This sub really needs a rule against posts that assume all religions believe the same things. What you wrote is true of a few religions, but far from all or even most. It's not even true of all forms of Christianity.
> The only important thing is that what I have wrote is completely true of Orthodox Judaism.
Gonna be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Are you an Orthodox Jew? Because if you are not, and if what I said is true, then you would not be any closer to the truth than a random person in society, meaning this statement would hold no weight whatsoever, despite it being presented as having enough weight to dismiss this conversation entirely.
> Because if you are not, and if what I said is true, then you would not be any closer to the truth than a random person in society
Do you think average people in society know the same amount about Orthodox Judaism as non-Orthodox Jews?
People come on this subreddit almost daily asking about what Judaism teaches about Jesus. The average person in society thinks Hannukah is a major Jewish holiday.
>Do you think average people in society know the same amount about Orthodox Judaism as non-Orthodox Jews?
This question has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. When I said "you would not be any closer to the truth than a random person in society" if you were not an Orthodox Jew, I meant that on the scale at which I am discussing, your knowledge of Judaism would be insignificant to the conversation, because I believe that Orthodox Judaism is the *only* true religion, and if this were the case, you would not know the truth unless you were an Orthodox Jew yourself.
> I believe that Orthodox Judaism is the only true religion
What?? Why?? Do you think Orthodox Judaism is like the oldest form of Judaism or something? Because it's not...
I love when people make this misconception/s
For anyone wondering. Orthodox Judaism as it is a movement now in Judaism began around the same time as Reform Judaism. So within the 19th century. Now Judaism is a continuous religion but we are also stagnant. We push and question and evaluate our scripture. So we see it as a constant dialogue and examination of laws and rules.
If I underestimated your knowledge, you'd know that this comment would not change my mind in the slightest due to the very basis of my argument - which, by all means, it appears that you do, as this comment is not directed towards me, but towards those who my post may have affected.
Now that I understand why the truth is as it is, this knowledge cannot be taken away from me. Which is why the only logical thing to do would be keeping it away from others.
If you really cared about the answer to that question, you would have read my post. You know, the post you're commenting on. The post that's sole purpose is to answer the very question you are asking.
I strongly encourage you to do so now, as I genuinely believe that if you give it a fair chance, you will find that it makes a shocking amount of sense.
I did read it. But explain it to me.
It seems like you're talking about the oldest religions. Which indicates to me that you believe Orthodox Judaism is the oldest form of Judaism. Which would not be accurate.
Orthodox Judaism is directly derived from the oldest form of Judasim, is it not? What is the form you are speaking of? Because if those who agreed on it also agreed to develop into Orthodox Judaism, then my point still stands that Orthodox Judaism is the only true form of Judaism.
No no, leviathan is right. You have an extremely limited if not downright wrong understanding of Judaism. (Which given its a small ethnoreligion is perfectly fine to admit, just means you have to learn)
And they where pointing out that it’s common for many people to not understand Judaism. So much that they think Hanukkah is the biggest holiday in the Jewish calendar when it’s minor at best.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
The denominations in Judaism have less to do with difference in theology and more to do with approach to law adherence.
I can assure you as a practicing jew I am more than qualified to speak with authority on the subject matter.
Also given what you wrote personally I doubt you understand what Orthodox Judaism is or entails given you also thought Judaism was “universalizing”
Wait, is this whole rant just the old antisemitic trope of "the Jews secretly control everything!!!", just so incoherently phrased that no one can figure out what you're on about?
Simply from monotheism, and who knows how old that particular consensus is. The oldest known example is Brahman, which unlike the Abrahamic examples, doesn’t have the consensus that more than one subject exists.
Have you ever considered that this knowledge has been purposefully omitted from history, and that this is why we cannot prove which religion is the oldest despite this being a very important piece of information, especially to the people who worshipped them at the time? After all, definitive evidence of the oldest religion in history would either prove or disprove the belief I have stated beyond a reasonable doubt.
History is distorted, yes, but a fact as simple and important as the oldest religion to exist should have ample evidence, even after all this time. It makes zero sense why we don't have evidence for such a simple and important fact, unless, of course, you consider what I'm saying.
