What good is religion?

Perhaps we can examine the "sources"....
IMO...there are two sources...one is God...the other is ego.
One is an illusion.."ego".
The other is real..."God".

"Selfishness, vanity, you name it religion always has source(s)"....
the source of all of those things is "ego"...

God does not need religion...God does not need anything...neither do you.

 

I just listed a few of the negative ones, there are also positives, altruism, conscience, fairness, justice and so forth.

 

Would you agree that something someone may refer to as positive...
someone else may think of as negative?

Positive and negative are still just thoughts, beliefs, perceptions...
they are unstable.

Just for a moment....let go of all of your thoughts, beliefs, perceptions...

what remains?

You

 

Absolutely, hence literally thousands of 'religions'.

So you think that disqualifies them from being legitimate?
You do agree that science is legitimate do you not?

A corpse

There never is more than you for 'your' thoughts.

thoughts are nothing more than philosophy, it does not become a religion until those thoughts are put into action, especially with respect to self governance.

Someones 'religion' is observable to the outside world, thoughts and the source of those thoughts indirectly at best.

 

Definition of corpse
1 archaic : a human or animal body whether living or dead
2a : a dead body especially of a human being
b : the remains of something discarded or defunct

Looks like the first definition might fit...if that is what you had in mind.

 

Actually you are not "your thoughts" at all.

You can exist just fine without "your thoughts"...
but "your thoughts" can not exist without you.

Your thoughts, beliefs have never been who you are.
Thoughts come and go. Beliefs change. Both of those are unstable.
You are simply the observer of those things.
You don't need any thoughts or beliefs to be who you really are.

 

I suppose you could consider thoughts, beliefs "legitimate" until they aren't any more...until they change.
But they will always be unstable.

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Definition of legitimate
(Entry 1 of 2)


1a : lawfully begotten specifically : born in wedlock

b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth a legitimate child

2a : being exactly as intended or presented : neither spurious nor false a legitimate grievance a legitimate claim a legitimate practitioner " … we are pretty good at separating legitimate pain from drug-seeking behavior. … "— Kenneth W. Fogelberg also : being an actual example of something specified a legitimate threat to national security

b : genuinely good, impressive, or capable of success And if he can fix his start … he is a legitimate contender for gold at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics.— Sean Ingle

3a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements a legitimate government

b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right a legitimate king

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards a legitimate advertising expenditure a legitimate inference also : fair or reasonable : valid She raised some legitimate concerns.

5 : relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy the legitimate theater

As defined..."science" seems to be an enterprise...or a mission with a goal of some sort.
As defined...I guess you could call science...(as an enterprise)....legitimate.

 

Nice find I never seen that version before

yes my version:

corpse
noun
noun: corpse; plural noun: corpses
a dead body, especially of a human being rather than an animal.
"the corpse of a man lay there"

true, 'however' you are after they manifest themselves in action.

false, not consciously

thoughts always come, they may overwrite other thoughts, or are forgotten they never go.

sure as new data is analysed

I suppose of you observe what you orchestrate, a bit of a sretch

Not possible, without though you know nothing of yourself unless you are including vegetable

not true I have beliefs I held since the day I thought through the issue.
unstable is not true, evolving maybe

but science changes all the time

 

Yep...and that's what happens....the ego "orchestrates" all kinds of illusions...
like who you are....what you stand for...convinces you that you're this kind of person
but not that kind of person.
And then.....?
You spend the rest of your life trying to be that imaginary self.
But it will never be enough...you will always feel something is missing.
You will always "need" something else...to make you feel complete...
to keep the illusion intact...because that was never your true self in the first place.

The real you doesn't "need" anything

 

again you focus on one of several p-types and oversimplify the result:


What are the big five personality traits?
The easiest way to remember them is to use the acronym "OCEAN", says Nick Haslam, Professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne.

• Openness is the tendency to be open to new ideas, imaginative, curious and creative, Professor Haslam says. People who score high in openness are often interested in creative pursuits.
• Conscientiousness is about having attention to detail and a good work ethic, says Eliroma Gardiner, a personality researcher at Griffith University. People who score highly in conscientiousness tend to want to get things done on time, the proper way, and tend to follow rules. If you prefer to disregard rules and do things your own way, you'd likely score lower here.
• Extraversion is the trait most associated with those who like to be the life of the party, those people who really enjoy socialising and spending time with others, Dr Gardiner says. If you'd prefer to snuggle up with a good book by yourself rather than head to the pub, you're likely to score lower on extraversion.
• Agreeableness, like extraversion, is about interpersonal style. People who score highly on agreeableness tend to be warm, trusting, kind and cooperative, Professor Haslam says. They tend to adjust to others, rather than forcing their own ways on them.
• Neuroticism is simply about how likely you are to feel negative emotions, like anxiety, sadness, anger, envy and jealousness. People who score highly on neuroticism tend to experience a lot of these negative emotions, while people who score lower tend to be more emotionally stable and calm.

