How far into realistic self effiency are you?

[Axe-Battler]

I'll just say I have been into about every kind of theory, philosophy, religion, metaphysical science, etc, etc...

And none of them are worth a dime.

So I've abandoned all my thoughts and intellectualism and started only conerning myself with being the following...

1) always maintain a positive and happy attitude.
2) be as realistic as possible with yourself and as honest with others as possible, i.e don't bullcrap around by thinking of concepts and religions.
3) get rid of the "belief" system. What I mean is to just stop with the damn "I believe", "that's my opinion", "I believe in", and realize belief in ideas/religions/concepts that do not do anything for you, or have any reasoning to them are non existant and irrelevant.
4) Stay physically and mentally disciplined.
5) Always be as merciful and compassionate as possible, exceptions are when a social injustice takes place.
6) NEVER conclude to anything you know...always be waiting for new stuff to add in to your psyche.
7) educate yourself on stuff that can be useful, which can include even "spiritual" practices such as healing affirmations, or holistic eating, good doctors, what's really going in politics and the world without getting sources through incomplete media programs.

[Sadreddine]

I'll just say I have been into about every kind of theory, philosophy, religion, metaphysical science, etc, etc...

And none of them are worth a dime.

I didn't know we had an enlightened, all-knowing Buddha between ourselves. Unfortunately, this statement only proves your very limited understanding of things.

So I've abandoned all my thoughts and intellectualism

This is an ugly thing to say.

Your list is good, though. If we exclude the points taken directly from your initial hypothesis, that is.

[mrjesushat]

Well, acidic criticism aside, this is a good sign, ultimately. You've chosen to be independent and to reason on your own. This puts you at the place where most of the world's great thinkers began. One could argue that this is where most of the world's religions started, too.

The irony would be if you became a history-changing guru, and then people turned your ideas into a rigid, unforgiving belief-system that required mindless obedience and a determined dedication to faith, rather than thought.

There are precedents, you know.

[Bokks]

I'll just say I have been into about every kind of theory, philosophy, religion, metaphysical science, etc, etc...

And none of them are worth a dime.

So I've abandoned all my thoughts and intellectualism and started only conerning myself with being the following...

1) always maintain a positive and happy attitude.
2) be as realistic as possible with yourself and as honest with others as possible, i.e don't bullcrap around by thinking of concepts and religions.
3) get rid of the "belief" system. What I mean is to just stop with the damn "I believe", "that's my opinion", "I believe in", and realize belief in ideas/religions/concepts that do not do anything for you, or have any reasoning to them are non existant and irrelevant.
4) Stay physically and mentally disciplined.
5) Always be as merciful and compassionate as possible, exceptions are when a social injustice takes place.
6) NEVER conclude to anything you know...always be waiting for new stuff to add in to your psyche.
7) educate yourself on stuff that can be useful, which can include even "spiritual" practices such as healing affirmations, or holistic eating, good doctors, what's really going in politics and the world without getting sources through incomplete media programs.

I agree with all of these except for 3). Some people in the world today can say that religion is outdated, or never had a point, but like it or not we are were we are because of religion, and many people still benefit from it, some people who would otherwise be angry, hateful people have changed due to faith, Of course, you have the opposite, with people who would normally be considerate and... sane... become mad with evangilism, and try to kill everyone who doesn't believe what they do. So if I were you I'd change 3 to "admit to yourself that everyone has their own beliefs, and are free to do so." which eliminates the crazy evangelical kill you when I don't like your god mentality so many people possess.
One irony I've always seen is the fact that evangelists have in the past killed so many because they think they're going to hell, and want to "save their souls". Well, why not just let them lie in the grave they "dug" themselves (by the meaning of such a faith, I don't believe that) and make sure that their stay on earth is as pleasant as possible before eternal damnation?

[Irishman]

1) always maintain a positive and happy attitude.
2) be as realistic as possible with yourself and as honest with others as possible, i.e don't bullcrap around by thinking of concepts and religions.
3) get rid of the "belief" system. What I mean is to just stop with the damn "I believe", "that's my opinion", "I believe in", and realize belief in ideas/religions/concepts that do not do anything for you, or have any reasoning to them are non existant and irrelevant.
4) Stay physically and mentally disciplined.
5) Always be as merciful and compassionate as possible, exceptions are when a social injustice takes place.
6) NEVER conclude to anything you know...always be waiting for new stuff to add in to your psyche.
7) educate yourself on stuff that can be useful, which can include even "spiritual" practices such as healing affirmations, or holistic eating, good doctors, what's really going in politics and the world without getting sources through incomplete media programs.

