I think the few indirect mentions Plato gives of himself are supposed to hint at the relationship between Socrates and himself amidst the others who are also portrayed as Socrates' students or that learned from him to some degree.

Anyway, there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove that Socrates existed beyond the literature. And, if we're honest, neither do we have concrete proof of Plato's existence beyond the associations of literature.

I see the beginnings of a cyclic argument here so, how about this, if you trust your method is superior, give it a field test. Beat the best of them at poker and you will have proved your point.

Anyway, from what I now understand, the problem isn't whether GTO and Exploitation can accommodate each other, but that, GTO would tend to decline a player's adaptability and prevent them from shifting back to exploitation.

Umm, from what I know through life's experiences, adaptation begins largely in uniquely subjective ways in nature. You may not see how a player can shift back to exploitation after being drilled into GTO, but I believe the need to adapt will force the best players to enhance their brain/mental plasticity towards that goal and probability dictates a certain degree of success, even if low at first.

So far your arguments have been 'bad shit crazy'. You are implying that it's ok for your arguments to be bad when others' arguments are also bad, hence, through some ***magical*** ###alchemical### transformation, that makes it logical???!!!

If there was no secular basis for morality then the science of ethics would be flawed. All laws (constitutions) would be fundamentally and explicitly dependent on religious edicts. The FACT that it is not the case PROVES your statement wrong. Your statement is proved wrong by the practical reality of our lives.

I think I understand your predicament a little better now.
However, I think you are missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the reality of gambling or of the gamblers. First, for seasoned gamblers, the strategy of exploitation of weakness, as you have put it, is inherent in our mental mechanism and therefore would have been already taken into consideration. Also, GTO would have been included into those considerations, even if its approach is more deliberate compared to the former strategy.
From my perspective, given the multiple angles of action in a game of poker (considering it is rarely a two man game like boxing), I also believe the GTO strategy is the better approach. Although, this is for the seasoned player who's got an eye on the cards and the other one on the opponents just in case there is a weakness to exploit. (In this way, it seems GTO can also incorporate the exploitation strategy.) Furthermore, it should also be clear that if they have weaknesses to be exploited, then you may also have them. And just as you would compensate against your weaknesses, so also would they. In the end, with the little I understand of both strategies, I would vote in favour of GTO, since it is the more comprehensive of the two.

This means that if you learn GTO before learning how to exploit, your mind will stop you from being able to see how to exploit. — Yadoula

Since the exploitative mechanism is inherent, it means that it manifests first in life activities. So, unless you're worried someone is going to teach their six year old wrong gambling tactics, I think we're safe on that front. Also, unless one is a compulsive gambler, I think when your attention is focused back to the other life activities, your mental capacities which were on high alert during gambling get to relax and get a break. Therefore, the exploitative mechanism, being inherent, gets to return to full gear after some rest during gambling. It may even be therapeutic, if not misused.

Unless I've totally missed your point, this is my take.

:starstruck: [Mind-socks blown off!]

Thanks. It makes you wonder, why would anyone discuss those tired old dinosaurs which seem to only bring misery to discussions about religions. There's so much positivity everywhere else, why not direct towards that? What good is all this senseless conflict, I wonder? The Buddha taught, "violence begets violence." Is it not the same here? The more we attack each other the further we go from a resolution. As a philosopher would ask, "where is the sense or integrity in that?"

Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not? — BrianW

Wow, that's such an interesting idea. It brings to mind identities and communities such as theosophy, yoga, spiritism and spiritualism (also buddhism, taoism and others based on ethics/morals instead of focus on a deity) whose ways are respectable in these modern times and seem to lack antagonism to both the scientific and metaphysical paradigms. They accept all religions; are based on unity (togetherness); encourage personal choice in all matters; and are not focused on expressing the strength of one's convictions, instead, they focus on how better an individual can serve the community after having recognized their personal value first.

Truly an inspired idea.

Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not?

Then, which strategy do you propose and why? Coz they both have pros and cons.

