The thoughts that you linked me. — Philosophim

Doesn't this mean that, in your turn, you have your own thoughts (which are likely different from mine) that give comfort and help you live your life better? :)

No, it is not my logic, but logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. Deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Because philosophy is exploring new venues that have not been determined yet, this is our true tool in deciding whether our exploration is worthwhile versus merely our opinion. — Philosophim

I see. Thank you.
It seems that philosophy has to focus on things that are supposed to be 'common to all humans' only. This explains why learning philosophy is very important, if not crucial, for the powerful rich groups if they like knowing how to keep controlling their masses and driving them to were they like them to be.

In this respect, I confess that I am far away from being a philosopher. I used focusing instead on studying my being first and what could be related to my existence in the world I live in. I leave others to discover themselves or else.
After all, every human is given a brilliant brain. But, to how far a person may like to use it differs from one to another. On my side, despite my body is imperfect in many respects, I am glad that my brain can always find out, for me in the least (to help me avoid confusion and/or fear due to lack of knowledge) the logical answer of any important question I may need to know. In other words, in my reality, there are no more unresolved mysteries which may exist in other's mind.

One way I like to describe it is thus: Science likes to test hypotheses, philosophy comes up with reasonable hypotheses to test. — Philosophim

I suppose these hypotheses have to be common to all humans. Every uncommon hypothesis has to be tested individually... as in my case :)

For example, if someone could philosophically prove that a God must exist, this would open up a new branch of study — Philosophim

I am afraid that this is impossible to happen. As all living things are not supposed to perceive their maker, most human are also created just to serve the physical world and cannot, even if they try, be interested in searching seriously their maker (as they do in their scientific studies). On the other hand, the men in charge of any religious doctrine have to present their god as a Powerful Supernatural King looking for followers so that they can control better their believers in his name (not in their own name). They had to do this because it is rather hard to convince a human to submit to another human. But submitting to the will of a so-called Supernatural King (or 'We, The People' in politics, suitable for atheists :) ) is welcomed by almost all humans.

Again, do not take it as a criticism against your own ideas of faith and the afterlife. If they serve you in being a better person in life, who is anyone to take that away from you? But if it is to be examined philosophically, it must rise to a higher standard. — Philosophim

I wonder now, to how far I am disturbing, without my knowledge, the studies discussed by the philosophers around here and their students.

Don't you think, after you know me, that it is better for the forum not to have someone like me in it? I don't like be an intruder in any way.

Whether it's pre-programmed or natural love seems irrelevant to the question of whether it exists. — Hanover

I am afraid it is relevant but I have no intension to undermine at all the way you love your children.

There is no such thing as unconditional love. — Konkai

Many decades ago, a friend of mine was missed (we learnt later that he died) leaving behind two little boys (30 months and 18 months). His family was Muslim (I am not). He, not highly educated, hoped that I can teach his boys (besides their teachers at school) when they will grow up. So, during daylight, I took care of the elder first, by teaching him how to read and write even in his early years. A few years later, I sent him also to school with his brother (Now, they are in their 40's, married and have children while living each in another country). I am telling this story to add that all mothers (mainly the Christian ones), I knew while I was taking care of the two kids, were very disappointed for not being married though ready to take care (even financially), as a good loving father does, of two kids who are not of my blood and their family is somehow stranger to me. But these same mothers were also loving mothers and ready to defend their children (always and at any cost) no matter what they do.

I am talking about reality, not to judge anyone's love. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience.

Indeed you described very well Christian doctrines, known as Christianity.

But, actually, Jesus message is about 'knowledge of Life Reality', not about judgement or magical salvation; by pleasing God :)

After all, most people used hearing of the Christian doctrines and didn't have time to see what Jesus, in person (not via anyone else), says on the Gospel.