I find your rules self defeating. First, you say that philosophy is not worth a dime, but here you state a philosophy.

Second, you are what? Twenty? You have certainly not read all of the philosophers, the concepts of the mind, the rational of knowledge and all of the boundless information which philosophy can provide.

Religion and metaphysical science are areas of philosophy. You have dissmissed all of these thing very prematurely (i am not suggesting you find religion, simply that you are making a rather rash decision.)

How could you even follow these rules,

NEVER conclude to anything you know...always be waiting for new stuff to add in to your psyche.

You have already concluded that philosophy (which encompases nearly every aspect of life) and religion are bunk. You have broken your sixth rule before you have started.

7) educate yourself on stuff that can be useful, which can include even "spiritual" practices such as healing affirmations, or holistic eating, good doctors, what's really going in politics and the world without getting sources through incomplete media programs.

So you encourage political thought, but not political philosophy? Philosophy is the way in which we thikn about the world, you cannot dissmiss it.

[MET]

1) impossible
2) being realistic is good, being honest not necesary.
3) belief is what makes strong
4) that is important
5) so your not alowed to hurt someone who hurted you first? or does that count under social injustice
6) life is buld upon conclusions
7) you always educate yourself. you use everything you hear, see, smell, feel and taste. when needed.

nice ideas though.

[Axe-Battler]

Second, you are what? Twenty? You have certainly not read all of the philosophers, the concepts of the mind, the rational of knowledge and all of the boundless information which philosophy can provide.

Religion and metaphysical science are areas of philosophy. You have dissmissed all of these thing very prematurely (i am not suggesting you find religion, simply that you are making a rather rash decision.)

I've read quite a bit, it all is black and white, or ends up as an intellectual addiction.

You have already concluded that philosophy (which encompases nearly every aspect of life) and religion are bunk. You have broken your sixth rule before you have started.

You're intentionally creating flaws in what I've said. This is false.

So you encourage political thought, but not political philosophy? Philosophy is the way in which we thikn about the world, you cannot dissmiss it.

What you say here doesn't make sense, I can't see any possible way of how you came to this conclusion on what I've said.

I didn't know we had an enlightened, all-knowing Buddha between ourselves. Unfortunately, this statement only proves your very limited understanding of things.

You are also intentionally creating flaws in what I said,
1) I never said anywhere that I knew everything, you just assumed that's what I was saying.
2) You telling me I have a very little understanding of things, simply shows the same for you for saying something like that in the first place.

@Lector, very good thinking.

1) impossible
2) being realistic is good, being honest not necesary.
3) belief is what makes strong
4) that is important
5) so your not alowed to hurt someone who hurted you first? or does that count under social injustice
6) life is buld upon conclusions
7) you always educate yourself. you use everything you hear, see, smell, feel and taste. when needed.

1) meaning you practice at it, obviosuly you can't be that way constantly.
2)Lie when you have to, honest as in "what do you feel", "don't hide what you feel if you don't want to"
3)belief is only good for "I liked this movie", "I hate democrats", "we'll take a vote", Not good for "I believe in religion xxx", when used like this it does nothing for anybody.
4) skip
5) someone hurts you, then beat the crap out of them, "social injustice" has just taken place.
6) When people conclude anything they limit themselves and begin to build a "belief foundation", which traps the mind and keeps it from expanding.
7) Stay educated on anything that can be useful.

[Sadreddine]

You are also intentionally creating flaws in what I said,
1) I never said anywhere that I knew everything, you just assumed that's what I was saying.
2) You telling me I have a very little understanding of things, simply shows the same for you for saying something like that in the first place.

I'm sorry if my words offended you, I was just trying to lessen your ego into reasonable levels. Sometimes harsh words are needed for that.

You said: "I've been into about every philosophy, ideology, religion..." and concluded "none of them are worth a dime". This implies that such is your conclusion, based upon understanding "about every religion/ideology/philosophy". Now, this statement is not only challenging (and possibly offending also) to several people in this forum, but gives an impression of you "knowing it all".

