stubborn toward the subject. YOur not interested in really finding out where I'm coming from or what I might know, think or believe.

Then you bring up an example of people doing bad in the name of religion. But that is a flawed arguement in that I could say Science is evil because it creates a nuclear bomb that drops on people. That's already been covered,, are you reading?

Like I said,-- education is not a bad thing. It is good or bad. Funny you use William Cooper and Manly Hall (your Sun God essay) as examples.. both men were religious in scope. "Ride a Pale Horse" is a Bible term and applies to what William Cooper saw as the Age we are living in. The only book I ever read by Manly Hall was "Guru" and is a book read in many Hindu and ecclectic monasteries. Look into their relgious beliefs more.

Your not asking questions.-- the questions that sping from a real desire to know. Questions -- "Quest" i am on -- the seeking of truth,, and in this case the truth of the part of life that is mysterious, ieffable, untraceable. If that's missing, you wont get anywhere in an understanding of religion.

I don't know anyway to present to you the truth of religion while you hold these opinons above. Nothing I say could matter. The quest is missing. The only thing that might help you is if you discover the limits of logical, analytical, scientific thought for yourself,, and how much trouble those thoughts and your ego really are.

[dedicate]

It is always a consideration as to how the word "religion" is used,, what it means to the user.

Personally, I don't find any English word which indicates what I mean by the word. Religion to me, is bigger than "traditional" or "organized" or "spirituality". But I also use it to mean,, a Religion such as Christianity, Buddhims or Hinduism. My definition includes those schools, but transcends them also. I use "Religion" in the same context that someone could use the word "Art".

Art exists even outside the schools, systems, and methods. Art is real and transcends all schools, systems and methods. But,, those schools, systems and methods are important and should not be discounted. Same with Religion, it exists outside of any "ism" or school.

But really there is not appropriate English word for the way I see it, much like ART. The word "religion" is just a good starting place to communicate the ideas,, since it implies much beyond what is commonly understood, ie Chuch-going Christianity or Formal ritual.

[fahimknight]

Dedicate, no one can produce the truth of religion; it is all man made a control concoction designed to give humanity that "mystery god" who does not exist. No I am not stubborn may be you are equating my logical and rational position as me possessing an unwillingness to consider other points of views. I am new to this site, but I see you have the title "Senior Member" I am assuming that is some acquired status on the site or may be not. But perhaps you have not really read or been listen to David Icke (I am assuming this is his official site) about this religious subliminal seduction (now religion is some real mind control) that you are trying to defend; he meaning Icke, does a much better job dismantling this magic than I (curious have you read his materials). Your argument is slowly deconstructing itself. Perhaps deep down inside you know that I am right about religion. I have not insulted you, but my ego has nothing to do with how I feel about organized religion. Now! I am assuming you as a Senior member have done some studying beyond traditional knowledge. Sorry! Religion is the biggest con and hoax that has ever been played on humanity. Somebody has a God complex. You are right about one thing there is nothing you can present to change my mind about organized religion. Now! I am partial to spirituality and we should not confuse the two.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

Your partial to "Spirituality"? You don't explaine what you mean by that but I'm assuming you mean, "not into material things." That's low level spirituality if you ask me.

Spirituality to me would mean that one accepts that he is a Spirit Being, does not die with the body, needs spirit tools and teachings to learn about being a spirit being..

But you didn't say. What do you mean by "Spirituality"? Not into material things? if so, that is low level spirituality.

[fahimknight]

Spirituality is far beyond what you have citied; it does not incorporate any of the tangibles that you mentioned. Thus, you are trying to fit spirituality into your religious worldview, it can and does not. Spirituality doe not answer to set of agreed dogmas or does not need hierarchy clerics to determine their relationship as a microcosm entity or being, but fully understand their relevance to the macrocosm. This is purely internal development and has very little to do with the external. You are viewing spirituality from a corrupt Western perspective.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

So,, -- are you a spirit being that does not die with the body? -- I gues you are saying, "No".

"Spirituality does not answer to set or agreed dogmas or does not need hieracrhy clerics to determine their relationship as a microcosm entitity or being, but fully understand their relavance to the macrocosm"...
????????????????????????????????? what ??? talk to me like I'm a 6 year old.


"fully understands relavance to macrocosm"... How is that spiritual? What is spirituality? -- being one with the environment? Then what is that? How is that spiritual? How is that not what I said?

[fahimknight]

HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IS ACCEPT AS SPIRITUALITY

Spirituality encourages people to learn how to think.

Spirituality invites everyone to trust themselves

Spirituality is led on guidance from within.

Spirituality teaches people to question everything.

Spirituality is guided by the spirit of the human heart.

Spirituality combines head and heart to form a conscious connection to The Source of All That Is.

Spirituality welcomes challenges -- Challenges are food for growth and to tools with which to become stronger.

Spirituality teaches that heaven is a state of being.

Spirituality is reborn moment-by-moment right-here right-now. It is born out of one's own knowing that every person is a divine being having a human experience.

Spirituality is all inclusive and teaches that every religion is its own pathway to God. Spirituality acknowledges that trying to stick God into a single religion is like trying to fit the universe into a shoe box.

Spirituality teaches that humans are divine beings experiencing an earth-life in a human body.

Spirituality teaches that personal behavior is a function of knowing in one's own heart what’s right and wrong and then following that inner guidance.

Spirituality teaches that the mind must be brought into play--that there is no one else to blame for whatever is dysfunctional in the outside world or in one's own personal life.

Spirituality acknowledges that every human being has his or her own direct connection to God by way of the God-Self within. (See Matthew 6:5-6 and Luke 17:21.

Spirituality has only one weapon, the truth.

These are some of principles that we acknowlege relative to spirituality, it is in no way limited to this list nor does this list presents an exhaustive definition of sprituality. These are not my words but this is what I adhere to which differs in many ways from the western concept of religion. I hope this answers your questions relative to how I see and view spirituality.

Stay Wake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

So what your advocating here is more dogma.


1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed

I think you are more of what you claim to be challenging than you know.--- religious, dogmatic, expecting people to follow your view, blind and staightjacketed by your beliefs. After all, you said, "spirituality does not answer to dogma" and then you list a series of authorative tenets, aka dogmas, and say that is spirituality> And you say, I'm deconstructing.


Then you say that people have a connection to God as one of the tenets. So what if I want to express my connection to God by going to church or worshipping, or reading the Bible and following those teaching? That's bad. That's going against the philosophy of the "Free Thinker", I guess. "The Free Thinker".. just some new religion --and man-made for sure, out for control over others. Someday you will realize,, control is illusion.

[fahimknight]

I am not advocating anything (that is what religion does) you see the semantics that you are using is from your religious worldview. I posted a definitive article critiquing religion and I stand by every word (unless you consider my post as advocating—I see it as presenting the truth). Thus, one does not come to spirituality based on one advocating. It is a much more profound experience than your perception. This experience is internal and then manifest it self external. Organized religion is dogmatic and dictatorial—it is based on control, control, control!!!!!!! I say again you have no defense for organized religion and you really not equip to analyze, evaluate or assess spirituality. This is why your argument is just based on mere emotionalism and on a false premises.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

For a minute I thought you might have had something when you refused to staight out answer my question about you being a Spirit Being,, and that there are no dogmas. That is a point of view that I respect. Mystics often will point to the fact -- no spirit, no matter,, all illusion. No birth..no rebirth.. no continuation of life,,,no end to life. I thought maybe you were going to go toward that view... but then you send out a list of "Man-made" rules that have nothing to do with truth, useless rules, useless dogmas.

[dedicate]

I have plenty of defence for "organized religion",, but I'm not going to get into it with you because we are still taking baby steps here. You don't even admit to being a spirit being with an afterlife. And you are saying that "all religion is man made",, then you quote the Bible and talk about God (By the way,, you bought up "God" before I did).. I don't know what you mean by orgainized religion..? And does that mean you are oK with non-organized religion? Is religion that is not organized ok? Because the way you put it, it sounds that it is ok to have religion as long as it's not organized.

Advocate is just someone that speaks for,, presents. You are advocating the ideas you present, even if you don't agree with them. But you do agree with them so I would say you are Campaigning for and Championing these ideas.

"Those ideas are from your 'religious world view'.." Well excuse me for having a view. Like by saying this you somehow dismiss the validness of what I say. Well,,, your ideas about my ideas stems from your religious world view.

[fahimknight]

Dedicate stated: " "Those ideas are from your 'religious world view'.." Well excuse me for having a view' (lol). Now! this point really made me laugh; perhaps you are being a bit humorous. Spirituality is not based on a systematic or even a core body of ideas; I do not really know how to explaining to you any better than what I have already done. I am not against religion; there are some good people that practice organized religion. I am against the confusion and domination that these silly ideas have over good people lives. You mentioned following the Bible; may be if you can convince the religious monarchs and dictators to include the "Lost Books of the Bible" and relinquish the control over the personal lives of their parishners, may be you can get my attention. Right now have no respect for organized religion because I am a historian, I have the history of the political, economic and social damage the missionaries have done against humanity based on their concept of god. Just look around you and observe the state of religion and the affairs of humanity.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

Why do we always go back to the same things?

Who's not against "silly ideas" taken as real or valid? -- like pully's and rope used to build pyramids.

Then, "Right now I have no respect for organized religion".. Have you studied each and every "organized" religion? You have not mentioned Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. Then there are literally thousands of branches of those and Christianity. Have you studied all those? Is Buddhism a Religion?

Is it organized religion if I take a Yoga class at the YMCA?
They do organize them,, and Yoga does mean "religion". Is Yoga religion?

Is it organized religion if me and two friends meet for a prayer group holding Bibles and reading from them? That seems like organizing for religion, or organized religion.

What if I go to a Christian Church that does read from Levi's --The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus? Is that OK then?

Is it Ok to practice religion if it isn't "organized" (what ever that might mean)? Can you give me an example of a relgion that is not "organized"?


I can give you an example of a religion that is organized but not traditional... SCIENTOLOGY. I say this just so you don't feel there is too much pressure and examples are available..

[oiram]

HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IS ACCEPT AS SPIRITUALITY

Spirituality encourages people to learn how to think.

Spirituality invites everyone to trust themselves

Spirituality is led on guidance from within.

Spirituality teaches people to question everything.

Spirituality is guided by the spirit of the human heart.

Spirituality combines head and heart to form a conscious connection to The Source of All That Is.

Spirituality welcomes challenges -- Challenges are food for growth and to tools with which to become stronger.

Spirituality teaches that heaven is a state of being.

Spirituality is reborn moment-by-moment right-here right-now. It is born out of one's own knowing that every person is a divine being having a human experience.

Spirituality is all inclusive and teaches that every religion is its own pathway to God. Spirituality acknowledges that trying to stick God into a single religion is like trying to fit the universe into a shoe box.

Spirituality teaches that humans are divine beings experiencing an earth-life in a human body.

Spirituality teaches that personal behavior is a function of knowing in one's own heart what’s right and wrong and then following that inner guidance.

Spirituality teaches that the mind must be brought into play--that there is no one else to blame for whatever is dysfunctional in the outside world or in one's own personal life.

Spirituality acknowledges that every human being has his or her own direct connection to God by way of the God-Self within. (See Matthew 6:5-6 and Luke 17:21.

Spirituality has only one weapon, the truth.

These are some of principles that we acknowlege relative to spirituality, it is in no way limited to this list nor does this list presents an exhaustive definition of sprituality. These are not my words but this is what I adhere to which differs in many ways from the western concept of religion. I hope this answers your questions relative to how I see and view spirituality.

Stay Wake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
Now this is exactly what I was looking for & I can live with this explanation also sounds logic. Only small deviation. "great"


Please I need your opinion! Honest please no matter if I am wrong!

Now I tell you why because today I search around & I would not place Spirituality directly into the category of Religion. That's my view!

So I will give you two links check it out & tell me if you have the same opinion!

To me these New Age Religions are hijacking the logic & mixing everything up! IMO!

They are confusing everything & in a way place everything into one big basket as if the NWO & Religious Organizations trying to hijack & creating there one world religion.

Every articals talking about New Age Religions places just about everything into one basket even Spirituality; a total mess in my view what are they doing! Real Crazy & confusing in my view! I just right out rejected there explanation a total mix up! Like a Cult!

See if people think my way! It's just a example but very disturbing in my view.

Please I am not into Religious reading but I am logical & when things make logical sense I usually except them. Tell me if it's just me being stupid or these people are on an NWO agenda.

Compare this two:
Why don't they just join them; but these two categories in my view don't really mix!
Spirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality, or one or more deities. Spiritual matters are thus those matters regarding humankind's ultimate nature and meaning, not only as material biological organisms, but as beings with a unique relationship to that which is perceived to be beyond the bodily senses, time and the material world. Spirituality in this sense implies the mind-body dichotomy, which indicates a separation between the body and soul. But spirituality may also be about the development of the individual's inner life through specific practices.

The spiritual is traditionally contrasted with the material, the temporal and the earthly. A perceived sense of connection forms a central defining characteristic of spirituality — connection to a metaphysical reality greater than oneself, which may include an emotional experience of religious awe and reverence, or such states as satori or nirvana. Equally importantly, spirituality relates to matters of sanity and of psychological health. Spirituality is the personal, subjective dimension of religion, particularly that which pertains to liberation or salvation (see also mysticism and esoterism) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[2] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. It considers psychological and social roots, along with origins and historical development.

In the frame of western religious thought,[3] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[4] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[fahimknight]

Yes. I have studied practically all world religions (and their theology) and have walked different paths in my life and those paths (and my acquired experiences) have brought me to this space and time. Whatever you consider to be working for you that is you prerogative and however, you determine the setting (organized or non-organized) that is better for you to define your religious reality than me. I have a problem with it all because I feel for humanity and how this god and the religion concept keeps us divided and foster human conflict, but this is being done systematically.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[oiram]

Yes. I have studied practically all world religions (and their theology) and have walked different paths in my life and those paths (and my acquired experiences) have brought me to this space and time. Whatever you consider to be working for you that is you prerogative and however, you determine the setting (organized or non-organized) that is better for you to define your religious reality than me. I have a problem with it all because I feel for humanity and how this god and the religion concept keeps us divided and foster human conflict, but this is being done systematically.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-ELBut you see I never liked Religious organizations!
I got my Spirituality from self discipline experience & mixing with a lot of different people from all over the world. I definitely say that I a very Spiritual I marked all in blue from your post which I spontaneously & directly resonate with.

I never studied any religion & never seen the need for it life just guides me the right way without any brainwashing system!
I resonate with 12 of you're Quotes on the spot; so must be something being alright with me.
The traditional religious people are like concrete heads all day long & all like a photo copy of each other! IMO!

But In regards of Religions & there Organizations I stay 1km away from it.

But this two links I have in quotes nothing really resonates with me.
Did you have a look at it to me it's a mix up & illogic.

Two more
Spirituality teaches you self confidence.
Spirituality teaches you to stay opened minded to all & everything.

[dedicate]

Spirituality concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality. -- qoutes from above.

----------------------------------

Fine, don't want to answer those questions. Probably stupid questions anyway.

I doubt that you have really studied religions. To study religion one must practice religion. Studying a book and saying you know something about religion is like studying a book and saying you know something about.... film directing, cooking, engine repaire, motherhood,, or so many other things.

and if you have practiced a religion,,, then you should have given it 4 to 8 years of total devotion. Or you know nothing about it. Otherwise you are making lite of subject that is harder to graduate out of than any Ph.D. ever was.

[oiram]

Spirituality concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality. -- qoutes from above.


Spirituality concerns itself with matters of the spirit, a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality. -- qoutes from above.

You see in my case I have a problem with these two quotes because for once I don't feel my self at all being closely tied to any Religion!

The second quote I don't like the word Organized because this means living by fixed rules & in my view is exactly the part which destroys Spirituality in present Religious followers.

For me to explore you're Spirituality you have to be free and can always adjust & expend you're Spirituality because it's not fixed or static.

Spirituality can always evolve & that's what Religion organizations block out.
That's exactly why I don't like Religion because it places you into a Box. NO! ....NO! that's not for me. Hate to live in a Box!

[dedicate]

Hey, Oiram.; Those are nice graphics you have there.

It's been a long day. I supprised it is so late! Gotta hand it to fahimknight, though, he hung in. I'll give him that.

I'm going home now. Good luck to everybody -- Good luck=good karma.

[fahimknight]

Thank you Oiram:

My sound is not functioning on my computer. I think I have seen a very long version of ZEITGEIST it was dealing with the solar deity and various cultures from which these sun Gods sprung. But if memory serves me correctly, it was so much information it became overwhelming and it was just so much to assess and evaluate and to internalize. It lost me at times, if this is the same movie. However, I do think there are some clear distinctions between religion and spirituality. This has been a very good exchange between myself and Dedicate and may be we made some baby steps a long the way, but this can always be a very sensitive discussion. I am always willing to succumb to any superior and/or logical reasoning and I do not want to come across of not being tolerable of others ideas and positions, but I know in any dialog it is give and take. Some have posted my work on the site already; so I do not feel like a stranger in that regard. Yes, there are some subjects that I am little more passionate about and this just happens to be one of them. I look forward to becoming a part of the David Icke website family and I know there will be times that we might not always agree, but that is part of human growth, which is to be tolerable of other’s ideas even when you disagree.

Stay Awake Until We Meet again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

P.S. My son is working on restoring my sound

[rr_x]

Religions are big cults and cults are small religions.

