Religion is Man- Made

[Dontaskme]

If you insist you are alive, then you cannot experience forever. Forever will never be your experience.

Only in the absence of identity aka the claimed 'I' .....is the concept forever an experience, in the sense it is known. It's very simple to know you are a no one, but you cannot know you are a someone, for that would mean there are two of you..

[Immanuel Can]

There are no good ideas.

Hmmm...?

What makes you feel that, D?

Because I'm fully aware and grounded in actual reality,

Well, not everybody feels the same way you do, clearly...and I don't suspect they're all nuts. And surely, there are some good ideas around, no? Helping orphans? Defeating poverty? Avoiding harming others? Those seem like pretty good ideas. So you must be speaking emotively more than factually, I must assume.

I'm just willing to hear why you feel that way.

[Dontaskme]

Hmmm...?

What makes you feel that, D?

Because I'm fully aware and grounded in actual reality,

Well, not everybody feels the same way you do, clearly...and I don't suspect they're all nuts. And surely, there are some good ideas around, no? Helping orphans? Defeating poverty? Avoiding harming others? Those seem like pretty good ideas. So you must be speaking emotively more than factually, I must assume.

I'm just willing to hear why you feel that way.

If other people need helping, then that's a bad idea, sorry but it is. Poverty is a bad thing, harm is a bad thing, children without parents is a bad thing. If these bad things were not present, then good would not be required. But bad things are always present, and that is a bad idea, in my opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

If other people need helping, then that's a bad idea, sorry but it is. Poverty is a bad thing, harm is a bad thing, children without parents is a bad thing. If these bad things were not present, then good would not be required. But bad things are always present, and that is a bad idea, in my opinion.

Well, if bad things are present, then are not doing all the opposite things "good ideas"? That would seem to follow.

[Dontaskme]

If other people need helping, then that's a bad idea, sorry but it is. Poverty is a bad thing, harm is a bad thing, children without parents is a bad thing. If these bad things were not present, then good would not be required. But bad things are always present, and that is a bad idea, in my opinion.

Well, if bad things are present, then are not doing all the opposite things "good ideas"? That would seem to follow.

Like I've said before, good only has any meaning in relationship to bad, if there was no bad then there would be no good. So it's no good helping the bad and calling that good because it's only good because it's not bad.

Now, being caught up in a crocodiles jaws is not a good thing, it's a bad, it's very very bad, it's a bad idea to be a sentient creature who could possibly be some crocodiles next meal. There is nothing good about being eaten alive, anyone who dismisses this, or is ok with this is bad, in my opinion. No amount of good deeds are going to take away the horror and dangers that await most living creatures. The crocodile was here long before humans showed up. They would even survive a nuclear war, which brings me to another idea, do you think those man -made bombs were a good idea, I'd say no, I'd say, they demonstrate what's really lurking in the minds of men, I wouldn't trust them with a barge pole. I'd rather be dead than have trust in the mind of men, who claim that good exists. Humans do things with intent, which I personally think is evil. And that's not a good idea.

[Immanuel Can]

If other people need helping, then that's a bad idea, sorry but it is. Poverty is a bad thing, harm is a bad thing, children without parents is a bad thing. If these bad things were not present, then good would not be required. But bad things are always present, and that is a bad idea, in my opinion.

Well, if bad things are present, then are not doing all the opposite things "good ideas"? That would seem to follow.

Like I've said before, good only has any meaning in relationship to bad

It's actually the other way around. "Bad" is derivative of "good," but "good" is not derivative of "bad." We call something a "good apple" when it's just an "apple." But a "bad" apple is different: we recognize that it should be a proper apple, but it's somehow not. Good is the wholeness, the completeness, the health of a thing; bad is the damaging or taking away of some element of that.

So bad's derivative. Good just means "as should be."

Humans do things with intent, which I personally think is evil.

Well, intent can be sinister, sure; but can't intent be good as well?