You described well the role of the human-like robots, mainly their powerful rich Elite, who form the majority in the world :D

On my side, I was/am interested in getting continuously enough scientific knowledge (thru my experiments and analyses after graduation) to just gain my daily bread (and of the few who depend on me) only, not to control or even threat others as the universal trend of the great systems is :)

My love for my children is not predicated upon their doing anything, and it's hard to imagine there is something that they could do to totally eliminate it. — Hanover

Isn't it a pre-programmed natural love?
Yes, I also knew fathers and mothers who didn't or couldn't love their children as you do.

Thinking is something we do (well or poorly) as well as dreaming, breathing and pissing. We do those things because we're creatures which evolved in a particular have certain biological and neurological characteristics. I think you're defining "forced"--which means coerced or compelled by someone or something--in a very odd way. — Ciceronianus the White

You are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impressions you mentioned here.

My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while. — KerimF

If these thoughts give you comfort and help you live your life better, more power to you. — Philosophim

Which thoughts?

But if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion about such things, it will be examined for its logic. — Philosophim

Its logic (The Logic)?! This reminds me when a theist talks about the absolute truth or truths.
I mean an idea has to be examined by a person.
And a serious person examines it based on 'his' logic, not of anyone else (like saying this idea is true because it was approved by... ).
But I am also aware of the fact that a typical person likely sees in his logic, the absolute one that all others have to follow (much like how a theist sees his Truth).

If its an emotional or artistic presentation of personal experience and opinion, these things are more theological than philosophical. — Philosophim

You remind me when I talk in a forum of theology about what I discovered concerning my being and the real world, many try to tell me that I am talking philosophy :)
I wonder if there is a word to define an idea as being theological and philosophical, that is it could be seen theological by some people and philosophical by some others :D

We all care what we can get in return. There is no such thing as unconditional love. It does not exist. For any love to last, the two partners should be of substance. — Konkai

You are totally right. In fact, the unconditional love doesn't exist, for sure, to someone who perceives a human living flesh only to take care of. But his existence is also very important. The world needs all sorts of living things to serve it, in one way or another... by building it (in peace time) and destroying it as well (in war time).

Even the perfect love of our Heavenly creator (if you're a theist) has its terms –commandments –or else you're thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone. — Konkai

Again, you are totally right if we consider how Jews, formal Christians, Muslims and Pagans are supposed to believe.
By the way, Jesus only brought knowledge not law.
His sayings/teachings are addressed to humans, as individuals and not as groups of people. As you know, in case of a formal group, people have no choice but being gathered under a certain law, said of God or else... not love :)

We only day dream and chase unconditional love, it is a fantasy because it does not exist. No matter how hard we chase after it. — Konkai

You are right. Unconditional Love and unlimited trust have to be fantasies. Almost all humans on earth are created to just serve the world while being selfish; that is in exchange for living the pre-programmed pleasures embedded in their bodies once a while.

What you want to discuss is a perfect conscious being with a will that made us specifically for us to obtain something special. Again, this is just another philosophical God, with the same problems and issues that all other philosophical Gods have. Now if you personally have faith and believe in this, that's fine. But its faith, and not sound philosophy. — Philosophim

My philosophy, concerning this free special offer, might be seen in how I see 'my' death and afterlife:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

You may like to comment on how I see 'my' death and afterlife... based on my logic :)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

Perhaps try reading something about mysticism. There's too much ground to cover to answer your question here — FrancisRay

Truth be said, if I didn't know the answer already as I mentioned in {N}, I wouldn't start this thread in the first place. I liked hearing how others see the reason (if any) for which they are brought into this temporary life (existence).

It seems like you're defining God as the Will behind your existence. But the only will I see for your existence is your parents. I'm assuming your grandparents are out too. Meaning that we're only left with something prior to humanity that has a will, so must be conscious. The usual placeholder for such a being is "God".