[oiram]

Even if the ZEITGEIST movie has only 50% correctness it's enough to even awake a sleeping sheep!

The governments conspiracy's & war mongering & murdering plots are very clear in the ZEITGEIST movie!

I personally skip the Religious part because it usually turns into confrontation & don't I hate confrontation!
I stick with the Spirituality part more fun & in the end it will guide you to the same source we are all seeking! "Yes all"

There are more then only one road to success what's important is the end result!

Don't even know why so many are fighting each other with words we are all looking for the same in reality!

Yes all even the sheep is not lost only needs a big kick in the ass to use there own brains not the once of there leaders & masters.

Brake free from your masters magic spell; we all where sheep at one time of our life's.

Nothing to worry about & it's never to late to wake up.

How long is it already that we had to live without real friends because of this sick enforced system it's time for this to change & lets work on it together; my friends!

People just keep all your different faiths nothing wrong with it; all we have to do is become Friends which support & look after each other!

The sick controllers & manipulators have to be disarmed & I am convinced together we can do it!

That's my biggest wish!




http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/Aviator.gif

[mephibosheth]

Dr. Clack stated he had more empirical proof that cause and effect gave more definitive answers to explaining our human existence and our relationship to other creatures, as well as to the universe than the God and religious theories. He definitely viewed the science and the universal laws of possessing more definitive credence than unproven faith that was rooted in myths, fairy tales, magic, tradition etc., unscientific "beliefs" that are substantiated by "faith" which often defies logic and reason would not be acceptable in his world.


Dr. Clack must've had some difficulty reconciling Hume then, lol. 'Cause and effect' aren't an explanation for anything.

Furthermore, although witness testimony is notoriously flawed, in some cases it gives us a more correct account of an event than reasoning through principles after the fact can. For in backwards reasoning, we can only reason from the outcome, using principles, and speculate on a range of possible causes/events that could have led to that outcome. We can only, at best, narrow this down to a list of possibilities that we choose to believe are most probable.

We might, for instance, come across a large puddle in the middle of the road, and, observing the overcast sky, surmize that it rained recently. But, if we ask the shop-owner across the street about the weather, he might tell us how he observed the funniest thing earlier when a bottled-water truck stopped suddenly for a pedestrian and five huge jugs of water crashed to the street, spilling their contents all over.

An unlikley story, but one that we could only get from a witness to the event.

In the same sense, there may be a lot of historical truth buried in the often poetic language of myth and tradition that reveals a distant memory of events that human beings were present to witness--events that cannot be revealed through mere reasoning alone.

Reason, when it attempts to describe a past event, is always speculation. But a witness gives an account of their experience. Thus a narrative can be a report, while the product of reason will always and necessarily be a projection of the possible.

8)

[fahimknight]

mephibosheth: I do no think you know what you are saying; your thoughts are unintelligible and your deductive reason is based in pseudo intellectualism with no real point of contention. I do consider myself halfway intelligent, but there was very little that I could discern from your argument that made much sense. You have no logical defense for organized religion: how about this sheer MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION and you can not present any logical argument to prove us Free Thinker wrong. Yes, I base all my positions in the realm of logic and rational thinking, free of "Holy Book" and "clerics". Thus, I do not accept that Mystery God and that Spook teaching that you are trying to intellectualize means absolutely nothing to me. What is your defense for this "SNAKE OIL" belief system? I gave you a 5000 word thesis; you in turn have giving me a weak religious defense that is rooted in outer space. You have no defense for religion, I know that and you know that. That is why I am tearing your A---up with these silly and elementary concepts that are more confusing than anything else. You better bring David Icke out because you attack dogs do not have enough ammunition to deal with me. Just stay tuned in.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[dedicate]

Maybe he's trying to say that some of the ideas you present here are somewhat superstitious and based on a dogmatic "belief system".

Physical evidence doesn't always give us the best solution. If you look at just the physical evidence of things,, it might seem better to do what is not best or believe what is not true. The most logical thing, isn't always the right thing.

Do you love your children? Or is that just a biological imparitive and impulse to surfeit the species?

Do you love your wife? Or is that just a series of chemical reactions on the body in order to propagate the species?

I don't think I would enjoy being married to a person who holds these later beliefs... nor would I like a parent who holds them. I think being married to a person like this would be dull and lifeless. AS IF PART OF LIFE WAS MISSING.

In fact, I don't know many people who hold the above view. At least not fully and 100%. But it is the most logical, empirical, reasonable view to hold overall when looking at the physical evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could stand here and pontificate (funny the word implies Papal authority!),, on how Christianity and Buddhism are made up creations of a needy humanity for something to believe in beyond oneself. And any evidence to the contrary could be dismissed on reductionistic theses, or as conjecture, or delusion, or something else. That's easy.

So maybe I will take that route and counter this persons "free thinking" ideology and throw it back at him... I'll just tell him that HUMANITY and the needs of HUMANITY do not exists. Those are made up fabrications of people under the influence of chemicals and delusions. There is no need for justice in the world.. That is an outdated concept based on unrealistic ideas about fairness and "eye for eye" ness.. What we need in this world is a strong arm to combat all ideas of self and identity,, which only exist in the persons limited mind.

The only logical thing for any 'free thinking' person to do today is to exterminate 98% of all humans. That way this Earth will have a chance to survive and man kind can have a fresh start to build a TRUE civilization built on logic and reason. So what if billions of people will have to die.! There is no after life anyway, no morality, no consequences that man does not make. All these people must all be killed. It is the only logical solution to the worlds problems. Humanity! Bah! -- any concept of humanity is man-made and not real. I can proove it.

[dedicate]

Christianity Buddhism Hinduism.. -- thousands of years ago someone threw a rock in the water and now one of those ripples in called Buddhism and another is called Christianity. That original rock that was thrown into the water was just an idea of living a peace in the world. No teacher ever lived that promised a place in heaven for you or asked you to worship him.. That has been a perversion of the original teachings of humanism and living a peace with people.

Religion has nothing to teach anybody. Those ideas are all man made in order to control you and take you money. (Wow -- this is easy. I could rant like this all day. Who cares if its the truth or not. I will just dismiss any arguement on the basis that it makes no sense to see things in any other way)

[dedicate]

I'm starting to see that even by repeating this stuff (above),, that I'm actually starting to brainwash myself into believing what I am saying! There is no religion.... Jesus is just the replacement of the old Sun God rituals!!... Actually the Bible Texts were not written by any apostles but by men in suit and tie who needed money to ..... (now i'm falling into a lonely desert place with no soul, no spirit).

I've almost lost my soul. I'll go on.--- 5,000 years ago the annunaki wanted slaves so they devised a worship system. To people they were the Gods and represented the One god. So all people bowed to them and it continues to this very day but is in different style. Today the annunaki are hidden and cloaked,, but the worshipping and slavery is still going on. WE give all our energy and money to the Pope or the Highest Priest who in turn gives it to someone else -- all under control of the Annunaki.

[eternal_spirit]

A correction. Money goes to the tax man and the banks. We know the Pope don't own them.

Some people may not get the irony sarcasm in your posts Dedicate.

[mephibosheth]

Well some things never cease to amaze me...


mephibosheth: I do no think you know what you are saying;


Or perhaps you don't know what you are reading.



your thoughts are unintelligible and your deductive reason is based in pseudo intellectualism with no real point of contention.


Easily one of the most insulting, rudest, and utterly retarded responses I've ever received. Perhaps you don't understand plain English.



I do consider myself halfway intelligent


I'd get a second opinion if I were you.



there was very little that I could discern from your argument that made much sense.


My argument, such as it is, was merely to point out that narratives can sometimes have more value than deductive reasoning for revealing a fact about reality, particularly where events are concerned.

Deductive reasoning cannot give us facts about reality, a simple point known to folks who have passed elementary logic 101. You can't deduce history from the present. All you can do is make endless conjectures, projections, and weave imaginative narratives based on your best assessment of a probability. There is never any certainty attached to such an enterprise.

Anyway, my Hume comment was pretty funny, for those who know a thing or two about philosophy.



You have no logical defense for organized religion


Well, maybe because I did not present one. Please show me where I claim to present a logical defense of organized religion.



how about this sheer MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION and you can not present any logical argument to prove us Free Thinker wrong.


So you speak for all free thinker then? What a position of honour you have!



Thus, I do not accept that Mystery God and that Spook teaching that you are trying to intellectualize means absolutely nothing to me.


Your sentence is an unintelligable run-on. Surely this is not the result of relying exclusively on logic?




What is your defense for this "SNAKE OIL" belief system? I gave you a 5000 word thesis; you in turn have giving me a weak religious defense that is rooted in outer space.


Are you on crack? Where did you get that crazy idea?



You have no defense for religion, I know that and you know that. That is why I am tearing your A---up with these silly and elementary concepts that are more confusing than anything else.


Well, you're amusing, I'll give you that.

8)

[oiram]

"fahimknight" You're point's are very valid!

No point to argue you have nothing to lose & you don't need to prove anything!

You stated your point's & people which are receptive to you're comments & logic will never argue with you.

Logical thinking will always prevail especially on a personal level!

Logical thinking is able to control feelings & emotions; no way it will work the other way around!

No way feelings & emotions will control logical thinking but feelings & emotions could personally overrule logical thinking but usually it will turn into risk-taking.

Believing in someone or something are just feelings & emotions also needs permanent reconfirmations so it does not get lost!
Logic is a tool which can analyze feelings & emotions!

All I can confirm is that I am very happy to be a Free logical thinker.
Don't the Elite hates FREE thinkers analyzing everything especially big lies.

I never liked to live in a box & what I even dislike more is the answers I have to listen too; protecting, explaining & excusing the Boxed in situation.

The Believers tools .... "Political speech, loud over-sounding Voices MSM, Books, Rhetorical mambo jumbo, Propaganda, lies, abusing, force, wars, weapons, army's, self created laws forced on to all, secrets, murdering, corruption, manipulation, money, fame, positions & asset offerings, grouping, creating group decisions overruling all others ......... etc."
A lot of tools & time is required to protect the believes.

Note: I am pointing to the positive logical thinking not the negative logic which controls the believers & are the once which needs believers for there negative logic to function.

Only logical thinkers will be able to ........ defeat & stop the negative logic which rules our life's.

I love the Truth & logical free thinking.

Yes Logic is a amazing tool, very flexible never static .... loves to find lies & always on the move to open up more boxes.

[element]

I'm starting to see that even by repeating this stuff (above),, that I'm actually starting to brainwash myself into believing what I am saying! There is no religion.... Jesus is just the replacement of the old Sun God rituals!!... Actually the Bible Texts were not written by any apostles but by men in suit and tie who needed money to ..... (now i'm falling into a lonely desert place with no soul, no spirit).

I've almost lost my soul. I'll go on.--- 5,000 years ago the annunaki wanted slaves so they devised a worship system. To people they were the Gods and represented the One god. So all people bowed to them and it continues to this very day but is in different style. Today the annunaki are hidden and cloaked,, but the worshipping and slavery is still going on. WE give all our energy and money to the Pope or the Highest Priest who in turn gives it to someone else -- all under control of the Annunaki.

But you may be wrong. Maybe the Roman Church used the life of Jesus as a new way to fool people, mixing it with their own, older beliefs. The seasonal celebrations are one way of proof for this. It doesn't mean that there was no genuine Jesus.

[dedicate]

I may be wrong about what?


Maybe the Roman Chruch does do those things.

Maybe the 25th Celebration is a Solstice Celebration.

So.. Like I said before,, just because there is a biological imperative to propagate the species, that does not discount that I love my wife and children.

Just because The Roman Chuch used Jesus for it's own end,, and made Solstice Celebrations part of their celebrations,, doesn't mean Religion is a sham. My experience and what I know about my life tells me otherwise.

actually I see the Solstice Celbration as a Spiritual ritual. It is a spritual time of year, it's not just the empirical southern most point of the Sun's eccliptic. That's reductionism. The significance of that day has been taken out of Christianity. I think it is a good thing to celebrate Christ's birth on that day.

During Winter the Earth is cold and barren. With the Solstice there is a new birth of life on Eath for the Northern Hemesphire; hope and life Springs anew. Who's to say that Christ is not involved in this? Who's to say that the indwelling spirit of the Earth is not the Christ Spirit? Thus the Birth (rebirth) of Christ? -- and the promise of eternal life.

[mephibosheth]

Logical thinking will always prevail especially on a personal level!


Even if this were true, and its doubtful that it is, this is no guarantee that the outcome that prevails is either (1) true or (2) good. Logic, afterall, is only a process, a method, not an intellectual cure-all.




Logical thinking is able to control feelings & emotions; no way it will work the other way around!

No way feelings & emotions will control logical thinking but feelings & emotions could personally overrule logical thinking but usually it will turn into risk-taking.


Unfortunately, there are many places that 'logic' simply can't go. When logic can't decide between two opposing courses of action, the volitional agent must appeal to some other standard. Or, eschewing all standards, to simply act. The act of choice, the elemental exercise of free will, is a non-rational event.

Vanilla or chocolate? Don't look to logic to decide! And this extremely simple example shows how poor logic is. It could not do as the sole guide to human action. Logic can be powerful, yes, it can be useful, yes, but like any tool it is only as good and effective as the agent that wields it.




Believing in someone or something are just feelings & emotions also needs permanent reconfirmations so it does not get lost!


However, all knowledge is based on belief. Logic merely regulates the organization of those beliefs. 'Believing' is more primitive than 'knowing', in the sense that we must accept a starting point before we can assess the value of propositions about the world.




Logic is a tool which can analyze feelings & emotions!


So why aren't computers sitting behind desks asking us about our relationship to our mothers...?

A hammer isn't much use without a nail.




The Believers tools .... "Political speech, loud over-sounding Voices MSM, Books, Rhetorical mambo jumbo, Propaganda, lies, abusing, force, wars, weapons, army's, self created laws forced on to all, secrets, murdering, corruption, manipulation, money, fame, positions & asset offerings, grouping, creating group decisions overruling all others ......... etc."
A lot of tools & time is required to protect the believes.


This list is not the exclusive domain of religion, of course.




Note: I am pointing to the positive logical thinking not the negative logic which controls the believers & are the once which needs believers for there negative logic to function.

Only logical thinkers will be able to ........ defeat & stop the negative logic which rules our life's.


Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as 'positive' and 'negative' logic. Logic itself is nothing but a method of organizing information. Within this process there is space for valuation, and, of course, valuation is intimately tied to the foundation of logical judgment. But it's the judgment, the outcome of a logical process, that produces a value. In this sense, you could say that logic is the source of value, but is itself, not a value.

If you see a 'believer' reasoning to a conclusion you believe is false, this isn't an instance of 'negative logic'. Its just plain old logic. Logic can't give you anything that isn't there in the first place. That is why you can't deduce contingent affairs from logic alone.



Yes Logic is a amazing tool, very flexible never static .... loves to find lies & always on the move to open up more boxes.


Hahaha...this is actually a pretty funny statement. Logic, as a formal science, didn't change in nearly 2000 years after Aristotle. It IS static and it ISN'T flexible. Either A or -A but not A & -A. How flexible or dynamic your logic is depends on your initial axioms.

And logic doesn't 'love' to find 'lies'. Quite the contrary. Logic, again, as a process of organizing information, is quite happy to accept lies (falsehoods) so long at the formal structure of their arguments are valid.

cheers,

8)

[mephibosheth]

Heheh...well, it looks like logic and reason have triumphed once again.

:D
:p

[phildee3]

Maybe the 25th Celebration is a Solstice Celebration.

Just because The Roman Chuch used Jesus for it's own end,, and made Solstice Celebrations part of their celebrations,, doesn't mean Religion is a sham. My experience and what I know about my life tells me otherwise.

actually I see the Solstice Celbration as a Spiritual ritual. It is a spritual time of year, it's not just the empirical southern most point of the Sun's eccliptic. That's reductionism. The significance of that day has been taken out of Christianity. I think it is a good thing to celebrate Christ's birth on that day.

During Winter the Earth is cold and barren. With the Solstice there is a new birth of life on Eath for the Northern Hemesphire; hope and life Springs anew. Who's to say that Christ is not involved in this? Who's to say that the indwelling spirit of the Earth is not the Christ Spirit? Thus the Birth (rebirth) of Christ? -- and the promise of eternal life.



Dec. 25th is a post-solstice celebration -
when the sun is noticably moving again.

It makes no sense to celebrate the solar standstill itself, imo,
when everything is still and resting
(the biodynamic gardener does no work at the solstices).

Christianity is a sun cult and religion.
(there is no conflict if it is a religion of peace).

The dead are buried to face the sun at the resurrection,
and we face the sunrise (east) when we celebrate the Eucharist.

So we celebrate the birth of the sun/son when it is active again.

[phildee3]

The question should be, what side are you on?



Fuck you and your "sides"!

There are no "sides" any more.
We're all in this together.
We are one!!

[phildee3]

Jesus is just the replacement of the old Sun God rituals!!...



A continuation of them, I would say,

and a perfecting of them.

[fahimknight]

fuck you and your "sides"!

There are no "sides" any more.
We're all in this together.
We are one!!

