Moderator: Dan~
What I meant is theistic religions are ultimately linked to a God via beliefs and holy texts supposedly from a God [illusory and impossible]. Theistic religions do not exist without a God.Ierrellus wrote:Religions have never been "created and directed by God". They amount to human assessments of what God is and does, assessments that have evolved over the centuries. In the evolution of ideas, old ones may hang around even though outdated because they have meaning for some folks.
As I had stated humans are by default infected with psychological desperation. This is recognized by Eastern religions like Buddhism, i.e. Life is Dukkha [translated as suffering] but that is basically psychological desperation and dealt as such.It is the old ideas that are presented here for refutation. New ideas, such as that the brain creates feel good juices as evidence of its stability are currently being examined in the psychiatric community, which in general would deny any feel good, God is real type connection. The feel good comes from good brain functioning regardless of the nature of ideas the mind is thinking. One can be an atheist and can get feel good juices in the brain following or during the thinking of certain ideas such as God does not exist.
One proof is this;Ierrellus wrote:That the brain can think religion is not proof that the brain created religion. We may have evolved to think as we do, with physicality as the ground of all beliefs.
As people keep pointing out to you people create beliefs of ALL kinds and these beliefs, including one's you hold dear, can change over time. There are diseases that doctors thought were just in the minds of their patients, but later these turned out to be real diseases, and now the doctors have other beliefs. Communists become capitalists. Atheists become theists. Skeptics become believers. Believers become skeptics. And this all includes believers in objects you think are real.Prismatic567 wrote:Since the brain creates religion, the brain can also 'uncreate' religion.
Evidently, there are many religious people who has become unreligious and this can only be done by their brain.
You confuse listing assertions with demonstrating the truth of something.The brain creates religion to deal with psychological impulses relating to the existential crisis.
There is no pre-existing God to direct the establishment of theistic religions.
I agree beliefs can change either way.Karpel Tunnel wrote:As people keep pointing out to you people create beliefs of ALL kinds and these beliefs, including one's you hold dear, can change over time. There are diseases that doctors thought were just in the minds of their patients, but later these turned out to be real diseases, and now the doctors have other beliefs. Communists become capitalists. Atheists become theists. Skeptics become believers. Believers become skeptics. And this all includes believers in objects you think are real.Prismatic567 wrote:Since the brain creates religion, the brain can also 'uncreate' religion.
Evidently, there are many religious people who has become unreligious and this can only be done by their brain.
The above are assertions but I have provided their justification in various threads to justify my assertions.You confuse listing assertions with demonstrating the truth of something.The brain creates religion to deal with psychological impulses relating to the existential crisis.
There is no pre-existing God to direct the establishment of theistic religions.
Furthermore, the Christian nations are the most technologically and scientifically advanced and also the most politically free.Ierrellus wrote:Who or what determines JTB? If it is one idea held by a billion or so individuals, Christianity would fit the bill. This is not an populist fallacy. It is evidence that what works for one may work for many.
Ierrellus wrote:Who or what determines JTB? If it is one idea held by a billion or so individuals, Christianity would fit the bill. This is not an populist fallacy. It is evidence that what works for one may work for many.
The most credible JTBs are scientific knowledge and more credible when further rationalized and reinforced with philosophy-proper.Ierrellus wrote:Who or what determines JTB? If it is one idea held by a billion or so individuals, Christianity would fit the bill. This is not an populist fallacy. It is evidence that what works for one may work for many.
With the above views, one is throwing one's intelligence into the drain.phyllo wrote:Furthermore, the Christian nations are the most technologically and scientifically advanced and also the most politically free.Ierrellus wrote:Who or what determines JTB? If it is one idea held by a billion or so individuals, Christianity would fit the bill. This is not an populist fallacy. It is evidence that what works for one may work for many.
Therefore, Christianity appears "to work" on many levels.
The above is a very messy claim.phyllo wrote:Christianity says that the world is ordered, that knowledge can be gained about it and that it can be changed. It's a real objective external world. That philosophical approach makes science possible.
That philosophical approach makes science possible.
Where is your sense of logic and rationality?phyllo wrote:It makes no difference whether God exists or not.
It works either way.
Pretty much all the religions say that. You could argue that Hinduism says it is Maya, but still one can learn about Maya. It is an ordered set of phenomena one can learn about. Certainly all indigenous groups, who would not separate out relgion from other facets of life the way moderns tend to, learned via empiricism, though not only through the kinds of learning we tend to lump under (scientific) empiricism. So we still would need to show why Christianity leads to advancing some societies, if it does.phyllo wrote:Christianity says that the world is ordered, that knowledge can be gained about it and that it can be changed. It's a real objective external world. That philosophical approach makes science possible.
