[CON]Science vs. [BELIEF]Religion

[9-18-1]

General Discussion Topic: Science vs. Religion

In contemplating this rivalry, I find so many have taken it into overly-complicated and/or nuanced territories undeserving of the attention they have (and continue to) demand. The problem can be viewed on more simplistic terms by discarding elaborations of what "science" and/or "religion" are (or are not) and only retaining roots. In doing so, one discovers (as I posit to follow) a perpetually locked dichotomy concerning two items:

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

Upon a simple examination of the word 'conscience' one discovers two words: 'con' as or applied to the self or with(in), and 'science' which ultimately involves any system employing a central inquiry, a successive series of tests/proofs to derive a result(s) which attempts to resolve the initial inquiry. As such, the latter is applied to each individual with(in) their own individual being and its associations (ie. identity etc.). As such, 'conscience' is rather straightforward: ones own innate ability to (in synthesis and simplicity) ask questions (of personal matter/choice) and seek their answers (and choose to accept/reject).

Now, however, 'religion' is a much more difficult word to define. In terms of etymology, the word itself derives from the latin 'religare': to rejoin, reunite, rebind etc. The 'however' is much needed: this is not the understanding (usage) of the word anymore: it is a term used to refer to an ideological institution(s). This therefor begs the question: what is the nature of the relationship between (re-adopting common usage) "religion" and "belief"?

This question really picks at the problem in a rather potent way: what hypothesis (model to test) is to science, belief (model to life) is to religion. The difference is whereas the former combines the process of science(s) with choice(s) which advances understanding, the latter can simply be "adopted" and solidified (ie. one need only "believe" in something without needing to test the validity/basis of the belief).

It is on this basis that I unreservedly argue "belief" is not a virtue, but rather the very antithesis of what the essence of the "science" is in human "conscience"; adding the element of choice once again to produce an ongoing state of consciousness (individual conscience making a series of choices in an ongoing state). In other words: science is necessarily superior to religion, because religion is what degrades the 'science' in 'conscience' (consciousness). Not only is belief not a virtue, I likewise unreservedly argue it is the most destructive element of humanity (ie. religion and/or "belief"-based thinking). While this may appear undeservedly heavy, please note the principle division which has driven the conflict(s) between "believers" of Christian/Islamic/Judaism faiths and "unbelievers" who do not accept/adopt a "belief"-based world view.

I presently foresee a global conflict which will (once again, as has been the case for approx. 2000 years) invariably involve the principle dichotomy of "believers" vs. "unbelievers" and (as such) involves this very problem: "belief"-based worldviews (such as the rising global power of Islam: comprised of "believers" adopting the Qur'an/Muhammad as perfect/infallible) and "science"-based worldviews which demands (ie. adheres to) a certain threshold of evidence to (at minimum) support *any* assertion, including those made by such powers involving the infallibility (and/or other related claims) of the object(s) (idols) of their "beliefs".

As such I stand in solidarity with any/all who reject "belief" as any viable basis for a fully state-sanctioned system of governance (given its overwhelming tendency to produce worldviews that do not reflect the reality whatsoever) and stand likewise with those who suffer, have suffered and shall suffer as a result of such "belief"-based systems given the amount of suffering they overwhelmingly tend to manufacture.

As a result of such considerations I find the global conflict to be rooted in just this: the Abrahamic religions (most primarily, but not limited to) are established upon assertions (ie. god-delivered books, god-inspired prophets etc.) which are egregiously false (such as the Torah/Qur'an being perfectly preserved/without error), the "gravity" of which (ie. authority) is preserved *only* by the (extent of/to which) the one/many "believes" in them. In other words: the global human "consciousness" is overwhelmingly sustained by "belief"-based worldviews/assertions that do not actually fit/match the reality. As such the atmosphere is highly dynamic and susceptible to sudden/vast shifts in "consciousness" should such "belief"-based worldviews (for whatever reason(s)) collapse.

 

[cladking]

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

Your axioms assure only one possible conclusion. Your definitions are very highly constraining.

 

[HonestJoe]

In contemplating this rivalry…

There is no rivalry unless you choose to create one.

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)

”Science” and “conscience” are two entirely separate concepts, their shared etymology being essentially coincidence.

ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Religion isn’t just belief, it’s what you do about your belief. Belief is something you have, religion is something you do.

Any conflicts between different human beings that are explained or justified on the basis of any specific beliefs or religions are entirely down to those religions and shouldn’t be used to reflect beyond that. That’s how you remove the unnecessary complications, not with paragraphs and paragraphs of new ones.

