I don't get Buddhism

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Thus premise 1 is true.

You confirm the validity of your own hypothesis?

Yes as justified and note the logic and rationale of it.
How else it is false?
Btw, I have also stated the premise can possibly be tested empirically and very likely to be true, i.e. Scientifically.

You need to do more research on the unconscious mind and how it works.

As if that would lead to certain answers? What did I specifically state that leads you to say that?

It is based on what I know of the unconscious mind and what you don't seem to know.
You keep having doubts with the workings of the subconscious mind.

But the powerful impulses of the subconscious fear of death, manifest indirectly as anxieties, unease, Angst and a general mental suffering.

How do you know that these emotions are not generated by the conscious mind?

If that is the case, then it would be in something like a movie, where actors consciously generate various feelings of happiness, dread, anxieties or fear on a pseudo basis.
The conscious can feel and be conscious of those feelings but the conscious mind do not generate them except where one deliberately generate them.
If one is consciously generating those dreadful feelings, one can consciously stop them.

Note in the case of anxieties and trembling with some kind of fear when one is faced with the need to do public speaking. It is not easy to control such fears because they emanate from the subconscious mind like indirectly existential pains as anxieties, etc.
I read, one of the greatest fears polled is 'fear of public speaking'
WHY? here is the main reason,

Why Are We Scared of Public Speaking?
1. Physiology
Fear and anxiety involve the arousal of the autonomic nervous system in response to a potentially threatening stimulus. When confronted with a threat, our bodies prepare for battle. This hyperarousal leads to the emotional experience of fear, and it interferes with our ability to perform comfortably in front of audiences. Eventually, it prevents people from pursuing opportunities for public speaking.

(read more at)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... c-speaking

If we dig deeper, the above fear is traceable as a form of the subconscious fear of death, in avoiding death so to live as in my premise 1.

It works in degrees with different people.

Then how can you generalise?

Intensity and degrees are part of reality, note the Bell Curves and the Shades of Grey.
I can't be wrong by referring to this general principle.

That you still had existential questions imply your rational mind was working against blind faith.

 
Perhaps, but it could also mean that … oh I give up with you...

You will note I have justified all my counters with facts, evidence and generally accepted principles.
It is your discretion to give up.
As for me, it is beneficial since I can refresh from my database and polished up my arguments.

I seldom give up as far as the path forward is rational. This is why I spent so much time digging deeper and deeper into reality, note 2+ years full time on Buddhism, 3 years full time on Kant, 3+ years full time on Islam and much time on others.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Thank you for taking the time to respond, but I've given up brother.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Prismatic,

My argument;
1. All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.

And this is still confused. All humans who are alive are alive. Those who are not do not strive to live. Those who are alive, do not need to strive to live, they need to strive to find food and so on. The will try to avoid threats including deadly ones. They are conscious of this and also will react for reasons that may not be conscious of to threats.

2. To avoid death, all humans are imputed with the fear of death subconsciously.

No, they are afraid of threats, some of which are deadly, many can or do cause bodily harm.

3. The subconscious fear of death generate indirect existential pains.

These are pretty conscious.

4. The assurance of God of the Christian in John 3:16 i.e. guarantee eternal life and effectively remove the indirect existential pains.

Maybe, maybe not. It might simply be stating a fact. It might have a more mystical purpose that is not about life beyond the grave.

5. Therefore John 3:16 is linked with the subconscious fear of death.

I do think it can be linked, associated with by believers and others, with death and thus with fears of it. None of this demonstrates that Christianity is 90% focusing on assuaging the fear of death. Further calling this always an unconscious fear of death is odd since animals do not have religions but also exhibit fears related to threats. What makes us unique is the conscious conception of death. So the motivator for religions, if it were death, would be related to conscious fears, not unconscious fears of threats that are possibly mortal ones.

See, one of the mistakes here is that we need to have an unconscious fear of death, rather than a fear of threats fo various kinds.

And of course you are just assuming there is no God, experiences that lead to religions are not real or misinterpreted.

[Prismatic567]

phyllo,

If a self does not exist, then all the rest is illusion too.

Yes.

So then, I do not presume that what you are saying here is that everything that we see and value and love and experience does not actually exist, that the reality is that it is all illusion.
Perhaps buddhists like to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I have argued the above is not Buddhism-proper.

Buddhism-proper [based on its core principles] in this case, the 'two-truths theory' believes in the following;

1. The empirical-I-self is very real within reality.

2. Where 1 above is extended beyond and reified as a transcendental-I-self, that is an illusion.

It is the same with all of reality;

1. All of reality is empirically real.

2. Where 1 above is extended beyond and reified as a transcendental reality, that is an illusion.

Thus Buddhism proper recognized the empirical-I-self as very real and the believer need to optimize the well-being of the empirical person.
It is real and not an illusion, as such if the real empirical self is standing on a track of an oncoming train he will maintain his reality by jumping off the track as soon and a far as possible to avoid a premature death.

However Buddhism-proper do not recognize the empirical-I-self as a transcendental-I-self as a soul that has essence and can survive physical death to eternal life. This is the empirical-I-self engaging in an illusion which will bring sufferings to the empirical-I-self thus hindering the empirical-I-self from optimizing his empirical being.

Thus a Buddhist-proper do not throw the baby out with the bathwater but only throw away plain dirty water.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

My argument;
1. All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.

And this is still confused. All humans who are alive are alive. Those who are not do not strive to live. Those who are alive, do not need to strive to live, they need to strive to find food and so on. The will try to avoid threats including deadly ones. They are conscious of this and also will react for reasons that may not be conscious of to threats.

The general principle is;
1. All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.
To avoid death, humans has sub-programs to fear death, to find food, to breathe, to ensure security, etc.
But one cannot deny the overriding drive, i.e. 1. All humans strive to live, thus to avoid death.
As for striving, it comes in degree due to various factors.
It is known, no normal humans want to die and there are loads of evidence humans will strive to survive against all odds.
I presume, if you are the normal average human, you will strive to survive, if you are faced with rising waters, loss in a jungle, trapped in a burning house and other potential fatal situations?

2. To avoid death, all humans are imputed with the fear of death subconsciously.

No, they are afraid of threats, some of which are deadly, many can or do cause bodily harm.

Why are they afraid of threats?
Threats = potential death
It is because they fear death thus want to avoid death so that they will live as programmed to.

3. The subconscious fear of death generate indirect existential pains.

These are pretty conscious.

Yes one is conscious of them, but one is ignorant of what is the root cause.
If one step on a nail and it is stuck to the foot, the root cause of the pain is the nail, thus pulling out the nail will eliminate the pain.
In the case of existential pains, people do not know what is its root cause, but for the majority theism is the most effective to soothe these existential pains.

I have given an example of the fear of public speaking where one is not conscious of its root cause. Therefore one cannot effective control it consciously. Some may be able to modulate their fears of public speaking via practicing public speaking but some it is impossible to cure them of the fear, anxieties, worries and mental pains related to public speaking.

I would argued, the proximate root cause of that exudes the fear of public speaking for most is from the subconscious fear of death.
Thus when we can track the pathways of the fears of public speaking to the subconscious fear of death neural wise, we will be able to deal with the outer indirect fears effectively. To do so will take time.

4. The assurance of God of the Christian in John 3:16 i.e. guarantee eternal life and effectively remove the indirect existential pains.

Maybe, maybe not. It might simply be stating a fact. It might have a more mystical purpose that is not about life beyond the grave.

