The Reasons For Religion

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#41 Apr 18, 2007
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Untrue. The DEFINITION of religion include leap of faith.
The DEFINITION of philosophy does not.
If you NEED a leap of faith-- it's RELIGION. It may share some aspects of philosophy, but the FAITH bit makes it religion.
See Descartes.
DesCartes is an idiot..i think, therefore I am...haha I think I'm a cue ball...
no I Think and therefore you are misguided but entitled to your wronf deductions as Descartes was...unless you listen to his words repeated in one of the Moody Blues Songs...thanks I just loaded them in winamp.....

heres some Descartes thinkers...The Moody Blues.. "In The Beginning" i should add it seems toungue in Cheek for that Band..however I like it. I, prefer Night in White Satin...will listen to it in meditations...

"Pre> first man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.
Establishment: of course you are my bright little star,
Ive miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefathers fruit
And now to suit our
Great computer,
Youre magnetic ink.
First man: Im more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.
Inner man: there you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave
And keep on thinking free." /pre>

I much prefer

"Cold hearted Orb that rules the night
removes the colors from our sight
red is gray, yellow white
but we decide which is right and,
which is an illusion." Justin Hayward

Level 1

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

#42 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>DesCartes is an idiot..i think, therefore I am...haha I think I'm a cue ball...
no I Think and therefore you are misguided but entitled to your wronf deductions as Descartes was...unless you listen to his words repeated in one of the Moody Blues Songs...thanks I just loaded them in winamp.....
heres some Descartes thinkers...The Moody Blues.. "In The Beginning" i should add it seems toungue in Cheek for that Band..however I like it. I, prefer Night in White Satin...will listen to it in meditations...
"Pre> first man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.
Establishment: of course you are my bright little star,
Ive miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefathers fruit
And now to suit our
Great computer,
Youre magnetic ink.
First man: Im more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.
Inner man: there you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave
And keep on thinking free." /pre>
I much prefer
"Cold hearted Orb that rules the night
removes the colors from our sight
red is gray, yellow white
but we decide which is right and,
which is an illusion." Justin Hayward
That doesn't change the fact that philosophy does not require faith and can be quite simple. Religion requires philosophy, but philosophy is not dependent on religion or faith. Like I said, a philosophy can be as simple as "live and let live" or "live for the day" or "do no harm". None of those are religious or require a faith.

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#43 Apr 18, 2007
Me thinks Westerners are so sure their Greeks were the only ones thinking.....yet the Hindu /Philosophy religion is regarded as the worlds oldest religion and maybe parts of it , as most of it has evloved or been influenced best the West, and it IS philosophy.

Western Philosophy is challenged by these ultra wise thinkers but no one really knows because vernacular and history has skewed it and convoluted , as I see it, as I read it...
"In the history of the Indian subcontinent, following the establishment of Vedic culture, the development of philosophical and religious thought over a period of two millennia gave rise to what came to be called the six schools of aastika, or orthodox, Indian philosophy or Hindu philosophy. These schools have come to be synonymous with the greater religion of Hinduism, which was a development of the early Vedic Religion."
Among the minimum beliefs one must have to be a legal Hindu in India, the Supreme Court includes 'Acceptance of great world rhythm - vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession - by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.'

It is fair to say that within the 'vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution', the existence of the term 'Hindu' occupies but a geo-blip of time. Missing altogether in Vedic discourse, as well as in later Sanskrit epic, Puranic, and Vedantic disquisitions, the term comes to be used self-referentially in more recent times in vernacular literatures. Even that limited use is further limited to discourse with or for a hostile 'other'. Finally, in modern times, in contact with the West,'Hindu' and 'Hinduism', in their various neo- and conservative shapes, emerge as quasi-ethnic, exclusivistic self-references, with and for those believing that the Vedic literature is sacred and authoritative.

