Like a person who is willing to murder others to uphold their religious dogma. They have abandoned their empathy for others simply on the basis that their religious views are held to a higher regard. This is neither logical nor emotional, it is just pure ignorance.

If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?

I think you need a balance of emotion and logic. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, you make unnecessary mistakes and or you weight a point of view too much accordingly.

A good example of this is right after some kind of accident happens. People enveloped in their emotional distraught, pressure law makers to make changes. These changes often neglect the logical counter parts so what happens is some imbalanced law that causes more problems than it solves. Purely because the people involved were using too much emotion and not enough logic.

The other side of this is where logic loses it's sympathetic approach to problem solving. Some times the purely logical course of action, is not the most reasonable as far as empathy goes. A good example of this is someone who would make some kind of blanket statement about a particular group of people and the solution would be to resolve this group as the solution. But that doesn't actually resolve the issue in a empathetic way, it just solves the problem from their logical point of view.

I think a majority of religious people toss logic to the side when it comes to their theistic beliefs. However they wont purely move over to the emotional side either because they tend to abandon empathy as well. Like a person who is willing to murder others to uphold their religious dogma. They have abandoned their empathy for others simply on the basis that their religious views are held to a higher regard. This is neither logical nor emotional, it is just pure ignorance.

Is there such a thing as mythic logic?
Meaning, is not, cannot religion although a possible fiction still be a logical lie?

If the delusion is more compressionable than the 'reality' is not the delusional life better because it is more controllable than a 'reality' that is never controllable?

If a lie leads to balance, is not the lie not the most trustworthy because if gets results?

You said it that empathy needs logic and emotion and that logically and emotionally balance equals healthy empathy, so why not a good piece of fiction which addresses both the emotions desires, logical restraints and empathetic outcome control?

Religion may be emotionally and logically delusional but is not this delusional balanced?

Is not the design of the delusion that which shows the emotions even bring forth new ones but confines them logically by giving them a vehicle and 'path' so they can be more expressive the more they are controlled?
Design of a delusion, logic of an emotion.

You can express and have more emotions the further you understand and control and expose them all done by a following of the fictions plot.
A story is often the best way to achieve this.

It give a plot which is logical if not for the fact it is a plot design and then gives you emotions to have while you are following the line of the design.
It is when the reader of the fiction thinks the story is about just emotion and not enough design and exposition that one will delude the delusion.

If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?

Is logic the dissemination of emotion?
Is logic the opposite of emotion?
Is logic emotional?

Is Humanity based upon the emotions or the logics?
Is the soul an emotional or logical thing?

Is life for the emotions and death for the logicals?
Are we dead with out the emotions?
Alive without logic?

Is experience logical or emotional?
Is emotion needed to learn?
Is logic needed to teach?

Can we survive or thrive without the emotions?
Do the emotions get in the way of success?
Or just the 'wrong' success?
Is there a successful emotion?

Are animals based more on emotions or logic?
Which is more animality emotion or logic?
Has it been our added emotional or logical relevance over that of the animal kingdom and 'nature' that which has made us the 'rulers' of the planet called Home?
Are humans just lucky?
Or unlucky?

Is there already a human who has been successful in shedding their emotions?
Is success based more on a controllable emotional success?
How can one be successful with or without emotions?
How can one control their emotions?

Was, Is, Will God emotional?
Is God a bad example of emotion?
Is God the best example of emotion?
Is God the ultimate control and capture of emotion?

Can we be emotionless and still need God?

Thanks for you time.
Is time emotional or logical? Both, more or less?

*answer one some or all, better still ask one of your own*

I think we ultimately live for emotions, for good emotions. E-motive. Our motive, our engines, the push that makes it happen.

I think we just need to train and develop our better emotions. I think we should dodge hatred, envy, fear, vanity, etc. as much as possible. But we should be as conscious as possible of these. We should know these as present in us, as universally present, and forgive their presence. Like Blake said "without contraries is no progression."

I would say that abstractions (which are perhaps what you are saying in my lingo with the word "logic") are experienced emotionally. I would say that humans cannot dodge emotion. We can pursue the cold pleasure of status or the warmer pleasure of love. Etc.

