Suppose this, notmyself;

The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.

I'll quote from wiki because there is no chance of copyright violation.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Let us go a step further into this and say that until a couple of thousand years ago EVERYONE thought the world to be flat.

According to these religions, it is said that our logical mind ceases to function after the death of the mortal body but we then continue to exist emotionally and spiritually.

Would that include Judaism?

So, the majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been or are concerned with their own emotional and spiritual state of being because they figure like this "I can develop my intellect, but it will cease to be of service in a few years, but my feeling will live-on. Therefore it's this intelligence that I will seek to cultivate".

Majority of this planet's history? I shall not press you on this nor go into detail unless asked to.

I mean it like so: Compared to a divine truth, of which we can't really talk about properly, anything that we try to say about the divine will naturally become a profanity.

So nothing to do with faith?

Unless there is any reason to believe in 'divine' the idea of profanity in this context is as meaningless as Colin in my shed.

Suppose this, notmyself;

The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.

I'll quote from wiki because there is no chance of copyright violation.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words...

My statement about the majority and yourself was not an argument in support of religion or spirituality holding the truth.

Suppose this, notmyself;

The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.

I'll quote from wiki because there is no chance of copyright violation.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words...

My statement about the majority and yourself was not an argument in support of religion or spirituality holding the truth.

OK. What was it then?

So, the majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been or are concerned with their own emotional and spiritual state of being because they figure like this "I can develop my intellect, but it will cease to be of service in a few years, but my feeling will live-on. Therefore it's this intelligence that I will seek to cultivate".

Majority of this planet's history? I shall not press you on this nor go into detail unless asked to.

You're able to pick apart what someone writes but sadly are unable to really get the meaning.

I can now see why you'd have such issues with religion or the concept of god. For you it's no more than magical horse manure.

You might think that I'm a religious nutter that wants to convert people. This is not the case.

Sadly; you think, from your own limited capacity to understand these matters, that it's your place to tell others that they're suffering from a neurosis!

Respectfully; You're not the best person to preach on suchness.

Respectfully; You should keep your views to yourself and let others "suffer from this neurosis" in peace

.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy hearing your opinion. It's the people who you try to convince that religion is a neurosis that I'm worried about.

You should have the decency to let others be.

Suppose this, notmyself;

The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.

I'll quote from wiki because there is no chance of copyright violation.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words...

My statement about the majority and yourself was not an argument in support of religion or spirituality holding the truth.

OK. What was it then?

You ask questions but my genuine feeling is, that if when I give you my answer, you won't even give it 1/10 the amount of thought that I put into formulating it. I feel like my time and effort is not appreciated therefore I won't reply.

If you'd reply that I therefore lose in the "argument" or I can't answer your question - and you having already read the line above - then I take you to be either a troll or a fool.

p.s... It was a statement. If you disagree then please provide a valid counter argument to my statement. Do you understand the statement AS IS ?

(The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.)

According to these religions, it is said that our logical mind ceases to function after the death of the mortal body but we then continue to exist emotionally and spiritually.

Would that include Judaism?

No! "According to these religions" referenced the two religions that I mentioned in my paragraph above (which you `conveniently` chose not to quote) These were namely; Hinduism & Buddhism... not expressly Judaism).

Are you able to talk about one single thing without flying into random other areas? Perhaps it's because you want to bring everything back to Judaism and Christianity as you have an axe to grind ?

p.s... It was a statement. If you disagree then please provide a valid counter argument to my statement. Do you understand the statement AS IS ?

(The majority of the people for the majority of this planets history have been followers of a religion or spirituality. You are in the minority.)

I'm not trying to deviate in the slightest but rather trying to blow off the chaff wherever possible in an effort to stay on the straight and narrow.

As I remember, I did not address this directly and instead showed it to be flawed by pointing out that it contains a logical fallacy which undermines it to such a degree as to make to evaporate. I shall delve a little deeper since you ask.

The majority of the people is a claim that you cannot possibly substantiate to any meaningful degree unless you are talking about raw numbers. Even if you are talking about raw numbers, I don't see how any worthwhile information can be gleaned from this.

The majority of this planet's history would indicate that either the Earth is less than 400,000 years old or that humanity has been upon it for around 2.3 billion years. I have not seen any research suggesting anything like these 2 timescales.

I can now see why you'd have such issues with religion or the concept of god. For you it's no more than magical horse manure.

Not entirely true. My issue is with irrational belief rather than those who have an irrational belief. As I have mentioned before... If someone believes themselves to be a chicken sandwich then they should be free to do so, it's none of my business. It only becomes my business if they demand respect for their belief to be a chicken sandwich, to enact or block laws which affect myself and others because of their belief that they are a chicken sandwich or they try to impose their belief to be a chicken sandwich as being true on children.

We all have beliefs but some care more than others if their beliefs are true or not. I'm perfectly will to accept on face value that....

You might think that I'm a religious nutter that wants to convert people. This is not the case.

In the same way that I am willing to accept on face value if someone said that they saw an elephant walk past while having breakfast. If they said it was a 200' tall pink elephant walk past I would not just take it on face value. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You should have the decency to let others be.

I'm not allowed to because those who hold irrational beliefs will not let me. There is a constant battle against theocratic encroachment upon society is there not?

You should have the decency to let others be.

I'm not allowed to because those who hold irrational beliefs will not let me. There is a constant battle against theocratic encroachment upon society is there not?

I don't see any battle that needs to take place. Do you live a Islamic country under Sharia Law ?

Please explain how theocracy is encroaching on yourself (in any way whatsoever) ?

You might live in a theocratic country but is there really encroachment ?

