putting religion in it's proper place

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=480846 time=1605939560 user_id=7896]
Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.
[/quote]

The central problem of religion isn't in how it's interpreted, it's in that it must be interpreted.

[Greatest I am]

All that is known (more like assumed), about all the gods, came out of people.

This can be proven...

Great!

What's your proof?

No one ever heard a god say anything.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

The central problem of religion isn't in how it's interpreted, it's in that it must be interpreted.

That's a little silly.

Everything "must be interpreted." Heck, democracy is a thing that "must be interpreted." Are you going to say that makes it a "problem" too?

[Greatest I am]

putting religion in it's proper place

Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.
The only active evil laden religion at present is Islam whereas most of the major religions are constituted by an overriding pacifist maxim.

I believe if not for religions with its crude morality modulating its believers [>6 billion] at present, you would have been killed or raped by now.

There are pros and cons with religions in a temporal context.
For the present, it is still an optimal net-pros for religions but the trend is the negativity is relatively increasing into the future to be a net-negative to humanity.

As such steps should be initiated and taken to gradually wean-off ALL religions [promote universal spirituality] toward the future, with Islam as the first priority.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

No one ever heard a god say anything.

Now you need proof for that.

[Advocate]

[quote="Greatest I am" post_id=480904 time=1605973504 user_id=4303]
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
[/quote]

If it's based on morality based on reason, there is no need for religion. If it's based on morality based on holy texts or personal revelation it's all but arbitrary and not good in any meaningful sense.

[Greatest I am]

No one ever heard a god say anything.

Now you need proof for that.

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

Reciprocity is fair play. Right?

Mine might hold truth, but the religious are flat out lying every time they say something/anything about a god they do not and cannot know without a defective supernatural believing mind.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

If it's based on morality based on reason, there is no need for religion. If it's based on morality based on holy texts or personal revelation it's all but arbitrary and not good in any meaningful sense.

I agree.

Logos trumps mythos.

Given that secular law has improved on all the old morality given in scriptures, you are correct that, at least in terms of the law of the land, religions are pointless. In fact, they are a hindrance with their vile homophobic and misogynous ways.

I think the law should come down on religions, and they have in the past when required.

I think the government should make homophobic and misogynous teaching illegal as they undermine the law of the land.

Religions have retarded our progress enough.

Regards
DL

[Scott Mayers]

No one ever heard a god say anything.

Now you need proof for that.

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

Reciprocity is fair play. Right?

Mine might hold truth, but the religious are flat out lying every time they say something/anything about a god they do not and cannot know without a defective supernatural believing mind.

Regards
DL

The question from Immanuel's position (which is of most people with some form of religion) is "Why should anyone behave with any 'moral' when there is nothing BUT other people to demand that we do?" and "If one CAN behave to their advantage when no one is there to observe, would not anyone behave even against the negotiated agreement of conduct when it suits them best?" [This last question is related to the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to see it, does it make a 'sound'?"]

So, in other words, even IF we set up government as the 'secular' means of defining morality, what other than FORCE by other people is left to command how we should behave.

It is a valid concern of which was taken up by Neitzche and where the answer to "God is dead" is that he expects us to still set up some fake religion as a means to still assure people are compelled to behave 'morally' when no one is watching.

My arguments with him is to argue that we still have the same problem when religion is used except that for those in power, they are able to have the advantage when or where they IMPOSE religion upon others while simultaneously NOT be religious themselves in fact. That is, even if one argues for religion as 'necessary' to maintain civilization, the utility of religion just narrows the powers of those utilizing religion as a mechanism to get OTHERS to follow the tenets of some provided religion, with exception of themselves. This argument has to be expanded upon to show why it is still 'practical' to be moral regardless of religion, something that Veritas*, here has been attempting.

Edit: made the mistake at the asterisk originally saying Advocate but meant Veritas, though I'm sure Advocate may share this too.

[Immanuel Can]

No one ever heard a god say anything.

Now you need proof for that.

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.

[Scott Mayers]

Now you need proof for that.

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.

