Blissful ignorance of religion: Why ******** it up?

[Talking Toad]

Fittle

Only if your happiness depends utterly on things which your understanding antagonizes.

Who's doesn't? We live in a cradle of lies and we love it.

[Gho the Girl]

Fittle

Gho the Girl

Fittle

Choosing to interpret reality based specifically on how happy it makes you is just an odd thing to do. Usually harmless, no doubt, but the fact remains.

how is it odd?

Reality is something that affects everything uniformly, if you believe that something is universally true just because it's the truth that you prefer you're either universally arrogant or forcing yourself not to consider the implication.

And how is that odd?

Do you know how many people believe in things as being universally true when such things aren't part of objective reality?

The "right to life" for instance, does it objectively exist?

Does it exist in reality, or only because me and several thousand other people say it does? And if the latter, just because thousands or even millions of people hold something to be true, does that make it so?

I don't think faith in something outside objective and observable reality is odd at all, at least you haven't shown it to be so.

Quote:

That isn't to say that all religious people are either arrogant or ignorant, just the ones who elect to be religious solely because it makes them happy.

Why shouldn't they do something for self-gratification?

Don't we all do things because they gratify us in some way?

Why is self-gratification insufficient as a reason to do something, considering it's benefits?

[Talking Toad]

Auntie Proton

My main qualms with religion is that it is irrelevant.

Philosophy is far from 'irrelevant'. You are showing one now.

[Gho the Girl]

Talking Toad

Fittle

Only if your happiness depends utterly on things which your understanding antagonizes.

Who's doesn't? We live in a cradle of lies and we love it.

Exactly! *stomps fists on table*

[Auntie Proton]

Andre LeFarr

Auntie Proton

Andre LeFarr

Auntie Proton

Knowledge of the self allows for a person to understand their own happiness and attain it. Therefore, if I am to maximize happiness, I could employ such a method and be successful.
Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is nothing and does nothing for or against happiness. Knowledge is bliss.
In fact, I think I'll make that my signature.

But if I understand my own happiness comes from religious faith, then why should I not attempt to attain it?

I would argue that understanding that is genuinely impossible, as I consider it an arbitrary method to bring forth a particular emotion, and that it is the bringing about of that emotion that brings you happiness, not the faith itself. Also, does your faith give you continuous happiness, or merely happiness when you enact it?

It is possible to understand that it is a successful method.

Also, could you explain what "enacting" one's faith is?

Faith is no passive action. It is to actively experience joy from the desire to consider an assumption true. Because it has no backing, it would have to be constantly enacted...or I suppose the person could give up rationality entirely, but I could foresee that being problematic.

[Gho the Girl]

Auntie Proton

Andre LeFarr

Auntie Proton

Andre LeFarr

Auntie Proton

Knowledge of the self allows for a person to understand their own happiness and attain it. Therefore, if I am to maximize happiness, I could employ such a method and be successful.
Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is nothing and does nothing for or against happiness. Knowledge is bliss.
In fact, I think I'll make that my signature.

But if I understand my own happiness comes from religious faith, then why should I not attempt to attain it?

I would argue that understanding that is genuinely impossible, as I consider it an arbitrary method to bring forth a particular emotion, and that it is the bringing about of that emotion that brings you happiness, not the faith itself. Also, does your faith give you continuous happiness, or merely happiness when you enact it?

It is possible to understand that it is a successful method.

Also, could you explain what "enacting" one's faith is?

Faith is no passive action. It is to actively experience joy from the desire to consider an assumption true. Because it has no backing, it would have to be constantly enacted...or I suppose the person could give up rationality entirely, but I could foresee that being problematic.

Do you believe in "rights?"
In "equality?"
In "Good?"
Do you have to constantly enact these beliefs?
EDIT: Further, is it problematic to believe in these things?

[Talking Toad]

Auntie Proton

Faith is no passive action. It is to actively experience joy from the desire to consider an assumption true. Because it has no backing, it would have to be constantly enacted...or I suppose the person could give up rationality entirely, but I could foresee that being problematic.

Auntie, this is true of any philosophy or world view.

[Andre LeFarr]

Quote:

Religions, quite obviously, influence your beliefs, morals, etc. This, in turn, affects how you vote. Your vote, likely on a bill proposed by another person of religion (probably part of the 79% of the US population that is Christian), then directly affects my life. Depending on the law that gets passed, it very well can harm me.
That said, I've never bothered trying to 'convert' people unless they question my faith (or lack thereof), though I do wish people would just do away with the whole 'religion-based decisions' thing and stick to logic.

Pretending for a moment that I'm not in a legislative body of any sort.

Ah, I'm sure you will respond that I vote anyway, as an American citizen. Permit me to save you the time.

"But you vote anyway, as an American citizen"

Hmm... Damn, that's a good point, obvious counter-argument-to-my-statement.

But... I DON'T vote based on my religion. I didn't read Tarot to vote in the last election. I decided based on what policies I thought were best for the nation. And my morals come from my development, not from the religion I follow.

[Auntie Proton]

Talking Toad

Auntie Proton

My main qualms with religion is that it is irrelevant.

Philosophy is far from 'irrelevant'. You are showing one now.