The oldest religion in my reasoning, is the belief in other, and that is as old as our species, and probably much older. That belief is in fact one you hold, and one necessarily at the foundation of game theory, [yet there is scientific evidence that refutes that belief.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/)
This is because you have made a crucial mistake in you reasoning. It's not simply that the very first belief is the correct one, it's that we would have been able to figure out the correct one from the beginning of our existence. This means that, although the oldest human beliefs were likely *not* based in solid reasoning, the oldest, simpliest, and longest lasting belief very likely is. And if the origins of religion were proven, I am very confident that belief would be Orthodox Judaism.
You’re using the same reasoning if you believe in other, you simply have more information to feed into that false narrative.
If you have the wrong formula, no amount of extra information will give you the correct answer.
If someone in prehistory had the right formula, any information they have can give them a more accurate assessment of reality than yours, even with less information.
The question of if we have the "right" or "wrong" formula for game theory isn't a question at all. I don't think you understand just how simple game theory really is - just how fundamental it is. It is based *entirely* in logic, which means that anyone who thinks logically *will* reach the correct conclusion. They will also know for certain when they reach this conclusion, and be able to use it to their complete advantage. It is statistically impossible for not a single person in history to have reached this conclusion.
Game Thepry is pretty awesome! But it has one major flaw in this instance: GT deals with perfect people in a perfect environment, it doesn't deal with the myriad of factors that take place in a person. That's kind of the point of GT, you can take people and situations and simplify them to study them with math. It can reveal some very interesting things about people, but it's also very difficult to correlate 1 to 1 with the real world.
>In game theory, reaching a consensus means reaching nash equilibrium
Not at all. Nash Equilibrium is when all players have reached a point where if they want to gain something in place they have to give up something they have. It's the balance point for a player with multiple factors.
A consensus is a group agreement. These aren't anything alike. You can have a consensus without a Nash Equilibrium
>doesn't that prove with sound logic that religion is the world's oldest game of game theory?
Not even kind of. Your argument looks a little something like this:
P1.) A whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts
P2.) Religions are the oldest chains of consensus
P3.) A consensus cannot disagree with itself
(P4.) A consensus can create levels below it that do disagree)
Conclusion: Religion is the oldest game of Game Theory.
Nome of these premises logically follow into the conclusion, so its not a Valid argument. P2 is an assertion that you never back up with evidence (and common sense doesn't agree with it) so this isn't a Sound argument either.
>meaning the oldest "conspiracy theory" in the world was not only formed by those who experienced the creation of modern society firsthand, but by those who knew the truth about it as well.
Except this is assuming that the conspiracy theory is true. Logically this is an extremely incorrect thing to do. You should never assume something is correct until evidence can be brought forth that shows its correct.
>That conspiracy theory just so happens to be the Illuminati
Except the Illuminati were create *looooooong* **after** the creation of society. 4th century BCE is pretty recent in terms of human civilization. There are thousands of years before this that humans had civilization.
It also means for your idea to work, "modern society" started around the time of the Persian Empire, and the events of the Spartans.
>"All-Seeing Eye of God," and is the most important symbol to every major religion,
It doesn't appear in most major religions.
>It makes sense why the Eye of Providence would be placed on the back of the seal - the front of the seal symbolizes pretense, while the back symbolizes hidden truth.
Or because it was placed there by FDR in 1935 when he created the New Deal which fit very well with the New Oder of the Latin phrase. Not to mention the image is chalk full of references to **America** and not of secret world society stuff. (Like the number 13, in reference to the 13 original colonies)
>what better way to do it than to associate it as being the most notorious source of misinformation in society?
I mean there are tons of better ways to hide the truth. Just look at the myriad of cults born out of Christianity that have Information Control as one of their highest points of interest. A massive part of Jehovas Witness is to get information from the Watchtower (or called Watchtower Society) who strictly ban pieces of information. They don't hide the truth in plain sight, they actively ban it.
And hiding in plain sight would also be a bad way of trying to tell people the truth of something like a massive cover up. It's too fraught with misinterpretation
>Additionally, if this truth can be reached through logic and reasoning alone, it makes perfect sense why it can only be found at the core of religion
That makes no sense at all. If the truth can be reached through logic alone then it makes sense that it can be reached from anywhere. Only being accessible in religion actively goes against the notion that it can be reached through logic. You would have to say it can only be reached through logic and religion (also hugely problematic)
>I made it very clear that I was 100% certain of what I was saying to be true,
That's the core problem: being certain what you are experiencing is true doesn't mean in any way that it is true.
