The worlds major religions are dying. Slowly, yes, but they are dying. They have been outdated and undermined to the point where belief in them is impossible to the rational mind. It will probably be centuries more until they completely fade....but what then? This void is probably a major reason that the religious decline itself has been so slow.

What is to replace religion? Does it need replacing? Is nihilism something to fear? Is life to be affirmed in and of itself, or must there be a supernatural?

We must begin to answer these questions if we wish to control our own destiny....

The worlds major religions are dying. Slowly, yes, but they are dying.

I wonder if it's possible for the world's religions to die a slow, natural death. It seems more likely that they are just drifting along and biding their time. The dark ages are waiting, just around the corner. One or two wrong turns down the road and religious fanaticism will once more fill the world with monotheistic chants and intolerance.

We can't just sit back and hope that religions dies. It will fool you. It will make you think that it's dead. But, when the time comes it will return like a snake that has shed its skin.

Religion must be murdered.

God must be slaughtered and butchered. Hung upon the city walls as an object lesson to all who would make gods in the future.

that is what the 'he-God' mythic writers and warriors did to the Goddess and peoples. so doing that would be going to that level. metaphorically however, and experientially, if we see patriarcahl belief as being self-contrl--resistance to flux, process, e-motion, ecstatic flow, then in that context the 'tearing apart' of that mindset would be as of demons tearing aprt the rigid ego--ie., IF it resists this resistance actualizes in the form of demons. Spirits which have been denied, demon-ized, pushed away, into the desacralized Earth.
But we cant be thinking in terms of actual bloodshed and war, terrorism, because that is the foundation of the dominator mindset

But we cant be thinking in terms of actual bloodshed and war, terrorism, because that is the foundation of the dominator mindset

I don't really care about the "dominator mindset" but I agree that you can't murder religion through violence. All you do is create martyrs and you actually strengthen religion through these means.

Rather, we must look into religion and tear it apart at the seams. Analyze it. Categorize it. Perhaps even coopt it. Make religion pc. Is there any more sure death to religion than to remove the fire from it? I don't mean to just ignore the fire but remove it entirely. Combine religions to make a grey blah. Watch as people spit it out of their mouths and realize that there is no need for religion.

Basically, the light must be shown into the dark nooks and crannies of religion. Raid the vatican and dig out those secret files that we all know are down there. Let's see some dirty laundry. Contradictions. Hypocrisy.

Kill. Kill. Kill. There's a million weapons with which to murder religion. Violence is not one of them.

Read an essay which proposed that in the Middle Ages there could have been no atheists. It argued that the religion in the Middle Ages presented an explanation of all that was there to be explained and this explanation (at that time) was so evidently true ( and adequate to the state of the general development of knowlede at that moment) that no one dared to doubt it. At its highest point the religion is transparent (in the sense that you do not see it shortcomings) and therefore it is experinced as true.

From this point of view the religion of now is <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=science&v=56">science</a>...(Maths and geometry are then the <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=books&v=56">books</a> of "bible", the sections of this bible are called (book of Pythagoras, book of Newton, book of Einstain, Quantum Physics is the New testament...I wonder who who are the bad guys of these new holy scripts...(bv. Judas) when they come out...

What is to replace religion? Does it need replacing? Is nihilism something to fear? Is life to be affirmed in and of itself, or must there be a supernatural?

I do not think that the death of religion would leave a total void, after all, religion would not die from one day to the other, it is a slow process and people might find other things to partake in that will support them as well as religion.

Also, would it really be nihilism and not just plain atheism? And I do not think that atheism is a void. Just the superstitional belief in gods would fade. People would find things to life for. If not, then they should hang to life anyway.

Religion is already being replaced. For example, the dramas of the greek and roman gods are now defunct. you dont get the exploits of God getting pissed one night and doing something crazy. This has now been replaced by..... celebrities. dam, its not good. but see all of those stupid magazines, like *shudders* Heat and so forth (europeans, etc may not know of this, i think its UK only). these guys are the new gods, whose exploits domineer some peoples lives and they are worshipped.
e.g. musicians.

fan: "I LOVE YOUR MUSIC, I LISTEN TO IT EERY DAY YAYAYAYAYAYADADA"

you know what im saying now ive said it.

invert,
Religion must be murdered.
If you are to murder religion you must take that to its logical end. That is, all things that have been built upon and rest in hanging balance will also come crumbling upon the demise of religion. All morals, values, traditions, institutions, etc. must be rebuilt or cast away! It is this that I term the 'void'. By what means is it to be filled? Or are we to leave it empty?

Procop,
From this point of view the religion of now is science.
Yes, it can be looked at in that way. It is important to realize that science is not the world. It is merely man's interpretation of it. However, science itself asks different questions than those religion attempted to answer. Science cannot fill the void I speak of...for these are questions of why and value. Reducing something to a mathematical expression does nothing for the void I speak of.


Dream,
Also, would it really be nihilism and not just plain atheism? And I do not think that atheism is a void. Just the superstitional belief in gods would fade. People would find things to life for. If not, then they should hang to life anyway.
How can you say atheism is not a void? It is a simple negation! If all you have is atheism you have nothing. Nihilism is the positive. The insistance of non-value. Otherwise, if life has value, how should this then be determined?

logically,
This has now been replaced by..... celebrities
Yes, this can be seen, at least in the western world. Do you think this adoration misguided? If so, where should it be placed? Is this not the symptom of an increasingly materialistic world? If the supernatural is banished, are we not to focus on the natural?

How can you say atheism is not a void? It is a simple negation! If all you have is atheism you have nothing. Nihilism is the positive. The insistance of non-value. Otherwise, if life has value, how should this then be determined?

Atheism is not a simple negation, one just does not believe in gods, paradise and so on. That does not mean a human is empty, religion is not everything. As atheist you still can live for yourself, or your family. You can set yourself goals which you aspire to reach. It is your free will to do what you want with your life, but without gods, there are still emotions like love and hate, there are still things to live for. Except if you are dead inside, then, even religion cannot help you, it can only give you an illusion.

If you insist on the non-value of nihilism, as opposition to religion, what would you oppose? You would start to oppose and rebell against something that is dead and nonexistend. You would just exchange one illusion for another in my opinion, and I think that that is a pretty pathetic lifestyle, one that would hollow you out over the time.

Jean-Paul Sartre pointed out that modern culture has a God-shaped hole in it...

FadingCaptain:

That is, all things that have been built upon and rest in hanging balance will also come crumbling upon the demise of religion. All morals, values, traditions, institutions, etc. must be rebuilt or cast away!

Hmm. I'm tempted to commit a hijacking here. But... I shall resist for the moment.

I'll just say this for the moment. All these things that you claim to be dependent upon religion are not, in my opinion. Religion merely took these things that predated it and incorporated them into its structure. Undoubtably the concepts were evolved through religion somewhat. Some evolved for the "good" some for the "bad".

But, one thing that is for sure about the evolution of said concepts. Once evolved, they froze. And now we are stuck with the pre-evolved concepts that are now frozen in stone. Outdated. Outmoded. And unchanging. God "decreed" these things in his infinite wisdom and therefore they cannot be wrong. Not in the slightest. They cannot change. They will not change.

Yes. It is time for a revaluation of morals. What institutions are dependent on religion? The vatican? Traditions? If they can't stand on their own then dump them in the garbage bin where they belong.

The "void" is illusory. Religion itself is a void. Murder religion and the void vanishes.

Jean-Paul Sartre pointed out that modern culture has a God-shaped hole in it...

God is a hole.


Hmm. This is off-topic but perhaps representative of what theists think the universe MUST look like without god. This is from Saturday Night Live's Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:

"Life is a sucking swirling eddy of despair filled with brief moments of false hope in an ever-darkening universe."

And you know what, it's fucking beautiful too.

As an adition to my previous post:

Those who still believe in religion when it dies will be gravely disillusioned. They will probably be nihilists since they might no longer have values, hopes and so on. So in that case nihilism would not be the opposition, rather the result of "god´s death".
Furthermore, I do not think that a lack of values, hopes... what have you then? Non-values do not give you a goal or a reason to go on.

Atheism is not "nothing", you just see things from a different angle.

I need to be summoned more often.

fadingCaptain:
If you are to murder religion you must take that to its logical end. That is, all things that have been built upon and rest in hanging balance will also come crumbling upon the demise of religion. All morals, values, traditions, institutions, etc. must be rebuilt or cast away! It is this that I term the 'void'. By what means is it to be filled? Or are we to leave it empty?


The logical end, dear boy, is One's Self- you don't see this because your Self has been stolen.
The sacred health of the human animal is sabotaged by stronger organisms that break his spirit and with the pieces make religion.
The stronger organism would be either the church or one's parents who are usually the first to force us to go against us- its at this stage where we begin learning to think 'good' and 'evil' for our natural inclinations to be 'happy' or 'sad'.
I'm saying here that an untouched Self, left alone, is godly.

Religion has not only broken man's spirit, its tainted the language-
Says Rand:
"Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach"

Therefore, 'exaltation' is a word now used for the supernatural. Out of man's reach.
"Worship" is used to force loyalty to something higher than man. Out of man's reach.
"Reverence" is used to display a respect, and shown on one's knee like a slobbering slave. For something out of man's reach.

All of these are emotions we all feel without religion there to dictate them, and this organism (the church) has sabotaged them for its purpose and built an ideology that is a perfect formula for serfdom- by placing it all out of man's reach.
You make man feel small and unworthy and there, right there, you've impoverished his soul and he gives himself to you.
Religion, then, is morality with rabies- something wholly different from the human animal and removed by making him feel helpless.

I do not think that the death of religion would leave a total void, after all, religion would not die from one day to the other, it is a slow process and people might find other things to partake in that will support them as well as religion.

Also, would it really be nihilism and not just plain atheism? And I do not think that atheism is a void. Just the superstitional belief in gods would fade. People would find things to life for. If not, then they should hang to life anyway.

Why should they hang on to life anyway?
Give a logical, rational reason, that will also satisfy the simplest man.

The sacred health of the human animal is sabotaged by stronger organisms that break his spirit and with the pieces make religion.

Do you think that there was any other possible way to organize human life in a society?

Religion, historically, is about hierarchy, and hierarchy is innate to social animals.


I'm saying here that an untouched Self, left alone, is godly.

Is it possible for a Self to be untouched? Can a Self be, when there are no other Selfs around?


Religion has not only broken man's spirit, its tainted the language-

What "tainted" language is hierarchy, in one form or another.

