peace
A very intelligent answer.
- when i said how should either be measured i was speaking on intelligence/Religion, not any individual. I agree with the rest of the above statement. I even have my own quote that pretty much sums up what you've stated here.I wouldn't say who but what would be measured. That measurement should be between truth and fallacy, reality and fantasy. I know this is not absolute either, because there are people who swear by lies and deny truth.
'Once a lie is believed, it becomes true to the believer'
- Balance, in this instance would mean within the actual hue-man being, as in how much 'truth' will it take to balance her/himself out which is what religion is supposed to be for. To ease the mind. So if the mind is dis-eased, it is un-balanced. So some turn to another source to correct the wobble going on within, once they are aware that there is a wobble.To me balance is relative. If we take balance as 100%. That 100% between the positive and negative poles can be 90%-10%, 75%-25%, 55%-45%.
It is exactly the same for the non-religious. There is also a limit as to how much 'truth' will be accepted by those who adhere to no religion which is the main reason some refer to ourselves as 'free thinkers'. We have freed ourselves from religion, or have been freed by someone else's challenges to our once set of beliefs and are now FREE to think for ourselves. Meaning, anything we now come across we can accept it, or leave it alone which in itself tells me that there are still some things we might discard also because we may be free, but not quite ready for that next level of free-dome yet.
- true indeed.I think a person would have to understand themselves first. Are the thinking from the master will or the slave will.
- exactly! And not until we see the individuals response will we be able to measure it for our selves.Are their thoughts original or reflex?