Sky, difference in terms duly noted...

The difference in relevance is equal. In other words the same applies. The problems which hamper mankind are not simply from a judgmental and egotistical 'God' which has been created in man's image, although those are indeed many.

The more unseen and therefore often unrecognized problem is that people hold their convictions(regardless of any particular religion) based upon pure faith alone, despite what is so often overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, most would rather hold onto an illogical belief system out of emotional comfort and familiarity, such as an imaginary thing looking out for them, or some other sense of justice in what seems to be an unjust world rather than just dispell it out of intellectual certainty and recognize the beauty and value in humans without creating some imaginary Sky Daddy or some other completely unshowable thing to which all unknowns defer.

It is the embracing of illogical thought which is the biggest and underlying problem of religion and mankind.

Eat a bag of pruns--then tell me about control???

in the bible u have rules 2 adhere 2 so 2 me that makes u responsible 4 ur actions not some 1 else-- "judgement day"

I think maybe it would be more accurate to say that it is a lack of logical thought. By that I mean, not only do people “embrace illogical thought”, but they often (mostly?) act without any thought at all. Now that may be considered unnecessarily splitting of hairs, but I think the difference is significant and important.

I think that that lack of thought is actually the source of “illogical thought”. In fact, the lack of logical thought could be said to be the defining factor of illogical thought. That is “illogical” = “not logical” and “not” = “absence of”. Thus. "illogical" = "absence of logic".

However, if one considers that the entirety of the physical universe operates as a stimulus-response (i.e. “logical” action-reaction) mechanism, and that “thought” is simply a subset of that stimulus-response superset, then all thought must be stimulus-response. And therefore there is no actual difference between “logical” and “illogical” thought. The differentiation is totally and completely arbitrary.

And by the same logic, all concepts such as “choice”, “decision”, “control”, and even “responsibility” are just as arbitrary.

For example, Control implies the power or ability to change something. But if everything is stimulus-response (i.e. “follows the laws of physics”) then the very concept of “control” is illogical because everything follows the stimulus-response laws of physics, which cannot be changed.

So As I see it, the only way out of that is to postulate some agent that does not operate on a stimulus-response basis. Which is the fundamental difference between the “material-based” and the “spiritual-based” philosophies.

The materialist viewpoint is that no such agent can exist. That is, "everything operates on stimulus-response (i.e. logical action/reaction) basis.

The spiritual viewpoint is that such an agent can and does exist. (With the main arguments centering around the nature of that agent.)

---------------------

One other point as relates to “completely unshowable thing”.

The term “show” is dependent on their being a “shower” and a “showee”, so to speak.

Now in order for something to be “shown”, the “showee” must “see” whatever it is the “shower” is showing. If he does not, then it cannot be said to have been shown to the “showee”. That is, if only the “shower” sees it, then it is only shown to the “shower” and not to the “showee”

This applies to the terms “prove” and “evidence” as well. It is all dependent upon what one “sees” (or “observes” or “perceives”.) Which makes “proof” and “evidence” and “showing” fundamentally subjective.

I certainly recognize that many religious views are indeed quite illogical and ungrounded.

However, it's become blatantly apparent to me that many people who worship logic as a God are often quite unreasonable, and their so-called 'logic' is often nothing more than a mere fallacy that they pretend to use to support their own weak opinions, which in truth, when analyized properly, do not even stand up to the God of logic that they claim to be worshiping in the first place.

So I have little respect for those who worship the God of Logic and deny all other human experiences and emotions. They are just as dangerous as the religious fundamentalists. Perhaps we should call them "Logic Fundamentalists".

Morden science and mathematics does not support a purely logical view of the world. The very existence of the universe itself is a logical contradicition.

So the "logic God" hasn't been shown to be any more real than any other God, IMHO.

Although I wouldn’t put it quite as ... ummm ... “strongly” as that, I do agree in spirit.

After all, what is “logic” but a set of rules?

One can follow a set of rules labeled “logic” or one can follow a set of rules labeled “religious doctrine”.

Or one can pick a different set of rules to follow, and label them whatever one wishes.

It does not matter what rules one chooses to follow. What matters is how one views/treats others who do not follow the same rules as oneself.

If one adamantly insists that their rules, and no other, are “right”, it does not matter what label is applied to the rule set – be it “religious doctrine” or “logic”. What matters is the result of that insistence – which is, effectively, an attempt to impose one’s own rules on another.

Saying that "belief in an unseen entity is not logical" is like saying that "green is not blue". Of course it isn't – simply because the statement says it isn’t. The statement defines itself. There is no “problem” inherent in that. It is simply a statement that there are two different things are different.