For the lowest class, the benefits of the higher class are forever out of man's reach and so it must be, if a human society is to be stable.


"Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach"

"Usurped"? Prove that they were there before religion in a "pure" form.


All of these are emotions we all feel without religion there to dictate them, and this organism (the church) has sabotaged them for its purpose and built an ideology that is a perfect formula for serfdom- by placing it all out of man's reach.
You make man feel small and unworthy and there, right there, you've impoverished his soul and he gives himself to you.
Religion, then, is morality with rabies- something wholly different from the human animal and removed by making him feel helpless.

This is just plain hierarchic thinking, can be found in any dictatorship, religious or political, or even scientific. -- The postulates that "the truth is elusive", "we never reach the end", "those values are there only as guidelines, but never to be accomplished fully in a person".

Religion in differing forms apeared in all cultures (even though these were not interconnected). It is an instinctive ritual. (Like dance or language)

Rosemagica--although you are entitled to your opinion, i just cannot gell with you..."lower classes must have a higher class which they can't aspire to for a stable society" (or words to that effect)
to me that assertion is totally ludicrous. stable for WHO? that is the trip we have been sold, and it creates much misery and violence. you feel that is stable?

Procop--really feel your insight....where you note how the medieval theocratic paradigm was so all pervasive that there wasn't even any conception of not believing it.
This i have also learned. A great book about this is Thomas Szasz' 'The Manufacture of Madness', where he compares the medieval paradigm with our pardigm which is built on 'science'. In OURs he calls it the 'Pharmacracy', where medical intervention has replaced religious doctrine. As you say, now science is god (as is profit)....and to QUESTION it is unthinkable. hence millions and millions of people BELIVE they suffer from 'mental illness'!

gendaken--"you make a man feel small and unworthy and THERE...you've impoverished his soul and he gives himself to you"

i completely agree, although i would replave the ubiquitous 'he' with human. for it is WOMAN who has really born the brunt of the MALE patriarchal mythic writes's disempowering pen.

I also would phrase it that what has been done --by patriarchal religious doctrine--is an insidious authoratarian ploy of divide and conquer/rule. So forst they have to mae us guilty right from the start ("original sin")...This makes us dis-trust our very being, and splits us into a body and soul/mind, in conflict with one another. Then their 'God' represents the 'good bit', and body represents their creation, the 'Devil'.
I.e., they have created an 'ENEMY'. it is THIS pattern which is shared throughout patriarchal religions and secual life. At present the secual 'ENEMY' is the 'TERRORIST' etc. creating such enimes is designed to stick you to their author-ity, unQUESTIONINGLY. divide and rule

Why should they hang on to life anyway?
Give a logical, rational reason, that will also satisfy the simplest man.

Ooops, I really did write this:


Also, would it really be nihilism and not just plain atheism? And I do not think that atheism is a void. Just the superstitional belief in gods would fade. People would find things to life for. If not, then they should hang to life anyway.


That is a mistake from my side, it should say: People would find things to live for. If not, then they should not keep on living anyway, they would just be pathetic, useless deadweights.

This was what I originally had in mind when I wrote that sentence, don´t know why it came out that way. My mind must have lapsed, sorry.

religion was initially there so that people would act civilised, they feared that their gods would punish them for crimes. now that we have (mostly) working governments we need no relicion.

That is a mistake from my side, it should say: People would find things to live for. If not, then they should not keep on living anyway, they would just be pathetic, useless deadweights.

In that case, you must provide a rational, compelling and sanctionable reason why someone should not keep on living anyway, if one is a "pathetic, useless deadweight".

Or will you proclaim being a "pathetic, useless deadweight" as a virtue, or even as normal?


This was what I originally had in mind when I wrote that sentence, don´t know why it came out that way. My mind must have lapsed, sorry.

Onkel Sigi am Werk, hm? Funny. We should analyze these slips a bit more.

I know what you meant, even though you first haven't written it out. I just wanted to have it out in the clear.

***

Rosemagica--although you are entitled to your opinion, i just cannot gell with you..."lower classes must have a higher class which they can't aspire to for a stable society" (or words to that effect)

Then read again.


to me that assertion is totally ludicrous. stable for WHO? that is the trip we have been sold, and it creates much misery and violence. you feel that is stable?

Are we having a world war?


I also would phrase it that what has been done --by patriarchal religious doctrine--is an insidious authoratarian ploy of divide and conquer/rule. So forst they have to mae us guilty right from the start ("original sin")...This makes us dis-trust our very being, and splits us into a body and soul/mind, in conflict with one another. Then their 'God' represents the 'good bit', and body represents their creation, the 'Devil'.
I.e., they have created an 'ENEMY'. it is THIS pattern which is shared throughout patriarchal religions and secual life. At present the secual 'ENEMY' is the 'TERRORIST' etc. creating such enimes is designed to stick you to their author-ity, unQUESTIONINGLY. divide and rule

If you want a society, you will have some hierarchy, and thus "divide and rule". You cannot have societies without some authorities.


***

I'll just say this for the moment. All these things that you claim to be dependent upon religion are not, in my opinion. Religion merely took these things that predated it and incorporated them into its structure. Undoubtably the concepts were evolved through religion somewhat. Some evolved for the "good" some for the "bad".

But, one thing that is for sure about the evolution of said concepts. Once evolved, they froze. And now we are stuck with the pre-evolved concepts that are now frozen in stone. Outdated. Outmoded. And unchanging. God "decreed" these things in his infinite wisdom and therefore they cannot be wrong. Not in the slightest. They cannot change. They will not change.

Yes. It is time for a revaluation of morals. What institutions are dependent on religion? The vatican? Traditions? If they can't stand on their own then dump them in the garbage bin where they belong.

The "void" is illusory. Religion itself is a void. Murder religion and the void vanishes.


There is no reason to live, there is only an instinct. As long as this instinct is kept in the domain of the irrational, it is okay. Religion has proven to be good at keeping this instinct irrational, while at the same time, incorporated a worldly rule, a tool of social control.

You want a reevaluation of values. Now please tell me, what is the rational reason to live? (And see my reply to Dreamwalker.)
Do you think people wish to be rational?
Do you think people are rational?
Do you think that we can depend on people's rationality?

In that case, you must provide a rational, compelling and sanctionable reason why someone should not keep on living anyway, if one is a "pathetic, useless deadweight".

Or will you proclaim being a "pathetic, useless deadweight" as a virtue, or even as normal?


I certainly will not proclaim that it is a virtue to be a "pathetic, useless deadweight". Why should I do something like that.

And I thought it was pretty obvious why someone should not go on living when he fits that description. (apart from the fact that this person would likely waste away and die in any case)
Well, as a reasonable explanation, such persons are useless, which makes them not really valuable. Furthermore, they are weighting down the society, as I said, they are deadweights and others have to pull them along or let them down. The last choice seems much more reasonable, don´t you think?
Adding to this, they would probably be so desperate that they themself see no reason to live on. So I think that they should die.

Invert,
The "void" is illusory. Religion itself is a void. Murder religion and the void vanishes.
You do not think a humanistic or other kind of replacement idealogy is needed? What should the goal of a revaluation of morals be? Can morals be pluralistic?

I maintain that a simple erradication of religion leaves vacancy. We could return to the wholly natural and animalistic ways of our most ancient ancestors, but I hardly think that desirable. Otherwise, we must provide a new base on which to construct our values.

I agree that the universe simply is and the beauty in this realization is unsurpassed. The question is : How can this realization be translated to enhance life?

Gendanken,
The logical end, dear boy, is One's Self
Indeed, but what of culture, society? Is that to be cast aside also? Or can it be improved upon and how?

I maintain that a simple erradication of religion leaves vacancy. We could return to the wholly natural and animalistic ways of our most ancient ancestors, but I hardly think that desirable. Otherwise, we must provide a new base on which to construct our values.

Well, I am an atheist, and I can still use a sophisticated machine and I do have morals (to some extend), so I am not too natural and animalistic...

Dreamwalker,
But I am an atheist also! I am not an animal, I am a human being! :)

Point is, I am trying to go beyond atheism. To set a positive and unmoveable ideology. If I do not believe in god, yet blindly adhere to all of its repurcusions....what good have I done?

I am trying to see what others in my position have found to give life value. I find it problematic that discussions in person and on this board frequently find a deafening silence.

You seem to suggest that it is for each and every person to determine the value of life for themselves....well then, what have you determined?

You seem to suggest that it is for each and every person to determine the value of life for themselves....well then, what have you determined?

Of course everyone has to find the value of life thenself, that´s what free will is for. If someone would just go around and give them a set value than this person would be a bit like god, and then there would be religion all over the place again.

My value of life? Let me see, normally I live like I see fit and try to enjoy myself. There are so many books to read, games to play, bottles to empty, places to see, things to experience and so on. Do these things give value to my life? I think so, and I will keep on living this way. A more important question would probably be why I do value the life of others, for I would not have a reason for that.
I assume that others like their life just as much as I do, hence I can understand that they probably want to keep it. That´s fine with me as long as they do not infringe upon my interests. (meaning that I will not tolerate attacks on my person or oppresion and similar unpleasant things)

To sum it up, my main value in life is entertainement coupled with my need for self preservation.

I certainly will not proclaim that it is a virtue to be a "pathetic, useless deadweight". Why should I do something like that.

And I thought it was pretty obvious why someone should not go on living when he fits that description. (apart from the fact that this person would likely waste away and die in any case)

It is not "pretty obvious". You have made this judgement that it is "pretty obvious" on the basis of certain criteria. What criteria?


Well, as a reasonable explanation, such persons are useless, which makes them not really valuable. Furthermore, they are weighting down the society, as I said, they are deadweights and others have to pull them along or let them down. The last choice seems much more reasonable, don´t you think?
Adding to this, they would probably be so desperate that they themself see no reason to live on. So I think that they should die.

Again, based on what criteria can you say that someone should die? Maybe these people don't think so -- in fact, they don't think so as long as they are alive.

If you want a human society, you need some written laws and an institution to sanction the transgression of these laws.

Will your book of laws say, "Those who are pathetic, useless deadweights, are to be punished with the capital punishment" ??

Next, for example, there is the Declaration of human rights. Those who transgress these rights of other people, can be punished.
But what about those people who do not live up to these rights, who have, in effect, transgressed those rights by neglecting themselves? Are they to be punished?
(Think: The obese put in prison for not taking care of their health.)

