What good is religion?

Thanks......I read some of your link and others pertaining to "ego".
Sounds like your comparison of "ego" to a "broker" makes sense according to wiki...
"A broker is a person or firm who arranges transactions between a buyer and a seller for a commission when the deal is executed. A broker who also acts as a seller or as a buyer becomes a principal party to the deal."

A more precise description might be...

"A broker-dealer is a broker that transacts for its own account, in addition to facilitating transactions for clients."

But notice that in both descriptions...the "broker" is getting something out of it's efforts.
That is the "ego" I'm calling attention to...the one that's always looking to inflate itself.

 

More on "ego"....

"When every thought absorbs your attention completely, when you are so identified with the voice in your head and the emotions that accompany it that you lose yourself in every thought and every emotion, then you are totally identified with form and therefore in the grip of ego. Ego is a conglomeration of recurring thought forms and conditioned mental-emotional patterns that are invested with a sense of I, a sense of self."

 

More on "ego"....

Guilt Is An Ego-imposed State Of Mind
"Guilt comes from the ego into our minds; it does not come from God. Occupying the mind with guilt, and all the thoughts and emotions that flow out of guilt, is yet another distraction the ego uses to stay in control of the mind to ensure its survival."

 

thats wonderfful but describing different attributes of ego does not affect the application of the word religion to the product of ego, ie personality.

 

"Religions, to a large extent, became divisive rather than unifying forces.
Instead of bringing about an end of violence and hatred....they brought more violence and hatred,
more divisions between people as well as between different religions
and even within the same religion. They became ideologies
belief systems people could identify with, and so use them
to enhance their false sense of self (ego)."
"Through them (religions)...they could make themselves "right"
and others "wrong" and thus define their enemies, the "others",
the "non-believers" or "wrong believers" who not infrequently
they saw themselves justified in killing."

"Man made "God" in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, the unnameable (God)
was reduced to a mental idiot that you had to believe in
and worship as "my god" or "your god"."

 

sure anything that is a byproduct of thought 'CAN' become devisive. so should we throw out our political system? Its become damn right dangerous.

Maybe if we had better people in the world we wouldnt have those problems.

 

Since, to clarify your potentially misleading description, this person is not insisting that anyone, in particular, must have religion, only supporting the rights of those who do want one, to be able to have it--
can you explain why it is a better thing for someone who does not need religion, to assume therefore that no one else should need it, either, and to attack all of those who feel they do, as no better than so many heroin junkies?
By that standard, I could advocate for all with asthma inhalers, to throw away their unnecessary crutch; after all, if I don't need one, nor must anyone, right? I mean, wasn't that your question: why would a person who claims not to need something, insist that (some) others do need it?

As @Kokomojojo has pointed out, this is your own personal religion/philosophy. I will give you some advice from someone, of whom I know you think quite highly:

Do you not recognize that all the assertions you continually reiterate, throughout this thread, are only, "thoughts, beliefs, perceptions...?"

Seems you want to have your cake, and eat everyone else's, too.

Continuing on that hypocrisy theme:

The problem with your making that claim is that, according to your earlier claim, your beliefs do not diverge from those of Greatest I am, who has stated most clearly, that God does not exist, and that he is an atheist.

Which means your are claiming to be an atheist, who believes that God, "is real." The religions, whose falseness you decry, have nothing on your own hypocrisy.

Which brings me to the reason I actually returned to your thread. I saw your, "likes," of posts by Kyklos--

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/attack-against-christendom.541717/#post-1069641917

-- which were actually longer, and much more indirect in their arguments, and much more akin to diatribes, than any of my posts which you falsely complained of being of unreasonably great lengths of, variously, 10 thousand, or 50 thousand, or more words:

So I guess it is only the fact that you disagree with the opinion expressed that decides whether a longer than 3 sentence post gets liked by you, or called, "verbose ranting." Translation: you had no counter-arguments to my points, so you cast false allegations (you're sounding more like an institutional religion with each passing day). Speaking of which, I had called it your idiosyncracy to require that I limit my replies to 2 or 3 sentences; yours is a false analogy (your specialty), to claim that my giving longer answers somehow equated: I did not either say that, your own giving of short replies was idiosyncratic, nor did I ever demand of others, that they must give long replies. So no honest person could see my tendency to be comprehensive, in my own comments, to be the same as your specifying how long another poster's response should be. Or could you simply not discern that difference?

