 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||
03-06-2008, 09:52 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| “Yeah so imagien a religious free world, where that one group of factions is gone.. To my belives, Hitler couldn't have taken over Germany if the hate for Jews wouldn't have been there, and if there wouldn't have been jews, christians or muslims, it would have been realy hard for him to take power. And even if he would have been able to do it with promises of taking back Germanies pride, he still wouldn't have been able to kill those millions of Jews he did kill because they would have been the same as him or anybody els in Germany, people... That was my point al along with the statement about how religion would be a good thing to get rid of just because people fight about it...”(wizzy) The absence of religions is precarious. Those who possess the ability control themselves would do just fine… because they would know better. Unfortunately, there are a great many who need moral and ethical guidance. We need a framework of what is right and what is not right, what is just and what is unjust, what is moral and immoral, etc. because when these systems break down, nothing gets done… and more precisely society in general breaks down. I could also say that a religious world is the lesser of the two evils so to speak compared to an atheist world because a natural world is devoid of order. As for Sun Tzu, there are people that look at his teachings in the same way people look to the bible for guidance. “Couldn't it be that the bible is seen as laws and something to be followed to the death just because it is "fictionalized philosophy" that somebody made a stupid misstake and trying to pass of as something better then the human way of thoughts?(wizzy) Law in general is almost exactly that, whether they be societal, ethical, etc. Fictionalized philosophy is philosophy. That people “conceive a world with no god” is fictionalized in the same way a “god influenced world” is as well. My point is that you cannot have religion or no religion. “That all of this bloodshed done in the name of God or Allah or whatever comes from a few small people, with a small acceptence for other people and with big heads? The kind of people that most agree that one shouldn't listen to and follow” One can also posit the same argument for Godless revolution… instead of declaring war in the name of god, they declare war in the name of no-god… blood runs red regardless of the reason for its spilling. (French revolution and the reign of terror for example) BTW. Here that article I promised you. Interested to hear your opinion on it. Page 1 p1 - Image - TinyPic - Share the Experience!™ Page 2 p2 - Image - TinyPic - Share the Experience!™ Page3 p3 - Image - TinyPic - Share the Experience!™ Page4 p4 - Image - TinyPic - Share the Experience!™  |
|
03-07-2008, 07:37 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
Quote:
After reading that article I'm starting to understand what you call religion, well, what I call religion and what I have a problem with is those supernatural beeings he wrote about. And yes, you can have a world without them, if everybody would just doubt their exsistance until they do something new to prove their exsistance... "My Lord, my Lord! What hast Thou done, lately?" - Woody Allen Quote:
And the french revolution where a bad example as that's one of the most justifyed aggressions ever, atleast to my belives.. Alot of people where exploited and treated like dirt so when they had egnouth, blood ran down the streets, and to me, that's understandible... Quote:
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-07-2008, 06:13 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| “Yeah and probably some who look at "Martha Stewart's Homekeeping Handbook" the same way, that's not my point! There's not churches, no wars, no historical executions, no outlawing new technology or anything to stop progress in the history of time done in the name of Sun Tzu a thousand years after his death, but there have been in the name of Jesus and God!” In the name of what Sun Tzu embodies, the concept of war, there is. In the name of war, we fight instead of talk. “Ofcourse laws are like that, not argueing with you on that point, I even agree with you... And that's all because as you said, alot of people need ethical frameworks to funtion with other people because othervise our modern world would fail all together.. But do these people need several? That often don't agree on what is right and wrong? Do people need several conflicting ides on right and wrong? That’s an excellent point! This creates confusion and factionalization. Slavery today is outlawed in the western world and that's ethical and moraly right, right? So how come the bible have several paragraphs that's pro-slavery? Or atleast neutral to the subject? Might it be because it's a moral code of law that's outlived it usefullness? But codified law has the conception of slavery as well. (partnerships, marriage law, agency, etc) Like it or not, master/slave mentality is ingrained in human society… but perhaps not a severe as Nietzsche. After reading that article I'm starting to understand what you call religion, well, what I call religion and what I have a problem with is those supernatural beeings he wrote about. And yes, you can have a world without them, if everybody would just doubt their exsistance until they do something new to prove their exsistance... "My Lord, my Lord! What hast Thou done, lately?" - Woody Allen Exactly right!!! Well reasoned! Your thoughts are not unlike the dilemma posed by Descartes and his thoughts on existence. Not saying that killing and wars would stop, ofcourse not it never will... People are hatefull, brutal and agressive creatures and allways will be, that's just the way it is... But when you have a large portion beliving in something as a "god", can't that phrase "god told me so" be missused to rally people towards going to war and making them leave out their reasoning ablility we have been blessed with and just following because after all, "god told me so"? When people should be getting angry about the desition to go to war, they might accept it because "god told me so", can't they? And the french revolution where a bad example as that's one of the most justifyed aggressions ever, atleast to my belives.. Alot of people where exploited and treated like dirt so when they had egnouth, blood ran down the streets, and to me, that's understandible... God does not necessarily equate to “god told me so” You