A "Gnostic" by Gnostic is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed. I happen to feel the same and why I try to show how particular sources or origins of what has become 'religion' has some basis in secular reality that has DEVOLVED into myth. There was a danger to challenge those who interpret old documents incorrectly, especially when they turn them into LITERAL history or 'fact'. Thus the original 'mystics' can be understood in light of those like the MAGICIANS today who expose fraudulent thinking by demonstrating how people can easily get fooled. The ancient 'gnostics' may have been thought of as acting mystical because they learned to ask questions as responses and left some listeners hanging. That is because one could easily be killed for DIRECT offense of even another's weirdest claims.

He is not a 'mystic' in what you may be interpreting it is.

[Advocate]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=480930 time=1605979929 user_id=11118]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=480926 time=1605978973 user_id=9431]
[quote="Greatest I am" post_id=480908 time=1605973929 user_id=4303]

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.[/quote]
In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.
[/quote]
A "Gnostic" by [i]Gnostic[/i] is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed. I happen to feel the same and why I try to show how particular sources or origins of what has become 'religion' has some basis in secular reality that has DEVOLVED into myth. There was a danger to challenge those who interpret old documents incorrectly, especially when they turn them into LITERAL history or 'fact'. Thus the original 'mystics' can be understood in light of those like the MAGICIANS today who expose fraudulent thinking by demonstrating how people can easily get fooled. The ancient 'gnostics' may have been thought of as acting mystical because they learned to ask questions as responses and left some listeners hanging. That is because one could easily be killed for DIRECT offense of even another's weirdest claims.

He is not a 'mystic' in what you may be interpreting it is.
[/quote]

It never devolved. It was never sufficient. It was a gap-filler to take the place of knowledge, not knowledge. The underlying value of myth is to elucidate common understandings - the mundane, which only seems as wisdom because it is so mundane that it is universal and stands the test of time. That is not to say there is any extra value in it than what every individual independently derives for themselves in the normal course of life. Ancient wisdom lasts Because it is mundane, not because it is wise. History, anthropology, and psychology each take part of the value of religion away from it, and all that is left is a salve for the foolish.

The mystical is arcane code for pretending to find knowledge where there is no information.

[Immanuel Can]

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.

A "Gnostic" by Gnostic is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed.

Actually, Scott, I'm certain I have better information about the history and literature of the Gnostics than most people are likely to have. In fact, if you wish to debate their ancient writings, I have many of them on hand.

They were not secular. That's a very recent innovation, and one, I think, unlikely to stick. They are a religious sect that actually predates even Christianity, historically. That's why Paul was keen to refute them, using their own language, in Colossians and elsewhere.

One doesn't debate or refute a sect that doesn't exist yet. So we know for certain they predate Paul. There was no church when Gnosticism first appeared, and no "Gnostic Christians" until much later, although that word remains an oxymoron, since, as you see from earlier messages, the Gnostics hate the God of the Bible anyway. Their religosity takes a skeptical form in regard to that, on the one hand, even while they feverishly embrace the most bizarre speculative mysticisms about hierarchies of heavenly realms with the other hand.

Secularism and Gnosticism have only really got hooked up in the last fifty years or so, and increasingly with the new Techngonsticism sponsored by things like information technologies. Prior to that, they were thoroughly religious for thousands of years, and in a tacit sense, still remain very much so, although they've relocated their religious enthusiasm and hopes to things like modern technology.

[Immanuel Can]

The mystical is arcane code for pretending to find knowledge where there is no information.

This is correct.

Usually mystics claim not only "higher knowledge," but "higher experience" as well, though. That may mean visions, or ecstatic experiences, or epiphanies of some kind. So if they have any information, of any kind, it's personal, like that. And there's no way of telling if it's real or not.

They insist it is, but that's the limit of it.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=480935 time=1605980714 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=480932 time=1605980194 user_id=15238]
The mystical is arcane code for pretending to find knowledge where there is no information.
[/quote]
This is correct.

Usually mystics claim not only "higher knowledge," but "higher experience" as well, though. That may mean visions, or ecstatic experiences, or epiphanies of some kind. So if they have any information, of any kind, it's personal, like that. And there's no way of telling if it's real or not.

They [i]insist [/i]it is, but that's the limit of it.
[/quote]

A difference that makes no difference is no difference, and
Things which are not externally replicable are indistinguishable from fiction, and
Anecdote is the lowest form of evidence.