The basis of things, the truth of selflessness, and to see the logic that's found in what we call religion more from the point of view we do anything else.
The basis of things, the truth of selflessness, and to see the logic that's found in what we call religion more from the point of view we do anything else.
Vanity/Morality/Desire/Influence/Knowledge/Imagination/Conciousness/Sense Organs/Present Environment
"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon.
"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi.
If morality serves as the basis of vanity, then I think the basis of morality is desire; the basis of desire is influence; the basis of influence is knowledge; the basis of knowledge is imagination; the basis of imagination is our sense organs reacting to our present environment, and the extent of how concious we are of this happening.
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” - Albert Einstein
The more open ones mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It's loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it's love that leads a concious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing and upon dating someone new your dad goes from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables, when imagining themselves as someone else; and of how detailed it is. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue. Because our imagination needs to be exercised by let's say reading books or imagining yourself in someones shoes as a couple examples.
When one strikes us accross the cheek, and we stike back in retaliation, we appeal to the more instinctive, barbaric mammal within all of us. But when we lower our hand, and offer our other cheek in return, we appeal to the logical, reasonable thinking being within all of us instead.
I think the only evidence needed to prove my claim made in the title is to use the "skin" that holds the wine of the knowledge of everything we've ever presently known as a species: observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious beings on a planet, presently holding the most capacity to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that's ever existed; God or not.
What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold the knowledge of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that its always been poured into, and thats kept it seperate at all in the first place: a religion. There's so much logic within religion, that's not being seen as such because of the appearance it's given when it's taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God or creator of some kind; becoming stigmatized as a result.
There's a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will have always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air like the birds do, or the idea of democracy.
"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luthing King Jr.
"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi
"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." - Leo Tolstoy
"Never take an oath at all. Not to heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (humans)...Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (regarding these influences); anything more than this comes from evil (a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness, i.e., a religion). - Jesus, Matt 5:33
"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates
You're viewing a single thread.
Love the circular logic of a drug addled mind failing to present a logical flow of ideas. In this case your Christian religion is the drug and you clearly have not escaped without suffering mental damage.
I'm not religious. In fact, what's being stated above is the opposite of what a religion would advocate—to hold it as unquestionably true, opposed to true but not that it's no longer up for question, and considered what's called "infalliable" or no longer capable of error.
Now that I've put forward plenty of evidence to support my claim, would you be willing to be the first person after days of posting different opinions regarding the same general topic, to give legitimate reason as to why I'm wrong? Opposed to only insulting me and passing off what I have to say (which is what people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi had to say—these men were far from "drug addled," they also seen religion from my same perspective) as "stoner pontification," as an example.
Consider shedding the hate that's clouded your mind and thats led you to be so close minded, and allow love (your sense of selflessness) to clear it up, only leading you to consider the new knowledge or foreign influences that would undoubtedly lead your imagination to become even more powerful and detailed than it already is.
You haven't presented any evidence, it's observations and personal opinions.
So you're saying people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi etc didn't present any evidence? And what they had to say isn't worth considering therefore? Because again, the evidence they put forth based off their observation, is the same as mine.
The evidence I present is there, if you would read what I have to say to understand it—opposed to not even bothering with it at all and assume it's nothing but stoner this or drug addict that—then that's what we would be talking about right now.
What do you think things like the Big Bang Theory are? Scientific theory, based purely off our ability to observe the world around us. Not to mention philosophy. Why do you bother with anything on this sub then? All you'll ever find is almost exactly what you just said: personal opinions based off observation.
What makes my personal opinions based off observation any different? I don't know why I even bother to ask, because you'll either not reply, or just chalk it up to pontification, despite pontificating to any degree absolutely not something that's no longer worth considering, not by any means.
Hand picked quotes of ancient philosophiers is not evidence. For example another thing Socrates said is:
“The virtue of a man is to govern, and the virtue of a woman is to manage the household.”
Therefore by your definition this is evidence that a women that is unable to maintain a household is worthless.
What you've done is find quotes that agree with your observations. Ultimately, this is all confirmation bias.
You made no attempt to challenge your own assertions. When I did so, you immediately demanded I prove you wrong, shifting the burden of proof as Aristotle may have called it.
I'm clearly not merely quoting ancient philosophers; especially considering Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK are amoungst them.
You're only referencing the standards and societal norms of the day. 2+2 is still 4 regardless who says it and who they happen to be underneath; responding to hate and evil with equal parts love and goodness is more logical, regardless if it's Jesus or Hitler saying it.
Challenging ones own assertions is a huge emphasis of what I have to say: "to never take an oath at all." And you didn't challenge my assertions at all, you did nothing but label them and consider them useless as a result.
My argument still stands. You have no idea what your refuting because you haven't even bothered with what's being refuted yet; resulting to you walking into contradiction after contradiction. I still have no idea that you have any idea what I'm talking about.
If you believe Jesus is more than a philosopher, you are a Christian.
By your logic, Ukrainians should respond to Russianms invasion with love and goodness. That's has never worked.
Bullies don't stop being bullies because you love them. This isn't a lifetime movie.
By the way if you're looking for more evidence check out my post: Socrates, The Story of Jonah, and Jesus.
Never said I did, and it takes far more then that to be considered a Christian to Christians, depending on which type of Christian you're asking of course. (There's 35-40 thousand different types to ask apparently)
It worked in gaining India's independence, amoungst other examples. Things like the idea of Democracy were also seen the same way as you're seeing our capacity for selflessness now, and returning good for evil done specifically.
"The hardest to love are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates. Based off my 10 years experience working with them, I can tell you you're absolutely wrong in ever way in that regard. And it's less about getting them to stop being a bully, and more about teaching others the relevance of resisting the selfish barbarian within all of us when met with what we hate, to find alternative solutions our inherent ability to logic and reason shows us; like collective love opposed to collective hate, that only ever leads to more hate.