why Religions?

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

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.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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 So that god has been replaced by something or someone else, I'm guessing you refer to man.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

VideCorSpoon wrote:

3.I agree, we must discuss our options.

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.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

@Vasska,

that no side of a position should be taken, only the pursuit of knowledge.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.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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)

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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)not

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 Wink

@Vasska,

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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).

@Vasska,

"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) "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)"even fighting each other (Bush the religious fanatic's propaganda war against muslim religious fanatics) etc." (wizzy) "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?"(wizzy)"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)"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)double wink...see I can do it too.

@VideCorSpoon,

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!

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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)

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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..

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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..

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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 Wink

VideCorSpoon wrote:

"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)double wink...see I can do it too.

I would love it if you talked like that, cause then I would get angry.. Razz

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 Wink

@Wizzy,

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.

@VideCorSpoon,

will do that and can't wait for your comment Smile

@Wizzy,

"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..." (Wizzy)

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.

"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.." (Wizzy)

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?

"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?" (Wizzy)

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

"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" (wizzy)
"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," (wizzy)

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.

"I thought the point of philosophy was discussing the knowledge that couldn't be solved in any other way and then to compare ideas and reasoning out the most logical answer " (wizzy)"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?" (wizzy)

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Hola Spoon mi amigo!
Well, I agree with you that "herd mentality" is everywhere but I wouldn't agree that everybody is a victim of it, since somebody have to be the person who leads the herd (the shepard if you wish)... If nobody was a sheep but a shepard, wouldn't the system work better? Wouldn't laws function to a further extent then they do? Wouldn't the world be a better place?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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?

Yeah it is and I know it, that's where my question about "using the same method for the opposit agenda" come into play, I'm not trying to make people athiests, not even saying that they should be, just saying that they have to doubt the exsistance of a god until somebody can even come close to proving that there's one, or in your example, go up on the middle ground.. Might sound like I'm on a mission here but I don't belive that I am because it's not like I'm out there preaching about this stuff, just love to discuss it as we are doing now Wink

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

We wouldn't remove every reason people fight just because we would remove religion, I'm not that naive... But if you think about it, really think about it, what made it possible for Hitler to take power over germany? wasn't it the hate they had for jews? Wouldn't religion be a good thing to remove if it would even slightly limit the possibility for a new hitler to come around?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

... You might be right about that he shows you how to lead your life but nobody have yet to taken his words as laws set up by a higher power because he never claims that they are... And yes ofcourse, alot of philosophers have tried to explain what thoughts come from and as descartes said, suggested the possibility that they are controlled by a higher spirit, of course, the opposit is just as common...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Ofcourse no side "possess the level absolute certainty" which is why it's philosophy, isn't it? But you said it once again: you have to doubt that there is a higher spirit until some proof can be shown, ofcourse you also should doubt that there isn't one.. So you should doubt that there isn't unicorns and santa too... Which should place you on that middle ground you where talking about, shouldn't it?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Maybe not the most logical but the most probable... Cause if you don't use the most probable, then you haven't come to any conclusion have you?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I agree, hate is overrated, I hate hate and I hate to hate.. But as it is in my nature, I can't really help it now can I?
I don't agree that it doesn't belong in philosophy, haven't the hate for ignorance and not knowing made philosophy what it is? Hate is everywhere, and a huge part of what we are as a race, as humans and as a person... What we hate is a big part of what we are and who we are...
Ofcourse, some kinds of hate is good, really good.. Even when you let hate take action.. If you see a girl beeing raped and you hate rapeists, you let your anger take controll of you and you knock out the rapeist, haven't you done a good deed?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"-Edmund Burke

And also Spoon, I couldn't find Religon Reconsidered

@Wizzy,

"I'm not trying to make people athiests, not even saying that they should be, just saying that they have to doubt the exsistance of a god until somebody can even come close to proving that there's one, or in your example, go up on the middle ground" (wizzy)

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.

