your thoughts on religion

[dizzy]

honestly i dont believe in religon i think that religon is just something we as humans came up with to cope with dieing

[cappin]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/16-reasons-religion-t76797/index.html?p=1131739#post1131739

It seems a little complicated for some people, though, because they prefer replying to really vague threads that don't touch base.

I believe religion is cut to a small part of human desire: a purely emotional response to feeling alone and without strength.

Children make up imaginary friends when they're alone, and so do adults.

[Kronos]

See Friedrich "The Moustache" Nietzsche, and then add a twist of Rosa Lichtenstein, or "Triple M"....the "Mother Matriarch of Marxism".

In the briefest possible words, religion evolving during a period of moral trans-evaluation, where what was "good", as it was defined by those who were powerful, was turned to mean "bad" by those who were weak and resentful of those who were powerful. This inversion of morals took its development in metaphysics- with language, the "logos", metaphors were created which sought to represent anthropological laws for the universe. For example, the weak would claim that a God, with human sentiments, existed which would punish the strong for their ambivalence toward the weak, and would reward the weak for their suffering at the hands of the strong. In other words, a "father figure" was invented by the weaklings in an attempt to subordinate the strong.

Now check this out. Here is the cool part....where Rosa's idea comes in.

The strong were originally a worker/soldier class, rather than the "noble" bureaucrats or politicians which Nietzsche called the master class, those whom he defined as the stronger class. Nietzsche's analysis of history and the classes of people involved in civil contexts was good....but not accurate enough. He made the mistake of calling the ruling class the master class...but he skipped a critical part in the development of civilization. Rosa saw what Nietzsche missed. Civilization, at the point in which diplomatic hierarchies were formed, was possible only after the stronger working classes were subordinated by the metaphysics/religion. So essentially Nietzsche formula is completely reversed- the master class was the working class, and the slave class (as Nietzsche called it) consisted of those unfit for work and war, those who could only live by exploiting the master class, the workers.

If you take a stroll through Rosa's work, you will see how and where metaphysics took its form in language, and why this was necessary to maintain highly structured civilization. The monarchies and despotisms flourished through the use of this "language subordination" developed by the ruling class philosophers. And funnily enough, the ruling class itself even forgot that all that shit was made up...and began to believe they themselves were "elected by God" to rule. Each following generation of philosophers and despots used the philosophical material of the previous generation to expand and improvise with- Plato starts it, the neo-platonists start at Plato and add more nonsense, the medieval philosophers follow them, next the romanticists, the transcendentalists, so on and so forth until the enlightenment period. But by then, religious terminology had become so ingrained in language, even some the empiricists had a religious bent.

But behind this vast history of philosophy there was one thing that always remained real, indubitable and effective in producing civilization: the working class, ordinary language, and the relations of production. This is why Marx wins. This is why the history of all philosophers are but footnotes to Karl "The Beard" Marx.

So you see how Nietzsche and Rosa, combined, provide a credible explanation for the the origins of religion and metaphysics.

But your assertion that "it was made up to cope with dying" is true to a point. Perhaps we can say that philosophers also experienced extraordinary phenomena in the world and failed to explain it satisfactorily, so they attributed this to "divine workings". Somehow, their suspicions of these mysterious forces which they could not explain gave rise to another assumption- that people don't just die when they die...but go somewhere else. In this sense, metaphysics was honest and not invented as a ploy to subordinate the working classes.....but this isn't to say that in addition to such esoteric speculations, belief in God could not be used as a tool to control the working classes as well. The philosophers killed two birds with one stone: sit around on their fat asses doing alchemy and hermetic rituals, and also circulate myths for the king...so he could keep his civilization in working order.

[Kronos]

...oh, I don't know if God does or does not exist. But I do know this. If God does exist....he has a hard-on for communists. If he doesn't, he's a sadist, so fuck him anyway.

You can tell him I said that.

[cappin]

Okay, well aside from strictly criticizing Christianity, if you take all religions into account you will find common infrastructures which can be summed to instinct.

A person feels that there is more to life than existence itself. Maybe they get bored, maybe they have no friends around, anywho they make something up- something they claim interacts with them. They have super powers and can see stuff unseen. They have more knowledge this way; more status as a person than just a regular human being. It's a reaction of reaching out to understand what hasn't been explained through the real world. Be it any out-of-body experience, it's make believe: exciting, creative- all of the things that compensate for not using our natural urge for curiosity. It's soothing to the mind that has too many questions to be answered the honest way. I want to know what happens after death, but I won't until I die and I accept that fact; some people don't.

As you can see, it's very simple. You have weak, uneducated, easily influenced individuals full of instincts they're unaware of- wanting to belong, to become wiser, to be safe, to procreate. Things that can only be accomplished within our natural and current state- things we don't want to face. We're fearful of the very existence we dwell in and the knowledge and consciousness we need to face it. These fears are commonly resolved by handing over the larger portion of our thinking to those that will take care of it for us, and from this we have heretics and politicians who are the braver, stronger, and of course, more deceitful.

We are pack animals.

[cappin]

but this isn't to say that in addition to such esoteric speculations, belief in God could not be used as a tool to control the working classes as well.
This is what happens when my imaginary friend can beat you up, and you believe it.

