Why Religion?

Satyr wrote:

The practice of eliminating emotional infection upon rational deliberations, is the challenge of all thinking men.

The easiest way to observe these infections is by how they fail to be integrated within a model that adheres to observable phenomena.

Simple declarations and childish games of pretense and untested arrogance, may satisfy the ego in the short-term, but in the long-term they fail to offer an advantage, and so they fail to be relevant.

Live and learn.

For what it's worth, I agree with everything that you just said.

A good analogy for the third paragraph is Blackjack card counting. If you are playing are particular game of blackjack and you know that the count is running high, you can use that to your advantage and should win money in the short-term operating with that knowledge.

You're a winner, and now you're arrogant. Imagine if the same player thought that he knew so much that he makes the foolish assumption that the count is running high at every table he sits at without making the effort to count the cards, in the end, he probably loses everything.

Circumstances are constantly changing and pretense and arrogance (while sometimes justified) will ultimately only lead to failure.

Unless a person knows that they are incapable of removing emotion from a discussion and operate with that knowledge, then that person may still have a chance.

"Know Thyself."

Satyr wrote:

The practice of eliminating emotional infection upon rational deliberations, is the challenge of all thinking men.

One can apply the mechanics of rationalization to find that it is logical to drop an atomic bomb on cities filed with innocent children.

Emotions are essential in finding moral balance

Quote :

The easiest way to observe these infections is by how they fail to be integrated within a model that adheres to observable phenomena.

On any moral decision, one must quieten the rational mind and penetrate the intuitive mind. If the slightest shadow of doubt emerges, then the rational mind must be over-ruled - for that seed of doubt will inevitably result in a negative outcome to any action


Live and learn.

Reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction. - Gibran

Make reason your passion.

You are a slave to something no matter what.

Either:
a) You are a slave to your desire
b) You are a slave to the norms of your society (morals of societies change with time)
c) You are a slave to God

In other words:
a) You are a slave to Satan (who influences and tries to lure you to desire)
b) You are a slave to man
c) You are a slave to the creator

The Gibran-ster has something for everyone

On freedom..

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment.


You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.


And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle your eyes.


And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?
If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.
And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.
For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their own pride?
And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.


Verily all things move wrthin your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.
These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.
And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.
And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.

wonderer wrote:

I don't understand how a word "eliciting" (causing or initiating) emotions (arbitrary reactions) validates religious emotions, sentiments, or faiths.

Please elucidate.

First you need to understand that emotions are not 'arbitrary' reactions...

They are very, very predictable. If I sneak up to you on the street, slap you in the face, and then punch in the stomach, your reaction will be very normal:

Fight, flight, or freeze. These are "emotional", "natural", and "instinctive" reactions to physical stimuli.

Unreasonable wrote:

wonderer wrote:

I don't understand how a word "eliciting" (causing or initiating) emotions (arbitrary reactions) validates religious emotions, sentiments, or faiths.

Please elucidate.

First you need to understand that emotions are not 'arbitrary' reactions...

They are very, very predictable. If I sneak up to you on the street, slap you in the face, and then punch in the stomach, your reaction will be very normal:

Fight, flight, or freeze. These are "emotional", "natural", and "instinctive" reactions to physical stimuli.

they are predictable, but they are not consistent reactions. different brains will react differently.

Still i do not see how this allows feeling invoking words to justify religious faiths.

Can you explain further?

wonderer wrote:

they are predictable, but they are not consistent reactions. different brains will react differently.

On average, the difference is negligible. Think of a bell curve. Most people react the same to specific events, just like animals.

wonderer wrote:

Still i do not see how this allows feeling invoking words to justify religious faiths.

Can you explain further?

Yes, it is possible for me to explain further. Do you mean: may I explain further???

And I cannot explain myself to people who do not form proper questions...

Musa wrote:

You are a slave to something no matter what.

Either:
a) You are a slave to your desire
b) You are a slave to the norms of your society (morals of societies change with time)
c) You are a slave to God

In other words:
a) You are a slave to Satan (who influences and tries to lure you to desire)
b) You are a slave to man
c) You are a slave to the creator

the diseased men see disease everywhere.

Unreasonable wrote:

wonderer wrote:

Still i do not see how this allows feeling invoking words to justify religious faiths.

Can you explain further?

Yes, it is possible for me to explain further. Do you mean: may I explain further???

And I cannot explain myself to people who do not form proper questions...

You know what i meant, so why did you not answer the question?

Take it or leave it, i will not dance for you.

wonderer wrote:

You know what i meant, so why did you not answer the question?

Take it or leave it, i will not dance for you.

If you do not use proper and perfected Amerikan English, then I have no interest in you to begin with.

I have no patience for illiterate whelps who cannot take the time to learn & form sentences or statements.

I have no time for people who fuss over commonly used terms like a 70 year old English teacher, who insults people because they think sun shines from their ass, and to top it all off is trying to explain their own nonsense claim that words inducing emotions means religious faith is logically validated.

I don't give a shit UR. You either want to explain yourself or you don't.

If you choose to keep being a fucking twit, refusing to answer my questions because i say can instead of may, then go right ahead. I don't think your explanation will go anywhere anyway, so it's not surprising you're causing these stupid arrogant delays.