This dramatic shift is troubling for those Vaisnavas who take seriously the traditional teachings of the Bhagavad-gita, the Bhagavata Purana and the devotional version of Vedanta, to the effect that every living being is ultimately an eternal servant of a supreme personal God."
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/7_1/71hdg.html
It took me alot of time to get through this and still I am not totally sure I have it all pieced together and guess what...neither are they sure.....

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#44 Apr 18, 2007
"One consequence of the rising political, intellectual and religious self-confidence and self-assertion of contemporary India, especially its Hindu majority, is the Indian attempt to reclaim from the Western academy the right to 'objectively' and 'authoritatively', if not 'scientifically', explain itself and its history to the world. There is frequent tension between those who would defend with a learned voice Hinduism's traditional, scripture-based self-history, and those who seek to explain India by the standards of Western humanistic scholarship, under the various rubrics of Indology, South Asian Languages/Literatures/Civilisa tion, Anthropology, Hindu Studies, History of India, etc."

From this dialectic tension arose

Since: Dec 06

Edna, KS

#45 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>DesCartes is an idiot..i think, therefore I am...haha I think I'm a cue ball...
..........
Descartes was an idiot? Care to correct yourself?

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#46 Apr 18, 2007
In my humble opinion "cogito ergo sum" is mumbo jumbo...it sounds good but when you examine it closer the man didnt know whether he wanted to make a positive statement or not...then he worked from the position of Doubt, which I reject wholly...its negative then this wasted mind goes on to say the obvious...

"So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind" What genious was wasted on nonsense....how long did it take him to come up with this?

A positive affirmation of his own existence...little self serving to put forth dont you think...that is what I mean about idiot....

I tossed his book on something or other....a couple of hundred pages of reading for him to tell me this????puleeeez!!!!!!
"It could be argued that "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists" is self-evident, and thus not subject to the method of doubt. This is because the instantiation principle states that: "Whatever has the property F, exists", but within the method of doubt, only the property of thinking is indubitably a property of the meditator"

So he departs from normalcy and cocoon HIMSELF in this doubt to do what re-emerge slef assured he exists?

I could look in the mirror and ask...Are you there ? and deduct the same thing...you are as you think....duh! but still that doesnt mean you are either...as I said....I think I'm a cue ball....

oh...heres one more gem..."If we do not exist then we cannot be mistaken, so we might as well believe we do." huh????...:)
I think he put himslef behind an eight ball...hahaha...

Rack em up !!!!!!

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#47 Apr 18, 2007
Descartes=Bushisms

I did not like reading how he restored the the chaos of readng his Stra-tee-jury.....hehe

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#48 Apr 18, 2007
Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't change the fact that philosophy does not require faith and can be quite simple. Religion requires philosophy, but philosophy is not dependent on religion or faith. Like I said, a philosophy can be as simple as "live and let live" or "live for the day" or "do no harm". None of those are religious or require a faith.
i agree in principle but yet philosophy must be more than giving commands..it has to serve a broader more noble purpose other than commanding someone to do good things..I could say by this that commanding to do bad is also philosophy, but it's negative and I feel that the filed speaks to the positive...this is why I discard Descartes...besides there are so many other knowledgable people to read...

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#49 Apr 18, 2007
the whole of I think, therefore I am is bogus because even he admitted that only the first part was secure...If you think, you must exist...

If the rest doesnt fit...you must acquit ...lol

Since: Dec 06

Edna, KS

#50 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
the whole of I think, therefore I am is bogus because even he admitted that only the first part was secure...If you think, you must exist...
If the rest doesnt fit...you must acquit ...lol
There is more to his philosophy "I think therefore I am".

Does the Cartesian Coordinate System mean anything to you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#51 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>DesCartes is an idiot..i think, therefore I am...haha I think I'm a cue ball...
It is quite clear that you have NEVER, EVER studied either Philosophy, OR Descartes.

And it is just as clear, that you really fail to grasp how basic Descartes' famous quote really is.

