why Religions?

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

First, I’d like to say I’m very impressed by these previous few responses. I’m glad a signed up for this forum.

Fist I will address Vasska.
It appears you ask three questions.
1.Why does god let bad things happen?
2.God is indeed dead and has been replaced!
3.The existence of God is relative!
4.Show me arguments from the pope!



1.To assume the question “why does god let bad things happen” is to assume that god does in fact exist (though we “know” he may not). Perhaps the problem here is that we refer to God , or “him” as folk (when I say folk god, I say a sexed(male) old white guy with a beard the size of zeus). Not that this is my view, but instead of thinking of God in the folk sense, think of God in a more abstract way… like the unified field theory of quantum physics, that is, the cosmic glue of things in general that makes everything work in virtue of their connectivity. So if God is the glue, who is unable to independently will (assumption) because he may in fact interwoven into the cosmological fabric of time and space, how could he interfere when he hands are tied so to speak? God does not have to be ensouled, you see. So our friends Billy and Jimmy’s situation would seem a bit irrelevant (material wants) compared to Gods job description as cosmic glue. It sounds like you make God out to be the great shyster of our day.

So I guess we could say that god lets bad things happen because “it” has and can do nothing about it… further it’s got more relevant things to do than give billy new legs

It's not my view either, but in this context I took the folk God, since that is the God we debate if we are talking about Christianity or any other religion that has only slightly different concept of God. In other topics i indeed have placed God in the same scientific spotlight you do. I really like your answer but am still questioning the existence of time in the Universe. The situation of Billy and Jimmy was meant for the folk God and can in that context be very relevant (Why does God hates amputees?), however in the context we both like it is totally and utterly a question that should not even be mentioned. I indeed see God as the great shyster of our day. But of course i respect the fact that some people seem to need them and have nothing against it for it the reason of Gods existence can be explained by simple psychological reasons.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

2.I’m glad you follow Nietzsche so avidly. I’d put the quote from the madman but that’s too much room. So that god has been replaced by something or someone else, I’m guessing you refer to man. You could not be referring to a higher power because that would be a substitute God. I think you would enjoy transhumanist literature. It is a view I subscribe to from time to time.

If you look at people like Plato, Einstein, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Pythagoras and other you can indeed say that man has surpassed God. But looking at the people around me everyday and observing them i think we have a long way to before all of humanity can surpass our view of God. Maybe it's just me being arrogant, but i really feel that way about humanity, i guess thats why i like the theory of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, for it gives hope that one day we do not kill people because they have different views.

Any names of transhumanist literature that you recommend?

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

3.I agree, we must discuss our options. The ultimatum I have been given is steep… Either prove the existence of god or don’t. You supply the spoon and I will eat the elephant.

I think that for something as big and as old as God we must view it from every different degree and even then we will have 360 different anwsers, for everyone thinks different of God.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

4.“Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own "ego". - Pope Benedict, 2005

Let’s not forget that before Pope Benedict was Pope Benedict, he was Professor Ratzinger. The trick to reading him is not to look at benedicts robes and big white hat and big church/house, but to look and appreciate his rationale and wisdom as a philosopher. He is also a very able logician. He’s critique of relativism is very interesting, that in accepting no definitive answers (which he takes to mean God) we create an elastic prison (our ego) that we cannot escape from. Do I agree with it? Well, the answer is [censored]. LOL!

If we accept no ultimate answers we indeed can bounce every way in our elastic cell. However if we take one ultimate answer we are trapped withing an non-elastic cell and will only hit brick walls. I prefer the elastic cell, because it offers more freedom.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Perhaps we need a comment from Benjamin90 and those who like him ask the question "why religion?" I fear the debate has taken on a complex nature.

Also, we should keep answers and questions straight forward because this is a general forum.

We haven't heard anything from Benjamin90 indeed. I hate it when people post a question and don't bother looking at it again.

The debate of course gets a bit complex, but maybe we can certain discussions out of the topic and open new topics, giving them fresh air and more public for many people don't tend to answer if a topic gets lots of comments and thereby gets a bit crowded.

Keeping answers and questions straight forward is indeed handy but tricky.

i agree that a question like "Why Religions?" is a bit too wide. Maybe we can take it up with Justin to write a set of rules on how to ask your question, it might give us a much richer conversation over a period of time.

[VideCorSpoon]

Well said.