Phildee: No, in the simplest form we are one (we are all slaves knowingly and/or unknowingly) that is the only truth that I can ascertain from your statement, if that is what you mean. But those who think and understand like me/us; yes we are one, but most of us have brought the Invisible Rulers agenda hook, line and sinker and they are enemies against humanity’s quest for freedom, justice and equality. You sound a little upset at my post perhaps because I and many like me do not buy into your religious magic and you are trying to disguise your argument in making foolish off the wall comments. Step front and center, the article was a critique about the greatest con ever to played on humanity--religion. You have no defense other than some off the wall jive. You do not want to debate me on religion.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[phildee3]

in the simplest form we are one (we are all slaves knowingly and/or unknowingly) that is the only truth that I can ascertain from your statement, if that is what you mean.



No, that is not what I mean.
We are not all slaves.
Some are free.

Until you can "ascertain" another truth (by yourself) in the statement "we are one" there is no possibility of any communication between us.

[phildee3]

You do not want to debate me on religion.



Wheather I want to or not is irrelevent.

One cannot truely debate religion.
Debate = to take sides.
Religion = to join as one.

One either practices religion or one does not.

[fahimknight]

This was perhaps one of the toughest blog pieces that I have ever written because of the delicate and sensitive nature of the topic God and Religion.

I had started writing this article perhaps last year and immediately developed writer's block and could not finish where I wanted to take the article as far as intent and scope and it remained in my draft box until last week. I was somewhat entrapped in my own personal religious experiences of growing up in the Baptist faith and church, but the church culture and doctrine more resembled the theology of a strict Pentecostal sect. You set there as children being forced to embrace a religious culture that in one sense presented itself as being above reproach and the norm was to accept without questioning.

This was part of the Black Church approach to God, Bible, the preacher, etc., all three entities possessed a sense of sovereignty and it was considered taboo to question within that culture. Perhaps I had already began to think outside the box even before I met Dr. Clack at twenty years old, but Dr. Clack appealed to an inner reasoning that existed inside of me relative to exploring other intellectual possibilities.

Dr. Clack was Caucasian and had a very eccentric personality and definitely was not Mr. Congeniality. I did not do, much talking with him, as far as outside the classroom because it almost felt like he had the ability to look through you and could assess your thoughts even before you had made your thoughts known. But what I did find attractive was his willingness to discuss topics that where considered off limits and was not fearful of disagreeing with the popular view and tradition.

I must admit, I enjoyed watching his analytical and critically mind, evaluating schools of thought that had not been fully tried and tested. So, I never told Dr. Clack, I really liked this man for his intellectual daring approach to take on "hot topic". I truly walked away from his class as a Free Thinker and over the years this position has gotten me in trouble, but that is OK.

This experience led me seek a deeper understanding of my own spirituality and I debunk organized religion in the formal sense--but I still enjoy good southern preaching. Thus, I am tolerant of those that have chosen organized religion as their path. But it still lacks logic and reasoning.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[zero1]

Fahim,

Great thread, very interesting.

I must admit I had you pegged for a more religious sort of man (based upon your other posts) than you have revealed yourself to be.

Personally, I find what seems to be lacking in terms of "logic and reason" in religion is usually deceptive appearances, for a lot of it (I have found) holds up quite well upon rational examination. And what might be dubious appeals to the emotional side of human nature, which cannot be left out altogether in any religious, philosophical or scientific schemata which proposes to explain the human condition and circumstance.

The intellect is one of man's formost tools to uncover truth and reality, this is certain, but untempered by the material modes of passion, goodness and ignorance it (intellectual rigor) alone yeilds only grey, dry mechanical answers to organic problems. This, I feel, is where science and rationality falls down - it births a kind of artificial intelligence and artificial reality which man, taking then to be the ULTIMATE truth, superimposes over what is ultimately true and real, obscuring the wholeness and completeness of truth and reality which are ours (mankinds) by right.

Nonetheless, I thank you for a superb read once again.

best,
Z1

[fahimknight]

Thank you for the analysis and I definitely can see your point. I left organized religion along time ago, but it was once a big part of my personal experience and development and may be in some of my post those experiences come across perhaps in my thinking, as well as in my writings. Life is about traveled paths and religion led me to spirituality, but I truly know that I would have come to that conclusion without religion. I became very uncomfortable with my personal faith tradition; based on the fact that you could not question the tenets or the theology (I was always a rational thinker and my thinking formalized itself a little better when I met Dr. Clack) this frustrated me because it prohibited me from having an outlet to debate, explore and weigh evidence and theories in order to satisfy my own inquisitiveness. My wife is religious, but I must say she is truly my alter ego, because even in religion there are some principles that are irrefutable. I became exposed to logical and rational thinking and this process forced me to raise certain questions because I was searching for logical answers not fairly tales, magic and superstitious concepts. Organized religion is not comfortable with analytical reasoning and I could have accepted the cleric just telling me he just did not have the answer, as opposed to telling me boogie man stories because I dared to question that which did not add up to logic.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[mephibosheth]

You apparently glossed over the fact that logic can't tell us anything about the world that we don't already know. Logic doesn't seek truth, it defines it. Logic is just as comfortable embracing 'falsehoods' as 'truths'. It doesn't 'add up' to anything.

Logic, at best, is a method of sorting information into neat and tidy units. It isn't a creator of new information. It isn't a source of creativity. A myth can be just as logically sound as a scientific paradigm. In the end, both are just narratives attempting to describe experience.

8)

[fahimknight]

You apparently glossed over the fact that logic can't tell us anything about the world that we don't already know. Logic doesn't seek truth, it defines it. Logic is just as comfortable embracing 'falsehoods' as 'truths'. It doesn't 'add up' to anything.

Logic, at best, is a method of sorting information into neat and tidy units. It isn't a creator of new information. It isn't a source of creativity. A myth can be just as logically sound as a scientific paradigm. In the end, both are just narratives attempting to describe experience.

8)

I will take my chances with logic and yes it is neatly rational conclusions (that has been measured and counted) that have much more empirical credibility than the superstitious and magic that you are trying to defend. Logic gives us reasonable and quantitative explanations and faith does not and isn't required to answer and defend empirical conclusions. You are way off base with your analysis; you can not compare religion to logic and they are not the same. You are just trying to raise a defense for organized religion. Look up Faith (religion) and look up logic and come back to me with a clear understanding of these two concepts. You are advocating that mystery God concept. Your response defies logic. You got to come better than that.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[mephibosheth]

Oh good, I was hoping to be entertained.


I will take my chances with logic and yes it is neatly rational conclusions (that has been measured and counted) that have much more empirical credibility than the superstitious and magic that you are trying to defend.


Logic is not an empirical science. It doesn't yield empirical results in and of itself. These are things that must be observed by conscious beings. The experience of conscious beings is the substance and foundation of any and all empirical analysis. Which means that we have to start from a narrative, a story, a relaying of information via communication.

We absolutely rely on narratives to tell us about reality. If no one had ever written about Paris, I wouldn't know that it existed. No amount of logic applied to my experience would 'reveal' the fact of its being a city in France.



Logic gives us reasonable and quantitative explanations and faith does not and isn't required to answer and defend empirical conclusions.


Logic gives us connections between items that we already know and accept. It doesn't actually explain anything. Although we might get an insight into how things work by organising them in fruitful, ordered ways. But then, that insight is not a rational process nor a product of logic alone, but is the function of the faculty of intuition.



You are way off base with your analysis


I get the feeling that you don't really understand what I'm analysing and what I'm not. So far in this thread I haven't defended religion. I only pointed out that myths, narratives, can be useful and truthful as descriptions of reality, and that it is through narratives that we learn about worlds far removed from our experience in a way that reasoning backwards from the present state and appearance of things cannot do for us.



you can not compare religion to logic and they are not the same.


Where did I say they were the same?



You are just trying to raise a defense for organized religion.


Not really. Personally, I'm adverse to 'organised religion' and prefer the more personal path of philosophy. Organised religion is really just politics. I suspect that any argument that 'defends' the human need for a political system will equally apply to a religious system.



Look up Faith (religion) and look up logic and come back to me with a clear understanding of these two concepts.


LOL, maybe take your own advice first?



You are advocating that mystery God concept. Your response defies logic. You got to come better than that.


Ok.

A=A
-(A = -A)

Faith is the axiomatic acceptance of a basic starting point; that is, to have faith in X means that X is accepted in K (the knowledge set), and is not the product of any derivation of the elements in K, that is, it is not something that one can reason out of K by any logical means. All systems have axiomatic starting points. Hence, all systems begin with an uncritical acceptance of some basic concept or formula. Hence, all systems reduce to faith.

Logic organises the elements of K according to logical rules, which are axiomatic. You have to accept that A=A and its not the case that A=-A in order for the system to work. If you reject one of these, you get a different result.

A religion can take on a rigorous logical form, starting with an axiom and building outward. For many people and traditions, the fundamental axiom accepted is 'God' or 'God exists'. Taking that axiom into the empirical world we find how various events, experiences, and so on, are interpreted and yield results consistent with our fundamental axiom (God).

If God is a necessary being, and not a contingent entity (as many religions seem to suggest), then God is, indeed, axiomatic. Or, put another way, God is necessary, and will form a fundamental component of any and all Ks (knowledge sets), right along with A=A.

The problem with religion is that it usually looks for God as a contingent entity, as a being among beings, and not as Being itself, or the Absolute. And when it does that, then the concept is subject to empirical test and must compete against the weight of various other, opposing theories that attempt to explain--through narrative--what reality really is.

OTOH, for many people, when God is the absolute axiomatic starting point, reality begins to finally make sense.

And that is perfectly rational. No boogeymen involved.

8)

[fahimknight]

This is very simple: What was there before organized religion and before these holy books arrived? Religion was mere concoction invented by man and therefore, the so-called perfection story (the creation and man's attempt to explain his reality) and absolute started out flawed. You can not place something as flawed as religion into a mathematical equation. The physics and math will on show that it’s even more flawed because of the root of its intellectual premises, if we can call it that. Science starts out from the premises of being tried and tested in order to ascertain a definitive value; thus, even if those principles are forever evolving; the science keeps on validating. Religion just does not stand up to the scientific method and logic is the anti-thesis to such unproven theories called religion (faith). You have no rational defense for religion and no one else does.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[oiram]

This is very simple: What was there before organized religion and before these holy books arrived?
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-ELEquals ... Nothing for Human brain consumptions ..... all there was then was Nature which is the source of all life.

If no one would ever have told you anything about Religion or any Gods it would mean absolutely nothing to you .....

Humans blind believes in written & spoken words created the biggest enemy of Human kind overall.

Once Humans started to believe in other Humans & lost there believes in them self's all was lost till today!

No? http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/arrowL1.gif Well I say just look at all known history ever written & look all around you this should answers it!


Logical thinking will prevail over blind believes & superstitions.
Mind over matter!

[fahimknight]

Oiram: I am in agreement with you and you know based on what you said you will not get an argument from me. Your statements are irrefutable and truth.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[oiram]

Oiram: I am in agreement with you and you know based on what you said you will not get an argument from me. Your statements are irrefutable and truth.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
I never look for arguments just love to speak my mind; part of Natural freedom I personally embrace.

[fahimknight]

I never look for arguments just love to speak my mind; part of Natural freedom I personally embrace.

Oiram I guess this was one of the things that put me at opposition with religion. I did not take kindly to dogmatic and theological restrictions. My mother told me early on it was unacceptable to raise questions and I should not differ with what was written in the "holy book" and the cleric was an intercessor between me and God. I did not like the fact that I could not speak my mind because of an agreed faith tradition.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Agian,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[mephibosheth]

This is very simple: What was there before organized religion and before these holy books arrived? Religion was mere concoction invented by man and therefore


Pure conjecture. Please demonstrate this with evidence.



the so-called perfection story (the creation and man's attempt to explain his reality) and absolute started out flawed.


Wheres the evidence?



You can not place something as flawed as religion into a mathematical equation.


You don't know what you're talking about, do you?



The physics and math will on show that it’s even more flawed because of the root of its intellectual premises, if we can call it that.


So physics proves that God did not create the universe? So mathematics proves the God does not exist? Where are these demonstrations? Please provide evidence that is tried and tested.



Science starts out from the premises of being tried and tested in order to ascertain a definitive value; thus, even if those principles are forever evolving; the science keeps on validating.


Science begins with logic. Logic begins with intuition. Intuition is non-rational. Ergo, the foundation of science is non-rational.

A 'science' is merely the application of the logic to a domain of discourse (a discipline or subject matter).

I'm not sure what you think natural science has to say about philosophy and metaphysics. We don't know very much about anything, let alone what the ultimate origin of the universe is, why something exists rather than nothing, or what IS reality in the first place. All you got is a number of narratives.

Basically, nothing in empirical science is certain. We only choose to accept a certain level of investigation as provisionally final. Religion may not be an empirical science. It may be an analytical one. In which case it is necessary that some conclusions in religion will be necessary, that is, that religion can have certainty, whereas empirical science cannot ever possibly have it.



Religion just does not stand up to the scientific method and logic is the anti-thesis to such unproven theories called religion (faith). You have no rational defense for religion and no one else does.


Logic, again, is not the anti-thesis of anything. You must be talking about something else here, using the word 'logic' incorrectly. Logic has no inherent subject matter. It is purely formal. It is a purely formal set of relations whose ultimate meanings are entirely arbitrary, that is, synthetic (constructed). Logic doesn't mean anything unless or until we define its basic axioms and symbols and transformation rules. Logic is a tool and only a tool. You can apply it to a domain of discourse, but it must always work within that domain, for that domain provides the substance, the subject matter for the logical method.

Thus, you can't use 'logic' alone to disprove an entire domain, such as religion, if by 'disprove' you mean--which you seem to--contrast is against another domain of discourse that you consider more 'valid'. This is invalid. What you can do, within the domain, is show whether its principles are internally consistent and coherent. Now, doubtless many religions will fail this test, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a religious system to be perfectly consistent and coherent.

But if cosmology says 'the universe is like this' and religion says 'the universe is like this' you can't use logic to judge between the two UNLESS they are understood to have a perfectly common foundation, ie, that they represent conclusions derived from the same set of basic axioms/premises.

If not, they you are only choosing one domain over another, which is not a 'logical' choice at all, but just an exercise in pure volition.

8)

[fahimknight]

Pure conjecture. Please demonstrate this with evidence.




Wheres the evidence?




You don't know what you're talking about, do you?




So physics proves that God did not create the universe? So mathematics proves the God does not exist? Where are these demonstrations? Please provide evidence that is tried and tested.




Science begins with logic. Logic begins with intuition. Intuition is non-rational. Ergo, the foundation of science is non-rational.

A 'science' is merely the application of the logic to a domain of discourse (a discipline or subject matter).

I'm not sure what you think natural science has to say about philosophy and metaphysics. We don't know very much about anything, let alone what the ultimate origin of the universe is, why something exists rather than nothing, or what IS reality in the first place. All you got is a number of narratives.

Basically, nothing in empirical science is certain. We only choose to accept a certain level of investigation as provisionally final. Religion may not be an empirical science. It may be an analytical one. In which case it is necessary that some conclusions in religion will be necessary, that is, that religion can have certainty, whereas empirical science cannot ever possibly have it.




Logic, again, is not the anti-thesis of anything. You must be talking about something else here, using the word 'logic' incorrectly. Logic has no inherent subject matter. It is purely formal. It is a purely formal set of relations whose ultimate meanings are entirely arbitrary, that is, synthetic (constructed). Logic doesn't mean anything unless or until we define its basic axioms and symbols and transformation rules. Logic is a tool and only a tool. You can apply it to a domain of discourse, but it must always work within that domain, for that domain provides the substance, the subject matter for the logical method.

Thus, you can't use 'logic' alone to disprove an entire domain, such as religion, if by 'disprove' you mean--which you seem to--contrast is against another domain of discourse that you consider more 'valid'. This is invalid. What you can do, within the domain, is show whether its principles are internally consistent and coherent. Now, doubtless many religions will fail this test, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a religious system to be perfectly consistent and coherent.

But if cosmology says 'the universe is like this' and religion says 'the universe is like this' you can't use logic to judge between the two UNLESS they are understood to have a perfectly common foundation, ie, that they represent conclusions derived from the same set of basic axioms/premises.

If not, they you are only choosing one domain over another, which is not a 'logical' choice at all, but just an exercise in pure volition.

8)

You have no defense for religion; you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site trying to pose and intellectual argument; the stuff that you are posing; you need to at least give credit and citation to source because I have seen this non-senses somewhere else; I just can not put my finger on it. You know it is illegal and against the law to plagiarize someone's intellectual property and not give the source proper credit. Yes, I have seen this somewhere just can not put my finger on it. My man, it is a nice cut and past job. Logic is independent of all the variables you cited and you can not equate something as emotional as religion and assess and evaluate these unproven theories and come up with an empirical and rational fact (truth). Yes, man and woman functioned and reasoned (determined right and wrong) understood the laws of relativity, understood the universal laws of cause and effect, etc., long before these so-called holy books corrupted and tried to redefine the natural order of things. My thoughts are original and I am not stealing other people's work to make my case (your last two responses was someone else’s work). You can not even talk about science and religion in the same breath (they are diametrically opposed) to each other. Logic and rational thought is not based on some unproven concoctions. You can not prove that mystery god exist. Somebody wrote these contradictory fairy tales and called it "divine" scriptures. They told us it was "inspired word" of God. Really!

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[fahimknight]

Oh good, I was hoping to be entertained.

Logic is not an empirical science. It doesn't yield empirical results in and of itself. These are things that must be observed by conscious beings. The experience of conscious beings is the substance and foundation of any and all empirical analysis. Which means that we have to start from a narrative, a story, a relaying of information via communication.

