This is still happening in America

[Ilyanna]

Personal religion is based on the belief that there are spiritual forces (or one force, whatever) outside of one's control that influence one's life and/or afterlife. Personal religion is the feeling of awe (reverence) and/or fear directed at those spiritual forces, and encompasses the thoughts and actions that directly result out of those emotions. These may vary from questioning and altering the way one perceives 'reality', over establishing personal ethical rules in order to please and/or not anger said forces, to inventing rituals like placing a saucer of milk on one's doorstep.

In institutionalized religion, the nature of above described spiritual forces is being defined and agreed upon by a group of people, and the actions and thoughts are not only being organized, but become rules the believer has to unquestioningly follow. Institutionalized religion can usually be identified by the presence of a caste of people who claim to have the spiritual authority over others and/or in-depth knowledge of the spiritual forces' wishes and intentions.

Spirituality is based on the belief that the perception of the world as well as one's thinking and feeling is limited and that there are forces (inside and/or outside of ourselves) not having been detected by human science (yet) that influence one's life. Other than religion, spirituality does not necessarily result in feelings of reverence or fear, but it often does inspire the questioning of one's importance as well as the close examination of one's environment, possibly leading to the establishment of personal ethical codices.

(Metaphysical) Truth is the reality of What Is There as opposed to what we can perceive with our senses. Truth can, by default, not be unveiled by thought, since thought is limited to the input from our senses. Science also cannot unveil Truth, as it is a construct based on human thoughts. Please note that while I use the singular here, it is not a given that there is only one Truth. For all I know, there are infinite numbers of them… or none.

Conceptual teachings as opposed to individual teachings means that the subject of the teaching is thought to have universal or, at least, general validity. Thy do not take into account the individuality of situations or mindsets, and that will often render them useless or even contraproductive to the growth of a person's mind.


OK, your turn.

 

['Gear]

Do you want me to back up to JK or discuss my ideas regarding the above definitions?

I'm buying time because I'm feeling lazy at the moment.

 

[Ilyanna]

Your ideas to my stuff and/or your definition of religion pls.
I agree that we have to find common ground on the basics first before we can get to the heavy stuff.


LOL, oh, and at your own time. I gotta log off pretty soon, anyway.

 

['Gear]

I think we've established I'm not going anywhere. I'll get at it.

 

['Gear]

Essentially I agree with your first three definitions but suffer none of those ailments. I'm curious to know what if any of your definition is creed. I'm interested in your definition of metaphysical truth. More on that in a minute-

My very basic definition of religion - Any practice based on faith or works who's final provision for reward or punishment is focused somewhere other than here (life). I don't draw a line between personal and institutionalized.

I'm going to quote the metaphysical bit so I can reference it while I write-

(Metaphysical) Truth is the reality of What Is There as opposed to what we can perceive with our senses. Truth can, by default, not be unveiled by thought, since thought is limited to the input from our senses. Science also cannot unveil Truth, as it is a construct based on human thoughts. Please note that while I use the singular here, it is not a given that there is only one Truth. For all I know, there are infinite numbers of them… or none.

The statement that metaphysical truth is the reality of what is there as opposed to what we can perceive with our senses is impossible. If reality cannot be perceived, it's not truth. It's speculation at best.

Truth is by default subjective. While literally billions of people can believe one 'truth', a single individual who disagrees experiences an entirely different truth. Neither 'truth' is any truer to a third observer who disagrees with both parties.

I agree that science cannot unveil truth. It doesn't try. Observable facts/actions independent of subjective interpretation are pretty good replacements for 'truth'.

Nutshell - If it can't be demonstrated specifically or observed by any witness without special circumstance, I don't waste my time.

Years ago I made a change in the way I did things in my head. I made a point of thinking in terms of what I think as opposed to what I believe. Just the change in internal terminology made a huge difference in how I process information. Much more efficient. Belief is an easier to swallow version of faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Faith or belief is how people get to truth.

So I figure belief in 'truth' is essentially faith in action. Or opinion without observable mechanism. Or bullshit.

Plus or minus 1% for alcohol consumption.