For the majority of Christian-proper who are driven subconsciously by the subconscious fear of death, there will be some kind of relief of the indirect existential pains.
A Christian who believe his God is omni-whatever, i.e. omni-powerful will believe thus feel confident what his all-powerful God promise will be true.

Analogy:
Suppose a weak person A is chase by a person who threatened him with knife showing intent to kill him. Such a obvious situation will trigger his subconscious fear of death first and then the conscious fear of death and he will be very fearful.
But for some fortunate event, suddenly his best friend, 300 pounds of muscle, martial artist expert and with a gun appeared and he ran behind him.
One can guess whatever of A's terrible fears will disappear immediately.

In John 3:16 case, the Christian when faced with threats then ran behind an all-powerful God, it is likely whatever existential pains he has will disappear immediately in most case, if not drastically mitigated.

5. Therefore John 3:16 is linked with the subconscious fear of death.

I do think it can be linked, associated with by believers and others, with death and thus with fears of it. None of this demonstrates that Christianity is 90% focusing on assuaging the fear of death. Further calling this always an unconscious fear of death is odd since animals do not have religions but also exhibit fears related to threats. What makes us unique is the conscious conception of death. So the motivator for religions, if it were death, would be related to conscious fears, not unconscious fears of threats that are possibly mortal ones.

See, one of the mistakes here is that we need to have an unconscious fear of death, rather than a fear of threats pf various kinds.

And of course you are just assuming there is no God, experiences that lead to religions are not real or misinterpreted.

I have not analyzed 100% of the Gospel, but in principle the eschatological elements are critical just like its Abrahamic related Islam which I have researched.
The whole religious ethos of Islam is 90% about the subconscious fear of death which is exploited originally for a political and imperialistic purpose.
I have researched Buddhism and it is 90% about death.
I have researched Hinduism, the idea of reincarnation is prominent and that is about death.

All animals are programmed to avoid death and has the same internal neural circuit of the fear of death [especially mammals] to avoid death so to live.
But non-human mammals do not have a conscious brain like humans do.
Therefore in the case of non-human mammals the impulse of the subconscious fear of death are not manifest indirectly to a conscious brain for them to have conscious anxieties, loss of meaning of life, worries, Angst.

It is only humans who has a conscious brain to be activated with conscious anxieties, loss of meaning of life, worries, Angst exuding from the root cause of the subconscious fear of death.
These indirect existential pains from the subconscious fear of death but felt as anxieties, loss of meaning of life, worries, Angst at the conscious level of the mind, drive these suffering humans to make a conscious effort to theism to be soothed by a promise of eternal life via John 3:16 and the likes.

I bet if Chimpanzees later after 200,000 years evolve with a conscious mind and self-awareness to consciously feel conscious anxieties, loss of meaning of life, worries, Angst, like humans, these self-consciousness Chimpanzees will turn to theism.

[phyllo]

I have not analyzed 100% of the Gospel, but in principle the eschatological elements are critical just like its Abrahamic related Islam which I have researched.
The whole religious ethos of Islam is 90% about the subconscious fear of death which is exploited originally for a political and imperialistic purpose.
I have researched Buddhism and it is 90% about death.
I have researched Hinduism, the idea of reincarnation is prominent and that is about death.

Maybe that's just you. Maybe you are very concerned about death and you look for confirmation of your own fears.

WHY? here is the main reason,

Why Are We Scared of Public Speaking?
1. Physiology
Fear and anxiety involve the arousal of the autonomic nervous system in response to a potentially threatening stimulus. When confronted with a threat, our bodies prepare for battle. This hyperarousal leads to the emotional experience of fear, and it interferes with our ability to perform comfortably in front of audiences. Eventually, it prevents people from pursuing opportunities for public speaking.

(read more at)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... c-speaking


If we dig deeper, the above fear is traceable as a form of the subconscious fear of death, in avoiding death so to live as in my premise 1.

So you link every stress response to "the subconscious fear of death". That says something interesting.

[phyllo]

Weightages" or otherwise priorities are used in philosophical arguments but they are not generally quantified.
While weightages are generally subjective, they can be objective if supported with evidence. For example, if 55% of the 6236 verses in the Quran are anti-Non_Muslim then we can infer quite objective there is high degree of hatred for non-Muslims.

Your "objective" example is subjective because it is based on your personal evaluation of what is "anti-Non-Muslim". Others may consider the same verses as neutral or even pro-Non-Muslim.

Apparently you can't see your own biases in these discussions.

[Karpel Tunnel]

So you link every stress response to "the subconscious fear of death". That says something interesting.

And since this is supposedly controlled by DNA, it is odd that it is not about, for example, managing to procreate. From a DNA perspective managing to procreate is key. Now of course one needs to be alive, to a certain age to procreate, but we live longer. And notice how many times children appears in the Bible as opposed to death.

But one thing he presumes is that there is no God. Fine, let's presume that for a moment.

People have religious experiences of all kinds, often with encounters of what they end up calling or defining similarly to God. This is often central to their beliefs. Even if they are wrong and misinterpreting what is happening, most of these experiences and the deciding there is a God that has now been experienced is not about death. Yes, religious experiences about death do occur, but they are not 90%.

It is pure fantasy on his part to throw out numbers.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

You will note I have justified all my counters with facts, evidence and generally accepted principles.

Just to clarify in signing off;

1. It is not a fact that all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death.

2. There is no evidence which proves that all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death.

3. There is no generally accepted principle that all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death.

4. That all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death is your belief. If you think its justified then fine, but from my perspective, as I have argued, you are not correct - neither are you justified.

It is your discretion to give up.

I have given up because of your dispositions.

As for me, it is beneficial since I can refresh from my database and polished up my arguments.

Yes, to reinforce your beliefs.

I seldom give up as far as the path forward is rational. This is why I spent so much time digging deeper and deeper into reality, note 2+ years full time on Buddhism, 3 years full time on Kant, 3+ years full time on Islam and much time on others.

That doesn't mean that you understand reality. From the reading of your posts, it seems that your perception of reality is based upon what you infer. You then search for evidence which you think confirms this, and claim that you are stating objective facts, or that your beliefs are justified, excluding all other possibilities. This is called, confirmation bias.

[Prismatic567]

I have not analyzed 100% of the Gospel, but in principle the eschatological elements are critical just like its Abrahamic related Islam which I have researched.
The whole religious ethos of Islam is 90% about the subconscious fear of death which is exploited originally for a political and imperialistic purpose.
I have researched Buddhism and it is 90% about death.
I have researched Hinduism, the idea of reincarnation is prominent and that is about death.

Maybe that's just you. Maybe you are very concerned about death and you look for confirmation of your own fears.

WHY? here is the main reason,

Why Are We Scared of Public Speaking?
1. Physiology
Fear and anxiety involve the arousal of the autonomic nervous system in response to a potentially threatening stimulus. When confronted with a threat, our bodies prepare for battle. This hyperarousal leads to the emotional experience of fear, and it interferes with our ability to perform comfortably in front of audiences. Eventually, it prevents people from pursuing opportunities for public speaking.

(read more at)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... c-speaking


If we dig deeper, the above fear is traceable as a form of the subconscious fear of death, in avoiding death so to live as in my premise 1.

So you link every stress response to "the subconscious fear of death". That says something interesting.

I am not that narrow-minded.

1. My vision and mission is Perpetual Peace.
In a way, this is in alignment with the Boddhisattva Vow of peace and compassion to all.

2. Evil and violent acts from ideologies, etc, are a threat [antithetic] to the above vision and mission.

3. One of ALL the evil and violent ideology is from one main category, i.e. religion.

4. The fundamental root of religion is the subconscious fear of death [as argued and justified].

5. Therefore to deal with the evil and violence from religion, we need to understand its fundamental root, i.e. the subconscious fear of death.

