Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Harm Done By Religion


Doug1066

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Enlightenment isn't the thing. Desire is though.

 

"The law of the spirit which decrees that to him who has shall be given so that he shall have an abundance; but from him who has not shall be taken away even that which he has. Therefore will I henceforth speak to the people much in parables to the end that our friends and those who desire to know the truth may find that which they seek, while our enemies and those who love not the truth may hear without understanding. Many of these people follow not in the way of the truth. The prophet did, indeed, describe all such undiscerning souls when he said: ‘For this people’s heart has waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed lest they should discern the truth and understand it in their hearts.'

 

 

That was a lovely quote from your book, Will. Thanks for sharing. :lol:

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Believing or knowing? Obviously there's a difference. 

 

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

On the other hand ... I am reasonably sure that I have some many incompatible acceptance pairs, since it is fairly common. Socrates was able to dine out on his ability to detect that situation and not because he hung around with intellectual flyweights.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not attempting to strike a direct conversation with you. 

You say Socrates hung around with intellectual flyweights? Is that why you imply that he was able to win dinner table arguments, only because of their light levels of intellectualism? Flyweight, like in boxing classes,  I suppose you to mean?  Were there no intellectual heavyweights around for Socrates to break bread with ? Please to give us an example of each; name one dinner companion in the flyweight category, and one heavyweight who never dined with Socrates. For dining we are referring to the eating of the fruit picked from the various trees of knowledge, obviously.  And to be clear, by the term, Intellectual, I suppose you mean anyone who grows fat, and more or less heavy/light, relative to the amount they eat of that delicious fruit of knowledge?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Don't get me wrong...I'm not attempting to strike a direct conversation with you. 

It's OK. I don't bite.

52 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

You say Socrates hung around with intellectual flyweights?

No. I said that that wasn't the reason he was successful at detecting incompatibilities in other people's belief sets.

Thank you for illustrating a variation on a problem that came up earlier in the thread. If someone says "A is not the reason for B," that could be (1) because A is true, but doesn't cause B, or (2) because A is false. I didn't actually intend ambiguity about which I meant, and did rely on Socrates's reputation for keeping learned company to resolve any potential ambiguity.

But you're right. The only way to resolve the ambiguity decisively is to inquire.

Thank you for both the feedback and the opportunity to reiterate the earlier point. Also thank you for illustrating at length another earlier point: the practical need to inform an inquirer when their questions are based on a false premise.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one of God's curses he put on Israel. I think about this in places like Detroit where people lost their homes. They are selling these homes for extremely cheap, way less than what they were originally worth, but the people who lived there cannot buy them back. This is happening in other places and a lot of times these homes just sit empty on the market.

Isaiah 5

Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

In mine ears said the Lord of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.

10 Yea, ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath, and the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Feedback works both ways Sheri..

And this state of being is far more than a calm and relaxed state.

It is a non-attached state of at-one-ment, where the ego no longer excists, no preference, no expectations, just an awakened state of being....or at least a little taste of THAT.

And, any one may know this for oneself.

Your choice.

As always..

No offense intended, but you have gotten carried away by your own narrative, in other words, I think it is even well intended but, one would want to caution against offering self absorption and narcissism as a path. It could be harmful to others, hun.

CH, there isn’t a one size fits all approach either for meditation. Your delusions would not benefit anyone and that is what @XenoFishwas trying to bring to your awareness to no avail. If you post up an opinion on a public forum it is open to feedback and in this case as far as I can tell this is you preaching your reality tunnel as viable, on a thread that is exploring the dangers of harmful practices and ones beliefs. 
 

Medically, meditation is also one tool used as a way to release stress to deal with concerns of chronic stress it is well supported that high chronic stress levels can lead to depression or anxiety and cause a lot of chronic health conditions. Google the ballon analogy if you are interested in exploring further. 
 

Also, a really important thing about the brain that one should keep in mind  is that it uses 20 percent of ones metabolism to function, 20 percent of oxygen consumption etc. etc. the brain is an incredibly active organ, even at rest. Think of your heart operating at top speed all the time- well your brain at rest is this active so there is no “true resting state’ this is simply due to the demands of the brain metabolically.
 