The problem comes in when one says "belief in an unseen entity is ‘wrong’ because it's not logical". One could just as easily say “logic is ‘wrong’ because it does not believe in an unseen entity.” The only intrinsic difference is in the rule set one chooses as a basis for determining “wrongness”. If the “logic” rule set is used as the basis, then “belief in an unseen entity” is ‘wrong’. If the “belief in an unseen entity” rule set is used. Then “logic” is wrong.

Well, the reason I say it so strongly is because a lot of atheists act like as if logic has already somehow proved that no such thing as spirit is possible. Which is truly absurd.

And that kind of stance is no less dogmatic and fundamentalist-like then a the stance of religious fantatics who demand that a certain book must be the "Word of God"

They are equally 'extreme' and unfounded positions.



Exactly. All they are attempting to do is use 'logic' as a justification for itself. Which is no different at all from simply claiming that "This book is the word of God".

It's utterly no different at all. Especially to anyone who truly understands that all "logic" necessarily must ultimately rest upon unproven assumptions somewhere at its base.

So any attempt to try to treat 'logic' as a religion is truly futile.

It also often comes down to 'interpretations' just as religious doctrines do. A person who claims to be using logic as his or her 'proof' or support for a particular opinion will quite often just do a tiny bit of vauge hand-waving and then say, "That proves that my opinion is logical and your's is not". When in fact, no such logical prove shown.

How is that any different from just looking at a religious doctrine and proclaiming that one interpretation holds more merit over another interpretation?

If all questions in philosophy could be answered firmly with *absolute* definite "logical" anwsers, then philosophy would have been finished long ago and all of humanity would now be accepting those indisputable results.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't work that way.

Many of the simplest questions in philosophy always lead to logical contradictions no matter what answers are dreamed up by the philosophers.

On Personal Power

I'm currently studying religion religions that are all about finding and obtaining your personal power. All three of these religions have some association with Celtic lore, but they all come at it from different views. Same results.

Also, I've been studying a lot of Deepak Chopra's programs as well, and he is also all about finding and achieving your personal power.

Of course, as I've said before "personal power" can be hard to define because all of these religious recognize the fallacy of ego. So if "personal power" is being defined by the ego, then most likely no religion is about finding personal power. But if "personal power" is defined as that which is the true desire and fulfillment then they are all about finding "personal power".

I think this is a good example of how 'logic' can be utterly useless. Whether or not it is 'logical' to conclude that a particular religion is all about 'personal power' depends entirely on how 'personal power' is defined, therefore, logic is entirely dependent upon the foundational definitions. Change the definitions of the primal concepts in question and the logical conclusions change accordingly.

I disagree that logic is a set of rules. Logic means information that withstood tests to show that it is as close to the truth as one can get. Not rules at all. Sound information is what logic is.

Here are a few thoughts, if you are receiving "instruction" to find your personal power, you may be handing it over to someone else. If finding this personal power or keeping it involves an entity outside of yourself then you are probably handing over your personal power.

Wow, this is truly an interesting subject and one that I have thought a lot about.

Where freedom and responsibility are concerned, the more freedom you want, the more responsibility you must be willing to take on.

Its all about being independent. I believe we are all independent in some areas and co-dependent in others. Where you are co-dependent, your feeling of 'freedom' lies in how dependent are you. Could you survive or walk away if you wanted to, or are you completely dependent?

Are you dependent because you would rather not have the responsibility?

I have known life-time criminals who grew so dependent on prison, that after having served their time and gotten out, they committed another crime because life outside of prison was way too much responsibility for them to handle. In prison, they had their friends, three meals a day, a roof over their head etc. Some people actually become used to it and prefer prison bars over responsibility.

The bottom line is if you want a life of freedom, you have to be responsible. And stop being a victim.

I think you may be confusing "logic" with "facts". The two are not identical.

Let's just take some definitions from dictionary.com, since it is fairly safe to assume that anyone reading this can verify it for themselves.

Logic:
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

Fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


So "logic as a set of rules" aligns well with all of the above definitions for "logic", whereas "logic as sound information" does not align with any of the above definitions of "logic", but does align perfectly with all the above definitions for "fact".

Now that's not to say that one cannot create a definition, gain agreement as to it's meaning, and use the new definition in conversation. That happens all the time and is an inherent process in the evolution of all natural languages.

It's only to say that the most widely used meaning of "logic" (as reported by dictionary.com) is the meaning I intended. And although I may have rephrased it, I do not believe I altered the meaning by any practical measure.

Kant, while logically refuting the prior most popular arguments for the existence of 'God' based upon the subjective nature of our frame of perception regarding the nature of the universe, did in fact(perhaps unknowingly), give firm grounds for the subjective opinion to stand upon.