[Dontaskme]

Well, if bad things are present, then are not doing all the opposite things "good ideas"? That would seem to follow.

Like I've said before, good only has any meaning in relationship to bad

It's actually the other way around. "Bad" is derivative of "good," but "good" is not derivative of "bad." We call something a "good apple" when it's just an "apple." But a "bad" apple is different: we recognize that it should be a proper apple, but it's somehow not. Good is the wholeness, the completeness, the health of a thing; bad is the damaging or taking away of some element of that.

So bad's derivative. Good just means "as should be."

Humans do things with intent, which I personally think is evil.

Well, intent can be sinister, sure; but can't intent be good as well?

There is no need to do good intent if good already existed.

Saying good is the wholeness and completeness and health of things is just emotional wishy washy mush, it's not reality. There is nothing good about disease and decay which is rampant within all living sentient organisms. Being eaten alive is not a good thing, being crushed to death from an earthquake is not a good thing, drowning in a tsunami is not a good thing, being the victim of the flesh eating bug is not a good idea. There are many, many other horrors that await all sentient beings. Death is the ultimate, there is nothing good about watching your pet die, or your mother, or father or child, and then even yourself. Any denial that being alive is like walking a tightrope over a pit of hungry lions is everything that is wrong with religion. Religion is just for gullible people who cannot handle the truth of reality which is it's a painful pointless useless losing game from start to finish, there are no winners.

.

[Immanuel Can]

Like I've said before, good only has any meaning in relationship to bad

It's actually the other way around. "Bad" is derivative of "good," but "good" is not derivative of "bad." We call something a "good apple" when it's just an "apple." But a "bad" apple is different: we recognize that it should be a proper apple, but it's somehow not. Good is the wholeness, the completeness, the health of a thing; bad is the damaging or taking away of some element of that.

So bad's derivative. Good just means "as should be."

Humans do things with intent, which I personally think is evil.

Well, intent can be sinister, sure; but can't intent be good as well?

There is no need to do good intent if good already existed.

There'd be a need for it if things could be better than they happen to be.

This world is not absolute Hell or total Heaven either. So one can go "bad" from here, or "good."

Saying good is the wholeness and completeness and health of things is just emotional wishy washy mush,

No, I'm not being sentimental: I'm being analytic. I'm just saying what the concept "good" means.

There is nothing good about disease and decay which is rampant within all living sentient organisms.

No, but there is good in being alive and healthy.

And analytically,"disease" and "decay" would not even exist except that life and health exist, since the former are merely derivative states, as I suggested earlier. They are the "bad" that happens to the "good."

[Dontaskme]

It's actually the other way around. "Bad" is derivative of "good," but "good" is not derivative of "bad." We call something a "good apple" when it's just an "apple." But a "bad" apple is different: we recognize that it should be a proper apple, but it's somehow not. Good is the wholeness, the completeness, the health of a thing; bad is the damaging or taking away of some element of that.

So bad's derivative. Good just means "as should be."


Well, intent can be sinister, sure; but can't intent be good as well?

There is no need to do good intent if good already existed.

There'd be a need for it if things could be better than they happen to be.

This world is not absolute Hell or total Heaven either. So one can go "bad" from here, or "good."

Saying good is the wholeness and completeness and health of things is just emotional wishy washy mush,

No, I'm not being sentimental: I'm being analytic. I'm just saying what the concept "good" means.

There is nothing good about disease and decay which is rampant within all living sentient organisms.

No, but there is good in being alive and healthy.

And analytically,"disease" and "decay" would not even exist except that life and health exist, since the former are merely derivative states, as I suggested earlier. They are the "bad" that happens to the "good."

I'm not convinced.

Nothing is ever good if bad can happen to it. It's a flawed premise from the start and not worthy of rescuing. It's a losing game, a sum zero pointless mindless event, hopefully one that will never repeat after it's all over.