[joe_the_red]

I feel that it is okay to have beliefs. Of course, I would disagree with those whose beliefs differed from mine, but I feel people are entitled to have them. I think that organised religion should be abolished, because they are all capitalist-fascist institutions, the leaders of such are all bourgeois money-worshippers who desire to control large bodies of people. -Joe

[Ceaserian Øgly]

I currently define myself as agnostic. I was brainwashed into Christianity as a child, and finally snapped out of it when I was thirteen, which might give me some distance from most religions. I don't mind anyone else's beliefs as long as they leave other people alone with their faiths. On the other hand, my relatives were not so happy with my break with Jebuz, and especially my little sisters were very confused. When one of them asked why I didn't believe what they believed, I tried to teach her that you can't chose what you believe:

"Do you believe in Father Christmas?"
"No."
"Do you want twenty kroner(Norwegian currency)?"
"Yes."
"I'll give you twenty kroner if you believe in Father Christmas. Do you believe in Father Christmas now?"
"No."
"See? You can't chose what you believe!"
"Do you wish that you believed what we believe."
"Well, I suppose so. Life would be a lot easier without having to think."
"Then why don't you?"

Somethings can be hard for eight year-olds to understand, I guess. :mellow:

But back to religions. I feel that I like some religions better than others.
I dislike Christianity a bit more than what I guess is fair, because I'm so fed up with input from relatives.
I don't like Satanism too much, because of the capitalist aspect of it.
Buddhism is ace. :tongue_smilie:
I don't have any relationship to Jewism, Hinduism or Bahá'í.
I like Islam for some reason, maybe because it is hated by the majority for no reason, just like communism. Besides, a lot of Islam makes sense.

If we count atheism as a religion, I must say that I dislike that. The idea of everything evolving from nothing just seems silly to me.

When it comes to my belief, I believe there is something behind everything, but if it is a force or an individual, I don't know. I don't believe what most religions tell; that there is an almighty, all-knowing and purely good god controlling cosmos.

Did mankind invent religion because we fear death? It is no unlikely. Personally, the idea of eternal life just seems exhausting. I want my rest when I've been living a whole lifetime.

[Le Libérer]

God is a human concept. God is the name that was given to human belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. In other words, man created God to deal with his mortality.

I would like to add an element to some of the ideas already expressed. The problem is not religion but religious orthodoxy. Most moral thinkers from Socrates to Jesus to Francis of Assisi, empowered their spoken word by writing them down. Writing stops speech in its tracks. Language is turned from a set of ideas to tools of bondage.

I say this because I spent a small time working in a Catholic Diocese in the tribunal. My job was like a court reporter and transscriptionist in the law dept. And if you think that civil law and codes are thorough, you should see 2000 years of written canon law. I would almost feel sorry for God if he had to live with all those rules.

What do I think about religion? That it isnt really about God at all, its all about us. And after a grueling upbringing, and in times of complete desperation I have asked, what if?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't believe in God.

That said, I don't go out of my way to belittle those who do.

One of my earliest encounters with any sort of politics was leafing through a book of old Fritz Eichenberg illustrations from The Catholic Worker which had been given to my mother as a token of appreciation for her work with the homeless. I often find that I have more in common with people like my mother who believed in equality and helping others than with assholes like Christopher Hitchens.

[Bud Struggle]

The Catholic Worker

I used to volunteer there when I was in grad school in NYC. It's really a great organization.

[Kami]

I don't believe in belief. I give no special respect to those who believe. You're free to think what you like, but I'm not going to pander to you, and I AM going question your beliefs.
May Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva and Allah all combine their might and strike me down if I'm wrong on this count.

[YeOldeCommuniste]

Hmm, I'm kind of torn on my religious beliefs. Atheism seems like the most logical option in my mind, but since I was raised Christian, I have that fear of "upsetting God", I guess, ingrained in the back of my mind, sort of a twisted sense of conscience that I can't shake. I guess you could say I'm Agnostic to a degree, since I don't consider myself Christian. I don't want to believe, but some of the teachings of my childhood are sometimes hard to get rid of.

[eyedrop]

Hmm, I'm kind of torn on my religious beliefs. Atheism seems like the most logical option in my mind, but since I was raised Christian, I have that fear of "upsetting God", I guess, ingrained in the back of my mind, sort of a twisted sense of conscience that I can't shake. I guess you could say I'm Agnostic to a degree, since I don't consider myself Christian. I don't want to believe, but some of the teachings of my childhood are sometimes hard to get rid of. Let's imagine that there where 5% chance of god existing with all we knew now. Scientists have found a way to put a percentage one it.

Do you think god would be mad at you for living your life as if he don't exist?


As it is now, with no evidence of god existing, I like to think that a hyphotetical allknowing god would rather be proud of us who takes the logical conlusion and disregards him from from our understanding of the universe. I can't see how a god would judge us negatively for applying the same principle we do to everything else and apply it to him to. Assuming that he would have close to a human personality, which is the only thing we are capable imagining a god with.

A god wouldn't judge us for using rational thoughts to decide what to think since he knows that's what has given us the best understanding of the reality, while faith have given us so little. So I would think a god, presuming he would have a somewhat human personality, would esteem those of us trying to apply reason, even though how faulty it would be, higher.

