5 ms·

As far as religions go it doesn't seem too bad at first glance. I like it. My current favorite quote about religion is from the pianist Seymour Bernstein (in

As far as religions go it doesn't seem too bad at first glance. I like it. My current favorite quote about religion is from the pianist Seymour Bernstein (in the latest Documentary about him, from Ethan Hawke, titled "Seymour: An Introduction): "I don't call it god, I call it a spiritual reservoir. Most people don't tap that resource of the god within. What upsets me about religion is that the answers always seem to be apart from us, in the form of a deity and we depend on the deity for salvation, but I firmly believe it is within us." The externality, taking someone's individuality and telling them that it's something apart from them, that they don't control it, is also my largest concern with religion and the thing that needs to innovated on. I think your conciousness.io fits that bill ... Would be curious to hear if my assessment is incorrect though.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
blowski 10y ago
GK Chesterton: > That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones.
- proksoup 10y ago
  Yes, this is not good? Better than the alternative?
  - proksoup 10y ago
    I can see why a reasonable person would downvote my reply, it's short and adds no value. I don't know what else to say until I know where you're coming from though, I'm honestly asking what do you mean by that quote?
    - 1123581321 10y ago
      It means that there isn't a sublime/perfect id/being/spirit at the core of us, just the same flawed person as is on the outside. So a religion or philosophy of trying to worship or obey some inner perfection ultimately just means doing whatever you feel like, which isn't a good idea let alone worth proselytizing.
      - proksoup 10y ago
        I feel it's worth proselytzing in the context of counter balancing the movements which imply some other idea is worth worshipping. It seems like a step up, from worshiping one's priest to worshipping ones self, and maybe after that we (those that see the error in both) can have adult conversations.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > It seems like a step up, from worshiping one's priest to worshipping ones self, and maybe after that we (those that see the error in both) can have adult conversations. Not that you necessarily intend it, but that is a false dichotomy. If the choices are between worshipping a priest (a human) and worshipping oneself (another human), you're right that the latter is a step up in that it refuses to elevate one human above another. But it only brings us closer to the truth insofar as worshipping the priest is wrong. It really just brings us back to ground zero. If worshipping the priest is wrong (by "wrong" I mean that the priest is not worthy of worship, because he's just another human), then worshipping any human is wrong, including oneself. So, either way, you're wrong--that is, you still don't know the truth, and you're still worshipping a human being.
        proksoup 10y ago
        I don't think we disagree.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        Okay, so where are you going next, beyond worshipping self?
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      I don't understand what is hard to understand about the Chesterton quote. If someone thinks the answers to life and meaning and purpose lie within himself, he effectively becomes his own god, and therefore effectively worships himself. Then he dies. What of his meaning and purpose then? If meaning and purpose lie within ourselves, then when we die, meaning and purpose die as well. But that would mean that there is no meaning and no purpose, for how can a being create itself before it has created itself? Therefore, if we have purpose, if life has meaning, it must come from without, not from within. This is not to say that we don't possess "seeds" of truth and meaning and purpose within us--but they exist only to point us toward the truth, to motivate us to seek answers. A search for truth that only looks within ourselves is doomed to failure, for we cannot provide answers that we do not have. And if we had the answers, we wouldn't need to search for them. Those who claim that the answers lie within ourselves are deceiving themselves and others with vague platitudes, merely taking a detour on the journey toward the truth--but how tragic a detour if time runs out along the way.
      - proksoup 10y ago
        You think there are answers? The search for meaning is a poorly formed question. 42.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > You think there are answers? Yes. > The search for meaning is a poorly formed question. "Why are we here? What are we meant to do? Where are we going next?" These are not poorly formed or useless questions.
        proksoup 10y ago
        "Why are we here" and "where are we going" are vastly better questions than "what are we meant to do". Do you see the difference? "why are we here" can mean "how did we get here, how did we come to be here" ... but if it means "for what purpose are we here" than it turns problematic again, no?
ivm 10y ago
> The externality, taking someone's individuality and telling them that it's something apart from them, that they don't control it, is also my largest concern with religion and the thing that needs to innovated on. The Buddha innovated on it 25 centuries ago. It didn't prevent people from just praying to him when his philosophy got popular.
- proksoup 10y ago
  Yes. Buddhism with that rhetoric (that innovation) has persisted more positively than others that lack it I think. But also, yes.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

blowski 10y ago

GK Chesterton: > That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones.

