Religion is Man- Made

[Immanuel Can]

No -- directly on point, actually. If your theory were true, you'd have to accept the perp's "truth" as coequal with your own.

In the human story, yes you are right. So what?

I'll ignore it for now,

I can understand why. It blows your theory to smithereens.

A theory is a story...

Um...no. Sorry.

Truth claims are human stories

Also no...sorry again.

[Immanuel Can]

I am able to recall incidents from very early years, even before I could talk. I'm sure you are too. And when a child acquires language, he/she is often able to refer to incidents that happened to them before they even became verbal.

The point is, this you that claims to have existed in the past is only possible because there is the belief here and now that you exist.

No, the point is that what you said isn't true...experience, not language, is primary.

I know you find this simple realisation difficult to grasp

Simple it is...but not at all hard to grasp. It's just wrong.

[AlexW]

“Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did “

I think most religions - no matter if they speak about a God or negate such a being (eg Buddhism) - are based on "special" experiences of such a "God" - or rather: what is conceptualised as a "union with God" after the experience has happened, as the experience itself is not actually an experience (in the usual sense).
It is an "experience" where there are no physical or mental impressions at all, yet, there is pure consciousness, which is, later on (when "normal" consciousness and experience returns) conceptualised in many different ways (and it might even carry over to normal experiencing where everything is seen as being "part of" the one).
These special experiences have different names: in Hinduism they are called "Samadhi", in Christianity "mystical experience/consciousness", in Tibetan Buddhism it might be a glimpse of "Nirvana" etc etc...

It is unfortunate that some of the interpretations have been painted in such colourful pictures, that people were misled to believe that there is such a special being, a being which is timeless, eternal, unlimited and all-powerful and that this entity is "God". (and, yes, of course this belief has been supported and promoted by people who might benefit from it... many organised churches of the world are based on these "wrong" interpretations)

It would be interesting to see what happened if all people had "access to" mystic experiences ... it would be a worldwide change of perspective and belief in a magnitude which has never been seen before...

[Dontaskme]

Um...no. Sorry.

Also no...sorry again.

No one cares.

There is only your truth when it comes to the subject of a metaphysical idea such as religion. Deny that all you want, makes no difference to the fact.

[Dontaskme]

I am able to recall incidents from very early years, even before I could talk. I'm sure you are too. And when a child acquires language, he/she is often able to refer to incidents that happened to them before they even became verbal.

The point is, this you that claims to have existed in the past is only possible because there is the belief here and now that you exist.

No, the point is that what you said isn't true...experience, not language, is primary.

I know you find this simple realisation difficult to grasp

Simple it is...but not at all hard to grasp. It's just wrong.

Well if you want to be really finicky over this, then it's consciousness that is primary, not experience. Experience is an appearance within consciousness, experience is not consciousness itself. Does consciousness know it's conscious? No it doesn't, it is the knowing. It's a not-knowing knowing. That's the knowledge you do not like to hear from me.

I originally stated that knowledge is born of language. That's right, not wrong, in my logic.

That you insist it's wrong, is irrelevant to this discussion unless you care to explain in detail why I'm wrong. I agree that no language is required for experience. Just as no language is required for consciousness. The taste of an orange for example is an automatic experience in the sense there is an instant awareness of the experience, the sensation and the awareness of the sensation arise in the exact same instant. Now, back to my actual point again!...in the exact moment there is the tasting of an orange, there is no 'conceptual thing' that is experiencing this taste. A 'conceptual thing' can only exist as a concept, and a concept is born of language.

Another example: The body automatically knows how to function without the requirement for language, so you are right about that, but there is no 'conceptual thing' that is in control of how and why the body automatically knows how to function. And this is my point, but you are welcome to befuddle the converstion to your own liking and preferences, because that's what you are very good at. The truth is all yours in that respect, all truth claims are man-made after all, simply because human beings are the only species that are able to communicate it, because of knowledge. So a big thanks to the very useful tool gifted by evolution itself, that tool is called language..


Don't forget, language is a personal knowledge. In reality, there is no personal knowledge, personal knowledge is just a story. In reality there is a knowing, but no 'conceptual thing' knows this knowing, because it is the knowing, the only knowing, and that is what you find hard to accept. Oh well!!