Why I focus on the subconscious fear of death is not an arbitrary and fanciful ignorant response, but grounded upon my vision and mission in 1 above for humanity.

Another point one person cannot be a jack of all trades to deal with every kind of evil and violence, so since have philosophical and religious knowledge, thus I contribute what I can.

What concern have you for humanity as a whole?

[Prismatic567]

Weightages" or otherwise priorities are used in philosophical arguments but they are not generally quantified.
While weightages are generally subjective, they can be objective if supported with evidence. For example, if 55% of the 6236 verses in the Quran are anti-Non_Muslim then we can infer quite objective there is high degree of hatred for non-Muslims.

Your "objective" example is subjective because it is based on your personal evaluation of what is "anti-Non-Muslim". Others may consider the same verses as neutral or even pro-Non-Muslim.

Apparently you can't see your own biases in these discussions.

Your above statement do not have any credibility unless you have read ALL the 6236 verses in their contexts.
I invite you to read the 6236 verses in the Quran and challenge me with evidence I am wrong.

The majority of the verses are objectively anti-non_Muslims as represented its meaning and context.
Note you need to scrutinize each verses in their contexts specifically.

There are some verses that are on the surface direct to be good an non-Muslims, how there are not more than 20 of them. Ultimately they are abrogated by the tsunami of evil and violent verses.

There are also a large quantity of good but they are only applicable if one is a Muslim.

I strive to maintain intellectual integrity and make every attempt to be objective based on critical thinking, logical, and sound philosophical justifications.
Rather than making subjective opinions yourself, you should read up the Quran thoroughly and challenge me objectively.

[Prismatic567]

So you link every stress response to "the subconscious fear of death". That says something interesting.

And since this is supposedly controlled by DNA, it is odd that it is not about, for example, managing to procreate. From a DNA perspective managing to procreate is key. Now of course one needs to be alive, to a certain age to procreate, but we live longer. And notice how many times children appears in the Bible as opposed to death.

But one thing he presumes is that there is no God. Fine, let's presume that for a moment.

People have religious experiences of all kinds, often with encounters of what they end up calling or defining similarly to God. This is often central to their beliefs. Even if they are wrong and misinterpreting what is happening, most of these experiences and the deciding there is a God that has now been experienced is not about death. Yes, religious experiences about death do occur, but they are not 90%.

It is pure fantasy on his part to throw out numbers.

There are two sub-purposes embedded in the DNA, i.e.

1. To produce the next generation via procreation.

2. To enable 1, all humans has to avoid death.

3. To avoid death, all humans are programmed to fear death, plus many other strategies.

4. This program is activated within the subconscious mind because it is nature's way of not relying on the human conscious mind to achieve 1.

5. Nature's way is to rely on the efficiency of large numbers to increase it chances.

In 3 I mentioned only 'fear of death' i.e. subconscious fear of death to support my thesis re the basis of religion. The basis of religion is not driven by the basic fundamental drive to breathe, to eat, to have sex, physical security but to soothe the subconscious fear of death.

In this regard to religion it is not 'fear' but specifically the subconscious fear, i.e. the subconscious fear of death that drives all to religions.
I would define the ultimate purpose of all mainstream 'religions' is to soothe the subconscious fear of death, whatever else is secondary.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

You will note I have justified all my counters with facts, evidence and generally accepted principles.

Just to clarify in signing off;

1. It is not a fact that all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death.

2. There is no evidence which proves that all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death.

3. There is no generally accepted principle that all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death.

4. That all religious ideologies are based upon the subconscious fear of death is your belief. If you think its justified then fine, but from my perspective, as I have argued, you are not correct - neither are you justified.

What is your perspective?
I don't see you have a justified perspective at all.

To abduct a possible hypothesis you need to study and be familiar with all variables of the topic, if not, as many as possible, to extract patterns that you can model from to extract a possible hypothesis.
You have not shown any evidence you are doing the above. If so, where?

From the tons of work and time spent I am confident I have done sufficient to have a great conviction to my hypothesis and finding.
Note at all times I have provided evidence, examples, analogies, arguments, etc. to justify my position and you have got given any convincing counter to them.

To maintain intellectual integrity I have taken efforts to ensure there is no confirmation bias which is more noticeable from you than from me.

It is your discretion to give up.

I have given up because of your dispositions.

As for me, it is beneficial since I can refresh from my database and polished up my arguments.

Yes, to reinforce your beliefs.

I seldom give up as far as the path forward is rational. This is why I spent so much time digging deeper and deeper into reality, note 2+ years full time on Buddhism, 3 years full time on Kant, 3+ years full time on Islam and much time on others.

That doesn't mean that you understand reality. From the reading of your posts, it seems that your perception of reality is based upon what you infer. You then search for evidence which you think confirms this, and claim that you are stating objective facts, or that your beliefs are justified, excluding all other possibilities. This is called, confirmation bias.

What is reality?
Reality is whatever is real and true empirically and philosophically.
What is inferred is from what is justified empirically and philosophically.

In the case of confirmation bias, you have to show I have deliberately deny what is proven to be real and true, which I have not done so.
If you are convinced I am ignorant of something, that is not confirmation bias, then in this case you will have to bring to my attention on what I am ignorant of and justify that is a truth I have omitted.

[Prismatic567]

Weightages" or otherwise priorities are used in philosophical arguments but they are not generally quantified.
While weightages are generally subjective, they can be objective if supported with evidence. For example, if 55% of the 6236 verses in the Quran are anti-Non_Muslim then we can infer quite objective there is high degree of hatred for non-Muslims.

Your "objective" example is subjective because it is based on your personal evaluation of what is "anti-Non-Muslim". Others may consider the same verses as neutral or even pro-Non-Muslim.

Apparently you can't see your own biases in these discussions.

Btw, what would it take or for me to prove to you [or others] to accept the claim that the ideology of Islam is "anti-Non_Muslim?

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

What is your perspective?
I don't see you have a justified perspective at all.

I have argued my perspective. I didn't claim that it was justified, but I do believe that I am justified, in debate with you, in saying that all religions are not based upon the subconscious fear of death. I don't believe you have demonstrated that it is. Given the diversity of the subject, substantiating such a broad claim as you are making is problematic.

I think we can agree that religions are based upon people's belief in deities. If you want to make a claim (as you have) as to why people believe in deities, or have religious beliefs you have to consider all of the different possible variables (and there will likely be variables that you aren't aware of), and reflect upon how they can influence a person. To posit one root cause, as you have done, is based upon how you interpret things and how you prioritise things in your way of thinking - which, like everyone, is influenced by your biases. There is no necessity for anyone to agree with you, or for anyone to have to justify disagreeing with you, because what you are claiming, is not a fact.

To abduct a possible hypothesis you need to study and be familiar with all variables of the topic, if not, as many as possible, to extract patterns that you can model from to extract a possible hypothesis.
You have not shown any evidence you are doing the above. If so, where?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. You have interpreted that all religions are based upon the subconscious fear of death. You have rejected all other possible variables (and arguments) and created a hypothesis which is based upon what you think. You are now, for some reason acting as though it is a fact. You should reflect upon your own methods of how you reached your conclusion. I don't need to have read extensively to debate this subject with you.

From the tons of work and time spent I am confident I have done sufficient to have a great conviction to my hypothesis and finding.
Note at all times I have provided evidence, examples, analogies, arguments, etc. to justify my position and you have got given any convincing counter to them.