I don't see why a god would like blind faith, better than faulty reason.

[YeOldeCommuniste]

That's a very good point. Thanks. :)

[eyedrop]

Glad to be of help. I've always thought that the religious representations of a omnipotent god is quite silly. :cool:

[Svante]

Hmm, I'm kind of torn on my religious beliefs. Atheism seems like the most logical option in my mind, but since I was raised Christian, I have that fear of "upsetting God", I guess, ingrained in the back of my mind, sort of a twisted sense of conscience that I can't shake. I guess you could say I'm Agnostic to a degree, since I don't consider myself Christian. I don't want to believe, but some of the teachings of my childhood are sometimes hard to get rid of.

j e consens. are you religieous person or spirituel person?my morfar h e are spirituel person.i dont think religieous and socialisme are contraires t o eachother. donc,i dont see the problem.

[YeOldeCommuniste]

j e consens. are you religieous person or spirituel person?my morfar h e are spirituel person.i dont think religieous and socialisme are contraires t o eachother. donc,i dont see the problem.

I'm definitely not religious. I'm not really spiritual either, I'm trying to get away from those kinds of beliefs.

[eyedrop]

I'm definitely not religious. I'm not really spiritual either, I'm trying to get away from those kinds of beliefs.
God luck, it takes a lot of effort to get rid of the indoctrination (child abuse) you were subject to when young. It can shake one's psyke up abit.:)

[Dean]

honestly i dont believe in religon i think that religon is just something we as humans came up with to cope with dieing

Religion, as you understand it, is a distinguished group of philosophical tendancies which have been singled out in order to preserve them when the wake of science threatened all the old superstitions. The old theology has died in the stead of a universal, faceless technology god.

Today, we talk of religion as if it is a seperate human experience from rational inquiry in all fields. Really, it is just a politicised group of institutions which vie for the power to be the sole architects of our more fundamental worldviews. There was a time (and among academic and theologian circles this is often still true) when we looked to the old traditions of christianity, judaism, buddhism etc. and its adherents to understand history. These traditions are major fixtures of our lives which have been followed and molded for generations, millenia, and they contain some very positive, as well as some very negative presumptions, observations, and rituals.

We can gleen a plethora of useful knowledge on sociey, history, technology, the evolution of thought, and indeed what it means to be human from our knowledge of religion. But we have ruined many of the positive messages, traditions and observations in this realm of spirituality and philosophy by alienating the traditions from their human counterparts, and focusing solely on some specific superstitions.

The effect this has had on the religious population has been to spread a militant, blind and often xenophobic tendancy to defend religious beliefs which have become a bland capitalist enterprise rather than an expression of humanity coming together and attempting to observe, philosophize and associate with each other. In other words, religion has turned from a positive, uniting activity to a competitive, simplistic and dry grouping of human beings. Without getting too detailed, it can be said that the protestant movement tore the communal aspects from god and created an individualist, alienating god-figure, and all the major religions have been turning into this kind of divisive, rather than unifying, analytical force.

Those who oppose religion, and claim to want a better future for the world, usually remain totally ignorant of what religion is and how we should deal with it, as well as what these traditions represent, manifest as and say about human beings. Don't get me wrong, I am totally in opposition to suerstition and supernaturalism. But the use of the term "religion" today by those who oppose it is laughable. They decry its supernatural and divisive elements and traditions, and in that context attempt to proclaim that religion is a purely negative force, not realizing that they are reinforcing the power that these institutions have by the very categorization "religion" indicates.


Beacause there is something really eerie about the term 'religion.' If you look at texts as recent as the 1800s, you will see a far different concept of the term, where religion indicates not just an insititutional force of supernaturalism, but a concept of human and social activity which is much broader (feuerbach's "The Essence of Christianity").

Looking further back, you will find something startling. The very root of the term, "religio," is a latin term which refers to rituals, specifically the day - to - day activities of man, and texts dating further and further back refer to religion in this sense of direction and activity, rather than a narrow concept of a few philosophical concepts:


The first issue to tackle is the very meaning of the word. I contend that the word should apply to all worldviews / character structures (the Freudian “Weltanschauung”). The Latin root itself (religio) means “ritual,” very similar, if not the same, as the activities one does on a daily basis (which of course are implicative and even comprise one’s character structure). This idea of religion as a worldview is further supported by an excerpt from the 16th century play, “The Revenger’s Tragedy,” in which Lussurioso, an aspiring Duke, states the following: “Marriage is good, yet rather keep a friend. / Give me my bed by stealth; there's true delight: / What breeds a loathing in't but night by night? “, to which the protagonist, Vindici, replies: “A very fine religion!” Here Vindici is clearly referring to a way of living as a religion.
-a quote from an essay I wrote about this. http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/religion_2.htm

What is really scary is that we do indeed live in a very irreligious society, yet we are widely considered religious. This is not dissimilar to the "communist" categorization which ha sserved to demonize and harm the communist movement. In regards to religion, we have failed to gleen the positive messages and knowledge we have from our traditions, and have removed the spiritual interests of our society from all realistic footholds. In its place, we have mounted dead technologies, the Moloch for which all our spiritualisms have been sacrificed, in the interest of mechanical political theories outlining how all aspects of our social, political and economic lives should be. So we have lost the interest in maintaining human dignity, and the human as an end, and have replaced it with a philosophy which places mechanical conformity as a greater standard to live up to.