But a few things. Keep in mind that we study Nietzsche like we study Freud. And Like Freuds oedipal complex and Nietzsche Ubermensch, they exist in curricula to show the boundaries which we should probably not break and how fallible human understanding can be. Master and slave mentality and the idea of a better being lay on precarious ground. The last time Nietzsche’s views were put into play, Karl Schmitt influenced Hitler and who tried to rationalized the super race… which did not turn out well for either side.


I agree that it may take a long time for people to see our view that no side of a position should be taken, only the pursuit of knowledge. It’s a good thing that people don’t see things the way we do, otherwise all light and air would be sucked out of any room they occupy.


Transhumanism wise, I would caution you if you are at university with this subject… it is very unpopular. The "practical" idea of a post human is compared to Nietzsche’s ubermensche all the time, and no one yet has successfully defended his views in academia. But I’m glad you see the practical and knowledge based approach of transhumanism is in your interest in the subject.


This is the WTA website
World Transhumanist Association
It’s not exactly within my field, so you’ll have to search for good literature.

As for the Benedict quote. The problem is that you pose two ways of knowledge. Nothing or just one idea. You give an interesting approach to the analogy.


“If we accept no ultimate answers we indeed can bounce every way in our elastic cell. However if we take one ultimate answer we are trapped within an non-elastic cell and will only hit brick walls. I prefer the elastic cell, because it offers more freedom.” (Vasska)


The elastic that makes our prison is made by us. This elastic is made of our preconceived beliefs. It is true, the brick wall will stop you cold, but then so too with the elastic wall at some point. The elastic wall gives you only the false appearance of freedom If you dispose of preconceived beliefs, be they religious or atheistic, knowledge will indeed be free.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Well said.


But a few things. Keep in mind that we study Nietzsche like we study Freud. And Like Freuds oedipal complex and Nietzsche Ubermensch, they exist in curricula to show the boundaries which we should probably not break and how fallible human understanding can be. Master and slave mentality and the idea of a better being lay on precarious ground. The last time Nietzsche’s views were put into play, Karl Schmitt influenced Hitler and who tried to rationalized the super race… which did not turn out well for either side.

I guess you saved me here from being consumed by Nietzche's Ubermensch as a reality and taking it a bit to literal for my own good. They indeed mark where our human boundaries are. Hitler indeed was influenced by Nietzsche's Ubermensch but completely missed the point and perverted the whole idea of Nietzsche by excluding and finally killing the Jews and other "non-Arian" abominations like gays, gypsies, handicapped etc. Hitler has ruined and perverted many symbols, traditions and rituals.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Transhumanism wise, I would caution you if you are at university with this subject… it is very unpopular. The "practical" idea of a post human is compared to Nietzsche’s ubermensche all the time, and no one yet has successfully defended his views in academia. But I’m glad you see the practical and knowledge based approach of transhumanism is in your interest in the subject.

I won't be hitting an university for the next 4 to years, but I understand your cation. However I'm getting a bit used to being the kid who thinks different then we do, so I'm not taking any offence in it any more. My list of things to read and study has grown considerably for only being here less then a week.

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

As for the Benedict quote. The problem is that you pose two ways of knowledge. Nothing or just one idea. You give an interesting approach to the analogy.


“If we accept no ultimate answers we indeed can bounce every way in our elastic cell. However if we take one ultimate answer we are trapped within an non-elastic cell and will only hit brick walls. I prefer the elastic cell, because it offers more freedom.” (Vasska)


The elastic that makes our prison is made by us. This elastic is made of our preconceived beliefs. It is true, the brick wall will stop you cold, but then so too with the elastic wall at some point. The elastic wall gives you only the false appearance of freedom If you dispose of preconceived beliefs, be they religious or atheistic, knowledge will indeed be free.

My quote sure can be improved upon. But then we can only assume that a man without any answers, beliefs or thoughts is completely free. While we humans with our reasoning and thinking are always trapped. (Man I'm starting to write a bit to philosophical)

[Wizzy]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Now Wizzy…


I agree with you on the matter that we must assume that neither exists. Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy and first of the rationalists, came to the conclusion that we must doubt everything to know at least something.


As for evidence, especially in the bible, that’s the interesting thing to show then, isn’t it. The bible was composed by (and I’m not going to put the historical facts because there boring) a bunch of leading church men of the day trying to unify the theory. It was never meant from its original conception to be taken as historical fact, it’s just that when the book came into the hands of the people, they could not think abstractly about the concepts, and took the words for law. Case in point. Compare these two texts… The Bible and Aristotle’s Metaphysics.