If this doesn't fit what you're trying to go for, then I have no idea what you mean by a will outside of humanity. I get that you're trying to be poetic, but it doesn't make any sense if we're to draw any logical conclusions from it. — Philosophim

Let us remember that If a person mentions someone or something, it doesn't imply that he knows him or it well.
For example, anyone can say "God exists" but how he knows his God is a totally different point. This explains how billions in the world could be called theist while many different images of God (if not gods/goddesses) are offered on the world's table to choose from :) Yes, and these God's images have different God's Laws to be observed by the believers.

As in science, I started from a definition (axiom perhaps) about an intelligent conscious Will behind all the natural rules that define how the universe, I am brought into, is made (including my being), So this definition or axiom, by itself, cannot be real useful in one's life. It is, as in scientific studies, just one of the first steps that a scientific branch may need to be based on; in my case here, it is what I may call 'Science of Life Reality'.

For example and to be clearer, I didn't stop learning geometry when my teacher started with the definition of the geometrical dot which is not supposed to be real :) But on this abstract definition (besides many other unreal ones) a useful branch of science was built (though not necessary useful to all people. I met many persons who hated learning geometry and are happy in their life now without it).

Well a possible alternative would be: You exist because your parents brought you here and that's all there is to that. — khaled

Then, where would be the fun of thinking :(

Still, here you affirm that a "Will" forced you to exist: — Gus Lamarch

You surprise me. I can't figure out how JUST being aware (before going into details) of such a 'Will' makes a human less rational and/or realistic.
And just because someone can write better than I do, I am not supposed seeing him believing with dogmatic faith in his opinions (his observations and analyses) :)
And just because the majority in the world tends to believe something as being true and/or real, I have to joining them while ignoring what I personally perceive and discovered. (This reminds me when Earth was supposed to be flat and the centre of the universe :) ).

We are rational beings, with the ability to fight against our animalistic instincts to give life to the creativity that made us and continues to make us what we are — ambitious and beings of purpose and principle. Letting oneself exist simply to indulge in one's instinctual desires is not the reason why we are counscious of our actions. — Gus Lamarch

To reach which end... in your opinion?
Or perhaps, you prefer not to think there is an end in the first place, other than death of the body and, perhaps, being remembered by some people while their mortal bodies are alive.

If it was not withdrawn directly, your thinking is very much inspired by Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

Actually, it is the inverse :)
I personally was surprised when I knew that Jesus didn't present, about 2000 years ago and as mentioned on the today's Gospel, 'the Will' (behind my existence) as of ONE being only; as Jews, formal Christians, Muslims and Pagans are supposed to believe.
By the way, I am usually ignored, if not banned, in any Christian forum, if related to a Church or Denomination, when I try comparing what Jesus says (on its own version of Gospel) with what its doctrine says because, it happens, they are different most of the time, if not opposite. But, truth be said, they should be different or opposite; otherwise, the men in charge of a Church can't let it survive for too long. (Yes, revealing openly and clearly some crucial natural truths, as Jesus does on the Gospel, lets many believer leave the Church and stop donating).

We like it or not, a human may have the free-will to decide about ONE thing only, at best:

A human is free to follow his pre-programmed instincts of survival
or
to live the unconditional love towards all others (which contradicts them and contradicts all man-made laws).

In all other situations, the free-will of a human is much like the free-will of a well-programmed robot :)

Do you believe that you're forced to breathe. Or forced to piss? That you wouldn't breathe or piss if you weren't being compelled to do so? Dreaming, breathing and pissing is just part of what we do as humans. Nobody's making us dream, breathe or piss. — Ciceronianus the White

Should a robot perceive his maker to live and play the roles for which it was made?
Indeed all non-human living beings are supposed to act exactly like pre-programmed robots do, thanks to the guidance of their embedded instincts.

In case of humans, being forced to exist doesn't imply being made to act like a robot, like all other livings things do.
But, a person is also free to see himself a very intelligent robot or...