This extremely capitalist, technocratic sense of social organization has gained a dangerous foothold in our society, by decrying all the spiritual and humanistic elements as superstitions. A very unconsciously Popperian method of weeding out philosophies has led to the complete opposition to all things related to more fluid concepts of the world. We live in a very narrow world where the only good is great efficiency, more capital, and money as a god.

A hell of a lot of communists, who should be interested in the betterment of humans, worship this new god, too. They actually claim that society changes along the lines of technology, rather than social development. This is a de-facto denunciation of all the old spiritualisms and social sciences, a proclomation that all the old marxists are useless, that all the postivie thinkers and traditions today are boring. They truly look to a future where we can look solely to mechanical, rather than human activity for our livelihood and spiritual satisfaction. They have denied humanism in full, and truly have a corpse in their mouth.

[Sharon den Adel]

I don't believe in God, and I don't know why people do.

I have no problem with religion, but I do have a problem with those who think it their God given right to force their religious beliefs and morals on society.
I believe religion is a personal thing, and should be kept private.

[eyedrop]

What are you really saying Dean?

1. Technology/materealistic view of the world values is bad?

2. We should look at the old religious traditions to look for "useful knowledge on sociey, history, technology, the evolution of thought, and indeed what it means to be human from our knowledge of religion."

3. Then you go into a tirade about how we should define religion different from what society views it as.

4. We live in a very irreligious society

5. Then you go and condemn todays society for it's lacking spirituality

Is that a somewhat fair summary?

1. What you really are condemning is a materalistic worldview, which is how the world seem to be behaving. I don't see the fault in fitting worldviews into how the world really is.

2. Fine one can use religion to explain sociey, history, and the evolution of thought, it is very useful for those things. In technology it does not have anything to do. When assesing what it means to be human I don't see why we should consider people who had a worldview that was just plain more false than what we have now. We should assess what it means to be human from what the reality really is like. There are no secret truths that give meaning to being a human.

5. You would propose that people should view reality in more "spiritual and humanistic elements". Even though it is just plain old superstition? It is no spiritual and humanistic elements and we as humans have to learn to deal with it. We shall not continue to lie to ourself, at least I hope so. It seems like you would prefer humanity to continue to lie to ourselfes.





A hell of a lot of communists, who should be interested in the betterment of humans, worship this new god, too. They actually claim that society changes along the lines of technology, rather than social development. This is a de-facto denunciation of all the old spiritualisms and social sciences, a proclomation that all the old marxists are useless, that all the postivie thinkers and traditions today are boring. I thought the whole premise of a marxist view was that the capitalist system came to be as the technological means came into being which enabled the industrial revolution. Not that the capitlist system made the industrial revolution. Material reality shapes human societies.

Why shouldn't we discard what is wrong? All the parts of old social sciences that are wrong should be discarded and kept just in history books.


They truly look to a future where we can look solely to mechanical, rather than human activity for our livelihood and spiritual satisfaction. They have denied humanism in full, and truly have a corpse in their mouth. We look forward to a future when mechanical means takes care of all the repetetive jobs so we can have the possibility to have the time to embrace humanism in full. Repetetive tasks are just obstacles in the way for fully exploring being a human.

[Dean]

What are you really saying Dean?

1. Technology/materealistic view of the world values is bad?
No.


2. We should look at the old religious traditions to look for "useful knowledge on sociey, history, technology, the evolution of thought, and indeed what it means to be human from our knowledge of religion."
Yes, because religious traditions account for such a huge degree of our knowledge of history, especially whne it comes to philosophical, sociological, spiritual and scientific issues. We shouldn't look to such traditions as sole authorities, but brushing them off due to the authoritarian and supernaturalist tendancies associated with them is very ignorant.


3. Then you go into a tirade about how we should define religion different from what society views it as.
Because its bullshit. As I pointed out, the distinction serves only to defend established religious institutions because they are obviously incompatible with a rational analysis of the world. It has served to objectify and commodify religious belief, and stripped the traditions present in major institutions of their positive attributes.


4. We live in a very irreligious society

5. Then you go and condemn todays society for it's lacking spirituality

Is that a somewhat fair summary?
We live in a secularist society that thinks atheism requries immorality and ignorance when it coems to spiritual questions. Even the religious institutions are secularist, they are more interested in self-perpetuation that the achievement of established moral codes and ideals in their texts and indeed their preachings.

My point was to say that we have become a secular, theistic soceity which worships money and / or technology. We have refused all the spiritualism and gods of the past, without looking for any spiritualism (humanism) to replace it, and have remained theistic worshippers of something even worse: a real, powerful entity which we cannot mold as an ideal in our heads, but exists as a cold fact we must worship. It is the difference between the follower of Christ or the follower of the U.S.. Christ could really be a number of things, good or bad - this leads to a degree of human independence when it comes to their worship; I can say "I love Christ" and talk in a sense which is purely humanist. But the reality is there when we come to nation-fetishism, and it is much scarier.

1. What you really are condemning is a materalistic worldview, which is how the world seem to be behaving. I don't see the fault in fitting worldviews into how the world really is.