Rosa:
Do you think that there was any other possible way to organize human life in a society?
And do you think the silly mendicancy of Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, or for that matter any of the million or so branches of Judaism has always been around?

"Religion” to the Greek was truth and tribalism, tribalism was also the currency of early Germans and the Scandinavians who peopled their forests with spirits.
The American Indian and the Druids with their land worship- tell me, can you imagine either of these ancestors squatting in a little mudhut, angry at his body and praying to a vengeful god to forgive his erection? His will, his reason, his nature?
This is what I’m talking about, and if you are in fact a Christian or some other mutant form of religion you will never see this.

Religion, historically, is about hierarchy, and hierarchy is innate to social animals.

You don't need religion as much as you do belief and membership.
People tend to believe the "religious" person as a fundamentalist but what with counting his beads and chewing on a musty agnus dei like a sleeping cow, he's more of a superficialist.
Spirituality is not a hail Mary- as an atheist I'm far more spiritual than any cornfed Baptist you'll find nesting on a pew come Sunday.
Religion takes what man has originally- the tribal feel of loyalty, the making of order from each part dedicated to the other because of it- and pollutes it with the shackles that go to make slaves.
How?

Taking everything he has - lust, content, reverence, loyalty, desire, will- and sucking the life out them by sucking it from him, leaving an anemic slave behind to beg a deaf nobody for a blood transfusion.
Am I saying the Christian or the Muslim no longer experience any of these?
No, but he does so on his knees and to him, Self is secondary.


Is it possible for a Self to be untouched? Can a Self be, when there are no other Selfs around?
No, but my scope is bigger.
The god of a child is a personal, selfish one- its not until he has been handled by hands other than his own that need him helpless that the touch becomes a polluting one.

“The God of a praying child is a thousand times more definite than that of the god-intoxicated Spinoza. This is one of the drawbacks of philosophy- it takes from us the intimate and anthropomorphic deity of our youth and giving us instead an Absolute that it will be ridiculous to picture him in human form”- Durant, the Mansions

It is here that man becomes helpless.

For the lowest class, the benefits of the higher class are forever out of man's reach and so it must be, if a human society is to be stable.

Mostly to prolong the resentful misery that no man as a proud owner of this heritage it means to be human should endure.
Let alone allow to enter any part of his powerful brain, but they let it.

My stance or nature is one that sees past this.

"Usurped"? Prove that they were there before religion in a "pure" form.

Yes, usurped.

Ever felt the heroic? The feelings of pride and uplift? Loyalty? Brotherhood?
All found in man when he enters the world brand new.
All still present in the Inuit and Algonquin tribes and Spartan and German tribes and whatever tribe you wish where its men looked on their valiant leaders with pride.
You don't need a "religion" to provoke any of this.

I don't need a systemized dictation to inspire the romance of heroism and pride in my body. Nor my mind.

“It is not the works”, writes Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil, “but the belief which is here decisive and determines the order of rank- to employ once more an old religious formula with a new and deeper meaning- it is some fundamental certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which is not to be sought, is not to be found, and perhaps also, is not to be lost. The noble soul has reverence for itself”

Duendy:
gendaken--"you make a man feel small and unworthy and THERE...you've impoverished his soul and he gives himself to you"

i completely agree, although i would replave the ubiquitous 'he' with human. for it is WOMAN who has really born the brunt of the MALE patriarchal mythic writes's disempowering pen.

You bring up salient points, but I think it terribly easy to blame the 'patriarchy'.

FadinCaptain:
Indeed, but what of culture, society? Is that to be cast aside also? Or can it be improved upon and how?

Why do you feel culture has to be cast aside?

This "void", stems from our deepest philosophical roots. Or better yet, lack thereof.
We are human.
And because of this very fact, we must act in accordance to our nature.
"What we are!"
Because we are human, and not animals, we are not programmed instinctively to know what is for us or against us.
Squrills do not need to be taught to store nuts, fish do not sit on their fathers kneee and learn about the birds and the bees.
They are programmed.
As humans we are not.
We have what may be called free will.
It is a choice to think or not.
To look ouotwardly and identify the universe we live in, ourselfves, and our relationship to it.

Any void one feels is a lack of integration of concepts directly perceived from reality.
Look at your current philosophy.
Is it consistant all the way through to provide yourself with purpose, fullfilment and productiveness?

This whole thread has been motivated to produce a consistant guide to living in reality.
Lets start with some basic truths.
Something that is neccessary to begin integrating yourself with reality.
Existence EXISTS!!!!!
You cannot refute this with out negating yourself from reality.
Beleive it or not, few people have actually integrated this absolute fundamental truth into there lives.

Look!
Your computer screen is not going to suddenly turn into a chicken!
Reality is Real.
It is a CAUSE AND EFFECT universe.
This is what IS.
Sorry, just trying to make a point.

Without this very fundamental axiom" Existence Exists" no if ands or buts, then this is the very crack that this "void" in ones life begins to creep in.

I've just come to realize how long my reply will have to be to begin to cover this topic.
This is the fundamental truth that all of your knowledge must rest upon.
It is from this integrated concept that you can then begin to build a consistant guide to living a fully realized productive happy life.

Anyways, had to say something.
Toodles. :D

Gendanken,
"Why do you feel culture has to be cast aside? "
Oh, I do not. Culture is part of what makes humans great, but a large part of modern culture has been molded by religion. My point is that the demise of religion has fundamental impacts to the "self", as you first pointed out, but there are also impacts to culture.

In fact, the very process by which culture is validated and valued has to be examined. We must find ways to improve our culture, and cultivate it. How is this to be done if we live in a world in which there is no commonality? If everyone simply decides for themselves the value and meaning of life itself....how can we create a better world?

Rosa:

You are aware that I only created a thesis on the thoughts of FadingCaptain? I do not want to create a new code of law that annihilates every person that I see unfit to live. I am not Hitler reincarnated.
My contributions are only based on the event that religion dies and leaves behind a void (see FadingCaptains posts on the first page). I assumed that the result of the new way of thinking would be a mass of people that no longer sees any reason to live since their beliefs are void.
This would mean that a lot of people would cast themself into depression and their lifes would lose value, not for me but for them, because their livelong aspirations are worthless. This mindset could well prove contagious and many others, in the extreme the whole society would be dragged down. I think that this should be prevented by putting those people out of their misery.
Note that I did not apply this on our current society. Neither do I agree on the results that FadingCaptain thinks likely. I just built a small thesis on the possibilitie that he is right.

I even mentioned that I respect the lifes of others as long as they do not employ force against me. Or rather I value their lifes because they value it, but those people that might exist in fadingCaptain´s idea do no longer have values.

So no, there will be not a book of law after my construct and I certainly will not imprison obese people, that would not change them, I would make them RUN! http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilies/brutal/15.gif


:D

fadingCaptain:
Why do you feel culture has to be cast aside? "
Oh, I do not. Culture is part of what makes humans great, but a large part of modern culture has been molded by religion. My point is that the demise of religion has fundamental impacts to the "self", as you first pointed out, but there are also impacts to culture.
True, yet culture is a nostalgic word at times.
Everything and everyone, when forced down to equality, lose something in the levelling.
Pride, skill- commercialized and stripped of meaning.

Culture means that black chick with the cool hair now, like ya!!
Even "whites" are ashamed of their heritage.
So I don't think "culture" will help any.


In fact, the very process by which culture is validated and valued has to be examined. We must find ways to improve our culture, and cultivate it. How is this to be done if we live in a world in which there is no commonality? If everyone simply decides for themselves the value and meaning of life itself....how can we create a better world?
Well, if we both are noble, together do we not make a noble commune?
You don't think that, ethically, mankind is similar?

A comment on dreamwalkers point.
I understand what you are suggesting.
Happiness can only come from ones own productiveness.
Those who are not productive through action or thought are a burden.
Such as those that use force, fraud or theft as means of attainment from those who do produce value. These people are parasites.
Which if did not have those who do produce through their own efforts could not survive.
Those who produce do not need those who decide to commit theft, fraud or force.
Where as the opposite is not true.

When man is the object of worship, more specifically the power of our minds and reason, we will be able to build a consistant culture, based on the attainment of selfishness. Of personal happiness and fullfillment to be our purpose for living.
When values are traded for each mans individual effort.

Yah, I know, effort.
Couldn't get around that. Damn eh?!

Religion, which is extremist in all ways, which wouldn't be so bad if it weren't based on so called principles devoid of actual reality.
Where self sacrcrifice and a side of fries is the order of the day.
If productive life is not ones aim in life, if the value of one life and the pursuit of happiness is not the aim of ones moral code, then one consciously or unconsciously chooses death.
Even if it is spanned over the course of a void of 80 years.
Blah blah

The stronger organism would be either the church or one's parents who are usually the first to force us to go against us- its at this stage where we begin learning to think 'good' and 'evil' for our natural inclinations to be 'happy' or 'sad'.

Interesting. And true. Such things are imposed on the young. While they are weak and helpless.

Reminds me of a joke about a small-dicked father showing his son his dick while the boy is young and the dick seems HUGE. The boy will then spend his whole life sure that his father has the hugest cock in the world. And that his cock will never compare to the majesty of his father's cock.

"Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach"

Exactly. Placing these once human concepts into the realm of gods. True revelations and irrefutable. Unalterable. Indivisible. Frozen.




Why should they hang on to life anyway?
Give a logical, rational reason, that will also satisfy the simplest man.

Because that's what life does. If it doesn't then it doesn't and it's of no consequence.

In that case, you must provide a rational, compelling and sanctionable reason why someone should not keep on living anyway, if one is a "pathetic, useless deadweight".

Or will you proclaim being a "pathetic, useless deadweight" as a virtue, or even as normal?

Only if they do not seek to live. They encompass their own demise. If they don't live then they die. Sometimes death is slower than other times.


religion was initially there so that people would act civilised, they feared that their gods would punish them for crimes. now that we have (mostly) working governments we need no relicion.

A bit simplistic. And erroneous. Religion was around long before "civilization". It is likely that religion served a purpose.

***Edit to add: (Ooops. Didn't finish my thought. Let me try again.)

It is likely that religion served a purpose. It allowed group size to advance beyond the previous limit of hunter-gatherer nonreligious societies. Before gods and spirits, the tribe would likely fission when it grew to an unmaneagable size. With the advent of gods, the power of the otherworldly was consolidated in the form of the shaman and chieftan. Fear kept the group together far past its ordinary size.