The problem that I noticed in your argument is that you have a personal view of existence and a certain resentment - perhaps - for existence. Obviously, if this is completely supported by your faith, there is no discussion about it, because then is dogma — Gus Lamarch

My problem is that I can't accept blindly any idea (scientific or spiritual) provided by another. So yes, I have a personal view of existence (mine and of the world I live in). This view had to be based always on my own observations and analyses.
And you are right, the word 'forced' (which I chose deliberately) gives the impression you mentioned here 'resentment'. My intention was just to emphasise that my existence, in the least, wasn't the fruit of certain randomness, hence for no end purpose other than I try my best to stay alive in this world as long as possible. Indeed, I noticed, year after year, that almost all humans I met or knew (theists or atheists) are very satisfied just for knowing how to survive while pleasing their bodies once a while.

About "I will be born again", is a polite way to say 'it cannot happen'. It is like a father who says to the young man he dislikes: "Son, don't lose hope, my daughter will marry you in your next life" :)
By the way, Jesus used the expression "Ye must be born again" when Nicodemus couldn't understand him... . But many people took it very seriously and I used hearing someone says: "At last, I am born again... I am saved".

I think I have to point out that the 'Will' behind Creation, which I perceive, is surely not of one being; otherwise I cannot see my nature as being an image of 'IT', even to some extent. So when someone sees 'IT' as nothing or just one being, he simply describes his deep nature, with or without his knowledge :)

I wonder if you noticed my post about death and afterlife:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

The mystics would say that transcending life and death is not a gift but your birthright. Or to put it another way, there would be nobody to give you this gift except yourself.

Your current existence would be explained by accumulated karma. Only when consciousness is purified can it be stable and not have to come back as another life for more school-work to be done.. . , — FrancisRay

I am afraid that if I wasn't forced to exist in this life first, there would be no gift to be offered and also no meaning/sign of what I call 'myself' now.

The accumulated karma might be a reality for some others.
But, as far as I perceive, I am in my first journey in this world.
Perhaps, if I, as Kerim, will return back to it after the death of my mortal body, I will likely see karma in my reality too.

By the way, I live the unconditional love and care towards all others. Does this mean that my consciousness is purified and there will be no need to exist again; that is I will end up as if I never existed in the first place?

I think I have good reason to believe it makes no sense to speak of us as if we existed before we exist,. Because, I hope it doesn't surprise you to learn, we don't exist until we exist. We exist only when we exist. So there is no me, nor is there a you, pondering or deciding whether or not we should exist until we exist. Nor is there a me or a you that can be forced exist when neither you nor I exist. — Ciceronianus the White

Let me agree with you on what you said... concerning my first birth :)
I mean by 'my first birth' when the world received me as a human baby.
But this is not all...
I can't deny that it is not unusual that I am forced to exist in a realm which is not limited by time/space. This realm is usually known a dream. And I don't realise that I was living in a dream till my body wakes up.
Now, I guess someone can't say I am not forced to exist in a dream because I didn't exist first to know what existence is :D

Firstly, it is relevant to view humanity as a whole, we are a colony, each independent on the population for our survival and sociolo-cultural development. I will go further and suggest that in a sense, humanity is one organism, indeed the whole of the biosphere is one organism. So you can't consider yourself in isolation, if you are considering reality.

Secondly, the purpose that can be deduced from the world we find ourselves in is simply for humanity to sustain the biosphere in a healthy state in the short term and in the long term, to secure its long term survival in the universe at large. Any other purposes, of our being here can then work themselves out during this plan. — Punshhh

In a sense, you are right. Every living being, human or non-human, is important for the continuity of the structure that you referred to as 'organism'.
On the other hand, I am aware, unlike my dog and cat are :) that this organism, on earth in the least, will not last forever, by design (many scientists try their best already to estimate when its end will likely happen, speaking scientifically).