could take god to mean, “that which is not understandable.” T play devils advocate, Humans do not understand everything, otherwise we would never have discoveries and innovations. We understand that the universe is immeasurable and ever expanding, but there is always a polar opposite to everything we say with definiteness. There could be something that understands immeasurability. As for the French revolution, that is commonly referred to in history, especially by napoleon, as the “reign of terror.” Doesn’t seem to ideal to me. “Loved it Spoon, great stuff and Buddhism have been one of the few religions I've agreed with to some point since it's not about following an invisible person who decides everything for you without you knowing, it's a theory on how people should interact with eachother, act towards eachother and act to live peacefully instead of the caos controlled by tyrans, it's about acceptence not discrimination, it's a fairly sane way to see the world... Then comes nirvana and so on and fine, if they wish to make empty promises about a afterlife they can, just because they have a sane way of trying to lead their people... Ofcourse this is a little utopian outlook on buddhism, there's alot more then this in there and I don't even know that much.. Know that it's alot about pain and how to stay away from it, as I recall it atleast...” I’m glad you liked it! You have very valid points and very equitable pros and cons on Buddhism and primary thoughts… well said. Indian metaphysics and cosmogony is one of my more developed interests. You refer to the principle of dukha, the pain we suffer in corporeal form striving to achieve release from the “wheel of samsara” or life. |
|
03-07-2008, 09:07 PM
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And for the "reign of terror", you listen to napoleon on what's right and wrong? :P Ofcourse I don't even know that much about the french revolution except that conditions in France before it where much worst then good for the average man.. When a few people exploid the masses, the masses can, will and should revolt and turn the exploiders into dust... Quote:
 As I said I don't know that much about buddhism except of what I mentioned, thus I don't know term and ideas in detail... But from what I know, it seems like the most reasonable religion we have at modern times...
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-09-2008, 11:21 AM
| |||||
| |||||
|
from my experience, Religion serves three main purposes, of which there are sub-types. These 3 main purposes are to explain and allay the fears of death; to explain the world around the believer in terms that aren't so difficult to believe at face value; and to keep human morals (or lack thereof) in check. The reason that religion lives on, besides humanity's constant need of it, is that the leaders of such religious institutions are able to evolve with the times and adapt to new changes, albeit a bit slowly. Churches become community centers; as such they are integral to neighborhoods around the world, and thus no one has any incentive to remove them. That's my analysis anyway. |
|
03-09-2008, 01:01 PM
| |||||
| |||||
|
In regards to Sun Tzu, read the prefix dealing with the concubines. Those two favorites of the emperor would disagree with you. On conflicting ideas and a single moral code. It would be easier with just a single moral code. But when a single moral code is established, there may always be a difference in beliefs. If we do dispense with the ancient moral code and adopt a new one that constantly changes, we get either get some variation of a polit-bureau or a new single authoritative system. We don’t want the new authority, because this is inherently just the same as the old one, only the masters change. If our system constantly changes, we are blindly expected to believe all small changes that happen every month given by multiple authorities… we get bureaucracy. The absence of multiple system is problematic. As to the slave and the master. That type of slavery still exists in some form or another. In America, we call that “public welfare.” In china, we call it “peoples will.” In south Africa, we called is “appartide.” In India, the “Harijan” caste… etc. If we say that there are only a few masters today… we give them too much credit. “A funny thing about this (as you've done this a few times now) when you compare what I say to earlier famous philosophers is that, I've never read anything from these fellas.. I mean, I know who descartes was but I've never read anything of his works... Might have to do that...”(wizzy) When Diogenes Et. Al. established the foundations of our understanding of skepticism, this is not to say that people were not skeptical before he wrote it all down… even before he existed. Likewise, your thoughts have been thought before, and codified into philosophy. Even though you may not have read Descartes mediations, your rationale is identical. “Not saying that it equates to "god told me so" but can't a politician or other leader use it as a excuse or justification towards doing something that seems bad? So can the mob (the people) who oppose the politician and leader. They could say, “because comrade Marx, Trotsky, or Lenin said so.” As you said alot of people need that ethical framework and belive (taking from the article now) that what "God say" is right because he say so, not that it's right before he says so.. If a charismatic person rally people around the phrase (ofcourse, more advanced) "god told me so" and truely belive it, isn't that a sign of how fragile the ethical framework of "religion" is? But let me say this. I am a relativist. Everything differs from another because they all have different perspectives. I could not assert that God exists or does not exists, only the affirmation of the rational point. If we break down religions framework, we at the same time are breaking down the anti-religion framework. And for the "reign of terror", you listen to napoleon on what's right and wrong? :P Ofcourse I don't even know that much about the french revolution except that conditions in France before it where much worst then good for the average man.. When a few people exploid the masses, the masses can, will and should revolt and turn the exploiders into dust...” Yup. All of us do. He created the framework for the modern civil code. Things were bad under the Bourbons, but were worse during the reign of terror. The French revolution should not be confused with Napoleons rise to power and quest for order. It was not that simple. Napoleon did not