Are you claiming that there is only one way to interpret the “evidence and examples” you have provided, or that your interpretation of them is the correct one? If so, why? None of the excerpts claim that the subconscious fear of death is the cause of all religions. How can they then be "evidence and examples"?

To maintain intellectual integrity I have taken efforts to ensure there is no confirmation bias which is more noticeable from you than from me.

That's possible, where I have shown confirmation bias?

What is reality?

Reality is whatever is real and true empirically and philosophically.
What is inferred is from what justified empirically and philosophically.

That is just one of many perspectives - don't you realise that? Some people have justifications for their beliefs, and not all beliefs are religious. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't automatically mean you are right. I would expect you to realise that.

In the case of confirmation bias, you have to show I have deliberately deny what is proven to be real and true, which I have not done so.
If you are convinced I am ignorant of something, that is not confirmation bias, then in this case you will have to bring to my attention on what I am ignorant of and justify that is a truth I have omitted.

No I don't. There is no substantive evidence that religion is based upon the subconscious fear of death. You have interpreted that it is. Your justification despite your “evidence and examples” is your interpretation of them. The links and excerpts you have provided do not claim that all religions are based upon the subconscious fear of death, you are interpreting them as confirming what you believe. Like your excerpt pertaining to the fear of public speaking, which you reduce to the subconscious fear of death. Your interlocutors have argued reasonably, that there are other possibilities, but you reject them because they do not agree with what you interpret. You are looking for things which agree with what you interpret, rebuffing counter claims rather than considering how they affect your claim, and if you find something that you interpret as agreeing with you, you claim it is evidence and believe that this gives you a justification. This, is confirmation bias.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

What is your perspective?
I don't see you have a justified perspective at all.

I have argued my perspective. I didn't claim that it was justified, but I do believe that I am justified, in debate with you, in saying that all religions are not based upon the subconscious fear of death. I don't believe you have demonstrated that it is. Given the diversity of the subject, substantiating such a broad claim as you are making is problematic.

I think we can agree that religions are based upon people's belief in deities. If you want to make a claim (as you have) as to why people believe in deities, or have religious beliefs you have to consider all of the different possible variables (and there will likely be variables that you aren't aware of), and reflect upon how they can influence a person. To posit one root cause, as you have done, is based upon how you interpret things and how you prioritise things in your way of thinking - which, like everyone, is influenced by your biases. There is no necessity for anyone to agree with you, or for anyone to have to justify disagreeing with you, because what you are claiming, is not a fact.

To abduct a possible hypothesis you need to study and be familiar with all variables of the topic, if not, as many as possible, to extract patterns that you can model from to extract a possible hypothesis.
You have not shown any evidence you are doing the above. If so, where?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. You have interpreted that all religions are based upon the subconscious fear of death. You have rejected all other possible variables (and arguments) and created a hypothesis which is based upon what you think. You are now, for some reason acting as though it is a fact. You should reflect upon your own methods of how you reached your conclusion. I don't need to have read extensively to debate this subject with you.

From the tons of work and time spent I am confident I have done sufficient to have a great conviction to my hypothesis and finding.
Note at all times I have provided evidence, examples, analogies, arguments, etc. to justify my position and you have got given any convincing counter to them.

Are you claiming that there is only one way to interpret the “evidence and examples” you have provided, or that your interpretation of them is the correct one? If so, why? None of the excerpts claim that the subconscious fear of death is the cause of all religions. How can they then be "evidence and examples"?

To maintain intellectual integrity I have taken efforts to ensure there is no confirmation bias which is more noticeable from you than from me.

That's possible, where I have shown confirmation bias?

What is reality?

Reality is whatever is real and true empirically and philosophically.
What is inferred is from what justified empirically and philosophically.

That is just one of many perspectives - don't you realise that? Some people have justifications for their beliefs, and not all beliefs are religious. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't automatically mean you are right. I would expect you to realise that.

In the case of confirmation bias, you have to show I have deliberately deny what is proven to be real and true, which I have not done so.
If you are convinced I am ignorant of something, that is not confirmation bias, then in this case you will have to bring to my attention on what I am ignorant of and justify that is a truth I have omitted.

No I don't. There is no substantive evidence that religion is based upon the subconscious fear of death. You have interpreted that it is. Your justification despite your “evidence and examples” is your interpretation of them. The links and excerpts you have provided do not claim that all religions are based upon the subconscious fear of death, you are interpreting them as confirming what you believe. Like your excerpt pertaining to the fear of public speaking, which you reduce to the subconscious fear of death. Your interlocutors have argued reasonably, that there are other possibilities, but you reject them because they do not agree with what you interpret. You are looking for things which agree with what you interpret, rebuffing counter claims rather than considering how they affect your claim, and if you find something that you interpret as agreeing with you, you claim it is evidence and believe that this gives you a justification. This, is conformation bias.

I have presented a summary of human life at the fundamental level to KT above [with some changes], which is as follows;

There are two sub-purposes embedded in the DNA, i.e.

1. To produce the next generation via procreation.

2. To enable 1, all humans has to avoid death to live,

3. To avoid death, all humans are programmed with many strategies, one of them is to the fear of death.

4. This program is activated within the subconscious mind because it is nature's way of not relying on the human conscious mind to achieve 1.

5. Nature's way is to rely on the efficiency of large numbers to increase it chances.

In 3, the various strategies besides the subconscious fear of death are, all humans are programmed with the following other strategies;

1. To breathe,
2. To eat via hunger drive, pangs,
3. Fight or flight, freeze
4. To ensure physical security
5. ??

The religious thoughts and activities of the religious can only be reduced to the above and I don't see anything else.
Can you think of anything else or possible?

The most likely root cause for religion is driven by the subconscious fear of death as justified by acts, thoughts and evidence from the authorized texts of the respective religion.
In addition, the subconscious fear of death is very explicitly dealt with in the core of Buddhism as in the Buddha Story followed by its core principles and practices.

I cannot see how the root cause of religion is driven directly by hunger, need to breathe, need of physical security,

If a person is prevented from breathing, eating, put into an insecured position, the fear of death circuit will be triggered and subsequently pains and mental anguished.

Thus the most likely root cause for religion is driven by the subconscious fear of death.

The other set of fundamental strategies are those related to procreation which is the sex drive and its associated impulses. I don't think this the root that drive the majority to religions.

Your interlocutors have argued reasonably, that there are other possibilities, but you reject them because they do not agree with what you interpret.

I have not come across any counter other possibilities from others that I have not challenged successfully.
If so, what other possibilities. I would be very interested to know them since I would not want to leave any challenges against my thesis unchallenged.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Trying to pinpoint the root cause of religious belief is dependant on the perspective you are viewing it from. For a theist, the root cause of religion is a deity. I am agnostic, I don't have a fixed view upon the root cause for religion. I believe that there could be many causes. Therefore, in this latest version of your thesis, I don't think that I can contribute without committing to a belief system which I am not a part of. I see people as consisting of more than you posit on a fundamental level. For example, I am of the inclination (not belief) that there is a part or aspect of a person which is transcendent, something which is commonly described as a soul. Which is incongruent with what you propose. Or for instance, I place value on gut feeling or intuition, and feel this is fundamental to human-beings, which is also incompatible with your thesis. Therefore, I cannot offer my opinion on this subject without going down a road that I don't really believe in. Or (how do I put it), thinking in a way that I don't agree with.

The religious thoughts and activities of the religious can only be reduced to the above and I don't see anything else.
Can you think of anything else or possible?

Choice?