Knowledge born of language can only point to the illusory nature of reality. There is no knower, except in this conception.

[Dontaskme]

“Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did “

I think most religions - no matter if they speak about a God or negate such a being (eg Buddhism) - are based on "special" experiences of such a "God" - or rather: what is conceptualised as a "union with God" after the experience has happened, as the experience itself is not actually an experience (in the usual sense).
It is an "experience" where there are no physical or mental impressions at all, yet, there is pure consciousness, which is, later on (when "normal" consciousness and experience returns) conceptualised in many different ways (and it might even carry over to normal experiencing where everything is seen as being "part of" the one).
These special experiences have different names: in Hinduism they are called "Samadhi", in Christianity "mystical experience/consciousness", in Tibetan Buddhism it might be a glimpse of "Nirvana" etc etc...

It is unfortunate that some of the interpretations have been painted in such colourful pictures, that people were misled to believe that there is such a special being, a being which is timeless, eternal, unlimited and all-powerful and that this entity is "God". (and, yes, of course this belief has been supported and promoted by people who might benefit from it... many organised churches of the world are based on these "wrong" interpretations)

It would be interesting to see what happened if all people had "access to" mystic experiences ... it would be a worldwide change of perspective and belief in a magnitude which has never been seen before...

Well said.

The human experience is a duality, a result of them being able to communiate through langage. In essence, they became aware they are aware through language, they became knowledgable without realising the awareness is not a ''conceptual thing'' which knows nothing because it's already the knowing that cannot be known twice.

Anyways, thanks for your clarity, your contributions are always a welcome sight Alex, there is nothing you say that I would, or could disagree with.

[Age]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true, that is; either God does exit, or, God does NOT exist, but NONE of them are even able to SHOW that they are capable of defining what the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to, EXACTLY.

Having and holding BELIEFS, like these people do here, is a clear expression for "all of these blind people finding the black cat, in the dark, which is not even there".

[Dontaskme]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true, that is; either God does exit, or, God does NOT exist, but NONE of them are even able to SHOW that they are capable of defining what the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to, EXACTLY.

Having and holding BELIEFS, like these people do here, is a clear expression for "all of these blind people finding the black cat, in the dark, which is not even there".

Does the character that goes by the name 'Age' believe that human beings believe they are expressing truth beliefs ?

[Dontaskme]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true, that is; either God does exit, or, God does NOT exist, but NONE of them are even able to SHOW that they are capable of defining what the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to, EXACTLY.

Why don't you start with showing the capability of defining what the word 'human being' actually refers to?

And with all due respect, please try to do it without making the definition the length of the book War and Peace.

[Age]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true, that is; either God does exit, or, God does NOT exist, but NONE of them are even able to SHOW that they are capable of defining what the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to, EXACTLY.

Having and holding BELIEFS, like these people do here, is a clear expression for "all of these blind people finding the black cat, in the dark, which is not even there".

Does the character that goes by the name 'Age' believe that human beings believe they are expressing truth beliefs ?

No

[Dontaskme]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true, that is; either God does exit, or, God does NOT exist, but NONE of them are even able to SHOW that they are capable of defining what the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to, EXACTLY.

Having and holding BELIEFS, like these people do here, is a clear expression for "all of these blind people finding the black cat, in the dark, which is not even there".

Does the character that goes by the name 'Age' believe that human beings believe they are expressing truth beliefs ?

No

Is it an assumption? That human beings express truth beliefs ?

[Age]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true, that is; either God does exit, or, God does NOT exist, but NONE of them are even able to SHOW that they are capable of defining what the word 'God' ACTUALLY refers to, EXACTLY.

Why don't you start with showing the capability of defining what the word 'human being' actually refers to?

To me,

The 'human' word in 'human being' refers to the physical body part, which is visible to the physical eye/s.

The 'being' word in 'human being' refers to the thinking, feeling part, which is invisible to the physical eye/s. This part also goes by and is known by the words 'person', or 'personality'.

