An intresting statement

[genkaus]

All you've done here is demonstrate a gross ignorance of my spiritual philosophies.

All you have done is display gross ignorance.

For you to even claim that they are incompatible with science is nothing more than your own delusions.

There is nothing in my spiritual philosophies that conflicts with known science.

They are incompatible with the very existence of science.

As as matter of fact, if any part of my spiritual philosophy could be shown to be in conflict with scientific knowledge, I would toss out that part of my spiritual philosophy.

As it stands right now, I have no reason to do so.

Then toss out the part about any reality having any spiritual component. That part conflicts with the foundation of scientific knowledge - that of existence of objective reality.

Your totally unwarranted assumption that any possible spiritual philosophy must be in direct conflict with known science is your own personal delusion that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

Any spiritual philosophy which claims that consciousness is inherent to reality is in direct conflict with science and has nothing to do with reality.

The mere fact that you spread such lies so passionately only goes to show that you are the one who is dire desperation to renounce any imaginable spiritual essence to reality.

The mere fact that you call it a fact shows that you cannot even attempt to counter me without accepting my premises.

It seriously makes me wonder if perhaps you had committed some horrific offense to humanity that you feel is so unforgivable that your only prayer for salvation would be a purely secular existence. Because it sure appears that even the slightest mention that someone has an open-mind to the possibility of a spiritual essence to reality sends you into extreme denial that any such thing could ever possible be remotely plausible.

And it makes me wonder what horrible offense was done to you that you cannot face reality as it is and must attempt to project your imagination over it. That level of self0inflicted brainwashing would require some major trauma.

I don't think I've ever met anyone yet who has displayed such a terrified reaction to being open-minded about a spiritual essence to reality as you apparently are.

Terrified? Why would I be terrified? If your premise were true, then there would be no reason for me not to treat my own wishes and desires as absolutes. That is the best kind of reality I could hope for. But that doesn't make it true.

I've never seen anyone take such a closed-minded approach to it. Not merely just for themselves, but to so passionately demand that everyone else must also be equally closed-minded is just beyond surreal.

Close-mindedness would require that I simply ignore all your arguments, like you have done with mine. What you want from others is not an opne mind, but a passive mind - one that simply accepts any idea without consideration or criticism of its content and without any judgment. My mind is an active one that is open to any argument, but would not refrain from judging it on its merits - something that your philosophy doesn't have.

Such a passionate reaction can only be driven by some sort of deeply emotional fear.

Or a deep-seated dedication to the sanctity of human mind.

It's not even a remotely reasonable response to considering these things.

Actually the rational response to your ideas would be this:



But you seem to be getting enough of that already. So I'm trying a different approach.

Thank God, there aren't too many people around that take your extreme approach to philosophical questions.

Yes, thankfully for you. If people actually took the time to examine the basis of their beliefs, there would be a lot less irrational people around.

Truly, you are every bit as bad as a Christian Fundamentalist Extremist. They demand that God exists, you demand with equal passion that no spiritual essence to reality can possibly exist in any possible imaginable way.

You're just at the extreme other end of the rainbow. And equally unjustified in your outrageous demands.

You are even worse than Christian fundamentalists. At the very least they attempt to reconcile their belief with what little claim to knowledge they have. Your philosophy, on the other hand, is based upon absence of any knowledge. And because of your dedication to ignorance, you cannot tell the difference between unjustified faith and justified belief.

If I were to compare your philosophy with Christian theology, their's is like a savage brute that seeks to destroy the human mind by brute force and yours is like a slick politician that seeks to convince the mind to destroy itself.

I guess it's inevitable that there will always be unrealistic extremists in everything, even in atheism.

It interesting how someone who's very philosophy is based on absence of knowledge about reality, claims to be the judge of what is realistic.

---

Would the world really be better with out any
religion ? Well not if the negative psychological
characteristics of human nature were retained it
would not : as religion is not the problem here and
never has been rather the imposition of religion upon
those who do not want it which is a totally different thing
altogether : and although religion itself may be abolished it
would only be replaced by other religions in all but name : take
Fascism under Hitler and Communism under Stalin : the worship of
the leader whose authority can not be questioned and who is supreme
ruler : sound familiar ? There are many other examples from history going
all the way back : so no the world would not be a better place without religion
But it would be a better place without greed and envy and jealousy and hate and
fear and anything else that causes us to reference our fellow man in a negative light
Religion is the symptom here and not the cause : could have a perfect world where every
one had a different belief system as long as there was only a positive aspect to human nature
So the issue here is psychology not religion : fix that and problem solved [ a tad difficult though ]

I have to disagree here. Whether it is the imposition of religion or a political ideology, if the justification for the imposition is found in the ideology itself, then it would be the problem, not the symptom.

The problem with religion, as Greta Christina once pointed out, is that it has no reality check. In every other field of human endeavour, whether it is politics, economy or business management, a theory has to prove itself sooner or later. Even if fascism or communism is implemented, sooner or later it would have to show results that it works. That it provides the consequences it promised. There is no such validation with religion.

[passionatefool]

I think religion had its time. It was somewhat necessary with early civilizations but we are at an age that religions is more damaging to the advancement than useful.

[Emancipated]

I disagree. I don't think religion itself is the problem but the fact that it is has too much power.

[genkaus]

I disagree. I don't think religion itself is the problem but the fact that it is has too much power.

How could it not? It is an instrument of gaining power, designed and used by those who seek it.