There is no reason to live, there is only an instinct. As long as this instinct is kept in the domain of the irrational, it is okay. Religion has proven to be good at keeping this instinct irrational, while at the same time, incorporated a worldly rule, a tool of social control.

How exactly has religion given voice to the survival instinct? If anything it seems to deny it. It makes the afterlife more important than life. It makes the mythical world of heaven more important than the real world.

Without religion, all that exists is this world. We have no eternity in which to dwell in peace.

You want a reevaluation of values. Now please tell me, what is the rational reason to live?

Rational reason to live? Why do you need one, per se? Doesn't the survival instinct work well enough for you? As I've said, religion is more about undercutting the survival instinct.

Do you think people wish to be rational?
Do you think people are rational?
Do you think that we can depend on people's rationality?

1. Some people.
2. Some people.
3. Sometimes.

Remember, without religion there is no absolutes. The void is an absolute. It vanishes without religion.

Reason as an entity existing on its own is an absolute. It vanishes without religion.


You do not think a humanistic or other kind of replacement idealogy is needed?

Not really. There is no absolute truth. No absolute idealogy that will cover the world like a blanket. Ideals should be dealt out on a point by point basis. Judgement calls.

Don't depend on a 'holy writ' to decide your life for you. Make your own writ. Personal and true.

What should the goal of a revaluation of morals be?

Goal? Why... what works, of course. Tight and true to circumstance.

Can morals be pluralistic?

Yes. And no. :D

I maintain that a simple erradication of religion leaves vacancy. We could return to the wholly natural and animalistic ways of our most ancient ancestors, but I hardly think that desirable. Otherwise, we must provide a new base on which to construct our values.

And I maintain that vacancy is an illusion. An illusion that is promoted by religion. Get rid of religion and the truth that religion obscures will become clear once more. Our wholly animalistic and natural ways. We have ration and abstraction above other animals, but animal we still are. And natural.

Religion tries to make us supernatural.

We're not. We're natural.

Deal with it. This doesn't mean that we just go to a jungle law. We are social animals. Which means that we have built in systems for regulating social affairs. We're just out of touch with them.

The question is : How can this realization be translated to enhance life?

Just as we always have. By observation and manipulation of the physical world. Religion doesn't alter that. It merely limits the extent to which we can legitimately interface with the world.


(Damn this thread got busy today. This is enough for now. Long enough.)

And do you think the silly mendicancy of Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, or for that matter any of the million or so branches of Judaism has always been around?

"Religion” to the Greek was truth and tribalism, tribalism was also the currency of early Germans and the Scandinavians who peopled their forests with spirits.
The American Indian and the Druids with their land worship- tell me, can you imagine either of these ancestors squatting in a little mudhut, angry at his body and praying to a vengeful god to forgive his erection? His will, his reason, his nature?

One:

The thread starter said

The worlds major religions are dying. Slowly, yes, but they are dying. They have been outdated and undermined to the point where belief in them is impossible to the rational mind. It will probably be centuries more until they completely fade....but what then? This void is probably a major reason that the religious decline itself has been so slow.

What is to replace religion? Does it need replacing? Is nihilism something to fear? Is life to be affirmed in and of itself, or must there be a supernatural?

Religion. I take he was addressing the whole lot of religions, from the ancient Greek, the ancient Slavic, the ancient Germanic, to the Judaeo-Christian religions, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. etc.

You say ""Religion” to the Greek was truth and tribalism" -- is religion not about "truth and tribalism" in Christianity and Hinduism as well? It may be about different kinds of "truth and tribalism", but it is still "truth and tribalism".


Two:

tell me, can you imagine either of these ancestors squatting in a little mudhut, angry at his body and praying to a vengeful god to forgive his erection? His will, his reason, his nature?

For some reason, "squatting in a little mudhut, angry at his body and praying to a vengeful god to forgive his erection? His will, his reason, his nature" had to be evolutionary beneficient, or it wouldn't have survived, or it survived by chance.

Next, if we are to say that religion was created by humans, then certain humans simply thought "squatting in a little mudhut, angry at his body and praying to a vengeful god to forgive his erection? His will, his reason, his nature" well. Or are we to suppose that Christianity litterally fell from the sky, and was *forced* upon men by an external power?!


This is what I’m talking about, and if you are in fact a Christian or some other mutant form of religion you will never see this.

Mutant form of religion? And where did this mutant form of religion come from? Did it fall from the sky? Or is it, that for some reason, some tribes saw fit to have their social control conceptualized in "squatting in a little mudhut, angry at his body and praying to a vengeful god to forgive his erection? His will, his reason, his nature" ?


You don't need religion as much as you do belief and membership.

But this is what religion is about: belief and membership.
Belief and membership can be conceptualized as a political system, or as a religious system. For reasons of human cognitive development, it is safe to assume that religious systems came first, since some of their explanations are what we nowadays call irrational (regarding the "supernatural").


Religion takes what man has originally- the tribal feel of loyalty, the making of order from each part dedicated to the other because of it- and pollutes it with the shackles that go to make slaves.

Which religion?! You have a distaste for Christianity, that's what it is.
Also, once more, religion didn't just fall from the sky, or so it is safely assumed, but the way you are talking about Christianity, it is exactly what is implied: the source of religion is external to man. Is it really?


How?

Taking everything he has - lust, content, reverence, loyalty, desire, will- and sucking the life out them by sucking it from him, leaving an anemic slave behind to beg a deaf nobody for a blood transfusion.

Show me how Taoism "takes everything a man has - lust, content, reverence, loyalty, desire, will- and /sucks/ the life out them by sucking it from him, leaving an anemic slave behind to beg a deaf nobody for a blood transfusion" and how the Zulu religion does that, and how the ancient Greek religion does that, and I'll believe you that *religion* does that. Otherwise, you're talking *only* about some Judaeo-Christian religions.


No, but my scope is bigger.
The god of a child is a personal, selfish one- its not until he has been handled by hands other than his own that need him helpless that the touch becomes a polluting one.

“The God of a praying child is a thousand times more definite than that of the god-intoxicated Spinoza. This is one of the drawbacks of philosophy- it takes from us the intimate and anthropomorphic deity of our youth and giving us instead an Absolute that it will be ridiculous to picture him in human form”- Durant, the Mansions

It is here that man becomes helpless.

This may go for Judaeo-Christian religions, including Islam. But what about Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism etc.?


“ "Usurped"? Prove that they were there before religion in a "pure" form.
”
Yes, usurped.

... and it just popped out of nowhere, this mean religion, and usurped the natural man and his pure language?
Sorry, but your distaste for Christianity is leading you to say some ridiculous things.


Ever felt the heroic? The feelings of pride and uplift? Loyalty? Brotherhood?
All found in man when he enters the world brand new.
All still present in the Inuit and Algonquin tribes and Spartan and German tribes and whatever tribe you wish where its men looked on their valiant leaders with pride.
You don't need a "religion" to provoke any of this.

To provoke: no. To organize: yes.


I don't need a systemized dictation to inspire the romance of heroism and pride in my body. Nor my mind.

Nobody is saying you *need* that "systemized dictation". Religion is a way of organizing and verbalizing it.


“It is not the works”, writes Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil, “but the belief which is here decisive and determines the order of rank- to employ once more an old religious formula with a new and deeper meaning- it is some fundamental certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which is not to be sought, is not to be found, and perhaps also, is not to be lost. The noble soul has reverence for itself”

Yes, and this noble soul popped out of nowhere ...

"Why should they hang on to life anyway?
Give a logical, rational reason, that will also satisfy the simplest man."

Because that's what life does. If it doesn't then it doesn't and it's of no consequence.

You mean the millions and millions of unemployed, obese, on psychopharmaceuticals etc. who are utterly unsatisified with their lives, yet still cling on to it, are of no consequence?


Only if they do not seek to live. They encompass their own demise. If they don't live then they die. Sometimes death is slower than other times.

Yes, and that slow way not so rarely takes the whole lifetime of such a person.


It is likely that religion served a purpose. It allowed group size to advance beyond the previous limit of hunter-gatherer nonreligious societies. Before gods and spirits, the tribe would likely fission when it grew to an unmaneagable size. With the advent of gods, the power of the otherworldly was consolidated in the form of the shaman and chieftan. Fear kept the group together far past its ordinary size.

So there is a natural, tribal purpose to religion?


How exactly has religion given voice to the survival instinct? If anything it seems to deny it.

Which religion denies it? And what about the Crusades done in the name of God and Matthew 12:30: He that is not with me is against me -- how is that not acting on survival instinct and acknowledging it?


It makes the afterlife more important than life. It makes the mythical world of heaven more important than the real world.

That is what the PRACTICE of some Judaeo-Christian religions turned into, yes.
Does Taoism make "the mythical world of heaven more important than the real world"?


Without religion, all that exists is this world. We have no eternity in which to dwell in peace.

A common trouble with the concept of time. But that's for another thread.


Rational reason to live? Why do you need one, per se?

Look into the religious forum: People come there and ask "why live?"


Doesn't the survival instinct work well enough for you?

The survival instinct *works*, but as humans are thinking beings living in societies, they like to have it in words and laws. Enter religion.


As I've said, religion is more about undercutting the survival instinct.

Again, which religion?


“ Do you think people wish to be rational?
Do you think people are rational?
Do you think that we can depend on people's rationality? ”

1. Some people.
2. Some people.
3. Sometimes.

This is not enough to organize a society. Sure, societies are self-organizing, but we are here to find out these self-organizing principles and name them, if we want to propose some explicit re-evaluations and answer the thread question.


Remember, without religion there is no absolutes. The void is an absolute. It vanishes without religion.

I would love to see how the chair under your butt would cease being absolute ...


Reason as an entity existing on its own is an absolute. It vanishes without religion.

Have you ever tried it?


You do not think a humanistic or other kind of replacement idealogy is needed?

Not really. There is no absolute truth. No absolute idealogy that will cover the world like a blanket. Ideals should be dealt out on a point by point basis. Judgement calls.

Judgement calls are based on judging by some criteria. What are these criteria?
Or will you say it is all random, and then *call* this randomness "judgement"?


Goal? Why... what works, of course. Tight and true to circumstance.

Many things "work", at least for some time. Capitalism, Nazism, Communism, Baptism, Taoism, ... they all "work".


“ Can morals be pluralistic? ”
Yes. And no.

You cannot have the institute of law execution if you say that morals can be both pluralistic and not.


Religion tries to make us supernatural.