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” - Einstein

So, we are the six-year olds and you are the guy who understands game theory. What you're saying sounds like it could be interesting so please explain.

Variety is the spice of life. I think every circumstance has a limit to how much focus our minds can give to it. Past that limit, it becomes stale and our minds begin to incorporate new ideas through our creative/imaginative faculties. Sometimes, the circumstance encompasses our lives and we end up seeking an ultimate escape, a parallel world, not necessarily of illusion but of a different mode of experience.

General perception, like in principle or something; like how we develop perspective, I don't know. What's your take?

Ok.

Though, can we exist without perception? If so, what would that experience be?

Perception, maybe.

There is no proof for negation of something. For example,

"Something doesn't exist."

=> If it is a something, then it must exist. If it doesn't exist, then it cannot be a something.

I think the problem arises with whether we define mental concepts as existences within the mind.

To suppose there was no analogy means to believe everything in the Bible is based on actual physical reality. If so, then I must assume you have had direct experience of everything described in the Bible or enough to trust everything.

To suppose the Bible is a work of fiction or may include tales which are not necessarily actual historical experiences implies the use of analogy.

The argument is not the historical fact of Jesus' life but the logical deduction of the narrative given in the Bible. Whether there is one or a million gods, does not alter the present condition of our shared perception of reality. However, it is unfair to suppose Christianity could be anything but a monotheistic religion when there is no explicit statement to that end, and when the narrative itself unfolds the opposite view (i.e., against polytheism) when analysed comprehensively.

What assumptions?

Most religions are publicized esoteric lore and due to the profound nature of esoteric teachings which are primarily symbolic and conceptual, the average person is almost always at a loss in their attempt to understand the abstract system of associations.

I am responding to this primarily because Jesus is one of my favourite philosophers, and this argument somewhat misrepresents his teachings of a monotheistic God.

TRINITY = GOD + GOD'S WISDOM + GOD'S SPIRIT. (This I shall endeavour to expound)

The 'Trinity' has its place in the study of religion and spirituality but, as has been observed, many Christians misrepresent it. Christianity is and has always been a monotheistic religion. Those who claim 'three gods in one' are mistaking an analogy for literal fact. But, this isn't new to us (humans)? The teachings of Jesus make claim that, -> that which is begotten of God, who is Divine, is also Divine. Hence, God's Wisdom and God's Spirit are imbued with that aspect of Divinity which God is. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere does it say or teach that God's Wisdom and God's Spirit are separate deities. The 'Trinity' is the understanding of God as an Absolute Being of Divine Spirit and Divine Wisdom. [Absolute Being -> representing the whole of reality; Divine Spirit -> Whose nature or essence is beyond and fundamental to that of everything; Divine Wisdom -> in Whom Absolute Unity and Harmony reside.] Period.

The role of God's Wisdom and God's Spirit are represented as distinct and significant aspects in the relationship between God and humans throughout the Biblical teachings. Unfortunately, due to their symbolic anthropomorphism, they have been mistaken, primarily by adherents of the religion, for distinct and individual persons.

As to God's Spirit being a different being, all I can do is ask, "Is there any evidence or precedence (in this case, the Bible) where a person's spirit is shown to be separate from the body?" All expressions of spirit represent it as something which supersedes material existence in character but, is distinctly in close proximity or in direct contact with the body during material existence. The same may be asked of God's Spirit -> Can anyone suppose it to be where God isn't?

As to Jesus (the Christ) relationship with God's Wisdom:

[Matthew 16: 13-20 => When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.]

-> It should be realised that the word 'Christ' is used as a title which refers to the identity of the Son of God. Also, that Jesus agrees he is The Christ. However, upon investigation, it will also be realised that 'The Christ' refers specifically to the 'Word' of God (Divine Wisdom) which was 'alive' or in living manifestation through Jesus. It is the Christ, God's Wisdom, which was prophesied to make an appearance, not Jesus the man of flesh and bones.

[John 1: 1-2 => In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.]