 

[columbus]

dichotomy concerning two items:

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

I barely recognize the words you're using in this context.

I believe that a clear daytime sky, on earth at this time, is always blue. That is not a religious belief.
Worse, the way you are using "conscience" is virtually impenetrable. Did you mean "conscious"?
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

General Discussion Topic: Science vs. Religion

In contemplating this rivalry, I find so many have taken it into overly-complicated and/or nuanced territories undeserving of the attention they have (and continue to) demand. The problem can be viewed on more simplistic terms by discarding elaborations of what "science" and/or "religion" are (or are not) and only retaining roots. In doing so, one discovers (as I posit to follow) a perpetually locked dichotomy concerning two items:

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

Upon a simple examination of the word 'conscience' one discovers two words: 'con' as or applied to the self or with(in), and 'science' which ultimately involves any system employing a central inquiry, a successive series of tests/proofs to derive a result(s) which attempts to resolve the initial inquiry. As such, the latter is applied to each individual with(in) their own individual being and its associations (ie. identity etc.). As such, 'conscience' is rather straightforward: ones own innate ability to (in synthesis and simplicity) ask questions (of personal matter/choice) and seek their answers (and choose to accept/reject).

Now, however, 'religion' is a much more difficult word to define. In terms of etymology, the word itself derives from the latin 'religare': to rejoin, reunite, rebind etc. The 'however' is much needed: this is not the understanding (usage) of the word anymore: it is a term used to refer to an ideological institution(s). This therefor begs the question: what is the nature of the relationship between (re-adopting common usage) "religion" and "belief"?

This question really picks at the problem in a rather potent way: what hypothesis (model to test) is to science, belief (model to life) is to religion. The difference is whereas the former combines the process of science(s) with choice(s) which advances understanding, the latter can simply be "adopted" and solidified (ie. one need only "believe" in something without needing to test the validity/basis of the belief).

It is on this basis that I unreservedly argue "belief" is not a virtue, but rather the very antithesis of what the essence of the "science" is in human "conscience"; adding the element of choice once again to produce an ongoing state of consciousness (individual conscience making a series of choices in an ongoing state). In other words: science is necessarily superior to religion, because religion is what degrades the 'science' in 'conscience' (consciousness). Not only is belief not a virtue, I likewise unreservedly argue it is the most destructive element of humanity (ie. religion and/or "belief"-based thinking). While this may appear undeservedly heavy, please note the principle division which has driven the conflict(s) between "believers" of Christian/Islamic/Judaism faiths and "unbelievers" who do not accept/adopt a "belief"-based world view.

I presently foresee a global conflict which will (once again, as has been the case for approx. 2000 years) invariably involve the principle dichotomy of "believers" vs. "unbelievers" and (as such) involves this very problem: "belief"-based worldviews (such as the rising global power of Islam: comprised of "believers" adopting the Qur'an/Muhammad as perfect/infallible) and "science"-based worldviews which demands (ie. adheres to) a certain threshold of evidence to (at minimum) support *any* assertion, including those made by such powers involving the infallibility (and/or other related claims) of the object(s) (idols) of their "beliefs".

As such I stand in solidarity with any/all who reject "belief" as any viable basis for a fully state-sanctioned system of governance (given its overwhelming tendency to produce worldviews that do not reflect the reality whatsoever) and stand likewise with those who suffer, have suffered and shall suffer as a result of such "belief"-based systems given the amount of suffering they overwhelmingly tend to manufacture.

As a result of such considerations I find the global conflict to be rooted in just this: the Abrahamic religions (most primarily, but not limited to) are established upon assertions (ie. god-delivered books, god-inspired prophets etc.) which are egregiously false (such as the Torah/Qur'an being perfectly preserved/without error), the "gravity" of which (ie. authority) is preserved *only* by the (extent of/to which) the one/many "believes" in them. In other words: the global human "consciousness" is overwhelmingly sustained by "belief"-based worldviews/assertions that do not actually fit/match the reality. As such the atmosphere is highly dynamic and susceptible to sudden/vast shifts in "consciousness" should such "belief"-based worldviews (for whatever reason(s)) collapse.

Not how I would use the word conscience. IMO one's conscience and religious faith come from the same source. The subconscious mind.