 

Now just imagine for a moment.....
if you were writing all that worthless mind whey above on real paper.
Do you realize how many forests you would be destroying?

I've asked you many times now to try to stay on topic....you refuse.
Instead you rant about everything but the topic.
Why not start your own?

 

You are right on the money IMO.
May not need to throw out guv...
looks to me like it will disintegrate on it's own.

 

Yes...that is my logic too...
As long as we are fighting wars (real and psychological)
and trying to annihilate everyone else (physically and personally)
things will continue to fall apart.

What I am trying to point out by this thread...is that "religions"
or belief systems are not helping matters....
and that by people continuing to separate themselves into groups
society deteriorates even further.

Your idea about having..."better "people" in the world"
is also a great talking point in regard to this topic...
if we can agree on a definition of "people".

 

Only in the mind of the most unrepentant hypocrite, would his own contradictory claims, about his thread, not be, "on topic," within that thread. Indeed, you have made the request many times, but that does not give your request any legitimate foundation. The post of mine that you claim is on, "everything but the topic," opens by quoting you, asking another poster about my position (I will copy the post, rather than use the quote function, which only aids your ongoing deceit, that my replies are off-topic):
gabmux said: ↑
Can you explain why a person
who claims not to "need" any religion himself
would insist others "need" it.....

Perhaps he's just practicing his sales technique....
you try to get folks to buy something you don't actually need yourself.
<END SNIP>
Is this post OF YOURS off-topic? If not, then how could my direct response to it, be off-topic? BTW, it sounds like the last half of your post is nothing more than a gratuitous swipe at me. Or is sales technique, part of your topic?

So I responded to YOU, hypocrite, and you reply by, instead of answering, falsely saying that I am off-topic (translation: anything that gabmux finds to be an inconvenient truth):

That is my stating YOUR OWN VIEW, that religion, "is not needed!" And do you deny that you have repeatedly maintained that those hooked on religion are no different than drug addicts? So then how is my bringing that up, not on topic? The answer, of course, is that you translate, "on topic," as meaning, "whatever gabmux wants to talk about."

I could go on like this through all this last post of mine, as well as my others that you have mislabelled as off-topic, in order to avoid giving a response, but I won't waste the imaginary trees, your description of which eats up the lion's share of your response. And the relevance of any of that, which you wrote?

 

Get the quote please.

I said no such thing.

Regards
DL

 

I dont understand this, he cited several of your quotes, how can that not be on topic?

 

For context, you replied to this, which was directed toward gabmux:
DEFinning said: ↑
The problem with your making that claim is that, according to your earlier claim, your beliefs do not diverge from those of Greatest I am, who has stated most clearly, that God does not exist, and that he is an atheist.

That was my reply to gabmux, after his saying that God, "is real."

Here are an assortment of your quotes that declare that no, "God,"
i.e., in the form of a supernatural Deity, exists.

You are saying that you agree with atheists (which name means, literally, "no god"), who take, "the intelligent view," to not believe in God, without proof. Do you claim to have proof of God's existence, which you've been keeping to yourself?

I think that quote says it, pretty unambiguously. To be clear, I am using the words God & atheist, the way they are used by the population, in general. And for, "God," that means a supernatural deity.

So, even though you give the term, "divine," to yourself, you admit that it is not anything real (as gabmux stated it was, which is why I was pointing out the inconsistency to him, which led to this reply of yours), and certainly nothing supernatural. That makes you, in the eyes of the world, anyway, an atheist.

Though I find it a laudable goal to be your best self, still, in the common mind, that does not equate with a belief in God. It would be an improvement, nonetheless, if those Christians who feel all they need do is accept Jesus as their personal savior and ask for forgiveness, were to include more of the idea of trying not to need to ask for forgiveness, quite so often. I could go on, here, but gabmux is not a very cordial thread-host, so I will not dally, even though all my comments would be on-topic.