[John 3: 16 => For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.]

Only a literal translation of begotten son would bring confusion because Jesus was undoubtedly the biological son of Joseph and Mary (who was brought forth through a human birth and suffered a human death). However, accounting for the symbolic language of the Bible and through the application of reason, it should be clear that by 'only begotten son' is meant 'Divine Wisdom', which, as is portrayed in the Gospels, was embodied by Jesus. That is, in the same way God used the other prophets to bring a message to the people, He used Jesus to be the manifestation or living testimony of Divine-Wisdom in this human world. It is that purpose which sets Jesus apart from the other prophets (nothing to do with him physically).

[John 6:42 => And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?]

[John 6: 48-52 => I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?]

[John 6: 60-61 => Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?]

[John 8: 19 => Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.]

[John 8: 57-58 => Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.]

[John 10: 30-38 => I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.]

[John 14: 6-11 => Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.]

It should be clear that the same confusion we find in most of today's adherents was present two thousand years ago.

=> This is a reeeaalllly abridged version. To understand properly, try reading the Gospels with the above analogy in mind. Also, I apologize if I seem to have brought a machine gun to an arm wrestling match. It was meant for another thread but it got halted by admin.

They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. — Ram

Then what is LAW (or the constitution)?
Also, how about reason?

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective. — Ram

I have a question based on sexual ethics:

What is wrong with consenting adults who understand the emotional and mental ramifications of their actions as well as the perception of the community and the effect thereof, when they interact in:
a) Incest
b) Fornication
c) Adultery (I don't mean cheating on spouse, more along the lines of swinging and orgies and all the married parties are present or aware and are ok with it)?

(You may be inclined to give an answer based on your religious edicts of morality, but, remember to show how it is objective.)

I wonder if it's just natural for religious leaders to abuse people or if it's a product of the modern church. — MountainDwarf

I think most people are drawn to religion by its power instead of its wisdom and so inevitably stray from the path to some degree. However, towards modern times religious leaders have been abusing their authority with increasing deliberateness.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

Religion's purpose is to educate and give people methods of expressing themselves to the benefit of the greater 'whole' (family, community, culture, etc) instead of just themselves. One accomplishes service by understanding what is necessary. Purpose is choice aligned to necessity (my take).

Religion as a principle may have a decent purpose and the teachings given by the pioneers of the various sects (especially the really big ones) may be intelligent, ethical and geared towards the individual's progress, however, of the current practitioners (leaders and followers alike) very few seem to understand the purpose of religion and consequently their interactions are flawed.

As an example,

'Archbishop' Gilbert Deya and his 'miracle' babies who developed in less than 9 months from conception to birth:

=> "He (Gilbert Deya) was ordained by the United Evangelical Church of Kenya and styles himself "Archbishop".[3] He was an evangelist in Kenya in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but moved to the UK, establishing Gilbert Deya Ministries in 1997. The ministry now[when?] has churches in Liverpool, London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Luton, Reading, and Manchester, Sheffield and in 2006 acquired a building and planning permission in Leeds.[4] The church claims to be 'the fastest growing Ministry in the UK and worldwide'."
"The Gilbert Deya Ministries claim that Deya's powers allow him to be able to cause infertile women to become pregnant. Mr Deya claims that "through the power of prayer and the Lord Jesus" he has helped sterile women give birth. In the UK, one woman is claimed to have had three children in less than a year. The women travelled to Kenya in order to 'give birth'."
"Ten children, none of whom had any genetic connection to the Deya family, were found at Mr Deya's House.[5] Twenty babies have been placed in foster care in Kenya after DNA tests showed they had no connection to their alleged mothers.[8] Rose Atieno Kiserem, a former pastor with Deya's ministry was jailed along with Mrs Deya. Upon her release from jail, Kiserem confessed that the 'miracle babies' were "a hoax created by the Deyas and their accomplices to deceive me and other God-fearing people."

"On 3 August 2017, Deya was extradited from the UK to Kenya to face child trafficking charges. He was immediately arraigned in court for child trafficking offences."

