If No Religion - A Consideration

[night912]

So where to do concepts come from? Are concepts able to cause things independant of people? if so, can you give a sitaution in history where a concept caused something without people being involved?

Where concepts comes from, is irrelevant. The "cause" is what's relevant. And it's a strawman argument if you're trying to suggest "no human" interaction because the op is talking about the effects of humans. It's not the act, "humans created religion," that is the cause, it's the concepts/ideas that is caused the effect.

So where to do concepts come from?

Where does human come from? We can go back further and say that's the cause. That's why it's moot and a strawman argument.

Throughout history, resources, such as territory/land, food, fuel, comotatties, religion, ideas, etc are just a few examples of what caused wars.

 

[night912]

So you, Ehav4Ever, posted and I responded in whatever that's in red:

- Right, and at the end of the day most people would conclude the following:

1. Because bullets are created by people, maybe the manufacturers of bullets share some responsibility for "deaths caused by bullets projected from weapons." Irrelevant. People creating bullets wasn't the cause of death. The "bullet wound" was the cause.
2. Because bullets have been shown to, on their own, not cause death the bullet wound must have been the result of some human agency - either on purpose or by mistake. For example,
   • Bullet wound due to the dead person playing with the bullet in a dangerous way.
   • Bullet wound due to problem with the manufacture of the bullet.
   • Bullet wound due to accidental discharge.
   • Bullet wound due to friendly fire during combet exercises.
   • Bullet wound due to and intentional discharge from a weapon towards the person who died. Irrelevant. None of that addressed the cause of death. The "bullet wound" was the cause.
3. Throughtout recorded human history people are known to die in ways that do not involve bullets or people, death is a natural event and will take place even if humans are the not determined to be the cause. Strawman argument and irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the death caused by the bullet wound. You're just avoiding my point.
4. Because plants and animals can also die and have been shown in history to die for reasons that have nothing to do with bullets or humans, then death, as a process can happen w/o a human cause/source. Strawman argument and irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the death caused by the bullet wound. You're just avoiding my point.

So, it is logical to say that in some form there is a some human rosponsible since bullets don't exist naturally in nature, they are manufactured by people, and in order for the bullet to cause death their has to be some human interaction with the bullet.
Strawman argument and irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the death caused by the bullet wound. You're just avoiding my point. -




So you still haven't given a logical explanation. It's illogical to say, "in some form there is a some human rosponsible since bullets don't exist naturally in nature" then conclude that the "bullet wound" was the caused of death. A "death" occurred in reality, therefore it's illogical to say, "it doesn't count as a "real" death because it didn't happened "naturally in nature." Logic deals with reality, regardless of its nature.

1. On a cloudy, pitched black night, there is a room.
2. The room has no windows or any other kinds of openings that allows natural light from the outside to shine inside.
3. During that night, a person standing in that room can see light shining inside.

Conclusion:
There is an artificial light source inside that room that is producing the light seen by the person standing inside that room.

What we have here is, a logical argument/statement about a situation which involves artificial light and its effect on a human. If no human was involved, then there would have been no mention of light effecting humans. It will be a strawman argument if one is to argue about that particular situation, demanding for an explanation that must not and/or cannot involve humans, when the situation being discussed involves humans. That is illogical reasoning/thinking.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says God owns my creation as a taught concept, then you would have to ask the reasoning.

If they said O God is the stone as ONE and origin, a Creator, then in rational human advice, you would idealise that they are not talking about stone...for no human is the body of a planet.

Yet that is where science resources its energy from, as any form machination or resource.....in reference to GOD.

So when you have to discuss who is a rational human, was science of the occult rational or was human biological Genetic healer studier correct?

For that is the basis of why occult Temple pyramids was stopped as a practice and surely you are not going to argue about machines and machines controlled by human beings are you?

For science in any form of talking is just a concept of a belief of a story that is group discussed and agreed or disagreed upon.

In life that is just named as a philosophical discussion.

So as you all know, no human being with a machine created any creation, as a rational life.....so why do you think you are allowed to argue about it today?

Real reasoning, control, coercion, greed, power mongering, machine ownership use of machines to cause various forms of attacks on our Nature, in full knowledge of those attacks, yet it must make you feel very powerful to do it....to be enabled to secretly harm others and think that no body else owns the realisation of it.

Guess what, humans in life have come to a self realisation about being abused, and are starting to demonstrate against it. More of us than there are greedy irrational humans, just like it was in the past, religions and human laws stopped scientific occult abuse before.....why you think you can coerce and reason yourselves into a statement for public coercion.