I will, however, quickly point out that believing oneself to be a god does not prevent idol-worship, for narcissism is a real pitfall, which merely the intent to live with, "the best rules & laws," one can find, does not guarantee avoiding. In one of the myths of Satan/Lucifer, his personal vanity is attributed as the reason he is unwilling to bow to man, God's other creation, & this was what condemned him. That extreme love of self, called by the Latin term cupiditas, in Medieval times, was the first sin against God (as a supernatural being, naturally).*

* If you appreciate myth, which is typically encoded with hidden meaning, like the religious texts you appreciate, in that way, then you may be interested in this, from Phillip Lombardo's The Lucifer Effect: understanding how good people turn evil (2007)

“Lucifer’s sin is what thinkers in the Middle Ages called ‘cupiditas.’ For Dante, the sins that spring from that root are the most extreme ‘sins of the wolf,’ the spiritual condition of having an inner black hole so deep within oneself that no amount of power or money can ever fill it. For those suffering the mortal malady called cupiditas, whatever exists outside of one’s self has worth only as it can be exploited by, or taken into one’s self. In Dante’s Hell those guilty of that sin are in the ninth circle, frozen in the Lake of Ice. Having cared for nothing but self in life, they are encased in icy Self for eternity. By making people focus only on oneself in this way, Satan and his followers turn their eyes away from the harmony of love that unites all living creatures.
The sins of the wolf cause a human being to turn away from grace and to make self his only good–and also his prison. In the ninth circle of the Inferno, the sinners, possessed of the spirit of the insatiable wolf, are frozen in a self-imposed prison where prisoner and guard are fused in an egocentric reality.” –Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect (2007)

Regards,
DEFinning

 

I've told him multiple times to just state his point...
if he has something concerning the topic.
Instead all he does is rant to impress himself.
If you want to sift through his mental vomit
and find something new pertaining to the topic,
please point it out.
Otherwise I'll just ignore those monstrosities he posts.

 

Yes he will make stuff up in his head....and he will claim that you said it.
Then he will argue with it. I've already suggested that he start his own thread
dedicated to arguing with himself...
....but he seems to be addicted to this one.

 

but he quoted gias advocacy?
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › atheist
Atheist definition is - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.
I dont find anything made up in that, do you?

 

Post #566:

Offering these quotes, as his "proof:"
↑DEFinning said:
The problem with your making that claim is that, according to your earlier claim, your beliefs do not diverge from those of Greatest I am, who has stated most clearly, that God does not exist, and that he is an atheist.

↑Greatest I am said:
Get the quote please.

I said no such thing.

Regards
DL

Which I showed to Greatest I am, in post #564, just above, with too many examples to be worth re-citing, but this one will suffice:

Greatest I am said: ↑
In Gnostic Christianity, divinity is in all of us.

We also know that divine is a title that can only be given. There is no real sentient Divine.

If any stood up, you me or the Pope, to claim Divine status, we would be ROFLOL at.


And, in my post #557, I quoted gabmux seeming to say something quite different about the reality of God, or the Divine:

gabmux said: ↑
Perhaps we can examine the "sources"....
IMO...there are two sources...one is God...the other is ego.
One is an illusion.."ego".
The other is real..."God".

And yet he claims (also quoted in post #557):

gabmux said: ↑
Yes....@Greatest I am...does IMO point to the same teaching.

So let's all do the math. Poster GIA says the divine is not real, simply a title that is given; the thread creator G., calls God "real;" yet, when poster D., asks poster G. about how his views differ from those of GIA, in this regard, poster G. maintains that he & GIA adhere to the same beliefs. Then, when I (poster D.) try to point out this discrepency in what gabmux (poster G.) is currently saying, and previous statements which contradict his words, he claims that I, "make stuff up in (my) head...and he will claim that you said it."

Except that nothing whatsoever came from my imagination-- as I showed gabmux the evidential quotes, as is my custom-- and so my, "claim," is to all appearances, a factual statement. And in the face of many of these, gabmux falsely claims that they are all in my head, and that I am arguing with myself.