In other words can you be 'more' happy by knowing sadness and treating it or would not the very fact there had never been a sadness mean they were the ones who were actually 'more' happy? Would their happiness be a shallow one? Is not happiness the same emotion for all of us and the same weight for all? So if in fact knowing sadness leads to greater happiness is not then the negative emotion of benefit because it ultimately gives us a deeper experience? Or as asked is not the emotion of happiness the same depth of emnotion as all? (I just mis spelled that but I left it in because I like the thought of 'emnotion', emotional notion, the feeling of a thought or felt idea, I like my 'emnotion', the emotional logic same as your ideal idea of 'abstraction' its mine I copy write it:))

Well I would already conclude that it is a logical lie. The reason being, it's lie actually motivates behavior in the occasional "prosperous" direction. But it is not a constant. There are times that it motivates equally in a non-productive way as well. Such as trying to undermine scientific research simply because it conflicts with theological beliefs.

No because you set up a situation of fraud. It would be like telling your young child who refuses to go to sleep, that if they do not go to sleep a monster will come out of their closet and eat them. But if they go to sleep the monster won't be able to find them and then they will be okay. This might be a horrible analogy but it sets the child up for fraud. What happens is that when the truth is discovered a backlash follows. So lying for positive motivation, although it might be successful, it always ends in tragedy.

It is a gamble. If it succeeds for balance it is never certain that this balance will be maintained. All that has to happen is to have some sort of truth reveal itself and then you completely crumble the entire basis.

Because the motivation is not in line with the desired result. Since it is not in line with the desired result, any offset knowledge will ultimately lead to bad conclusions in the future.

Personally I feel this is one of those slippery slope arguments. What would end up happening is people justifying negative emotions as a ploy for why they caused them. "Oh I really wasn't trying to make this person feel bad, I was only giving this other person an opportunity to do some good."

That is incredibly dangerous road to go down. Imagine if Hitler said, I was only going to exterminate the jews so that someone would come to their rescue. All he really wanted was to make heroes not cause vast murder.

It's a similar mentality that a local serial killer had. He was a very religious person and he murdered prostitutes because he believed they were not worthy human beings so he felt like he was not doing anything wrong. In fact he even stated during his trial that he was doing gods work by punishing them since they were prostitutes. He actually believes he was doing good, that he was some kind of hero.

If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?

Is logic the dissemination of emotion?
Is logic the opposite of emotion?
Is logic emotional?

Is Humanity based upon the emotions or the logics?
Is the soul an emotional or logical thing?

Is life for the emotions and death for the logicals?
Are we dead with out the emotions?
Alive without logic?

Is experience logical or emotional?
Is emotion needed to learn?
Is logic needed to teach?

Can we survive or thrive without the emotions?
Do the emotions get in the way of success?
Or just the 'wrong' success?
Is there a successful emotion?

Are animals based more on emotions or logic?
Which is more animality emotion or logic?
Has it been our added emotional or logical relevance over that of the animal kingdom and 'nature' that which has made us the 'rulers' of the planet called Home?
Are humans just lucky?
Or unlucky?

Is there already a human who has been successful in shedding their emotions?
Is success based more on a controllable emotional success?
How can one be successful with or without emotions?
How can one control their emotions?

Was, Is, Will God emotional?
Is God a bad example of emotion?
Is God the best example of emotion?
Is God the ultimate control and capture of emotion?

Can we be emotionless and still need God?

Thanks for you time.
Is time emotional or logical? Both, more or less?

*answer one some or all, better still ask one of your own*

Because the motivation is not in line with the desired result. Since it is not in line with the desired result, any offset knowledge will ultimately lead to bad conclusions in the future.

In some ways it is balanced but in other ways it is neglectful.

What I see in a majority of theists, is that they have very few problem solving skills. The reason is, they are dictated to but never taught how to problem solve. The reason this happens is because if they were to be taught problem solving skills, they might actually come to the conclusion that their theology is actually the root of all their problems. So they are actually taught the opposite, and not to use problem solving skills. This leads to a lot of poor choices which ultimately leads to unnecessary suffering. Not only for themselves but for everyone around them.

"Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth." Henry David Thoreau

This is true however there is a specific reason to why such a case occurs in a story plot. Usually it is to give the impression of an unknown factor. If the plot were as clear then the fiction is actually not present in the plot. Most people hate it when they can predict a plot outcome. So many attempts are made to hide the plot's course or even manipulate it so that it is unpredictable. I would not say it is the best way to teach someone though.

On a side note this is my major problem with Christianity in fact. The very thing that there are so many religions the only true method that god would have would be to reveal itself whole and completely and not in any sort of convoluted way. Since damnation resides on this very thing, then by all means the price is very high for making a mistake. Since the price is high and the problem is vast, it is almost ridiculous to hold a being accountable for such a mistake.