Therefore, if I was brought into life just to play a certain role or roles for this ‘organism’, I can’t see any real serious meaning of being involved in such a lost case. This may explain why I searched, since I was very young, a path that lets me be not of this limited world, and why I didn’t have the need to be guided by my instincts of survival (the prerequisite to be an active member in the ‘organism’).
Obviously, I expect that a few, if not rare, people only may see their personal existence and life as I do.

After reading your comments, it seems to me, so perhaps I am wrong, you have no alternatives about what I said (unless they are supposed to be your secrets :) ).

But the explanation you give, via science, is not how you came to be here, it is merely the mechanism by which you body came to be constituted. We really don't know how we came to be here. Or, we really don't know how the universe we perceive, came to be here. — Punshhh

You are right and this is why I summarized the start of my existence, in the least, by saying... I was forced to exist the way I am. What remains to do, to me in the least, is discovering whatever is related to my actual existence and seeing to how far I can take advantage of it (this is science to me).

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't know any purposes for which we came to be here. One of your thoughts might be correct, or the real purpose might be something else entirely, we just don't know. — Punshhh

Just to please your curiosity about this, you may like reading my post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460571

It will up to you to consider what you read if it is spiritual, material or else.

Existence is the craving for the craving for existence. This primordial "will" - if it can be named that way - did not necessarily need a transcendental entity to desire existence. For existence to emerge, simple non-existence is enough. — Gus Lamarch

Perhaps I will understand the practical meaning of your version about 'existence and non-existence' if I will be born again :D

When you take your first breath you accept life with all its consequences. — Gregory

You are right.This is equivalent to 'being forced to accept life at it is, at birth'. :)

Einstein said the foremost question in philosophy is whether the world is good or not. The quote I found in the book The Secret. — Gregory

The facts in the world are just facts. A fact could be seen good or not relative to the observer, ‘Relativity’ :) In other words, an absolute list of what is good and what is bad doesn't exist. But such a list, if it is relative to an observer, does exist.

The book is about what religious people swear by: faith can move mountains. — Gregory

I think this is equivalent to 'even the impossible may happen'. I think even an atheist may live such experience by insisting to do what was supposed to be impossible.
On the other hand, some facts which happened to me in my life are supposed to be of the impossibilities. For example, one day, I had a call that someone accused me of a serious crime whose penalty is death and some armed policemen were running after me. Soon after the call, I tried to know in which police station the accusation was done. When I knew it, I got a taxi to it. At my arrival, I was surprised that the accusation was totally dropped. There, the chief policemen told me that someone (I didn't know) came to the station and provided what proved my innocence then went away. So I simply returned back home as if nothing happened.

Well, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, so I'd guess it will be awhile — Hippyhead

What?!!! But you are right if you mean formal Christians, not just Christians, because the formers have doctrines which are much like of Muslim's ones concerning God.
Mohammad Al-Kuraishi, the founder of a social military political system in the name of Allah and he called it Islam, told his followers that Allah created humans just to worship him. And he replaced the statues of Pagans in Mecca with their house, the Kaaba, besides the images of any verse taken from the holy Qur'an.
The formal Christians are also supposed, though in contradiction with Jesus sayings, worship and fear God as slaves do towards their masters. Naturally, they have also their holy monuments, statues, images... besides the cross; no matter if it is made in wood, gold or silver, if not on a painting.

I personally didn't hear Jesus, in his greatest two advices, talking about worshipping, obeying or fearing God as if the relation with God has to be one way. Instead, he talked about Love. And he didn't say that the word 'God/Lord' refers to One Being only, as Islam and Judaism insist on. In fact, talking about how the spirit of Love can unify two independent beings and let them have One Will and One Power (when seen by any outsider) is a an unpardonable blasphemy in Islam and Judaism.

Conclusion:
God, as revealed by Jesus, has nothing to do with Allah of Islam and is not the one that Jews (also the formal Christians) are supposed to know.

