Desire, said the Buddha, is the cause of suffering. But without desire, what delight?
Lola wrote:If religion is defined as any system of thought. Then yes, we can say it's my religion. I do believe in the scientific method. Are you thinking of another definition of religion, satt?
I will, here, define religion in its broadest sense: A system of belief.
dyslexia wrote:Desire, said the Buddha, is the cause of suffering. But without desire, what delight?
Grasping Buddhism with logic is a methodological error.
and here i was always taught that religion was a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
methinks lola is like a drive-by on the information highway.
Lola wrote:satt, I disagree with your axiom. What now?
I admit the difficulty in the former axiom.
I can modify it in a more plausible way.
Axiom 1: God reveals in Love.
Axiom 2: For all x, if x reveals then x exists.
Fact: Existence of Love is obvious (one feels it).
__________________________________________(therefore)
Existence of God is obvious.
dyslexia wrote:and here i was always taught that religion was a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Could not you think numbers are supernatural existence? Numbers do not exist in nature in their raw forms.
i tend to think of "numbers" as utile abstractions neither metaphysical nor divine.
irrational numbers, of course!
Truly a fantasy!
Thanks CI
You just answered your own question: "Emotion is inextricably tied to our thinking patterns, and it would be impossible to equate "love" (God) with its many variations to conclude what it is.'
I have no purpose in trying to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with those that deny the existence of "God." This entire thread is in disproving the existence of God, and I haven't seen anything yet to sway my opinion, otherwise. So far, mostly what I've seen is the mis-defining of words in the English language.
As for arguments presented, what I have seen, is an atheist that is a believer (in what, I'm not sure), an abstract poet in an invalid story, one who believes "all human culture is a fabrication, artificial constructions, of an otherwise meaningless reality," and one who has found belief in some sterile confines of science without mentioning moral or ethical guidelines.
Of course, this is all open to interpretation.
dyslexia wrote:i tend to think of "numbers" as utile abstractions neither metaphysical nor divine.
Belief in a concept can be a religion. The universe could be constructed on concepts. And concept itself has a power. Without the concept of a triangle or a circle, humans could not have noticed a quantum leap.
BillW wrote:irrational numbers, of course!
Truly a fantasy!
"Two" is a fantasy, with your terminology.
"Fact: Existence of Love is obvious (one feels it)." i would venture to say that rather than a fact, we are dealing with a definition.
"belief in a concept can be a religion" concept=Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. bizarre enough for me.
conception=a new beginning
BillW wrote:conception=a new beginning
The universe has been conceived!
conception=a new beginning-a unicorn has been conceived