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

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 So that god has been replaced by something or someone else, I'm guessing you refer to man.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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 arse 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.

You have a quam with herd mentality. You can't escape herd mentality unless you live your life in a box for twenty years on knowledge and information gained only by your own cognition. Herd mentality, to be fair, exists with the liberals and conservatives, the religious and the atheistic. Prescribing to a single established theory IS herd mentality.

So you believe that Jehova's witnesses are wrong because they believe they speak for God? That they can twist things to what they want it to be? This is like justifying extreme opinions and ideas? What if there exists a person that believes they speak for the anti-God? That they too could twist things to make them into what they want them to be? That indeed they try to justify extreme opinions and ideas. The position you occupy is at the opposite end of a see-saw, and religion is at the other. Both sides fall to the ground, but the part that is always elevated the middleground. Is this not hypocrisy?

Does this imply that we should have no reasons at all?

Sun Tzu does indeed show you how to live your life.. and quite successfully? It's a matter of interpretation. What is life but war in a civil or non-civil sense. Sun Tzu also says that hell, our conception of it, is failure and defeat, hence we strive by way of strategy and tactics to defeat. Unfortunately, that is not philosophy, only an instruction book taken to be philosophy. "trying to pass your thoughts and ideas as truths handed to you by a bigger spirit" is the cornerstone of philosophy. Look at Descartes? father of modern philosophy? "I must doubt everything. Perhaps an evil deceiver deceives me. The fact that I am being deceived tells me that I exist, thus I am a thinking thing (res cogitans) because o the fact I am being deceived.

Does atheism provide any definite proof that God does not exist. You can see how both sides do not possess the level of absolute certainty for a person to take sides with either one.

Philosophy is in a sense the dumping ground of the sciences. Philosophy is the abstract reasonings that indeed cannot be fit into definite science. Once something does gain definite status, it ceases to be philosophy, and becomes science. Philosophy doesnt have to be logical? only abstract and solution oriented.

Hate is overrated? simply put? its too simple a response to an issue. Perhaps you interpret the message as the religious people being better, but that may not be the fact. It's a difference of opinion. I agree with you, that it is better to discuss than to put hate to action. Hate of that sort does not belong in philosophy. It is unproductive. And people that do enforce hate by hurting others are much like rabid dogs, devoid of reason, should be dealt with accordingly as what is just within law. Wouldn't you agree?

How does a Sheppard come to be a Sheppard but by following the example of a Sheppard. They learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone? unless you believe in pre-cognition.

Well reasoned and well founded logic. You have come to the beginning of modern philosophy. You stand at the same point that Descartes stood at hundreds of years ago.

What made it possible for Hitler to take power was this. After World War One, the economic structure of Germany collapsed under the recall of foreign debt and wartime restitution. This left the deutschemark over inflated, where a barral of dollars per se could not even buy a loaf of bread. When people become hungry for example, they lose their rational faculties and become angry. "who do I blame? why do I go hungry?" say the german people. "The jews? they did this to you? it is they who hold the smoking gun" say Hitler. Half of Germany disagree because they think that this is of course nonsense, the other half of the people are so delirious with hunger and hate and angst that they will believe the sweet promise of Hitler (aka mephisto) to put them on the right road again. Those delirious half of the population become infused with empty pride and false hope, and force their ideas on the other rational half. Many die, many convert for fear of being killed, thus Hitler comes to power. By this rationale, it is hate and radical politicalism that we should remove, not religion.

The samurai did. And you are right, the other side of the spectrum is indeed just as common.

Philosophy should be deductive, not inductive. If you come to a wrong conclusion alone, it is still a wrong conclusion.

Nope, it's the embracement of ignorance as a core metaphysical concept.

You don't let hate drive you to save the woman? you let morality, and the need to protect the weaker sex? (although it is sexist to say) Hate drives the rapist to rape the woman in the first place. It is the necessity to combat hate that saves the woman.

Inaction is a horrible thing. Neville Chamberlin declared peace in our time by declaring peace with Hitler, which didn't turn out so good for a lot of people.

I'll scan the chapter for you!

Precognition is knowledge before it is learned through the senses. This topic is debatable. Are there alpha males in the human race? Sure why not, there always seems to be some inherent chain of influence in the world.

That's a logical phalacy right there. Don't assume or generalize anything or anybody. If I were to say that all white people follow Catholicism, you would probably have a problem with that. And I don't think Germany had a "Jewish" government. They had Kaiser Wilhelm? He was German? and Catholic, and tried to bite off more than he could chew. And he was very close to losing? for a few years before he surrendered. The xenophobia for jewish people did exist before germany? which is sad in itself, and Hitler did exploit it in a cheap way.

Higher spirit in the relative sense of tactics and war.

Exactly right! But coming to conclusions within closed systems doesn't mean they are true in a grand sense, only within that system. The conclusion is relative.

Animals have normative frameworks as well. Look at wolf packs or lion dens. Animals, like Leibniz states in his monodology, do not possess the intellectual soul, only the entelichie and animal soul which conceives and perceives but cannot rationalize. I bring this up because under his philosophy, we also, for 2/3 of our human lives, live with the animal soul? that is, without the ability to rationalize. As for finding and destroying them? I think that's called regicide? the French were very good at that two hundred years ago, as well as the Bolshevik Russians a hundred years ago.

You have to remember, this is the point in history where monarchs start losing their powers, but they still had them. Wilhelm was not only Kaiser, but commander and chief. He had much to say on matters of war for the germans. Monarchies exist in this day in age as figureheads? moral and psudo-divine examples to the rest of their country. The queen of England for example is also head of the church of England. Its their way of staying relevant in an age of democracy while staying true to purpose.

"What about the warrior spirit? What about the embodiment of the heart and soul of a samurai within the sword? That gift of a soul to an object meant to kill is pretty divine looking to me.

Exactly!!! Perhaps you have a very valid point!!! In the absence of religion, we come at last to a great equalizer in which people, not factions exist. As such, being "special" in fact creates bigger rifts in society by making others less special. Well said!!!