Oral sex from a female to a male is a form of worship. Anilingus on a female is such as well. Now to take the subject away from sex, non-organic objects can be worshipped as well, and this entails regarding it as one's ultimate good. I've worshipped rocks before and I don't find it unhealthy if it is a passing phase. It has more to do with the passions than with the mind. There is an unhealthy way of being idolatrous that perhaps is creeping into the culture through technology. I too would like to know more about the psychological reaction of humans to these new forms of "art" (if that is the right word)

As the OP details, it is an official religion in America

I think Jerseyflight would agree with me that all worship is idolatry because nothing is the summation of all good. He can correct me if I'm wrong

The

Certain human acts are no more than a form of worship. I won't go into detail, but when something or someone is the sole of your reality, that is worship

Yes but we have to connect the computer symbols with the screen technology. They go hand in hand. People are drawn to TV and when you add symbols you do end up with a kind of worship. I don't know near enough about symbolic logic and the like to say anything more. There must be guys and gals out there who can though

Ok

I wanted to add that the glare of computers and cell phones inherently draws in the attention of humans. We don't see people worshipping cars

I think movement is like quantity and Time like quality, so movement causes time to start. Hence we have a consistent materialistic model that has no need for a super-mind. Whether or not matter can be in a vague energy or information state doesnt really affect this theory

Maybe God can play tricks on us. ANyway, feeling like one does not exist is usually caused by lack of serotonin. It's the same situation as someone who is both religious and scrupulous. There is no end to doubts they can entertain. These doubts are interesting for the healthy but torment for the bearer

People structure their ideas differently. Smart people are those who have a complexity of thought or who are able to go down an avenue of thought that is difficult. Look at animals. We really don't have a comprehensive way of studying the complexity or subtlety of their thought. Humans are so varied we can hardly do this with us

The tool of cell phones and computers have shades of HD color and perspective that deeply affects the human psychy. This is especially true when seeing the other sex in HD. Pornography in black and white has a different affect than POV stuff they have now. I think if Freud was around he would be astonished in how is theories are proving true in such novel ways. Much fasnication with technology has to do with sexuality

To religious fanatics I sing with John Lennon "you claim to be majority, well you know that it's a lie, you're really a minority"

Maybe JFK was killed in the future and true time is like a kaleidoscope. We line events up, but that could be how our intuition works at a normal speed

Aquinas and Augustine were compatabilists, so in their system they worshipped a god who set the stage such that most of humanity ends their destiny in hell forever. That is not a loving system or god, but many many Catholics believe in it. Calvinism is even worse. I'm not saying computer worship is good. I just feel like something bad is replacing a previous evil. Better to worship a rock if you must worship something, or a jaguar. At least they are natural

Ye. I was just referring to those parts where he says to contemplate your death and have it before your eyes so that you can live. Maybe there is something about death that changes how time s experienced.

I think he's been so disappointed in life that he feels his situation must be very unusual. I agree with you that many people are unhappy

My twin brother struggles with this issue. Somehow he thinks he is in a small minority of those who s lives are kinda shitty. Most other people, in his eyes, live in what to him would be a state of ecstacy. It's hard to reason with him about this. All you really know with 100 percent certainty are your own feelings

However, maybe those suffering aren't suffering as much as you'd think and those having fun aren't having as much of it as you imagine.

Scholasticism was the work of the Catholic "schoolmen" who were usually Thomists. Aquinas and Augustine were both compatabilists

Isn't it possible Spinoza was a compatabilist? He did have learning in Scholasticism

Maybe in death we experience eternal calm without the annoyances of life. Would it matter a million years from now if ten years ago someone had more fun than you? Anyway, I think everyone's experience of life is very similar. Envy is not so much sinful as illogical

I am not a psychologist, but you appear to have symptoms of depersonalization disorder. Philosophy won't help you. See a doctor? I use to worry about such things but not anymore

Heidegger's analysis is very death oriented. Maybe when your time is near it will make more sense. Not to be morbid..

Randomness abides

Christianity may be the most elaborate attempt at establishing a religion ever executed (although the Mormons come to mind). It is no MORE a conspiracy theory to say this is what religions do than to say supernatural beings are behind the curtain. It's more likely human ingenuity is behind all religions than that supernatural entities beget them. That's at least how I see it

Basically I'm talking about paraconsistent logic under a Hegelian framework (the internet encyclopedia of philosophy has an article on this type of logic and one on inconsistent mathematics). In Hegel's philosophy nothing is entirely true except the absolute truth which we realize in enlightenment or death. So the problem is distinguish ing between a paradox and a contradiction. Their boundaries are ill defined in relationship to each other. Zeno's paradox may be an actual contradiction (finite vs infinite). Kant thought so. German idealism in general seems to be perfectly comfortable with contradictions. Schelling invented the concept of a movement between thesis and antithesis which could result in a new truth. Hegel was the one who took this triad to the max and made quadrads and other deductions. But if contradiction is merely paradox, there would seem to be something off about their whole enterprise. I want to learn more about how logic works so I have a better framework when I read Kant, Schelling, Fitche, and Hegels. Thanks for noticing the thread