The reason personality researchers favour this personality model is because it's based on decades of empirical work into personality structure, Professor Haslam says.
https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/big-five-personality-traits-backed-by-science-explained/10749608

https://similarminds.com/jung.html


Each person assesses thoughts based on the 16 personality types, there is simply far more at work here than you want to consider.

 

You seem to be defining "ego" as a personality type...or a personality trait.

What I'm stating is that....."ego" itself....can be the source of personality types and traits.
The "ego" alone can cause people to behave in one particular way or another.
The "ego" is not you..."ego" is the illusion you have of yourself...the false identity
created out of fear or want.

 

yes that is the context you are using it in

 

You seem to be describing "ego" as a part of a personality.

The word "personality" comes from the Latin word persona. In the ancient world, a persona was a mask worn by an actor. While we tend to think of a mask as being worn to conceal one’s identity, the theatrical mask was originally used to either represent or project a specific personality trait(s) of a character.

IMO..."personality" is as stated above.... "a mask" (created by the "ego")...
used to either represent or project a specific personality trait of a character.

Our egos pick and choose the type of personality that we want the world to see...
maybe you want the world to see you as an atheist, a Christian, a Republican, a nice guy, a bad guy, etc..
If someone was to ask you who you are....those are the kinds of answers you would give them...
You might say.....I am a "religious" person, an office worker, a libertarian, a patriot, a conservative, etc..
But that is not you at all....those things simply make up the illusory self
that your ego has created (out of fear and want) and attached itself to.

 

its semantics however, ego is part of "I" which is personality.

ego

Your ego is your conscious mind, the part of your identity that you consider your "self."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/ego

 

Yes! Definitely semantics get in the way.
Words seem to accumulate added meanings as we speak.
I will try to find a description of the word "ego" that applies to the way I have been using it.
Thanks for the input.

 

Okay...this may be something that gives a different description of "ego"....

"Whatever you accept into your mind has reality for you. 2 It is your acceptance of it that makes it real. 3 If you enthrone the "ego" in your mind, your allowing it to enter makes it your reality. 4 This is because the mind is capable of creating reality or making illusions."

"The ego is the part of the mind that believes in division"

The ego is quite literally a fearful thought......It represents a delusional system, and speaks for it.

 

So where is the correlation to religion? and how does the source change the reality hence the necessity of religion? Of course there are good an bad religions. Of course the religion on the left is going to believe the religion in front and to the left and to the right are all wrong. I dont see how your ego path does anything to tip the scales either way about religion? You admit to having morals, that is your religion. It sounds like you are arguing the source has anything to do with the meaning of religion?

 

I don't know that I brought "morals" in to this topic at all....
I see "morals" as simply more thoughts, beliefs, perceptions...
people get attached to them until they don't want them anymore
(or they get in the way). Then they'll put their "morals" aside for some other attachments...
that (they think) might better suit their "ego's" desire to feel superior to others..

 

Yes....You have summed it up quite well, IMO.

One source..."ego" will lead you too a "religion"...one that projects the
same thoughts, beliefs, perceptions that your ego has become attached to (out of fear or want).
The "ego" always "needs" to feel safe and in control of everything and everyone around it.

The other source..."needs" nothing at all...and is everything

 

I disagree, ego is only the 'broker' between your conscious and unconscious, nothing more.

soldiers on the battlefield hardly feel 'safe' and 'in control'

thats irrelevant to religion however
Morals, such as 'I will not kill anyone' are not created out of "fear" or "being in control", your ego premise falls apart on that point alone

 

You've used a different word..."broker"....to describe "ego".
You seem to be suggesting that "ego" itself is neutral and more like a observer/mediator.

 

Can you explain the correlation between the two statements above...
I can't see it yet.

 

I don't know that I brought "morals" in to this topic at all....
I see "morals" as simply more thoughts, beliefs, perceptions...
people get attached to them until they don't want them anymore
(or they get in the way). Then they'll put their "morals" aside for some other attachments...
that (they think) might better suit their "ego's" illusion of self...
the personality that the "ego" wants others to see.

 

I used a different definition than you ae using, had to look it up:

Ego, in psychoanalytic theory, that portion of the human personality which is experienced as the “self” or “I” and is in contact with the external world through perception. It is said to be the part that remembers, evaluates, plans, and in other ways is responsive to and acts in the surrounding physical and social world.

Since the ego is dependent on your p-type, then what I psoted earlier is correct.

That is the definition you are using correct?

 

The ego is where the conscious mind lives. It's lumbered with the tricky job of satisfying the id's wild desires in a realistic and socially acceptable way.

A study on Sigmund Freud's id, ego, and superego | Britannica