"We wouldn't remove every reason people fight just because we would remove religion, I'm not that naive... But if you think about it, really think about it, what made it possible for Hitler to take power over germany? wasn't it the hate they had for jews? Wouldn't religion be a good thing to remove if it would even slightly limit the possibility for a new hitler to come around?" (wizzy)"You might be right about that he (sun tzu) shows you how to lead your life but nobody have yet to taken his words as laws set up by a higher power because he never claims that they are... And yes ofcourse, alot of philosophers have tried to explain what thoughts come from and as descartes said, suggested the possibility that they are controlled by a higher spirit, of course, the opposit is just as common..." (wizzy)

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

"Ofcourse no side "possess the level absolute certainty" which is why it's philosophy, isn't it? But you said it once again: you have to doubt that there is a higher spirit until some proof can be shown, ofcourse you also should doubt that there isn't one.. So you should doubt that there isn't unicorns and santa too... Which should place you on that middle ground you where talking about, shouldn't it?" (wizzy)"Maybe not the most logical but the most probable... Cause if you don't use the most probable, then you haven't come to any conclusion have you?"(wizzy)

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

"I don't agree that it doesn't belong in philosophy, haven't the hate for ignorance and not knowing made philosophy what it is?"(wizzy)

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

"Hate is everywhere, and a huge part of what we are as a race, as humans and as a person... What we hate is a big part of what we are and who we are...
Ofcourse, some kinds of hate is good, really good.. Even when you let hate take action.. If you see a girl beeing raped and you hate rapeists, you let your anger take controll of you and you knock out the rapeist, haven't you done a good deed?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"-Edmund Burke"

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.

And also Spoon, I couldn't find Religon Reconsidered by Steven M. Cahn, although I googled it.. If you would know where to find it I would love to read it!

I'll scan the chapter for you!

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Hi Spoon
Don't know what "pre-cognition" is but you don't belive that some people have it naturally? That there's alpha males even in the human race?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Well, thanks?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Jews where hated in Germany before Hitler steped up to the plate, they where wealthy, lived good, had political influance and oh yeah, Germany had a "Jew government" that declaired peace with France, England and USA during WWI at outrageous demands without even beeing close to loosing. The hate for Jews where there before Hitler started preaching, he just exploided it..

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

It was a while ago I read "The Art of War" but I can't recall he ever mentionen anything about a higher spirit, not saying that you are wrong, just not saying that you're right..

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

well, yeah ofcourse.. I wasn't saying that you have come to a conclusion but that should be the goal shouldn't it?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

Probably just saying the same thing with different words here...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

So if the person saving the woman is incapeble of having morality then? (psycopaths/sociopaths) Can't hate for the attacker been the defining factor?

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Agreed

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I'll scan the chapter for you!

Thanks alot!

@Wizzy,

"Don't know what "pre-cognition" is but you don't belive that some people have it naturally? That there's alpha males even in the human race?"

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.

Well, thanks?

Well welcomed?

"Jews where hated in Germany before Hitler steped up to the plate, they where wealthy, lived good, had political influance and oh yeah, Germany had a "Jew government" that declaired peace with France, England and USA during WWI at outrageous demands without even beeing close to loosing. The hate for Jews where there before Hitler started preaching, he just exploided it.""It was a while ago I read "The Art of War" but I can't recall he ever mentionen anything about a higher spirit, not saying that you are wrong, just not saying that you're right."

Higher spirit in the relative sense of tactics and war.

"well, yeah of course.. I wasn't saying that you have come to a conclusion but that should be the goal shouldn't it?"

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.

"I don't agree that it doesn't belong in philosophy, haven't the hate for ignorance and not knowing made philosophy what it is?"(wizzy)

"Nope, it's the embracement of ignorance as a core metaphysical concept." (Spoon)

"Probably just saying the same thing with different words here"(wizzy)

Nope. Not hate for ignorance per se, but in fact understanding of ignorance and its value to philosophy.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Hi Spoon
Well, for beeing able to take a stand for or against "precognition" I would have to define what "knowledge" is which is also a big part of philosophy, so I won't take a stand on that subject now, if you would like me to you'll have to start a new thread Wink

But I will say this: Yes, ofcourse there's alpha males in the world, difference between us and animals is that we have made systems for a long time to look for, finding and destroying them (for example, laws) so they should be few in numbers as is normally follow a bloodline...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Wilhelm where the monarch, not the active ruler.. Not sure how it worked really but as it was a democracy it should have worked pretty much like my counrty (Sweden) does today, We have a king but he have no political influance more then that he can vote, although ours have rejected voting and wants to stay politicly neutral... Anywhoo I wrote "jewis government" cause ofcourse, it wasn't all jewish but as I said jews had alot of political influance and there where several big political names in germany who where Jews...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Higher spirit in the relative sense of tactics and war.

