It is not that obvious. If it is my happiness that you someone else is referring to, what makes that person so sure it comes from following his/her advice? Why couldn't the advice simply be "Do whatever makes you happy"? If that means my believing in some invisible God who created the universe some 6000 years ago and will make hand me down eternal bliss/misery based on some things that I believe in or not, so be it?
So it is OBVIOUS the basis for the advice is most certainly NOT the happiness of the person being advised.
It is suggesting that really happiness can only be found by shrugging off concepts like that. I can't begin to image how you could not tell then end goal of those practices was happiness.
Maybe it turns out that that doesn't lead to happiness. But you know what? That's its goal. Which you are somehow suggesting isn't clear? Notice how you are the only on who doesn't understand that.
What makes you think you know better than someone else what they should practice to get what they want, be it happiness or something else. Or are you suggesting that there are some absolutes that you have discovered and the others haven't that you feel compelled to share with others?
just reading this whole little thing bewtween rob and ganap. dude Danapati, great guy.
If I had any doubts before about the intellectual capabilities of those impressed with the text in the picture, you removed all of them. Congratulations!
You've done equally well in my books with your promotion of invisible sky gods that dictate morality for humans.
I don't remember promoting invisible sky gods dictating morality for humans. But I can understand why you have to imagine things that others haven't said.
"If there is no God and gods, no morals and the universe is not moving towards any higher purpose what exactly is the basis for your "advice"?"
You tell me, what is the implication of this statement? You essentially postulated that we require gods to have purpose or advice.