To put it another way. Lets say you have a friend holding a thousand sticks in their hand. Only one of the sticks is short, all the rest are the same length. Your friend then asks you to pick one of the sticks. If you can not pick the short stick your friend is going to shoot you in the head killing you. Your chances of picking the correct stick is 1 in 1000. However; if you follow my parallel here, there are more than a thousand religions in the world, so actually choosing the correct one is even less odds.

You can not honestly and fairly place such a decision onto a person or a being. Not if it has such a huge price to be paid if you chose wrong. The funny thing is, every branch and every religion claims absolute correctness while all others are false. Since there is this confusion, god to be fair would have to then reveal itself otherwise to condemn a person for making the mistake would be unjust.

For all those who claim that the christian god has revealed itself, is nothing more than a lie. The revealing that I am referring to is something that can not be refuted. Just like if I were to be standing next to you, and punched you in the face, there is something substantial that you could say about it. One, the pain you feel because of my fist contacting your face. Two the mark it might have left behind. Three a potential person or persons as witnesses that they too saw the innocent occur at the exact same time that you felt it happen. Four the evidence left behind on my fist, perhaps some flesh or blood or small particles of dna. These are trace evidences that would be required for such a revealing to take place. So far no such revealing has ever happened. Thus it can be said that if the christian god does exist it is an unjust god.

It depends on the person though. A person of more logic would see an emotional story from the perspective of logic and not from the emotional aspect. The same is true for just the opposite. A logical story read by an emotional person would only relate to the story in an emotional way, perhaps one of confusion since the logical story would probably be missing the emotional aspect. Or perhaps the emotional reader would invent the emotion into the story which there never was any intention for it to be there. This is why poetry either sucks or it is good but no one can really determine which is which.

Is here the desired result the balanced empathy?
Motivation is also a balancing act between logic and emotions. So you are saying if the logic and emotion of the desire and the logic and the emotion of the knowledge gained are not in balance what one then knows is ultimately going to be to logical meaning it cannot connect with the mind or it is overly emotion which means it only appeals to the heart?
I hope I have come close to understanding?
If not please try for me again.
Is there such a thing as emotional knowledge?
Is there such a thing as logical empathy or even logical understanding?

And you reply does make me think, does religion cause the problem in order to solve it?

Rather than blatant cold natural truth give me a kind warm God truth.
There are natural truths and there are un-natural ones.

I agree with this, Revelations bugs me, but then again telling the future is not all that easy a task, how do you write the end of creation story? we know there is going to be one, what is more likely and hopeful of an ending? What is more likely to clam the masses than send them into a frenzy?.

God only knows.
If we knew logically God was there do you really think things would be better?

All religions know God IS there, it is up to us to find IT.

Without seeking God where would the time go?

What would be the advantage of the journey.

Pick one, God does not care what religion you are just that thee there be religious.

That is just it, it is a choice, it is a preference. You cant go wrong as long as you are truly honestly faithful.
Correctness for those that which choose it.
That is man not the religion branding people of other faith as faithless.
Man still today needs to feel superior and that they are 'better' than the rest. Man's to blame not God.

God is going to have trouble with a lot of people of religions who have used it in such a way as a weapon. Big issues.
That would be true blasphemy.

Yes all there was was Jesus Christ, God does not play a game of one day revealing the next hiding. You may well be correct God wont ever show Its self until the very end.

However Miracles are another thing.

God is Justice. So unless Justice is unjust? you don't need to worry.

No we have emotion we are in danger if we do not express them and know how to do so.

The two final parts of Spinoza's great, Ethics are titled, Of Human Bondage and, Of Human Freedom. In Of Human Bondage, Spinoza writes:

Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse.

Human freedom, of course, consists in the control of the emotions so that one is not a slave to them, but instead, uses them to one's own advantage.

W. Somerset Maugham wrote a fine novel called, "Of Human Bondage" which is largely about a man who finds himself a slave to his emotions over a woman, which ruins his life.

A purely objective and scientific view of the world is "emotional desertion".
It is an observation that leaves out the observer.

Human freedom, of course, consists in the control of the emotions so that one is not a slave to them, but instead, uses them to one's own advantage.
W. Somerset Maugham wrote a fine novel called, "Of Human Bondage" which is largely about a man who finds himself a slave to his emotions over a woman, which ruins his life.

A purely objective and scientific view of the world is "emotional desertion".
It is an observation that leaves out the observer.

But that is just the point. You make it sound like some kind of defect.