2. Fine one can use religion to explain sociey, history, and the evolution of thought, it is very useful for those things. In technology it does not have anything to do. When assesing what it means to be human I don't see why we should consider people who had a worldview that was just plain more false than what we have now. We should assess what it means to be human from what the reality really is like. There are no secret truths that give meaning to being a human.
No, we should accept that spiritualism is a necessary relevent aspect of any good analysis of the world. I fully support materialism, and in striving not to remove the human mind from its material conditions, I want to understand it fully and recognize that our understanding of the human mind and all that deals with is intrinsically relevent to any socio-political, economic or philosophical study.


5. You would propose that people should view reality in more "spiritual and humanistic elements". Even though it is just plain old superstition? It is no spiritual and humanistic elements and we as humans have to learn to deal with it. We shall not continue to lie to ourself, at least I hope so. It seems like you would prefer humanity to continue to lie to ourselfes.
No, I oppose supernaturalism. I oppose the extremely simplistic and mechanical concept of humans that has become popular among many groups since the 80s, which strips the human of his psychological relevence and proclaims that all aspects of the human being can and should be treated as mechanical systems, rather than more delicately as an entity to respect as the greatest good and for which all labor should be focused. The point is that we no longer follow a mode of humanism, and we no longer claim to. We really should.



I thought the whole premise of a marxist view was that the capitalist system came to be as the technological means came into being which enabled the industrial revolution. Not that the capitlist system made the industrial revolution. Material reality shapes human societies.
Yes, but technology is not the deciding factor. When it comes down to it, humans decide not only if they will accept, but how they will respond to their conditions. Marx knew well that man was the creator of his activity, albeit through interaction with his environment. It is not a one-way street.


Why shouldn't we discard what is wrong? All the parts of old social sciences that are wrong should be discarded and kept just in history books.
And who is to decide what is wrong? It has been decided in the court of public opinion, and really apathy, that all the serious inquiries into what it means to be human and spiritually and psychologically satisfied should be forgotten, in the stead of a distinct focus on mechanical sciences whose purpose has become the maximum-pleasure drive. That is soul-crushing. Humans need to be free to actuate themselves, not to achieve maximum pleasure. I have no doubt that one day we will create machinery which can indeed achieve extraordinary pleasure, and the first human to be attached to it will be forever its slave. I oppose this for obvious reasons: it is not freedom, it is not communist or marxist, and it is certainly not what is best.


We look forward to a future when mechanical means takes care of all the repetetive jobs so we can have the possibility to have the time to embrace humanism in full. Repetetive tasks are just obstacles in the way for fully exploring being a human.
MAybe. I would support that if it didn't make humans into slaves of the machinery, and I do think we can utilize such advanced technology for purposes in that vein. But you are dead wrong in conflating convenience with freedom. There are people who indeed have as much technology and alck of repetition as they could ever want, but I've no doubt that they are living in a hell where their possessions own them and they find more relations with possessions and mechanical processes and objects than humanity. In a world where people have all the convenience possible, and no struggle to actuate themselves, will they ever strive to do so?

The question is clear, whether we are interested in maximum pleasure or maximum human spontaneity, or actuation. It is a question of social versus mechanical revolution. Well, no revolution exists outside of the social atmosphere, but the trend here seems to be to ignore the social traditions of change and focus primarily on technology as our messiah. I find that amazing, and deeply disturbing at the same time.

[eyedrop]

Sorry for taking some time to respond Dean and I must admit i had some trouble getting what you meant in the first post.




Yes, because religious traditions account for such a huge degree of our knowledge of history, especially whne it comes to philosophical, sociological, spiritual and scientific issues. That is good enough. Don't dismiss an idea because of faults with it's proponents, but rather on it's own merits. I really doubt anyone disagrees with that but rather in the ways of doing it.


We shouldn't look to such traditions as sole authorities, but brushing them off due to the authoritarian and supernaturalist tendancies associated with them is very ignorant. So just attack the authoritarian and supernaturalist parts of it. But not everyone has the time to check out everyone of the old traditions and find the sensible parts hidden in it.



Because its bullshit. As I pointed out, the distinction serves only to defend established religious institutions because they are obviously incompatible with a rational analysis of the world. It has served to objectify and commodify religious belief, and stripped the traditions present in major institutions of their positive attributes. I need to reread it.



We live in a secularist society that thinks atheism requries immorality and ignorance when it coems to spiritual questions. Even the religious institutions are secularist, they are more interested in self-perpetuation that the achievement of established moral codes and ideals in their texts and indeed their preachings. Do we? To me most secular folks also have moral opinions on what it means to be human and other "spiritual" questions. Those opinions should come out of a material thought basis which so many of the traditional opinions fail to do.


My point was to say that we have become a secular, theistic soceity which worships money and / or technology. We have refused all the spiritualism and gods of the past, without looking for any spiritualism (humanism) to replace it, and have remained theistic worshippers of something even worse: a real, powerful entity which we cannot mold as an ideal in our heads, but exists as a cold fact we must worship. It is the difference between the follower of Christ or the follower of the U.S.. Christ could really be a number of things, good or bad - this leads to a degree of human independence when it comes to their worship; I can say "I love Christ" and talk in a sense which is purely humanist. But the reality is there when we come to nation-fetishism, and it is much scarier.Yes I agree that we are on very thin ground on answers to "spiritual" questions. Such as what aims humanity as a whole has in the universe. I feel that is because there are noone except what we just choose to do. Most of the technocrazy movement for example has chosen conquering the universe as an ultimate aim. There are nothing objective better with that aim than to see humanity perish in mass suicide next year. Except our personal views as humans.