I have not come across any counter other possibilities that I have not re-counter.
If so, what other possibilities. I would be very interested to know them since I would not to leave any challenge against my thesis unchallenged.

Hm, what are you attempting to do here, on this forum?

[iambiguous]

"Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?"
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.

Even if we discover that the Nirvana/no-self combination lacks cogency, does it follow that the theory of no-self is no longer valuable – for that theory supports the doctrine of non-attachment, which grounds the Buddhist ethic of universal compassion?

Ever and always: it depends on the context. The extent to which you detach "I" from the "real me" and achieve a greater measure of "non-attachment" may constitute the optimal frame of mind for any particular individual in one set of circumstances viewed in a particular way. But in the same set of circumstances viewed in an entirely different way, another individual may well find it anything but preferable to embody "non-attachment".

Again, though, we would need to explore this by noting a specific context in which the attached or detached "I" is compelled to choose particular behaviors for particular reasons resulting in particular consequences.

If you find yourself in a situation that involves, say, reacting to a close friend who is about to be deported as an "illegal immigrant", how attached to or detached from an actual existential self might you be? How does being a Christian or a Buddhist or an atheist make any difference here?

That's the point where I introduce dasein.

Alternatively, if we discover that Buddhists can hold the two claims simultaneously without contradiction, this in itself neither shows that the ‘no-self’ doctrine is actually true, nor that the lay person would be compelled to accept that the self is an illusion.

We can subscribe to any number of claims "in our head" as without contradiction. After all, here, all we need to do is just believe it. But it doesn't make the world where others around you believe very, very different things go away. If you are that immigrant about to be uprooted from loved ones and sent packing back to Guatemala, it may be considerably more difficult to detach "I" from the actual reality of the flesh and blood self here and now.

You can go back in Guatemala, re-detach from the self there, live the good life, and maybe in the next life you will be reincarnated as a white baby in America?

Seriously though how close has any Buddhist come to actually explaining how this does work for all practical purposes?

Isn't it just another "leap of faith"?

[promethean75]

If you are that immigrant about to be uprooted from loved ones and sent packing back to Guatemala, it may be considerably more difficult to detach "I" from the actual reality of the flesh and blood self here and now.

You can go back in Guatemala, re-detach from the self there, live the good life, and maybe in the next life you will be reincarnated as a white baby in America?

Seriously though how close has any Buddhist come to actually explaining how this does work for all practical purposes?

I know, right? Eight-fold path my ass. The only path on this dude's mind is the path back to Guatemala. And securing super-galactic omnipresent oneness is the least of his problems. This guy'll be lucky if he secures a good seat on the bus.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Trying to pinpoint the root cause of religious belief is dependant on the perspective you are viewing it from. For a theist, the root cause of religion is a deity.
I am agnostic, I don't have a fixed view upon the root cause for religion. I believe that there could be many causes. Therefore, in this latest version of your thesis, I don't think that I can contribute without committing to a belief system which I am not a part of.

I see people as consisting of more than you posit on a fundamental level. For example, I am of the inclination (not belief) that there is a part or aspect of a person which is transcendent, something which is commonly described as a soul. Which is incongruent with what you propose.
Or for instance, I place value on gut feeling or intuition, and feel this is fundamental to human-beings, which is also incompatible with your thesis. Therefore, I cannot offer my opinion on this subject without going down a road that I don't really believe in. Or (how do I put it), thinking in a way that I don't agree with.

The religious thoughts and activities of the religious can only be reduced to the above and I don't see anything else.
Can you think of anything else or possible?

Choice?

My approach is trying to be as objective as possible.

The majority of people are theists proclaiming the existence of a real deity, for many, such as God, Who will listens and answers their prayers.

Let's take a real look at the theist as a physical person praying to his God with hope of a favor or whatever.
Let say, a theist is praying to his god in a room and independent observers [theists and non-theist] are observing what is going on within room.
Objectively, independent observers will not see the god the theistic-person prayed to anyway.
What the observers observe is merely a physical human being 'praying' to his god.

On the question of God, the theists will have their theistic views. Agnostics like you will have a different set of views. Non-theists will have their non-theistic views.

However I believe it would be more effective to put the above aside and focus instead on what is really real, i.e. the theists as a physical human being performing a prayer.

Since what is really real is the physical human being performing a prayer to god, we need to find out in full details on the praying theists as a human being physically and mentally.

As we are aware, there are already scientific knowledge of the theistic person as a physical human in full details deep down to his genes, i.e. the Human Genome.
Science has already discovered the mechanical process of how the body part and cells worked except the last frontier, i.e. how the 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors works. Even then we already know quite a bit of how the neurons works albeit not 100%.
Science has already uncovered a lot of the mental processes and psychology of the human self, the primal brain, the mid-brain and the later neo-cortex.

It is within the confined of the above empirical evidences that I infer how the theistic person praying to a god for favor is confined to the neural processes.
The reasons for the emergence of the idea of God and why theists believe in god has to be found within the confinement of human biology and psychology.

Therefore we need to exhaust whatever knowledge of the physical and mental elements of the human being before we even venture to speculate there exists a god that is external to the physical human being.

I have already shown with evidences and arguments how the idea of God emerged from the subconscious fear of death within the confinement of the physical person as the most likely grounds of theism.

At present we know relatively very little [say a minority] of the function of the brain and how all the neurons of the brain. This is an ongoing process at,
The Human Connectome Project
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

It is very irrational to ignore the unknown majority of knowledge which can possibly be known in the future and jump to the conclusion God exists which is not justified and unreliable. This what theists do, the ignore the possible knowledge, because psychologically the subconscious fear of death drive them to jump to a conclusion to soothe the existential pains.

Therefore the question of the grounds of religions and theism is not valid nor recommendable to be said to 'depend on perspective'.
Rather it has to be dependent of a perspective that is objective based on the empirical and philosophical basis.

I have not come across any counter other possibilities that I have not re-counter.
If so, what other possibilities. I would be very interested to know them since I would not to leave any challenge against my thesis unchallenged.

Hm, what are you attempting to do here, on this forum?

Presenting a thesis or hypothesis and inviting challenges [questioning] is the mainstay of any philosophical forums, such as this one. Note,

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
-Bertrand Russell

I am not claiming what I had presented is final, rather it is subjected to the possibility of questions.

[Prismatic567]

"Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?"
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.

Even if we discover that the Nirvana/no-self combination lacks cogency, does it follow that the theory of no-self is no longer valuable – for that theory supports the doctrine of non-attachment, which grounds the Buddhist ethic of universal compassion?

Ever and always: it depends on the context. The extent to which you detach "I" from the "real me" and achieve a greater measure of "non-attachment" may constitute the optimal frame of mind for any particular individual in one set of circumstances viewed in a particular way. But in the same set of circumstances viewed in an entirely different way, another individual may well find it anything but preferable to embody "non-attachment".

Again, though, we would need to explore this by noting a specific context in which the attached or detached "I" is compelled to choose particular behaviors for particular reasons resulting in particular consequences.

If you find yourself in a situation that involves, say, reacting to a close friend who is about to be deported as an "illegal immigrant", how attached to or detached from an actual existential self might you be? How does being a Christian or a Buddhist or an atheist make any difference here?

That's the point where I introduce dasein.

Alternatively, if we discover that Buddhists can hold the two claims simultaneously without contradiction, this in itself neither shows that the ‘no-self’ doctrine is actually true, nor that the lay person would be compelled to accept that the self is an illusion.