Look to the very first page in the bible (Genesis 26), “God creates man in his own image, man begets man…” Now suppose I were an atheist. I would say, this is bull right here.


Now look at Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book Zeta, sub-book 7-9. “man begets man by means of generation, like to like, etc.” Supposing I were an athesist, I would exclaim, “now this is rational!!! I can believe this!!! He is a philosopher!!!)


But isnt the atheist now contradicting himself? The atheist will not listen to the same argument because of the word God interjected into it.


Could it be that the leading scholars of the day when comprising the bible read and understood ancient Greek philosophy, and understood that in order for the common people to understand the abstract notions, they had to fictionalize it? So when I went to church at age seven and heard how god created the universe, could I not have been receiving the foundation for my understanding of cosmology and metaphysics that I come to know today.

One question you’re probably asking yourself is “Are you, VideCorSpoon, religious?” Yes and no. Like Socrates, I tread the air and contemplate the sun with all hubris intended. Philosophers… which I certainly am not… have the luxury of proposing a specific theory and defending it.

VideCorSpoon

Ofcourse, even as a atheist, I understand that the bible wheren't meant for the purpous it's beeing used today and that's what I'm against.. Also the illusion of a higher creature cause people want to feel safe... Especially when churches and religions start acting like any streetgang out there, doing decisions for the group and not for the induvidual normally from one persons point of view (voting?), forcing themselves on others (jehovas?), thinking of them selves as superior because they belong to that group (f**k yeah alot of religious people do that, with statements like "you'll burn in hell" etc.), even fighting eachother (Bush the religious fanatic's propaganda war against muslim religious fanatics) etc. That's my problem with religion and it all comes from those "fictionalized philosophys"... So I'd say that athiesm is justifyed and even reasonable.. If you kill a murdurer because he is a murdurer and will keep killing if you don't kill him, haven't that been a justifyed murder?

And I don't really care if you are religious of not, you seem like a sane person so you can be religious if you want to, just don't act like a thug representing jesus yo

[VideCorSpoon]

Again, well said.


If your 4 years away from university, I have to say you are very advanced in abstract reasoning. I also have to say that you are the first person in the posts that I've done that actually extrapolates information instead of constantly injecting other things in.


It’s true what you say, Hitler did pervert symbols, etc. like the swastika. Originally, it was a good luck symbol that was later changed in its conception as such… although as I understand it some Nordic countries still use it in military medals.

But to go to your comment;


“But then we can only assume that a man without any answers, beliefs or thoughts is completely free. we humans with our reasoning and thinking are always trapped. “(vasska)

Thus the existential problem… we are always trapped.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Again, well said.


If your 4 years away from university, I have to say you are very advanced in abstract reasoning. I also have to say that you are the first person in the posts that I've done that actually extrapolates information instead of constantly injecting other things in.

It’s true what you say, Hitler did pervert symbols, etc. like the swastika. Originally, it was a good luck symbol that was later changed in its conception as such… although as I understand it some Nordic countries still use it in military medals.

But to go to your comment;


“But then we can only assume that a man without any answers, beliefs or thoughts is completely free. we humans with our reasoning and thinking are always trapped. “(vasska)

Thus the existential problem… we are always trapped.

Thank you for the compliments, i still forgot to say Thanks for your earlier posts. Gonna do that right after i finished typing this.

The definition of the swastika was and still is different between every country, but mostly it was used for good, and certainly never was used in such an evil was as Hitler used it. I don't know about any Nordic country's using it on military medals, but i got to admit i never even payed attention to it, so it might be true.

I think this discussion is coming to an end since the original posters doesn't bother to show up and most discussion points given have been discussed (however you didn't reply to Wizzy yet, so that discussion is still open).

[VideCorSpoon]

So wizzy, I surmise that your against the way the bible has been misused by the clergy. Unfortunately, all forms of belief are easily corrupted by people in general. The point is that perhaps the crimes of a few should not condemn the entire belief.
Also, don’t generalize religions. They have bad days as well as good days.
To address the accusations against religions in general…

“Also the illusion of a higher creature causes people want to feel safe.” (wizzy)
You just gave an exact definition of both religion and law.

“Especially when churches and religions start acting like any street gang out there, doing decisions for the group and not for the individual normally from one persons point of view (voting?),” (wizzy)
Suppose we all exist in a state of nature, where we take what we want, we do what we want… we have complete freedom. What’s to stop someone else with that freedom from murdering us and taking our bushel of apples? We surrender a small bit of our freedom to the state, who in turn protects us and gives us the necessities we come to know and enjoy. Suppose now that that understanding exists for religion. Is it not a form of protection… for our own good… so that we can, in the state example, vote?