Where did you get that from?


Just as we always have. By observation and manipulation of the physical world. Religion doesn't alter that. It merely limits the extent to which we can legitimately interface with the world.

Would you go with the logo "You must because you can!" ?

You are aware that I only created a thesis on the thoughts of FadingCaptain? I do not want to create a new code of law that annihilates every person that I see unfit to live. I am not Hitler reincarnated.

I am not saying that you are about to create a new code of law or anything. We were looking for alternatives for the already existing.


This would mean that a lot of people would cast themself into depression and their lifes would lose value, not for me but for them, because their livelong aspirations are worthless. This mindset could well prove contagious and many others, in the extreme the whole society would be dragged down. I think that this should be prevented by putting those people out of their misery.

Sure. But you cannot execute people without having a law regulating that.


So no, there will be not a book of law after my construct and I certainly will not imprison obese people, that would not change them, I would make them RUN!

And your value behind that is that "people must care for their health". Khm. Medicine is promoting that for decades, and yet the number of obese people grows. Scientific reasons are not good enough apparently.

Rosa,

You mean the millions and millions of unemployed, obese, on psychopharmaceuticals etc. who are utterly unsatisified with their lives, yet still cling on to it, are of no consequence?

No. I mean that if they don't get their shit together then they will make themselves of no consequence. Death comes to all. The problem with these folk is that their uselessness will not prevent them from breeding and instilling a sense of uselessness in their children. A new religion.

Note, that I don't equate all "losers" with this type of person who has no meaning in life. No sense of life. Inconsequential. But, surely some of them are. And likely some of the "go-getters" are also this type of person. Compensating for a lack of will.

It's basic evolution. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. If it doesn't want to live then it dies.

Yes, and that slow way not so rarely takes the whole lifetime of such a person.

Unfortunately, you're right on this. But, think of why. Many reasons, of course. But one of the main is fear. Fear of retribution in the afterlife being one of the greatest fears. Suicide is a sin. A mortal sin. There is no forgiveness for suicide. God is watching. So, consign yourself to a living emptiness rather than make it a real non-existance. And in the end, God will make it all better. Rewarding weakness. The meek shall inherit the earth.

So there is a natural, tribal purpose to religion?

There was. Thank you for catching this. I forgot to end the thought...

There was a purpose. It served a purpose. It allowed a simple, primitive people to begin to climb up from almost total ignorance. But, now it is an anchor. It is a weight and a chain. It is a sucking void.

Look at it this way. In the days of yore, religions were made. Think of the monkey men who originally created religion. It was something new. It was something disturbing. It brought about change. It changed the paradigms.

But now? Now it is an old eyesore. A looking back and a wishing for simpler times. We are more advanced now. We are now able to maintain large social groups without such a structure. Religion threatens to drag us backwards not forwards.

This is the void.

Which religion denies it? And what about the Crusades done in the name of God and Matthew 12:30: He that is not with me is against me -- how is that not acting on survival instinct and acknowledging it?

Christianity denies life. Islam denies life. I imagine there are more but these are the major two. Christianity enslaves your life as a means to your death. The afterlife, the eternity with god, is the real life. This life is just a shadow. A void.

The crusades were a lesson in anti-life. Those who participated in the crusades were granted leniency in forgiveness of sins. It was a bargaining. Those who gave their lives in this holy war were even better off. Straight to heaven. Sound familiar? I'm surprised that the pope didn't promise virgins for everyone in heaven.

As to "He who is not with me is against me." How many other phrases are there that say the opposite? Love thy enemy. Turn the other cheek. The meek shall inherit the earth. The bible is a contradiction and this is why you can dig in it for a phrase to mean anything your heart desires. All you have to do is have selective vision. Only focus on that which you desire to "prove" and ignore all the rest that contradicts.

A common trouble with the concept of time. But that's for another thread.

I don't think so. This is at the heart of death-worship. The eternity of death is greater than the briefness of life. Heaven is an affirmation of the void.

Look into the religious forum: People come there and ask "why live?"


They're looking in the wrong place. Look inside. Not outside. Life is its own reason.

The survival instinct *works*, but as humans are thinking beings living in societies, they like to have it in words and laws. Enter religion.

Too bad it negates itself. And most of the religious laws are ignored anyway. When's the last time you had bacon? Checked your neighbors for leprosy lately? Stoned anyone recently?

Religion is outdated. We pick and choose that which we want to see. In this way, it is somewhat changing and alive. But, the weight of history and past interpretation overweighs the possibilities of new interpretations.

Always the dark ages await. The void will return.

Again, which religion?

Christianity and Islam for two.

This is not enough to organize a society. Sure, societies are self-organizing, but we are here to find out these self-organizing principles and name them, if we want to propose some explicit re-evaluations and answer the thread question.

I didn't mean it to be an organization principle. I was just answering your questions.

Society is organized. And it's not organized around religion. It's true that there was a time when religion was central, but no longer. Now it is a shadow that extends over society but not the structure which holds it together.

I would love to see how the chair under your butt would cease being absolute ...

Ahh. Touche. And yet, there is a difference between absolute and concrete. For instance, I could take that chair and turn it upside down and make it into a flower holder. Or I could smash it into bits and make it into a bird house.

Absolute is absolute and unchanging. Eternal and inviolate. Freeze at your peril. Ask the smilodon about change.

Me: Reason as an entity existing on its own is an absolute. It vanishes without religion.

You: Have you ever tried it?

I don't understand. Tried what?

I know that you and certain others hate using the term relativity, but it's true. Everything is relative. As distasteful as that may seem. It is only through emotional and logical judgement do we choose an absolute reason. A desired path. Religion seeks to impose a blanket command over eons. It denies the importance of choice. Of judgement.

Judgement calls are based on judging by some criteria. What are these criteria?
Or will you say it is all random, and then *call* this randomness "judgement"?


Random? Not really. It is our wants, desires, needs, thoughts, vision. We are the criteria. How else would you choose? Jesus?

Many things "work", at least for some time. Capitalism, Nazism, Communism, Baptism, Taoism, ... they all "work".

Exactly. I notice you bring up Nazism. You might note that it didn't work. It kind of fell apart. It worked for a little while though. And that's the point. Change.

Now, I speak of change. But, unceasing random change is chaos. While chaotic structures can form order and chaos is helpful at times, the change I am speaking of is not chaos. But rather Nietzsche's "lightness of feet".

Do you own your possessions? Or do they own you?

You cannot have the institute of law execution if you say that morals can be both pluralistic and not.

I was being a bit facetious. Sorry. But, it's true.

Let me explain.

Morals are pluralistic. They are relative. They are not the same thing to everybody. (Am I using pluralism right?)

But, as you say that doesn't do any good for the rule of law. Assuming that law must be based on morality, then how do we "freeze" the morals long enough to create a law?

Judgement. Emotion. We shape the world. We shape morality. We know what is right. We know what is wrong. The only thing is that we know different things. My right is not your right. My wrong is not your wrong. But, there are overlapping areas. It is these overlapping areas that is society. The other areas should be decided on a case by case basis.

Lightness of feet.

You: Religion tries to make us supernatural.

You: Where did you get that from?

How else would you say it? God created man. God created woman from man's rib. God denies that man is animal. Man is higher than animal. Man is unnatural. Man is supernatural.

I suppose you consider God natural? If so then you might consider anything created by god as natural. It's a judgement call I suppose.

Would you go with the logo "You must because you can!" ?

No. Why? Does it appear that I condone absolutes in such a way? But, what about "You must because you will."

This is all about will in the end. Will and responsibility.

Rosa:
One:

The thread starter said

Ok.
But...I was addressing you.

You spoke as if there was no other way to organize man other than religion.
That said- it seems you won't understand the major difference between the spiritual (which an atheist can be) and the religious.

Look, there is no reason to be confrontational on religious matters- I've never seen such rabies among canines as I have among Pharisees and the papacy. And I, for one, will not partake of it and doubt you would either.

Therefore, working from this::
You say ""Religion” to the Greek was truth and tribalism" -- is religion not about "truth and tribalism" in Christianity and Hinduism as well? It may be about different kinds of "truth and tribalism", but it is still "truth and tribalism".

I don’t forget that truth, to the early Greek or Babylonian, was one concerning his world- not his soul. It was philosophy.
Additionally, tribalism was communal where each man labored for his tribe and loyalty to that tribe- it was Christianity that focused on the individual soul and sought salvation for it- which is ironic. If anything, I've always had a mind to say that Christianity is one of the most selfish religions for all its professed selflessness.

You then ask me to illustrate either "Zulu" or Taoism (a philosophy, not a religion) sabotaging the passions of men and using them against them.
I said- every organism larger than the individual does this to a man.
This would include every form of systemized structure- meaning both Taoism and what you're calling 'Zulu'.
Yet both lack properties only peculiar to the Christian branches- a hatred of man , a making of virtues from weaknesses, a devouring guilt, a parasitic helplessness, a hateful fear of life and, quite frankly, a vicious spite for those happy in their fortune.

It does to man what etiquette does to women.
From my journals:

"Little girls are vehemently taught that their powers and pleasure are dependent on their abilities to please men. Being taught as much, they become willing participants in what seems so simple and benign- the rituals of manners and poised attitude, the submissive coquetry, the romance, and the charming ignorance. This socialization, or in other words inebriation, leaves her dependent on men, and feeble in both mind and body. She becomes vain, as the ritual incapacities self respect, and she believes with her faith as opposed to thinks with her mind. All of this nicely present in this wonderful ritual of ensured dependence." Etiquette.

I can now replace "little girls" with "little men", usually found doing penance:

“Little men are vehemently taught that their powers and pleasure are dependent on their abilities to please God. Being taught as much, they become willing participants in what seems so simple and benign- the rituals of ceremony and prayer, the submissive supplications , the romance, and the charming ignorance. This socialization, or in other words inebriation, leaves him dependent on God, and feeble in both mind and body. He becomes vain, as the ritual incapacities self respect, and believes with his faith as opposed to thinks with his mind. All of this nicely present in this wonderful ritual of ensured dependence." Religion.

This is what I mean by the organism needing men helpless. Which no other faiths, save those rooted in Judaism, are successful as they are formulated to make man feel small and contemptible.

Vert:
Religion tries to make us supernatural.

We're not. We're natural.

Deal with it. This doesn't mean that we just go to a jungle law. We are social animals. Which means that we have built in systems for regulating social affairs. We're just out of touch with them
Which is, roughly, what I was saying to the thread’s author.
There is a commonality in man, and that is morals- which I see manifesting themselves without 'manifestos'.