We absolutely rely on narratives to tell us about reality. If no one had ever written about Paris, I wouldn't know that it existed. No amount of logic applied to my experience would 'reveal' the fact of its being a city in France.


Logic gives us connections between items that we already know and accept. It doesn't actually explain anything. Although we might get an insight into how things work by organising them in fruitful, ordered ways. But then, that insight is not a rational process nor a product of logic alone, but is the function of the faculty of intuition.


I get the feeling that you don't really understand what I'm analysing and what I'm not. So far in this thread I haven't defended religion. I only pointed out that myths, narratives, can be useful and truthful as descriptions of reality, and that it is through narratives that we learn about worlds far removed from our experience in a way that reasoning backwards from the present state and appearance of things cannot do for us.


Where did I say they were the same?


Not really. Personally, I'm adverse to 'organised religion' and prefer the more personal path of philosophy. Organised religion is really just politics. I suspect that any argument that 'defends' the human need for a political system will equally apply to a religious system.


LOL, maybe take your own advice first?


Ok.

A=A
-(A = -A)

Faith is the axiomatic acceptance of a basic starting point; that is, to have faith in X means that X is accepted in K (the knowledge set), and is not the product of any derivation of the elements in K, that is, it is not something that one can reason out of K by any logical means. All systems have axiomatic starting points. Hence, all systems begin with an uncritical acceptance of some basic concept or formula. Hence, all systems reduce to faith.

Logic organises the elements of K according to logical rules, which are axiomatic. You have to accept that A=A and its not the case that A=-A in order for the system to work. If you reject one of these, you get a different result.

A religion can take on a rigorous logical form, starting with an axiom and building outward. For many people and traditions, the fundamental axiom accepted is 'God' or 'God exists'. Taking that axiom into the empirical world we find how various events, experiences, and so on, are interpreted and yield results consistent with our fundamental axiom (God).

If God is a necessary being, and not a contingent entity (as many religions seem to suggest), then God is, indeed, axiomatic. Or, put another way, God is necessary, and will form a fundamental component of any and all Ks (knowledge sets), right along with A=A.

The problem with religion is that it usually looks for God as a contingent entity, as a being among beings, and not as Being itself, or the Absolute. And when it does that, then the concept is subject to empirical test and must compete against the weight of various other, opposing theories that attempt to explain--through narrative--what reality really is.

OTOH, for many people, when God is the absolute axiomatic starting point, reality begins to finally make sense.

And that is perfectly rational. No boogeymen involved.

8)

For example, all of this is plagiarized right out some text book; I have been around academia for along time to know plagiarizing when I hear it and when I see it. Thus, I have taken on the best intellectual minds and Logic and Rational thinking always win out. Religion is based on an emotional social science and it does not stand up under the rigors of intellectual and empirical proof. You are just trying to hold on to your silly faith tradition and give the others some hope. Who wrote the bible? Please do not tell me God wrote it. Oh! I know Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. Perhaps they were God. Stop it with this foolishness.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[mephibosheth]

Fahimknight, I notice that you don't even make the faintest attempt to challenge any of the actual points I make in my posts. Instead you go on repeating your own opinions, which is fine. Not constructive, but natural enough. I do it often enough myself.

Unfortunately, it's clear to me that you have no idea what logic is or how it works, otherwise you might be more careful when throwing the term around so casually, especially when there are philosophers about.

---


You have no defense for religion; you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site trying to pose and intellectual argument


Wheres the evidence? Please demonstrate that this is anything BUT a baseless conjecture.



the stuff that you are posing; you need to at least give credit and citation to source because I have seen this non-senses somewhere else; I just can not put my finger on it. You know it is illegal and against the law to plagiarize someone's intellectual property and not give the source proper credit.


And is it also illegal to slander people.



Yes, I have seen this somewhere just can not put my finger on it. My man, it is a nice cut and past job.


This proves that you have no idea what I'm talking about, or what you're talking about. You are the one posing as an intellectual here, but there's no substance behind your words.

Nothing from any of my posts here has been 'cut and pasted'. Everything I wrote was off the top of my head, from the tips of my fingers. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

My influences in philosophy are broad, but its been years since I earnestly studied it. Although that in no way invalidates the content of my posts.




Logic is independent of all the variables you cited and you can not equate something as emotional as religion and assess and evaluate these unproven theories and come up with an empirical and rational fact (truth).


Truth is a semantic relation, friend. It is entirely relative to context. The empirical world must first be interpreted before it can be communicated via symbols (representing concepts). Words don't really convey 'facts'; only a direct and immediate apprehension of the phenomenal manifold gives access to the facticity of being, such as it is.



Yes, man and woman functioned and reasoned (determined right and wrong) understood the laws of relativity, understood the universal laws of cause and effect, etc., long before these so-called holy books corrupted and tried to redefine the natural order of things.


More conjecture. Where's the evidence that this is 'true'? Please demonstrate.



My thoughts are original and I am not stealing other people's work to make my case (your last two responses was someone else’s work).


Please provide evidence that this is the case. I guarantee you are mistaken, which only makes you look foolish.



You can not even talk about science and religion in the same breath (they are diametrically opposed) to each other.


You repeating this line again and again doesn't make it a 'fact' or a 'truth'.

I can conceive of a way that a religious system can be a coherent rational system, which puts it on par with other domains of discourse. Its a simplification to say that they are 'diametrically opposed', especially when we consider that they aim at the same thing--understanding and describing reality. The real difference is the starting premises and axioms uncritically accepted. Religion, often, starts from a different place than empirical science. But empirical science itself is based on logic, which is NOT an empirical science.



Logic and rational thought is not based on some unproven concoctions. You can not prove that mystery god exist. Somebody wrote these contradictory fairy tales and called it "divine" scriptures. They told us it was "inspired word" of God. Really!


Well, that's your OPINION. Obviously, you can't prove that this is a 'fact' or a 'truth' so all you can do is try to convince us that your OPINION is attractive, hence, that we ought to share it. I think its possible that some religious texts are inspired by real mystical experiences. That, like poetry, religion trys to express the unexpressable, and, like science, it attempts to order the world of perceptions into a coherent picture.




For example, all of this is plagiarized right out some text book


Sure it is. :rolleyes: I think you are confusing 'plagarism' with the expression of someone who actually LEARNED something from a text book or two and is able to express their own ideas in their own words. Nothing you've said is 'new', so I guess you're just plagarising everything you write.



I have been around academia for along time to know plagiarizing when I hear it and when I see it.


Really. I suggest you go back to 'academia' and hang around there for a while's while longer. Your vision is pretty poor.



Thus, I have taken on the best intellectual minds and Logic and Rational thinking always win out.


Bragging now eh. OK, I'm beginning to understand your game. You're not a mature intellectal looking for honest debate and discussion. You're an immature demagogue. Dr. Clark would be soo disappointed!! Me, I actually spoke to my professors and challenged them on ideas, and wasn't afraid that they could 'see right through me'. LOL.



Religion is based on an emotional social science


So now religion is a form of social science? Ok, well that's something.



...and it does not stand up under the rigors of intellectual and empirical proof.


Somehow, I don't think you have the foggiest idea about what religion does and does not try to 'prove'. Anyway, I never said that a religious system was an empirical system, or that religious ideas were empirically valid, in general.



You are just trying to hold on to your silly faith tradition and give the others some hope. Who wrote the bible? Please do not tell me God wrote it. Oh! I know Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. Perhaps they were God. Stop it with this foolishness.


The bible was written by lots of different folk. But there's still lots of question about its validity as a historical document.


Now the Quraan, OTOH, there's a book that simply had to be written by God.

:D

[mephibosheth]

For example, all of this is plagiarized right out some text book

Appologies if my writing is too technical for you to easily understand! :D I'll try to dumb it down a bit for you in the future.

:D

[mephibosheth]

For example, all of this is plagiarized right out some text book

OTOH, I guess I could take this as a kind of compliment. Maybe I should be writing text books! After all, thats where all the real big money is in academia. Reprints, reprints, reprints.

8)

[fahimknight]

Fahimknight, I notice that you don't even make the faintest attempt to challenge any of the actual points I make in my posts. Instead you go on repeating your own opinions, which is fine. Not constructive, but natural enough. I do it often enough myself.

There is nothing you have given that deserves to be challenged. Your defense for religion is emotional, but you make a good attempt to disguise this magic and superstitious snake oil practice in intellectual terms. Religion has very little empirical properties and logic moves us away from thought processes that can not be validated. Please produce that mystery God and give us some defensiveness that he exist; other than in your illogical imagination. This one of the greatest con games they have played on humanity. Philosophy allows us to think outside the box. Tell me more about this mystery God that does not exist

Mephibosheth stated" "Unfortunately, it's clear to me that you have no idea what logic is or how it works, otherwise you might be more careful when throwing the term around so casually, especially when there are philosophers about".

Really!

Mephibosheth stated: "Wheres the evidence? Please demonstrate that this is anything BUT a baseless conjecture".

Science and Rational thinking do not believe in nor accept conjecture, we prefer what can be counted and measured. Now! Religion is full of conjecture (along with unscientific theories that stands outside the realm of logic). Perhaps you a have rational equation for what translate as faith and belief. (I got a grandmother would called it the unexplainable) lol.

Mephibosheth stated "And is it also illegal to slander people".

Thus, perhaps I should have said it is unethical to use or paraphrase someone else work and not give them a citation. You pulled a lot of things that I have seen in the past and you are parroting other's work

Mephibosheth stated: "This proves that you have no idea what I'm talking about, or what you're talking about. You are the one posing as an intellectual here, but there's no substance behind your words."

This is a relative comment; coming from a person who practice magic. Why are you debating a person with no substance; thus, irrational statement and self fulfilling motive?

Mephibosheth stated: "Nothing from any of my posts here has been 'cut and pasted'. Everything I wrote was off the top of my head, from the tips of my fingers. I challenge you to prove otherwise".

Really! I am not convinced; not that I am doubting your ability to think, but your argument has been repeated by many and the wording sounds often familiar

Mephibosheth: "My influences in philosophy are broad, but its been years since I earnestly studied it. Although that in no way invalidates the content of my posts."

Philosophers are rational thinkers who uses logic (correlated) as an external variable to produce an empirical fact; you are much to emotional and to caught up in theories that can not stand-up to the scientific method of being tried and tested; yielding a rational and logical conclusion

Mephibosheth stated: "Truth is a semantic relation, friend. It is entirely relative to context. The empirical world must first be interpreted before it can be communicated via symbols (representing concepts). Words don't really convey 'facts'; only a direct and immediate apprehension of the phenomenal manifold gives access to the facticity of being, such as it is."

No, truth has been ascertained by the rigors of being proven based on being tested and giving proof to verify and it leaves little to no doubt that this hypotheses is reliable enough to determine it as a fact (can be counted and measured).

Mephibosheth stated: "More conjecture. Where's the evidence that this is 'true'? Please demonstrate".

I have provided you with a rational and logical assessment. You have no defense for religion. When are you going to produce that mystery God?

Mephibosheth stated: "Please provide evidence that this is the case. I guarantee you are mistaken, which only makes you look foolish."

This is an insult statement will not dignify

Mephibosheth stated: "You repeating this line again and again doesn't make it a 'fact' or a 'truth'".

Redounded teaching is a good method to get a student like yourself to retain the lesson.

Mephibosheth stated: "I can conceive of a way that a religious system can be a coherent rational system, which puts it on par with other domains of discourse. Its a simplification to say that they are 'diametrically opposed', especially when we consider that they aim at the same thing--understanding and describing reality. The real difference is the starting premises and axioms uncritically accepted. Religion, often, starts from a different place than empirical science. But empirical science itself is based on logic, which is NOT an empirical science."

You are way off base, rational system through empirical process reaches the highest level of reliability and works to put forth tried and tested evidences that verify the highest possibility of an outcome. Religion is steeped in faith and determines its worldview to be rooted outside of rational and empirical findings and is not required to be even close to a fact base analysis

Mephibosheth stated: "Well, that's your OPINION. Obviously, you can't prove that this is a 'fact' or a 'truth' so all you can do is try to convince us that your OPINION is attractive, hence, that we ought to share it. I think its possible that some religious texts are inspired by real mystical experiences. That, like poetry, religion trys to express the unexpressable, and, like science, it attempts to order the world of perceptions into a coherent picture."

Rational and logic thinkers do no deal in "opinions" we prefer facts and empirical out comes. You see you are confusing the language and the two theories. Religion works in the realm of "opinion" and does not have to be based in a fact reality.

Mephibosheth stated: "Sure it is. :rolleyes: I think you are confusing 'plagarism' with the expression of someone who actually LEARNED something from a text book or two and is able to express their own ideas in their own words. Nothing you've said is 'new', so I guess you're just plagarising everything you write."

Please give us your source and even if you are paraphrasing. I will not snitch you out (lol).

Mephibosheth stated: "Really. I suggest you go back to 'academia' and hang around there for a while's while longer. Your vision is pretty poor."

No, academia prepared me to think outside the box. I have acquired all that I need from classroom academics. My vision is not tied to emotional and flawed theories.

Mephibosheth stated: "Bragging now eh. OK, I'm beginning to understand your game. You're not a mature intellectal looking for honest debate and discussion. You're an immature demagogue. Dr. Clark would be soo disappointed!! Me, I actually spoke to my professors and challenged them on ideas, and wasn't afraid that they could 'see right through me'. LOL."

No, not bragging just confident. To brag is a form of arrogance, but to be confident is a form of being self-assured; you can not compare the two.

Mephibosheth stated: "So now religion is a form of social science? Ok, well that's something."

Better yet it is confused Magic.

Mephibosheth stated: "Somehow, I don't think you have the foggiest idea about what religion does and does not try to 'prove'. Anyway, I never said that a religious system was an empirical system, or that religious ideas were empirically valid, in general."

I know what religion does; just look around you--past, present and future. It has devastated humanity politically, socially, and economically. They used it as an imperialistic tool to enslave, steal and corrupt. I do not want the God that religion proclaims. Magic, Magic, Magic, Magic!!!!!!! Oh. Lets not forget lies and deceptions.

Mephibosheth stated: "The bible was written by lots of different folk. But there's still lots of question about its validity as a historical document".

Who King James and Shakespeare. I guess they were divinely inspired. Please!

Mephibosheth stated: "Now the Quraan, OTOH, there's a book that simply had to be written by God."

You tell me.

:D

This is exciting. I love deconstructing this religious foolishness because it is all emotional garbage ready to be disposed of.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[mephibosheth]

This is exciting. I love deconstructing this religious foolishness because it is all emotional garbage ready to be disposed of.


Surely, the words of an enlightened and wholly rational mind. :rolleyes:



logic moves us away from thought processes that can not be validated.


...by logic. You realize, of course, that this is hopelessly circular, and by necessity.



Please produce that mystery God and give us some defensiveness that he exist; other than in your illogical imagination. This one of the greatest con games they have played on humanity. Philosophy allows us to think outside the box. Tell me more about this mystery God that does not exist


If such a God exists, it must be experiencable. If God can't be experienced, then God isn't real.

I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you. But I could lead you down the path to where one might attain such an experience. Basically, its the same path all the mystics take.

The greatest message from religion is one of self-empowerment. Jesus teaches this, Buddha teaches this, in their own way. That is, they encourage individuals to seek the truth and see reality as it really is, fully and clearly. And this is to see reality beyond words and symbols, concepts, and dualities. But this is difficult for someone to understand if they are stuck clinging to duality and polarity, stuck clinging to the construct of self and the narrative web of meaning built up by language, which does naught but separate us from the immediate and immanent facticity of our being.



Really!


Yes, really.



Mephibosheth stated: "Wheres the evidence? Please demonstrate that this is anything BUT a baseless conjecture".

Science and Rational thinking do not believe in nor accept conjecture, we prefer what can be counted and measured. Now! Religion is full of conjecture (along with unscientific theories that stands outside the realm of logic). Perhaps you a have rational equation for what translate as faith and belief. (I got a grandmother would called it the unexplainable) lol.


You said, and I quote "you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site". I asked, 'where's the evidence'? I want to know what's your evidence that I am 'pulling from wikipedia or some other spam site'? Now, for such a highly rational mind such as yours, this should pose no problem whatsoever, right?

Besides which, your statement above is laughable. If there was no conjecture in science, no one would get anything done.

Meanwhile, your statement that religion is filled with "unscientific theories that stands outside the realm of logic" is utterly nonsensical. Again, this just goes to show that you don't know what logic is, or that you are using the term incorrectly. A religious system, as a system of values, as a system of politics, as a system of metaphysics, can be perfectly logical so long as it is internally coherent and consistent.



Thus, perhaps I should have said it is unethical to use or paraphrase someone else work and not give them a citation. You pulled a lot of things that I have seen in the past and you are parroting other's work


Again, where's the evidence that this is true?

This may surprise and shock you, my friend, but I didn't crack a single book nor surf a single website to post replies to this thread. As I said, nothing I wrote here is 'cut and pasted', despite whatever delusions you have about it.



This is a relative comment; coming from a person who practice magic. Why are you debating a person with no substance; thus, irrational statement and self fulfilling motive?


Why indeed. Amusement only, I reckon. I merely waded in to make some remarks trying to set folk straight on what logic is and what it isnt--which is clearly necessary given some responses in this thread. Who says I practice 'magic'? Lol, what a comedian!!