[Extracts from Gilbert Deya's Wikipedia Page]

The sad reality is that most of Deya's congregation chose to believe that the 'miracle-babies' were God's work. The sadder reality is that most religious people are expecting such kind of 'miracles' and, instead of investing their mental capacity to achieving greater reasoning abilities (to better be able to explore life for themselves), they wait and, most often, for a conman to take them for a ride. Worse, they believe it is worth their while in the journey towards 'eternal salvation'.

The truth of what exactly? That he's a bigoted racist? — Posty McPostface

The truth that his racist perspective is not born of reason and has not yet settled as a component of belief.

Compartment of what? — Posty McPostface

The compartment which would characterize his perspective as something he believes in. Even people who believe in what they cannot prove know in what form their beliefs exist in and usually have no problem expressing them even in their own words. That guy's silence tells otherwise.

What is that disease? — Posty McPostface

Serial killer = psychopathy, perhaps.

That racist guy is just stupid, by choice (he's blinded himself to the truth). His inability to answer the question proves he doesn't have that compartment. If he truly believed (instead of just wishing) that white people were superior to black people (or other races) then it would have been somewhat convincing towards a case of compartmentalisation.

Surely his beliefs are those of the majority with whom he mixes? That's why compartmentalisation hasn't been much needed as a psychic defence. — apokrisis

Yes. It's more a case of shared stupidity.

It could be bias. — Posty McPostface

It is (personal bias).

I see compartments as constructs with deep-rooted ties of logic (reasonable associations, but according to the person's capacity to reason) and meaning extracted from experience; every compartment with its history of experiences attached to it, whether real (actual) or fabricated (delusional).

Also, from my perspective, it is not compartmentalisation if the 'compartments' do not relate to each other logically. If the person, when focused in one compartment, is not (or cannot be) aware of the others, consciously to some degree, then, it's insanity (an impairment of the mind).

For me, compartmentalisation is, 'when in rome do as the romans do'. It is a distinctive language for each person, occasion or circumstance; not something a serial killer would have to prevent him from coming to terms with his depravity. Even the latter is a kind of compartmentalisation, but it's a coping mechanism born from reaction or response to an impairment (disease) of the mind (as a way to preserve decency, normalcy, right-perspective, etc). It implies an innate awareness of the presence of the disease.

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214)”

― Albert Einstein

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein.

These two quotes often attributed to Einstein make me believe that most philosophers tend to miss a big chunk of philosophy by not considering the intelligence and impulse behind the actions and experiences of the 'average guy'. He (average guy) may not be able to express himself with the same dexterity as a highly educated person but he still has the capacity to direct his life to as great a utility as most highly educated people. This, to me, reveals that philosophy goes beyond mental exercises and is best expressed through actions than statements.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."

― Albert Einstein.

Do you think that is simply because questions already provide a base of presuppositions we end up standing on? — Perdidi Corpus

In a way, yeah. I think when you formulate a question you reveal to yourself the choice you want to make, or the direction you are tending to.

What is the relationship between a question and its answer? - That is: Where do we have to be so that the answer is seeable? — Perdidi Corpus

Do we ever really get a direct answer or do we arrive at a series of probable outcomes which get us past one step to another until we realize we've already gone past our initial problems (limitations) and must then focus on the upcoming ones. Coz I feel like there is some cyclic patterns which we tend to revolve around until every turn of that circumstance becomes too familiar not to understand.

A man is praying to God. "Lord," he prays, "I would like to ask you a question."
And the Lord replies, "no problem, go ahead."
"Lord, is it true that a million years to you is but a second?"
And the Lord says, "yes, that is true."
"Well then, what is a million dollars to you?" The man asks.
And the Lord says, "a million dollars to me is but a penny."
And the man says, "ah, then, lord, may I have a penny?"