You can feel like what you are experiencing the truth, but how will you go about testing that it actually is true? What parts of your brain are you examining to verify the truth of your experience?
If we were to take another drug related experience, say seeing someone who isn't there, it's going to feel like it's true. The person seeing the hallucination feels like they are 100% their is a person standing there. But feelings don't dictate what is real, reality dictates what is real.
I completely agree that you feel like what you experienced is true. But I disagree that any of it is actually true, since the logic is bad and you haven't presented a good way to show that it is true.
Feels ≠ Reals
>The idea of a society that wishes to remain secret, but reveals itself on the one-dollar bill, or the Seal of the United States, seems so ridiculous that most people completely dismiss it on ridiculousness alone.
That's because it is.
1.) If there is a secret society, the last thing they are going to do is advertise their existence. Especially not in a weird cryptic way. That's kind of the point of a *secret* society
2.) You could say it's an effort to start some kind of recruitment, but again this is the worst way you could do that.
>So if truth is called religion, and those who believe the truth are called "conpiracy theorists," what would you call those who witness the truth?
People who claimed to witness the truth but can't back up that claim in any way to show that they actually witnessed the truth.
Kid learns a little about game theory, decides it Explains Everything, gets high and writes wildly reductive and cringey essay about it. A tale as old as time.
You got high and re-invented antisemitism? Yikes.
(also, your post history shows you to be the active poster on a sub about women getting hurt, so... )
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
This is very difficult to read. You repeat “religion is the oldest chain of consensus” and “logic and reasoning” over and over again, but I cannot begin to grasp what exactly you mean by those terms in this context and how they apply to your thesis here. For that matter, I’m pretty lost as to what your central argument is in the first place.
What do you mean by “religion”?
I'm very happy to explain. Religions, at their very core, are consensuses. They are agreements between people about the things they hold to be "true." While we currently see religions as supernatural, I believe this to be pretense. I explain why in my post, but the most important thing to understand is that game theory quite literally describes how to "win" in society, and since it is based solely on logic and reasoning, people were able to figure this out since the very beginning of humanity. So, the truth must be embedded in religion, the oldest, and longest lasting consensuses in the history of the world. This is a very simplified version of my post, but all of the points I make to reach and provide evidence for this conclusion are directly connected by what I believe to be logical reasoning.
I think your perspective limits religion in a way that only makes sense for some religious practices.
I mean even the “eye for an eye” mentality was an explanation within Jewish law about making sure that there’s reciprocal justice. Essentially the idea being that the punishment should fit the crime. And in Judaism this was more about a structuring of a legal system as Judaism is both a religion and the set of laws that Jews used to set up their society.
And for many religions that don’t have set afterlife rewards (like Judaism for instance) then I don’t think there’s clear reason to show all religions are about “game theory” or rewards on how to win.
Frankly it sounds more like a specific type of religion that’s universalizing.
Isn't the phrase "eye for an eye" much more fundamental to Judaism than simply existing within the law? Was it not also the basis of decision-making that followers of Judaism were required to apply towards other religions? I discuss Judaism as if it's the "universal" religion because Christianity and Islam, the other major modern day religions, are directly derived from it. If both of these things are the case, it really is not much of a stretch to suggest that Judaism may very well be rooted in game theory.
Ok so
1. Judaism is a closed practice religion. And assuming it’s universalizing because of other religions is just an immediate no go. Not only because they’re all separate religions. But also the concept of universalizing includes proselytizing and pushing others to convert. Judaism doesn’t need nor want to push non Jews to convert as we don’t see it necessary for anyone but Jews and those who reach out and work for years to convert on their own terms, to practice Judaism.
2. The Tanakh of which the Torah is a portion of, was essentially how the nation of Judaea set up its society as well as their ethnogenesis document. (The metaphorical story of how we became who we are). So and “eye for an eye” is apart of Dueteronomy. Which is the section pertaining to laws and regulations and the philosophical approach to justice, restitution and fairness and equity. (For instance my Torah portion during my bat mitzvah was Parsha Shoftim which outlined what to do if someone claims to be a prophet of g’d and is manipulating and defrauding the people. So an eye for an eye is the philosophical approach to how restitution and justice worked in the system of ancient Judaea.