So what is thought to be happening with intentional engagement or meditation is one might be slowing that down or turning down this high demand state, we have good data to support this, we have some data  that does support that blood flow and oxygen absorption slow down during meditative practices, but the caveat is in the interpretation of the data one must use great care to not get ahead of the data. 
 

All the best.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

So please stop assuming so much.

I don't understand.  You said that it was unfortunate that you still have an ego, yet I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why you would request the above that is not ego-driven ultimately.  Why would you like or dislike someone else's assumptions about you except for the sake of your 'self'?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't understand.  You said that it was unfortunate that you still have an ego, yet I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why you would request the above that is not ego-driven ultimately.  Why would you like or dislike someone else's assumptions about you except for the sake of your 'self'?

Exactly, what stands out to me is his claims of ego death. Let’s just say there is no such thing except in delusions of grandeur. 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Believing or knowing? Obviously there's a difference. 

 

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

 

 

 

What distinguishes  the difference, Will? Interested in your thoughts on this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

It's OK. I don't bite.

No. I said that that wasn't the reason he was successful at detecting incompatibilities in other people's belief sets.

Thank you for illustrating a variation on a problem that came up earlier in the thread. If someone says "A is not the reason for B," that could be (1) because A is true, but doesn't cause B, or (2) because A is false. I didn't actually intend ambiguity about which I meant, and did rely on Socrates's reputation for keeping learned company to resolve any potential ambiguity.

But you're right. The only way to resolve the ambiguity decisively is to inquire.

Thank you for both the feedback and the opportunity to reiterate the earlier point. Also thank you for illustrating at length another earlier point: the practical need to inform an inquirer when their questions are based on a false premise.

No need to thank me, yet. Not until I understand, fully, what you mean. Who will be the judge of what is false? Obviously it has to be one who knows the truth, besides. We must think scientifically here, besides logically. Science sees no reasons as to why anything is, whether it's A, or B, and whether each is independent of each other, as far as being a specific letter causing or not causing each to be false or true, or as is in the ongoing argument, both at the same time. Science says everything happened randomly, without any reason. Logic, at least Socratic logic, says otherwise. Can we have both, as in a compromise? Truth will have nothing to do with false, but false, on the other hand, always wants to be near truth. It gets thoughtfully close, and so close at times to seem to be truth itself. Only an expert eye can see the difference, the rest of us are as blind as bats.

SOCRATES: When, therefore, perception is present to one of the seals or
impressions but not to the other, and the mind fits the seal of the absent perception
on the one which is present, in any case of this sort the mind is deceived;
in a word, if our view is sound, there can be no error or deception about things
which a man does not know and has never perceived, but only in things which
are known and perceived; in these alone opinion turns and twists about, and
becomes alternately true and false;–true when the seals and impressions of sense
meet straight and opposite–false when they go awry and crooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Liquid Gardens

Just an add too, a fun aside :rofl: note the ego use by CH namely,  CH is using defenses to offer a proactive/retroactive adjustment to his opinion. One can think of defense mechanisms as slapping on a filter such as, denial, rationalization, used to morph the experience into a more palatable/acceptable form. In other words, his ego is alive and well.  No ego death happening here, let alone possible.:P 

 

“we can suggest that the scope of ego functions can be described as including: 

consciousness; 

sense perception;

the perception and expression of affect;

thought;

the control of motor action;

memory;

language; 

defense mechanisms;

the control, regulation, and binding of instinctual energy;

an integrative and harmonizing function; and 

the capacity to inhibit or suspend the operation of any of the functions mentioned and to regress to a primitive level of functioning” ((e.g., regression in the service of the ego) (Hartmann, 1939/1986).

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

@Liquid Gardens

Just an add too, a fun aside :rofl: note the ego use by CH namely,  CH is using defenses to offer a proactive/retroactive adjustment to his opinion. One can think of defense mechanisms as slapping on a filter such as, denial, rationalization, used to morph the experience into a more palatable/acceptable form. In other words, his ego is alive and well.  No ego death happening here, let alone possible.:P 

 

“we can suggest that the scope of ego functions can be described as including: 

consciousness; 

sense perception;

the perception and expression of affect;

thought;

the control of motor action;

memory;

language; 

defense mechanisms;

the control, regulation, and binding of instinctual energy;

an integrative and harmonizing function; and 

the capacity to inhibit or suspend the operation of any of the functions mentioned and to regress to a primitive level of functioning” ((e.g., regression in the service of the ego) (Hartmann, 1939/1986).