 

[Audie]

General Discussion Topic: Science vs. Religion

In contemplating this rivalry, I find so many have taken it into overly-complicated and/or nuanced territories undeserving of the attention they have (and continue to) demand. The problem can be viewed on more simplistic terms by discarding elaborations of what "science" and/or "religion" are (or are not) and only retaining roots. In doing so, one discovers (as I posit to follow) a perpetually locked dichotomy concerning two items:

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

Upon a simple examination of the word 'conscience' one discovers two words: 'con' as or applied to the self or with(in), and 'science' which ultimately involves any system employing a central inquiry, a successive series of tests/proofs to derive a result(s) which attempts to resolve the initial inquiry. As such, the latter is applied to each individual with(in) their own individual being and its associations (ie. identity etc.). As such, 'conscience' is rather straightforward: ones own innate ability to (in synthesis and simplicity) ask questions (of personal matter/choice) and seek their answers (and choose to accept/reject).

Now, however, 'religion' is a much more difficult word to define. In terms of etymology, the word itself derives from the latin 'religare': to rejoin, reunite, rebind etc. The 'however' is much needed: this is not the understanding (usage) of the word anymore: it is a term used to refer to an ideological institution(s). This therefor begs the question: what is the nature of the relationship between (re-adopting common usage) "religion" and "belief"?

This question really picks at the problem in a rather potent way: what hypothesis (model to test) is to science, belief (model to life) is to religion. The difference is whereas the former combines the process of science(s) with choice(s) which advances understanding, the latter can simply be "adopted" and solidified (ie. one need only "believe" in something without needing to test the validity/basis of the belief).

It is on this basis that I unreservedly argue "belief" is not a virtue, but rather the very antithesis of what the essence of the "science" is in human "conscience"; adding the element of choice once again to produce an ongoing state of consciousness (individual conscience making a series of choices in an ongoing state). In other words: science is necessarily superior to religion, because religion is what degrades the 'science' in 'conscience' (consciousness). Not only is belief not a virtue, I likewise unreservedly argue it is the most destructive element of humanity (ie. religion and/or "belief"-based thinking). While this may appear undeservedly heavy, please note the principle division which has driven the conflict(s) between "believers" of Christian/Islamic/Judaism faiths and "unbelievers" who do not accept/adopt a "belief"-based world view.

I presently foresee a global conflict which will (once again, as has been the case for approx. 2000 years) invariably involve the principle dichotomy of "believers" vs. "unbelievers" and (as such) involves this very problem: "belief"-based worldviews (such as the rising global power of Islam: comprised of "believers" adopting the Qur'an/Muhammad as perfect/infallible) and "science"-based worldviews which demands (ie. adheres to) a certain threshold of evidence to (at minimum) support *any* assertion, including those made by such powers involving the infallibility (and/or other related claims) of the object(s) (idols) of their "beliefs".

As such I stand in solidarity with any/all who reject "belief" as any viable basis for a fully state-sanctioned system of governance (given its overwhelming tendency to produce worldviews that do not reflect the reality whatsoever) and stand likewise with those who suffer, have suffered and shall suffer as a result of such "belief"-based systems given the amount of suffering they overwhelmingly tend to manufacture.

As a result of such considerations I find the global conflict to be rooted in just this: the Abrahamic religions (most primarily, but not limited to) are established upon assertions (ie. god-delivered books, god-inspired prophets etc.) which are egregiously false (such as the Torah/Qur'an being perfectly preserved/without error), the "gravity" of which (ie. authority) is preserved *only* by the (extent of/to which) the one/many "believes" in them. In other words: the global human "consciousness" is overwhelmingly sustained by "belief"-based worldviews/assertions that do not actually fit/match the reality. As such the atmosphere is highly dynamic and susceptible to sudden/vast shifts in "consciousness" should such "belief"-based worldviews (for whatever reason(s)) collapse.

Well, we're satisfied that you isnt no etymologist.

 

[osgart]

There are realities of being that are not reflected in physical observance. The exercise of conscience is one of them. Or simply having a conscience. I believe in my own conscience and have convictions in those beliefs. I dont think believing in something is bad whatsoever unless those beliefs are ill founded and dangerous to self and others.

There is a self creative aspect to being, and believing you can do something is important. Believing precedes learning and knowing often.

