The function of religion ?

[dank]

Clearly anything from within is not going to be truth, as every single person is different, each will have their own 'truth' hence making the word truth obsolete by its own definitions, so no, the truth does not lie within, your own OPINIONS and INTERPRETATION do however.

This is your error.  Every single person is not different, we all share one consciousness, thus, will reach the same truth as each other.  Look at any spiritual culture and even religions, they are all based on the same principles of love.

Your opinions lay outside, for you must formulate an opinion based off what you experience in this world.

[1714944759]

1714944759

[1714944759]

1714944759

[1714944759]

1714944759

[1714944759]

1714944759

[1714944759]

1714944759

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

omfg so infuriating I want to cry, go die dank.

[dank]

Love you too, brother.

[mobodick]

You also may just be stuck in a local maximum (of probability of being right), but have not explored the entire space of possibilities. Other people with different starting points and different paths may be stuck in their own local maxima, the only way to judge which is "right" is if all brains agree (converge) on the same answer, which may take infinite time (so is impossible for mortals). Consciousness trying to understand the universe is just like a huge markov chain monte carlo experiment.

That's the basis of spirituality, finding your own path to find the same truth.  In no way is it impossible for our species to become like-minded, time is an illusory boundary.  And consciousness grasps itself fine, it's the ego that's in need of lessons.

Good point, individuals are mortal, while species are not. To keep my mcmc analogy going, each species is it's own chain, each individual/brain/consciousness/ego is a unique genetic (in the computer science and biological sense) algorithm that samples from the space of possibilities. This is how I look at it:



The challenge here was to fit a curve with 3 parameters to some data, you can see that the chains all converged quickly onto one point, but failed to explore the entire set of possibilities (avoided areas of low probability, although the best answer may have been found surrounded by unlikely answers). The more challenging task of understanding the universe, existence, etc has many more dimensions, and there are many more chains exploring this space some branching off others at certain points, and they are not all independent of each other.

Your brain probably agrees with the machine:

I don't agree on you injecting things like 'understanding the universe' into this.
I don't see any sign of evolution striving for that goal.
It is more like a random walk in a space with attractors. Some things just happen to work better than others in this universe and so can be selected for. But possibility space is full of niches and so a genepool can inhabit such a niche and be successfull. The problem is that the genome then becomes more specific and cannot easily escape its current direction of development. That makes it seem as if that strain of genes it directed towards a goal. But that is just an illusion.
What i try to say is that there is no overall direction evolution takes. It just tests the environment and adapts to it. There is no overarching goal of understanding the universe. That is purely a human preoccupation.

[mobodick]

Clearly anything from within is not going to be truth, as every single person is different, each will have their own 'truth' hence making the word truth obsolete by its own definitions, so no, the truth does not lie within, your own OPINIONS and INTERPRETATION do however.

This is your error.  Every single person is not different, we all share one consciousness, thus, will reach the same truth as each other.  Look at any spiritual culture and even religions, they are all based on the same principles of love.

Your opinions lay outside, for you must formulate an opinion based off what you experience in this world.

Love is a chemical that is normally released in your brain when you are valued in a social system.
You can take a pill that will make you experience an enormous ammount of love.
So that shows that the experience of love is somehow a chemical system.

[dancupid]

Clearly anything from within is not going to be truth, as every single person is different, each will have their own 'truth' hence making the word truth obsolete by its own definitions, so no, the truth does not lie within, your own OPINIONS and INTERPRETATION do however.

This is your error.  Every single person is not different, we all share one consciousness, thus, will reach the same truth as each other.  Look at any spiritual culture and even religions, they are all based on the same principles of love.

Your opinions lay outside, for you must formulate an opinion based off what you experience in this world.

Human beings are just another type of animal - and animals have no problem with life; they just follow their nature. They do whatever comes naturally to them.
Human beings are exactly the same - they just follow their instincts and their nature.
A few humans ask the question 'but why do we do this?' and traditionally they would become monks and nuns, as there was no where else for them to go. For these people religion provided (a celibate) solution and they were taken out of the gene pool.
It's easy to ask these questions and it's relatively easy to create a personal model of reality, but after that you still have to live life - you still have to do things.
So the question is, what do you do about it dank?
What did you do today as a consequence of your beliefs that makes your life more valid or meaningful than a coal miner or a shop assistant or an insurance salesman? What do you actually do with your beliefs? Sacrifice chickens? meditate? Chant hare krishna?