-

You should have the decency to let others be.

I'm not allowed to because those who hold irrational beliefs will not let me. There is a constant battle against theocratic encroachment upon society is there not?

I don't see any battle that needs to take place. Do you live a Islamic country under Sharia Law ?

Please explain how theocracy is encroaching on yourself (in any way whatsoever) ?

You might live in a theocratic country but is there really encroachment ?

Unlike say millipedes, humans like all primates, are social animals. We care about others and are emotionally distressed when they are harmed or die. We act as a collective for all intent and purpose. There is outrage directed toward DPRK because of internment camps and torture of hundreds of thousands of people. Why should we bother and more specifically within the context of your question, why should I care as an individual? I use DPRK because it is non Islamic yet still a theocracy though I could have delved a little into history and chosen Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Japan under Emperor Hirohito and before him to name but a few.

It is likely (maybe) at this point you are wondering what the hell I am on about and what does this have to do with encroachment. Well, how do/ did the theocracies mention thus far propagate? It can't be through personal belief because it is a personally held belief. It cannot be through reason since it is a personally held belief based on faith. Remember faith? I mentioned it earlier. It is belief without reason. I'm not trying to divert but do you know what alternative medicine is called when it is shown to work, when it is shown to be true? Medicine.

To get back into the meat. I'm from the UK where we have Bishops in the HoL, objections to such things as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and women being given equal footing which are all theocratic encroachments on society. Why can't they keep it to themselves? Go play with your own toys and don't demand that I and others play with them too. It they don't like gay marriage for example then they are not obliged to have one.. Is that enough? No, others cannot have one either.

You say that religion forms the shackle that keeps you bound. (I disagree.)

Ironically;

Region itself claims to be the method in which you'd free yourself. (I also disagree.)

You say that religion forms the shackle that keeps you bound. (I disagree.)

Ironically;

Region itself claims to be the method in which you'd free yourself. (I also disagree.)

Hmmm. I would go more along the line that irrational belief forms the shackle and religious belief spreads it from one person to another in that it formalises it and gives it an unwarranted level of authentication. It is for this reason I would agree with your latter statement.

Without a level of reason one HAS to be in a position of believing anything presented such as Bertrand Russell's Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (18721970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell" data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell" s_teapot"="">

It is also often used within the realm of reason as a question regarding claims of belief without reason. I presume you would reject this (the teapot) along with any other orbit and with other items from say a 48 piece tea service. That would be literally billions of possibilities wiped out straight off the bat. If you do not reject this then I would be interested to know why.

Sorry, the above is still legible I hope. The front end editing features on TV changes middle of last year to a point of being 'wank' status so I now just write direct BCC code. Worked on preview.

The Buddha would have said something like this:

Of which, can be proved, is not true.

Of which, can't be proved, is true.

________________________________

~ Tao Te Ching written by Lao-tzu ~

( amalgamation )

The Way that can be told, is not the eternal Way

The name that can be named, is not the eternal Name.

The more you know, the less you understand.

Look, and it can't be seen.

Listen, and it can't be heard.

Reach, and it can't be grasped.

How do I know this is true?

By looking inside myself.

.

You say that religion forms the shackle that keeps you bound. (I disagree.)

Ironically;

Region itself claims to be the method in which you'd free yourself. (I also disagree.)

Hmmm. I would go more along the line that irrational belief forms the shackle and religious belief spreads it from one person to another in that it formalises it and gives it an unwarranted level of authentication. It is for this reason I would agree with your latter statement.

Without a level of reason one HAS to be in a position of believing anything presented such as Bertrand Russell's Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (18721970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell" data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell" s_teapot"="">

It is also often used within the realm of reason as a question regarding claims of belief without reason. I presume you would reject this (the teapot) along with any other orbit and with other items from say a 48 piece tea service. That would be literally billions of possibilities wiped out straight off the bat. If you do not reject this then I would be interested to know why.

If you want to be truly scientific and philosophic then I ask you this:

How can we know, that the substance under consideration is itself real, when all we have to consider the substance with, is of the very same substance of that which is itself in consideration.

You lose!

The truth can never be proved. This is the true nature of the truth.

p.s I hope you realise that anything you try to prove will, by its very nature, be untrue. There's still truth to be found, I do believe*, but you'll not find it within your current paradigm.

* Do you notice that I must use the word "believe"... If you get the paradigm of untruth then you'll surely have sympathy, at least.

--

The Buddha would have said something like this:

Of which, can be proved, is not true.

Of which, can't be proved, is true.

Did the Buddha actually say that? I'd be interested to know where please.

The Buddha would have said something like this:

Of which, can be proved, is not true.

Of which, can't be proved, is true.

Did the Buddha actually say that? I'd be interested to know where please.

The Buddha didn't actually say that.

If you want to be truly scientific and philosophic then I ask you this:

How can we know, that the substance under consideration is itself real, when all we have to consider the substance with, is of the very same substance of that which is itself in consideration.

You lose!

The truth can never be proved. This is the true nature of the truth.

Not going to find the exact point but this has been covered to a large extent in this thread. Last 4-5 pages at a guess.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/693918-are-you-an-atheistbeliever/

The Buddha would have said something like this:

Of which, can be proved, is not true.

Of which, can't be proved, is true.

Did the Buddha actually say that? I'd be interested to know where please.

Note the word 'would' rather than 'did'.

The Buddha would have said something like this:

Of which, can be proved, is not true.

Of which, can't be proved, is true.

Did the Buddha actually say that? I'd be interested to know where please.

Note the word 'would' rather than 'did'.

Made up stuff then.