I just reminded you that your understanding of things is very limited. Next time you want to present your ideas, try not to step over others in the process and spit at them, and maybe I (or we) will consider your claims with more interest, or at least with a more positive approach.

[MET]

3)belief is only good for "I liked this movie", "I hate democrats", "we'll take a vote", Not good for "I believe in religion xxx", when used like this it does nothing for anybody.
5) someone hurts you, then beat the crap out of them, "social injustice" has just taken place.
6) When people conclude anything they limit themselves and begin to build a "belief foundation", which traps the mind and keeps it from expanding.

3) religion did a lot for many people.
5) i still don't get it. guess it's me. but then you are not allowed to beat the crap out of someone who hurts you first? that is obviously the case, but you are allowed to hurt that person as wel. in my opninion.
6)so, when you don't know how to use a hammer, and you find out how it works (as you should us it), wich is a conclusion, then you aren't allowed to conclude that that is how works, cause you can't conclude to anything.

[iudas]

All you said simply means you do not consider yourself intelligent enough to think, consider and tolerate the things around you. It simply means that you abandon your intelligence, of course, assuming you had any before this...

I hope the moderators don't interpret this post like they usually interpret posts, and say it's flaming...

[Irishman]

I've read quite a bit, it all is black and white, or ends up as an intellectual addiction.

What are you reading? Serious philisophical work in all areas is fair and ballanced. If you mean black and white in the fact that the paper will draw a conclusion from its argument, then obviously. One philisophical paper is going to have one conclusion. Then you read an opponents objection. The problem I see is not a problem with religion/philosophy but a problem with the way in which you view these subjects.

There are very few Black and White philisophical essays (religion can be different) but it just seems like you are giving up. Maybe you don't like believing an argument only to have it crushed in the next paper you read? I don't know but all I can say is that I would not give up on your intellectual journey.

You're intentionally creating flaws in what I've said. This is false.

No I'm Not. Look you said,

I'll just say I have been into about every kind of theory, philosophy, religion, metaphysical science, etc, etc...

And none of them are worth a dime.

You are dismissing these subjects without reading well into them. And dont tell me you have read through the whole of Philosophy because my 75 year old PHIL professors haven't read it iall, there is just so much material.

You are dismissing three very large and important fields of thought which goes against your,

6) NEVER conclude to anything you know...always be waiting for new stuff to add in to your psyche.

But haven't you already concluded that these three subjects aren't worth a dime? Yes you have, therefore your argument is self defeating.

[Ummon]

Who knows?

[mrjesushat]

There's no greater form of entertainment than watching a clash of agendas.

Is this OP to be taken to task by some of you for daring to create his own belief system? If so, is it not reasonable to say that he will be challenged or even attacked simply because his way of thinking is perceived as some sort of threat to the views of others who desire to belong or be a part of someone else's system of thought?

He has offered us his ideas about the world and how to live in it. Are we not bound by basic courtesy to respect that?

[Sadreddine]

There's no greater form of entertainment than watching a clash of agendas.

Is this OP to be taken to task by some of you for daring to create his own belief system? If so, is it not reasonable to say that he will be challenged or even attacked simply because his way of thinking is perceived as some sort of threat to the views of others who desire to belong or be a part of someone else's system of thought?

He has offered us his ideas about the world and how to live in it. Are we not bound by basic courtesy to respect that?

Consider the form, and not only the content. And do not even think that if you belong to a certain "group" you don't have your own understanding of things and your own ideas. It looks by your statements as if you considered anyone belonging to a certain "group" as a mindless drone unable to decide for himself, which is not only wrong but narrow-minded.

[mrjesushat]

Consider the form, and not only the content.

It was just a simple reminder not to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

And do not even think that if you belong to a certain "group" you don't have your own understanding of things and your own ideas.

True, and one of the chief reasons why the realities of group psychology have little to do with group agendas and much to do with individual survival and prosperity. Or, to put it simply, people pretend adherence to group rules and beliefs in order to benefit themselves, and break with these beliefs and rules whenever and wherever they feel they can get away with it.

It looks by your statements as if you considered anyone belonging to a certain "group" as a mindless drone unable to decide for himself, which is not only wrong but narrow-minded.