No, we should accept that spiritualism is a necessary relevent aspect of any good analysis of the world. I fully support materialism, and in striving not to remove the human mind from its material conditions, I want to understand it fully and recognize that our understanding of the human mind and all that deals with is intrinsically relevent to any socio-political, economic or philosophical study.I wouldn't have any objection except that I don't feel the word spiritualism don't fit that well into what your meaning is. Exploration of the human mind and philosophical questions, many of them are quite unimportant though, are important but I don't think any anti-theists disagree with you. They rather think that one should discourage those which they think are wrong.



No, I oppose supernaturalism. I oppose the extremely simplistic and mechanical concept of humans that has become popular among many groups since the 80s, which strips the human of his psychological relevence and proclaims that all aspects of the human being can and should be treated as mechanical systems, rather than more delicately as an entity to respect as the greatest good and for which all labor should be focused. The point is that we no longer follow a mode of humanism, and we no longer claim to. We really should. If all about a human is not mechanical systems what is the rest made up of? Supernatural parts? Either it is all mechanical (material) or it is supernatural. I rather think that it is all mechanical but we are very far away from understanding close to all of it.




Yes, but technology is not the deciding factor. When it comes down to it, humans decide not only if they will accept, but how they will respond to their conditions. Marx knew well that man was the creator of his activity, albeit through interaction with his environment. It is not a one-way street. Wouldn't the industrial revolution happen no matter what man thought after the technological means was there? Even if it could be postphoned a couple 100 years.



And who is to decide what is wrong? It has been decided in the court of public opinion, and really apathy, that all the serious inquiries into what it means to be human and spiritually and psychologically satisfied should be forgotten, in the stead of a distinct focus on mechanical sciences whose purpose has become the maximum-pleasure drive. That is soul-crushing. Humans need to be free to actuate themselves, not to achieve maximum pleasure. I have no doubt that one day we will create machinery which can indeed achieve extraordinary pleasure, and the first human to be attached to it will be forever its slave. I oppose this for obvious reasons: it is not freedom, it is not communist or marxist, and it is certainly not what is best. Well maximum pleasure for all humanity is not a bad aim is it? What is the point of being free if not because it feels better than being a slave? The struggle for freedom is a struggle for improved pleasure, even mental pleasure.



MAybe. I would support that if it didn't make humans into slaves of the machinery, and I do think we can utilize such advanced technology for purposes in that vein. But you are dead wrong in conflating convenience with freedom. There are people who indeed have as much technology and alck of repetition as they could ever want, but I've no doubt that they are living in a hell where their possessions own them and they find more relations with possessions and mechanical processes and objects than humanity. In a world where people have all the convenience possible, and no struggle to actuate themselves, will they ever strive to do so? If we don't have any purpose/struggle to engage in we will make up one. such as conquering the universe, building the highest tower of isicles or whatever we want to do. Humanity has enough to do for the foreseeable future. In a society where machines do all the work we will find other things to struggle against, maybe we will stop when we control each and every particle in the universe.


The question is clear, whether we are interested in maximum pleasure or maximum human spontaneity, or actuation. It is a question of social versus mechanical revolution. Well, no revolution exists outside of the social atmosphere, but the trend here seems to be to ignore the social traditions of change and focus primarily on technology as our messiah. I find that amazing, and deeply disturbing at the same time. Why must maximum pleasure, maximum human spontaneity and actuation be mutually exclusive? I would think that maximum pleasure would mean maximum human spontanity and actuation. We wouldn't have maximum pleasure without those.

[F9]

my thoughts?its the mental slavery of the people!even if there was a god,is an enemy,he/she/it dont leave the freedom to people.he* knows when you "mistake" and he* will "judge" you!religion was and the reason for numerous war campaigns in the name of "freedom" they kill innocent people for money and their advantage.religion makes you always have at the back of your mind that someone is watching you and he will punish you if you do something that some people decided that is inappropriate!
no gods-no masters

Fuserg9:star:

[Bud Struggle]

Dean, eyedrop--really good discussion.

[Sender]

I think religion(s) started as a early attempt at law or somthing like that and it kept on evolving into what it is today. Now imagine your a guy living in the early bronze age and you are a chief. Now, you obviously like being the chief so you go out to all your buddies and say "If you oppose me ye shall get smited".

Now add more mysticism to that, and that is how I think religion(s) started.

[Dean]

Sorry for taking some time to respond Dean and I must admit i had some trouble getting what you meant in the first post.


That is good enough. Don't dismiss an idea because of faults with it's proponents, but rather on it's own merits. I really doubt anyone disagrees with that but rather in the ways of doing it.