 

Ego

noun, plural e·gos.
the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
egotism; conceit; self-importance:Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
self-esteem or self-image; feelings:Your criticism wounded his ego.
(often initial capital letter)Philosophy.
  1. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
  2. Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and soul.
Ethnology. a person who serves as the central reference point in the study of organizational and kinship relationships.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people confuse the term "ego" with the term "vanity".

vanity
[ˈvanədē]
 
NOUN
  1. excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements.
    "it flattered his vanity to think I was in love with him" · 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

A person will not KNOW a lot of things, but most humans chose to construct beliefs and disbeliefs about the things they dont know.

Hi Walker

There are lots of things I don't know and have no belief either way because I may not know that it exists and have not been given cause to investigate as it may have no practical use in my day to day life.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

For most people,  lack of knowldgeOr is not a satisfactory mental state. The y need the certainty of belief or disbelief 

I don't feel overly stressed about things I don't know especially if I have no need for knowing it.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So no for most people " I don't know ." on ANY issue is simply unsatisfactory.

Like my mom always said at the dinner table " this isn't a restaurant so eat what you are given or go to bed hungry":lol:

I had several teachers that ignored my questions so they lost favor as a teacher in my mind and didn't push them nor did I give them much value. If I need to find something I know where to look for it on my own and let others sort stuff out for themselves like I did unless it has something to do with my work and making money.

I neither believe in the vax nor do I disbelieve it I made my choice simply as an economic factor because I believe that making money for subsistence is important to me and see many others that are losing money/contracts because their beliefs are different than mine. 

If you don't know something doesn't matter to me unless it is that a person lied about what they know about their work and do not give me fair dollar value on their skills.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

They  start with, "I don't know" and then add" BUT I believe ............  (or   don't believe )

You might, if I don't know then I do not add an I believe qualifier about something I don't know, if it is worth my time to know like a client asking a question about something then I will add I will look and see what I can find out for you.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ive always defended ALL positive faiths and beliefs. Ive many times said I could belong to any faith, or simply have a personal individual relationship with god 

I asked you to give links to posts that demonstrate that you apply and equal amount of time discussing/defending all religions equally and I KNOW that you have not because the majority of your promotion is for Christianity.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ive pointed out that the medical benefits of faith and religion come from  any/all positive faiths and religions 

You can point it out all you want but the fact remains that you claim that have not made a personal commitment to a religion so do not see where it is a value to anyone else if you do not actually have that commitment.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually you sound a little like me 

You chose not to believe/disbelieve in things and think tha t "I  don't Know." is enough.

However for 90 % of humans it is NOT enough.

:lol:

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I was stating that t i agree that a clone has rights (I've always argued for the rights of any/all self  aware beings, both natural eg non human animals and artificial eg androids, )  and could not be compelled to act as I wanted it to, anymore than I can be compelled by another.

  BUT a clone like I am speaking of, which also has my mind replicated and  transferred to its brain will BE me, and as I pointed out, will almost certainly think and act as I would do.

Hi Walker

We are off track so will keep it brief. You say you will give it rights because you have an expectation that it will want to live life as you see it and that you would want to mind-meld with them to rob them of their personal experience and pretend they are yours. You want control and that is not indicative of letting the clone/s to live their own life as an individual.

If you wish to chase your tail on this start a new thread and I will come play with you.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may as well change the name of the topic a little, based on the direction this thread is being woven. This is my suggestion.

The Harm Done By Ignorance.

No sense blaming religion, as we harm ourselves with or without religion.