Really! I am not convinced; not that I am doubting your ability to think, but your argument has been repeated by many and the wording sounds often familiar


I can say the same about your posts.

Since you can't provide any evidence that my writing is plagarized, I'll kindly thank you to stop slandering my good name.



Philosophers are rational thinkers who uses logic (correlated) as an external variable to produce an empirical fact; you are much to emotional and to caught up in theories that can not stand-up to the scientific method of being tried and tested; yielding a rational and logical conclusion


And you, meanwhile, are consistenly conflating logic and the empirical method. A science is any application of logic to a domain of discourse. That is, logic, as a tool of organising information, is applied to a field of study in order to organise the information known therein, and try to sort out the relations in a way that allow for a more effective and efficient analysis--and I stress analysis--of that information.

A science is first of all a logical discpline. An empirical science is a logical displine bounded by specific constraints, eg, that all the results of analysis must conform to some interpretation of empirical facts (which are, ultimately, only narratives dictated by some semiotic agent). This further constraint is what allows a science to move from being merely analytical to being interpretative, predictive, and connected to (what we suppose is) a common standard (ie, 'the world'). It allows science to become practical, and not merely formal. But both the formal and practical are still necessary components.

I don't think any sane person could read my posts and reasonably accuse me of being too 'emotional', LOL. But it takes all kinds.



Mephibosheth stated: "Truth is a semantic relation, friend. It is entirely relative to context. The empirical world must first be interpreted before it can be communicated via symbols (representing concepts). Words don't really convey 'facts'; only a direct and immediate apprehension of the phenomenal manifold gives access to the facticity of being, such as it is."

No, truth has been ascertained by the rigors of being proven based on being tested and giving proof to verify and it leaves little to no doubt that this hypotheses is reliable enough to determine it as a fact (can be counted and measured).


Rational thinkers produce run-on sentences. Must be 'thinking outside the box' eh?

Why don't you go and ask a scientist if anything--ever--has been 'proven', ie, certain, or whether the results of empirical investigation only yield a measure of probability. And here we come back to my first comment regarding Hume and causality. The scientific results you're talking about are a house of cards, waiting to be overturned by some future super-genius with a better idea.



I have provided you with a rational and logical assessment. You have no defense for religion. When are you going to produce that mystery God?


When have I claimed a mystery God?

Some let me get this straight. You're content to provide merely 'logical assessment' on the validity of religion, but insist that religion itself be empirically testable? You've got nothing but speculation. I'd love for you to prove this, empirically:

"man and woman functioned and reasoned (determined right and wrong) understood the laws of relativity, understood the universal laws of cause and effect, etc., long before these so-called holy books corrupted and tried to redefine the natural order of things."



Mephibosheth stated: "Please provide evidence that this is the case. I guarantee you are mistaken, which only makes you look foolish."

This is an insult statement will not dignify


No, its a request, which only goes to show your poor comprehension skills. You said, and I quote: "your last two responses was someone else’s work", and I said "Please provide evidence that this is the case." I'm waiting.



You are way off base, rational system through empirical process reaches the highest level of reliability and works to put forth tried and tested evidences that verify the highest possibility of an outcome. Religion is steeped in faith and determines its worldview to be rooted outside of rational and empirical findings and is not required to be even close to a fact base analysis


This is not true of all religion nor all religious thinking. Most religions are based on human experience, just as any scientific observation is. The difference is in how that experience is interpreted. And that depends on the worldview or paradigm one adopts to do the interpreting. Reality itself doesn't hand us 'the correct' paradigm. You ought to remember that we are just making it up as we go along, and fitting things together the best we can, because that's all we can do.

Meanwhile, you fail to recognize the fact that logic is not empirical, and hence, that all your empirical sciences are grounded in something that is non-empirical.



Rational and logic thinkers do no deal in "opinions" we prefer facts and empirical out comes. You see you are confusing the language and the two theories. Religion works in the realm of "opinion" and does not have to be based in a fact reality.


Sort of like how you work in the realm of opinion, telling me that my writing is plagarism.

LOL, what do you think, that scientists are some kind of robots or Vulcans? How ludicrous. We're all human beings, and we all construct opinions, and these lead us from one bit of narrative to the next. If scientists never had an opinion, very little innovation would ever happen.



Please give us your source and even if you are paraphrasing. I will not snitch you out (lol).


Well here's a few sources off the top of my head: Kant, Leibniz, Locke, Hegel, Hume, Berkeley, Cassirer, Hartman, Frege, Sartre, Husserl, Haack, Aristotle, Gardernfors, Priest, Suzuki, Buddha, Chinese ch'an masters (zen stories), and a couple of university degrees.



No, not bragging just confident. To brag is a form of arrogance, but to be confident is a form of being self-assured; you can not compare the two.


You said. and I quote: "I have taken on the best intellectual minds and Logic and Rational thinking always win out." Which seems to imply that the either the 'best intellectual minds' are irrational, or that you, in particular, possess highly superior rationality to defeat the best intellectual minds. Surely, it's not hard to see how this might be construed as a form of bragging.



Mephibosheth stated: "Somehow, I don't think you have the foggiest idea about what religion does and does not try to 'prove'. Anyway, I never said that a religious system was an empirical system, or that religious ideas were empirically valid, in general."

I know what religion does; just look around you--past, present and future. It has devastated humanity politically, socially, and economically. They used it as an imperialistic tool to enslave, steal and corrupt. I do not want the God that religion proclaims. Magic, Magic, Magic, Magic!!!!!!! Oh. Lets not forget lies and deceptions.


Well, I personally am 'against' 'organised religion' if by that we mean a form of politics that enforces a value-paradigm on people. But I don't think it's useful to take a simplistic view of religion either. Religion is multifaceted. It's a politics, it's a metaphysics, it's an ethics. It has many dimensions. Indeed, Islam is instructive here, as it prescribes an entire lifestyle down to the smallest detail. Let's not forget the fact that religion in one form or another has permeated human reality since before the dawn of time. There is no point in known history that you can point to and say 'human beings weren't religious'.

Meanwhile, what have secular systems gotten us? Communism, nihilism, atomic bombs, sexual degradation, moral corruption. So take a good hard look at the fruits of human nature, expressed in both the spiritual and secular domains. There's more of an argument for humans to reject science and technology because of the dangers it haphazardly throws upon the world than for humans to reject religion and spirituality that try to formulate a moral imperative to improve the quality of human life.



Who King James and Shakespeare. I guess they were divinely inspired. Please!


Come come now, you know that Shakespeare was a front for Francis Bacon.



Mephibosheth stated: "Now the Quraan, OTOH, there's a book that simply had to be written by God."

You tell me.


No, its better if you hear it from the actual Muslims on this forum. Go have a peruse of the 'Islam--Ask you Questions' (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55357) thread.

8)

[miracles]

5 thousand words and nothing said. I smell Ph.D. My goldfish knows more.

What idiot would entertain the thought, "Did God create man or did man create God?"? For more than a few seconds anyway?

Nice one - I read the first sentence and knew it was hogwash.

[stfd]

Christianity Buddhism Hinduism.. -- thousands of years ago someone threw a rock in the water and now one of those ripples in called Buddhism and another is called Christianity. That original rock that was thrown into the water was just an idea of living a peace in the world. No teacher ever lived that promised a place in heaven for you or asked you to worship him.. That has been a perversion of the original teachings of humanism and living a peace with people.

Religion has nothing to teach anybody. Those ideas are all man made in order to control you and take you money. (Wow -- this is easy. I could rant like this all day. Who cares if its the truth or not. I will just dismiss any arguement on the basis that it makes no sense to see things in any other way)

Nice sarcasm :D
And youre right if i keep repeating the same rant crap those individuals keep doing ( repeaters) i might actually start believing it.

You probably know this, no matter how much sense you make, no matter which way you put it, whether you are logical whether you use common sense ... those things won't suffice. Never will for those individuals.
Why? because they hate those things you or i or someone else might dare to say, because they despise that for which we dare to stand for.
They aren't 'truth seekers' nor 'on a quest for knowledge' i'd say they are shit disturbers at most.

Any of those threads is easily taken to crap as many resort to derogatory comments once their arguments no longer have any possible basis or once a proper answer is communicated.

I've started responding to some of those posts with a 'lol' or a smiley face or something, pointless to properly give a good response.

So yea gl to you, and gl to us all.

[miracles]

Christianity Buddhism Hinduism.. -- thousands of years ago someone threw a rock in the water and now one of those ripples in called Buddhism and another is called Christianity. That original rock that was thrown into the water was just an idea of living a peace in the world. No teacher ever lived that promised a place in heaven for you or asked you to worship him.. That has been a perversion of the original teachings of humanism and living a peace with people.

Religion has nothing to teach anybody. Those ideas are all man made in order to control you and take you money. (Wow -- this is easy. I could rant like this all day. Who cares if its the truth or not. I will just dismiss any arguement on the basis that it makes no sense to see things in any other way)

What you just said is a lie.

Futher more Humanists are godless who claim to be gods - another lie. Have you heard of humanistic budihsm? Its alive and well in their temples.

[miracles]

I'm starting to see that even by repeating this stuff (above),, that I'm actually starting to brainwash myself into believing what I am saying! There is no religion.... Jesus is just the replacement of the old Sun God rituals!!... Actually the Bible Texts were not written by any apostles but by men in suit and tie who needed money to ..... (now i'm falling into a lonely desert place with no soul, no spirit).

I've almost lost my soul. I'll go on.--- 5,000 years ago the annunaki wanted slaves so they devised a worship system. To people they were the Gods and represented the One god. So all people bowed to them and it continues to this very day but is in different style. Today the annunaki are hidden and cloaked,, but the worshipping and slavery is still going on. WE give all our energy and money to the Pope or the Highest Priest who in turn gives it to someone else -- all under control of the Annunaki.


Thank you John Lennon.

[mephibosheth]

What you just said is a lie.


What part of dedicate's post is a lie?


Christianity Buddhism Hinduism.. -- thousands of years ago someone threw a rock in the water and now one of those ripples in called Buddhism and another is called Christianity.


A metaphor. Metaphors can't be 'false', hence this can't be a lie.



That original rock that was thrown into the water was just an idea of living a peace in the world.


A summation of the essential import of religion. COuld be based on a complete and thorough review of the teachings of many religions, or it could be another opinion based on provisional understanding of some religions.

We could, however, determine whether or not the statement has any truth-value, by looking at religions and asking the question "does this promote the idea of living in peace in the world"?



No teacher ever lived that promised a place in heaven for you or asked you to worship him.


Conjecture. Since heaven (as a 'place') is neither proved nor disproved, it's difficult to say one way or another if any teacher lives there.

So the question is, have any teachers in the past asked their followers to worship them?

The answer is definitely yes. But these teachers are the ones usually branded as heretics and lunatics. And we see right through their deception.



That has been a perversion of the original teachings of humanism and living a peace with people.

Opinion based on the preceeding comments. Since it's difficult to establish what the 'original teachings' were, if any, if different from the received teachings, it's difficult to state one way or the other that they have been perverted. Thus, this comes in as a belief, which in itself is neither true nor false, but rather, accepted or not-accepted. In dedicate's case, it is accepted that there were original teachings and that these have been perverted. He may or may not be correct. I'd say it's tough to find reliable evidence of this, but everyone has their theories.



Religion has nothing to teach anybody.


Opinion. And one many of us disagree with. Not a lie though. It can be a valid POV, because it dismisses the value of the import of religious teachings, which is valid (not in a strict logical sense though) for someone who doesn't share their principle axioms.



Those ideas are all man made in order to control you and take you money.


Another opinion. This one seems to have some backing to it, given the history of organized religion and its corruptions.



Futher more Humanists are godless who claim to be gods - another lie. Have you heard of humanistic budihsm? Its alive and well in their temples.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here about 'budihsm'. Maybe you can clarify?

[fahimknight]

Surely, the words of an enlightened and wholly rational mind. :rolleyes:




Mephibosheth stated:...by logic. You realize, of course, that this is hopelessly circular, and by necessity.

No. my man, rational thinking gives way to logical outcomes that are not hopeless; it connects the dots and gives us a reasonable probability and it is not based in unproven spook and mystery God teachings. Question: That you are avoiding, when are you going to produce that mystery God? Yes. I know it's "faith" and this is a reality that is personal? I deal in reality that can be counted and measured. Is this God physical or is it spirit being. Please give us the evidence. I am interested in verifying his/her existence; is it animated or inanimate object?

Mephibosheth stated:If such a God exists, it must be experiencable. If God can't be experienced, then God isn't real.

Now! this is a good example, of spook teaching. What is the experience you are pertaining to? How do you know that experience is related to "God" but through deductive reason this relegates it-self down to faith (unproven inferences). This is magic at is best.

Mephibosheth stated:"I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you. But I could lead you down the path to where one might attain such an experience. Basically, its the same path all the mystics take."

This is one of the best rational points that you have made: "I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you." I do accept this as a truth, but you can not lead me to no path where someone could produce that mystery God and verify his existence (this thought or theory only takes us back to "faith" the evidence of things unseen). I put no reliable credence in such non-rational and antagonistic theory." Do you know anyone that can provide via observation a testimony (primary source). I do not mean no damn so-called "Holy" book account of this mystery God?

Mephibosheth stated: "The greatest message from religion is one of self-empowerment. Jesus teaches this, Buddha teaches this, in their own way. That is, they encourage individuals to seek the truth and see reality as it really is, fully and clearly. And this is to see reality beyond words and symbols, concepts, and dualities. But this is difficult for someone to understand if they are stuck clinging to duality and polarity, stuck clinging to the construct of self and the narrative web of meaning built up by language, which does naught but separate us from the immediate and immanent facticity of our being."

Please produce the evidence that the man called Jesus and other Sages ever walk this earth. I got it; you going to refer me to the Bible, a book that was written years after the so-called man (Jesus) was dead. I contend the man never existed. They gave us 66 books (to control the ignorant) and took out those books that truly would have empowered humanity. Why would these "divinely" inspired men do this?


Mephibosheth stated:"Yes, really."

you said, and I quote "you are only perhaps pulling from Wikipedia or some other spam site". I asked, 'where's the evidence'? I want to know what's your evidence that I am 'pulling from wikipedia or some other spam site'? Now, for such a highly rational mind such as yours, this should pose no problem whatsoever, right?

I accept your clarity and your point is valid.

Mephibosheth stated: "Besides which, your statement above is laughable. If there was no conjecture in science, no one would get anything done."

Science is in the business of testing out; and conjecture is taking through the rigor process of ascertaining what is a highly probability (empirical processes). It seeks empirical conclusions and it has an openness to embrace better science, as we improve on theories and validates new tried and tested data.

"Mephibosheth stated: "Meanwhile, your statement that religion is filled with "unscientific theories that stands outside the realm of logic" is utterly nonsensical. Again, this just goes to show that you don't know what logic is, or that you are using the term incorrectly. A religious system, as a system of values, as a system of politics, as a system of metaphysics, can be perfectly logical so long as it is internally coherent and consistent."

Religion: Give me a rational formula that we can measure this theory; so we perhaps can come up with a logical base conclusion. Do not give me X=bible + N=God x R=Truth. This is pure nonsenses and I believe deep down inside you know that I am right. You have given me enough (in your argument) to know that you have many questions about this snake oil practice. I think you are in this discussion for the mental exercise and nothing else."

Mephibosheth stated: "Again, where's the evidence that this is true?"

The evidence is this: There is no Mystery God, he does not exist or unless you can prove me wrong.

Mephibosheth stated: "This may surprise and shock you, my friend, but I didn't crack a single book nor surf a single website to post replies to this thread. As I said, nothing I wrote here is 'cut and pasted', despite whatever delusions you have about it."

You have stated this earlier; I am just not convinced; no I am not working from a position of being delusionary. I do not know if you are using that as a noun, verb or adjective (I did fail English in school; for me it is the slave master’s language). Religion makes people mentally unstable and delusionary perhaps you were a bit confused about the characterization relative to practicing and pursuing rational out comes.

Mephibosheth stated: "Why indeed. Amusement only, I reckon. I merely waded in to make some remarks trying to set folk straight on what logic is and what it isnt--which is clearly necessary given some responses in this thread. Who says I practice 'magic'? Lol, what a comedian!!"

Sorry! You are doing a poor job and you have left the religious sheep without a rational and logical defense. Mr. religious Savior; your arguments have lacked clarity and no magic believer can talk to me about the definitions of logic and rationality. Religion is irrational.

Mephibosheth stated: "I can say the same about your posts."

Really! You can say that, but what I am talking about has processes that can be counted and measured. Not "SPOOKISM".

Mephibosheth stated: "Since you can't provide any evidence that my writing is plagarized, I'll kindly thank you to stop slandering my good name."

I would like to respect your good name. I accept your clarity and position. I agree it is not ethical to slander a person, but I must say in my defense that was not my intention. But I accept how you feel about me making those statements.


Mephibosheth stated: "And you, meanwhile, are consistenly conflating logic and the empirical method. A science is any application of logic to a domain of discourse. That is, logic, as a tool of organising information, is applied to a field of study in order to organise the information known therein, and try to sort out the relations in a way that allow for a more effective and efficient analysis--and I stress analysis--of that information."

How is this relative to religion? and can we use this process to derive at certain conclusions and can we discount certain theories based on the availablity of the evidence or the lack of?