And it was never religious idealism, which is just a human spiritual practice of storytelling and behaviour beliefs involving lawful human social conditions....unlike science that says it will do whatever it wants, force particular group beliefs on everyone else, just because you own the machines to cause change.

Makes no rational common sense for science of the occult history to be complaining about religious idealism, when they are the only practice that is in human historic terms/references illegal. To harm the life that the history, natural planet supports existing.

If you said to a human, you know natural light owns a movement of gases upon the face of the water in the great deep of space. And humans cellular function depends on the light function and that of the explanation O circular movement as O into G change back into O full cell and then O D/D split. What the medical definition stated.

Yes your bio life functions in the name of G O D as a O cell due to natural light movement in the Earth Heavens....exactly how it was discussed and taught as relative to life existence, for if that movement changed, then our cells will die.

As science increases natural light burning gas mass x double natural light, is it any wonder that you killed us off before? Rational when you want to be rational, and as irrational as science of the occult is, when you try to rationalise scientific destruction on and with a purpose to try to cause it again.

 

[Windwalker]

That is actually not it at all. It is pretty well known that watches don't create and themselves and they are designed. Also, most watches bear the mark of the manufacturer. Just because there is a watch doesn't mean that there is an "intelligent" designer it simply means that someone designed and built. Further the English word watch is often described as, "a small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist."

This statement denotes the obvious that someone created a timepeice that is normally worn in a particular way is used by peopel in a particular way. I think you would hard pressed to find someone who would not agree that the English definiton of the word watch as a noun is a man-made device created to tell time. Further, your reference to the "Watchmaker's argument fallacy" means that there is a creator of a watch.

Most people don't use the word "watch" as a noun in the way you described as a something that is not man-made.

I'm not sure what you thought you were addressing in that response, but it really didn't have anything to do with what I was saying. I brought up the fallacy of the Watchmaker's argument to point out, that what you call "man-made" starts with this notion of intentional design, whereas what we are dealing with are organic, natural processes. I am arguing that religions are not "man-made" in the sense that they were designed like a watch (which is how Creationist view reality, as opposed to natural evolution). Your response didn't address that.

Again, how one wants to rationalize is not important. If you want to prove that structures of consciousness are not started and perpuated by humans than give an example of one that did not start with a human was evolved without human involvement.

Structures of consciousness are naturally arising frameworks through which we translate and interpret the meaning of experiences. They are a set of filters whereby we process experience into meaning. These complex systems, acts as our set of eyes to reality. They are in fact very largely defined by the existing culture and its languages and worldviews, or its main set of eyes it interprets and understands reality through. This creates through these structures, a "consensus reality" for that collective.

These naturally evolve and change, as the world or the environment they exist within places a certain pressure upon them. The result is massive shifts in how one sees and interprets the world through a new emergent framework, which transcends but includes the previous stage, or level of structure it previously used.

None of those are "designed" like a watch. They are naturally arising fundamental structures on their own, developmentally.

Here's a couple references for you about these:

AN OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF JEAN GEBSER

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

If it started with humans and is perpetuated by humans it is still man-made.

Ok then, given that criteria, I will then say that it is not man-made, because it was not started by humans, intentionally. It evolved in humans, but that is not the same thing as saying "man-made". That is a stretch of the language I would be unwilling to accept.

If it doesn't exist w/o humans than people cause the structures of consciousness to evolve.

How? Are human brains, "man-made" because without humans there would be no human brain? Of course human structures of consciousness require human participation. But that do not make them "man-made". That makes the a naturally evolved human structure of consciousness in order for the organism to survive. It's evolutionarily designed, not "man made".

So what really are you intending to say in all of this? Obviously, religions wouldn't exist without humans, but neither would human social groups. But the human social groups, are driven by evolution. They are not human inventions. They are natural systems that were naturally inherited through nature. Nature made, not "man made".

So religion then, is an evolutionary adaptation to support the social system. That humans participate it that, means they are part of the components that makes up that system. They are participant is its formation, and its evolution. It's a system, not an invention.

 

[rational experiences]

Groups make claims in human life for the purpose of the group.

A natural spiritual teaching said we live on O one only planet, common sense.
A natural spiritual teaching said we are just one human, yet express diversity, common sense.

If that one human lived as just one self, which we all are, then you would only live to survive until you no longer existed, common sense.

Any other form of discussion is done by humans on behalf of group purpose, proving the illogical thinking process of groups.

Therefore in one life, self life, many groups argue against other group purpose, on behalf of the group, claiming it is representing the continuance of the one self.

Common sense....how many one selves actually imply it?