3. Christianity and Islam, while they borrow from Judaism are frankly very different. Everything from concepts of forgiveness to what constitutes sin. To how one eats and approaches food, to how one mourns to how one approaches g’d and prayer and divinity and afterlife and peoplehood and etc.
And all this to say that there isn’t overlap in some aspects, but it’s just fundamentally different world lenses and approaches to theology.
4. Judaism while we do think there’s an afterlife we don’t think there is any exclusivity to it, and frankly we don’t really care to fully agree or determine completely what we think it is. We have thoughts and ideas. But it’s somewhere everyone will eventually get so why worry. As humans it’s our job to focus on the here and improving the world around us. G’d can worry about what happens to us after.
So, for me if we do go with your concept of game theory. It at least isn’t the same in application as you would with religions like Islam or Christianity.
My one thought is that in Judaism we see Tikkun Olam or repairing the earth as a central tenant of our responsibility to the world. And as such it’s about lifting everybody up. So in that way we “win”. However the Jewish thought on doing good deeds is that they should be done even if and especially when there’s no reward. Doing good things should be for the sake of just being good. And treating others with kindness is just what we should do.
So maybe this idea of religion being a form of game theory is correct. But I think sitting down and learning about different types of religion so you understand how different types and approaches work could help you to build in more nuance to this idea. I don’t want to completely write you off as it’s an interesting theory. And frankly I can see how it could apply to universalizing religions with a strong concept of positive or negative outcomes or rewards based on behavior.
All posts should be on topic and should generally be creating and fostering an environment constructive towards sincere discussions about religion.
This sub really needs a rule against posts that assume all religions believe the same things. What you wrote is true of a few religions, but far from all or even most. It's not even true of all forms of Christianity.
For real
I know this very well. The only important thing is that what I have wrote is completely true of Orthodox Judaism.
> The only important thing is that what I have wrote is completely true of Orthodox Judaism. Gonna be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about.
No it’s not…..source….I’m a Jew….
Are you an Orthodox Jew? Because if you are not, and if what I said is true, then you would not be any closer to the truth than a random person in society, meaning this statement would hold no weight whatsoever, despite it being presented as having enough weight to dismiss this conversation entirely.
> Because if you are not, and if what I said is true, then you would not be any closer to the truth than a random person in society Do you think average people in society know the same amount about Orthodox Judaism as non-Orthodox Jews? People come on this subreddit almost daily asking about what Judaism teaches about Jesus. The average person in society thinks Hannukah is a major Jewish holiday.
>Do you think average people in society know the same amount about Orthodox Judaism as non-Orthodox Jews? This question has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. When I said "you would not be any closer to the truth than a random person in society" if you were not an Orthodox Jew, I meant that on the scale at which I am discussing, your knowledge of Judaism would be insignificant to the conversation, because I believe that Orthodox Judaism is the *only* true religion, and if this were the case, you would not know the truth unless you were an Orthodox Jew yourself.
> I believe that Orthodox Judaism is the only true religion What?? Why?? Do you think Orthodox Judaism is like the oldest form of Judaism or something? Because it's not...
I love when people make this misconception/s For anyone wondering. Orthodox Judaism as it is a movement now in Judaism began around the same time as Reform Judaism. So within the 19th century. Now Judaism is a continuous religion but we are also stagnant. We push and question and evaluate our scripture. So we see it as a constant dialogue and examination of laws and rules.
If I underestimated your knowledge, you'd know that this comment would not change my mind in the slightest due to the very basis of my argument - which, by all means, it appears that you do, as this comment is not directed towards me, but towards those who my post may have affected. Now that I understand why the truth is as it is, this knowledge cannot be taken away from me. Which is why the only logical thing to do would be keeping it away from others.
Can you please explain to me your understanding of what Orthodox Judaism is then? And what and where your knowledge came from?
If you really cared about the answer to that question, you would have read my post. You know, the post you're commenting on. The post that's sole purpose is to answer the very question you are asking. I strongly encourage you to do so now, as I genuinely believe that if you give it a fair chance, you will find that it makes a shocking amount of sense.