No it isn't... Tactics are logical ways of beating your enemy with inteligence while a higher spirit is something that have bigger powers then any physical creature have...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Agreed

Until the next time Spoon, god bless (ha!) Razz

@Wizzy,

"But I will say this: Yes, ofcourse there's alpha males in the world, difference between us and animals is that we have made systems for a long time to look for, finding and destroying them (for example, laws) so they should be few in numbers as is normally follow a bloodline...""Wilhelm where the monarch, not the active ruler.. Not sure how it worked really but as it was a democracy it should have worked pretty much like my counrty (Sweden) does today, We have a king but he have no political influance more then that he can vote, although ours have rejected voting and wants to stay politicly neutral... "No it isn't... Tactics are logical ways of beating your enemy with inteligence while a higher spirit is something that have bigger powers then any physical creature have..."

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.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Hi Spoon
I can only respond "yeah" to this statement...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Does it matter? The diplomatic government in Germany where to some level (should have been fairly high, haven't realy seen any numbers but remember when we had it in modern history class) Jews, and when the government declaired peace with the "enemy" to outrageous demands without a sign of loosing the war, they got blamed... Point of the matter is: Jews where looked down opon before Hitler exploided it, if they wouldn't have been Jews or any religion he wouldn't have been able to blame any group of people, just the people in that whole mess...

VideCorSpoon wrote:

"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.

The warrior spirit (to me, ofcourse) is nothing els but a drive, a motivation, a energy to fight for what you belive is right and good... Not in anyway another creature influencing you, ofcourse, this is on the borderline isn't it? And yeah sure, samurais in general probably belived their swords where living and lusting and so on but that doesn't mean that Sun Tzu ever claimd that "God" where influencing him to write "The Art of War", hence it will probably never be a religion.... Which is my point.. And I would still like to claim that it is to some extent philosophy, although we'll probably just have to agree to dissagree....

@Wizzy,

" Does it matter? The diplomatic government in Germany where to some level (should have been fairly high, haven't realy seen any numbers but remember when we had it in modern history class) Jews, and when the government declaired peace with the "enemy" to outrageous demands without a sign of loosing the war, they got blamed... Point of the matter is: Jews where looked down opon before Hitler exploided it, if they wouldn't have been Jews or any religion he wouldn't have been able to blame any group of people, just the people in that whole mess..."

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!!!

"The warrior spirit (to me, ofcourse) is nothing els but a drive, a motivation, a energy to fight for what you belive is right and good... Not in anyway another creature influencing you, ofcourse, this is on the borderline isn't it?

Agreed. The warrior spirit is relative. The creature so to speak in the case of the samurai is the embodiment of Bushido.

And yeah sure, samurais in general probably belived their swords where living and lusting and so on but that doesn't mean that Sun Tzu ever claimd that "God" where influencing him to write "The Art of War", hence it will probably never be a religion.... Which is my point.

That's right. Sun Tzu never actually claimed that god was infused into any particular concept of war per se. War is a vehicle of mankind, which is corruptible in all senses.

. And I would still like to claim that it is to some extent philosophy, although we'll probably just have to agree to dissagree...."

I agree, there is indeed a philosophy of war. Is god absent from that equation as a sort of influence or justification for war? That I don't know about.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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!!!

We're getting some where Spoon Wink

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...

[quote=VideCorSpoon]That's right. Sun Tzu never actually claimed that god was infused into any particular concept of war per se. War is a vehicle of mankind, which is corruptible in all senses.

". And I would still like to claim that it is to some extent philosophy, although we'll probably just have to agree to dissagree...."

I agree, there is indeed a philosophy of war. Is god absent from that equation as a sort of influence or justification for war? That I don't know about.[/quote]
So if he never claimed that God influenced him to write the art of war, and nobody have ever since then claimed that the book where something to be followed as laws, yet it is philosophy, but a higher spirit might not be absent in his philosophy if you start penetrating it.. 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? That all of this bloodshed done in the name of God or Allah or what ever 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?

Philosophy Forum

why Religions?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know