[dank]

I'm not arguing against the chemical reactions that occur, I'm saying it can happen both ways, simultaneously.

Regarding the direction of evolution, there certainly is a goal to understand the universe.  Everything man has ever done has increased our awareness and knowledge of the universe.  If there had to be one purpose to life (but there's not, you create your own purpose) it would be to increase your awareness, in my opinion.  We are created by the universe, of the universe, to learn about the universe.  That would be the wise conclusion, in my opinion, for systematically decreasing awareness would certainly cease our existence.

What did you do today as a consequence of your beliefs that makes your life more valid or meaningful than a coal miner or a shop assistant or an insurance salesman? What do you actually do with your beliefs? Sacrifice chickens? meditate? Chant hare krishna?

My life is no more valid or meaningful than anyone else's.  I feel my beliefs are more wise, as love has the potential to end humanity's problems, so I take the incentive to spread love by any means necessary, to enact the change into reality.  Other people do this too, more and more do it each day.  As more people love, act out of their consciousness, we become one conscious community of humans, working together.

I think that's the wise thing to do, rather than fight each other.

[mobodick]

I'm not arguing against the chemical reactions that occur, I'm saying it can happen both ways, simultaneously.

Regarding the direction of evolution, there certainly is a goal to understand the universe.  Everything man has ever done has increased our awareness and knowledge of the universe.  If there had to be one purpose to life (but there's not, you create your own purpose) it would be to increase your awareness, in my opinion.  We are created by the universe, of the universe, to learn about the universe.  That would be the wise conclusion, in my opinion, for systematically decreasing awareness would certainly cease our existence.

What did you do today as a consequence of your beliefs that makes your life more valid or meaningful than a coal miner or a shop assistant or an insurance salesman? What do you actually do with your beliefs? Sacrifice chickens? meditate? Chant hare krishna?

My life is no more valid or meaningful than anyone else's.  I feel my beliefs are more wise, as love has the potential to end humanity's problems, so I take the incentive to spread love by any means necessary, to enact the change into reality.  Other people do this too, more and more do it each day.  As more people love, act out of their consciousness, we become one conscious community of humans, working together.

I think that's the wise thing to do, rather than fight each other.

You cannot argue they both happen because if we take the chemical out it does not happen at all.
A brain (and hence your conciousness) cannot experience love if that chemical is not present.
I'm sorry to bring it to you, but it is realy this mechanical.
You are your brain.

[dank]

You cannot argue they both happen because if we take the chemical out it does not happen at all.

What?

[mobodick]

I'm not arguing against the chemical reactions that occur, I'm saying it can happen both ways, simultaneously.

Regarding the direction of evolution, there certainly is a goal to understand the universe.  Everything man has ever done has increased our awareness and knowledge of the universe.  If there had to be one purpose to life (but there's not, you create your own purpose) it would be to increase your awareness, in my opinion.  We are created by the universe, of the universe, to learn about the universe.  That would be the wise conclusion, in my opinion, for systematically decreasing awareness would certainly cease our existence.

First of all, its pretty egotistical to think of 'man' as the summum of evolution.
Evolution is stronger than man and it will prevail even when mankind fails. It is just a very simple system that works on all levels.
Most people don't give a rats ass about the universe so most people are created by the universe, of the universe to fuck around and have children. Like any other replicating bit of DNA.

The most widespread and prolific organism on earth is the bacteria.
A single celled organism that mostly only eats, shits and replicates and sometimes defends itself against competing single celled organisms).
In fact, humans would not be able to survive without bacteria and yet all bacteria do is eat shit and reproduce.
Yet, no big thoughts about the nature of existance comming from bacteria.

