There's hope for America after all!, Survey finds that an increasing amount of Americans are veering away from religion altogether Options

[Rick]

But when you strike at the root of the only son of God, what else would be left back in christianity?

We are all gods but nobody can lay out the path for another.

[Anthu]

But when you strike at the root of the only son of God, what else would be left back in christianity?

We are all gods but nobody can lay out the path for another.

Perfectly right.

What I imply is nothing more than the manner in which the discovery of one scientist helps the entire humanity.

Comprehension and application of the discovery is again left open to everybody.

[Anthu]

Kippers?

I thought those who attempt the fight on the conscious front with weapons of the physical front are Kippers.

By the way, like to hear comments on "Is there a missing link?". That might solve lots of deep-rooted confusion.

[Anthu]

Just a quick point about evolution - you seem to be reliant upon a punctuated equilibrium hypothesis that is now not accepted by most evolutionary scientists. Some even say it is discredited.

I have merely defined what I call the summit of evolution, since you asked for it. I never stated that the process of reaching there would be punctuated and not gradual.

Once it's reached, the difference with the previous stage will definitely appear marked and clear, no matter how it was reached.

[Rick]

Which way toward the summit? One way to go is in a direction that is not pointed in all the ways that lead to more suffering.

[Anthu]

Which way toward the summit? One way to go is in a direction that is not pointed in all the ways that lead to more suffering.

Evidently. I need to keep my goal well-defined and mitigation of suffering is one clear indicator towards the goal. No fooling around with any unscientific measures or concepts.

[Joesus]

Have you decided what suffering is? In a spiritual or philosophical sense, suffering the duality of emotional opposites where one strives to avoid sadness or anger in favor of happiness or pleasure tends to leave one in fear of facing the impending threat of the opposing force that could take some kind of ideal from ones possession or being.
Generally speaking this is the kind of thing that creates stress in most peoples lives.

[Anthu]

Have you decided what suffering is? In a spiritual or philosophical sense, suffering the duality of emotional opposites where one strives to avoid sadness or anger in favor of happiness or pleasure tends to leave one in fear of facing the impending threat of the opposing force that could take some kind of ideal from ones possession or being.
Generally speaking this is the kind of thing that creates stress in most peoples lives.

Why not to break sentences and give less suffering to simpletons like me?

Just wanted to indicate that suffering is not merely of one type. To claim that suffering is mainly due to one reason, in the manner that you have pointed out above, doesn't have scientific data to support.

[Joesus]

Why not to break sentences and give less suffering to simpletons like me?

You give me much power to say I could cause you to suffer as a result of my sentences.

Just wanted to indicate that suffering is not merely of one type. To claim that suffering is mainly due to one reason, in the manner that you have pointed out above, doesn't have scientific data to support.

Of course it does, but science is not exactly organized into some kind of central organization. Science has assumed many faces or branches of study all subject to peer review. Psychologists might accept a fellow psychologists viewpoint where in the field of psychology a gynecologists point of view might be ignored. Then there is western science and eastern science. Spiritual science and relative or physical sciences. The human is broken down into its essential parts by each group and each has their remedies for their ills, and each suspects the other for their lack of expertise within their own fields of study.

Spiritual sciences will say the mind effects the entire body, both the physical and psychological well being of the human being. Suffering is relative to a state of mind where one identifies themselves with suffering.

Even doctors agree that healing has to include the mind and has used placebos to affirm this idea. But then you have some scientists that will say suffering is genetic and there is nothing a person can do of themselves to change their physical reality because they were born to suffer.

Reminds me of a country western song..."Lookin fer love in all the wrong places......."

[Anthu]

Of course it does, but science is not exactly organized into some kind of central organization. Science has assumed many faces or branches of study all subject to peer review. Psychologists might accept a fellow psychologists viewpoint where in the field of psychology a gynecologists point of view might be ignored. Then there is western science and eastern science. Spiritual science and relative or physical sciences. The human is broken down into its essential parts by each group and each has their remedies for their ills, and each suspects the other for their lack of expertise within their own fields of study.

Spiritual sciences will say the mind effects the entire body, both the physical and psychological well being of the human being. Suffering is relative to a state of mind where one identifies themselves with suffering.

Even doctors agree that healing has to include the mind and has used placebos to affirm this idea. But then you have some scientists that will say suffering is genetic and there is nothing a person can do of themselves to change their physical reality because they were born to suffer.