 

[Ilyanna]

Essentially I agree with your first three definitions but suffer none of those ailments. I'm curious to know what if any of your definition is creed.

Not sure if I understand what you mean - you wanna know what in those defs my belief is, or a generally accepted belief, or something else entirely?

My very basic definition of religion - Any practice based on faith or works who's final provision for reward or punishment is focused somewhere other than here (life). I don't draw a line between personal and institutionalized.

That def works for me, at least for future reference, as long as we continue to distinguish between the practice and the belief itself.
The distinction between personal and institutionalized usually gets important as soon as I talk about my opinion reg religion: while I am cool with people deciding to believe in outside forces, I have a major problem with anybody trying to shove it down my throat or to dictate my way of thinking, living, or feeling – which is something institutionalized religion excels in.

The statement that metaphysical truth is the reality of what is there as opposed to what we can perceive with our senses is impossible.

That is why I called it "metaphysical". It is beyond our physical understanding. It is a highly theoretical concept, a brainteaser, if you will.

If reality cannot be perceived, it's not truth

Definitions, again. What is "Reality"?

It's speculation at best.

Yes, it is. Everything beyond what I can perceive with my senses is speculation. In fact, since what I perceive with my senses is subject to interpretation done with my mind, which in turn has been taught to work in a specific kind of way, that what I call my perception is speculation, as well.

Truth is by default subjective. While literally billions of people can believe one 'truth', a single individual who disagrees experiences an entirely different truth. Neither 'truth' is any truer to a third observer who disagrees with both parties.

Spot on. Or, as JK would say, "Truth is a pathless land"

I agree that science cannot unveil truth. It doesn't try. Observable facts/actions independent of subjective interpretation are pretty good replacements for 'truth'.

There is no such thing as objectivity. Large groups of people have agreed on a few basic ideas to be facts based on their practicability (for example: gravity causes objects to fall down. Define: down ) but that does not equal objectivity. As far as I can see, there is no objectivity as long as we cannot step out of our minds.

Nutshell - If it can't be demonstrated specifically or observed by any witness without special circumstance, I don't waste my time.

It interests me to see what ideas other ppl come up with, so I read and listen what others have to say. Otherwise, I am doing my utmost to not believe in things I have not myself found enough reason to accept as real. It is hard, because we are conditioned to constantly believe what another human tells us, but the more I try, the better I get in ridding myself of preconceptions.

Years ago I made a change in the way I did things in my head. I made a point of thinking in terms of what I think as opposed to what I believe. Just the change in internal terminology made a huge difference in how I process information. Much more efficient.

Yes, I can see how that works. It's one step to reprogramming one's own mind and consciously fill it with content of one's one choosing.

Belief is an easier to swallow version of faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Faith or belief is how people get to truth.

So I figure belief in 'truth' is essentially faith in action. Or opinion without observable mechanism. Or bullshit.

I agree. As I said – there is one, several, trillions, or no truth. I do not know. I basically do not care. I find explanations that suit me and help me live the way I want to live.

Plus or minus 1% for alcohol consumption.

If it's only 1%, then you're not doing it right

 

['Gear]

I'm too slow and lazy to multiquote so I'll just do it one chunk at a time -

-Yes I was wondering if those are your beliefs or just definitions.

-How can we destinguish between belief and practice? There no one without the other. Generally. Depending on the dogma. Lots of variable here.

-Metaphysical cannot be demonastrated. That's the long and the short of it.
'Theoretical' gives the metaphysical more credit then it will support on rational examination. Wild speculation would be more appropriate.

-OK. But isn't there an agreed upon set of viewable demonstrable standards? The periodic table of element as opposed to the soul for example.

-I agree there's no such thing as objectivity. And without it theres no truth.

There's no truth in a pathless land.

-I have a problem with the concept of 'Truth' because it can't by definition learn.

 

[SuN]

-I have a problem with the concept of 'Truth' because it can't by definition learn.

But isnt that the great thing about truth, that its defining, immovable, it doesn't change, Its the final matter on something, Its trusted a baseline from which to work
Isn't that the point?

If there was no definition of day or night, where would u begin measuring day & night

 

['Gear]

But isnt that the great thing about truth, that its defining, immovable, it doesn't change, Its the final matter on something, Its trusted a baseline from which to work
Isn't that the point?