There is no effect of 'decreasing awareness' on survivability outside the modern human scope.
But humans are only part of the puzzle and it is completely wrong to start your reasoning from what man has achieved.
And that is where all these problems come from. People take themselfs and their consiousness way too seriously.
On a galactic scale humans are really of no influence whatsoever.
But i bet it does make you feel more important when you believe that we are. You know, like giving you something to live for etc.
And that is another 'fault' in our brain. We usually start reasoning from our own standpoint.
That is why we used to believe the earth was flat untill through science we came to actually know the earth is round.
So you can believe what you want but unless you can actually show something real(!!) it's just a fantasy.
Meanwhile through science we know a lot of these things to be fantasies but despite these actual real world facts people still chose to follow their instincts and believe in one way or another.
So i've got a question for you.
There are numerous religions and believe systems.
They can't all be correct. So which one is correct and why are the others incorrect?

[mobodick]

You cannot argue they both happen because if we take the chemical out it does not happen at all.

What?

You said earlier :"I'm not arguing against the chemical reactions that occur, I'm saying it can happen both ways, simultaneously."
So, as i understand it, you say the feeling of love is mediated by both chemicals and some mystic power of 'universal love' or something.

I'm just telling you that there is only the chemical acting on your neural system and nothing else.
If you take away the chemical you cannot experience the feeling of love.
There is no other 'simultanious' spiritual way of this happening.

[dank]

You cannot argue they both happen because if we take the chemical out it does not happen at all.

What?

You said earlier :"I'm not arguing against the chemical reactions that occur, I'm saying it can happen both ways, simultaneously."
So, as i understand it, you say the feeling of love is mediated by both chemicals and some mystic power of 'universal love' or something.

I'm just telling you that there is only the chemical acting on your neural system and nothing else.
If you take away the chemical you cannot experience the feeling of love.
There is no other 'simultanious' spiritual way of this happening.

Have you tried taking away the chemical(s)?  Is it not possible spirituality causes the chemical reaction in the first place?  In absence of chemicals, or even death, I think you will find plentiful amounts of love.

Regarding your other post, I don't think man is the 'summum' of evolution, it's an example, since we are humans.  Religions are based on spirituality, they are different flavors of man's understanding of the universe.  And yes, they became largely corrupt.  I have experienced the other side, I can testify on it's behalf based on experience.

May I remind, I used to be straight forward atheist, I wasn't indoctrinated to think the way I do.  It took very real spiritual experiences to shape my belief and make me believe in god.  I can't prove the existence of something, someone else has not experienced, to them, it's up to you to find it yourself.  If you're not open to the possibility of it, just as many people weren't open to the possibility of earth being round, you will never find it, in this life.

[mobodick]

You cannot argue they both happen because if we take the chemical out it does not happen at all.

What?

You said earlier :"I'm not arguing against the chemical reactions that occur, I'm saying it can happen both ways, simultaneously."
So, as i understand it, you say the feeling of love is mediated by both chemicals and some mystic power of 'universal love' or something.

I'm just telling you that there is only the chemical acting on your neural system and nothing else.
If you take away the chemical you cannot experience the feeling of love.
There is no other 'simultanious' spiritual way of this happening.

Have you tried taking away the chemical(s)?  Is it not possible spirituality causes the chemical reaction in the first place?  In absence of chemicals, or even death, I think you will find plentiful amounts of love.

I havent personally, but other people have.
And there is no evidence whatsoever outside you personal experience that shows there is more than neurons and chemicals.
Again, i urge you to read the science of broken brains and see how that influences the affected person. It is a very important lesson in understanding what creates things like consiousness. And it's really really interesting.

Regarding your other post, I don't think man is the 'summum' of evolution, it's an example, since we are humans.  Religions are based on spirituality, they are different flavors of man's understanding of the universe.  And yes, they became largely corrupt.  I have experienced the other side, I can testify on it's behalf based on experience.

It is the only example as humans are the only beings claiming they experience anythinog 'spiritual'.
It all comes down to humans and their feelings.
BTW, you completely not answering the questions i have asked you in my previous posts.
Are you avoiding them?

May I remind, I used to be straight forward atheist, I wasn't indoctrinated to think the way I do.  It took very real spiritual experiences to shape my belief and make me believe in god.  I can't prove the existence of something, someone else has not experienced, to them, it's up to you to find it yourself.  If you're not open to the possibility of it, just as many people weren't open to the possibility of earth being round, you will never find it, in this life.