 

[Twilight Hue]

General Discussion Topic: Science vs. Religion

In contemplating this rivalry, I find so many have taken it into overly-complicated and/or nuanced territories undeserving of the attention they have (and continue to) demand. The problem can be viewed on more simplistic terms by discarding elaborations of what "science" and/or "religion" are (or are not) and only retaining roots. In doing so, one discovers (as I posit to follow) a perpetually locked dichotomy concerning two items:

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

Upon a simple examination of the word 'conscience' one discovers two words: 'con' as or applied to the self or with(in), and 'science' which ultimately involves any system employing a central inquiry, a successive series of tests/proofs to derive a result(s) which attempts to resolve the initial inquiry. As such, the latter is applied to each individual with(in) their own individual being and its associations (ie. identity etc.). As such, 'conscience' is rather straightforward: ones own innate ability to (in synthesis and simplicity) ask questions (of personal matter/choice) and seek their answers (and choose to accept/reject).

Now, however, 'religion' is a much more difficult word to define. In terms of etymology, the word itself derives from the latin 'religare': to rejoin, reunite, rebind etc. The 'however' is much needed: this is not the understanding (usage) of the word anymore: it is a term used to refer to an ideological institution(s). This therefor begs the question: what is the nature of the relationship between (re-adopting common usage) "religion" and "belief"?

This question really picks at the problem in a rather potent way: what hypothesis (model to test) is to science, belief (model to life) is to religion. The difference is whereas the former combines the process of science(s) with choice(s) which advances understanding, the latter can simply be "adopted" and solidified (ie. one need only "believe" in something without needing to test the validity/basis of the belief).

It is on this basis that I unreservedly argue "belief" is not a virtue, but rather the very antithesis of what the essence of the "science" is in human "conscience"; adding the element of choice once again to produce an ongoing state of consciousness (individual conscience making a series of choices in an ongoing state). In other words: science is necessarily superior to religion, because religion is what degrades the 'science' in 'conscience' (consciousness). Not only is belief not a virtue, I likewise unreservedly argue it is the most destructive element of humanity (ie. religion and/or "belief"-based thinking). While this may appear undeservedly heavy, please note the principle division which has driven the conflict(s) between "believers" of Christian/Islamic/Judaism faiths and "unbelievers" who do not accept/adopt a "belief"-based world view.

I presently foresee a global conflict which will (once again, as has been the case for approx. 2000 years) invariably involve the principle dichotomy of "believers" vs. "unbelievers" and (as such) involves this very problem: "belief"-based worldviews (such as the rising global power of Islam: comprised of "believers" adopting the Qur'an/Muhammad as perfect/infallible) and "science"-based worldviews which demands (ie. adheres to) a certain threshold of evidence to (at minimum) support *any* assertion, including those made by such powers involving the infallibility (and/or other related claims) of the object(s) (idols) of their "beliefs".

As such I stand in solidarity with any/all who reject "belief" as any viable basis for a fully state-sanctioned system of governance (given its overwhelming tendency to produce worldviews that do not reflect the reality whatsoever) and stand likewise with those who suffer, have suffered and shall suffer as a result of such "belief"-based systems given the amount of suffering they overwhelmingly tend to manufacture.

As a result of such considerations I find the global conflict to be rooted in just this: the Abrahamic religions (most primarily, but not limited to) are established upon assertions (ie. god-delivered books, god-inspired prophets etc.) which are egregiously false (such as the Torah/Qur'an being perfectly preserved/without error), the "gravity" of which (ie. authority) is preserved *only* by the (extent of/to which) the one/many "believes" in them. In other words: the global human "consciousness" is overwhelmingly sustained by "belief"-based worldviews/assertions that do not actually fit/match the reality. As such the atmosphere is highly dynamic and susceptible to sudden/vast shifts in "consciousness" should such "belief"-based worldviews (for whatever reason(s)) collapse.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[ChristineM]

General Discussion Topic: Science vs. Religion

In contemplating this rivalry, I find so many have taken it into overly-complicated and/or nuanced territories undeserving of the attention they have (and continue to) demand. The problem can be viewed on more simplistic terms by discarding elaborations of what "science" and/or "religion" are (or are not) and only retaining roots. In doing so, one discovers (as I posit to follow) a perpetually locked dichotomy concerning two items:

i. state of "I know..." (conscience)
ii. state of "I believe..." (religion)

Please note the association of a state of "knowing" as owing to being "conscience"
and its rival the association of a state of "believing" as owing to being "religious".

Upon a simple examination of the word 'conscience' one discovers two words: 'con' as or applied to the self or with(in), and 'science' which ultimately involves any system employing a central inquiry, a successive series of tests/proofs to derive a result(s) which attempts to resolve the initial inquiry. As such, the latter is applied to each individual with(in) their own individual being and its associations (ie. identity etc.). As such, 'conscience' is rather straightforward: ones own innate ability to (in synthesis and simplicity) ask questions (of personal matter/choice) and seek their answers (and choose to accept/reject).