Who needs religion? Only those that do not know, as religion is only a matter of belief, because it's all based on personal opinions by those that do not know, to begin with. Religion was born from ignorance, one may say. And those exceptional few who have came down to us, to be among us in an attempt to wipe away our ignorance, have failed miserably, so far. Ignorance is more widespread today than it ever was. And it's even more dangerous now, because with the passing of time, we have come believe that we are more knowledgeable today than ever before. 

Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, but others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3Then the wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever.

4But you, Daniel, shut up these words and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will roam to and fro, and knowledge will increase.”

If we only knew, I mean what a wonderful world it would be, if we knew which book was sealed, and if we had a peak inside. Religion is never clear, and that's one reason why it causes more harm than good. The interpretation is a killer when swallowed without first tasting, and chewing on it for a while. Daniel ate it up, like most do with religious texts. And perhaps that's were we got that old saying of using our gut feelings for what we believe. But I just got a funny feeling in my gut, telling me that John, and not Daniel was the one who ate the book. Different messengers of the same gods, and perhaps even different books?

Perhaps I'm doing some cross-thread stitching here. But it was inadvertent, as I now notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many skirmishes taking place, and too fast to, in this battle field, to keep track of the wounds inflicted; verbal wounds. Who is harming who? The rhythm at ramming speed is unsustainable for all to follow.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not read the entire thread so I don't know if this interpretaion of the OP has been put forward before. To me, it seems that the question should not be "The harm done by religion", but rather "The harm done by dogma". You could live in a society that was ultra religious, the Ancient Egyptians for instance, but as they had no dogma, there were no internal stresses or conflicts of a religious nature in their society, and they had no religious issues with foreigners, nor they with the Egyptians. But, along came monotheism, and in came religious strife, which is a curse to this day.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

We are off track so will keep it brief. You say you will give it rights because you have an expectation that it will want to live life as you see it and that you would want to mind-meld with them to rob them of their personal experience and pretend they are yours. You want control and that is not indicative of letting the clone/s to live their own life as an individual.

If you wish to chase your tail on this start a new thread and I will come play with you.

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

There are lots of things I don't know and have no belief either way because I may not know that it exists and have not been given cause to investigate as it may have no practical use in my day to day life.

I don't feel overly stressed about things I don't know especially if I have no need for knowing it.

Like my mom always said at the dinner table " this isn't a restaurant so eat what you are given or go to bed hungry":lol:

I had several teachers that ignored my questions so they lost favor as a teacher in my mind and didn't push them nor did I give them much value. If I need to find something I know where to look for it on my own and let others sort stuff out for themselves like I did unless it has something to do with my work and making money.

I neither believe in the vax nor do I disbelieve it I made my choice simply as an economic factor because I believe that making money for subsistence is important to me and see many others that are losing money/contracts because their beliefs are different than mine. 

If you don't know something doesn't matter to me unless it is that a person lied about what they know about their work and do not give me fair dollar value on their skills.

You might, if I don't know then I do not add an I believe qualifier about something I don't know, if it is worth my time to know like a client asking a question about something then I will add I will look and see what I can find out for you.

I asked you to give links to posts that demonstrate that you apply and equal amount of time discussing/defending all religions equally and I KNOW that you have not because the majority of your promotion is for Christianity.

You can point it out all you want but the fact remains that you claim that have not made a personal commitment to a religion so do not see where it is a value to anyone else if you do not actually have that commitment.

:lol:

Your  counters are exceptional reads. Well done, Jay.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sherapy said:

What distinguishes  the difference, Will? Interested in your thoughts on this. 

 

Distinguishing the difference between believing and knowing depends on whether or not the light is turned on. You remember what I said about turning on the light when the room you're working in is dark don't you? It's that that distinguishes the difference.

Thanks for asking.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Distinguishing the difference between believing and knowing depends on whether or not the light is turned on. You remember what I said about turning on the light when the room you're working in is dark don't you? It's that that distinguishes the difference.

Thanks for asking.

 

 

For me, the way I distinguish to know is supported  with some kind of evidence and to believe is to accept something as fact with lno evidence. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

There are lots of things I don't know and have no belief either way because I may not know that it exists and have not been given cause to investigate as it may have no practical use in my day to day life.

I don't feel overly stressed about things I don't know especially if I have no need for knowing it.