To REALLY get it, you must study most of the philosophies current to Descartes, and understand their dilemma. And how Descartes logical process finally broke through that conundrum. It's worth your time to study, and shouldn't take more than a semester or so.

But, it WILL stretch your mind around some new concepts-- and you will need to be careful to cling to your pre-conceived ideas, lest they get away from you. Maybe you could write them all down first, so you can reload them when you're done.... <rolls eyes>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#52 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
In my humble opinion "cogito ergo sum" is mumbo jumbo...it sounds good but when you examine it closer the man didnt know whether he wanted to make a positive statement or not...then he worked from the position of Doubt, which I reject wholly...
Of COURSE you do-- your willful ignorance knows no bounds.

Besides, if you had actually STUDIED what Descartes was really saying, instead of glib crap from some fundamentalist viewpoint, you'd find your mind had to stretch a bit. Might hurt too much. Might crack your concrete-encrusted pre-conceived ideas.

Oh well. Your loss.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#53 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>i agree in principle but yet philosophy must be more than giving commands..it has to serve a broader more noble purpose other than commanding someone to do good things..I could say by this that commanding to do bad is also philosophy, but it's negative and I feel that the filed speaks to the positive...this is why I discard Descartes...besides there are so many other knowledgable people to read...
Fortunately for the REST of the world, YOU do not get to decide the meaning of words like "philosophy".

Continue on in your willful ignorance, if you like. You'll never learn anything new that way, but you seem to like festering in your pre-conceived ideas.

Level 1

Since: Dec 06

Dade City, FL

#54 Apr 18, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>i agree in principle but yet philosophy must be more than giving commands..it has to serve a broader more noble purpose other than commanding someone to do good things..I could say by this that commanding to do bad is also philosophy, but it's negative and I feel that the filed speaks to the positive...this is why I discard Descartes...besides there are so many other knowledgable people to read...
Philosophies can indeed be negative. Hitler had some very strong philosophical views about superiority and the master race. Philosophy has nothing to do with positive or negative.

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#55 Apr 20, 2007
Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Philosophies can indeed be negative. Hitler had some very strong philosophical views about superiority and the master race. Philosophy has nothing to do with positive or negative.
Dennis.please read Hinduim ans see where philosophy is faith..and plase the your from to BOB bogging to m ita ggrsvatingto sy the keast.....all his god hating...maybe he should look spuperriligiousityseems likes I a, om knock off so I domt I woill back...wait waste my time.

I'm tired of bong dismissed or bing pigonholed..yakr care.

Level 1

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

#56 Apr 20, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>Dennis.please read Hinduim ans see where philosophy is faith..and plase the your from to BOB bogging to m ita ggrsvatingto sy the keast.....all his god hating...maybe he should look spuperriligiousityseems likes I a, om knock off so I domt I woill back...wait waste my time.
I'm tired of bong dismissed or bing pigonholed..yakr care.
You are taking ONE philosophy that is also a religion and using that as your proof? I did not say a philosophy cannot be faith-based, but it certainly does not require it. Philosophy is broader than that. All religions have a philosophy, some are almost purely philosophical based...but not all philosophies have anything to do with religion or faith.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#57 Apr 20, 2007
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>Dennis.please read Hinduim ans see where philosophy is faith..and plase the your from to BOB bogging to m ita ggrsvatingto sy the keast.....all his god hating...maybe he should look spuperriligiousityseems likes I a, om knock off so I domt I woill back...wait waste my time.
I'm tired of bong dismissed or bing pigonholed..yakr care.
Ray...

This is the third post of yours that I have read this morning. Your typing has been terrible and your posts are really hard to follow. Are you on pain meds this morning? If so, hope you get to feeling better.

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#58 Apr 21, 2007
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Ray...
This is the third post of yours that I have read this morning. Your typing has been terrible and your posts are really hard to follow. Are you on pain meds this morning? If so, hope you get to feeling better.
D/S I try not to be a cry babay but the pain has been excruiating...I couldnt walk the kid to the store...I'm searching for a clinic and tried the new meds but no dice...but forget that...