Anyway, let us not be worried about the survival of the formal Christians, Jews, Muslims and all today's Pagans. They will all exist to the end of times because wars and bloody conflicts are the mines of gold for the powerful rich groups. Almost any believer of them is ready to defend his religious group even by risking his life besides his financial support. So such believers can be easily deceived anytime to open more of these mines of gold for their Elite. Yes, fooling them is easy because none of them (also atheists) is supposed to follow Jesus advice:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

No. What you did say, however, was that you weren't asked if you wanted to exist, and were "forced" to do so, by IT. That was what I referred to, as should be obvious. — Ciceronianus the White

After all, you know about your existence more than I do.
In my reality, I am even forced :) to also exist many times in a dream realm (not limited by the notions of time and space).
But, perhaps in your reality, I mean how YOU perceive reality, you have your good reasons to believe that you had also the free-will to accept or not to be brought into this life. And when you are in 'deep sleep', you are able to also start or not a dream; if not choosing the events in which you like living, in every dream.
On my side, my philosophy is about analysing and describing facts (besides other things) as I personally live and perceive them.

So It is always okay that someone doesn't agree with me on something, if not everything, which I may say (philosophical or scientific).

Well, there was no "you" to ask, before you existed, nor was there any "you" to be "forced" to exist before you existed. So, there was no IT forcing anything. — Ciceronianus the White

I wished you went on and told me your version about this that gave you a better understanding of your own existence in the least.

There was nothing before one's existence that could be forced to do anything, let alone to exist. Am I off topic? — TheMadFool

You are on topic indeed. You present another path that leads to {G} and {F} above.

All good. If you want to know my view then it is explained by Sadhguru and Alan Watts in their youtube talks on Jesus. — FrancisRay

Thank you for the invitation. But I may not be able to watch the video... let me say for technical reasons.

How did we come to be here? — Punshhh

It happens that I am a rational scientist. So when I heard the definition of straight lines, I didn't ask myself where they start and end. I simply adopted a suitable notion for this case (besides many other cases) which is 'infinity'. Although we can't reach 'infinity', this doesn't prevent an engineer to use it while drawing useful perspective images (parallel straights intersect at infinity).

What I try saying is that it is enough for me to know how I came here without losing my time in discovering the start and the end of the world existence and life.

For example, I know that, right before my birth, there were two tiny independent living cells. When they had to chance to meet each other, they followed a preprogramed algorithm/process and became just one living cell 'me' (who says two independent living beings cannot become one being only :) ) Then, more programs entered the play and this starting living cell was able to evolve gradually (as the very ancient primitive living cells did; though in zillion years) but in a rather very fast way (taking advantage of all data that were inherited from one generation to another throughout history; a very very long one). This quick evolution has needed about 9 months in my case :)

For what purpose? — Punshhh

I thought I already gave the different thoughts about it on my first post!

Your parents forced you into the world. All your questions should be directed towards them. If you're going to be talking about God, it doesn't really lead off when you're talking about your personal birth of being born into the world. — Philosophim

I am sorry that you are not aware that my parents were just a tool, not the Will which is behind my existence (and their existence as well). Parents have no idea about the nature of which their baby will be made before their decision to get one. At best, they may choose its gender perhaps. I also heard that it may be possible to make a human newcomer as a living robot (much like the human babies who had to be born because of Law, not Love).

Sorry again, because if someone hears you mentioning the word 'God', he would have the impression that you also know what it means. On my side, I am not sure what do YOU mean by (or how YOU define) this word.
For example, should the God, you mentioned here, apply certain justice on his tiny creatures, called humans; as humans do among themselves on earth?
I asked you this because such a supernatural judge or ruling king doesn't exist in my reality.

We are entirely in the dark on the issue. — Punshhh

I am sorry that you see yourself in the dark about this. I wasn't born in the light of knowledge either.