Morals are what keeps a sensible being (albeit sentimental) from doing bad to another in the knowledge of it being reciprocated.
There is a difference between 'morals' and 'manners' as there is a difference between 'personality' and 'attitude'.

Dig?

Interesting. And true. Such things are imposed on the young. While they are weak and helpless.

Reminds me of a joke about a small-dicked father showing his son his dick while the boy is young and the dick seems HUGE. The boy will then spend his whole life sure that his father has the hugest cock in the world. And that his cock will never compare to the majesty of his father's cock.
Sweet.

i only read the first post, but here's my two cents

the major religions may well be dying, i have no idea, but many of the pagan religions (Wika, Satanism, Vodoism etc) are on the rise, as is buddhism

You don't think religion is a reflection rather than the thing? I think religion is a reflection of need rather than a something real itself. Humanity needs a reason to be. It doesn't have to be real, they only have to think it so. If people didn't yearn for it, they wouldn't do it. IMO, saying "give me less religious people" is like saying "give me less left-handed people". It's an aspect of them reflected onto reality. People are motivated by percieved need. They percieve the need for religion (largely due to traditionalism). Thus religions were made up. They are still there because the perceived need is propagated (as just part of how people are) and the details passed down from generation to generation, the previous indoctrinating the next. While it is grotesque to me that children are well, victimized in this manner... it doesn't affect the outcome IMO, because the kids would grow out of it if they were capable. When they are adults, they are responsible for their own beliefs but don't necessarily change them. It's not like the athiest argument isn't out there and perfectly sensible. It's about humanity being a bunch of superstitious bitches by nature and the fundamental problem that you can't really stop that. Feed them science and they'll make science their superstition. Fuck I can't spell that word.

How exactly do you propose to alter the perception (as it relates to themselves) of 80% of humanity? How do you propose to destroy superstition itself? Are you positive that doing so would be a good idea?

You don't think religion is a reflection rather than the thing? I think religion is a reflection of need rather than a something real itself. Humanity needs a reason to be. It doesn't have to be real, they only have to think it so. If people didn't yearn for it, they wouldn't do it.

Exactly. And using some scientifically propped up "reason" to live like, "genetical predisposition to be alive" or "social stability" -- noone is going to be happy to think this is the reason to live for.


It's an aspect of them reflected onto reality. People are motivated by percieved need. They percieve the need for religion (largely due to traditionalism).

Not just traditionalism. There is a need for the spiritual, and religion offers it ready-made. Few can afford to go on their own spiritual searching. You go to a slum and preach about "the importance of finding yourself and loving yourself" -- you'll get killed before you'd finish the first sentence.


It's about humanity being a bunch of superstitious bitches by nature and the fundamental problem that you can't really stop that. Feed them science and they'll make science their superstition.

So what is the point then of prosecuting religion and trying to exterminate it -- when all that gets done is putting science in the place where religion was once, and then science is treated with the blind faith that religion was before?!


How exactly do you propose to alter the perception (as it relates to themselves) of 80% of humanity? How do you propose to destroy superstition itself? Are you positive that doing so would be a good idea?

It is not just about "superstition". Man is limited, so a lot is left to acting on faith. Which is basically irrational.
Only that in a scientificalized world, there is no structure to gather up the irrational and somehow handle it (the way religion can), so people are left to live in great anxiety, both of themselves and of the world. The modern syndrome of "living a life of silent despair".

No. I mean that if they don't get their shit together then they will make themselves of no consequence. Death comes to all. The problem with these folk is that their uselessness will not prevent them from breeding and instilling a sense of uselessness in their children. A new religion.

Note, that I don't equate all "losers" with this type of person who has no meaning in life. No sense of life. Inconsequential. But, surely some of them are. And likely some of the "go-getters" are also this type of person. Compensating for a lack of will.

It's basic evolution. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. If it doesn't want to live then it dies.

Yes, and the rest of the population, will likely not put up with those "deadweights". The "deadweights" are of the consequence that they trigger certan reactions from other people. Thus, we get ourselves a nice social mess.


Unfortunately, you're right on this. But, think of why. Many reasons, of course. But one of the main is fear. Fear of retribution in the afterlife being one of the greatest fears. Suicide is a sin. A mortal sin. There is no forgiveness for suicide. God is watching. So, consign yourself to a living emptiness rather than make it a real non-existance. And in the end, God will make it all better. Rewarding weakness. The meek shall inherit the earth.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why someone who says that he doesn't believe in God (and I don't mean you, Invert, I am speaking generally) still FEARS God.

If one doesn't believe in God, then why be afraid of the "afterlife", "God's wrath" etc. -- they don't exist, since God doesn't exist, so why be afraid of them?!?!

Why build one's life around a fear of someting one says one doesn't believe in anyway?


There was a purpose. It served a purpose. It allowed a simple, primitive people to begin to climb up from almost total ignorance. But, now it is an anchor. It is a weight and a chain. It is a sucking void.

Look at it this way. In the days of yore, religions were made. Think of the monkey men who originally created religion. It was something new. It was something disturbing. It brought about change. It changed the paradigms.

But now? Now it is an old eyesore. A looking back and a wishing for simpler times. We are more advanced now. We are now able to maintain large social groups without such a structure. Religion threatens to drag us backwards not forwards.

This is the void.

No. As I see, it, the whole problem is because people do not distinguish the answers to WHY from the answers to HOW.
Like I said in some other thread:

Science certainly can dig into the HOW of phenomena, and, depending on the state of technology, the answer to how changes over time (e.g. how an atom is made: at first they thought it is a whole, then found that it is made of particles ...).

What remains elusive is the WHY, as why asks about reason or purpose. If we are to be truly and exclusively scientific, we should not ask any why-questions, actually. Yet people do ask why. Why do people ask why-questions?

Religion, that is -- Judaeo-Christian religions! -- is an approproiate scapegoat, but this is just because people have messed up the answers to the why with those to the how.


Christianity denies life. Islam denies life. I imagine there are more but these are the major two. Christianity enslaves your life as a means to your death. The afterlife, the eternity with god, is the real life. This life is just a shadow. A void.

This is certainly a way to see it -- but only if you are morally on stage 1 or 2 in Kohlberg's stages of moral development.


The crusades were a lesson in anti-life. Those who participated in the crusades were granted leniency in forgiveness of sins. It was a bargaining.

Yes, and those in the French Revolution *bargained* their lives for "liberte, egalite, fraternite" -- once more things that are out of man's reach. Such bargains are always present when it comes to fighting. People won't really fight for "socio-economical stability", you know.


As to "He who is not with me is against me." How many other phrases are there that say the opposite? Love thy enemy. Turn the other cheek. The meek shall inherit the earth. The bible is a contradiction and this is why you can dig in it for a phrase to mean anything your heart desires. All you have to do is have selective vision. Only focus on that which you desire to "prove" and ignore all the rest that contradicts.

Again, a frequent thing in human knowledge. Look up idioms. Most likely, you will find opposites for most: there is "dirty dog", "to live a dog's life", idioms where dog is presented as something bad; on the other hand, you have this whole idea of the dog being the man's best friend, "faithful like a dog", where dog is presented as something good. Go figure.


They're looking in the wrong place. Look inside. Not outside. Life is its own reason.

This is too abstract.


“ The survival instinct *works*, but as humans are thinking beings living in societies, they like to have it in words and laws. Enter religion. ”

Too bad it negates itself. And most of the religious laws are ignored anyway. When's the last time you had bacon? Checked your neighbors for leprosy lately? Stoned anyone recently?

Ah, using religious dogma only when it suits your point ...


Religion is outdated. We pick and choose that which we want to see. In this way, it is somewhat changing and alive. But, the weight of history and past interpretation overweighs the possibilities of new interpretations.

Always the dark ages await. The void will return.

No. What is outdated is the idea of moral consistency.

Consumer logic is dictating that your tastes will (irrationally) change. This year's colour is red, but next year it will be orange so you *must* wear orange ...


“ Again, which religion? ”
Christianity and Islam for two.

So you don't have a case against Hinduism etc. at all?


“ Me: Reason as an entity existing on its own is an absolute. It vanishes without religion.

You: Have you ever tried it? ”

I don't understand. Tried what?

Tried if reason vanishes without religion. So, have you?


I know that you and certain others hate using the term relativity, but it's true. Everything is relative.

Actually, you don't *know* whether everything is relative. The "what is" is just our *interpretation* of objective reality, and if we call it "relative" then this is indicative of our desires and fears we have for this objective reality to be. Calling it "relative" may indicate that we have some troubles and dislikes experiencing it.


As distasteful as that may seem. It is only through emotional and logical judgement do we choose an absolute reason. A desired path. Religion seeks to impose a blanket command over eons. It denies the importance of choice. Of judgement.

Well, then please, you go to wars, have famine and plague, and then go on about relativity. See if you and your society survive.


Random? Not really. It is our wants, desires, needs, thoughts, vision. We are the criteria.

This is too abstract. You need a list of these criteria, like a law system.
But okay, let's drop this, as it would take too much to list hypothetical reality situation and ask after your acting in them, in order to extract your criteria by anaylzing your responses.


Now, I speak of change. But, unceasing random change is chaos. While chaotic structures can form order and chaos is helpful at times, the change I am speaking of is not chaos. But rather Nietzsche's "lightness of feet".

Tell about the "lightness of feet" to someone who works 14-hour shifts in a coal mine.


“ Would you go with the logo "You must because you can!" ? ”
No. Why? Does it appear that I condone absolutes in such a way? But, what about "You must because you will."

This is all about will in the end. Will and responsibility.

And what do you will? It's a folly to talk about will in a world where everything is supposed to be relative. You are taking for granted that everyone's personal preferences and values are strong and that they know them clearly. This is not the case.

You spoke as if there was no other way to organize man other than religion.
That said- it seems you won't understand the major difference between the spiritual (which an atheist can be) and the religious.

Of course I "won't understand"! I live in a cave and I play with tigers. Bah.


Look, there is no reason to be confrontational on religious matters-

I only hate it when religion in general is ascribed properties that are the domain of only some religions.