I wanted to resurrect this thread by adding something to it. We can place truth on one side and contradiction on the other. Contradiction may be compatible with truth in some respect, if they keep their places. Contradiction, according to the "law of explosion" expounded on the Middle Ages, would overwhelm all truth, but I don't think this is so. Contradiction is part of the steps of the ladder leading to Absolute truth. They are superseded eventually but have their own truth in their own time.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone care defend the "law of explosion" and do so so that it's clear that two contradictory things can never be True at the same time

"I came to have an insurmountable aversion to anything but the pursuits of Philosophy and General learning." Hume

I am much the same way. He also said religion is dangerous. My argument against Pascal's wager is not simply that we could be in a different epoch than early Christians (the past need not resemble the future says Hume), but also that God (assuming he exists) may not want us to make gambles of this sort. He may not want us to seek him or pray to him in any way.

The barber shaves those who do not shave themselves. We add "and only those" because it does not say enough otherwise

The object of the thread has been a success. Theists are revealed as excusing God from morality because of his alleged mysteriousness. Sadly, they often excuse themselves therefore from morality. I read one Christian blog on how the Jews hamstrung horses in the OT. The writer said "I want to hamstring a horse for God". Sad, immoral, evil

There is no paradox, but contradiction instead? Nop. He does not shave himself because he shaves only those who not shave themselves. The paradox is one sentence: the barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves.

The barber cannot shave himself because he shaves ONLY those who do NOT shave themselves.

"Therefore he does not shave himself, making him the kind of person who he does shave." He shaves others

"Therefore he does shave himself, making him the kind of person who he does not shave." No he doesn't shave himself. He can't because of the paradox

You know what a good God would allow and would not allow? How did you come by this rare knowledge? — Bitter Crank

Common sense, natural law, and reason.

Every Christian, to a "man", I've asked if they would kill somebody if God asked them to said yes. I can't reason about animals with people who have this mentality. They've committed murder of the heart, which even Jesus said sends you to Gehenna. Jesus was a mentally ill man who noticed he was born in the place that the Messiah was supposed to come from and he tried to fulfill the prophecies. I hear that a good book that talks how Jesus intentionally set out to fulfill the messianic prophecies is The Passover Plot: New Light on the History of Jesus by Hugh Schonfield. John Lennon read it

I just don't buy the idea of a supreme being who can be sorted out into various capacities and features like beetles. — Bitter Crank

That's just hiding beyond esotericism in order to avoid the issues. Lions and dogs are probably, I would say certainly, innocent. Just because an innocent lion eats an innocent gazelle, that doesn't mean the gazelle deserves pain. I think the examples of sheep and rabbits are the best to illustrate my point. Imagine a sheep living in pain for years. It's simply pointless and there is no way a good God would have allowed it. I say come to grips that this world is imperfect and stop trying to justify thing wrong

Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. — Gus Lamarch

You'd have to prove that simplicity is possible, that it exists, and that it is greater than matter

Not all pain is evil because it's not true that the innocent never cause pain. — TheMadFool

Evil can come from an innocent being or act.

Our pain sensing apparatus serve in the same capacity - drawing our attention to injury that, if not sensed and dealt with at the right time, could lead to severe disability or death. — TheMadFool

God could easily give pleasure in order to avoid things instead of pain.

I daresay the only evil in the world is humanity. — TheMadFool

I've already said that other species may be able to do intentional evil. Hyenas perhaps

, humans are the problem and also the solution — TheMadFool

We are very adaptable creatures. That is not an argument for or against God though

Theists can use all the esoteric justifications for the pain sheep, rabbits, and other animals needlessly go through, but their logic is crazy. "God" in the Old Testament not only ordered the murder of men, women, children, and fetuses, but also the needless killing of sheep and the hamstringing of horses to be left to die. Use all your brain power to justify it. I don't care. I use common sense, and I know their justifications are nuts

That's a terrible argument. Innocent beings can cause pain and suffer pain. Pain is useful for some species perhaps, but God's goodness is reflected in nature you say. But innocent sheep are sometimes tortured. No good comes from that for the sheep. God dosnt protect the innocent

The new generation is rejecting theism. Fifty percent of young people don't believe in God. Good luck trying to convert over half the population someday

Christianity and Islam posit the proposition that religious truth is invariant throughout history. The question of levels of truth is a sticky subject, and I am not going to get into long discussions with people over it whos intent is merely is to make everyone Christian. I just wanted to project my idea out there because it states a reasonable alternative in order to answer Pascal wager (Pascal was a Jansenist by the way, which even the Pope considers a cult)

I think from the parts of Being and Time which I was reading today he is implying that being gives rise to time, and time gives rise to space. We see the three aspects as one