(From "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar... Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes")

'almost'. It does not imply a reality. :lol:

We should not stop economic growth but policies should try to direct the growth in a more sustainable AND OBJECTIVELY HUMAN ORIENTED direction. By sustainable I mean along the path of circular economy. (Check out Dame Ellen MacArthur's Ted Talk presentation or google 'circular economy')

To make it more objectively human oriented, I think, we should first put a limit to the amount of natural resources that an individual can own and use. Because the resources are natural, we should not subject them to personal jurisdiction. Secondly, we should make it taboo (or illegal against the government) for humans to lack basic and societal needs. Basic needs are the obvious food-shelter-clothing, but societal needs are the amenities which allow us to participate effectively in the society. They include proper medical coverage, well revised and updated educational procedures and facilities, communication infrastructure, regular information and appropriately administered feeds about all public resources and activities, increased capacity for awareness and participation in local and national politics, etc.

Economic growth becomes a problem when it is handicapped by imbalance. A 'wholeness' approach to society may go very far to compensate against damages incurred. One of the biggest problems for our economy is our flawed application of concepts like capitalism and socialism. So far, they've been gateways to enhancing economic elitism, which then spills over into the other aspects of our society.

what are your thoughts on the matter? Can one justify choosing a religion? — InfiniteZero

At the present stage in human evolution, NO!

I have great respect for religion (not just because it played a part in my upbringing, but it also has value to impart). However, the methods religions use are outdated and whatever values are present in religions are more readily extracted in the study of sciences and philosophy.

In ancient times, what we now call religion, was their main public means of communication of knowledge. It was fundamentally conceptual and its primary utility was to introduce ideas (through repeated practice to beat the lesson into their instinctive minds) which could be incorporated into human society to aid in further development. So, having people clinging to those old religious edicts as they were taught thousands of years ago is very counter-productive to the progress of our current human society.

At the best, one can justify studying the various religions without adhering to any. It is possible to express devotion and appreciation in life without illogical dogma. Also, every aspect of religion can be found in greater detail in our modern sciences and philosophy, and, unlike the commonly ill-expressed modes of religious practice, they call for personal commitment with the added value of autonomy and self-responsibility. Study of law, ethics, cultures, social interactions, etc., allows us, not just to understand morality, but, also, to practice it appropriately in the different possible situations we may happen to be in.

In this age of information, it baffles the mind that a person could remain tethered to religion. I do understand, however, maintaining a certain guise out of respect to cultural and family ties. Those who do so, tend to be open-minded enough to rise above the insensate dogma, and they represent a growing trend in the society at large. It may be that, in the unconscious collective of human awareness, the gong has tolled on religion and that what we see is a headless chicken whose body is in the last throws of residual vitality.

Thanks :up:
It actually makes it easier to follow the thread.

(I'm not well versed in the mathematical language, so pardon me if my confusion is born out of a misinterpretation) - So far I see a lot of mixed metaphors when it comes to showing the distinction between a mathematical model and the actual world, and the best I can understand is that there is a different connotation for infinity when it applies to the mathematical model (theoretical) compared to infinity in the actual world.
I'm just wondering, if the theoretical and actual worlds do not have common points of analogy, then nothing in one would relate to the other. Therefore, what if you picked one scale of magnitude with respect to relateable points in both representations (theoretical and actual worlds) and then compare how infinity is perceived in both within that identical scale? Does this make sense?

In a previous post (different thread), I posited that,

Belief is a response to knowing. — BrianW

I explained it thus,

Our relative perception of an absolute reality creates a comprehensive < > unity... That is, our awareness of reality as containing what we know and don't know has resulted in the response we categorize as belief. — BrianW

In detail, I would say that our faculty of knowledge, our intelligence, is a whole unit (not fragmented). Therefore, all that we perceive and analyze as having utility - knowledge - becomes assembled and stored within that faculty. The resulting aggregate, belief, is significant as a key ingredient in the generation of our experiences. It is a reference point for the 'measure' of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.

To answer the question,

What means do we possess to go from belief structure to belief structure - to move from place to place in this metaphysical world? — Perdidi Corpus

I think the means is learning because by gaining more knowledge we inevitably expand our beliefs.