We can subscribe to any number of claims "in our head" as without contradiction. After all, here, all we need to do is just believe it. But it doesn't make the world where others around you believe very, very different things go away. If you are that immigrant about to be uprooted from loved ones and sent packing back to Guatemala, it may be considerably more difficult to detach "I" from the actual reality of the flesh and blood self here and now.

You can go back in Guatemala, re-detach from the self there, live the good life, and maybe in the next life you will be reincarnated as a white baby in America?

Seriously though how close has any Buddhist come to actually explaining how this does work for all practical purposes?

Isn't it just another "leap of faith"?

As usual you are ignorant of Buddhism-proper and how it is to be applied properly, that caused you to come to the above silly conclusions.

Note the point re the Contradiction of 'Self' and 'No Self.'

As far as the secular individual is concerned, we can not live in the absolute level of reality that has the characteristic or the true nature of the “empty self” or “no-self.”
In our worldly lives, we can not live in the absolute level of non-dualism and indiscrimination.

The aim of mindfulness practice for secular people is not to transcend the cycle of life and death that is proclaimed by Buddhism as a religion [not Buddhism proper].
Instead, the significance of internalizing and integrating the essence of Buddhist psychology organically into one’s self-system lies in enlightening the mind to wisdom such as non-attachment, letting-go to alleviate our suffering, and coping with the uncertain challenges of life.

We can be mindfully aware of our selves and experiences at the relative level, while simultaneously recognizing the absolute reality of phenomena (Gyatso, 2002).

Presumably, in fact, mindfulness fully practiced will lead one along the “middle way” (Hanh, 1999)—i.e., seeking a path between the self and no-self.

We conceptualize the aim here as the mindful self, which takes the self as a process with awareness.
The more self-as-process is active, the more the person experiences his or her behaviors as volitional and autonomous, and the more his or her actions are experienced as wholehearted and authentic (Ryan and Rigby, 2015).

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

On the question of God, the theists will have their theistic views. Agnostics like you will have a different set of views. Non-theists will have their non-theistic views.

Exactly. You wouldn't compromise your views and reason in terms of the cause of religion being a deity. So why would you expect others to do that, when they have their own beliefs and perspectives? Beliefs and perspectives are not a hat that you take on and off, people value them.

If there is nothing, but physical reality. Even in that case, people will have different views from the one you've presented and there's always the possibility that new scientific evidence will emerge.

It is within the confined of the above empirical evidences that I infer how the theistic person praying to a god for favor is confined to the neural processes.
The reasons for the emergence of the idea of God and why theists believe in god has to be found within the confinement of human biology and psychology.

Maybe, but maybe not. I don't know what the reality is regarding this matter. And I don't think that what you claim is conclusive. Not because of my beliefs, even from a physical perspective it doesn't seem right to me, as I have argued.

Therefore we need to exhaust whatever knowledge of the physical and mental elements of the human being before we even venture to speculate there exists a god that is external to the physical human being.

If, as you have decided, the cause of religion is the subconscious fear of death. Why would you then consider speculating on the existence of something which you believe to be an impossibility?

I have already shown with evidences and arguments how the idea of God emerged from the subconscious fear of death within the confinement of the physical person as the most likely grounds of theism.

With respect. As far as I can gather you've only shown this to yourself.

It is very irrational to ignore the unknown majority of knowledge which can possibly be known in the future and jump to the conclusion God exists which is not justified and unreliable. This what theists do, the ignore the possible knowledge, because psychologically the subconscious fear of death drive them to jump to a conclusion to soothe the existential pains.

People have reasons for their beliefs. You are an empirical-realist, so you would naturally perceive this as being irrational. I don't think it is irrational to have beliefs, but it is (IMV) irrational to completely ignore science. At the same time, it is irrational to claim you know the reason why all theists believe in God, and declare that this is supported by science (or empirically) – when there isn't any substantive evidence which supports this.

Therefore the question of the grounds of religions and theism is not valid nor recommendable to be said to 'depend on perspective'.
Rather it has to be dependent of a perspective that is objective based on the empirical and philosophical basis.

But based upon current knowledge it is dependant on perspective. You can be as objective as possible, but in that case we can say that people invented religions, because of what they believed about the nature of reality. If they did create religions, the fear of death could be one reason, and could be attached to another reason, there could be many reasons. Giving priority to one cause is a matter of perception/interpretation. You have prioritised the subconscious fear of death, but there could be other reasons, and they may be primary, such as how people interpreted their experiences. Which is not something that you are willing to accept or don't give priority to.

Presenting a thesis or hypothesis and inviting challenges [questioning] is the mainstay of any philosophical forums, such as this one.

Okay.

Note,
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
-Bertrand Russell

This doesn't reflect your posts. I don't know why you would claim that this is your approach when your posts can be read?

I am not claiming what I had presented is final, rather it is subjected to the possibility of questions.

Same as above.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

On the question of God, the theists will have their theistic views. Agnostics like you will have a different set of views. Non-theists will have their non-theistic views.

Exactly. You wouldn't compromise your views and reason in terms of the cause of religion being a deity. So why would you expect others to do that, when they have their own beliefs and perspectives? Beliefs and perspectives are not a hat that you take on and off, people value them.

If there is nothing, but physical reality. Even in that case, people will have different views from the one you've presented and there's always the possibility that new scientific evidence will emerge.

My point is we should put aside all beliefs and focus on what is testable, justifiable and provable, i.e. reality that is empirically and philosophically justifiable.
In this case, it is not just "physical reality", but one that is overseen by philosophical justifications cover pure physical reality and the self [conscious and subconscious].

True, there will be different views in every topic, but in the case of;

1. DNA-RNA wise all humans are embedded with a will-to-live
2. To live a human being has to avoid death.
3. To avoid death a human being is 'programmed' to fear death among other primal drives.
4. The above operate instinctively at the subconscious level of the mind.

The above is very evident and can be empirically inferred and verified.
So far, there are no alternative views to the above.
Do you have any or heard of any from others?

EVEN, if say, God created humans, the above are still valid and can be empirically inferred and verified.
In this case, we can question the condition god exists, but the premises of 1, 2, 3 and 4 are still true empirically.
Even if there are new scientific discovery, 1-4 above will still be true.

Thus while we will respect different views [contentious], the premises 1-4 are still true and are not contentious

It is within the confined of the above empirical evidences that I infer how the theistic person praying to a god for favor is confined to the neural processes.
The reasons for the emergence of the idea of God and why theists believe in god has to be found within the confinement of human biology and psychology.

Maybe, but maybe not. I don't know what the reality is regarding this matter. And I don't think that what you claim is conclusive. Not because of my beliefs, even from a physical perspective it doesn't seem right to me, as I have argued.

It cannot be 'maybe not'.

Whatever the beliefs a person has, they MUST involved the person's brain and mind.
Whatever the beliefs you have have must happened in your brain and mind, not in mine, someone's else or somewhere else.

EVEN if, there is a God, it must involved the person's brain and mind to process the observation and confirmation.

Since it is imperative all beliefs must involved a person's brain and mind, it is most likely, the idea of God [never been proven to exists, but based on faith] is more likely to be psychological then there is a real God out there.
I have given evidence, arguments and justification why this is more likely.
If a person is rational or agnostic, the confidence level for the possibility should be a minority [say 10%] that a majority [90%] in favor of God existing.

As such a rational person should focus on the 90% God is non-existent and thus focus on the empirical and philosophical perspective.

Therefore we need to exhaust whatever knowledge of the physical and mental elements of the human being before we even venture to speculate there exists a god that is external to the physical human being.

If, as you have decided, the cause of religion is the subconscious fear of death. Why would you then consider speculating on the existence of something which you believe to be an impossibility?