Mephibosheth stated:A science is first of all a logical discpline (sp.) An empirical science is a logical displine bounded by specific constraints, eg, that all the results of analysis must conform to some interpretation of empirical facts (which are, ultimately, only narratives dictated by some semiotic agent). This further constraint is what allows a science to move from being merely analytical to being interpretative, predictive, and connected to (what we suppose is) a common standard (ie, 'the world'). It allows science to become practical, and not merely formal. But both the formal and practical are still necessary components.

No, doubt I will take my chances with "semiotic agent" over some cleric and using a so-called "holy" book trying to validate the story of creation from the book of Genesis. Science and rational theories gives us a lot more definitiveness about our earth and universe and man’s creation; than some contradictory fairy tale written in what the Honorable Elijah Muhammad called the poison book ("Holy" Bible).

Mephibosheth stated:"I don't think any sane person could read my posts and reasonably accuse me of being too 'emotional', LOL. But it takes all kinds."

To make any defense on behalf of religion has to be emotional. Thus, even you stated:I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you. This is a truth and the basis of my contentions and if you are still arguing. Yes. Sir at that point it is an emotional argument that you are making and it is outside of what is rational. Or unless at this point it is EGO.

Mephibosheth stated: "Rational thinkers produce run-on sentences. Must be 'thinking outside the box' eh?"

Now! When one speaks three and four different languages and English might not be their first language. You need to be careful about making such an arrogant statement; this is an atypical Eurocentric perspective. No, just browse through your post (meaning this one and count the mis-spelled words you have made). Thus, ordinarily when a blogger began to make those types of statements they have nothing else to say. We are debating theories not language grammar. I am not trying to impress you in subject—verb agreement. But I do have a command of the English language when I choose. Now! Personally I do not think your misspelled words and poor sentence structures reflect your intelligence and I know if we both were engaged in a more formalized writing exercise those errors would be corrected. Lets not go there

Mephibosheth stated:"Why don't you go and ask a scientist if anything--ever--has been 'proven', ie, certain, or whether the results of empirical investigation only yield a measure of probability. And here we come back to my first comment regarding Hume and causality. The scientific results you're talking about are a house of cards, waiting to be overturned by some future super-genius with a better idea."

You are repeating the same argument. Will not dignify any more.

Mephibosheth stated: "When have I claimed a mystery God?"

So are you in agreement with me, that the mystery God does not exist? Let me hear it from you straight and plain and at least we might get over that hurdle and do not have keep revisiting that point.

Mephibosheth stated: "Some let me get this straight. You're content to provide merely 'logical assessment' on the validity of religion, but insist that religion itself be empirically testable? You've got nothing but speculation. I'd love for you to prove this, empirically:"

Simple are you saying that the holy books are divinely inspired (or did ordinary men write these books). Thus, the writers of Bible had no connection to God and there is not one shred of rational evidence to say that they did. If religion is partially validated based on theological books (interpretation) and we no right off the back this is flawed reasoning (I can not call that reasoning). This disproves it-self; I do not have to spend time on trying to disprove something that is outside the realm of a rational explanation. You admited that "I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you" I am completely satisfied with your response. Nothing else need to added.

"man and woman functioned and reasoned (determined right and wrong) understood the laws of relativity, understood the universal laws of cause and effect, etc., long before these so-called holy books corrupted and tried to redefine the natural order of things."

I stand by that point.

Mephibosheth stated: "No, its a request, which only goes to show your poor comprehension skills. You said, and I quote: "your last two responses was someone else’s work", and I said "Please provide evidence that this is the case." I'm waiting."

Please go up a few paragraphs above; I answered the allegation and gave you the consideration that you were requesting.

Mephibosheth stated: "This is not true of all religion nor all religious thinking. Most religions are based on human experience, just as any scientific observation is. The difference is in how that experience is interpreted. And that depends on the worldview or paradigm one adopts to do the interpreting. Reality itself doesn't hand us 'the correct' paradigm. You ought to remember that we are just making it up as we go along, and fitting things together the best we can, because that's all we can do."

Really! Most people I know gather those experiences from religious fairy tales called scripture and from clerics. Please explain to us what is a relgious experience and how does that differs from a super natural experience? Bit courious. Sir. your above remarks is a perfect example of an emotional outlook and worldview.

Mephibosheth stated: "Meanwhile, you fail to recognize the fact that logic is not empirical, and hence, that all your empirical sciences are grounded in something that is non-empirical."

The results of logic is empirical (can be counted and measured) and that is good enough for me and millions of others.

Mephibosheth stated: "Sort of like how you work in the realm of opinion, telling me that my writing is plagarism."

We have clarified that point. No need to revisit.

Mephibosheth stated: "LOL, what do you think, that scientists are some kind of robots or Vulcans? How ludicrous. We're all human beings, and we all construct opinions, and these lead us from one bit of narrative to the next. If scientists never had an opinion, very little innovation would ever happen."

No, you are being a bit loose and condescending. Science use the human extraction (we are not oblivious to human shortcomings) this is why we do everything possible to let the results of data validates what is rational and from that we draw a logical conclusion and not the other way around. Science does not deal in "SPOOKISM" we deal in what can be proven.

Mephibosheth stated: "Well here's a few sources off the top of my head: Kant, Leibniz, Locke, Hegel, Hume, Berkeley, Cassirer, Hartman, Frege, Sartre, Husserl, Haack, Aristotle, Gardernfors, Priest, Suzuki, Buddha, Chinese ch'an masters (zen stories), and a couple of university degrees."

Well respected intellectuals; I too admire and appreciate many of their philosophical works and the contribution they made to field of rational thinking.

You said. and I quote: "I have taken on the best intellectual minds and Logic and Rational thinking always win out." Which seems to imply that the either the 'best intellectual minds' are irrational, or that you, in particular, possess highly superior rationality to defeat the best intellectual minds. Surely, it's not hard to see how this might be construed as a form of bragging.

Stand by the statement.

Mephibosheth stated: "Well, I personally am 'against' 'organised religion' if by that we mean a form of politics that enforces a value-paradigm on people. But I don't think it's useful to take a simplistic view of religion either. Religion is multifaceted. It's a politics, it's a metaphysics, it's an ethics. It has many dimensions. Indeed, Islam is instructive here, as it prescribes an entire lifestyle down to the smallest detail. Let's not forget the fact that religion in one form or another has permeated human reality since before the dawn of time. There is no point in known history that you can point to and say 'human beings weren't religious'."

You are against organized religion. I am glad to hear you make that point and may be you will join us FREE THINKERS and began to advocate a rational approach to answering the six basic questions: Who, What, Where, When, How and Why. And not continue to dupe these people with this simple defense that you are trying to put up for religion. There is no ratioanal defense that you can put up for religion.

Mephibosheth stated: "Meanwhile, what have secular systems gotten us? Communism, nihilism, atomic bombs, sexual degradation, moral corruption. So take a good hard look at the fruits of human nature, expressed in both the spiritual and secular domains. There's more of an argument for humans to reject science and technology because of the dangers it haphazardly throws upon the world than for humans to reject religion and spirituality that try to formulate a moral imperative to improve the quality of human life."

Religion is more lethal than science because the damage it does mentally (this is the worst sought of lynching) to humanity. Many of my fellow human beings are intoxicated off this sedative and will commit all types of atrocities in its name. For example, murder, create mayhem, and behind every conflict on globe to day; you will find religion lurking not to far behind. Yes, them damn missionaries are dangerous. The collapse of the social orders that you mentioned had more to do with the Invisible Rulers than some imperfection in the systems it-self. Yes. Someone has the power to induce human conflict and I do not mean God. True; technology has its shortcomings, but you and I perhaps would not be having this conversation if it was not for the benefit of science. I am not for scientific and intellectual stagnation (I see science as a good and important necessity in our human evolution). Now! I am saying that I am for responsible science that takes into account what is ethical and value the lives of humanity.

Mephibosheth stated: "Come come now, you know that Shakespeare was a front for Francis Bacon."

Perhaps you think Sir Frances Bacon was divinely inspired. My point is King James (was a slave making pervert) and he authorized the Bible--King James Version and you expect me to see this flawed book as some sought of divine theological treatise. Please! I prefer a good novel

Mephibosheth stated: "No, its better if you hear it from the actual Muslims on this forum. Go have a peruse of the 'Islam--Ask you Questions' (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55357) thread."

Send them my way, I will gladly entertain their foolishness too.

8)

I am enjoying every minute of this. This remains exciting for me has I continue to work to deconstruct your religious arguments.

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL

[mephibosheth]

No. my man, rational thinking gives way to logical outcomes that are not hopeless; it connects the dots and gives us a reasonable probability and it is not based in unproven spook and mystery God teachings.


You said ‘logic moves us away from thought processes that cannot be validated.' By validated, you mean, by logic. But you ought to keep in mind that logic by itself can only validate the formal structure of thought processes (or anything else for that matter). Logic alone does not and cannot tell us about any fact of the matter. Nor does it tell us how to differentiate between something that is empirically viable and something that is not.

So, ok, you’re talking about ‘rational thinking’. So the application of logic to a domain of discourse, a subject matter, and whatever knowledge it encompasses. So yes, using logic can help us find reasonable probabilities. But when we’re talking about the empirical world of contingent facts, there are no certainties.

I never said logic isn’t a useful tool, quite the opposite. But we ought to be aware of its limitations.



What is the experience you are pertaining to? How do you know that experience is related to "God" but through deductive reason this relegates it-self down to faith (unproven inferences). This is magic at is best.


No, actually it’s metaphysics. It’s my view that everything real must be experiencable. Thus, it is either something we perceive or a state or mode of being.

God is not an object in the world, hence God is not a ‘something’ we can perceive (as being ‘out there’). If that were so, then God could not also be the source of all the things we perceive. So, simply, God is not a feature of God’s own creation.

Thus, God must be a state that we experience. And basically, this is what the mystics tell us. They refer to an experience of the divine. Just like being awake is different from dreaming, realizing the divine is different from being merely awake. It’s all gradations along the continuum of awareness.

The experience of God is the experience of the Absolute. To experience the Absolute is to experience being directly and immediately without the intermediaries of conception and perception. In this experience all dualities are resolved.

Other people will maintain that God is a specific being living in some realm somewhere, but who can’t possibly be experienced by humans. I don’t buy that. Maybe that’s the kind of magical being you’re thinking about.



This is one of the best rational points that you have made: "I haven't experienced God personally, so I can't provide witness testimony for you."

I do accept this as a truth, but you can not lead me to no path where someone could produce that mystery God and verify his existence (this thought or theory only takes us back to "faith" the evidence of things unseen).


For God to be a valid concept, IMHO, there must be a way to access it, to know it as a reality. For me, that means some kind of experience. So as long as such an experience is possible, then the reality of God is possible, and the concept of God is still valid.

Again, this type of experience is totally internal. It means achieving a particular mode of being that is perfectly free from the obstructions of the mind. It is not a matter of ‘going somewhere’ and ‘seeing something’. It’s more like looking into the deepest depths of your reality and seeing their ultimate ends, the Absolute.



I put no reliable credence in such non-rational and antagonistic theory." Do you know anyone that can provide via observation a testimony (primary source). I do not mean no damn so-called "Holy" book account of this mystery God?


Mystics throughout history have tried to express this inexpressable experience. So I think it’s fair to say that there is an experience there, that it is possible for human beings. But it’s something that each individual has to realize for themselves.



Please produce the evidence that the man called Jesus and other Sages ever walk this earth. I got it; you going to refer me to the Bible, a book that was written years after the so-called man (Jesus) was dead. I contend the man never existed. They gave us 66 books (to control the ignorant) and took out those books that truly would have empowered humanity. Why would these "divinely" inspired men do this?


Why look for evidence of the existence of particular sages? The message is always one that is relevant for the individual and their spiritual state, their moral state. I’m not going to debate about Jesus—that’s not my concern. I think there is lots of legitimate doubt about the historical import of the narrative. But at the end of the day, there is also a common message in there, one that speaks to people who are open to it, and liberates hearts that have toiled in bondage.



Religion: Give me a rational formula that we can measure this theory; so we perhaps can come up with a logical base conclusion.


OK, when I formulate a thoroughly rational religious system, I’ll let you know.


You have stated this earlier; I am just not convinced


Well, I’ve said my piece, and it’s true, so you’re free to interpret things as you like.



Religion is irrational.


Funnily enough, so is logic! Hahaha...that’s my point. In any formal system you have to accept a starting point, axioms. These are not a product of the system itself. They must simply be accepted at the outset. That is not a rational procedure in an of itself.

You can be rational when you’re using logic, but the choice to begin is non-rational.

Anyway, religion isn’t necessarily irrational. IF and ONLY IF we can show that a religion is self-contradictory and incoherent can we validly say that it is ‘irrational’. But depending on your starting axioms, a religion may look perfectly rational. It’s difficult to assess a system from outside it’s own domain, because you end up merely asserting the priority of YOUR CHOICE over the system you’re evaluating. UNLESS you have a common system to which both are subject (ie, they are both branches from the same root).

For example, you may look at religion from the perspective of empirical observation, and then say ‘well I don’t see any Zeus around here, so this religion is false’. But within the religion itself, it may be the case that empirical observation is not used as a standard of evaluation. In which case, that isn’t really a true critique of the religion. You’re just asserting your preference.



To make any defense on behalf of religion has to be emotional.


If you say so. Personally, I think a person can make a fine attempt at making a rational defense of religious concepts and of religion in general or the concept of God.



Really! Most people I know gather those experiences from religious fairy tales called scripture and from clerics. Please explain to us what is a relgious experience and how does that differs from a super natural experience? Bit courious. Sir. your above remarks is a perfect example of an emotional outlook and worldview.


Any kind of experience that transcends the norm, that defies explanation, cannot fit into a pre-made paradigm, and that has life-changing positive consequences for the experiencer, I would suggest could be called ‘religious’. Some of these might be what we would call ‘super-natural’, but I doubt that there is anything that is really ‘super-natural’.



The results of logic is empirical (can be counted and measured) and that is good enough for me and millions of others.


Logic isn’t an empirical science. You cannot get contingent, empirical facts from logic alone. Logic is an analytical tool. Logic, in itself, is purely formal, without substance. So how can you say that its results are empirical? I think you must mean that the results of an empirical scientific method (where logic is applied) are empirically viable.



Religion is more lethal than science because the damage it does mentally (this is the worst sought of lynching) to humanity. Many of my fellow human beings are intoxicated off this sedative and will commit all types of atrocities in its name. For example, murder, create mayhem, and behind every conflict on globe to day; you will find religion lurking not to far behind.


Be it ‘religion’ or ‘ideology’, humans are easy to stir up to extremes. People are just as ‘religious’ about politics and ideals as they are about spooks. Think about that for a while.



My point is King James (was a slave making pervert) and he authorized the Bible--King James Version and you expect me to see this flawed book as some sought of divine theological treatise. Please! I prefer a good novel


No, I don’t expect anything of the kind. I’m not here to defend the bible or any particular scripture or even a particular religion. Just making a few comments about logic and show that rationality is not exclusively the domain of empirical sciences.

8)

[miracles]

What part of dedicate's post is a lie?



A metaphor. Metaphors can't be 'false', hence this can't be a lie.




A summation of the essential import of religion. COuld be based on a complete and thorough review of the teachings of many religions, or it could be another opinion based on provisional understanding of some religions.

We could, however, determine whether or not the statement has any truth-value, by looking at religions and asking the question "does this promote the idea of living in peace in the world"?




Conjecture. Since heaven (as a 'place') is neither proved nor disproved, it's difficult to say one way or another if any teacher lives there.

So the question is, have any teachers in the past asked their followers to worship them?

The answer is definitely yes. But these teachers are the ones usually branded as heretics and lunatics. And we see right through their deception.




Opinion based on the preceeding comments. Since it's difficult to establish what the 'original teachings' were, if any, if different from the received teachings, it's difficult to state one way or the other that they have been perverted. Thus, this comes in as a belief, which in itself is neither true nor false, but rather, accepted or not-accepted. In dedicate's case, it is accepted that there were original teachings and that these have been perverted. He may or may not be correct. I'd say it's tough to find reliable evidence of this, but everyone has their theories.




Opinion. And one many of us disagree with. Not a lie though. It can be a valid POV, because it dismisses the value of the import of religious teachings, which is valid (not in a strict logical sense though) for someone who doesn't share their principle axioms.




Another opinion. This one seems to have some backing to it, given the history of organized religion and its corruptions.




I'm not sure what you're trying to say here about 'budihsm'. Maybe you can clarify?

Ill answer your first question and last question.

1. All of it.
2. Buhdist dont belive in God. and they have a class at a local temple called Humanistic Buhdism, Humanism is a religeon.

[themime]

Originally Posted by fahimknight
Religion is irrational.


Sorry to seem pedantic and not wishing to get into a long winded tangential debate on rationality but this statement is incorrect.

[mephibosheth]

Ill answer your first question and last question.

1. All of it.
2. Buhdist dont belive in God. and they have a class at a local temple called Humanistic Buhdism, Humanism is a religeon.

Well, as I took pains to demonstrate, there's nary a sentence in that post that could be rightly called a 'lie'. Opinions abound, yes, some conjectures, yes, but outright lies? Where?

BTW, it's Buddhism. And Buddhism isn't a form of humanism either. I don't know about a humanistic religion. It sounds contradictory, since humanism usually rejects religion, or relegates it to the back burner.