“forcing themselves on others (jehovas?), thinking of them selves as superior because they belong to that group (f**k yeah alot of religious people do that, with statements like "you'll burn in hell" etc.),”(wizzy)
Have you ever just slammed the door on a Jehovas witness? I don’t know if you’ve done it, but I have. They don’t necessarily break down your door… though I would pay to see that happen. Also, jehovas (witness) do that as a sign of their faith, giving up their own time as a sign of their humility. Being humble, they inform, but don’t force. Also, zealots exist, and I agree, it is a sign of hypocrisy within the church. But those people don’t speak for the church, they speak beyond the church.

“even fighting each other (Bush the religious fanatic's propaganda war against muslim religious fanatics) etc.” (wizzy)
That is a very loaded statement. I’ll say this, and perhaps this may be the only bias I have…i.e. politics and warfare. Religious people fight each other… and anti-religious people fight each other. Is war rational? This is a whole different topic.

“That's my problem with religion and it all comes from those "fictionalized philosophys"
Fictionalized philosophies are philosophies in general… they are theories and just that. The bibles genesis is no different from Einstein’s theory of relativity in this respect.


“... So I'd say that athiesm is justifyed and even reasonable.. If you kill a murdurer because he is a murdurer and will keep killing if you don't kill him, haven't that been a justifyed murder?”(wizzy)
Atheism isn’t justified… it limited in its approach to knowledge. And unfortunately, that limitation puts you in the very same category as those religious fanatics you so adamantly hate. Also, dealing death as a means to an end is problematic… that’s a whole different discussion.

“And I don't really care if you are religious of not, you seem like a sane person so you can be religious if you want to, just don't act like a thug representing jesus yo.(wizzy)

I do wizzy… I do… that’s the point of philosophy in some respect… to solve the existential problem. Some people just catch on to it quicker than others (cough..cough..vaaska.. cough)
Ah to be the thug… Perhaps I should juxtapose, and talk like a religious fanatic.

“How dare you, wizzy, doubt the word and the image of an everlasting being. In God’s infinite grace, you climb a hollow and decaying tree, revealing ever more your hubral **** as you climb vainly to reach the anti-christ, who lest occupy the top but more like had sewn the seeds of doubt that that tree even existed!!!! (Pope Spoonis the fourth)


Perhaps you would like for me to talk like that… that would be easy to refute. Unfortunately, I don’t represent Jesus… if indeed Jesus in Christian literature did create the known universe, only the idea that “we think… therefore we are.”

Also, blind hate comes from misunderstanding and misinformation. Unless you think more abstractly, your argument will have the consistency of a weak tea… it may look great, but it doesn’t taste good and is horribly transparent…yo. double wink...see I can do it too.

[Wizzy]

Hey Spoon (yeah I'll start calling you Spoon now..)
Love to discuss stuff with you, you have valid points and logical thinking, unlike alot of people who i discuss this topic with!

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

You just gave an exact definition of both religion and law.

Well, yeah, I got some similar points against most modern law systems as I do with religion only difference is that nobody claim that some allknowing beeing created the laws, just people who think they know better then the rest of us (... fairly similar to alot of people here, me in particular)

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Suppose we all exist in a state of nature, where we take what we want, we do what we want… we have complete freedom. What’s to stop someone else with that freedom from murdering us and taking our bushel of apples? We surrender a small bit of our freedom to the state, who in turn protects us and gives us the necessities we come to know and enjoy. Suppose now that that understanding exists for religion. Is it not a form of protection… for our own good… so that we can, in the state example, vote?

Well, yeah, kindof... I agree with the first part of you statement that we are all completly free and also that we surrender some of that freedom to the state for protection, just as businesses surrender some of the income to gangs for protection.. Ofcourse it's for our own good but what I meant with "(voting?)" was that some churches vote as a group in elections and so on, not as induviduals which is the basis of democracy, that every induvidual should have as much power as the next one does.. When churches and maybe entire religions start voting as one, the induvidual part goes bye bye and the gang mentality is a fact...

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Have you ever just slammed the door on a Jehovas witness? I don’t know if you’ve done it, but I have. They don’t necessarily break down your door… though I would pay to see that happen. Also, jehovas (witness) do that as a sign of their faith, giving up their own time as a sign of their humility. Being humble, they inform, but don’t force. Also, zealots exist, and I agree, it is a sign of hypocrisy within the church. But those people don’t speak for the church, they speak beyond the church.