As I had demonstrated 'God is an impossibility to be real'.
The emergence of god and believed to be real is due to the subconscious fear of death.
However, the reality of the belief in God [theism] has led to estimated >300+ million death of non-theists based on the mere point they are disbelievers.
This is a potential threat and hindrance to the mission of Perpetual Peace for humanity in the future.
The elimination of theism will ensure there will be no more >300 million death of unbelievers in the future or the possible extermination of the human species by extreme theists who are command by a God [illusory] driven by the subconscious fear of death.

Therefore the solution to deal with the above threat to humanity's Perpetual Peace is to recognized the root cause, i.e. the inherent and unavoidable subconscious fear of death, to find solutions to deal with its manifested negative impulses.

Note the above is not a fanciful idea or solution, in reality the above has already been dealt with effectively via Buddhism and other spiritual practices, except they are not done on the majority scale due to certain limitations.

As such, we can focus on the above limitations as I had done by giving proper justifications and arguments so that what is already practiced in Buddhism and others effectively can be standardized and recommend to the majority.

I have already shown with evidences and arguments how the idea of God emerged from the subconscious fear of death within the confinement of the physical person as the most likely grounds of theism.

With respect. As far as I can gather you've only shown this to yourself.

True.
But what I have presented is of substance and opened to questioning and criticism.
Point is there are no criticisms and counter-arguments that warrant me to change my conclusions.

It is very irrational to ignore the unknown majority of knowledge which can possibly be known in the future and jump to the conclusion God exists which is not justified and unreliable. This what theists do, the ignore the possible knowledge, because psychologically the subconscious fear of death drive them to jump to a conclusion to soothe the existential pains.

People have reasons for their beliefs. You are an empirical-realist, so you would naturally perceive this as being irrational. I don't think it is irrational to have beliefs, but it is (IMV) irrational to completely ignore science. At the same time, it is irrational to claim you know the reason why all theists believe in God, and declare that this is supported by science (or empirically) – when there isn't any substantive evidence which supports this.

Note my arguments on the grounding above.
I have also justified how the subconscious fear of death is reflected significantly in the mainstream religions. - you have forgotten my point on this.
I have also highlighted Buddhism and others spiritual practices are already doing what I have argued albeit not in a systematic and scientific manner.

To reinforce the above, I believe we need actual case studies that prove the above.
I believe there are already such evidences but awaiting proper compilations. I will be looking into this.

Therefore the question of the grounds of religions and theism is not valid nor recommendable to be said to 'depend on perspective'.
Rather it has to be dependent of a perspective that is objective based on the empirical and philosophical basis.

But based upon current knowledge it is dependant on perspective. You can be as objective as possible, but in that case we can say that people invented religions, because of what they believed about the nature of reality. If they did create religions, the fear of death could be one reason, and could be attached to another reason, there could be many reasons. Giving priority to one cause is a matter of perception/interpretation. You have prioritised the subconscious fear of death, but there could be other reasons, and they may be primary, such as how people interpreted their experiences. Which is not something that you are willing to accept or don't give priority to.

You keep saying there are other reasons but provided no evidence.
Note it is requirement in any research project to exhaust all other alternatives and I have done so the best of my abilities. I have not come across and highly contentious alternative to my views.

Note,
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
-Bertrand Russell

This doesn't reflect your posts. I don't know why you would claim that this is your approach when your posts can be read?

I am not claiming what I had presented is final, rather it is subjected to the possibility of questions.

Same as above.

Note as in Science no definite [ultimate] answers are expected, but are open to further questions, but yet scientific knowledge despite this limitation, is still useful to humanity.

My points and conclusions are not ultimate but opened to questions, but they are still useful while being opened to questioning upon have put through the most thorough questionings to date.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

My point is we should put aside all beliefs and focus on what is testable, justifiable and provable, i.e. reality that is empirically and philosophically justifiable.
In this case, it is not just "physical reality", but one that is overseen by philosophical justifications cover pure physical reality and the self [conscious and subconscious].

If we want to find an answer to an empirical question then yes. But the nature of this topic is religion and spirituality, and whilst you may be certain that there is no reality behind the claims made by the religious, others are not. Hence beliefs and the reality/non-reality of them are fundamental to the discussion. We cannot just dismiss them as though they have no bearing on the situation, after all there may be some kind of truth to them. In looking at this from a purely empirical perspective, we may be ignoring something real that we are unaware of.

True, there will be different views in every topic, but in the case of;
1. DNA-RNA wise all humans are embedded with a will-to-live
2. To live a human being has to avoid death.
3. To avoid death a human being is 'programmed' to fear death among other primal drives.
4. The above operate instinctively at the subconscious level of the mind.

The above is very evident and can be empirically inferred and verified.
So far, there are no alternative views to the above.
Do you have any or heard of any from others?

EVEN, if say, God created humans, the above are still valid and can be empirically inferred and verified.
In this case, we can question the condition god exists, but the premises of 1, 2, 3 and 4 are still true empirically.
Even if there are new scientific discovery, 1-4 above will still be true.

The problem is I don't agree with this. Where is the empirical verification? If its as plain as you're presenting, there should be many links you can provide supporting exactly this. Not something that has to be interpreted as what you're claiming, but stating exactly what you've argued here. Your arguments aren't doing the trick, so far.

Thus while we will respect different views [contentious], the premises 1-4 are still true and are not contentious

Which you need to demonstrate with corroborating evidence (because you're claiming a fact). I don't think that anyone is going to agree you until you do, and maybe there just isn't any? If you can provide substantive evidence that all religions are based upon the subconscious fear of death, then you have a good case, but your arguments, links and excerpts are open to interpretation. If you can't find any precise evidence, you might as well give up arguing this, as it is such a huge claim.

It cannot be 'maybe not'.

Whatever the beliefs a person has, they MUST involved the person's brain and mind.
Whatever the beliefs you have have must happened in your brain and mind, not in mine, someone's else or somewhere else.

The brain and mind are undoubtedly involved in beliefs, and from an empirical perspective that is where we start, but we don't know for certain if there is any reality to the beliefs, so completely ruling them out as a factor doesn't seem correct from my perspective.

You keep saying there are other reasons but provided no evidence.

I said that one of the reasons for religious belief could be how people interpreted their experiences. There is also feelings, intuitions, cognitively, perceptions, efficacy, expediency, reflection, introspection, fear, love, etc... In reducing all religions to the subconscious fear of death you are not considering the actual diversity of the human experience. How do you know precisely what is subconscious and what isn't? I'm quite sure that if you search for evidence of why people have religious beliefs, you will find a plethora of examples. I'm not sure if I would call that "evidence", because there are so many different opinions on the matter.

My points and conclusions are not ultimate but opened to questions, but they are still useful while being opened to questioning upon have put through the most thorough questionings to date.

You've rejected and every counter-view and answered every question by insisting you are right. Even now, you claim that the subconscious fear of death is the cause of all religions with certainty, as if it were proven. Like I said, your posts can be read, this open minded exhortation is just not the case. But then I suppose you can't say what you actually think "No one can prove me wrong" .

[Karpel Tunnel]

True, there will be different views in every topic, but in the case of;

1. DNA-RNA wise all humans are embedded with a will-to-live
2. To live a human being has to avoid death.
3. To avoid death a human being is 'programmed' to fear death among other primal drives.
4. The above operate instinctively at the subconscious level of the mind.

The problem with this is primarily number three and how it leads into 4. Animals do not have a subconscious fear of death, they have a fear of things like predators. At least as far as we know. The fears deal with, yes, things that can cause death, but they do not have a fear of death, I would guess, since most would not have a conception of death.