8)

[mephibosheth]

FYI:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Buddhism

HUMANISTIC BUDDHISM

Humanistic Buddhism (Chinese: 人間佛教; pinyin: Rénjiān Fójiào) is a modern Buddhist philosophy practiced mostly by Mahayana Buddhists. It is the integration of people's spiritual practice into all aspects of their daily lives. Buddhist monastics such as Venerable Masters Yin Shun (印順導師) and Hsing Yun (星雲大師) pioneered the start of the propagation of Humanistic Buddhism.

...

When we consider the social context in which both Taixu and Yin Shun used the terms "human life" (人生) and "human world" / "humanistic" (人間), we may note that this has a fairly different emphasis to the use of the term humanism in the Western philosophical sense. It was a reform against funeral services, including burning of objects of wealth made of paper, etc. which are an aspect of traditional Chinese funerals, and also the idea of practicing Buddhism to attain liberation in some "other" world (eg. certain misguided forms of Pure Land or tantric practice), as opposed to Buddhism focussing on the needs and lives of living individuals and their active role in society. Note that the formation period of this movement is in the middle of the great social changes that China as a whole was undergoing on all levels of society.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

HUMANISM (western philosophy)

Humanism rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in human affairs. Humanism has had an impact on some religions which have in recent times adapted a more humane stance than their original versions. Humanism is generally compatible with atheism[4] and agnosticism[5] but being atheist or agnostic does not make one a Humanist. Although the words "ignostic" (American) or "indifferentist" (British, including OED) are sometimes applied to Humanism, on the grounds that Humanism is an ethical process, not a dogma about the existence or otherwise of gods, many Humanists are deeply concerned about the impact of religion and belief in a god or gods on society and their own freedoms. Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.



Similar, but not the same. Proper Buddhism doesn't reject the supernatural, but sees it as a distraction not relevant to the goal of liberation. Ethical humanism in the western sense is more concerned about uplifting the rational faculties of humanity. This new Humanistic Buddhism seems to be about shifting the focus on to more immediate concerns of daily life and the human condition, rather than looking for liberation from the world or moving to a Pure Land (in contrast to traditional Pure Land Buddhism).

I think we could use a little humanistic Christianity.

8)

[luckyjag]

mr crick the man who discoverd the dna states categorically we could not of evolved as the bible says etc we must have been placed here which means we were put here by aliens i truly believe we were placed here and i know i am an extension or a part of god myself we only incarnate on this planet as we have done on so many other planets befor e this to experience life in all different circumstances and just to see how we all get on so to speak nothing more complicated than that as we shalll all find out once we are finished with this body and go back home where we all belong

[miracles]

Well, as I took pains to demonstrate, there's nary a sentence in that post that could be rightly called a 'lie'. Opinions abound, yes, some conjectures, yes, but outright lies? Where?

BTW, it's Buddhism. And Buddhism isn't a form of humanism either. I don't know about a humanistic religion. It sounds contradictory, since humanism usually rejects religion, or relegates it to the back burner.

8)

Mate, I dont care what it sounds like or how you want to spell it. I went to a session at the local temple - it was called Humanistic Buhdism, by the budists themselves. Your becoming annoying and tedious with your statements of "fact" followed by, I dont know about that....? and just makes you look stupid.

And as far as taking to pains to make shit stop stinking, forget about it. You just end up stinking of shit. But I'll give you a clue.
Christianity Buddhism Hinduism.. -- thousands of years ago someone threw a rock in the water and now one of those ripples in called Buddhism and another is called Christianity. That original rock that was thrown into the water was just an idea of living a peace in the world. No teacher ever lived that promised a place in heaven for you or asked you to worship him.. That has been a perversion of the original teachings of humanism and living a peace with people.

Religion has nothing to teach anybody. Those ideas are all man made in order to control you and take you money. (Wow -- this is easy. I could rant like this all day. Who cares if its the truth or not. I will just dismiss any arguement on the basis that it makes no sense to see things in any other way)


"is that statment a parable or is it literal and if so who said it and when, please supply the proof. You can't answer any of those questions or supply proof, it's ones blokes opinion. And it's lies and fanciful satanic perversion. And find out what humanism is before you attempt to discuss it.

[mephibosheth]

Mate, I dont care what it sounds like or how you want to spell it.


Well, it only makes you 'look stupid'.

The normal spelling is 'Buddhism', but it's possible that some Buddhists, translating from another language, choose to spell it some other way.


I went to a session at the local temple - it was called Humanistic Buhdism, by the budists themselves.


See my earlier post. There is a distinction between 'humanism' as a western philosophy and the very recent 'humanistic Buddhism'. But a fellow like you probably doesn't care for facts or reality.


Your becoming annoying and tedious with your statements of "fact" followed by, I dont know about that....? and just makes you look stupid.


It's not my fault if you don't want to use your god-given rational faculties. But Christians typically abhor reason and logic, so it's no surprise.


And as far as taking to pains to make shit stop stinking, forget about it. You just end up stinking of shit. But I'll give you a clue.


No you don't give any clue, nor do you clarify your slanderous statements. dedicate may or may not be correct in any of hesh rant but you certainly haven't added any value to the discussion. You're like a person who bursts into the debate and shouts 'lies!! all liesss!!' and then runs and jumps out the window.


is that statment a parable or is it literal and if so who said it and when, please supply the proof. You can't answer any of those questions or supply proof, it's ones blokes opinion. And it's lies and fanciful satanic perversion. And find out what humanism is before you attempt to discuss it.

Obviously you can't tell the difference between a 'lie' and an 'opinion'. Opinions can't be true or false--they are at best, provisional beliefs. dedicate's post was just a rant as he said, which lists his view of the value of religion and its reality in the world. When you accuse a person of lying, I would hope that you can point out, specifically, what the person said that was deliberately and intentionally false. To say someone is lying puts a greater burden of proof on YOU, the accuser, than to merely say that they are mistaken or that their statements are false. But as I pointed out, and as you either purposefully or by lack of comprehension failed to understand, there is nothing in that post that can be called a 'lie'. Unless you know dedicate from somewhere else where hesh made completely opposite statements and professed them to be his most heartfelt views.

:rolleyes:

[miracles]

Well, it only makes you 'look stupid'.

The normal spelling is 'Buddhism', but it's possible that some Buddhists, translating from another language, choose to spell it some other way.



See my earlier post. There is a distinction between 'humanism' as a western philosophy and the very recent 'humanistic Buddhism'. But a fellow like you probably doesn't care for facts or reality.



It's not my fault if you don't want to use your god-given rational faculties. But Christians typically abhor reason and logic, so it's no surprise.


No you don't give any clue, nor do you clarify your slanderous statements. dedicate may or may not be correct in any of hesh rant but you certainly haven't added any value to the discussion. You're like a person who bursts into the debate and shouts 'lies!! all liesss!!' and then runs and jumps out the window.



Obviously you can't tell the difference between a 'lie' and an 'opinion'. Opinions can't be true or false--they are at best, provisional beliefs. dedicate's post was just a rant as he said, which lists his view of the value of religion and its reality in the world. When you accuse a person of lying, I would hope that you can point out, specifically, what the person said that was deliberately and intentionally false. To say someone is lying puts a greater burden of proof on YOU, the accuser, than to merely say that they are mistaken or that their statements are false. But as I pointed out, and as you either purposefully or by lack of comprehension failed to understand, there is nothing in that post that can be called a 'lie'. Unless you know dedicate from somewhere else where hesh made completely opposite statements and professed them to be his most heartfelt views.

:rolleyes:
[]
And Buddhism isn't a form of humanism either
If that is the case, then why does the local buhdist temple have a class called humanistic buhdism?Try calming down and being reasonable and rational before you answer that question, because that last rant didnt prove anythning other than to show you cant control your temper.
And if you are going insist on adopting a stance of Logical rationailst thinking then based on that dedicate could recite a nursury rhyme and call it the truth, or his own personal truth or whatever. And rationally or logically no one could challenge him on it, which highlights the pointlessnes of rationalist logic, because there is no such thing in my view. It's another one of those moronic oxymorons.

Christianity Buddhism Hinduism.. -- thousands of years ago someone threw a rock in the water and now one of those ripples in called Buddhism and another is called Christianity. That original rock that was thrown into the water was just an idea of living a peace in the world. No teacher ever lived that promised a place in heaven for you or asked you to worship him
.. That has been a perversion of the original teachings of humanism and living a peace with people.

Religion has nothing to teach anybody. Those ideas are all man made in order to control you and take you money. (Wow -- this is easy. I could rant like this all day. Who cares if its the truth or not. I will just dismiss any arguement on the basis that it makes no sense to see things in any other way)

LIES - Jesus told us he goes to prepare a place for us, a mansion in heaven - and God requires of us to worship him.

[miracles]

mr crick the man who discoverd the dna states categorically we could not of evolved as the bible says etc we must have been placed here which means we were put here by aliens i truly believe we were placed here and i know i am an extension or a part of god myself we only incarnate on this planet as we have done on so many other planets befor e this to experience life in all different circumstances and just to see how we all get on so to speak nothing more complicated than that as we shalll all find out once we are finished with this body and go back home where we all belong

I dont care what Jiminy Cricket said. The bible does not teach evolution. God placed Adam here.

[phildee3]

The bible does not teach evolution. God placed Adam here.



Yeh, but not wearing polyester suits and shiny shoes.
We evolved to being able to make them!


The bible does not teach that the earth is round either.

[miracles]

Yeh, but not wearing polyester suits and shiny shoes.
We evolved to being able to make them!


The bible does not teach that the earth is round either.

Oh yes it does, in Job.

[phildee3]

Oh yes it does, in Job.



Oh, dear.

There are many things that are now known that were not known when the bible texts were written, and are therefore not "taught by the bible."

Creationism (as "taught by the bible") does not exclude evolution.

[miracles]

Oh, dear.

There are many things that are now known that were not known when the bible texts were written, and are therefore not "taught by the bible."

Creationism (as "taught by the bible") does not exclude evolution.

Caught out get - hah lol. Im dining out on that one for eternity

[phildee3]

Caught out get - hah lol. Im dining out on that one for eternity



Evolutionism does not disprove creationism,
nor does creationism disprove evolution.

Why can't "God" use evolution as part of "His" creative process?

[element]

Evolutionism does not disprove creationism,
nor does creationism disprove evolution.

Why can't "God" use evolution as part of "His" creative process?
Exactly!
But those in control have used both as an opposite. One is the 'only way' to be spiritual for westerners, and the other is only if your fully cloaked atheist.

But evolution itself can make good sense with spirituality. Just because the ape theories are doubtful, it doesn't make all of evolution theory bad!

But yeah...the perfect two opposites which they so desperately want you to be prisoned in....Abrahamic religion VS evolution, no way in between...

The average evolutionist has not looked/searched for spirituality, nor has the average abrahamic believer looked into evolution...

They're so crazed and they're exactly playing the game that has been created by those in control!

[mephibosheth]

If that is the case, then why does the local buhdist temple have a class called humanistic buhdism?


I'm not familiar with the Humanistic Buddhist movement in particular. But from what I glean it started as a reaction to what was perceived as an undue amount of attachment to superstitions that had become fused with some forms of Buddhism as practiced in china. Specifically the forms of culture that dervied from Pure Land Buddhism, which is primarily focussed on what we would think of as the 'afterlife' and how to get there. In a sense, it seems as this new movement is an initiative to return to the essence of Buddhist teachings, and start focussing on the daily activities of living and improving the condition of human life. The Pure Land form of Buddhism has be criticised in the past for neglecting this world and this life because it looks too much towards the Pure Land (which is a Buddha realm that one can be reborn into after this life to continue studying and perfecting the teachings). This is similar, although perhaps not identical, to the extremes that some western mystics have taken worhsip, by being wrapped up in various ecstacies and neglecting the mundane life. So it looks like this humanisitic Buddhism is a wake-up call for those who were clinging too much to other-worldly concepts, to redirect their focus to this here life--the here and now, which is, ultimately, the focus of Buddhist teachings.

Western humanism is usually associated with atheism and a rejection of religion and the supernatural. So yes, there appear to be some similarities between the idea of Humanistic Buddhism and western humanism as an ethical philosophy--they have a common focus on human beings and the human condition. But I don't think the two are identical. Humanistic Buddhism isn't a form of western humanistic philosophy. The title 'humanism' just indicates that it's focus is on improving the conditions of this present life (as opposed to looking forward to the heavenly realms).

Buddhism is often accused of being atheist, even though that isn't actually correct. Buddhism doesn't reject the so-called 'supernatural' or state that this or that god does or does not exist; it accepts that all manner of gods, devis, subtle beings, and rarified realms do exist, and that supernatural events and powers are or can be real. But these beings, realms, and powers are not the focus of the teaching. They are seen as extraneous and a potential distraction from the path of liberation, which is something each individual must accomplish on their own. So, properly speaking, for example, Buddhism should be silent on the issue of whether Jesus existed and/or was God.




And if you are going insist on adopting a stance of Logical rationailst thinking then based on that dedicate could recite a nursury rhyme and call it the truth, or his own personal truth or whatever. And rationally or logically no one could challenge him on it, which highlights the pointlessnes of rationalist logic, because there is no such thing in my view. It's another one of those moronic oxymorons.


Well, imo, you're not looking at this in the proper light.

There are metaphors, opinions, conjectures, beliefs, assertions, facts...etc. Of assertions, some can be true and some can be false, depending on your criterion of truth. Others can be spoken 'truthfully' and others can be spoken 'deceptively', ie, as lies, which means not only that the statement is false, but that the speaker knows that it is false and nontheless asserts it as if it were true in an attempt to deceive the listener.

I think it's useful to make these distinctions, because it saves us the trouble of taking everything literally, and we can more clearly see when someone is making a statement that can be evaluated as true or false, when they are merely asserting an opinion (a provisional belief about something), expressing a metaphor (which cannot be true or false), or whathaveyou. Like I said, to say someone is 'lying' puts the onus on the accuser to establish that not only is the statement in question demonstrable false, but also that the speaker deliberately and knowing is perpetrating that falsehood, even though they know and accept it's opposite.




LIES - Jesus told us he goes to prepare a place for us, a mansion in heaven - and God requires of us to worship him.

Ah, I see. Ok, if we accept that the gospels are historically valid, then yes, maybe you can say that decicate is mistaken on this point. But it's quite another thing to say that he's lying. Can't you tell the difference?

As for the second part, Jesus never told anyone to worship him. He told people to fear God, to worship the Father. It's the Christian distortion to make Jesus equal to God, and therefore conclude that Jesus told people to worship himself. Personally, I don't think the gospels tell us anything of the kind, but I accept that you have a different reading than me. By your logic, dedicate is wrong. But again, because all of these issues are matters of history, and thus can be and are continuously contended, you really can't say that dedicate was lying, even if, and its still a BIG IF, he's wrong on all his conjectures, metaphors, and opinions.

So why not just accept that, instead of calling people liars because they don't share the same world-view, metaphysics, and dogma as your self? If people here are criticising Christian beliefs it's because they don't believe them, don't accept them as true, find them contradictory, or otherwise dispute their validity and veracity. And disputing a thing's veracity is not the same as lying. It's part of an honest intellectual investigation and clarification. Is it possible to agree on this one small point...?

[phildee3]

yeah...the perfect two opposites which they so desperately want you to be prisoned in....Abrahamic religion VS evolution,



Any polarity will do. Just as long as people latch on to one "side" or the other.
War is the name of the game.
Conflict.
Divide and conquor.

[verndewd]

Your welcome.

Who are you writing for? You know,, it is people that you have to communicate with? I find it straining to decipher even one sentence. I'm just honest enough to let you know.

That's why I smell Ph.D. Men and women who have graduated after more than 20 years of highly formalized education (Control dynamics and brainwashing) tend to be very involved in their own egos. I've noticed this, and it is logical, since the only way to get a Ph.D is to play to the system, ie lose one's soul. They lose touch with the outside world. That's what I'm reading.

lol Incidentally a phd level IQ starts around 100 or so :p

[miracles]

I'm not familiar with the Humanistic Buddhist movement in particular. But from what I glean it started as a reaction to what was perceived as an undue amount of attachment to superstitions that had become fused with some forms of Buddhism as practiced in china. Specifically the forms of culture that dervied from Pure Land Buddhism, which is primarily focussed on what we would think of as the 'afterlife' and how to get there. In a sense, it seems as this new movement is an initiative to return to the essence of Buddhist teachings, and start focussing on the daily activities of living and improving the condition of human life. The Pure Land form of Buddhism has be criticised in the past for neglecting this world and this life because it looks too much towards the Pure Land (which is a Buddha realm that one can be reborn into after this life to continue studying and perfecting the teachings). This is similar, although perhaps not identical, to the extremes that some western mystics have taken worhsip, by being wrapped up in various ecstacies and neglecting the mundane life. So it looks like this humanisitic Buddhism is a wake-up call for those who were clinging too much to other-worldly concepts, to redirect their focus to this here life--the here and now, which is, ultimately, the focus of Buddhist teachings.

Western humanism is usually associated with atheism and a rejection of religion and the supernatural. So yes, there appear to be some similarities between the idea of Humanistic Buddhism and western humanism as an ethical philosophy--they have a common focus on human beings and the human condition. But I don't think the two are identical. Humanistic Buddhism isn't a form of western humanistic philosophy. The title 'humanism' just indicates that it's focus is on improving the conditions of this present life (as opposed to looking forward to the heavenly realms).