Indigenous groups tend not to want to change and mold the world, favoring instead an adaptation to the world.Certainly all indigenous groups, who would not separate out relgion from other facets of life the way moderns tend to, learned via empiricism, though not only through the kinds of learning we tend to lump under (scientific) empiricism.
He wrote that it "works". I just proposed a criteria for what "works" could mean - scientific and technological advancement. I moved away from concentrating on personal subjective "happy brain juices" to something that could be measured and compared.Note the original point was Ierrellus claimed Christianity is based on JTB which he wrongly thought is based on the consensus of billions of people.
I'm using it. One can't know which of the events described in the New Testament really happened. One can't know if Jesus was really the son of God.Where is your sense of logic and rationality?
I don't think that's really the case. 1492 is a nice summation of a lot of the research about indigenous groups in the Americas before Columbus' arrival and they were doing all sorts of terraforming, for example. But on a smaller scale, like say with medicinal herbs, they were doing all sorts of empirical type research, using plants, in combinations and singly, processing them, often in complicated ways, for their own use. IOW they aimed emprical research at nature, changed it, and used it. IOW their beliefs lay a groundwork for science and technology. And how do we judge the success of their choices about what to study and what to change? Christianity tells us we have dominion over nature, and that nature/the world is not that important. That facet of Christianity might lead to the radical turning everything into products we do. We'll see if that should be called successful fairly soon I would guess.phyllo wrote:Indigenous groups tend not to want to change and mold the world, favoring instead an adaptation to the world.Certainly all indigenous groups, who would not separate out religion from other facets of life the way moderns tend to, learned via empiricism, though not only through the kinds of learning we tend to lump under (scientific) empiricism.
And that's not just a politically correct rewriting of history?1492 is a nice summation of a lot of the research about indigenous groups in the Americas before Columbus' arrival and they were doing all sorts of terraforming, for example.
Well sure, advanced technology may kill us all ... bio weapons, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and AI are just a few of the ways. And then there is the depletion of resources by "efficiently" manufacturing useless crap. Therefore, advanced technology may not even be considered a "good". Maybe sustainability is a critical term in the evaluation of what is "good" and worth pursuing. And indigenous populations probably value that much more than North American Christians.Christianity tells us we have dominion over nature, and that nature/the world is not that important. That facet of Christianity might lead to the radical turning everything into products we do. We'll see if that should be called successful fairly soon I would guess.
Yes, I admit it works but it works directly only for psychological benefits, i.e. theistic religions work to soothe the existential crisis in promising salvation with eternal life in Paradise.phyllo wrote:He wrote that it "works". I just proposed a criteria for what "works" could mean - scientific and technological advancement. I moved away from concentrating on personal subjective "happy brain juices" to something that could be measured and compared.Note the original point was Ierrellus claimed Christianity is based on JTB which he wrongly thought is based on the consensus of billions of people.
As stated above, religions work directly for psychological benefits, i.e. soothe the existential crisis and angst.I'm using it. One can't know which of the events described in the New Testament really happened. One can't know if Jesus was really the son of God.Where is your sense of logic and rationality?
But one can know the consequences of having Christianity as a personal and/or state religion are. And one can compare those consequences to the consequences of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.
Sure, there are lots of factors at play, besides personal/state religions, but one can see some trends. One trend is that Buddhism achieves almost nothing scientific. Why? Because it's too internally focused.
I'm bypassing the abstract debates and I'm talking about what is practical and effective.
If that were true then why would there be so much guilt and fear about eternal damnation. Why have any punishment for sin? Why have a doctrine of original sin? Why have Jesus say that "all have fallen short of the glory of God"?As stated above, religions work directly for psychological benefits, i.e. soothe the existential crisis and angst.
As if you can just separate science from a person's religious and philosophical beliefs. Maybe like "today I'm doing science so the world is not just illusion ... today it's real and objective with permanent laws ... until 5 o'clock when I go home."True Buddhism achieves nothing scientific because that is not the purpose of Buddhism as a religion [Ninian Smart's definition].
True Buddhism is very focused internally [explicit in the Buddha's Story and 4 Noble Truths] because psychological and life stability require very strong internal psychological foundations and stuctures to deal with the inevitable turbulences in life.
Buddhism makes all sort of claims about the nature of existence. Perhaps they are no more real than the claims of the other religions.4 Noble Truths
The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)
Buddhism faces reality and deal with it effectively.
The Abrahamic religions focused on an illusion [God] thus flimsy.
Ah, but go to a Western doctor and he/she orders some tests. If the tests show "nothing", then you are dismissed as a hypochondriac. Your pains are imaginary.When body parts malfunction the brain expresses pain, depression, etc., all of the negatives which require no further explanation than that they are experienced.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users