Subjective definition does not equal a trusted basline for anyone other then it's adherants. Which is one problem. Another problem is so-called truth is consistantly redefined by evolution in thought and powers of observation.

If there was no definition of day or night, where would u begin measuring day & night

Observable and agreed on by all. Apples and oranges.

 

[SuN]

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - S Robiner

 

['Gear]

"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." - S Robiner

So says Robiner. I disagree. Too bad for Robiner. Who is S Robiner?

 

[SuN]

i dunno, some dude...think he had something to do with comics

 

['Gear]

LOL I sure do like you SuN.

 

[SuN]

lulz <3

 

[Ilyanna]

Yes I was wondering if those are your beliefs or just definitions.

About religion: I don't do "religion". Been raised with a protestant christian background, but my parents were too laid-back to actually practise any of it or actively make me believe in the concept of a god. Since it's a paradigm I've grown up with (it's the most predominant religion in Germany, you can't really escape all the Jesus and bible stuff), it was kind of a background humming for the duration of my childhood. Once I was old and interested enough to ask the tough questions, the belief in the christian god was the first I decided to throw out. Next was the belief in any other outer force I can't influence, such as karma, or angels, or whatever.

Plus - I am not very good at taking directives at face value. That's why the church has never had a foot in my doorstep. The more I grow up, the more I find the idea that any other person should tell me what to think or do pretty much ludicrous.

Spirituality - I do believe that everything is connected. I do not have a fixed idea on how exactly this connection looks like, or the reason for it. Some times I trace it back to the theory that about every atom on earth has its origin in the sun, so, basically, we're all from the same source. Physics think that on the level of atoms, we constantly exchange electrons with everything we come in contact with, and helps to fancy that idea as well.

That, as well as personally having experienced a few episodes where my usual perception has been altered significantly, rendering quite a few facts science teaches us as facts useless, leads me to realize that humans know shit about what's going on in this world. We have a few handy theories, some of them working pretty well most of the time, and that's that.

How can we destinguish between belief and practice? There no one without the other. Generally. Depending on the dogma. Lots of variable here.

I can believe in the christian god and choose not to heed his directives. Millions of self-professed christians do so. (Of course, one might argue that then they are not true christians...) same with buddhism. One might believe in the idea of nirvana. That doesn't necessarily mean that one practices meditation to reach it.

Metaphysical cannot be demonastrated. That's the long and the short of it.
'Theoretical' gives the metaphysical more credit then it will support on rational examination. Wild speculation would be more appropriate.

Words. I can see how when one places a lot of value in science, "theory" would mean more than "speculation". I don't, so I more or less consider them the same. *shrugs*

But isn't there an agreed upon set of viewable demonstrable standards?The periodic table of element as opposed to the soul for example.

The PTE is a tool to explain and structure what we experience reg. atoms. It is not finished, and it is subject to change depending on the development of scientific instruments.
The concept of a soul is a tool to explain and structure what we experience reg. an energy we have yet to get a grip on scientifically. The only difference I can see is that science has yet to develop the equipment to demonstrate said energy.

Reg. Truth:
Can you see that we're on the same page here, basically? The question if there is "a" truth or not means nothing to me. The goal for me is to rid my mind of any programme that has been implemented there by anyone but me. At least, that's the ultimate goal. Since it's quite possible that this cannot be done, the next best thing is to analyze what exactly makes me think, feel, and act the way I do in every given situation. The more I do that, the more an idea of an ultimate truth for everyone looks hollow.

That, of course, leaves room for a lot of fun while playing around with my own mind. When you question everything, you can get either schizophrenic or very relaxed. I choose to become the latter

 

['Gear]

Jesus. I'm fucking hung all the way over. Give me a minute.

 

[Ilyanna]

LOL. Sorry, I just wasn't able to stop once I started...

 

['Gear]

I'm doing a Labor Day Aggression special today. I'm coming back though.

 

[Ilyanna]

Aggress away, luv. You know I like it when you go on a rampage.

 

['Gear]

I need a bloody mary and 5 tylenol.