For further defining, the word 'person' refers to the thoughts and emotions only, within the body. This is because there is NO person who is more, NOR less, than ANY other 'person'. ALL people are EQUAL in that they are ALL the EXACT SAME thing, that is; just the thoughts and emotions within the body, but ALL people are also DIFFERENT in that they are ALL just made up of different thoughts.

In relation to some religious ideas/beliefs, the word 'soul' refers to this thinking, feeling, and invisible, part of the human being, which lasts forever. In that the whatever thoughts (the person/soul) that were in a physical (human) body leave, or have, an ever-lasting effect on the 'rest'.

And with all due respect, please try to do it without making the definition the length of the book War and Peace.

Was that to long, for you?

If yes, then I can shorten down, for you.

Or, if it was to short, then I can back up that definition with just about an infinite amount of supporting proof. Which, by the way, rounds EVERY thing off into One Unified Self-evident proposition, or, in other words, is just Self-explanatory.

Once the TOE and the GUT are FULLY understood, then what IS just becomes Self-explanatory, and consciously KNOWN.

If you would like to know more, or less, then just let me know.

[Age]

Does the character that goes by the name 'Age' believe that human beings believe they are expressing truth beliefs ?

No

Is it an assumption? That human beings express truth beliefs ?

'you', "dontaskme", is the one who said anything about human beings expressing, so called, "truth beliefs".

I NEVER did. I used the words, and wrote:
human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true,

Are 'you', human beings, in this forum, individually or collectively, expressing what 'you' do NOT BELIEVE is true?

If no, then 'you', human beings, are just expressing what 'you' BELIEVE is true.

[Dontaskme]

Is it an assumption? That human beings express truth beliefs ?

'you', "dontaskme", is the one who said anything about human beings expressing, so called, "truth beliefs".

Yes it was, thanks for clearing that up.

I NEVER did. I used the words, and wrote:
human beings just expressing what they BELIEVE is true,

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Is there anything wrong with having a belief about what feels true?

Are 'you', human beings, in this forum, individually or collectively, expressing what 'you' do NOT BELIEVE is true?

If no, then 'you', human beings, are just expressing what 'you' BELIEVE is true.

I don't really understand what you are asking Age..sorry.

I personally do not believe in a creator that is separate from creation. For me, creation and creator are one and the same reality. I believe observation or the awareness of sensation - is only known because evolution supplied awareness with the capacity to use language using concepts that made it possible to understand that pain is bad and the absence of pain is good.

I do believe that awareness of pain, is that it is a bad sensation, and that the absence of pain is good. I believe there is a natural tendency to avoid pain in favor of comfort. I believe all sentient life forms are just living out their lives the best they can and seek mostly for comfort simply because they are aware of discomfort, which is not really wanted, at all, and yet is woven into the whole fabric of the universe. I believe that's not the work of a beautiful intelligence. I believe beauty is painful. It's all very crude, pointless and mindless, I believe this to be true.

[Dontaskme]

Why don't you start with showing the capability of defining what the word 'human being' actually refers to?

To me,

The 'human' word in 'human being' refers to the physical body part, which is visible to the physical eye/s.

The 'being' word in 'human being' refers to the thinking, feeling part, which is invisible to the physical eye/s. This part also goes by and is known by the words 'person', or 'personality'.

For further defining, the word 'person' refers to the thoughts and emotions only, within the body. This is because there is NO person who is more, NOR less, than ANY other 'person'. ALL people are EQUAL in that they are ALL the EXACT SAME thing, that is; just the thoughts and emotions within the body, but ALL people are also DIFFERENT in that they are ALL just made up of different thoughts.

In relation to some religious ideas/beliefs, the word 'soul' refers to this thinking, feeling, and invisible, part of the human being, which lasts forever. In that the whatever thoughts (the person/soul) that were in a physical (human) body leave, or have, an ever-lasting effect on the 'rest'.

And with all due respect, please try to do it without making the definition the length of the book War and Peace.

Thanks for your thoughts. And for clearing things up.

Was that to long, for you?

No, it was just right, thanks. I can only deal with tiny bites of information at once.

The only thing that puzzles me is the part where it is written '' the word 'soul' refers to this thinking, feeling, and invisible, part of the human being, which lasts forever. ''

How can the idea of 'forever' be known?