[Dubious]

The universe couldn't care less what's good or bad. Whether Hitler, Jesus, Genghis Khan or Saint Francis is a matter of total indifference to it. They are all null entities to whom no value has been added or subtracted. Sentience proceeds from there to determine its own values and theories of good & evil based on a secular or theistic approach, the two never being wholly separated since they both strive to create moral systems which partitions the indifference of the cosmos into a viable and necessary value system. They amount to nothing more than our own commentaries on the matter. The problem with the theistic approach, it hardly ever changes once established in a universe where change and everything in it is the rule.

[Age]

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'.


Thanks for your thoughts. And for clearing things up.



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?

Through the same way ALL ideas of 'words' are known, and that is through a word evolves, or a human being just makes up a word, provides a definition for that word, and then that now known word and its now known definition is shared among "others".

Do you have ANY idea of what the word 'forever' refers to?

If yes, then HOW you obtained the idea of 'forever', then that is HOW the idea of 'forever' can be KNOWN.

But if no, then I suggest just looking in ANY dictionary, which has the word 'forever' in it, and then look up the definition provided for that word, then you can ascertain AN idea of 'forever'. And, that is another way of HOW the idea of 'forever' can be KNOWN.

Another way one HOW the idea of 'forever' can be known is by just relating it to the idea of 'NEVER ending'. And, HOW the idea of 'NEVER ending' can be known is by relating it to other things, which are are known, et cetera, et cetera.

I understand how words / concepts are known.

But did you know that that which is known knows nothing?

I KNOW that 'you' keep TELLING 'us' this, and keep INSISTING that this is undoubtedly and thus is absolutely and irrefutably true.

However, you keep MISSING, NEGLECTING, or REJECTING the FACT that your BELIEF and statement ALWAYS DEPENDS on what you are referring to, EXACTLY.

For example, I FULLY AGREE WITH and ACCEPT that 'a tree', which is known, knows nothing. But, because I ALREADY KNOW what KNOWS ALL THINGS, then 'this thing', which is known, does KNOW things.

So, there are some things, which are known, that know nothing, BUT there are some things, which are known, that know things.

for example, a concept knows nothing because it's not a literal thing that has a conciousness.

I ALREADY KNEW this BEFORE 'you' INFORMED 'me' of this a few years ago. And, 'I' have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' of this.

Did you know that even though a concept is known, the concept known is never seen?

Of course the concept is NEVER seen, by the physical eye/s. This is because of what a concept essentially and fundamentally IS, EXACTLY.

A concept like ALL thoughts can NEVER be seen, by the physical eye/s BECAUSE ALL thoughts are INVISIBLE.

I thought 'you' were ALREADY WELL AWARE of this FACT.

Seeing observes imageless images that's all.

TELL that to the human being who is LOOKING AT, and SEEING, with the physical eye/s, what is known as 'a tree' before them. And then EXPLAIN to that human being how they are OBSERVING an imageless image.

But first you can start by explaining your OBVIOUS oxy-moron and contradiction of "imageless image" here.

There is nothing behind the screen of seeing, seeing itself.

This is what you BELIEVE, SAY, and CLAIM. However, I KNOW DIFFERENTLY, which, by the way, does NOT DIFFER that much from what you are saying and alluding to, but 'it' is just FAR MORE ACCURATE, as 'it' fits in PERFECTLY with the WHOLE and BIG Picture of ALL things.

By the way, if there is 'seeing', then there MUST BE some 'thing' that is doing the 'seeing', correct? Even if 'it' was just One Eye, correct?

In the same sense, there is nothing behind the screen of a computer that can be known as a brain or mind.

If this is what you BELIEVE, then so be it. But to some there is some 'thing', which is allowing, or causing/creating, the screen of a computer to be SHOWN, and thus to also be SEEN.

Consciousness can never experience itself as an object...aka a concept known.

But It/I ALREADY HAVE.

Even 'you' just expressed that KNOWN CONCEPT here. You did this when 'you' used the word, also known as 'concept known', and said: 'Consciousness'.