I don’t forget that truth, to the early Greek or Babylonian, was one concerning his world- not his soul. It was philosophy.
Additionally, tribalism was communal where each man labored for his tribe and loyalty to that tribe- it was Christianity that focused on the individual soul and sought salvation for it- which is ironic. If anything, I've always had a mind to say that Christianity is one of the most selfish religions for all its professed selflessness.
/.../
Yet both lack properties only peculiar to the Christian branches- a hatred of man , a making of virtues from weaknesses, a devouring guilt, a parasitic helplessness, a hateful fear of life and, quite frankly, a vicious spite for those happy in their fortune.

And where does this come from? I can imagine that decades of famine, plague, drought could lead a tribe to feel quite dismal, and develop a certain explanation of life as you described above. Also, another possible issue is technological development: for that to happen, the "natural" has to be pushed aside, so that the "mental" can develop. And the "natural" can be pushed aside best if addressed on the individual level.

Say that the ancestors of Christianity were facing some long-lasting natural crises, plagues, famines, etc. forcing them to become more contemplative; then, the natural crises ended, but they were left with the contemplations of the sour times in which the mentality of the tribe went decadent. That should render a fearsome self-hating population.


Another thing that always interests me is this: How come that technology developed best and fastest in the Judaeo-Christian world?
Why was the Christian West the major driving force? Sure, we can't leave aside the achievemnts of the Chinese and the Arabs, but the Europeans are having the industrial lead here. How much has this got to do with a religion that supresses the "natural"?


Taoism (a philosophy, not a religion)

There we go: How do we distinguish between "religion" and "philosphy"?


This is what I mean by the organism needing men helpless. Which no other faiths, save those rooted in Judaism, are successful as they are formulated to make man feel small and contemptible.

In connection to what I said before: Why are they formulated this way?

You don't think religion is a reflection rather than the thing? I think religion is a reflection of need rather than a something real itself. Humanity needs a reason to be. It doesn't have to be real, they only have to think it so. If people didn't yearn for it, they wouldn't do it. IMO, saying "give me less religious people" is like saying "give me less left-handed people". It's an aspect of them reflected onto reality. People are motivated by percieved need. They percieve the need for religion (largely due to traditionalism). Thus religions were made up. They are still there because the perceived need is propagated (as just part of how people are) and the details passed down from generation to generation, the previous indoctrinating the next. While it is grotesque to me that children are well, victimized in this manner... it doesn't affect the outcome IMO, because the kids would grow out of it if they were capable. When they are adults, they are responsible for their own beliefs but don't necessarily change them. It's not like the athiest argument isn't out there and perfectly sensible. It's about humanity being a bunch of superstitious bitches by nature and the fundamental problem that you can't really stop that. Feed them science and they'll make science their superstition. Fuck I can't spell that word.

How exactly do you propose to alter the perception (as it relates to themselves) of 80% of humanity? How do you propose to destroy superstition itself? Are you positive that doing so would be a good idea?


it's true.
JUST ASK HOLLYWOOD PHYSICS
SOuND in SPACE
:eek:

But at least with Hollywood, it's just entertainment. With George Bush - it's POLICY. With religion gone, the worst we have deal with is dihydrogen monoxide.

With religion gone, the worst we have deal with is dihydrogen monoxide.

You will not get rid of religion. People need it.

My bet is as follows: If you could holocaust all religious people on the planet (the only way to really get rid of them) and survive the aftermath (given that with 80%) of people dead it's probably hard to find truck drivers and manufacturing people... oh and (as a precautionary measure) you'd have to manage to destroy all the related literature (electronic too) so future generations wouldn't revert. Then the following generation would simply make up new religions to believe in. Many, as they do now, would be religious about science (which renders science religious).

Many, many people need to fill the void (because they aren't naturally capable). If a ready made solution isn't available, they'll simply make one up.

Rosa,

If one doesn't believe in God, then why be afraid of the "afterlife", "God's wrath" etc. -- they don't exist, since God doesn't exist, so why be afraid of them?!?!

Why build one's life around a fear of someting one says one doesn't believe in anyway?


This is my point. It is the religious who feel this way. Not the atheists. I know you say you're not talking about me here, but who are you talking about? Those who don't believe in god don't fear punishment or look forward to rewards from this mythical character. Even those agnostics who don't believe in the god of the bible for the most part don't find the reward/punishment system put forth by the scripture is valid.

What remains elusive is the WHY, as why asks about reason or purpose. If we are to be truly and exclusively scientific, we should not ask any why-questions, actually. Yet people do ask why. Why do people ask why-questions?

Hmm. I love this. You know why? (;)) You've just elucidated the purpose of why. Why is a means of elucidating causality. Something happened. Why did it happen? What preceded the event in question that caused it to happen.

So, why is now relegated to a purpose in my mind where in our earlier discussion it had become unfounded.

Concept unstuck and restuck in a new position.

Life is beautiful.

Religion, that is -- Judaeo-Christian religions! -- is an approproiate scapegoat, but this is just because people have messed up the answers to the why with those to the how.

I'll agree that we cannot be 100% sure of the causality of the situation, but I feel (emotionally) that I am right in my conclusions. Only one way to find out. I'm prepared to risk it.

This is certainly a way to see it -- but only if you are morally on stage 1 or 2 in Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

I don't entirely credit Kohlberg's stages as truth. Stage 6 involves universal principles which seems to indicate this absolutism that I say does not exist.

Who defines universal principles?

Also, stage three is basically a more sophisticated reward/punishment phase. One where you are rewarded or punished by yourself for arbitrary values, your "presence" in the community.

And why is stage 4 any different from the earlier stages of reward/punishment? It isn't until the social contract phase that things begin to shift in a truly quantum manner in my mind. And then it goes from this sense of reciprocal altruism to universal values.

Bah.

As to my point on the emphasis on reward/punishment in the afterlife denying life, there are those who reach higher on this "stages of development" scale of yours in this manner, but in the end it is still the same.

How many would suffer damnation to save the soul of another? I mean really. I know many would give up their life for a variety of purposes. But to a believer, the body is just a shell, it is the soul that is important. The soul which lives in the afterlife.

The soul is an affirmation of the worship of the void.

Yes, and those in the French Revolution *bargained* their lives for "liberte, egalite, fraternite" -- once more things that are out of man's reach. Such bargains are always present when it comes to fighting. People won't really fight for "socio-economical stability", you know.

Liberty, equality, and brotherhood are all concepts that can be experienced in life. Even if only imperfectly.

Heaven is something that can only be taken on faith. Heaven is not of this life. It has no attachment to life. To reach heaven you must shed your life. Although the saints are supposed to be taken up whole on the day of the Trump while the regular people will have a war to fight down here.

Again, a frequent thing in human knowledge. Look up idioms. Most likely, you will find opposites for most:

Yes. But we're talking about a book where a very large number of these contradictory sayings are gathered together into one source with the claim that every word in the book is the "Word of God" and inherently true.

This is too abstract.

It's an affirmation of personal choice and judgement. It's a denial of the void.

Ah, using religious dogma only when it suits your point ...

Using it? I thought I was pointing out the fact that Christians don't even follow the rules from their own holy book. What? I can't even use scripture to point out the hypocrisies of the followers of said scripture?

And, I have no problem with people who would read the bible and draw forth selected verses and whatnot. The bible has a lot of words. Many of which can certainly help an individual in his own thoughts. But, that's the key. His own thoughts. Most religions undermine personal thought and interpretation. They impose the traditional interpretation. They tell you which passages to read. Which to ignore. Personal choice is eradicated.

And yes, I'm speaking in hyperbole. We dwell in liberal times, but the descent will come once more given the slightest opportunity.

No. What is outdated is the idea of moral consistency.

Consumer logic is dictating that your tastes will (irrationally) change. This year's colour is red, but next year it will be orange so you *must* wear orange ...

So, you are saying that what a bunch of smelly tribesman from a few thousand years ago thought about the world being frozen into an unchanging monstrosity (Ok. The christian freeze took place only about 1500 years ago or so, but still...) is equivalent to changing trends?

My.

I guess coming down out of the trees is just a fad. The chimpanzees will outlast us because they're not just following trends...

So you don't have a case against Hinduism etc. at all?

Well, I do. But the thing about the pantheistic religions is that they are not as inherently violent and aggressive as a monotheistic religion.

One god religions say, "My god is real. Your god is fake." Pantheistic religions say, "I've got a bunch of gods. Always room for one more at the table."

Hinduism is still superstitious crap, but at least it's open-minded superstitious crap.

Tried if reason vanishes without religion. So, have you?

You misunderstand. I say "absolute reason." Meaning that the idea of a "universal standard" vanishes without religion. Or at the least, it has a better chance of being looked at rationally without there being a "god" who "dictates" "truth" to a subservient people.

Actually, you don't *know* whether everything is relative. The "what is" is just our *interpretation* of objective reality, and if we call it "relative" then this is indicative of our desires and fears we have for this objective reality to be. Calling it "relative" may indicate that we have some troubles and dislikes experiencing it.

Ok. Let's back up a step here. I'm not dealing with physical reality with this statement. Einstein's version of relativity is a step beyond what I'm talking about. We're talking about value judgements here. My definition of good is not your definition of good. My definition of evil is not your definition of evil. They likely overlap in areas but diverge in others. There is no way that everyone in the world will come together and find out that they all agree on what is moral and what is immoral. This is what I mean by relativity.

To the ancient Hebrews, it was the height of morality to invade a land and kill every single person in that land. Rape their women, bash their children's heads against rocks. Take a few slaves here and there when feeling "merciful". Etc...

If god's morality were universal then shouldn't we be acting in a similar manner? Brings back the question of deuteronomy. When's the last time you witnessed a stoning? There are quite a few "crimes" that merit a stoning and worse.

Well, then please, you go to wars, have famine and plague, and then go on about relativity. See if you and your society survive.

Where did this come from? All of a sudden without religion the world is doomed to wars, famine, and plague? I'm surprised you didn't bring up pestilence as well.

And, what's the deal? Are you saying that because of religion these things are banned from the earth? Interesting. Or are they just levied out as a punishment by god?

This is too abstract. You need a list of these criteria, like a law system.

Well, at the moment, the current system works rather well. Wouldn't you say? What does religion have to do with the current rule of law? With legislation and other social control measures? Religion at the moment is little more than a mural on the wall. It is not the structure.

But okay, let's drop this, as it would take too much to list hypothetical reality situation and ask after your acting in them, in order to extract your criteria by anaylzing your responses.

Hypothetical? Why are you so bent on just wiping out the current legal methods? Do you really think that swearing on the bible in court induces honesty? How much does religion have to do with modern society?