Now, however, 'religion' is a much more difficult word to define. In terms of etymology, the word itself derives from the latin 'religare': to rejoin, reunite, rebind etc. The 'however' is much needed: this is not the understanding (usage) of the word anymore: it is a term used to refer to an ideological institution(s). This therefor begs the question: what is the nature of the relationship between (re-adopting common usage) "religion" and "belief"?

This question really picks at the problem in a rather potent way: what hypothesis (model to test) is to science, belief (model to life) is to religion. The difference is whereas the former combines the process of science(s) with choice(s) which advances understanding, the latter can simply be "adopted" and solidified (ie. one need only "believe" in something without needing to test the validity/basis of the belief).

It is on this basis that I unreservedly argue "belief" is not a virtue, but rather the very antithesis of what the essence of the "science" is in human "conscience"; adding the element of choice once again to produce an ongoing state of consciousness (individual conscience making a series of choices in an ongoing state). In other words: science is necessarily superior to religion, because religion is what degrades the 'science' in 'conscience' (consciousness). Not only is belief not a virtue, I likewise unreservedly argue it is the most destructive element of humanity (ie. religion and/or "belief"-based thinking). While this may appear undeservedly heavy, please note the principle division which has driven the conflict(s) between "believers" of Christian/Islamic/Judaism faiths and "unbelievers" who do not accept/adopt a "belief"-based world view.

I presently foresee a global conflict which will (once again, as has been the case for approx. 2000 years) invariably involve the principle dichotomy of "believers" vs. "unbelievers" and (as such) involves this very problem: "belief"-based worldviews (such as the rising global power of Islam: comprised of "believers" adopting the Qur'an/Muhammad as perfect/infallible) and "science"-based worldviews which demands (ie. adheres to) a certain threshold of evidence to (at minimum) support *any* assertion, including those made by such powers involving the infallibility (and/or other related claims) of the object(s) (idols) of their "beliefs".

As such I stand in solidarity with any/all who reject "belief" as any viable basis for a fully state-sanctioned system of governance (given its overwhelming tendency to produce worldviews that do not reflect the reality whatsoever) and stand likewise with those who suffer, have suffered and shall suffer as a result of such "belief"-based systems given the amount of suffering they overwhelmingly tend to manufacture.

As a result of such considerations I find the global conflict to be rooted in just this: the Abrahamic religions (most primarily, but not limited to) are established upon assertions (ie. god-delivered books, god-inspired prophets etc.) which are egregiously false (such as the Torah/Qur'an being perfectly preserved/without error), the "gravity" of which (ie. authority) is preserved *only* by the (extent of/to which) the one/many "believes" in them. In other words: the global human "consciousness" is overwhelmingly sustained by "belief"-based worldviews/assertions that do not actually fit/match the reality. As such the atmosphere is highly dynamic and susceptible to sudden/vast shifts in "consciousness" should such "belief"-based worldviews (for whatever reason(s)) collapse.

In the words of the esteemed prophet and philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle... "What?"

 

[9-18-1]

There is no rivalry unless you choose to create one.

I did not create the 'science' vs. 'religion' rivalry: internally (personally) they are resolved, but not for others.

”Science” and “conscience” are two entirely separate concepts, their shared etymology being essentially coincidence.

...they are not. They are the same word: science. Con is a prefix.

Religion isn’t just belief, it’s what you do about your belief. Belief is something you have, religion is something you do.

No actually: in some Christian interpretations one is saved by faith, not by works. In every case "belief" is involved.

Any conflicts between different human beings that are explained or justified on the basis of any specific beliefs or religions are entirely down to those religions and shouldn’t be used to reflect beyond that. That’s how you remove the unnecessary complications, not with paragraphs and paragraphs of new ones.

Exactly the wrong way around: the problem is the institution of "belief" itself and/or "belief"-based nation-states, including:

Christianity-based ones
Israel / Judaism
"Palestine" / Islam

...which happens to be the three biggest sources of human conflict on the planet: their common denominator is "belief" as opposed so "conscience" because:

Jesus is a parody of the sun's descent and "resurrection"; else is "belief"
Moses was not a Hebrew; there was no historical "exodus" therefor no potent Judaic god (basis of the bible); else is "belief"
Muhammad is a conjunct of the two; not having actually arose until the late 7th century having adopted the title "mercy upon mankind" given the Qur'an was originally Christian texts written in Syriac: the language which transitions Hebrew into Arabic (new empire=new language).