Like my mom always said at the dinner table " this isn't a restaurant so eat what you are given or go to bed hungry":lol:

I had several teachers that ignored my questions so they lost favor as a teacher in my mind and didn't push them nor did I give them much value. If I need to find something I know where to look for it on my own and let others sort stuff out for themselves like I did unless it has something to do with my work and making money.

I neither believe in the vax nor do I disbelieve it I made my choice simply as an economic factor because I believe that making money for subsistence is important to me and see many others that are losing money/contracts because their beliefs are different than mine. 

If you don't know something doesn't matter to me unless it is that a person lied about what they know about their work and do not give me fair dollar value on their skills.

You might, if I don't know then I do not add an I believe qualifier about something I don't know, if it is worth my time to know like a client asking a question about something then I will add I will look and see what I can find out for you.

I asked you to give links to posts that demonstrate that you apply and equal amount of time discussing/defending all religions equally and I KNOW that you have not because the majority of your promotion is for Christianity.

You can point it out all you want but the fact remains that you claim that have not made a personal commitment to a religion so do not see where it is a value to anyone else if you do not actually have that commitment.

:lol:

Like I said, you are unusual for a human  being Most require answers to their questions, and if there aren't any then they make up ones which keep them happy. 

I've explained why i speak most  about Christianity. It is for the same reason that almost every one here (with e exception of marwon) is  discussing Christianity ie because its the only religion the y are really familiar with, and in which they have a positive or negative investment.

You've challenged me, so its up to you to prove that I only claim that  Christianity is a faith which can heal and add  years to a life 

In fact I've always said the opposite. ie that ANY positive faith or religious observance brings   a longer and healthier life. 

There is less data available from  other religions, but its all consistent  Eg  religious jews in Israel have  higher reemission and recovery from  cancers than non religious ones.  

I haven't made a personal commitment to the theology of any religion, but I live by aspects of many religions 

Plus I live with a powerful and protective "god." I don't need the faith/belief,  or religious, based advantages which others need :) I am protected to a considerable  extent  from harm, pain, suffering depression  etc by the physical presence of this being.  I am enhanced  and empowered by it's physical connection.

My wife, on the other hand, gains many of the same benefits via pure and total faith .

and lastly, of course, one doesn't have to live a lifestyle to promote it 

Eg a person addicted to smoking can still do their best to stop others from  smoking  and educate them on it's dangers. 

I am not totally vegetarian, but i know that it is a healthier and more sustainable life style to live. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Some people confuse the term "ego" with the term "vanity".

vanity
[ˈvanədē]
 
NOUN
  1. excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements.
    "it flattered his vanity to think I was in love with him" · 

Thanks. You said in 10 words, that which I would have used 100 (at least) to explain to Sherapy

In psychological terms, ego is neutral, and just a part of the human identity 

Too much of it, or too little, can be harmful in a human being. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

We are off track so will keep it brief. You say you will give it rights because you have an expectation that it will want to live life as you see it and that you would want to mind-meld with them to rob them of their personal experience and pretend they are yours. You want control and that is not indicative of letting the clone/s to live their own life as an individual.

If you wish to chase your tail on this start a new thread and I will come play with you.

No, I never said that. I said it would HAVE rights, because it would be a self  aware being.  I can't give it rights or take them away.  A clone is not my possession.

But yes, a clone with my mind imprinted on its brain  would originally be identical to me, at the time of imprinting.

  While it might evolve its own values etc over time, I suspect they would not alter much. Mine have not changed markedly over the last 50 years  

And no, mind melding would be an individual choice. I would like to do it, and I suspect all the clones would also, but if the y didn't want to, that is  their choice.

It is not robbing anyone of anything.

Indeed, it is adding to every mind, the memories, knowledge, experiences etc. gained by each individual, so the y can be shared by all.

You would remember every book " you" had read, every meal you had eaten  as if you  had read it or eaten it,  and every thing you had made created etc., as if you  had made it 

Ps I suspect this technogly will be used in the latter half of this century not just for cloning but for commercial educational and recreational purposes. 

I think we will have to get over the ancient idea that our minds are  only accessible to  us,  and can be kept private. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.