So just attack the authoritarian and supernaturalist parts of it. But not everyone has the time to check out everyone of the old traditions and find the sensible parts hidden in it.
This is a problem. Religion is a huge tradition which really encompasses a large portion of our histories. I understand why you wouldn't be interested in studying it, I find that somewhat sad and apathetic. But what really concerns me is that peopel actively oppose religion's worst aspects, ignore the positive, and end up condemning something based on that limited knowledge.

It's kinda like psychology. It bothers me a lot that people don't know or care much about it, but I don't go out and condemn others for not studying it. I just try to raise the issue and gear the discussion towards the more positive, humanist and analytical tendancies when it comes up. With religion, I get annoyed when it is brought up in a purely negative light, because I see an orientation which is very biased and uninterested in discovering, but rather in condemning.


Do we? To me most secular folks also have moral opinions on what it means to be human and other "spiritual" questions. Those opinions should come out of a material thought basis which so many of the traditional opinions fail to do.
Yes I agree that we are on very thin ground on answers to "spiritual" questions. Such as what aims humanity as a whole has in the universe. I feel that is because there are noone except what we just choose to do. Most of the technocrazy movement for example has chosen conquering the universe as an ultimate aim.
haha. I agree that there is an underrepresented tendancy towards secular spiritualism. But that's not what I see here, and among other trends (like libertarians) and it is that kind of disinterested atheism that bothers me. It's the same reason I criticised capitalist religious institutions.


There are nothing objective better with that aim than to see humanity perish in mass suicide next year. Except our personal views as humans.
I honestly don't know what you mean...


I wouldn't have any objection except that I don't feel the word spiritualism don't fit that well into what your meaning is. Exploration of the human mind and philosophical questions, many of them are quite unimportant though, are important but I don't think any anti-theists disagree with you. They rather think that one should discourage those which they think are wrong.

If all about a human is not mechanical systems what is the rest made up of? Supernatural parts? Either it is all mechanical (material) or it is supernatural. I rather think that it is all mechanical but we are very far away from understanding close to all of it.
No, spiritualism is an attempt to understand the human experience on a very deep level, and to relate and really bring that out. It is a misunderstanding of religion that has created spiritualism and faith as words only applicable in theocratic tendancies.



Wouldn't the industrial revolution happen no matter what man thought after the technological means was there? Even if it could be postphoned a couple 100 years.
Yes, but what it meant for society solely depends on human response to the situation.


Well maximum pleasure for all humanity is not a bad aim is it? What is the point of being free if not because it feels better than being a slave? The struggle for freedom is a struggle for improved pleasure, even mental pleasure.

If we don't have any purpose/struggle to engage in we will make up one. such as conquering the universe, building the highest tower of isicles or whatever we want to do. Humanity has enough to do for the foreseeable future. In a society where machines do all the work we will find other things to struggle against, maybe we will stop when we control each and every particle in the universe.
Why must maximum pleasure, maximum human spontaneity and actuation be mutually exclusive? I would think that maximum pleasure would mean maximum human spontanity and actuation. We wouldn't have maximum pleasure without those.
I'm not talkng about maximum pleasure as an eventualty, but rather as the focus on the human drive for maximum pleasure as negative.

When people seek maximum, unfettered pleasure - in other words, where satisfaction of the pleasure drive is the ideal - they blind themselves to social reality, and start to ignore their activity in a social sense. Instead of focusing on self-knowledge and social productivity, they becomes interested in a specific human drive which has sadly become an ideal to many. But pleasure is not the only relevent drive that dictates happiness, If we seek primarily to maximize that we will ignroe a great degree of important human drives and traits. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase pleasure, just that it should not be the primary interest of human beings or their society.

As for you not understanding some of my meanigns, I apologise for that. I know that I have a tendancy to be verbose, and also to use some strange linguistic and logic mannerisms when my ideas become hard to dictate.

[eyedrop]

This is a problem. Religion is a huge tradition which really encompasses a large portion of our histories. I understand why you wouldn't be interested in studying it, I find that somewhat sad and apathetic. But what really concerns me is that peopel actively oppose religion's worst aspects, ignore the positive, and end up condemning something based on that limited knowledge. Which positive aspects of religion is it you mean that is ignored?

For myself I can say that I really enjoy reading philosophers, prefer those who are aquainted with cosmology, as those to themes are kinda related. Can't philosophy be said to be a secular version of religion according to your definition? I also dabble in lucid dreaming from time to time, which can be said to be a positive aspect of old shamanism, which is scientifically proven by Stephen LaBerge.


It's kinda like psychology. It bothers me a lot that people don't know or care much about it, but I don't go out and condemn others for not studying it. I just try to raise the issue and gear the discussion towards the more positive, humanist and analytical tendancies when it comes up. With religion, I get annoyed when it is brought up in a purely negative light, because I see an orientation which is very biased and uninterested in discovering, but rather in condemning. I can understand where you are coming from. But again isn't philosophy a secular representation of the religious inquiry? Is it so wrong to let religion now mean the superstitious philosophical inquire and let philosophy be the secular version. And extract the useful ideas into secular philosophy, which philosophers are already doing.



haha. I agree that there is an underrepresented tendancy towards secular spiritualism. But that's not what I see here, and among other trends (like libertarians) and it is that kind of disinterested atheism that bothers me. It's the same reason I criticised capitalist religious institutions. When people appear as disinterested atheists what they think (sorry for speaking for everyone) is that we are not able to answer those questions for a long time so let's instead focus on things we can answer in the foreseable future. For example on such questions as to why do we exists I can't really even envision an answer which would make us content. I can't image an answer which would really answer anything.