I'm not scholar as BOB likes to point out...I have as of yet met anyone on the net so is so insulting and he treis to Dig dig and dig somemore...I might have reacted but to Descartes....I read one of his books...3/4 way thru I saw his approach and didnt agree with it...just because an educated man decides to scribble some notes doesnt make him a worthwhile scholar.

Did you go to the site about Hinduim...It is a Religion and Philosophy that had a dual track development ...it IS philosophy and religion...its been related to other stuff such a Kreishna and its been over analyzed by the west. It reject those the wests conclusions...

Granted theat philosophy in it pure form is just THAT but western arrogance thinks it has everything figured out...all I am saying is there are many western ideas that are different....

Someone here said is so many words "I aint gonna play with you anymore" and yet they keep posting to me why...i could care less...I tried to and continue to look for good in everything, while others look for bad...

Yesterday was the single most difficult day i had and yes...I took my meds that are hnon-narc...didnt work...so i improvised....

Descartes, in coming to his deduction that " think , therefore am" was trues as it applied to him only....one cannot asseret he thinks therefore he is.

Anyone who says I have not studied Descartes is flat out false..I have read much in rthe wayu of philosophy in ordert to define what I believe in life...here are two sayings of Descartes I like

1.It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well.
Discours de la Méthode

2.... the two operations of our understanding, intuition and deduction, on which alone we have said we must rely in the acquisition of knowledge.
Rules for the Direction of the Mind

PS thanks for oyur concern, I'm fairly well isolated here for now, until my sisue is resolved....I am trying to do it right.

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#59 Apr 21, 2007
Darwin's Stepchild to you grasp Descartes notion to approach everything with doubt? Therefore ANYTHIND he concludes with is doubtful by his very premises....example

"Descartes began his inquiry by doubting all knowledge without exception; he was even willing to accept it as "entirely false." This being the case, what about the idea of God as an all-perfect Being, since he admits that he discovered this idea in his own mind? According to his own principle of universal doubt, he simply cannot know whether this idea of God is correct or incorrect; as a matter of fact, according to this principle, he should consider it as "entirely false," until proved otherwise. But if his idea of God as an all-perfect Being may be incorrect, he cannot logically deduce from this idea God's existence and veracity.

Since the very idea of God is doubtful, these other things must remain doubtful, and the trustworthiness of man's faculties must also remain doubtful. Descartes cannot escape his own real doubt."
"
But how can the mind attempt to validate its own trustworthiness except by means of these things? If Descartes mistrusts the simple judgments of "2+3=5" and "A square has four sides," how can he trust his faculties in making the far more complicated arguments with which he tries to prove God's existence and infinite perfection?"

This is what I mean by wastefyl ness of a good mind and finally
Any theory of knowledge which leads logically to universal skepticism is intrinsically false.
Nothing could be plainer. There must be an essential flaw in a theory which, if consistently carried out to its logical conclusions, ends in the absurdity of skepticism."

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgdesca...

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#60 Apr 21, 2007
Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are taking ONE philosophy that is also a religion and using that as your proof? I did not say a philosophy cannot be faith-based, but it certainly does not require it. Philosophy is broader than that. All religions have a philosophy, some are almost purely philosophical based...but not all philosophies have anything to do with religion or faith.
Dennis, first...take your western ideas of the subjects and assumptions we made...look dep into Hinduism and you might find a curiosly different approach to philosophy and religion...I admit its not an easy sconcept however scholars from that world reject the idea that their phil/rel can be explained by and thry western scholars that was my assertion...oh BTW....Nazi idealism is based partly on this..ie Robert Oppenheimer..

His profound statement after watching Trinity test was a paraphrse of Samskrit.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 85,569
What's your religion? 1 hr Endofdays 59
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 15 hr 15th Dalai Lama 4,905
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 hr Subduction Zone 165,424
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Fri danlovy 9
God hates Tennessee Thu MakinProgress 5
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
More from around the web