I was brought up as a catholic and the spiritual experience taught me that there is no spiritual realm outside of reality. It's all just brains. It hit me like a hammer and it took me years to process it. In fact, i'm still sometimes struggle with the implications.
So why do you think your experience describes the truth better than mine?
BTW the feeling of religious epiphany is produced by certain parts of the brain and can be stimulated magnetically to give people a genuine feeling of transcending their human souls to bathe in the glory of infinte love.
It's being done on regular basis in brain research centers.

And your round earth theorie applies in reverse to these issues.
It's the believers that don't want to accept that the earth is round.
Thankfully scientists kept an open mind and actually went out there and checked it out, even when their lives were in danger from a certain not so open religion.
Science works because we keep an open mind. You would not be typing posts on a computer and communicate over the internet if science was close minded.
Every fact, every theory, is under constant scrutiny from other people. It is the very essence of why science got us where we are.

The problem with believers is that they keep on believing despite the many many found facts that there is nothing.
By now, the chance that there is actually something like a spiritual world is so incredibly small that there is realy no difference between believing that and believing in the spaghetti monster.
Science allways keeps an open mind, even now, and if you can show something exists then please show us and science will accept it.
But you need to show any real effects. Since, you know, we exist in reality whatever it may be.

[dank]

You're still looking evidence, which is something we can measure, correct?  We can only measure things in this reality, correct?  Don't you think it may be a little egotistical to think this is the only reality?  Spirituality is something you must see, feel, experience, for yourself.

It seems we're going in circles, I don't know what question you wanted me to answer that I haven't already.

[mobodick]

You're still looking evidence, which is something we can measure, correct?  We can only measure things in this reality, correct?  Don't you think it may be a little egotistical to think this is the only reality?  Spirituality is something you must see, feel, experience, for yourself.

It seems we're going in circles, I don't know what question you wanted me to answer that I haven't already.

I could say that you're the egoist because all your notions of this supposed other reality come from your personal experiences.
I base my opinion on science and science is a big map of reality composed by millions of people over a long time that now alows us to make things like trasistors and other stuff that actually do something in the perceivable universe.


And you should stop assuming that i have not had any spiritual experiences. I just don't find evidence there of a different reality. I understand that in such a case i'm the one producing the feeling and not some reality outside of reality.
Thinking this way allowed me to travel even further into the abstract realms of being where words like ego and conciousness have no meaning.
I bet your biggest obstacle is that you cannot imagine that the wet lump of neurons in your head is capable of producing such experiences.
And again, it is a well known and well studied fact that our brains are capable of illusions and hallucinations and whatnot that seem to the person to be more real than reality. Even when the experience is clearly silly.

So we have a brain that is capable of producing any nonsense possible and make it seem real (ever spoken to a schitzofrenic person?). We can even control these nonsense production capabilities in humans to a certain degree.
Reality has shown us that we should not blindly trust in the output of our brains but keep an open mind and check with reality.

About unanswered questions, my fault, i didn't actually ask you that many questions.
But one question from this thread is:
'There are numerous religions and believe systems.
They can't all be correct. So which one is correct and why are the others incorrect?'

and another:
'Science allways keeps an open mind, even now, and if you can show something exists then please show us and science will accept it.
But you need to show any real effects. Since, you know, we exist in reality whatever it may be.'
(so the question is please show something spiritual that has an actual effect on the reality that we all share)

And from the other thread:
"But consider this: Why didn't anyone not driven by ego or greed step up and picked up the million dollars to give to charity?"
(in the context of the James Randi's prize)


But the main question is: 'Is there a good reason, besides the profoundness of your own personal experience, to believe there is more than reality?'

[dank]

Science is a big map of our worldly reality, yes, and that's it.

There's no right or wrong religion.  Most major religions are based off spirituality and were perverted into giving the church power.  In my opinion, the most pure religions (closest to spirituality) would be Buddhism and Hinduism.

Sure, my life completely flipped after 'finding god.'  I literally look like a completely different human, after half a year.  In addition to that, it will give me the power to become a renowned guitarist in a few months time.

Doing that with the goal of possessing money is still egotistical, no matter your intentions.  Your ego wants to donate to the charity so it seems like a better person, rather than doing so through your life actions.  However, I don't think it's impossible for supernatural phenomena to start physically occurring in our reality, in the near future.