So, in taking your advice of removing unnecessary complications, the problem is: "belief" as none of the figures above (who serve as 'idols') have a legitimate basis (ie. used as models as the basis of the empire for the "worshipers" to follow).

This is why I denote conscience as superior to religion/belief: the latter is necessarily destructive. Religion/belief is actually the antithesis of conscience - as conscience can be disregarded when one "believes" something instead of using the conscience to challenge beliefs. I therefor argue people are enslaved by their own "belief" systems; self-imposed; and they misappropriate the source of their own suffering as coming from *somewhere else*. Most obvious real-world example is Muhammadans constantly blaming Jews for everything. Whereas the former is actually suffering (man-made laws given the Qur'an is man-made) they are condemning the rest of the world for following man-made laws *WHILE BELIEVING* their laws (Shara) is/are from god (whom they call Allah).

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is the problem itself.

I barely recognize the words you're using in this context.

I believe that a clear daytime sky, on earth at this time, is always blue. That is not a religious belief.
Worse, the way you are using "conscience" is virtually impenetrable. Did you mean "conscious"?
Tom

I don't care what people "believe" - it is not a virtue. The sky is not actually blue - that is how one perceives it if unknowing of the optics producing the effect.

Conscience is only being able to see the problem (ie. state of)
Conscience + choice produces conscious.

When you remove the element of 'choice' from conscious, you derive a 'state' of conscience: the "quality" of which is determined by the quality of the questions it is able to form.

For example, one has a conscience. One chooses to ask a question: this is a conscious act. Being conscious in an ongoing state is ones consciousness.

Not how I would use the word conscience. IMO one's conscience and religious faith come from the same source. The subconscious mind.

I would never argue religious faith comes from the same source as conscience. A "belief" need not be a product conscience, but lack thereof. Suppose one "believes" the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is flat? Are either of these a virtue?

Well, we're satisfied that you isnt no etymologist.

And we are satisfied that "you isnt no" judge on language-related matters.

There are realities of being that are not reflected in physical observance. The exercise of conscience is one of them. Or simply having a conscience. I believe in my own conscience and have convictions in those beliefs. I dont think believing in something is bad whatsoever unless those beliefs are ill founded and dangerous to self and others.

There is a self creative aspect to being, and believing you can do something is important. Believing precedes learning and knowing often.

I don't understand how one can "believe" in ones own conscience. I don't "believe" in my conscience, I have it and use it: for me it is where questions come from. I don't believe in my conscience forming questions: it (I) just does (do) it. I consciously (actively) seek the answers to questions it has formed, such as "from whence human suffering?" and keep asking questions until I find the answers which lead to the biggest question (or as close as one can get). It is complicated because each person (including myself) has his/her own limitations based on whatever identity they had in the past (which distorts perception polarizing it relative to that person) and/or what they choose to identify with/as. Therefor retrospection has to be done with scrutiny realizing ones own prior blind spots in light of new information.

As such I found the source of a/the most pure form of conscience to be "I am" removed of all identity: simply a state of beingness. Not I am a Jew/Christian/Muslim/atheist/agnostic/American/White/Black/Brown etc. etc. etc. (ad infinitum with these labels of further and further division). These are all limitations and, ultimately, whatever one is 'bound' to. This relates to why I elaborated the real meaning of the word 'satan' to be: when ones life becomes an expression of his/her own binds which exist in an ongoing state (this is what the Hebrew letters mean when written out long-form). It is not a being or an entity, it is a word that describes an internal state of being, and relates to anything 'binding' a being which self-perpetuates some form of suffering (psychological/emotional/behavioral) including "belief"-based identity. That is not to say identity is wrong or evil, but "false" identities ("believing" something to be true when it is in fact not) are absolute binds.

For example, the belief "we (believers) "believe" we are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of the creator of the universe and it is good for all time..." when, in fact, the book is *not* what it is "believed" to be... can you imagine the destruction?

Don't imagine it: it is the past ~3000 years of human history (and still ongoing) beginning with an Egyptian king who was turned into a Hebrew prophet of (the Judeo-Christian) god - only to be hijacked by Muhammad's Islam (another war inside itself).

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is a vice.

And generally speaking the "sum of all fears" of those who "believe" something is: it is not true. This is where the identity/belief kicks in and attempts to defend/protect itself. What has it lead to?