Fear of spiders is triggered by spiders. People who are afraid of spiders do not have an unconscious fear of death. The have a conscious fear of spiders and an unconcscious one also, perhaps. The reason they have this is very likely evolutionary, but THERE NEED NOT BE ANY DEATH COMPONENT. All the DNA needs us to fear is the trigger. There need not be a unconscious idea of death underlying it.

Animals will protect themselves from things that scare them because of their instincts. There need be no conception of death. Natural selection has led to animals that are afraid of things that cause harm because this allows them to live. They simply have the fear. There is no unconcious death idea invovled.

Humans, unlike most other animals are CONSCIOUS that they will die. This may or may not be a factor in religion. I assume that it affects some of the beliefs involved in religious systems of belief, but given what religions and does, it is only a part of religions purpose.

You have provided no evidence, none, that there is some unconcsious idea of death involved in fears and anxieties.

Yes, those fears may be in place to prevent deaths, but that does not mean there is an unconscious fear of death. do you see the difference?

Natural selection will lead to us being afraid of things that are threats, but this does not mean that individual minds or brains have an unconscious fear of death. The will have fears of threats, because this will lead them to avoid and protect themselves from the threats. In fact it is more efficient to simply have the

evolutionary trait

to be afraid of heights

so we take precaution around them.

There is no need to have a middle man step.

Height---->triggers my fear of death unconsciously------->I am afraid of the height and step back.

Fear of height------->step back

The second is a vastly superior evolutionary trait. I don't need the height to trigger my fear of death and then I take action. I am afraid of heights or take caution around them due to the anxiety they create DIRECTLY.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that for some odd reason evolution added this extra step where animals (including us) unconsciously bring up the death issue so that then we are afraid. There is no reason to do this. and it is less efficient. And there is no evidence of this.

The above is very evident and can be empirically inferred and verified.

Empirically inferred is an oxymoron.
You are using (poor) deduction. In fact you are not even doing that. You simply state things.

What are the alternatives for the beginnings of religion? Well, let's black box the issue of 'are gods real'? IOW let's assume neither that they are real nor that they are unreal.

Religion arises via attibuting agency to things that happen. Humans were immersed in nature with a variety of life forms, flora and fauna, all struggling to live. And all doing stuff.

We have an innate tendency to personify things. Children tend to personify animals and even what are considered inanimate objects.

We know that indigenous groups tended to personify what modern people tend to call natural forces.

IOW humans have a tendency to attribute agency to things that modern science has not confirmed have agency.

This is closely related to finding meaning in things that modern scientists would say are contingent.

We see agents, meaning, cause and effect, relationships, where modern science has not confirmed there is agency, meaning, cause and effect, relationships.

These tendences, correctly or incorrectly led to the gods, spirits, creatures - iow all the so called supernatural entities - we find in indigenous religions.

We know that in indigenous groups communication took place between humans and non-human entites. Talking to plants, talking to hunted animals, talking to spirits.

Once you believe that there is agency, and relationship and meaning related to creatures other than humans

you

want

to control

that relationship.

Appease anger, ask for gifts, ask for forgiveness for killing and eating.

We see these patterns, the social relation, to non-human entities all through all indigenous groups.

What we call religion developed out of rules and ideas for dealing with entities that are very powerful.

There is no distinction in indigenous culture between religion and secular activity. It is only much later with the transcendent religions that were heavily dualist (and showed a hatred of the 'material world' as they conceived it) that this split took place.

Pantheist and animist religions have conceptions of deities even sometimes an overarching head deity (God). And like their dealings with all other entities they developed rules to get along with, get close to, deal with, please, the powerful deities.

That's where religion arises. Relationships and ways of dealing with these beings that many modern secular humans consider unreal or not animate or both.

Yes, afterlife entered into this. Fear of no longer continuing after physical death

A FEAR THAT AS FAR AS WE KNOW ONLY HUMANS HAVE

may have or may not have entered into religions because we as humans are aware of death.

But to say that religions are caused by a fear of death conscious or otherwise

goes against the complexity of religion and the sources we know there are for religion.

And this matches what religion focuses on. The relationship with God, how to appease God, and what is focused on in the religion. This is the core reason we have what gets called religion. Of course religions are vast complex phenomena, so there are all sorts of social facets in there. I am arguing that the core is this relationship with and dealings with what get called supernatural agents. But even that is only part of what religions are.


Futher there are things that speak against this idea.

Hell. Why in God's name (lol) would religions come up with an idea that for many is even worse than the idea of death?

I know people who have been relieved to become athiests because they had lived with a fear of hell they considered much worse than fear of nothingness.

Why create scary deities?

Why create religions where only heroes get into Heaven?

Why would people create something like this....

She'ol, in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from God

The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength.[58]

Buddhism is even worse. Here we have no self that even lasts through the lifetime before death. Why come up with that belief?




Call this process of personification a pathetic fallacy, a deep insight, projection, false attribution, misplaced pattern identification, correct interpretation....whatever

but it is the core reason we have religions.

We correctly or incorrectly attibute agency in or behind what is around us and develope ideas about how to make this work well.

Which is why religious texts tend to focus on God and family and how to be good in relation to these important agents.

This does not disprove that fear of death has led to ideas of an afterlife. But this talk about religion being to assuage our fear of death is the most ridiculous reductionism being bandied about at ILP right now.

And the fact that in humans knowledge of death is conscious plays the role in our beliefs, not that it is unconscious. This is not to say one cannot have anxiety over death that appears through other thoughts or behaviors, where it drives it unconsciously. But we are unique in being conscious of death.

Other strange ideas are the DNA makes us live as long as possible,when in fact DNA can lead creatures to have extremely short lives or to be virtually immortal like certain jellyfish.

The whole setting of percentage points is irrational. You have no good way of determining the percentages you throw around.

To sum up:
Personification and attribution of agency and meaning must have advantages for us. Children do this without being taught to do it and it is done in every single indigenous culture ever encountered. Whether it is correct or not, it must help humans. It is an important tendency we have and one that is not related to conscious or unconscious fear of death. This leads to beliefs about how to relate to all entities and to posit entities behind events in nature and dreams and illnesses and astronomical events and also meanings in even very small events (omens, signs, trivial weather changes, the shapes tea leaves make in the bottom of a cup, the shape of intestines in a sacrificed animal). Experts interpret, though amateurs interpret also and can receive messages, be intimate with, communicate with, recognize signs and so on.

We are pattern recognizers and we personify many patterns.

After that we try to develop heuristics to work with these beings and these messages. And how to get more messages and how to improve relations with other beings.

To improve out relations with all important beings (family, strangers, enemies, deities, spirits, ancestors, other supernatural agents, God) is present in all religious rituals and ceremonies. It is a vastly larger part of all religious texts, must larger than the parts dealing with after death. It is the largest part of all sermons and speeches. It is what the experts in the religions spend their time trying to get better at, be they shamans, priests, monks, sunyasin or whatever. They work on improving their relations with other beings including what get called supernatural beings. That is the core of what religion is a bout and it is not based on fear, it is based on our tendency to personify and as social beings to want to do well in our relationships, especially with those who have power or whom we love.

Choosing one emotion and one outcome as THE source of religion is not logical and flies in face of the religious texts and rituals and human nature. It is based on not verified ideas like unconscious fear of death being causal in protective behavior and is supported in Prismatic's arguments with ridiculous use of numbers and percentages which just comes off as the intention to seem in control and rational but fails on both counts and has the opposite effect.