However, logic is ultimately about being cohesive in thought, and demonstrable in practice. I think it would be a huge error to equivocate between illogical and logical thought, and/or actions.

Sky makes a good point in making a distinction between illogical thoughts and actions without thought. For we already know that habits of mind spill over into translation of experience and action. In other words, if one is consistently illogical in belief/thought, then it will affect their judgment, consequently affecting their discernment ability and lead to conscious decisions which are often based upon the same illogical reasoning which forms the basis of their personal belief system. So, it also is necessary to conclude that one who is well practiced in logical and critical thinking skills will also be much more likely to act logically.

In many, if not most religions, accepting ideas, thoughts and implications - which exist despite overwhelming contrary evidence - strictly upon faith is held as virtuous. In fact, it is encouraged to dismiss and/or intentionally suppress any piece of contradictory evidence on the grounds of faith alone. A fine example of what happens with this line of thinking has existed in the public school systems in the U.S. for centuries. Only one side of the story is told, while evidence to the contrary is completely avoided and/or purposefully suppressed. This includes so many different aspects of the public curriculum.

In order to contemplate two sides of any issue, two sides must be able to be entertained. Both sides must be given equal treatment. Therefore, rather than exhibit the totalitarian epitome of exactly what we morally hold as wrong in political philosophies such as socialism and communism, we as adults, parents, and humans alike could be instilling the critical thinking skills necessary which would allow our children to develop their own opinions regarding such things after hearing both the negative and the positive points regarding each of those things.

Thankfully, we are gradually overcoming that close-minded illogical mindset here in the U.S., but it was not that long ago that the education system did not allow both sides of *any* political or moral argument to be heard. It was not that long ago that one must hold a belief in 'God' in order to be considered as 'fit' to be an instructer on the college level.

THE TAROT CARDS AND RESPONSIBILITY

People come to me for readings because they want to know the future. But some people don't realize that the future is not set in stone. The decisions they make and the thoughts they think will determine outcome most of the time in their personal lives.

But a person who is focused on a goal or intention is sometimes not interested in a reading because they are intending a certain outcome, and no matter how they get there, they intend to get there. They are not interested in 'seeing' the future because they are creating it.

The tarot cards do not tell the future, they indicate the course of an event's momentum according to the energy present. I am not sure how they work, but I continue to be amazed by what I learn from them and how, over time, and doing many readings, I actually learn what certain cards will come to mean to me in their translation. A good reading will give me goose bumps. I don't know why.

I do readings also and have found it interesting how some will attempt to change the meaning of the card to suit them if it's not the one they wanted...I understand what your saying about them being according to the energy, the same persons reading can be different the next day.
Goose bumps indeed...

I think that is an excellent example of something very closely related to the OP, which has not yet been addressed.

If Tarot can provide an accurate description of the "current state of affairs", then it is up to the individual as to what they do about it. They can actively seek to change the current situation so as to effect changes in the outcome by "taking responsibility". Or they can "take no responsibility" and simply let the current "momentum" run it's course without intervening.

Now it is obvious that in the case where one chooses to act to alter the outcome, one is holding on to and using their power, not giving it up.

But in that case of the choice to "do nothing", could that be considered to be an instance of "giving up one's power"?

Personally, I would put it into that category, simply because the result is the same - the outcome is governed by things outside oneself.

sometimes the "do nothing" is the choice that can alter the outcome..sometimes accepting, surrendering instead of doing something is the right choice and doesn't necessarily mean giving up power...

You're absolutely right of course.

If the "momentum" is already going exactly the way you want, then there is no need to change anything. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

All rules are the same?

Hmmmmm....

I don't think so.

Given the context of that (i.e. absolutely none) I would have to agree.

It would be impossible to "do nothing." What people do, instead, is that they continue on the same course and the momentum of the event depicted plays out to the end.

To "do nothing" you would have to stop thinking, stop having an attitude, stop having an opinion etc.

Your life is manifested by your thoughts, your intentions, your attitude and where you place your attention. The only way to "do nothing" is to die or go into a deep unthinking comma.

Now if something strange happened to your memory and you developed global amnesia, your future and your life would change dramatically.

So to "do nothing" would only mean to continue doing what you are doing, and you will continue to manifest that future.

HOWEVER:
Some events are past the point of no return and the momentum will take you through them no matter what. In that case, you just have to ride the wave.

ALSO:
There are events that cannot be altered. Usually when you are involved in one of these events, the cards will be several Major Arcana. The death card is permanent change of some kind. You can do nothing to prevent this change... what ever it is.