Wasting Time?

[Zzyzx]

If we spend an hour per day worshiping Odin or Quetzalcoatl, that equates to fifteen 24-hour days per year. Would that be wasted time? There are, literally, thousands of 'gods' promoted by religions.

How can it be determined (beyond anyone's opinion) which, if any, of the proposed 'gods' are worthy of our time, effort, and resources?

[William]

Time cannot really be wasted, as far as I can assertain.

Even death is simply transfering the personality to another reality experience.

My life time hasnt been wasted on learning how to maintain a conscious connect with the almighty mind behind creation.

It is like looking at a reflection and loving what is seen.

When I look in a mirror, I prefer to find something else to love.

I am not surprised by your sentiment.

Nor would I be surprised if this turned out to be the general consensus of materialists all over.

Even so - the expression I used did not specifically imply looking at ones own reflection, so perhaps that one cannot love the image of their own form, they can still love other things which a mirror might reflect...

Sensing connections through subconscious means is what I am seeing reflected...

[Purple Knight]

How can it be determined (beyond anyone's opinion) which, if any, of the proposed 'gods' are worthy of our time, effort, and resources?

It starts with asking, what is a god? What is worship? Why does one worship?

If the act of worship is assumed to be selfless then you can worship anyone, and I would like to suggest myself, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. (I hope this is a good reductio ad absurdum for totally selfless worship.)

Now, if the act of worship is about gaining something for the self, I would like to suggest that it is not any physical thing, but that the only thing that fits properly in this hole is goodness itself. This is very similar to selflessness, but not quite. We don't end up worshiping evil people who hurt us because oh how selfless we are, thank you sir may I have another, but neither do we graduate to the quite logical (but also reductio) Difflugia suggestion that we simply worship the god that gives us the most free stuff on demand.

So unless you're willing to worship me because I'll promise not to do you any good, or unless you're going to do as Difflugia suggests and worship for immediate and practical worldly result...

...the god that is worthy of worship is one that helps you be good.

Note that a god doesn't need to exist for this to be satisfied, but it helps. It helps because an extant god can intervene and smush people perverting his words and tricking people. I argue that this type of intervention is sufficient, and very nearly necessary. The only ways it wouldn't be necessary is if 1) the teachings were so clear that everyone got to the same conclusion on every moral issue taught about and nobody disagreed, so nobody could pervert the meaning, or 2) the organisaion devoted to worshiping this god kept itself so meticulously clean and free of deceivers that you could trust that they had it right - they would have to be powerful and good, which is almost a contradiction, but it's not a logical contradiction so I'm going to go ahead and admit that would satisfy the necessary.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #32]

...the god that is worthy of worship is one that helps you be good.

Doesn't one also have to ask what is 'good', if you're asking what is a god, worship and why one worships? 'Good', as used here, seems ambiguous.
Surely, 'good' means something different to one than another.
Until that's defined, and maybe agreed upon for everyone, does that foster a waste of time as well?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #32]

...the god that is worthy of worship is one that helps you be good.

Doesn't one also have to ask what is 'good',

You really don't. If you notice that something helps you get the outcome, you don't have to understand the process. People drive cars all the time, and most of them don't understand how motors work, for example.

So I don't have to understand what good is to go for this. As long as I see that humans praise the good and scold the evil, I can just go for the praise. I can do this even if this correlation isn't perfect. I can even use outlier outcomes to try to pick out possible cheaters, even though I have no idea what the game is, what the rules are, and I can't even see the board. I can see my input, and I can see the output that comes toward me. That's enough.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #34]

I can see my input, and I can see the output that comes toward me. That's enough.

Reflections.


Reflections = 126
Interactive
The Body of God
Returning
Completely
All That We Are.
Not Wrong
Reflections
Shift Focus
Important
Mother of God

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #32]

...the god that is worthy of worship is one that helps you be good.

Doesn't one also have to ask what is 'good',

You really don't. If you notice that something helps you get the outcome, you don't have to understand the process. People drive cars all the time, and most of them don't understand how motors work, for example.

So I don't have to understand what good is to go for this. As long as I see that humans praise the good and scold the evil, I can just go for the praise. I can do this even if this correlation isn't perfect. I can even use outlier outcomes to try to pick out possible cheaters, even though I have no idea what the game is, what the rules are, and I can't even see the board. I can see my input, and I can see the output that comes toward me. That's enough.