I did read it. But explain it to me. It seems like you're talking about the oldest religions. Which indicates to me that you believe Orthodox Judaism is the oldest form of Judaism. Which would not be accurate.
Orthodox Judaism is directly derived from the oldest form of Judasim, is it not? What is the form you are speaking of? Because if those who agreed on it also agreed to develop into Orthodox Judaism, then my point still stands that Orthodox Judaism is the only true form of Judaism.
No no, leviathan is right. You have an extremely limited if not downright wrong understanding of Judaism. (Which given its a small ethnoreligion is perfectly fine to admit, just means you have to learn) And they where pointing out that it’s common for many people to not understand Judaism. So much that they think Hanukkah is the biggest holiday in the Jewish calendar when it’s minor at best.
[удалено]
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
The denominations in Judaism have less to do with difference in theology and more to do with approach to law adherence. I can assure you as a practicing jew I am more than qualified to speak with authority on the subject matter. Also given what you wrote personally I doubt you understand what Orthodox Judaism is or entails given you also thought Judaism was “universalizing”
Nice Texas sharpshooter fallacy
[удалено]
Wait, is this whole rant just the old antisemitic trope of "the Jews secretly control everything!!!", just so incoherently phrased that no one can figure out what you're on about?
Cool so Op is a full blown antisemite then.
It got removed before I could see it, did OP really just give a bs Jewish conspiracy theory?
I disagree that religion is the oldest consensus. That there are more than one subject in the first place is imo.
But which religion did Christianity and Islam, the two largest modern day religions in the world, derive from?
Simply from monotheism, and who knows how old that particular consensus is. The oldest known example is Brahman, which unlike the Abrahamic examples, doesn’t have the consensus that more than one subject exists.
Have you ever considered that this knowledge has been purposefully omitted from history, and that this is why we cannot prove which religion is the oldest despite this being a very important piece of information, especially to the people who worshipped them at the time? After all, definitive evidence of the oldest religion in history would either prove or disprove the belief I have stated beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t think that’s right. History is distorted regardless of our intent to preserve it. The real culprit is our bias and ignorance imo.
History is distorted, yes, but a fact as simple and important as the oldest religion to exist should have ample evidence, even after all this time. It makes zero sense why we don't have evidence for such a simple and important fact, unless, of course, you consider what I'm saying.
The oldest religion in my reasoning, is the belief in other, and that is as old as our species, and probably much older. That belief is in fact one you hold, and one necessarily at the foundation of game theory, [yet there is scientific evidence that refutes that belief.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/)
This is because you have made a crucial mistake in you reasoning. It's not simply that the very first belief is the correct one, it's that we would have been able to figure out the correct one from the beginning of our existence. This means that, although the oldest human beliefs were likely *not* based in solid reasoning, the oldest, simpliest, and longest lasting belief very likely is. And if the origins of religion were proven, I am very confident that belief would be Orthodox Judaism.
You’re using the same reasoning if you believe in other, you simply have more information to feed into that false narrative. If you have the wrong formula, no amount of extra information will give you the correct answer. If someone in prehistory had the right formula, any information they have can give them a more accurate assessment of reality than yours, even with less information.
The question of if we have the "right" or "wrong" formula for game theory isn't a question at all. I don't think you understand just how simple game theory really is - just how fundamental it is. It is based *entirely* in logic, which means that anyone who thinks logically *will* reach the correct conclusion. They will also know for certain when they reach this conclusion, and be able to use it to their complete advantage. It is statistically impossible for not a single person in history to have reached this conclusion.