Perhaps it would be better to say that we see only a tiny fragment of reality, and so the image we have of reality does not accurately represent reality, and is thus a form of illusion. — Jake

Then illusion is a part of reality...?

I start by just looking at perception with an open mind - neither reality nor illusion; just perception. — Nasir Shuja

Perception of what?

I do want to explore to what degree (in language) I would be able to know I am in an illusion (were I in one), and whether this type of thought process is a valid way of inquiring into reality (I now am at a place where I find it hard to sort out between all the options and whether I should make a choice). — Nasir Shuja

So, where do you start - reality?, illusion? Please explain.

This 'God' talk is getting old really fast. We need to have conclusions or final statements in all the OPs which reference God.

My take on 'God' is that, He/She/It (next time I'll use They) is emergent in and incidental to our experiences. Our relative perception of an absolute reality creates a comprehensive (anthropomorphic) unity which is identified as God by some. That is, our awareness of reality as containing what we know and don't know has resulted in the response we categorize as belief. God, then, is the name of the configuration of that belief by some. Belief is a response to knowing. When we know something comprehensively, or when we are utterly ignorant, then expressing our beliefs is easy - we say, we know or don't know. However, when we know something that we don't know, that is, we have partial knowledge, then we attempt to use logic to fill in the gaps, usually with a great deal of symbolism (analogies), and that is where our language usually fails us.

We live in an age where religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant. We no longer need it to define our philosophy of reality, our ethics or our interactions whether familial, societal or cultural. The only true significance that religions offer, presently, is an opportunity to extract the last trickles of the wisdom contained within and communicated from former stages in human experiences. There has been a need for a change in perspective from the religious and metaphysical into the practical. Such shifts in perspectives are a necessary part in the progression of human knowledge. A quick example is the Biblical disparity between (or shift from) Moses' and/to Jesus' take on the same God and the same laws. To not change perspective is the true definition of being 'stuck' and being ignorant, which is why there is an increase in the need to 'see' beyond religions.

For me, forgiveness by God would be more significant if it could alter the principle of cause and effect; or if God could undo/alter any other fundamental principle of reality. That it doesn't happen (and can't) implies an underlying futility in maintaining an expired perspective. Define God anew or burst!

My conclusion is that, God is the construct which represents our (those who choose that identity) comprehensive understanding of and participation in reality; hence the reason for the constant anthropomorphism.

Hi, I would like to explore this argument of reality vs illusion further. But first, one of my biggest concerns with that argument is that it begins from an already biased perspective. For example, just the question (from the OP) into the nature of illusion/reality implies a level of conclusive standpoint. That is, that you are not in an illusion questioning yourself; that those you question share to some logical degree your perspective of both reality and illusion; that you expect an answer you understand means that you believe/know you share that reality hence you can relate to their perspective of it; the evidence of correspondence, even just here at TPF, implies to a high probability our vastly similar and shared understanding of reality and illusion; as well as many other possible points of inference.

What do we make of this? What is the reality we perceive constituted of, does it exist in any meaningful sense if it is an illusion created by perceptual categories, etc.? — Nasir Shuja

My question to you would be, "Why assume that this reality we perceive stands a chance of being an illusion? And, if so, what would it mean with respect to having a prevalent-inherent-consensus of that perception of reality against a separate prevalent-inherent-consensus of the identity of illusion?

While I think most people's beliefs need to be revised with respect to their religions, I find that atheists also need to find a positive channel for their expression of atheism. Atheism should not be about antagonism to religious beliefs.

Also,

Thoughts like, “this might be all part of God’s plan,” or “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves”—these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this. — flight747

This does not exclusively reveal a lack of compassion. Such statements cannot be limited to the domain of the religiously devout. From my perspective, it seems like human beings in uncertainty attempting to employ reason to explain to themselves by using references common to their understanding of events which are beyond the human scope of control.

Faith and belief don't just exist in the domain of religion.