It would appear that way, wouldn't it? Let me clarify, then.

Actually, I believe that persons adhering to said groups are drones who are unwilling to use their minds, largely because they lack the courage either to:
a.) examine existence on their own
b.) upset the group or system to which they "belong" by breaking with tradition

Such people are quite able to decide for themselves, but lack the testes to do it. It is, after all, far easier to take your marching orders from someone else, because in the end, if things don't go well, you can blame them. Much of human existence, my friend, is about running from responsibility, and from any and all feelings of guilt, sorrow, sadness, anger, frustration or negativity.

This is why rich white women in the States are so fond of eating Xanax.

[Sadreddine]

Such people are quite able to decide for themselves, but lack the testes to do it. It is, after all, far easier to take your marching orders from someone else, because in the end, if things don't go well, you can blame them. Much of human existence, my friend, is about running from responsibility, and from any and all feelings of guilt, sorrow, sadness, anger, frustration or negativity.

A good way to oversimplify things, indeed. And much guess work and prejudices, too.

There is an important flaw in your argument, which is simply that in many religions one follows the guidelines set by God. The inspiration, revelation of God towards humanity. This is not "marching your orders from someone else". It is about following the precepts of God, and not a man. A religion is not fascism or marxism. You are not following a man's ideology.

Up to this point, you'd probably be smiling and thinking "yeah, it's about a man fooling others about spreading the message of God for his personal agenda, and letting others follow his ideology". I've been an atheist myself, you know. Fort many years, that is. I'm very used to that false sense of intellectual superiority. Not that I care about it anymore, though.

[mrjesushat]

A good way to oversimplify things, indeed. And much guess work and prejudices, too.

Huh. I can't figure out what you are identifying as prejudice. Could you point it out more precisely, please? Maybe give me a breakdown of specifically where my thinking is prejudicial?

There is an important flaw in your argument, which is simply that in many religions one follows the guidelines set by God.

This is a question of personal belief, not objective fact.

The inspiration, revelation of God towards humanity.

This requires some proof in order to be credible. One does not simply say, "Oh, okay. God said so."

This is not "marching your orders from someone else". It is about following the precepts of God, and not a man. A religion is not fascism or marxism. You are not following a man's ideology.

Again, a question of personal belief, without regard to the evidence of objective reality. There is no rational reason to believe that one individual should be more in tune with the will of a divine or cosmic creator than any other individual.

Up to this point, you'd probably be smiling and thinking "yeah, it's about a man fooling others about spreading the message of God for his personal agenda, and letting others follow his ideology".

Hardly. Often, religious leaders are quite convinced that they are conveying the holy and divine truth to the world. This does not, however, mean that they are doing so. There is a difference between believing a thing to be true, and it actually being true. But you identify a genuine problem, too, in that there are definitely people who recognize religion for the tool that it is, and employ it to manipulate and control others for their own benefit. Bear in mind here that I am weird, and do not confine the use of the term "religion" to matters of organized spiritual belief. I hold that religion is any belief system in which a person has become so invested, they cannot accept any notions that fall outside the boundaries of said system. So, I'd apply "religion" to excesses of faith in Science, Economics, Philosophy, Christianity, Islam, Aliens, Conspiracy theories, and so on, without prejudice.

I've been an atheist myself, you know. Fort many years, that is. I'm very used to that false sense of intellectual superiority. Not that I care about it anymore, though.

How strange. Why do you assume that I am an atheist? I am most definitely not an athiest. I am a firm believer in a cosmic creator...literally, a will and mind that gave rise to the whole Universe that we can see, and all the universes that we have yet to discover. I simply hold that an entity (if we can apply any terms to a principle so utterly beyond our capacity to comprehend) which created whole universes cannot possibly be petty, simplistic, wrathful and cruel. Nor can said entity be too terribly concerned with giving out rules and regulations regarding modes of dress and choices of meal.

God, my friend, is beyond us. God's will is beyond us too, save for where it is evident. And I hold that it is evident in every mote of dust and grain of sand and blade of grass. These things do as they should, whereas humanity does not. This is the essential crux of the human tragicomedy. We have just enough brains to act really stupid, and come up with lots of excuses and self-deceptions in order to avoid looking at the reality of our own silliness.