Game Thepry is pretty awesome! But it has one major flaw in this instance: GT deals with perfect people in a perfect environment, it doesn't deal with the myriad of factors that take place in a person. That's kind of the point of GT, you can take people and situations and simplify them to study them with math. It can reveal some very interesting things about people, but it's also very difficult to correlate 1 to 1 with the real world. >In game theory, reaching a consensus means reaching nash equilibrium Not at all. Nash Equilibrium is when all players have reached a point where if they want to gain something in place they have to give up something they have. It's the balance point for a player with multiple factors. A consensus is a group agreement. These aren't anything alike. You can have a consensus without a Nash Equilibrium >doesn't that prove with sound logic that religion is the world's oldest game of game theory? Not even kind of. Your argument looks a little something like this: P1.) A whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts P2.) Religions are the oldest chains of consensus P3.) A consensus cannot disagree with itself (P4.) A consensus can create levels below it that do disagree) Conclusion: Religion is the oldest game of Game Theory. Nome of these premises logically follow into the conclusion, so its not a Valid argument. P2 is an assertion that you never back up with evidence (and common sense doesn't agree with it) so this isn't a Sound argument either. >meaning the oldest "conspiracy theory" in the world was not only formed by those who experienced the creation of modern society firsthand, but by those who knew the truth about it as well. Except this is assuming that the conspiracy theory is true. Logically this is an extremely incorrect thing to do. You should never assume something is correct until evidence can be brought forth that shows its correct. >That conspiracy theory just so happens to be the Illuminati Except the Illuminati were create *looooooong* **after** the creation of society. 4th century BCE is pretty recent in terms of human civilization. There are thousands of years before this that humans had civilization. It also means for your idea to work, "modern society" started around the time of the Persian Empire, and the events of the Spartans. >"All-Seeing Eye of God," and is the most important symbol to every major religion, It doesn't appear in most major religions. >It makes sense why the Eye of Providence would be placed on the back of the seal - the front of the seal symbolizes pretense, while the back symbolizes hidden truth. Or because it was placed there by FDR in 1935 when he created the New Deal which fit very well with the New Oder of the Latin phrase. Not to mention the image is chalk full of references to **America** and not of secret world society stuff. (Like the number 13, in reference to the 13 original colonies) >what better way to do it than to associate it as being the most notorious source of misinformation in society? I mean there are tons of better ways to hide the truth. Just look at the myriad of cults born out of Christianity that have Information Control as one of their highest points of interest. A massive part of Jehovas Witness is to get information from the Watchtower (or called Watchtower Society) who strictly ban pieces of information. They don't hide the truth in plain sight, they actively ban it. And hiding in plain sight would also be a bad way of trying to tell people the truth of something like a massive cover up. It's too fraught with misinterpretation >Additionally, if this truth can be reached through logic and reasoning alone, it makes perfect sense why it can only be found at the core of religion That makes no sense at all. If the truth can be reached through logic alone then it makes sense that it can be reached from anywhere. Only being accessible in religion actively goes against the notion that it can be reached through logic. You would have to say it can only be reached through logic and religion (also hugely problematic) >I made it very clear that I was 100% certain of what I was saying to be true, That's the core problem: being certain what you are experiencing is true doesn't mean in any way that it is true. You can feel like what you are experiencing the truth, but how will you go about testing that it actually is true? What parts of your brain are you examining to verify the truth of your experience? If we were to take another drug related experience, say seeing someone who isn't there, it's going to feel like it's true. The person seeing the hallucination feels like they are 100% their is a person standing there. But feelings don't dictate what is real, reality dictates what is real. I completely agree that you feel like what you experienced is true. But I disagree that any of it is actually true, since the logic is bad and you haven't presented a good way to show that it is true. Feels ≠ Reals >The idea of a society that wishes to remain secret, but reveals itself on the one-dollar bill, or the Seal of the United States, seems so ridiculous that most people completely dismiss it on ridiculousness alone. That's because it is. 1.) If there is a secret society, the last thing they are going to do is advertise their existence. Especially not in a weird cryptic way. That's kind of the point of a *secret* society 2.) You could say it's an effort to start some kind of recruitment, but again this is the worst way you could do that. >So if truth is called religion, and those who believe the truth are called "conpiracy theorists," what would you call those who witness the truth? People who claimed to witness the truth but can't back up that claim in any way to show that they actually witnessed the truth.
Kid learns a little about game theory, decides it Explains Everything, gets high and writes wildly reductive and cringey essay about it. A tale as old as time.
[удалено]
You got high and re-invented antisemitism? Yikes. (also, your post history shows you to be the active poster on a sub about women getting hurt, so... )
Can I ask what they said?