In fact, by design, the common weakness with which all intelligent human babies are born is being totally ignorant.
This universal weakness had to be known/called in the far past as the 'Original Sin' by Jews. Yes, many millenniums ago, when medicine was primitive, every serious weakness/damage in one's body was attributed to sin; disobedience of a certain god (Moses’ God, in Judaism).

Being in the 'Light of the Relative Perfect Knowledge' (relative to one's reality) could be seen, therefore, as being saved from this common weakness (the Original Sin). For example, if Jesus came to save me, he has to help me get the logical answers to all my important questions I am looking for; that is to help me go out from the dark of ignorance into the light of knowledge. Did he succeed or not to be the all-knowledge teacher of my reality? I may explore the answer later, on a separate thread, if some active members here like to share :)

Ultimately, while we are in this life we create our own reality for better or worse, with the aid of the means available for us. — Jack Cummins

On my side, I don't say I create my own reality. I say instead I discover my own reality (of my being and the world I live in).
While I walk under the Light of Knowledge I have no reason to be confused or have fear in any situation.

Well, there was no "you" to ask, before you existed, nor was there any "you" to be "forced" to exist before you existed. So, there was no IT forcing anything. — Ciceronianus the White

Sorry, did I say that every living being is supposed to perceive 'IT'?

Just the contrary, zillion of beings are supposed just to follow their instincts and serve life in the world by building it and/or destroying it. They are not supposed even to think of 'IT', in any way, during their temporary journey in this world.

And these beings, among humans too, are very important in life, including my personal life. For example, the instincts of survival guide such humans to know how to exchange cleverly their hard works with various pleasures preprogramed in their body (this reminds me the saying I used hearing: "Every man has his price"). Their hard works allowed others to have good food and dresses besides many other important things to make their life more enjoyable (or miserable in bloody conflicts and wars, for example).

The good news is that one's happiness in life doesn't require the perception of 'IT'.
And without this perception or without having any idea for which end purpose one lives, life would look like a big game in which all sort of players talk about how to win and lose till one by one quits it while new players are joining it.

The generic method is Yoga, the meaning of which is union. The goal is union with reality and thus knowledge of the true nature of reality and the transcendence of life and death. The goal is that 'I and the Father are One'. For mysticism Jesus is a son of God, not 'the' son.

I would say it is not possible to 'discover other's deeper nature' without discovering your own. which is Yoga. This is the 'classical' Christianity of the early church. . . . . . , . . , , — FrancisRay

I can agree with you on all what you said excluding Yoga on which I have no idea (I just heard of it in movies :) )

It took me 30 years to stop seeing the world the way I like it to be, and start discovering it as it is in reality (on the ground, far from the great speeches). Of course, I did it after analysing carefully (methodically) the nature of my own being.

Since you mentioned it, I also knew how to be one with my Father in Heaven, as Jesus and the Father are one too. It is somehow like two independent persons who are seen as if they were One being having One will and power by 'any outsider' if they are real friends (unified by the spirit of friendship).
Similarly, the divine Spirit of Love, known as the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, unifies, in the spiritual realm, two independent beings if they want to.
This explains why the perception of the Holy Spirit is the crucial prerequisite to learn anything from Jesus message that describes 'Life Reality'. After all, Jesus message has no value to those who have a human living flesh only to take of (their instincts of survival can guide them instead).

rituals are not necessary for a truth-seeker and if we are not this then we are not a Buddhist or Taoist. — FrancisRay

You are right. But do you have a clear idea of what kind of truths in such religions (or whatever they are called) a truth-seeker may be interested to know?

but that there is no such thing as sin and no need for guilt. He say this in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and in 'A Course in Miracles'. — FrancisRay

On one hand, those who have/perceive a human living flesh only to take care of, at any cost, they are, by design, free to do whatever they like, without feeling any sort of guilt/fear as long what they do is hidden.