Criticizing Judaism = antisemitic
Criticizing Islam = anti-Muslim / Islamophobic

Common seed? "Belief"-based fear of criticism / facing that what one "believes" is not actually true. Look what happens to Christians when they are told Jesus is a fantasy, or Muhammad was a pedophile - blood starts boiling/flowing. Why? This is what idol worship actually is: bound to a book/idol.

 

[Audie]

I did not create the 'science' vs. 'religion' rivalry: internally (personally) they are resolved, but not for others.



...they are not. They are the same word: science. Con is a prefix.



No actually: in some Christian interpretations one is saved by faith, not by works. In every case "belief" is involved.



Exactly the wrong way around: the problem is the institution of "belief" itself and/or "belief"-based nation-states, including:

Christianity-based ones
Israel / Judaism
"Palestine" / Islam

...which happens to be the three biggest sources of human conflict on the planet: their common denominator is "belief" as opposed so "conscience" because:

Jesus is a parody of the sun's descent and "resurrection"; else is "belief"
Moses was not a Hebrew; there was no historical "exodus" therefor no potent Judaic god (basis of the bible); else is "belief"
Muhammad is a conjunct of the two; not having actually arose until the late 7th century having adopted the title "mercy upon mankind" given the Qur'an was originally Christian texts written in Syriac: the language which transitions Hebrew into Arabic (new empire=new language).

So, in taking your advice of removing unnecessary complications, the problem is: "belief" as none of the figures above (who serve as 'idols') have a legitimate basis (ie. used as models as the basis of the empire for the "worshipers" to follow).

This is why I denote conscience as superior to religion/belief: the latter is necessarily destructive. Religion/belief is actually the antithesis of conscience - as conscience can be disregarded when one "believes" something instead of using the conscience to challenge beliefs. I therefor argue people are enslaved by their own "belief" systems; self-imposed; and they misappropriate the source of their own suffering as coming from *somewhere else*. Most obvious real-world example is Muhammadans constantly blaming Jews for everything. Whereas the former is actually suffering (man-made laws given the Qur'an is man-made) they are condemning the rest of the world for following man-made laws *WHILE BELIEVING* their laws (Shara) is/are from god (whom they call Allah).

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is the problem itself.



I don't care what people "believe" - it is not a virtue. The sky is not actually blue - that is how one perceives it if unknowing of the optics producing the effect.

Conscience is only being able to see the problem (ie. state of)
Conscience + choice produces conscious.

When you remove the element of 'choice' from conscious, you derive a 'state' of conscience: the "quality" of which is determined by the quality of the questions it is able to form.

For example, one has a conscience. One chooses to ask a question: this is a conscious act. Being conscious in an ongoing state is ones consciousness.



I would never argue religious faith comes from the same source as conscience. A "belief" need not be a product conscience, but lack thereof. Suppose one "believes" the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is flat? Are either of these a virtue?



And we are satisfied that "you isnt no" judge on language-related matters.



I don't understand how one can "believe" in ones own conscience. I don't "believe" in my conscience, I have it and use it: for me it is where questions come from. I don't believe in my conscience forming questions: it (I) just does (do) it. I consciously (actively) seek the answers to questions it has formed, such as "from whence human suffering?" and keep asking questions until I find the answers which lead to the biggest question (or as close as one can get). It is complicated because each person (including myself) has his/her own limitations based on whatever identity they had in the past (which distorts perception polarizing it relative to that person) and/or what they choose to identify with/as. Therefor retrospection has to be done with scrutiny realizing ones own prior blind spots in light of new information.

As such I found the source of a/the most pure form of conscience to be "I am" removed of all identity: simply a state of beingness. Not I am a Jew/Christian/Muslim/atheist/agnostic/American/White/Black/Brown etc. etc. etc. (ad infinitum with these labels of further and further division). These are all limitations and, ultimately, whatever one is 'bound' to. This relates to why I elaborated the real meaning of the word 'satan' to be: when ones life becomes an expression of his/her own binds which exist in an ongoing state (this is what the Hebrew letters mean when written out long-form). It is not a being or an entity, it is a word that describes an internal state of being, and relates to anything 'binding' a being which self-perpetuates some form of suffering (psychological/emotional/behavioral) including "belief"-based identity. That is not to say identity is wrong or evil, but "false" identities ("believing" something to be true when it is in fact not) are absolute binds.

For example, the belief "we (believers) "believe" we are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of the creator of the universe and it is good for all time..." when, in fact, the book is *not* what it is "believed" to be... can you imagine the destruction?