Reminds me of a country western song..."Lookin fer love in all the wrong places......."

There's much truth in what you say. But haven't you diverted the topic into a discussion on suffering?

[Joesus]

There's much truth in what you say. But haven't you diverted the topic into a discussion on suffering?

No the topic is still intact, however in order to have a conversation regarding religion and what people are veering away from and moving toward, the topics content has to be defined. Invariably the idea of religion becomes one of personal belief.
In this discussion there are examples in every post of personal belief. Like your idea of suffering and how you could be made to suffer at the inconvenience of someones actions. Religion seems to cause suffering to others beliefs, just like someones sentence structure causes you to suffer.
In your previous post you commented:

I need to keep my goal well-defined and mitigation of suffering is one clear indicator towards the goal. No fooling around with any unscientific measures or concepts.

The title of the topic is: There's hope for America after all!
And the topic description is:
Survey finds that an increasing amount of Americans are veering away from religion altogether.
How is it that people are veering away from religion to give up personal belief and to move toward something that is not of their belief?
The answer is they are not. Realistically, religion is filtered down beliefs that are handed out by some kind of authority to someone who accepts without a direct experience the idea of creation or order of the universe. Creator and creation, man and deity or man and man's creator or mans and the universes origins.
In the structure of Churchianity a man/woman goes to church to study the words of an authority to take upon themselves the ideas put forth as truth.

In your case, according to your statement, in order to keep your goal defined, the mitigation of suffering is one of the indicators in pointing toward the goal.
By saying that no unscientific measures and concepts are to be tolerated, you are hinting that science is your church and the scientific word is your scripture.

In religion the words are fairly consistent but the interpretation of the words keep changing according to relative values and beliefs.
With science new discoveries alter some of the beliefs and scientific projections of theory as new ideas create new foundations for creating new experiences of what creation is. Where order exists and how order became part of creation or how order began creation or if creation came out of chaos is part and parcel to scientific discovery.

Religionists say their authority is a constant and always was, and that authority is God. However anyone who is a follower of religion doesn't have a direct experience of God. If one does they are no longer a follower but a live example of what religion speaks about, which is the foundation of religion. That is communion or the direct experience of the Supreme being (which is constantly being defined and redefined by those who seek the experience),

Followers of science are also seeking to define the Supreme knowledge and experience of creation and the creator which is being defined and redefined by those who seek the experience and knowledge.

Personal belief is going to be part of this equation because there is no such thing as someone without an opinion or belief. The idea then becomes that Truth is relative to personal opinion and there can be no absolutes because of the changing opinions and beliefs of the diverse human reality.

Science and religion are similar in the fact that there are followers of belief and each seeks the supreme knowledge and experience because they don't have it. IF they did they wouldn't be seeking it.

Psychologically man wishes to escape suffering and achieve the ultimate state of satisfaction. The ego believes this ultimate state exists within the relative experiences of infinite possibilities, beliefs and experiences. Science seeks to place the infinite within an equation to solve the mysteries of the infinite by reducing it to a finite equation. Religion seeks to lead man to the ultimate experience which is defined by the removal of suffering and the realization of heaven which is an experience without suffering.

The voices of authority, would necessarily have to know by their own experience of having achieved the goal how to lead another to the goal. Personal beliefs and opinions of those who are seeking the goal in either field are going to project their own ideas of what is real and what is not real according to their interpretations of their given authorities.
If religion or science is speaking from their experience of not having yet achieved the goal it would appear that suffering is the following of ideas that are initiated by the authority without direct experience and then further degraded by the personal beliefs of those who hear their authority thru their personal beliefs.

It's like a game of Chinese whispers, where someone says something and passes it on to someone else and then on down the line until the words being spoken no longer resemble the original statement.

The original description of the topic could be descriptive of the fact that the idea of religion is changing. because of the changing beliefs of the followers who subscribe to the changing beliefs and experiences of those who have become their authority, they are redefining the religion of God and science. Or simply changing their beliefs to follow the religion of God, for the religion of science.

Suffering I think is inclusive in the seeking of Truth or the ultimate experience. The nature of reality is to reflect itself in its diversity and complexity as well as its simplicity. Suffering comes from attaching ones self to a single idea and when the idea is invaded by something judged as separate from the personal belief or experience the anxiety of judgment creates stress and suffering in the attempt to preserve the personal ideal.