On the other hand, the prerequisite for someone (who has also a living soul) to be able feeding his soul with a permanent joy by living the unconditional love towards all others, is discovering the world as it is taking into consideration that the nature of every human is somehow unique. Since it is usual that most people in the world present themselves behind various masks (not for coronavirus :) ) Jesus gives the necessary hints to discover other's deep inners/natures, no matter how clever they are in wearing their masks :)

I think the unpleasant problem of which you speak is what democracy is about. We all have a voice. Granted no one is going to pay much attention to me so I have nothing like the power of Trump, but enough ants can eat an elephant. I am planting seeds of thought and I will not be remembered but some of those seeds of thought may sprout and grow and reproduce. That is democracy, rule by reason, not rule by authority over the people.

It is the purpose of humans to think and they will manifest what they think about. It is our duty to the universe to think and speak and move humanity to a greater concsiousness, if we are recognized as a person of authority and power or not. We are part of something much bigger than ourselves.

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. This is not a miracle working God with supernatural powers tending to human affairs, blessing some and punishing others. It is universal law and our growing consciousness of it, which in turn manisfest it on earth. We are all a part of this and as we have seen, a powerless child or a powerless Black man can become an international voice for what is good when the time is right. — Athena

You said well in case the end purpose of one's existence is to serve life in the world as all other non-human living things are created for this same purpose while they are guided by their natural instincts (the preprogramed instructions which are embedded in them by the Creator).

You may wonder now what end purpose could be... other than the one of serving life.
Answering this question is not easy because it depends on one's nature of which he is created.

As a man of reason and science, I am sure that life on earth or elsewhere cannot exist forever, much like our mortal living bodies. So, if the main/crucial reason for which life on earth was created is just to let it progress (move humanity to a greater consciousness), it will result to 'nothing' at the end of times as if the Creator decided to play a game then shut it off... to start another one perhaps :)

I can't go on without talking off topic. It is better to explore, on a separate thread, what the other end purpose could be.

In short, yes, although it may depend on how you define religion. For a Middle Way Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi, Advaitan etc there are no rules. There are just actions that help one progress and those that hold one back. Note that even Jesus denies the existence of sin and dismisses the need for guilt. This is a subtle issue, partly because the monotheistic dogmatic Churches have so muddied the waters with their folk-ethics. — FrancisRay

Just to be sure I got what you said.

A totally independent person who doesn't join any other believers in their religious gatherings (usually known as rituals) could also be seen as a real Buddhist, Taoist, Sufi or Advaitan.

Note that even Jesus denies the existence of sin and dismisses the need for guilt. This is a subtle issue, partly because the monotheistic dogmatic Churches have so muddied the waters with their folk-ethics. — FrancisRay

Indeed, Jesus gave me many simple but effective hints to help me discover other's natures. These hints work if someone has no intention to judge others or ask to apply on them any man-made justice.
But as you said, such teachings are not suitable, at all, to run any formal Christian Church or Denomination :)

I must amend this to say: "believers obey [their conviction of] the rules of a religious formal system [which is generally, but not always, the source of their principles]. — Merkwurdichliebe

In your turn, you amended it well :up:

To be good, believers obey the rules of a religious formal system.
To be good, followers, supporters, citizens and patriots obey the rules of a civil/political formal system.
But it is also usual that one is ready to obey both kinds of a ruling system... to be on the safe side :)
By the way, a typical atheist sees that it is enough for him to obey one ruling system only :)

About the Golden Rule, does any religion/culture, you heard of, precede it with what Jesus said?
The greatest first advice of Jesus that is addressed to humans as individuals not as groups, is about LOVING (not obeying, glorifying or worshiping) the Creator (the intelligent energy/will behind the existence of our universe). In reality, one has a very little chance to live the Golden Rule (the 2nd advice of Jesus) if he couldn't get first how one can love his maker without the need of obeying, glorifying and worshiping.

In brief, since many may say that what I will say is off topic:
The acts of obeying, glorifying and worshiping are one-way
Love is bi-way.