Don't imagine it: it is the past ~3000 years of human history (and still ongoing) beginning with an Egyptian king who was turned into a Hebrew prophet of (the Judeo-Christian) god - only to be hijacked by Muhammad's Islam (another war inside itself).

This is why "belief" is not a virtue - it is a vice.

And generally speaking the "sum of all fears" of those who "believe" something is: it is not true. This is where the identity/belief kicks in and attempts to defend/protect itself. What has it lead to?

Criticizing Judaism = antisemitic
Criticizing Islam = anti-Muslim / Islamophobic

Common seed? "Belief"-based fear of criticism / facing that what one "believes" is not actually true. Look what happens to Christians when they are told Jesus is a fantasy, or Muhammad was a pedophile - blood starts boiling/flowing. Why? This is what idol worship actually is: bound to a book/idol.

↑
Well, we're satisfied that you isnt no etymologist.

And we are satisfied that "you isnt no" judge on language-related matters.

Anyone even half clever would know that I wrote
it that way for effect.

 

[9-18-1]

↑
Well, we're satisfied that you isnt no etymologist.

And we are satisfied that "you isnt no" judge on language-related matters.

Anyone even half clever would know that I wrote
it that way for effect.

lol the only effect I got was "this person was/is offended by something and had to lash out via ad hominem".

Is it because it advances the notion that "belief" is contrary (antithesis) to conscience? Are people who "believe" something therefor offended?

"Belief" and taking offense are very closely related. Only people who identify with/as their "beliefs" become offended when the "belief" itself (not the person) is undermined (but the person becomes identified because they identify with the belief). This is essentially where religious blasphemy (laws) come from (same mentality): insecure people who can't help but take offense to anything/everything, therefor personally attack whoever is making arguments contrary to their "belief".

This is another reason "belief" is not a virtue - it turns people mad when undermined. Are people no longer capable to dialogue without emotions (attachment to "beliefs") taking over? This seems to me to be where/why human beings act like animals - giving in to base emotion rather than conscience, such as spilling blood over criticisms of religious idols.

Are you still offended? Or going to try to claim you never were in the first place? If you weren't, instead of rhetoric, why not advance the discussion but presenting an alternative view? Are you capable of this, or is your only resolve personal attacks? Or perhaps you will find an excuse?

 

[exchemist]

lol the only effect I got was "this person was/is offended by something and had to lash out via ad hominem".

Is it because it advances the notion that "belief" is contrary (antithesis) to conscience? Are people who "believe" something therefor offended?

"Belief" and taking offense are very closely related. Only people who identify with/as their "beliefs" become offended when the "belief" itself (not the person) is undermined (but the person becomes identified because they identify with the belief). This is essentially where religious blasphemy (laws) come from (same mentality): insecure people who can't help but take offense to anything/everything, therefor personally attack whoever is making arguments contrary to their "belief".

This is another reason "belief" is not a virtue - it turns people mad when undermined. Are people no longer capable to dialogue without emotions (attachment to "beliefs") taking over? This seems to me to be where/why human beings act like animals - giving in to base emotion rather than conscience, such as spilling blood over criticisms of religious idols.

Are you still offended? Or going to try to claim you never were in the first place? If you weren't, instead of rhetoric, why not advance the discussion but presenting an alternative view? Are you capable of this, or is your only resolve personal attacks? Or perhaps you will find an excuse?

You are being teased for your verbosity and lack of clarity of expression, I think. Perhaps if you tried again, in short and direct sentences, you might get a more sympathetic reception.

 

[Audie]

You are being teased for your verbosity and lack of clarity of expression, I think. Perhaps if you tried again, in short and direct sentences, you might get a more sympathetic reception.

I for one wont be seeing it if he does.

 

[exchemist]

I for one wont be seeing it if he does.

Yes I put this individual on Ignore too, a while ago. I just stumbled across this contribution while logged out.

 

[9-18-1]

You are being teased for your verbosity and lack of clarity of expression, I think. Perhaps if you tried again, in short and direct sentences, you might get a more sympathetic reception.

Sorry, but when a person polarizes against another person rather than a topic/argument, it only speaks to their inability to deal with the topic. Whatever reason they come up with is irrelevant as the nature of their being is already exposed. I only care about discussion of topics, not people having them.

I for one wont be seeing it if he does.

You will not be missed by me.

Yes I put this individual on Ignore too, a while ago. I just stumbled across this contribution while logged out.

Isn't the point of ignoring someone to... ignore them? How is "stumbled across this contribution while logged out" an excuse for reading something you originally intended to ignore?

Why not actually ignore regardless?