head the revolutionary armies against the king. This revolution is not the same as the British “glorious revolution.” The French revolution was confused. People were in such a hurry to depose the king for his injustices that they forgot what to do after. They killed the catholic clergy and ransacked the churches not knowing that they were the basis of their own social system. But hungry people to crazy things. As to Indian religion… It is the most complicated religion this side of ancient Greek and Egyptian pantheistic religions. Hinduism is also up there. Would I want to come back as a butterfly in my next life… meh? ------------------------- To address Candide, “from my experience, Religion serves three main purposes, of which there are sub-types. These 3 main purposes are to explain and allay the fears of death; to explain the world around the believer in terms that aren't so difficult to believe at face value; and to keep human morals (or lack thereof) in check. The reason that religion lives on, besides humanity's constant need of it, is that the leaders of such religious institutions are able to evolve with the times and adapt to new changes, albeit a bit slowly. Churches become community centers; as such they are integral to neighborhoods around the world, and thus no one has any incentive to remove them. That's my analysis anyway.” This is a good point... and further its actually "the" point exactly! Religion quells our existential fears, rationalizes the extended world in understandable terms, and keeps peoples natural instincts in check. I agree. People need it. It may not be the right answer, but it is fundamentally an answer none the less and a needed constant to arrive at higher truths. Too true. |
|
03-09-2008, 01:24 PM
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Quote:
Now you're getting into whole political systems here and all I will say is this: best political systems are where one induvidual never have more power then the next (according to me), this includes the prez having more power then the crack adict... In a utopian world, "direct democracy" as I've come to call it is ideal, when everybody have to vote about every change, be it local, regional or national... Ofcourse, people in one region shouldn't have influence on the next region... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-10-2008, 12:57 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| "Ofcourse the idea of a single moral code is a little out there as it might seem as the better idea in theory, but I agree with you, in reality it probably wouldn't work due to the difference in oppinion between induviduals... Now you're getting into whole political systems here and all I will say is this: best political systems are where one induvidual never have more power then the next (according to me), this includes the prez having more power then the crack adict... In a utopian world, "direct democracy" as I've come to call it is ideal, when everybody have to vote about every change, be it local, regional or national... Ofcourse, people in one region shouldn't have influence on the next region... " Neither is a full on democracy a solution either. With so many individuals having their say, they begin to argue, and as the arguing becomes more intense, nothing is done. Also, true democracies have the tendency to vote themselves out of power. Furthermore, historical democracies still had people who were much more powerful than your average joe. The politicians of the day had a tendency to keep their power within their family, as well. The folly of human thought is that we seek finality; that is, we want a permanent solution to our problems. This is naught to occur though, as human nature does not allow for such solutions. The best man can do is make a society that lasts for a couple thousand years. Past that nigh unattainable goal, all modern societies are doomed to failure some day. Sometime from now, the United States will be anarchy. The UK may be Communist, and so on and so forth. My point is that things change, so we build plans for durability, not forever. |
|
03-10-2008, 03:38 PM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
Democracy is a fragile system as it allows people to corrupt it, but also to throw over a system by revolt or a military coup isn't as hard as one might think, especially not when people get angry about a certain subject like war or unjustice.. If egnouth people join together for a single goal, odds are that they'll more then they gain... But also the ideas and oppinions change, in a system where people have it good, they want the country to do good and where the country's doing good, the people want to have it good (democracy/communism as a example), but what the hell? Are we going to stop this? ofcourse not, it's our nature, we want what we don't have... What I was saying was that a "direct democracy" is probably the best system when it comes to making the most people happy, as it's the majority that decides... Ofcourse, this could also lead to discrimination but you should have laws that protects minorities from that, ofcourse, laws have to be decided by voting and the masses have to want that law right? So there's a bit of a paradox here but say that you where to create it from a allready exsisting government, then it should function shouldn't it? Utopian ofcourse, but still it might work out in reality too 
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-12-2008, 04:09 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
For years I thought I am an atheist but I realized I was wrong. Although I couldn't find myself in any of religions known to me, I realized I wasn't an atheist as well... God is a part of an atheist's life, weather we like it or not. An atheist may exclude God from him/herself but cannot exclude people he or she lives with. And they, or some of them, bring God with them... Atheists are dear to me, they do not accept things for granted, they search for answers, and most of the atheists I knew were very intelligent people. But do the real atheists exist? Isn't the fear there equal for believers and atheists? Fear reminded me of how small I am and how great everything in nature, on this Earth is. Did I believe ever or was I confused? Today, I am an (a)gnostic/believer. I am God's creature, God's person. Although I cannot accept any known religion to be mine, I accept all people. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jewish, Muslims, Zoroastrians... all. I wish we all have one church together and we were not wolves to others... |