Buddhism is often accused of being atheist, even though that isn't actually correct. Buddhism doesn't reject the so-called 'supernatural' or state that this or that god does or does not exist; it accepts that all manner of gods, devis, subtle beings, and rarified realms do exist, and that supernatural events and powers are or can be real. But these beings, realms, and powers are not the focus of the teaching. They are seen as extraneous and a potential distraction from the path of liberation, which is something each individual must accomplish on their own. So, properly speaking, for example, Buddhism should be silent on the issue of whether Jesus existed and/or was God.





Well, imo, you're not looking at this in the proper light.

There are metaphors, opinions, conjectures, beliefs, assertions, facts...etc. Of assertions, some can be true and some can be false, depending on your criterion of truth. Others can be spoken 'truthfully' and others can be spoken 'deceptively', ie, as lies, which means not only that the statement is false, but that the speaker knows that it is false and nontheless asserts it as if it were true in an attempt to deceive the listener.

I think it's useful to make these distinctions, because it saves us the trouble of taking everything literally, and we can more clearly see when someone is making a statement that can be evaluated as true or false, when they are merely asserting an opinion (a provisional belief about something), expressing a metaphor (which cannot be true or false), or whathaveyou. Like I said, to say someone is 'lying' puts the onus on the accuser to establish that not only is the statement in question demonstrable false, but also that the speaker deliberately and knowing is perpetrating that falsehood, even though they know and accept it's opposite.





Ah, I see. Ok, if we accept that the gospels are historically valid, then yes, maybe you can say that decicate is mistaken on this point. But it's quite another thing to say that he's lying. Can't you tell the difference?

As for the second part, Jesus never told anyone to worship him. He told people to fear God, to worship the Father. It's the Christian distortion to make Jesus equal to God, and therefore conclude that Jesus told people to worship himself. Personally, I don't think the gospels tell us anything of the kind, but I accept that you have a different reading than me. By your logic, dedicate is wrong. But again, because all of these issues are matters of history, and thus can be and are continuously contended, you really can't say that dedicate was lying, even if, and its still a BIG IF, he's wrong on all his conjectures, metaphors, and opinions.

So why not just accept that, instead of calling people liars because they don't share the same world-view, metaphysics, and dogma as your self? If people here are criticising Christian beliefs it's because they don't believe them, don't accept them as true, find them contradictory, or otherwise dispute their validity and veracity. And disputing a thing's veracity is not the same as lying. It's part of an honest intellectual investigation and clarification. Is it possible to agree on this one small point...?

Okay point taken. Calling some one a liar is not how to win friends and influence people but I wasn't calling the individual liar, merely what was said. Having said that. I believe truthseekers are in search of the truth, a lie is the opposite to the truth, so I am not sure why the word lie can not be used in an objective debate with out some getting there feelings hurt.

[phildee3]

a phd level IQ starts around 100 or so



Do you have a source for this info?
It seems very low to me.
I would think it would be at least 120.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart

[miracles]

I'm not familiar with the Humanistic Buddhist movement in particular. But from what I glean it started as a reaction to what was perceived as an undue amount of attachment to superstitions that had become fused with some forms of Buddhism as practiced in china. Specifically the forms of culture that dervied from Pure Land Buddhism, which is primarily focussed on what we would think of as the 'afterlife' and how to get there. In a sense, it seems as this new movement is an initiative to return to the essence of Buddhist teachings, and start focussing on the daily activities of living and improving the condition of human life. The Pure Land form of Buddhism has be criticised in the past for neglecting this world and this life because it looks too much towards the Pure Land (which is a Buddha realm that one can be reborn into after this life to continue studying and perfecting the teachings). This is similar, although perhaps not identical, to the extremes that some western mystics have taken worhsip, by being wrapped up in various ecstacies and neglecting the mundane life. So it looks like this humanisitic Buddhism is a wake-up call for those who were clinging too much to other-worldly concepts, to redirect their focus to this here life--the here and now, which is, ultimately, the focus of Buddhist teachings.

Western humanism is usually associated with atheism and a rejection of religion and the supernatural. So yes, there appear to be some similarities between the idea of Humanistic Buddhism and western humanism as an ethical philosophy--they have a common focus on human beings and the human condition. But I don't think the two are identical. Humanistic Buddhism isn't a form of western humanistic philosophy. The title 'humanism' just indicates that it's focus is on improving the conditions of this present life (as opposed to looking forward to the heavenly realms).

Buddhism is often accused of being atheist, even though that isn't actually correct. Buddhism doesn't reject the so-called 'supernatural' or state that this or that god does or does not exist; it accepts that all manner of gods, devis, subtle beings, and rarified realms do exist, and that supernatural events and powers are or can be real. But these beings, realms, and powers are not the focus of the teaching. They are seen as extraneous and a potential distraction from the path of liberation, which is something each individual must accomplish on their own. So, properly speaking, for example, Buddhism should be silent on the issue of whether Jesus existed and/or was God.





Well, imo, you're not looking at this in the proper light.

There are metaphors, opinions, conjectures, beliefs, assertions, facts...etc. Of assertions, some can be true and some can be false, depending on your criterion of truth. Others can be spoken 'truthfully' and others can be spoken 'deceptively', ie, as lies, which means not only that the statement is false, but that the speaker knows that it is false and nontheless asserts it as if it were true in an attempt to deceive the listener.

I think it's useful to make these distinctions, because it saves us the trouble of taking everything literally, and we can more clearly see when someone is making a statement that can be evaluated as true or false, when they are merely asserting an opinion (a provisional belief about something), expressing a metaphor (which cannot be true or false), or whathaveyou. Like I said, to say someone is 'lying' puts the onus on the accuser to establish that not only is the statement in question demonstrable false, but also that the speaker deliberately and knowing is perpetrating that falsehood, even though they know and accept it's opposite.





Ah, I see. Ok, if we accept that the gospels are historically valid, then yes, maybe you can say that decicate is mistaken on this point. But it's quite another thing to say that he's lying. Can't you tell the difference?

As for the second part, Jesus never told anyone to worship him. He told people to fear God, to worship the Father. It's the Christian distortion to make Jesus equal to God, and therefore conclude that Jesus told people to worship himself. Personally, I don't think the gospels tell us anything of the kind, but I accept that you have a different reading than me. By your logic, dedicate is wrong. But again, because all of these issues are matters of history, and thus can be and are continuously contended, you really can't say that dedicate was lying, even if, and its still a BIG IF, he's wrong on all his conjectures, metaphors, and opinions.

So why not just accept that, instead of calling people liars because they don't share the same world-view, metaphysics, and dogma as your self? If people here are criticising Christian beliefs it's because they don't believe them, don't accept them as true, find them contradictory, or otherwise dispute their validity and veracity. And disputing a thing's veracity is not the same as lying. It's part of an honest intellectual investigation and clarification. Is it possible to agree on this one small point...?

PS. Nice to see you've googled Humanistic budhism and done a cut and paste job to appear knowledgeable on the subject when you had never heard of the term a couple of days before. So I will take you back to my point that I made back then. Humanism is a religeon, where man is god. Very similar to th essence of budism. Hense there is no probem having the two words together to be called a religeon. But you rejected this point and I believe insulted me for suggesting it, now you are the worlds formost expert on the topic. I never said the two where the same. I said both deny god and claim to be like god, which is a satanic lie and what Satan said to eve in the garde, eat the apple and you will become like god.

But we really do have to go the long way around these things dont we, why? Pride.

[stfd]

PS. Nice to see you've googled Humanistic budhism and done a cut and paste job to appear knowledgeable on the subject when you had never heard of the term a couple of days before. So I will take you back to my point that I made back then. Humanism is a religeon, where man is god. Very similar to th essence of budism. Hense there is no probem having the two words together to be called a religeon. But you rejected this point and I believe insulted me for suggesting it, now you are the worlds formost expert on the topic. I never said the two where the same. I said both deny god and claim to be like god, which is a satanic lie and what Satan said to eve in the garde, eat the apple and you will become like god.

But we really do have to go the long way around these things dont we, why? Pride.

yup thats what it was p r i d e , caused the original fall:(

[miracles]

yup thats what it was p r i d e , caused the original fall:(

Hi buddy. Ivebeen getting a right kicking as usual.

[mephibosheth]

Okay point taken. Calling some one a liar is not how to win friends and influence people but I wasn't calling the individual liar, merely what was said. Having said that. I believe truthseekers are in search of the truth, a lie is the opposite to the truth, so I am not sure why the word lie can not be used in an objective debate with out some getting there feelings hurt.


To call something a 'lie' it should be agreed by all parties that there is a truth of the matter and that it is being deliberately misrepresented. Many people don't accept that religion can even have a 'truth of the matter', let alone that one or another interpretation is 'true'. So at best I would say that we could call what we perceive as falsehoods, falsehoods, and then demonstrate why they are false.

If someone claims that Jesus is represented in the Gospel as saying 'I am the Lord thy God, whose eternal nature consisteth of divinely prepared spagettini and rich tomato sauce' I think we could safely say that--assuming the person knows what the gospels are and is not just quoting someone else--such a person is not only mistaken, but is lying about what the Gospels contain.

In a text-based medium like this, though, it's a bit more difficult to say what is a lie vs. what is mere opinion, mistake, or other error. But that's my opinion.



PS. Nice to see you've googled Humanistic budhism and done a cut and paste job to appear knowledgeable on the subject when you had never heard of the term a couple of days before.


If you mean the quotes I pasted from wikipedia, fine. Nothing else I wrote is 'cut and paste'. Let's not go there again in this thread. I already had enough of that from fahimknight. If I cut and paste something, I reference it. I know a thing or two about Buddhism, but I had to look up this 'humanistic buddhism' that you mentioned, because it wasn't anything I had heard of before.



So I will take you back to my point that I made back then. Humanism is a religeon, where man is god.


This is false. Humanism is an ethical theory that places the human being and the concerns of the human being at the center. It avoids and rejects as far as possible any supernatural component. There is no humanist religion. If there is, it's not associated with the humanist philosophy, because 'god' doesn't figure into the picture. Humanism is often associated with atheism, so I don't see any claim that 'man is god' making sense in a humanist paradigm.

If there is any 'humanist religion' that claims 'man is god', it's probably some new age thing. But it's naught to do with Buddhism or ethical humanism.



Very similar to th essence of budism.


This is false. Buddhism does not suggest 'man is god'. The Buddha is not God or even 'a' god. Nor do Buddhists aspire to become 'God or 'gods'.



Hense there is no probem having the two words together to be called a religeon.


Oh sure, you can put any two word together and call it a religion. But what you make up in your own mind and what's actually there in reality are often two different things.



I never said the two where the same. I said both deny god and claim to be like god, which is a satanic lie and what Satan said to eve in the garde, eat the apple and you will become like god.


You said:


Futher more Humanists are godless who claim to be gods - another lie. Have you heard of humanistic budihsm? Its alive and well in their temples.

Which is false. So who is lying here? I should say, you must be mistaken on this point.

You also said:


And find out what humanism is before you attempt to discuss it.


Which is some good advice for you to take.

Besides, as I recall it was a serpent in the garden, not Lucifer. Christians love to interpret the Hebrew text in their own way, don't they. And what part of it was a lie? In the story, they ate and were changed, and became more like God than they had been, now possessing the power to discern value, which up to then only God (apparently) could do. The serpent didn't say they would become gods, but become more like God. Now, if they had ate from the tree of life, they would have become gods, but Yaweh didn't like that idea so end of story.

8)

[stfd]

To call something a 'lie' it should be agreed by all parties that there is a truth of the matter and that it is being deliberately misrepresented. Many people don't accept that religion can even have a 'truth of the matter', let alone that one or another interpretation is 'true'. So at best I would say that we could call what we perceive as falsehoods, falsehoods, and then demonstrate why they are false.

If someone claims that Jesus is represented in the Gospel as saying 'I am the Lord thy God, whose eternal nature consisteth of divinely prepared spagettini and rich tomato sauce' I think we could safely say that--assuming the person knows what the gospels are and is not just quoting someone else--such a person is not only mistaken, but is lying about what the Gospels contain.

In a text-based medium like this, though, it's a bit more difficult to say what is a lie vs. what is mere opinion, mistake, or other error. But that's my opinion.




If you mean the quotes I pasted from wikipedia, fine. Nothing else I wrote is 'cut and paste'. Let's not go there again in this thread. I already had enough of that from fahimknight. If I cut and paste something, I reference it. I know a thing or two about Buddhism, but I had to look up this 'humanistic buddhism' that you mentioned, because it wasn't anything I had heard of before.




This is false. Humanism is an ethical theory that places the human being and the concerns of the human being at the center. It avoids and rejects as far as possible any supernatural component. There is no humanist religion. If there is, it's not associated with the humanist philosophy, because 'god' doesn't figure into the picture. Humanism is often associated with atheism, so I don't see any claim that 'man is god' making sense in a humanist paradigm.

If there is any 'humanist religion' that claims 'man is god', it's probably some new age thing. But it's naught to do with Buddhism or ethical humanism.




This is false. Buddhism does not suggest 'man is god'. The Buddha is not God or even 'a' god. Nor do Buddhists aspire to become 'God or 'gods'.




Oh sure, you can put any two word together and call it a religion. But what you make up in your own mind and what's actually there in reality are often two different things.




You said:



Which is false. So who is lying here? I should say, you must be mistaken on this point.

You also said:



Which is some good advice for you to take.

Besides, as I recall it was a serpent in the garden, not Lucifer. Christians love to interpret the Hebrew text in their own way, don't they. And what part of it was a lie? In the story, they ate and were changed, and became more like God than they had been, now possessing the power to discern value, which up to then only God (apparently) could do. The serpent didn't say they would become gods, but become more like God. Now, if they had ate from the tree of life, they would have become gods, but Yaweh didn't like that idea so end of story.

8)

Whoa hold on ...
The serpent WAS Lucifer, he said that by eating the apple they(the humans) would become gods and live for eternity.
And that of course was a bunch of BS.
They did NOT become more like God by eating the apple, on the contrary , they have fallen from the Eden where they were then.
They -chose- obviously to trust the serpent (Lucifer) and eat the apple even when they were specifically told not to do it.

One thing i dont get is why so many keep sayin Yahvew this Yahvew that blah blah blah , is just how the jews call God , whats the problem with that ?!?
Jews dont accept the fact that Jesus has already come and die for our sins already, hence they dont accept the New Testament.
If they did accept that they would be Christian but obviously aren't, so what's the deal here ?!?

To add ... 'Adam and Eve' already HAD the 'power' to -choose- prior to actually eating the apple, that in itself stands as proof , as God did not interfere but allowed them to posses total control over their actions and ultimatelly the outcomes...
total freedom - total , ultimate freedom.

....

[mephibosheth]

Whoa hold on ...


<pulls back on reins>



The serpent WAS Lucifer, he said that by eating the apple they(the humans) would become gods and live for eternity.
And that of course was a bunch of BS.


That's not part of Genesis. Nor does the serpent tell them that they are going to live forever. That would happen if they ate from the tree of life, not the tree of knowledge.


Genesis:

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.




They did NOT become more like God by eating the apple, on the contrary , they have fallen from the Eden where they were then.


Yes they did--they were transformed and came to the realization of the power to discern and create values, which they had not before. In that they became like unto the gods.



They -chose- obviously to trust the serpent (Lucifer) and eat the apple even when they were specifically told not to do it.


The "Christian" tradition seems to enjoy confounding biblical characters. One minute everything is literal historical fact, the next everything is parable and symbolic.

The serpent, Lucifier, and the Christian devil are not necessarily the same character. That's a Christian interpretation. The whole idea that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about Jesus is one of the most outrageous bits of "Christian" fantasy ever concocted. If a "Christian" reserves the right to read 'I and the Father are one' in a literalist-trinitarian-supportive kind of way, I reserve the right to read Genesis 3:1 as referring to a serpent-creature, one of the beasts of the field that God created, as the text clearly states, and not some other being, angelic or whathaveyou.



To add ... 'Adam and Eve' already HAD the 'power' to -choose- prior to actually eating the apple, that in itself stands as proof , as God did not interfere but allowed them to posses total control over their actions and ultimatelly the outcomes...
total freedom - total , ultimate freedom.


You're forgetting that prior to this symbolic eating, Adam and Eve had no concept of value, no idea of good or evil. Hence, their 'choices' were entirely free of consequences. They never made what we would recognize as a 'moral' choice. Morality did not apply to them. If you told them that eating the fruit was 'bad' they wouldntve known what you were talking about. Hence, they had no idea of the outcomes of their actions.

So we got to wonder who was lying in this case. God told Adam and Eve that they would die when they ate or even touched the fruit. But they didn't. There's no indication in the text that Adam and Eve were 'immortal' before they ate the fruit. In fact, since God prevents them from eating of the tree of life, that means Adam and Eve were quite mortal, and would have died eventually anyway. So God was telling them a tall tale in order to exagerate the dangers of eating the fruit, to scare them away from it.

All in all, its either pretty sneaky or downright irresponsible for God to plant such trees in Eden, knowing full well that such scare tactics wouldn't work forever, and eventually they'd eat those fruits.

[miracles]

I am withdrawing form all debate in the religeous threads, it is costing me sleep and peace of mind and negatively affecting me in my daily life. I'd like to say its been fun, but it hasn't. I hope you all find what you are looking for. Im only writing this for any who may wonder, I dont think Im that important that anyone would even miss me. Oh, if your ego wants you to feel that I am doing this because you beat me then by all means knock yourself out.