This is why there is more than reality:  There are infinite realities.  You have yours, I have mine, some people share realities.  Our reality is shaped after what we believe, whatever you believe is true.  When you hallucinate, you believe you are seeing something, correct?  If you believe you are sick, you're sick, right?  If you believe you're sad, surely depression will begin to manifest into your life, right?  My reality is different than yours because we clearly have different beliefs.  There, of course, is one true reality, the true nature of the universe.  (Un)fortunately, this is not it, this is a reality we created to learn as souls.  When we die, we return to our true nature, energy.

[mobodick]

Science is a big map of our worldly reality, yes, and that's it.

There's no right or wrong religion.  Most major religions are based off spirituality and were perverted into giving the church power.  In my opinion, the most pure religions (closest to spirituality) would be Buddhism and Hinduism.

Aah, the enlightened Hinduism. Dude, you're realy clueless. Hinduism, like any other notion of separation, has been involved with wars. There are even rules set out in their holy books about how to conduct war.
So why do these religions fight for supremacy if none of them is right or wrong?
You mean all those people throughout history got slaughtered in the name of 'not right, not wrong'? Seriously?

Sure, my life completely flipped after 'finding god.'  I literally look like a completely different human, after half a year.  In addition to that, it will give me the power to become a renowned guitarist in a few months time.

I'm not debating the effect your experiences have on you, i'm debating wether these experiences are real or are an artifact of your brain.
The color red does not exist. It is just a range of frequencies of the em spectrum.
And yet most people experience 'redness' when they see red and it has inspired lots of artists.
Nevertheless, the experience of 'redness' exists only in your brain.
And if you don't have cones in your eyes that can pick up this band of em frequencies you just have no clue what red is.

Doing that with the goal of possessing money is still egotistical, no matter your intentions.  Your ego wants to donate to the charity so it seems like a better person, rather than doing so through your life actions.  However, I don't think it's impossible for supernatural phenomena to start physically occurring in our reality, in the near future.

Bullshit, these tests have also been done without any financial or personal incentive.
They all fail, always. Your possibility of supernatural occuring physically is a fantasy. Deal with it.

This is why there is more than reality:  There are infinite realities.  You have yours, I have mine, some people share realities.  Our reality is shaped after what we believe, whatever you believe is true.  When you hallucinate, you believe you are seeing something, correct?  If you believe you are sick, you're sick, right?  If you believe you're sad, surely depression will begin to manifest into your life, right?  My reality is different than yours because we clearly have different beliefs.  There, of course, is one true reality, the true nature of the universe.  (Un)fortunately, this is not it, this is a reality we created to learn as souls.  When we die, we return to our true nature, energy.

No, now your confusing our view of reality with the concept of reality itself. This kind of distinction was already used thousands of years ago and has served humanity well. And now you simply wash over it just to make it fit your opinion.
Seriously, you know too little about the world to debate these things.
I usually find myself sick, i don't have to believe it, it just happens.
If i feel a depression i notice because i feel sad for a prolonged time, i dont believe in feeling sad and then become depressed. It is just not how it works. It's your fantasy of how you think it should work.
I'm sure people can imagine themselfs into bing sick or depressed, but those are not real illnesses or depressions, they are immitations of the results of such things.
You deny the complexity of reality and instead flee into the safe comfort of your simple fantasies and self-delusions.
There realy is a shitload of things to know about the actual real universe and it's a shame you don't want to explore them.

[dank]

Enlighten me, what part of Hinduism promotes war?  Reference, please?

[mobodick]

Enlighten me, what part of Hinduism promotes war?  Reference, please?

Just something i picked up from google:

O Kaunteya, if you are killed ( in the battle) you will ascend to heaven. On the contrary if you win the war you will enjoy the comforts of earthly kingdom. Therefore get up and fight with determination. (Bhagavad gita 2.37)

With equanimity towards happiness and sorrow, gain and loss, victory and defeat, fight. This way you will not incur any sin. (Bhagavad gita 2.38)

My guess is you have a very simplistic view of Hinduism, or for that matter all other religions.
You just use your childish notions of these big structures to fit your fantasy of love and peace.

[fishface]

Where are my fellow Satanists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism