Is there any evidence for thinking?

[Raymott]

<Part 2>

By the way, what is the difference between a superstition, and a religious belief?

first of all, I'd better explain each term then compare them to each other.

1- what is superstition?
it's a kind of illogical idea which invented by one's imagination, like fabulous creatures, legendary characters and we put them into our real life and live with them in our imagination.
That’s similar to my idea of religion. Not exactly, but close.

2- what is religion?
it consists of two parts;

A; it might be a program or just belief that could be either logical or illogical invented by humans that can divert the other humans by its details. It may talk about God, or gods, souls, heaven, hell, angles and devil .... You can simply read a lot of religious ideas made by human beings with their various interests. For example, god here is a powerful human or a father who has a son called Jesus and an advisor named Gabriel or "Holy spirit" who helps him when he cannot solve his problem.
Is there a religion that identifies the archangel Gabriel with the “Holy Spirit”?
I don’t think there are any Christian sects that believe Jesus needs an advisor to help him with his problems. J But you might know of one.
You can easily see such this god with eyes, ears, hands, and the shape of a human; you can also look for him in the skies or heaven in your imagination.
I agree that you’re more likely to find him in the latter.
God can be an employee, when science developed then this employee went back. For example, that time people believed in God, they said God created "fever". When science discovered "microbes" causing fever then they said that god should be a retired employee. because human discovered the factor of fever.
I think you are saying that God is used by humans to explain things they don’t understand. The more humans understand, the less God is needed, so he shrinks each time something about nature is discovered. But surely you’re not admitting that this is what religion is. Or are you?
(We capitalise “God” in English when we’re talking about a certain god. If we are talking about nonspecific gods, we use “god”. God is the name of a god.)

The ideal shape of god is as a human.
Not in all religions
He created humans and when humans die if commit a crime or evil things they should be sent to hell. and if they did good things, they will be sent to heaven, then they will be condemned to live in a boring life for ever either in heaven or hell.
Um … I don’t think anyone believes this last line. Are you being facetious?
Are you describing religion, or are you giving your opinion about Christianty?
What I asked for was the difference between superstition and religion – not between superstition and Christianity.You see, I believe they are the same thing, and I wanted to know what you thought the difference was. But under religion, you are simply giving an incorrect account of one religion. I meant religion in general, as the first half of your first paragrasph under A begins to address well. But you haven’t explained how this differs from superstition.

B; it is a logical ready-made program sent by God to his messengers and leads humans in the road of the unknown world. its ability to answer human's vital question from details to whole including who are you? why do you come? and where are you going?

Oh, I thought that part A was part of your definition of religion as a concept. Now I see it is giving an example of a false religion, and part B will be an account of the true religion. But I meant “religion” as a concept. Not “what is the difference between a “false religion” and the “true religion” – but what is the difference between a religion and a superstition. Do you understand that point? So, can I infer that you are saying that there is no difference between a superstition and a false religion? Perhaps if we exclude Islam, we actually agree that religion is superstition.


But continue.

[taghavi]

I'd better call spritual advisor as Clerics right now. and i will describe it in detail in a few posts.

Thanks, they fall on a spectrum, a spectrum in which all factors can help each other. Why do you omit clerics? They are all human beings like those examples and may help me as a human, don't they?



SPECIAL and Proud; Yes, exactly, when YOU try hard and get a good student you would be proud, because you yourself want to try hard, it is a special character in a human. Do any animals try hard to get a good position, or they just rather like to do any thing they need? You dont need to put your step ultra your position, but you think it is better for you among people or society, here your "idea" has a special role and getting to this goal that is another special thing common in human beings. no animal wishes to become a good one and try to do so hard.


Aha! Here is your problem, You think that you don't like to be perfect, if you did so, you would stop learning. if you learn sth today, you will add to your previous information tomorrow. if you learn sth tomorrow, you will add another piece of information the day after tomrrow. Now you can tell me when do you feel you stop seeking sth you dont know? these step by step activites going to the level perfection exist in your innate and you cannot flee from them.
about people that you may think they are fixed in a level, in fact, they are not so. people might by at least their looking at sth or someone, in fact, seek their question, do you ask them whether they want to know or not? Yes these curiosity that is common in animals and even other creatures is a kind of seeking perfection as i said before every creature has their own content and degree to full it. Willy-nilly, this "seeking" is going advance to the perfection level. However, you are responsible to know more than any other creatures because this world is created for you to seek more.

Because, 7 astral bodies refers to some rulles and expresion lead to astronomy. Why does it relate to religion idea? if i considered it one of the religious aspects it would then be a rediculos subject.

[taghavi]

Part 2;

No difference between what I meant an angel called "Gabriel" who is god's advisor or that of you think Jesus. anyway these creatures are special for God as christs believes and they entiteld Jesus "son" of God.

Do you really agree that I find God like a human? ha ha!

but i meant "God" a name of god as type 1 believes in and he is a certain god according to most people.

Yes, not in all religions. I agree with you.

Believe me, I am not being facetious. Christian religion is "respectful"for me. I am just talking about religions made by humans. Please be patient. ok?
If i want to compare between religion ideas and superstitions I should refer to the root of this thinking came into your mind, do you agree?

Yes, I believe that religions made by human beings is similar to superstions.


I would like to explain part B if you want. but I need your agreement. Do you like me to explain more about part B and compare it with A or not?
I have a lot of things on these parts to tell you. But if you are not ready, I will stop here.

[Raymott]

Part 2;

Do you really agree that I find God like a human? ha ha!
Well you did write “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” But now I understand that you were being sarcastic. It’s not easy to tell. I think that your entire Part A was sarcastic, wasn’t it?

Believe me, I am not being facetious. Christian religion is "respectful"for me. I am just talking about religions made by humans. Please be patient. ok?
I’m trying to. But some of your writing is hard to understand, so it’s even harder when you’re being sarcastic, or when you say “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” but you don’t mean it.

If i want to compare between religion ideas and superstitions I should refer to the root of this thinking came into your mind, do you agree?
You are trying to explain how the root of this thinking – that religions and superstions – came into my mind. Is that right? If so, no I don’t think that’s relevant. Besides, all you can do is say what you think is the reason that I make this statement. But what I think or why I think it should have no bearing upon your comparison between superstition and religion – unless you skipping over a few steps.

Yes, I believe that religions made by human beings is similar to superstions.
Well we agree on that!

I would like to explain part B if you want. but I need your agreement. Do you like me to explain more about part B and compare it with A or not?
Well, I’d prefer an explanation of Part A first if you’re going to compare part B to it.
I take it that Part A was a description of a human-made religion, Christianty, and you are going to compare it to Part B, Islam. Would that be right?
The problem with this concept is that Part A was not a faithful description of Christianty. It was a travesty.
Is Part A an honest description of your understanding of Christianty? For example, do you really believe that a Christian believes that “then they will be condemned to live in a boring life for ever either in heaven or hell.”? If you do, you are badly misinformed. If you don’t, then you are being facetious. You have erected a “straw man”, and like all straw men, it will be easy for you to demolish with another superstition that doesn’t sound as silly.
Part B is probably unnecessary if you are only going to explain Islam and assert that it is not man-made, and not silly, and hence not like all other religions. Most people would take that attitude to their religion. Or do you have some original content for Part B?

[taghavi]

Hello,

First of all, did you read part 1 that I had posted before part 2? wouldn't you like to have any suggestion to part 1?

Originally Posted by Raymott

Part 2;

Do you really agree that I find God like a human? ha ha!
Well you did write “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” But now I understand that you were being sarcastic. It’s not easy to tell. I think that your entire Part A was sarcastic, wasn’t it?i mean "the ideal shape of god which most people made their religions is as a human". Yes. Sarcastic!

Believe me, I am not being facetious. Christian religion is "respectful"for me. I am just talking about religions made by humans. Please be patient. ok?
I’m trying to. But some of your writing is hard to understand, so it’s even harder when you’re being sarcastic, or when you say “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” but you don’t mean it. still, i am telling you, I was not being sarcastic "Christian" at all. please be careful.
If i want to compare between religion ideas and superstitions I should refer to the root of this thinking came into your mind, do you agree?
You are trying to explain how the root of this thinking – that religions and superstions – came into my mind. Is that right? If so, no I don’t think that’s relevant. dont you think that is relevant? if it is so, why do you ask me the difference between "religion ideas" and "superstition"? you have already thought there is a similarity in two concepts as you asked me. now you want to know the difference between them, yes?. Besides, all you can do is say what you think is the reason that I make this statement. So, what's your reason? But what I think or why I think it should have no bearing upon your comparison between superstition and religion – unless you skipping over a few steps. Don't you generalize religion ideas to superstition and vice versa?

Yes, I believe that religions made by human beings is similar to superstions.
Well we agree on that!
uh! yes
I would like to explain part B if you want. but I need your agreement. Do you like me to explain more about part B and compare it with A or not?
Well, I’d prefer an explanation of Part A first if you’re going to compare part B to it. Do you like me to explain part A?
I take it that Part A was a description of a human-made religion, Yes, exactly. Christianty, Not at all .and you are going to compare it to Part B, YES. Islam Again, not at all Would that be right? half of your guess is correct.
The problem with this concept is that Part A was not a faithful description of Christianty.Definitly, it's not about Christianity. It was a travesty. As i mentioned before and you agree on , it's about sth that human built and not on Christianity and the Jews. Is Part A an honest description of your understanding of Christianty? NO, I was not describing Christianity. For example, do you really believe that a Christian believes that “then they will be condemned to live in a boring life for ever either in heaven or hell.”? If you do, you are badly misinformed. If you don’t, then you are being facetious. being facetious for human made religion and not Christianity.You have erected a “straw man”, and like all straw men, it will be easy for you to demolish with another superstition that doesn’t sound as silly. No raymott, Why do you think wrong about my ideas? I deginitly do believe in christian religion, I do respect christian religion, please be patient, and listen to me what I mean.
Part B is probably unnecessary if you are only going to explain Islam no i am not talking about only Islam.and assert that it is not man-made, and not silly, and hence not like all other religions. Most people would take that attitude to their religion. Or do you have some original content for Part B? If you let me talk more you can understand i not only wouldnt be sarcastic about Christian and even Jews, but I would view them respectfully and defend them. If you dont like to hear from my ideas, ok, I wont talk to you about them.
It depends on you!

[Raymott]

Part 1
<Me in Blue>
I'd better call spritual advisor as Clerics right now. I don’t understand this.
I better call spiritual advisors Clerics. (Spiritual advisors should be called Clerics.)
I better call a spiritual advisor, a Cleric? (I better consult a Cleric)
and i will describe it in detail in a few posts.
Actually, I was asking you what you believe, not what your local cleric believes.

Thanks, they fall on a spectrum, a spectrum in which all factors can help each other. Why do you omit clerics? They are all human beings like those examples and may help me as a human, don't they?
Yes, but why should I include priests? Surely if I go to a priest, I am asking for religious-type advice. He would advise me to Let Jesus into my Heart. If I knew him and he was a decent sort of bloke I might include him among “acquaintances”. At least he would keep my problems confidential, but I don’t think his advice would necessarily help much.

SPECIAL and Proud; Yes, exactly, when YOU try hard and get a good student you would be proud, because you yourself want to try hard, it is a special character in a human.
That’s right. But there’s no reason to be proud simply of being a human. Maybe I am pleased I am a human and not a snake, for example. But pride isn’t the right word.

Do any animals try hard to get a good position, or they just rather like to do any thing they need?
Yes they do. There is often a pecking order among animal societies, and there is “pride” in an animal who is the “alpha male”.
You dont need to put your step ultra (?)your position, but you think it is better for you among people or society, here your "idea" has a special role and getting to this goal that is another special thing common in human beings. no animal wishes to become a good one and try to do so hard.
I don’t understand this paragraph. I think you’re just repeating the point though, that I should be proud to be a human.

Aha! Here is your problem, You think that you don't like to be perfect, if you did so, you would stop learning. if you learn sth today, you will add to your previous information tomorrow.
One day I will die. No matter how much I have learnt, I will not be perfect. Perfect human beings don’t exist.

However, you are responsible to know more than any other creatures because this world is created for you to seek more.
Really? The world was created for me to learn? J Wouldn’t I have to be more than a little arrogant to think that?

Because, 7 astral bodies refers to some rulles and expresion lead to astronomy. Why does it relate to religion idea? if i considered it one of the religious aspects it would then be a rediculos subject.
No it’s got nothing to do with astronomy. Why do you think that? Just because they’re called astral bodies doesn’t mean they’re related to stars!

[Raymott]

Part 2;

Well you did write “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” But now I understand that you were being sarcastic. It’s not easy to tell. I think that your entire Part A was sarcastic, wasn’t it?i mean "the ideal shape of god which most people made their religions is as a human". Yes. Sarcastic!
OK, you were being sarcastic. Hold that thought for another ten lines.

But some of your writing is hard to understand, so it’s even harder when you’re being sarcastic, or when you say “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” but you don’t mean it. still, i am telling you, I was not being sarcastic "Christian" at all. please be careful.
Please taghavi, you’ve just written six lines above this that you were being sarcastic.
Make up your mind. The dominant mood in Part A, as I read it, is sarcasm.

dont you think that is relevant? if it is so, why do you ask me the difference between "religion ideas" and "superstition"? you have already thought there is a similarity in two concepts as you asked me. now you want to know the difference between them, yes?.
I ask because I want to know what you think is the difference.

Do you like me to explain part A?
Yes please, without the sarcasm. Unless you are going to use sarcasm in Part B. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a proper comparison.

I take it that Part A was a description of a human-made religion, Yes, exactly. Christianty, Not at all
No? How many other religions have Jesus in them?

Anyhow, yes, you could explain Part A against, preferably without the sarcasm. It’s not that I can’t handle sarcasm – it has its place. It’s just that, for linguistic reasons, I’m having trouble understanding whether you’re being sarcastic or not.
You admit "the ideal shape of god which most people made their religions is as a human". Yes. Sarcastic! and then you deny it.,
So a straightforward explication of Part A would be good.

[taghavi]

Part 1
<Me in Blue>
I don't like to make you sad. If my ideas are annoying you. please tell me.
I'd better call spritual advisor as Clerics right now. I don’t understand this.
I better call spiritual advisors Clerics. (Spiritual advisors should be called Clerics.)Thank you, yes I mean this.
I better call a spiritual advisor, a Cleric? (I better consult a Cleric)
and i will describe it in detail in a few posts.
Actually, I was asking you what you believe, not what your local cleric believes. Ok, I only will talk about what I believe.

Thanks, they fall on a spectrum, a spectrum in which all factors can help each other. Why do you omit clerics? They are all human beings like those examples and may help me as a human, don't they?
Yes, but why should I include priests? Surely if I go to a priest, I am asking for religious-type advice. He would advise me to Let Jesus into my Heart. If I knew him and he was a decent sort of bloke I might include him among “acquaintances”. At least he would keep my problems confidential, but I don’t think his advice would necessarily help much. Can I talk about this subject in a few weeks? I hope I won't forget.

SPECIAL and Proud; Yes, exactly, when YOU try hard and get a good student you would be proud, because you yourself want to try hard, it is a special character in a human.
That’s right. But there’s no reason to be proud simply of being a human. Yes, only a human whoes bahaviour is as a human should be proud. Maybe I am pleased I am a human and not a snake, for example. But pride isn’t the right word. "Pride" against whom?!

Do any animals try hard to get a good position, or they just rather like to do any thing they need?
Yes they do. There is often a pecking order among animal societies, and there is “pride” in an animal who is the “alpha male”. I cannot understand. sorry.
You dont need to put your step ultra (?) "take advance more than your level" your position, but you think it is better for you among people or society, here your "idea" has a special role and getting to this goal that is another special thing common in human beings. no animal wishes to become a good one and try to do so hard. i mean you have "idea" while animals don't have. You have a precious goal while animals dont think what precious goal is. these two entities are also special.
I don’t understand this paragraph. I think you’re just repeating the point though, that I should be proud to be a human.

Aha! Here is your problem, You think that you don't like to be perfect, if you did so, you would stop learning. if you learn sth today, you will add to your previous information tomorrow.
One day I will die. No matter how much I have learnt, I will not be perfect. Perfect human beings don’t exist. sorry if I have to say this; Ok, You will die. so stop learning now, can you?

However, you are responsible to know more than any other creatures because this world is created for you to seek more.
Really? The world was created for me to learn? J
are you laughting at me? ok, I let you laugh at me! Wouldn’t I have to be more than a little arrogant to think that? Arrogant to whom?

Because, 7 astral bodies refers to some rulles and expresion lead to astronomy. Why does it relate to religion idea? if i considered it one of the religious aspects it would then be a rediculos subject.
No it’s got nothing to do with astronomy. Why do you think that? Just because they’re called astral bodies doesn’t mean they’re related to stars![/QUOTE]yes i dont know, what are 7 astral bodies, that i havent heared of them up to now?

[taghavi]

I answered part 1 in pink again.

Part 2;


Well you did write “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” But now I understand that you were being sarcastic. It’s not easy to tell. I think that your entire Part A was sarcastic, wasn’t it?i mean "the ideal shape of god which most people made their religions is as a human". Yes. Sarcastic!
OK, you were being sarcastic. Hold that thought for another ten lines.
Yes, I was being sarcastic some of ideas in A, but had i told you if i addressed Christian? Mr Raymott, again and again i will tell you I am not mocking Christian. I was not mocking Christian. I will not mocking Christian. Why do you like to accuse me of this? Please dont put words in my mouth. What happens to you? I thougth you were patient.
But some of your writing is hard to understand, so it’s even harder when you’re being sarcastic, or when you say “The ideal shape of god is as a human.” but you don’t mean it. still, i am telling you, I was not being sarcastic "Christian" at all. please be careful.
Please taghavi, you’ve just written six lines above this that you were being sarcastic. still I am being sarcasm superstitious ideas, don't you do? Do you really respect to superstitious ides?
Make up your mind. The dominant mood in Part A, as I read it, is sarcasm.

dont you think that is relevant? if it is so, why do you ask me the difference between "religion ideas" and "superstition"? you have already thought there is a similarity in two concepts as you asked me. now you want to know the difference between them, yes?.
I ask because I want to know what you think is the difference.

Do you like me to explain part A?
Yes please, without the sarcasm. Unless you are going to use sarcasm in Part B. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a proper comparison. I wonder why you defend part A, while I didnt addressed your ideas and Christians' and other logical religions' real ideas? i have not yet talked about logical ideas.

I take it that Part A was a description of a human-made religion, Yes, exactly. Christianty, Not at all
No? How many other religions have Jesus in them? I cannot understand what you mean

Anyhow, yes, you could explain Part A against, preferably without the sarcasm. It’s not that I can’t handle sarcasm – it has its place. It’s just that, for linguistic reasons, I’m having trouble understanding whether you’re being sarcastic or not. If I want to be sarcasm I will tell you. ok? No worries, you are my teacher I do respect to my teacher and dont like to annoy you. please smile!
You admit "the ideal shape of god which most people made their religions is as a human". Yes. Sarcastic! and then you deny it.,
So a straightforward explication of Part A would be good.[/QUOTE]

let me post Part 3 separatly with more space. ok?

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by taghavi

let me post Part 3 separatly with more space. ok?

OK, I will accept that all those references to Jesus, Gabriel, "heaven and hell". the "Holy Spirit" etc. were not meant to be references to Christianity.
I wasn't defending Christianity as a religion. I was challenging what I took to be your understanding of it.
Post your part 3.