I consider any belief that is irrational in nature irrelevant. All things that exist are rational. I do not care about beliefs about things that do not exist. There are definitely relevant philosophies, but they are based upon the universe around them, instead of arbitrary things or nothing at all.

[Andre LeFarr]

Auntie Proton

Andre LeFarr

Auntie Proton

Andre LeFarr

Auntie Proton

Knowledge of the self allows for a person to understand their own happiness and attain it. Therefore, if I am to maximize happiness, I could employ such a method and be successful.
Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is nothing and does nothing for or against happiness. Knowledge is bliss.
In fact, I think I'll make that my signature.

But if I understand my own happiness comes from religious faith, then why should I not attempt to attain it?

I would argue that understanding that is genuinely impossible, as I consider it an arbitrary method to bring forth a particular emotion, and that it is the bringing about of that emotion that brings you happiness, not the faith itself. Also, does your faith give you continuous happiness, or merely happiness when you enact it?

It is possible to understand that it is a successful method.

Also, could you explain what "enacting" one's faith is?

Faith is no passive action. It is to actively experience joy from the desire to consider an assumption true. Because it has no backing, it would have to be constantly enacted...or I suppose the person could give up rationality entirely, but I could foresee that being problematic.

How does one actively experience something? I must confess you have me rather befuddled.

[Gho the Girl]

Auntie Proton

Talking Toad

Auntie Proton

My main qualms with religion is that it is irrelevant.

Philosophy is far from 'irrelevant'. You are showing one now.

I consider any belief that is irrational in nature irrelevant. All things that exist are rational. I do not care about beliefs about things that do not exist. There are definitely relevant philosophies, but they are based upon the universe around them, instead of arbitrary things or nothing at all.

Your belief that irrational things are irrelevent is irrational. So should we dismiss your opinion?

[Andre LeFarr]

Auntie Proton

Talking Toad

Auntie Proton

My main qualms with religion is that it is irrelevant.

Philosophy is far from 'irrelevant'. You are showing one now.

I consider any belief that is irrational in nature irrelevant. All things that exist are rational. I do not care about beliefs about things that do not exist. There are definitely relevant philosophies, but they are based upon the universe around them, instead of arbitrary things or nothing at all.

It is irrelevant to the surrounding world, doubtless. But how is it irrelevant to the person WITH the philosophy? If it is fulfilling to them, how is it irrelevant?

[Auntie Proton]

Talking Toad

Auntie Proton

Faith is no passive action. It is to actively experience joy from the desire to consider an assumption true. Because it has no backing, it would have to be constantly enacted...or I suppose the person could give up rationality entirely, but I could foresee that being problematic.

Auntie, this is true of any philosophy or world view.

At a certain point, I argue for consistency more than knowledge. I suppose it's mostly that I consider knowledge of the self to be what is really relevant in such a case because it makes them better able to understand their own philosophies, which should make them content.
I don't necessarily care if everyone's a physicist, but I do care if everyone has a consistent worldview and understands how they interact with their goals and interests.

[Gho the Girl]

Auntie Proton

Talking Toad

Auntie Proton

Faith is no passive action. It is to actively experience joy from the desire to consider an assumption true. Because it has no backing, it would have to be constantly enacted...or I suppose the person could give up rationality entirely, but I could foresee that being problematic.

Auntie, this is true of any philosophy or world view.

At a certain point, I argue for consistency more than knowledge. I suppose it's mostly that I consider knowledge of the self to be what is really relevant in such a case because it makes them better able to understand their own philosophies, which should make them content.
I don't necessarily care if everyone's a physicist, but I do care if everyone has a consistent worldview and understands how they interact with their goals and interests.

Why?

Why does it matter, objectively?

[Fittle]

Gho the Girl

Fittle

Gho the Girl

Fittle

Choosing to interpret reality based specifically on how happy it makes you is just an odd thing to do. Usually harmless, no doubt, but the fact remains.

how is it odd?

Reality is something that affects everything uniformly, if you believe that something is universally true just because it's the truth that you prefer you're either universally arrogant or forcing yourself not to consider the implication.

And how is that odd?

Do you know how many people believe in things as being universally true when such things aren't part of objective reality?

The "right to life" for instance, does it objectively exist?

Does it exist in reality, or only because me and several thousand other people say it does? And if the latter, just because thousands or even millions of people hold something to be true, does that make it so?

I don't think faith in something outside objective and observable reality is odd at all, at least you haven't shown it to be so.

rights and natural laws are different. We know rights can be violated, we see it happen all the time. It never crossed my mind that anybody might actually believe that the universe wanted them to be alive, free, and happy. You don't really think that just because modern society is obligated to value your life that there are forces of nature bending toward your safety?

Quote:

Quote:

That isn't to say that all religious people are either arrogant or ignorant, just the ones who elect to be religious solely because it makes them happy.

Why shouldn't they do something for self-gratification?

Don't we all do things because they gratify us in some way?

Why is self-gratification insufficient as a reason to do something, considering it's benefits?

do something? plenty good reason for action. But to interpret based on it? to look at two equal possibilities and say *this one is true because it pleases me* to the exclusion of all other evidence or deciding factors is whack. You need more than that, even if it's just popular opinion.