Moderator: felix dakat
de'trop wrote:"GOD" IS NOT A RELIGIOUS MATTER.
wow! That's some insight!
i don't think one can say this about native american beliefs, or eastern. these seem to have a strong element of contemplation in them
Was that the truth before that religion?
I believe that most major religions have a contemplative element about them, but the way that many religions are practised is contradictory to their origins. It is this inconsistency that causes us problems.
Religion is really just the formal practise of believing
Logic tells us that if God is not a clumsy and prankish being, then real metaphysical thinking is possible at any point in history on its own. That it would be pure reason based on timeless truths. That, ironically, it would become indistinguishable from philosophy and science.
de'trop wrote:Since it isn't a rule that what is true is what is always believed, then it must be a rule that what is true is without being believed.
It is precisely because "religion" doesn't constitute human contemplation, is mistaken as the source and measure of human contemplation, and breaks down when this consequence is finally realized:
Are there any formalities in believing?
What I am searching for is a model in which to understand the universe without so many inconsistencies, Bob
Interesting but wrong.
That is probably the problem you have. You can't transcend your existence without Religion - â€œOne never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomenaâ€ said Hilaire Belloc. And no-one is saying that it is the limit of our potential, but it is more than you give acknowledgement to. Your mistake to my mind is to believe you can achieve more cognitively than you actually can, and in sticking at it you actually achieve nothing.
de'Trop wrote: ... I determine that you think I mean that "truth" is nonexistent without belief, or that "truth" can't be known "sometimes" as opposed to "never" or "always." I haven't said that .... I didn't say that "truth" needs belief to exist. I said that it exists regardless of belief, whether "always," sometimes," or "never" changes nothing here.
I'm not really a fan of Beloc, but the quote was genuine. You must know that every time you make an equation about life, you are in the equation yourself. We can't exist above and independent of the world (material experience or the universe) because we are in it, a part of it, adhering to the rules that apply and influencing things.Tell Belloc, or ask him/her rather, how he/she has come about this conclusion without the mind, reason, rationale, and logic. If the mind does not transcend phenomena, how does it come to mind that "one can never see the thing-in-itself?" Do you see how that statement collapses, Bob?
The "mistake" is to believe that anything can be achieved noncognitively. And if it can be ...
mind constitutes any and all thoughts
Users browsing this forum: No registered users