The real beef.
Your relationship with your dog is much more significant since he probably cares about you, is a good companion and can be proven to exist (unless you’re making him up for the purpose of these comments). A relationship with god is a one-sided time/effort/focus sink that provides no benefit to anyone involved unless they’re in on the con and passing around a collection plate.
If someone doesn’t eat beef or tries to discourage others from doing so because it might be magic, they ought to lay off their bullshit. Stuff like that carves out a blind spot in peoples’ critical thinking where things like ayurveda, homeopathy, chiropractors and acupuncturists can hide and prey on the desperate. Accepting the less-harmful aspects makes it harder to reject the dangerous ones.
This is why I’m bringing up Indian culture where the cow worship is pretty wellknown.
For them, again, cows are sacred beasts. Basically a living deity so whether you agree or not about the deity or existence of Gods you can’t disagree that cows exist.
So from there I’m attempting to conceptualize how Indians feel towards Cows (worship of deity) and see if it’s similar to how I feel about my pet dog.
At least that’s what I took from the post.
Yes, I think your comment captures my showerthought. It was an excercize in empathy. I do realize that the love for a sacred animal is significantly more profound than the way I feel about my dog. That being said, I do have respect and love for my dear canine companion, which causes an inhibition for eating him.
Mmm I see I see. I don’t personally agree but I agree when looking at it from your perspective.
I did a bit of a dive for it in a different comment but for me I do not share that love for sacred thing that you do which generated some interesting discussion. All around I’d say discussion mission was successful
For example, there are some herbs that fell under the umbrella of homeopathy that turned out to have very valuable medicinal properties when properly studied.
If they’re being used in homeopathy, they’re not being used in homeopathy. The method of preparation for homeopathic “medicine” dilutes it to the point where it’s statistically unlikely to be present in the final product. If there is any of it in the product and especially if there enough for it to have any effect, it wasn’t made by any process that meets the description of homeopathy and is some other type of (probably less-than-strictly-regulated) supplement with the homeopathy label slapped on for marketing.
A substance with beneficial properties that is studied and used to treat an illness or injury may become medicine. Some quack including it in a recipe book for their snake oil doesn’t make their quackery valid.
You are right, I’ll delete my comment. I didn’t realize that homeopathy meant those crazy people that use ridiculous dilutions. I heard that it’s improbable that even 1 molecule of ‘active’ ingredient is left over after they dilute and dilute.
Do you have any data on this:
A relationship with god is a one-sided time/effort/focus sink that provides no benefit to anyone involved unless they’re in on the con and passing around a collection plate.
If you’re asking me for data to show that it’s a one-sided relationship with nobody on the receiving side of the worship and praise being directed at the idea of a god, I can’t help you with that. The existence of a god has yet to be proven but more and more of what has historically been answered with “god did it” is being explained by scientific inquiry. If somebody comes forward with high-quality evidence of a god, I’d be very interested in seeing it.
If you’re asking about data showing the benefits of having a daily routine and social interaction within your community, that’s something I believe I can find along with data that demonstrates a link between drinking an appropriate amount of water and not being dead. Making it a religious practice (daily prayer, regular church attendance) is unnecessary and adds nothing but an open door for manipulators and scam artists.
If you’d like to understand how receiving churchgoers’ money benefits the clergy selling the idea of a god, that one’s pretty obvious so I can’t say whether it’s been studied or what kind of data there is to present here.
Can you please clarify your question so I’ll have a better chance of addressing it if I haven’t already?
It’s a pretty straightforward question. Do you have any data that backs up what you claimed? I don’t see what other way there is to interpret that question.