The universe is not so invested in the personal beliefs of the human being. At least not in any way similar in the way the human being invests itself in the beliefs and needs to hold onto some kind of system or structure to bring the complexity of the universe into human terms and ideals.

[Anthu]

Joes, you jumped into the fray asking: "Have you decided what suffering is?" I still need to ask you if you are sure what it is. You came up with a blanket statement that suffering is largely psychological and that too it's always in the form of fear to face the opposite.

I have no problem to accept it as one form of suffering. But you haven't convinced me that this is the only suffering that exists. Nor did you offer me the data that this form of suffering is much more than the others. In your view, possibly an earthquake is psychological and nothing more. Thank heavens if the world wouldn't laugh at this.

A schizophrenic view of science and spirituality gets repeated in your lengthy explanation. The theory is as old as Adhi Sankara who considered the material world an illusion. The soul which has the nature of bliss, suffers only because it identifies itself with the body.

Why not to give something new to the world and help it to perceive any form of spirituality as a natural development of science and psychology and not one opposed to evolution itself?

[Joesus]

Joes, you jumped into the fray asking: "Have you decided what suffering is?" I still need to ask you if you are sure what it is. You came up with a blanket statement that suffering is largely psychological and that too it's always in the form of fear to face the opposite.

What fray...? You see this conversation as a fray? You're making what you want out of what I said, like saying I changed the topic to suffering. An example of creating realities thru personal interpretation.
If interpretations according to beliefs and opinions are inevitably going to change what one person says into something else, how do you use a changing proposition to mitigate the path to the goal? Better yet, if you are changing the beliefs and opinions of others into yours, and your interpretations of reality are changing, how do you identify a goal? In your case does changing scientific data determine your goal?

I have no problem to accept it as one form of suffering. But you haven't convinced me that this is the only suffering that exists. Nor did you offer me the data that this form of suffering is much more than the others.

Bummer, I thought maybe you could figure this out for yourself. But I see simplicity needs to be made into a complicated proposition to match the speed of the tens of thousands of thoughts you have every day.

In your view, possibly an earthquake is psychological and nothing more. Thank heavens if the world wouldn't laugh at this.

If you are busy thinking and not listening you could get lost in a million ideas about what I said. I think the world should weep for the lost art of intuitive listening. Everyone's talking but no one listens.

A schizophrenic view of science and spirituality gets repeated in your lengthy explanation. The theory is as old as Adhi Sankara who considered the material world an illusion. The soul which has the nature of bliss, suffers only because it identifies itself with the body.

This reasoning is actually derived from the repeatability of personal experience. It seems string theorists are beginning to think matter is not as it appears to be and that the smallest particles can change under the influence of some kind of direction that they cannot identify with.

Why not to give something new to the world and help it to perceive any form of spirituality as a natural development of science and psychology and not one opposed to evolution itself?

Where do you get the idea that spiritual sciences of old are opposed to evolution or anything for that matter. Have you actually ever studied spiritual sciences and had a direct experience of what they are about? There is a saying. A Teacher is only as good as the students ability to learn.
Life has much to offer but man as a student derives the worth of life from his own interests and beliefs. He listens for what he wants to hear, sees what he is looking for and says what he hopes will remain the truth so his life will not lose meaning and purpose, even while his mind and his body is constantly changing.

[Anthu]

You're making what you want out of what I said, like saying I changed the topic to suffering.

I intentionally did this since you jumped in with the poser: have you decided what suffering is? and quickly ended up saying it's generally psychological. If you can't make a basic distinction between physical pain and mental suffering, should you necessarily teach others on what suffering is?

Bummer, I thought maybe you could figure this out for yourself.

I still can't figure it out myself. Do tell me how suffering is of one type alone.

This reasoning is actually derived from the repeatability of personal experience. It seems string theorists are beginning to think matter is not as it appears to be and that the smallest particles can change under the influence of some kind of direction that they cannot identify with.

When you interpret string theorists to support your view that material world is an illusion, do you not imply that earthquake is an illusion as well? My guess on you hardly goes wrong.
I do appreciate your conviction that all of nature is somehow supported by an inexplicable, infinite spirit. But it's impossible to make any further statement than this. The way of the spirit, it appears, is to allow natural law to work on itself. Even if smallest particles keep changing, that might not be due to the direction given by an unknown force that we would like to believe is the spirit. Their nature might simply be to keep changing.