proksoup 10y ago
Yes, this is not good? Better than the alternative?
- proksoup 10y ago
  I can see why a reasonable person would downvote my reply, it's short and adds no value. I don't know what else to say until I know where you're coming from though, I'm honestly asking what do you mean by that quote?
  - 1123581321 10y ago
    It means that there isn't a sublime/perfect id/being/spirit at the core of us, just the same flawed person as is on the outside. So a religion or philosophy of trying to worship or obey some inner perfection ultimately just means doing whatever you feel like, which isn't a good idea let alone worth proselytizing.
    - proksoup 10y ago
      I feel it's worth proselytzing in the context of counter balancing the movements which imply some other idea is worth worshipping. It seems like a step up, from worshiping one's priest to worshipping ones self, and maybe after that we (those that see the error in both) can have adult conversations.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        > It seems like a step up, from worshiping one's priest to worshipping ones self, and maybe after that we (those that see the error in both) can have adult conversations. Not that you necessarily intend it, but that is a false dichotomy. If the choices are between worshipping a priest (a human) and worshipping oneself (another human), you're right that the latter is a step up in that it refuses to elevate one human above another. But it only brings us closer to the truth insofar as worshipping the priest is wrong. It really just brings us back to ground zero. If worshipping the priest is wrong (by "wrong" I mean that the priest is not worthy of worship, because he's just another human), then worshipping any human is wrong, including oneself. So, either way, you're wrong--that is, you still don't know the truth, and you're still worshipping a human being.
        proksoup 10y ago
        I don't think we disagree.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        Okay, so where are you going next, beyond worshipping self?
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    I don't understand what is hard to understand about the Chesterton quote. If someone thinks the answers to life and meaning and purpose lie within himself, he effectively becomes his own god, and therefore effectively worships himself. Then he dies. What of his meaning and purpose then? If meaning and purpose lie within ourselves, then when we die, meaning and purpose die as well. But that would mean that there is no meaning and no purpose, for how can a being create itself before it has created itself? Therefore, if we have purpose, if life has meaning, it must come from without, not from within. This is not to say that we don't possess "seeds" of truth and meaning and purpose within us--but they exist only to point us toward the truth, to motivate us to seek answers. A search for truth that only looks within ourselves is doomed to failure, for we cannot provide answers that we do not have. And if we had the answers, we wouldn't need to search for them. Those who claim that the answers lie within ourselves are deceiving themselves and others with vague platitudes, merely taking a detour on the journey toward the truth--but how tragic a detour if time runs out along the way.
    - proksoup 10y ago
      You think there are answers? The search for meaning is a poorly formed question. 42.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        > You think there are answers? Yes. > The search for meaning is a poorly formed question. "Why are we here? What are we meant to do? Where are we going next?" These are not poorly formed or useless questions.
        proksoup 10y ago
        "Why are we here" and "where are we going" are vastly better questions than "what are we meant to do". Do you see the difference? "why are we here" can mean "how did we get here, how did we come to be here" ... but if it means "for what purpose are we here" than it turns problematic again, no?

ivm 10y ago

> The externality, taking someone's individuality and telling them that it's something apart from them, that they don't control it, is also my largest concern with religion and the thing that needs to innovated on. The Buddha innovated on it 25 centuries ago. It didn't prevent people from just praying to him when his philosophy got popular.

proksoup 10y ago
Yes. Buddhism with that rhetoric (that innovation) has persisted more positively than others that lack it I think. But also, yes.