I’m clearly not merely quoting ancient philosophers; especially considering Jesus is amoungst them.

You’re only referencing the standards and societal norms of the day. 2+2 is still 4 regardless who says it and who they happen to be underneath; responding to hate and evil with equal parts love and goodness is more logical, regardless if it’s Jesus or Hitler saying it.

Challenging ones own assertions is a huge emphasis of what I have to say: “to never take an oath at all.” And you didn’t challenge my assertions at all, you did nothing but label them and consider them useless as a result.

My argument still stands. You have no idea what your refuting because you haven’t even bothered with what’s being refuted yet; resulting to you walking into contradiction after contradiction. I still have no idea that you have any idea what I’m talking about.

So you’re saying people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi etc didn’t present any evidence? And what they had to say isn’t worth considering therefore? Because again, the evidence they put forth based off their observation, is the same as mine.

The evidence I present is there, if you would read what I have to say to understand it—opposed to not even bothering with it at all and assume it’s nothing but stoner this or drug addict that—then that’s what we would be talking about right now.

What do you think things like the Big Bang Theory are? Scientific theory, based purely off our ability to observe the world around us. Not to mention philosophy. Why do you bother with anything on this sub then? All you’ll ever find is almost exactly what you just said: personal opinions based off observation.

What makes my personal opinions based off observation any different? I don’t know why I even bother to ask, because you’ll either not reply, or just chalk it up to pontification, despite pontificating to any degree absolutely not something that’s no longer worth considering, not by any means.

The meaning is selflessness; God or not.

I’m not religious. In fact, what’s being stated above is the opposite of what a religion would advocate—to hold it as unquestionably true, opposed to true but not that it’s no longer up for question, and considered what’s called “infalliable” or no longer capable of error.

Now that I’ve put forward plenty of evidence to support my claim, would you be willing to be the first person after days of posting different opinions regarding the same general topic, to give legitimate reason as to why I’m wrong? Opposed to only insulting me and passing off what I have to say (which is what people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi had to say—these men were far from “drug addled,” they also seen religion from my same perspective) as “stoner pontification,” as an example.

Consider shedding the hate that’s clouded your mind and thats led you to be so close minded, and allow love (your sense of selflessness) to clear it up, only leading you to consider the new knowledge or foreign influences that would undoubtedly lead your imagination to become even more powerful and detailed than it already is.

I’d love to, and thanks for the opportunity. If we look at humans the same way we do any other species, then we can plainly see a collection of concious beings with the most capacity for either ourselves, or everything else. I think therefore the less barbaric or more righteous way to live would be to dismiss yourself; to set yourself aside, so to speak. Because we’re the only living things to be able to even go as far as to suffer to strive to do so. Please check out my other few posts regarding the same topic as further evidence.

Truth to me is what reality consists of, despite anyway mankind has presently organized itself and manipulated its environment.

And ultimately what I’m trying to say here, is that ironically, the people that would be seeing the psychology and sociology within religion, by seeing the words and the logic they connotate as nothing but that—aren’t. Because again ironically, the people that see the value and potential to it, aren’t teaching it along with the way people like even Jesus advocated for it to be taught: to never see anything man made as unquestionably true. To see things as true, of course, but never where it’s no longer up for question, and that it’s no longer capable of error.

Obviously a big claim regarding Jesus, but it makes perfect sense if you consider the extent “oath-taking”—I like to call it—divides us. Whether it be the division between nations all the way down to things like racism or slander and collective hate. And if you consider the potential of the opposite, of the masses being taught to never be lead to feel as though they would kill, harm, hate, or be iniquitous in general for the sake of any man made thing—or to always be re-examining their life as Socrates put it, then I can’t help but to think this would undoubtedly hold the most potential for unity, in contrast to any amount of the opposite.

Wow, I’m speechless, this is fantastic. Genuinely, thanks for taking the time to write this up, it makes me feel fully understood, and “healing begins when you begin to feel heard.” So thanks for that honestly.

I’ve been talking to a lot of pastors about this for the past few years, so I guess I end up wrongly assuming that people will understand things like the “skin and wine” reference I guess you can say, for example.

It’s seeing selflessness and our capacity for it from a more reasonable point of view, because it’s reason and logic that serves as the basis of selflessness.

Without us, there is no potential for selflessness to the extent we can choose to even suffer for it; not to mention collectively, and the extent that could potentially benefit everything else in the process.

Selflessness is the meaning; God or not.

Why am I wrong?

I think to make life about peace for the sake of myself would to only confine all the potential that the opposite would have to offer otherwise—to myself, like most people. Vanity for the sake of everything else is the only desire worth seeking, because it’s the only one that doesn’t end in inevitable disappointment, due to all desire for oneself being temporary, and selflessness the only one that holds the potential of even lasting forever.

The most logical explanation is to strive to be as selfless as possible; God or not.

Selflessness is the most logical explanation; God or not.

Please consider Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction—Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, The Kingdom of God is Within You.

The most logical explanation would be to be able to acknowledge any of our potentially most barbaric desires or behaviors, and even go as far as to suffer to abstain from them, for a purpose outside of ourselves; God or not.

The most logical explanation is to strive to be as selfless as possible.

Selflessness is the meaning; God or not.

Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction—Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, The Kingdom of God is Within You.

My point exactly.

Oh I’m sorry. What about what I’ve said is so unclear to you exactly?