It depends on whom is asked.
Things that, looking back, we say 'wasn't good', at the time, may have been seen as good to those that did them.
So, for the whole, most definitely you have to have a definition - you even define it by your actions if not words.
For the individual, you still need a definition, but it's one's personal definition that doesn't have to coincide or agree with the definition of others.
I've found when someone says 'you don't have to understand what XYZ means to get it', they're picking the definition for themselves and to heck with everyone else. Which, for the individual, is fine I suppose. Even if it's not fine for them, I don't care - someone can wreck their life if they want it's none of my business until it impacts me directly.
However, when one tries to defend their action/concept by using their own definition, they should expect some pushback and disagreement.

[Purple Knight]

Things that, looking back, we say 'wasn't good', at the time, may have been seen as good to those that did them.

That's why it's more important to make sure one is on the right side of history than anything else. Things that are said later are more important than things that are said at the moment. Most everyone seems to accept this, though some are, as I see baselessly, hoping that things will somehow switch back.

So, for the whole, most definitely you have to have a definition - you even define it by your actions if not words.
For the individual, you still need a definition, but it's one's personal definition that doesn't have to coincide or agree with the definition of others.

You need to know what you're going for, but you don't need to pin it down in words. Animals feed themselves just fine without having a proper definition of food. And they don't have to worry about not being able to pick up a food and starving because someone got a gotcha and pointed out that by their definition, let's say they picked, something which contains usable energy for me, the little seashells they need for their crop are not food so they shouldn't eat them.

I've found when someone says 'you don't have to understand what XYZ means to get it', they're picking the definition for themselves and to heck with everyone else. Which, for the individual, is fine I suppose. Even if it's not fine for them, I don't care - someone can wreck their life if they want it's none of my business until it impacts me directly.
However, when one tries to defend their action/concept by using their own definition, they should expect some pushback and disagreement.

This is a form of definitionalism where someone just defines themselves into being right by taking the liberty to write their own definition. It's unhelpful to anyone, including that person, because it's utterly meaningless. They're welcome to have their own moral structure, though. They still don't get to impose it on you unless they've earned the right to do so by being more moral than you, and this would have to be by the definition of others besides themselves.

[2ndpillar2]

]
Just do a comparison. The humanist, followers of the godless Marx, have a history of destruction. Those that teach and keep the Commandments of God, on the whole, experience a freedom of expression and blessings. Those that teach, but do not keep the Commandments, eventually follow the Marxist to destruction. In a real world that would be physical evidence of the presence of God, and on the other hand, the presence of evil.

Yes, let's compare your claims to the claims of what the God of the Bible reportedly did:

Genesis 7:22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Of course, there is no reason to consider this account factual, but if it were, God is the master of destruction. No one has ever matched his record.

Tcg

I think you miss the fact that whenever Israel or Judah sinned, they were pretty much crushed by the nations. That is a lesson to be learned the easy way or the hard way. For future reference, there will no longer be a destruction by water, but by fire. Make sure your fire insurance is paid up. According to Zechariah 14:1-2 and Daniel 2:45, & Jeremiah 30:11, it will be the "nations" which get crushed/destroyed. Maybe you can sign up to the church of Satan in New York, and Satan can protect you. You can remain Godless, and seek support from the god Satan, who pushes humanism/Progressivism/Marxism. Not that "Christians" don't already worship the sun god, Sol Invictus, a stand in for Satan, and will have to drink from the cup of God's wrath (Revelation 14:10), but they acknowledge the writing on the wall, but they simply don't believe what is written by the prophets, and instead nail what is prophetic to a cross, and embrace the false prophet Paul instead. I don't think it will go well for either the theist or their antagonist, the atheist.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #37]

That's why it's more important to make sure one is on the right side of history than anything else.

Good luck with that if you don't have a time machine and know everything!

You need to know what you're going for, but you don't need to pin it down in words.

Never said anything about words

This is a form of definitionalism where someone just defines themselves into being right by taking the liberty to write their own definition. It's unhelpful to anyone, including that person, because it's utterly meaningless.

It depends on the person. If this works for you, great!

They still don't get to impose it on you unless they've earned the right to do so by being more moral than you, and this would have to be by the definition of others besides themselves.

Some would likely disagree with that We see others pushing their morals all the time, no matter if they've earned anything or not. As I said before, it's wasting time to someone only if that person sees it that way. Others can also see it that way. And to them, it may be wasting time.
If you do XYZ, but I see it as wasting time, to me, it's indeed a waste. To you it might not be. So what? Indeed; two different perceptions of the same thing.
As I said before, it's all about individual perception.

[Purple Knight]

Some would likely disagree with that We see others pushing their morals all the time, no matter if they've earned anything or not.

Well it's important to sort those who can legitimately force morality on others and those who cannot.

I would hope people who define themselves into tautological correctness would be in the latter category, and there would have to be an actual good reason for enforcing a rule on someone that they disagree with.