Tell about the "lightness of feet" to someone who works 14-hour shifts in a coal mine.

So, religion is then to be used to lighten the weariness of the overworked worker? Ok. Drugs might do the same thing. And at the same time would give him added zip and energy. Might even prompt him into working 20 hour shifts. And when he is used up, maybe the drug will have also caused his sperm count to rise so that his child will be ready to take his place.

You really want to use subjugation as a reason to keep religion around? To make slaves of man while telling him that he is free. And by "assuring" him that his soul is saved and he will go to heaven and all the toil and drudgery of this existance will be made all better in the hereafter?

Oh, woman, thy name is deception.

And what do you will? It's a folly to talk about will in a world where everything is supposed to be relative.

Why does relative morality and values deny personal judgement? For that matter, why does Einstein's physical relativity deny such a thing?

You are taking for granted that everyone's personal preferences and values are strong and that they know them clearly. This is not the case.

You have a point here. But, screw 'em. It's these fools that will drag us down to darkness. Give them philosophy. If they need absolutes, we can give them better than this patched together mess from 2000 years ago.



Wes,

Running short on time here. I'll come back to your other questions about methods of murdering religion and superstition. I'm not going to lie and say that I have the answers at the moment, but there must be a way. Rationalism might be a way. And the time to strike is most definitely now while fanaticism is at an all-time low (in the west anyway.) Eradicating the faith of Islam is another matter. They cling to faith like christians of centuries past.

The question is will eradicating religion put our society at an advantage or a disadvantage over another society.

The answer I think is both.

Religion is good for making people sacrifice their lives, health, children, money, time, anything, for some intangible reward. Religion inspires man to give something for nothing.

Heaven is the reward.

No man has received his reward yet.

Are you positive that doing so would be a good idea?

No. But, I'm prepared to risk it.

Gendanken,

There is a difference between 'morals' and 'manners' as there is a difference between 'personality' and 'attitude'.

Dig?

I've had to spend some time thinking about this and it has finally sunk in (yeah, you know very well that I'm dense at times.) Let me see if I have this straight.

Morals are like personality. Morals are part of you. They are not universal as some would have us believe. They are unique to the individual. At times they overlap with another's morals, but rarely could two sets of morals be said to be identical.

Manners are like attitude. They are a mask we wear. A conscious decision to act in a certain manner. A going against one's inner nature. Politeness is like the little rocker chickie with her fist in the air shouting "grrrrl power!"

This sounds like a reasonable definition to me.


(Hmmm. I had forgotten about the bit from your journals on etiquette. You didn't mention etiquette with your talk of manners. Did you have it in mind anyway? I suppose it doesn't invalidate any of my above or below ramblings, but it does add a touch of depth that it is too late at night to consider in detail at the moment. Damn insomnia. And damn headnoise waking me up in the middle of the night.)

There is a commonality in man, and that is morals- which I see manifesting themselves without 'manifestos'.

A manifesto would be required more for a lesson in manners. A book on etiquette.
However, I don't think it's proper to say that morals are the "commonality" in man. Each man's morals would be unique, like personality, and that part of his morality that overlaps with a given group (tribe) would be custom, more, taboo, law, ritual, whatnot.

Morals are what keeps a sensible being (albeit sentimental) from doing bad to another in the knowledge of it being reciprocated.

Ahh, Gendy. Always the social pessimist. "Morals keep a being from doing bad things." What is it that causes someone to do "good" things then? Manners?

Reciprocal altruism is certainly at the base of all seemingly 'selfless' acts, but I don't think that they must be "put on" like a mask. Like an attitude. Like your definition of manners. Rather, it seems to me that manners is more about not doing "bad" things while morals might be more about doing "good" things.

Remember, manners is about keeping your elbows off the table. Not farting in public. And keeping your knife out of your sibling's throat.

But, I suppose it is also about saying please and thank you and offering a foot rub to a weary traveler.

So, I don't think that morals is all about doing good things. And manners is not all about not doing bad things. I imagine that both morals and manners have their share of both sides of the do-good/don't-do-bad duality. It might be interesting to attempt to dissect the two to see if one isn't heavier than the other in one regard or the other.


However, this talk of morals being like personality is a bit worrying. But, then again, perhaps not. Let me ramble a moment.

If morals are like personality then can one choose one's morals? One must accept one's morals that have been built up like an onion peel by genetics, teaching, epiphany, and whatnot. But, how is one to reevaluate one's morals? To reevaluate would be to attempt to change what is happening inside oneself. To change one's personality. This would seem to be artifice. Manners. Yes?

But, I suppose it is not impossible to change one's personality and so it is also not impossible to change one's morals. If one maintains an attitude long enough does not one's face "freeze that way"? If you pretend to be something long enough, might you not become that which you pretend to be? Or at the least, you take on the personality of pretender to that thing which is also a form of personality change... although not a "nice" change.

Hmm. Tired.

But, I think you see what I'm saying. The above stance of pretending is one way of changing the self, but it is more akin to the example of religion and etiquette you give. But, there is also the possibility of truely self-directed change of self. It takes a strong will to change the self. To change one's personality. To change one's morals. It takes a person willing to dissect the self. To excise the self. To perform a biopsy of the self. Self-knowledge is a self-altering experience. So, it is difficult and likely rare, but possible.

Also to consider in the revaluation of morals is that rather than attempting to truly change one's morals, one might merely be trying to shed one's manners. To accept the inner self by shucking off the bondage of the outer self. Or something like that....

Following me? I bet you are.

To bed.

Sweet.

I thought you'd like that. I'm rather partial to it myself. It fit your example to a T.

Fading captin religions change with history. Judism is completly different than it was a millium ago. Christanity has more changes in a year than most do in a 1oo years causing endless break offs and new sections. Paganism today still celebrates the earth as devine but has made vast changes. Only buddism and taoism seem pretty unchanges from century to century...

But i have noticed a second curious thing.....many philophies are attached to relgions and in time produce changes. Martin Luther and Lutherism...Immanual Kant in many Christian religions, Confusious in Taoism......

As long as religions change with societies attitudes and their are complemary philophies that can be attached for support when neccessary I don't see an end to religion....

Possibly the mankind suffers what is in psychology called "manic-depressive condition": alternating states of shining optimism and dark depressions...if we look at the Greek enlightment then no one can explain why the enlightment didn't go on, why the dark millenium folloved it till it took off again during the Renesance (thus periods of "reason" (philosophy or science dominant) are followed by periods of "feeling" (religion, intuition dominant)).

Those who don't believe in god don't fear punishment or look forward to rewards from this mythical character. Even those agnostics who don't believe in the god of the bible for the most part don't find the reward/punishment system put forth by the scripture is valid.

Yes, but look into the religion forum! Declared atheists and declared strong agnostics go on about God and hell etc. They say that they don't believe that stuff, yet you find them talking about it. Weird. It must be that they actually believe it, which shows in their fear and their zeal to profess how there is no God etc. They actually believe it, deep down somewhere, they just covered that belief with some utterly "rational reasons" for not believing. In effect, they still live in fear of God's judgement, or they wouldn't be talking about God so much.


I'll agree that we cannot be 100% sure of the causality of the situation, but I feel (emotionally) that I am right in my conclusions. Only one way to find out. I'm prepared to risk it.

Everyone takes those risks, whether they are aware of it or not.


I don't entirely credit Kohlberg's stages as truth. Stage 6 involves universal principles which seems to indicate this absolutism that I say does not exist.

Who defines universal principles?

Purest human instinct?


Also, stage three is basically a more sophisticated reward/punishment phase. One where you are rewarded or punished by yourself for arbitrary values, your "presence" in the community.

And why is stage 4 any different from the earlier stages of reward/punishment? It isn't until the social contract phase that things begin to shift in a truly quantum manner in my mind. And then it goes from this sense of reciprocal altruism to universal values.

Bah.

No bah. It's called development. Noone is born with stage 6 morality, we all start at 1. Each stage can be understood holistically -- it builds and builds and not much is to be seen -- and when enough has been built -- voila, we get to the next stage.


How many would suffer damnation to save the soul of another?

I don't see the relevance of this question.


I mean really. I know many would give up their life for a variety of purposes. But to a believer, the body is just a shell, it is the soul that is important. The soul which lives in the afterlife.

I know believers who would disagree with you.


The soul is an affirmation of the worship of the void.

Only if *you* wish to see it that way.


Liberty, equality, and brotherhood are all concepts that can be experienced in life. Even if only imperfectly.

Heaven is something that can only be taken on faith. Heaven is not of this life. It has no attachment to life. To reach heaven you must shed your life. Although the saints are supposed to be taken up whole on the day of the Trump while the regular people will have a war to fight down here.

No, you're making a strawman again and that's not fair -- "it is all about Heaven" is a strawman. Some Sunday saints will certainly profess Christianity to be about that alone, but not all believers agree.
God's love is enjoyed here, and one strives for God's love, and can receive it here. It may be "only imperfectly", but it is, the same as liberte, egalite, fraternite are "only imperfectly" experienced in one man's life.


Using it? I thought I was pointing out the fact that Christians don't even follow the rules from their own holy book. What? I can't even use scripture to point out the hypocrisies of the followers of said scripture?

Indeed, Christians "don't even follow the rules from their own holy book", but they are obliged to try, and they also know that they could never fully follow those rules, and that they are sinners. It's not hypocrisy.


And, I have no problem with people who would read the bible and draw forth selected verses and whatnot. The bible has a lot of words. Many of which can certainly help an individual in his own thoughts. But, that's the key. His own thoughts. Most religions undermine personal thought and interpretation. They impose the traditional interpretation. They tell you which passages to read. Which to ignore. Personal choice is eradicated.

Political systems do the same. Only with a much more immediate threat of even going to prison for "understanding a passage too personally".


And yes, I'm speaking in hyperbole. We dwell in liberal times, but the descent will come once more given the slightest opportunity.

Maybe "liberal" times aren't the thing man is "made for". In fact, I believe dictatures are the best. The smart and brave will do their best, but the "average" should not be given the opportunity for free -- the opprtunity which the smart and brave had to fight for. If the "average" do get that opportunity for free, they abuse the liberal system and we get "education for everyone", and masses of mediocrity.


So, you are saying that what a bunch of smelly tribesman from a few thousand years ago thought about the world being frozen into an unchanging monstrosity (Ok. The christian freeze took place only about 1500 years ago or so, but still...) is equivalent to changing trends?

My.

I guess coming down out