The Future of Religions

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:49 pm

:D I love this song :
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half to seem 'em
No no no
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got
Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Hey farmer farmer
Put away the DDT
I don't care about spots on my apples
Leave me the birds and the bees
Please!
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Hey, now they paved paradise
To put up a parking lot

Originally written by Joni Mitchell
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11171
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:03 pm

Del Ivers wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Let's really get down into this word consciousness and what has improved.

Consciousness is awareness. Awareness of self and awareness of the self at large in the world. Consciousness can mean all the definitions you note, just as it can mean all the people and the definitions they note. Round up all of those definitions and you can see where consciousness is hardly something separate from us.
It seems like you are referring to what I would call mind.

No matter how removed you may consider yourself in terms of specific consciousness, you are subject to the consciousness at large of the people near you, the city you're living in, and from there out the world.
Sure, I'm not saying I am not connected to them in all sorts of causal chains and overlapping cultural elements, etc.

That "we" have improved, means that you and I have improved. That "we" built a highway that allows me to get out to the desert for an enjoyable day is an improvement I owe to the consciousness of that "we".
I am not contesting the fact that humans invented stuff that earlier humans did not have.

The analogy I get from your comments, especially, "We didn't, a small few came up with the wheel and a small few came up with sending people to outer space" is that of a ship at sea. The captain, engineer, and perhaps a couple of others are the ones that know how the ship operates. The rest, passengers, etc., don't need to know and probably wouldn't know how to operate the ship. But in the larger context of such, the captain depends on the "we" of the situation, of all of those on the ship. If he doesn't deliver the "we" safely to port (the port of an even bigger "We") then Cappy may find himself pushing tugboats around Manhattan, or worse. Thus, it is the "we" that checks and balances the 'improvements'. Cappy would be an unemployed idiot to not take that into account.
Yes, we do things together. We always have. Nothing her shows that our consciousnesses are better.

If that is not how you see it, then show an analogy, description, whatever, which shows how consciousness is separate from the human being, how the individual is in no way dependent on consciousness at large.
It seems like you are responding to some other person's post or something. Nothing you have said here shows that our consciousness is better. I never said anything about each of us being utterly independent.

Oh, and one more thing:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am not sure where superiority comes from.

Who does?
What I meant was: I don't see how we are superior. I gave specific examples about hunter gatherers, in response to your points. Things like Manhattanites not doing well in the jungle and hunter gatherers not doing well in New York.

I see nothing so far that says conscoiusness is better now.

But you can see how some have used that uncertainty to promote religious dogma.
quite probably. And people buy certain clothes and certain cars because this makes them special and important somehow. I am failing to see how our conscoiusnesses are better.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Del Ivers » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems like you are referring to what I would call mind.

What is the difference between mind and consciousness? Is one needed for the other or are they independent?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am failing to see how our conscoiusnesses are better.

If you don't see that, then you don't. Personally, and comparing it to historical contexts, consciousness seems better. It's not perfect - it may never get to that, but it does seem better in the sense that more people are aware of how things can be different along with the rate of changes just in the past century.

By the way, you use the plural, 'consciousnesses'. I've been referring to, 'consciousness'. I gather that you see the human being's consciousness as apart from overall consciousness?
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:36 am

Religions within humanity is grounded on the DNA based existential crisis which is inherent and unavoidable within the psyche of the individual.

The future of religions, thus will depend on how the individual[s] and the average are able to manage and modulate this inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

The point is, Islam as a means to deal with the existential crisis via a promise of salvation to paradise with eternal life is fraught with lies, falsity, evil and violent elements culminating in such consequences;

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

and a whole gamut and range of other lesser evils and violence.

With increasing communications of the truth and rationality, soon the inherent falsehoods, evil and violent of the ideology of Islam will be exposed. From this, ex-Muslims who are still affected strongly by the existential crisis will shift to Christianity, the more pacifist religion.

Christianity is optimal at least till the next 50 years but it has its pros and cons.
When the cons of Christianity outweighs its cons [say after >50 years], the majority will shift over to Buddhism and other pacifist & effective religions to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

When the cons of these pacifist religions outweigh its cons [from institutional elements] the majority [says >100 years] will shift to a generic sort of spiritual-proper that is fool proof to evil and violence to deal with the inherent existential crisis. This is possible given the current increasing trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology to evolve the human mind to higher levels of moral grounds and wisdom.
This will be the end of religions especially institutional religions.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Future of Religions

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:46 am

Del Ivers wrote:What is the difference between mind and consciousness? Is one needed for the other or are they independent?

It depends on what one means with the terms. You answered above that you meant all the meanings I put forward for consciousness. That would mean it is an overlapping concept with mind. I think it is best to use the term to mean: awareness, the experiencing aspect of living things. Which is one aspect of mind and just that one. Mind would be all the contents, functions and facets of cognition that are both conscious and unconscious. I think that's the most useful way to define them. Consciousness as experiencing (whatever).
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am failing to see how our conscoiusnesses are better.

If you don't see that, then you don't. Personally, and comparing it to historical contexts, consciousness seems better. It's not perfect - it may never get to that, but it does seem better in the sense that more people are aware of how things can be different along with the rate of changes just in the past century.
How does an increased rate of change mean that consciousness is better? The rise of the Nazis led to rapid changes in German culture, so change per se or the rate of change need not be good. What is it about a millenial, for example, that means their consciousness is better than someone from 100 years ago. Not just different, but better.

By the way, you use the plural, 'consciousnesses'. I've been referring to, 'consciousness'. I gather that you see the human being's consciousness as apart from overall consciousness?
Could be both and, but I don't know what your breakfast tasted like. I was not conscious of that. I was not aware of it in your mouth or the smell in the air. So my consciousness is not a part of or including yours. Perhaps on some other level, some collective unconscious or something we are connected. This does not mean I see mine as not like yours, just that it's over here and yours is over there. And if you meant all those possible meanings for consciousness, then we have different ones.

I mean even two 8 balls, that are manufactured from the same materials by the same company are two 8 balls.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users