Well, haven't been able too because they have pulled the door open and started handing me flyers and stuff... Yelled at them a while and then pushed them away from the door so I could slam it.. Anywhoo doesn't matter if you can slam the door in their face or not, it's still pushing their belives on you.. Or trying atleast.. And if they speak for the church or not is also irrelivent as they belive they speak for "god", that's my biggest issue that you can twist and turn most religions into what you want it to be, it's like justifying extreme oppinions and ideas..

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

That is a very loaded statement. I’ll say this, and perhaps this may be the only bias I have…i.e. politics and warfare. Religious people fight each other… and anti-religious people fight each other. Is war rational? This is a whole different topic.

Not saying that it's limited to just religion in any way, but as it's not uncommon for people to fight over religion (the crusades, hitler vs. Jews, bush etc. etc.), not even saying that religion is the major reason but it's still a reason, so why give them reasons to rally the people around?

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Fictionalized philosophies are philosophies in general… they are theories and just that. The bibles genesis is no different from Einstein’s theory of relativity in this respect.

Well I find it hard to belive that people will ever worship Einstein's theory of relativity because he never tried to pass it as a infinitive moral code/law by a higher creature who is wiser then any man... Just as nobody have ever worshiped Sun Tzu's "The art of war" because that doesn't speak of how you should live and threaten with a neverending punishment in hell, just telling their theorys of war, warefare and tactics... That's philosophy, not trying to pass of your thoughts and ideas as truths handed to you by a bigger spirit..

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Atheism isn’t justified… it limited in its approach to knowledge. And unfortunately, that limitation puts you in the very same category as those religious fanatics you so adamantly hate. Also, dealing death as a means to an end is problematic… that’s a whole different discussion.

Well, don't belive it limits knowledge.. As you said we doubt anything and everything until there's some proof.. And as the whole theory of a higher power lacks any proof or reasonable logic as far as I know, doubting it and even despiseing that other people don't doubt it is just reasonable according to me, but ofcourse you are entitled to have your own thougths on the subject.. When anybody can provide any proof for god's excistance, I'll back of and let people belive what ever they want to, until then, I think that bringing this debate up is only good, especially if the other person is a fanatic or really religious..
And for that murdering a murderer thing, I wasn't trying to start a new debate I was just asking if you do a bad action (as trying to spread a religion, or in my case, the same method with the opposit agenda) is bad if you use it for good?

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

I do wizzy… I do… that’s the point of philosophy in some respect… to solve the existential problem. Some people just catch on to it quicker than others (cough..cough..vaaska.. cough)

I thought the point of philosophy where discussing out balls of knowledge that couldn't be solved in any other way then to compare ideas and reasoning out the most logical answer

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Ah to be the thug… Perhaps I should juxtapose, and talk like a religious fanatic.

“How dare you, wizzy, doubt the word and the image of an everlasting being. In God’s infinite grace, you climb a hollow and decaying tree, revealing ever more your hubral **** as you climb vainly to reach the anti-christ, who lest occupy the top but more like had sewn the seeds of doubt that that tree even existed!!!! (Pope Spoonis the fourth)


Perhaps you would like for me to talk like that… that would be easy to refute. Unfortunately, I don’t represent Jesus… if indeed Jesus in Christian literature did create the known universe, only the idea that “we think… therefore we are.”

Also, blind hate comes from misunderstanding and misinformation. Unless you think more abstractly, your argument will have the consistency of a weak tea… it may look great, but it doesn’t taste good and is horribly transparent…yo. double wink...see I can do it too.

I would love it if you talked like that, cause then I would get angry.. :P
And ofcourse I know that I shouldn't have this hate, but I do.. Everytime I see some religious fanatic talking about politics, why schools should have morning prayer or even seeing one of those tv-preachers talk about how everybody who is religious are better people, my hate arises and the best outlet is to discuss why I hate it... Think that's better then to go out and destroying a church or something like that... don't you?

Till next time Spoon, yo yo homie

[VideCorSpoon]

Well said.

I'll post another comment later on, but read Religon Reconsidered by Steven M. Cahn. Its three pages long, but it talks about the relativistic perspective of naturalism and religion, which I think you would enjoy very much. I think you can do a google search on it and find it.

[Wizzy]

will do that and can't wait for your comment