When I total those up, I get a sum that shows gabmux to not only be dishonest, but to lack integrity, making his baseless claims worth less than the paper made from those imaginary trees he used as his, "counter-argument," against my assorted truths.

gabmux said: ↑
Now just imagine for a moment.....
if you were writing all that worthless mind whey above on real paper.
Do you realize how many forests you would be destroying?

I've asked you many times now to try to stay on topic....you refuse.
Instead you rant about everything but the topic.
Why not start your own?

Note, gabmux adds to his evasion & misrepresentation of the truth, as is his wont, with false, defamatory charges, directed at me, along with gratuitous, and inaccurate, insults.

BTW, if I were to start my own thread about how disingenuous you (gabmux) have been, throughout this thread, it would be deleted by the moderators, because that is not the sort of material that is considered appropriate, for this forum. Though you, of course, flout those rules regularly, as by usually not even providing contextual quotes of mine, for your bogus charges & baseless character assassinations. If you wish me to stay out of your thread, as I previously pointed out to you, you should cease making groundless allegations against me, and maligning me, behind my back.

In conclusion, despite all of gabmux's posturing--

gabmux said: ↑
You can exist just fine without "your thoughts"...
but "your thoughts" can not exist without you.

Your thoughts, beliefs have never been who you are.
Thoughts come and go. Beliefs change. Both of those are unstable.
You are simply the observer of those things.
You don't need any thoughts or beliefs to be who you really are--

he is clearly quite strongly attached to his own thoughts, and reacts to any serious challenges to them with perjurious assaults upon the source of these countering ideas, in a way unbefitting of the spirit of civil debate or, in keeping, honestly, even with what should be the low-bar, for mature discussion or disagreement, of any kind.

 

I'm afraid I don't know what "gias advocacy" has to do with this thread.
I don't see how the definition of atheism has anything to do with this thread either.
If you can find anything DEFinning says that you think actually addresses the topic,
(and that hasn't already been discussed), please let me know...
or not. Is okay either way.

 

I addressed your post which obviously then is not part of this thread either?

 

You may have addressed a post here as you claim..
but if your reply has nothing to do with the topic, then what's the use of posting it?
If you and your pal are here just to criticize other participants...
then there is no need for me to respond to your comments.

Here is something pertaining to the topic....

"Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and
religion. They realize that having a belief system a set of thoughts that you
regard as the absolute truth does not make you spiritual no matter what the
nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more you make your thoughts (beliefs)
into your identity, the more cut off you are from the spiritual dimension within
yourself. Many religious people are stuck at that level. They equate truth
with thought, and as they are completely identified with thought (their mind),
they claim to be in sole possession of the truth in an unconscious attempt to
protect their identity. They don’t realize the limitations of thought. Unless
you believe (think) exactly as they do, you are wrong in their eyes, and in the
not-too-distant past, they would have felt justified in killing you for that.
And some still do, even now."

Let's see if either of you two can focus on the actual topic...

 

LOL. Thanks for saving us the trouble of what should be the first indictment against the premise of your thread. Namely, what makes you think your ideas about the ultimate nature of reality are any more valid than those of the billions of others on this planet? If the answer is nothing (as I suspect), then why should those other individuals not have the right to choose their own path, even if it includes following a religion which you see as worthless, something from which it is time to move on, you say, & for which you advocate discarding? How is not hubris, as grand as that ever seen from institutional religion, for you to assign to yourself the authority to render a verdict on religion, writ large, not just for yourself, but to dispense prescriptions for the rest of us? This thread is a manifest example of the very thing of which your quote speaks (see emboldened lines, above).

Now are we going to get a straight answer from you, for this topically-appropriate question?

 

The topic has to do with whether or not "religion" has any worthwhile purpose
other than a temporary consoling factor to some. In which case it is no different than
any other addictive habit...like you being addicted to this thread.

You still haven't offered anything regarding the topic.
Why do you keep insisting "religion" is "needed"
when you claim not to need one yourself?

 

Until scientists successfully create life out of nothing there will always be a god. Hate to burst your bubble.

 

That’s the point. No man or woman is perfect (except for me). Religion knows man are all of sin. They don’t pretend that mistakes are never made cause every man is a man of sin. You just got to try to do your best.

the faith in god is what drives religion. No scientist can disprove his existence because they can’t even replicate his ability to create life.