I could fuss over your grammar and spelling too, but I'm not that petty.

In the context, "can you" is fine.

More correct would be to say, "would you explain it further?".

Using "may" would, in fact, be incorrect as you are not asking whether Unreasonable has permission to explain himself. "May you" sounds like shit anyway.

Your improper use of English only exposes to me how stupid & vapid your mentality, not unlike other particular people on this forum and elsewhere who lazily-ignore their own (reasoned) mistakes. Perhaps laying off the chemically-induced euphoria may help your sensibilities. You are god-damned right I am not an English professor! I never claimed to be; that is not the point. The point is thus: act like an intelligent man, or, get out of my sight! It is very, very, very, very simple. I am surprised so few people have picked-up on this by now.

Then again, I was born into a time on this planet where animals are still animals. You are an ape.

Your ignorance is glaring me in the face and it is blinding; I must close my eyes to buffoons like you.


At this rate in my life, I am going to become the Human Whisperer...

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

In the context, "can you" is fine.

More correct would be to say, "would you explain it further?".

Using "may" would, in fact, be incorrect as you are not asking whether Unreasonable has permission to explain himself. "May you" sounds like shit anyway.

The phrase "can you" is a pussy-lick suggestion.

Can you answer my questions? Yes, I can. However, that does not mean that I may or will...

If you want me to answer your dumb-ass questions, then pay the price! Although, I can understand how difficult English is for some minds.

Given your extremely poor diction, you really have no business correcting other's.

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Given your extremely poor diction, you really have no business correcting other's.

Like you are one to speak, saying "can you" is proper in that context?

Can you understand basic English? -- No I do not believe that you can!

May you never respond to me again? Will you? Thank you, I *WOULD* prefer it.

I fly circles around your brain...

Unreasonable wrote:

Your improper use of English only exposes to me how stupid & vapid your mentality, not unlike other particular people on this forum and elsewhere who lazily-ignore their own (reasoned) mistakes.

well it seems you don't know how to form complete proper sentences.

how stupid and vapid my mentality,..., (blank)?

Vapid: adjective

1. lacking or having lost life, sharpness, or flavor; insipid; flat: vapid tea.
2. without liveliness or spirit; dull or tedious: a vapid party; vapid conversation.

A conversation about grammar when it is supposed to be you giving me an explanation is incredibly vapid, arrogant, and a waste of time.

Unreasonable wrote:

Perhaps laying off the chemically-induced euphoria may help your sensibilities.

what a wonderfully useless statement

Unreasonable wrote:

You are god-damned right I am not an English professor! I never claimed to be; that is not the point. The point is thus: act like an intelligent man, or, get out of my sight! It is very, very, very, very simple. I am surprised so few people have picked-up on this by now.

i don't fuss over your petty grammar mistakes, and i do not call you vapid and stupid because you use improper expressions like "can" instead of "may" or "would".

That is petty; that is vapid.

Unreasonable wrote:

Then again, I was born into a time on this planet where animals are still animals. You are an ape.

Your ignorance is glaring me in the face and it is blinding; I must close my eyes to buffoons like you.


At this rate in my life, I am going to become the Human Whisperer...

you are too arrogant to explain your own positions. because it hurts your brain to try.

I pity you.

I'll ask one last time. What do words inducing emotional reactions have to do with the validation of religious beliefs?

Fuck around with whatever reply you like, i wont be responding to anything you say unless it is an attempt to explain the things i have requested.

wonderer wrote:

What do words inducing emotional reactions have to do with the validation of religious beliefs?

Because if *ANY* word induces an emotional reaction, then there is a *REASON* for it!!!

And if there are reasons that words induce emotions, then there is a logic to it.

And if there is a logic to it, then there is a logic to religious institutions.

And if there is a logic to religious institutions, then they must be taken seriously.

And if they must be taken seriously, then a person would be wise to understand the root causes of religious institutions.

Unreasonable wrote:

wonderer wrote:

What do words inducing emotional reactions have to do with the validation of religious beliefs?

Because if *ANY* word induces an emotional reaction, then there is a *REASON* for it!!!

it could be a misfiring of the brain

Unreasonable wrote:

And if there are reasons that words induce emotions, then there is a logic to it.

there is logic to the reaction, but the reaction might not be logical. As i said before people have different reactions to different things. some reactions are the result of a misfiring of neurons. the logic to it is causality.

Unreasonable wrote:

And if there is a logic to it, then there is a logic to religious institutions.

Just because there is "logic" to an emotional reaction does not mean that there is "logic" "to religious institutions"...

the logic of an emotional reactions does not mean that what the reaction was to, is logical.

people have logical reactions to clowns, but that doesn't mean there must be logic "to clowns". The beliefs of the clown are not necessarily logical, and how people react to those beliefs might be predictable, but does not validate the beliefs of the clown

Unreasonable wrote:

And if there is a logic to religious institutions, then they must be taken seriously.

well this is wishful thinking, as my dismantling of your earlier "logic" has shown

Unreasonable wrote:

And if they must be taken seriously, then a person would be wise to understand the root causes of religious institutions.

would it be wise to understand the root causes of a clown?

people have emotional reactions to clowns, but are clowns logically validated?

You are not listening.

You are hopelessly-delusional, good bye, and good riddance.

kindly lock this thread.