See, what 'you' are ACTUALLY DOING throughout this forum is DOING what you say CAN NOT BE DONE. That is; you are using ACTUAL words to describe and thus express the VERY 'things', which you say can NOT be described NOR expressed in and with words.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is ever good if bad can happen to it.

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

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

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

[Age]

The universe couldn't care less what's good or bad. Whether Hitler, Jesus, Genghis Khan or Saint Francis is a matter of total indifference to it. They are all null entities to whom no value has been added or subtracted. Sentience proceeds from there to determine its own values and theories of good & evil based on a secular or theistic approach, the two never being wholly separated since they both strive to create moral systems which partitions the indifference of the cosmos into a viable and necessary value system. They amount to nothing more than our own commentaries on the matter. The problem with the theistic approach, it hardly ever changes once established in a universe where change and everything in it is the rule.

Could this be because what is written in religious texts is far closer to already established universal facts, or truths, but WHY those writings do not appear to be relative to universal "laws or rules" is just because of the way 'you', human beings, KEEP MISINTERPRETING those writings?

OBVIOUSLY, BOTH 'you', so called, "theists" AND "atheists", in the days when this was being written, had NOT YET worked out what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. So, could this just be because of what has been ALREADY been CLEARLY WRITTEN in religious texts has just been MISINTERPRETED, and the MISINTERPRETATIONS are just continually being passed on down through the centuries and the ages, hitherto when these words were being written?

Or, do BOTH of 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT MISINTERPRETING ANY thing here? And that what 'you' EACH individually BELIEVE and SAY is the RIGHT INTERPRETATION and thus is thee ACTUAL Truth of things? Because if 'you' do, then watching and OBSERVING all of this unfold is even NOW MORE HUMOROUS and MORE ENTERTAINING than it has been previously.

[Age]

What can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this thread is that the peoples in the days when this was being written ACTUALLY BELIEVED that the good and bad, the right and wrong, and the comfort and discomfort of Life and living ACTUALLY REVOLVED around "them" individually and personally.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is that these people were so self-focused and so self-centered that they could NOT even LOOK AT, let alone SEE, ANY thing beyond "themselves". And this is WHY they kept MISSING thee ACTUAL Truth of things, which IS, and WAS, ALWAYS CLEARLY BEFORE 'them', 'us'.

[Dubious]

The universe couldn't care less what's good or bad. Whether Hitler, Jesus, Genghis Khan or Saint Francis is a matter of total indifference to it. They are all null entities to whom no value has been added or subtracted. Sentience proceeds from there to determine its own values and theories of good & evil based on a secular or theistic approach, the two never being wholly separated since they both strive to create moral systems which partitions the indifference of the cosmos into a viable and necessary value system. They amount to nothing more than our own commentaries on the matter. The problem with the theistic approach, it hardly ever changes once established in a universe where change and everything in it is the rule.

Could this be because what is written in religious texts is far closer to already established universal facts, or truths, but WHY those writings do not appear to be relative to universal "laws or rules" is just because of the way 'you', human beings, KEEP MISINTERPRETING those writings?

OBVIOUSLY, BOTH 'you', so called, "theists" AND "atheists", in the days when this was being written, had NOT YET worked out what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. So, could this just be because of what has been ALREADY been CLEARLY WRITTEN in religious texts has just been MISINTERPRETED, and the MISINTERPRETATIONS are just continually being passed on down through the centuries and the ages, hitherto when these words were being written?

Or, do BOTH of 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' are NOT MISINTERPRETING ANY thing here? And that what 'you' EACH individually BELIEVE and SAY is the RIGHT INTERPRETATION and thus is thee ACTUAL Truth of things? Because if 'you' do, then watching and OBSERVING all of this unfold is even NOW MORE HUMOROUS and MORE ENTERTAINING than it has been previously.

Enlighten us! What is the ACTUAL Truth and how is it clearly written in religious texts?? In short, describe your hermeneutic version on the subject.