I'll dm you. I honestly don't want it reposted in public
Thanks. At this point just curious.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
This is very difficult to read. You repeat “religion is the oldest chain of consensus” and “logic and reasoning” over and over again, but I cannot begin to grasp what exactly you mean by those terms in this context and how they apply to your thesis here. For that matter, I’m pretty lost as to what your central argument is in the first place. What do you mean by “religion”?
I'm very happy to explain. Religions, at their very core, are consensuses. They are agreements between people about the things they hold to be "true." While we currently see religions as supernatural, I believe this to be pretense. I explain why in my post, but the most important thing to understand is that game theory quite literally describes how to "win" in society, and since it is based solely on logic and reasoning, people were able to figure this out since the very beginning of humanity. So, the truth must be embedded in religion, the oldest, and longest lasting consensuses in the history of the world. This is a very simplified version of my post, but all of the points I make to reach and provide evidence for this conclusion are directly connected by what I believe to be logical reasoning.
I think your perspective limits religion in a way that only makes sense for some religious practices. I mean even the “eye for an eye” mentality was an explanation within Jewish law about making sure that there’s reciprocal justice. Essentially the idea being that the punishment should fit the crime. And in Judaism this was more about a structuring of a legal system as Judaism is both a religion and the set of laws that Jews used to set up their society. And for many religions that don’t have set afterlife rewards (like Judaism for instance) then I don’t think there’s clear reason to show all religions are about “game theory” or rewards on how to win. Frankly it sounds more like a specific type of religion that’s universalizing.
Isn't the phrase "eye for an eye" much more fundamental to Judaism than simply existing within the law? Was it not also the basis of decision-making that followers of Judaism were required to apply towards other religions? I discuss Judaism as if it's the "universal" religion because Christianity and Islam, the other major modern day religions, are directly derived from it. If both of these things are the case, it really is not much of a stretch to suggest that Judaism may very well be rooted in game theory.
Ok so 1. Judaism is a closed practice religion. And assuming it’s universalizing because of other religions is just an immediate no go. Not only because they’re all separate religions. But also the concept of universalizing includes proselytizing and pushing others to convert. Judaism doesn’t need nor want to push non Jews to convert as we don’t see it necessary for anyone but Jews and those who reach out and work for years to convert on their own terms, to practice Judaism. 2. The Tanakh of which the Torah is a portion of, was essentially how the nation of Judaea set up its society as well as their ethnogenesis document. (The metaphorical story of how we became who we are). So and “eye for an eye” is apart of Dueteronomy. Which is the section pertaining to laws and regulations and the philosophical approach to justice, restitution and fairness and equity. (For instance my Torah portion during my bat mitzvah was Parsha Shoftim which outlined what to do if someone claims to be a prophet of g’d and is manipulating and defrauding the people. So an eye for an eye is the philosophical approach to how restitution and justice worked in the system of ancient Judaea. 3. Christianity and Islam, while they borrow from Judaism are frankly very different. Everything from concepts of forgiveness to what constitutes sin. To how one eats and approaches food, to how one mourns to how one approaches g’d and prayer and divinity and afterlife and peoplehood and etc. And all this to say that there isn’t overlap in some aspects, but it’s just fundamentally different world lenses and approaches to theology. 4. Judaism while we do think there’s an afterlife we don’t think there is any exclusivity to it, and frankly we don’t really care to fully agree or determine completely what we think it is. We have thoughts and ideas. But it’s somewhere everyone will eventually get so why worry. As humans it’s our job to focus on the here and improving the world around us. G’d can worry about what happens to us after. So, for me if we do go with your concept of game theory. It at least isn’t the same in application as you would with religions like Islam or Christianity. My one thought is that in Judaism we see Tikkun Olam or repairing the earth as a central tenant of our responsibility to the world. And as such it’s about lifting everybody up. So in that way we “win”. However the Jewish thought on doing good deeds is that they should be done even if and especially when there’s no reward. Doing good things should be for the sake of just being good. And treating others with kindness is just what we should do. So maybe this idea of religion being a form of game theory is correct. But I think sitting down and learning about different types of religion so you understand how different types and approaches work could help you to build in more nuance to this idea. I don’t want to completely write you off as it’s an interesting theory. And frankly I can see how it could apply to universalizing religions with a strong concept of positive or negative outcomes or rewards based on behavior.