I honestly don't know what you mean...
It was just the nihilistic part of my personality that slipped out for a second. What I tried to argue was that there is no objective morality, just subjective for us humans. As a group or as a person.


No, spiritualism is an attempt to understand the human experience on a very deep level, and to relate and really bring that out. It is a misunderstanding of religion that has created spiritualism and faith as words only applicable in theocratic tendancies. Well good luck in getting a popular understanding of the word like how you understand it:) Unfortunately not all words mean the same today as their greek parts. But I agree with you that anti-superstition get's the meaning better than anti-theist. And one should also be opposed to the religious institutions as they exists now, or at least most parts of them. Community centers and such isn't really that bad.


I think philosophy covers it quite well, even though it's a clumsy word.




Yes, but what it meant for society solely depends on human response to the situation. Wouldn't a version of capitalism evolve after the technological means where available no matter what? The humans made the technolgoical means available, but when they first had done so soociety had to evolve to a type of capitalism. What type and so is largely up to luck but still a type of capitalism as power was transferred from feudal lords to factory owners and traders. I never read any Marx though as I hate reading things written in 19th century formal language, as the problems in the other tread here between Burning Olive Grapes and Demogorgon shows.



I'm not talkng about maximum pleasure as an eventualty, but rather as the focus on the human drive for maximum pleasure as negative.

When people seek maximum, unfettered pleasure - in other words, where satisfaction of the pleasure drive is the ideal - they blind themselves to social reality, and start to ignore their activity in a social sense. Instead of focusing on self-knowledge and social productivity, they becomes interested in a specific human drive which has sadly become an ideal to many. But pleasure is not the only relevent drive that dictates happiness, If we seek primarily to maximize that we will ignroe a great degree of important human drives and traits. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase pleasure, just that it should not be the primary interest of human beings or their society. If we say maximum human contentment would you agree then? I don't think most technocrats just mean physical pleasure. I think this is mostly a semantical (right word?) disagreement.


As for you not understanding some of my meanigns, I apologise for that. I know that I have a tendancy to be verbose, and also to use some strange linguistic and logic mannerisms when my ideas become hard to dictate. Don't worry, I admit that my mind was wandered away while trying to read your arguement of the old meanings of religion. nothing wrong with your writing it's just me not being very interested in it unfortunately.

[eyedrop]

Dean, eyedrop--really good discussion.

I'm a sucker for compliments:cool:

I was somewhat surprised that noone of the other technocrats and anti-theists, which there are a lot of on this site, took up this discussion as Deans post was a quite well written critique of both, which as far as I have seen haven't been discussed to death on this site lately.

[Ghaile]

Religion has never been and never will be personal, that's not the point of it, it's political by nature, and thus reflects bourgeois property relations and the defense of them.

[Svante]

Religion has never been and never will be personal, that's not the point of it, it's political by nature, and thus reflects bourgeois property relations and the defense of them.

i am religion person but i dont think i t is politique thing. i a m not bourgeois and my religion dont reflect m y property. i know some politiciens use religion i n campagne but this i s stupide thing t o do becuase religion dont have anyethin g t o do with gouvernement.

[Dean]

Which positive aspects of religion is it you mean that is ignored?

For myself I can say that I really enjoy reading philosophers, prefer those who are aquainted with cosmology, as those to themes are kinda related. Can't philosophy be said to be a secular version of religion according to your definition? I also dabble in lucid dreaming from time to time, which can be said to be a positive aspect of old shamanism, which is scientifically proven by Stephen LaBerge.
I can understand where you are coming from. But again isn't philosophy a secular representation of the religious inquiry? Is it so wrong to let religion now mean the superstitious philosophical inquire and let philosophy be the secular version. And extract the useful ideas into secular philosophy, which philosophers are already doing.

Much of the Jewish tradition, for instance, is filled with anecdotes and philosophical standpoints which are useful from a philosophical perspective. I don't think its fair to blanket these traditions as if they were totally fallacious and useless by calling them basically superstitious, especially when many adherents focus on the non-supernatural elements.



When people appear as disinterested atheists what they think (sorry for speaking for everyone) is that we are not able to answer those questions for a long time so let's instead focus on things we can answer in the foreseable future. For example on such questions as to why do we exists I can't really even envision an answer which would make us content. I can't image an answer which would really answer anything.[quote]
But do we throw it out with the supernatural beliefs just because it is vaguer? Does that make it any less important?

[quote]Wouldn't a version of capitalism evolve after the technological means where available no matter what? The humans made the technolgoical means available, but when they first had done so soociety had to evolve to a type of capitalism. What type and so is largely up to luck but still a type of capitalism as power was transferred from feudal lords to factory owners and traders. I never read any Marx though as I hate reading things written in 19th century formal language, as the problems in the other tread here between Burning Olive Grapes and Demogorgon shows.

Yeah, but you have to understand that capitalism is a human organization.


If we say maximum human contentment would you agree then? I don't think most technocrats just mean physical pleasure. I think this is mostly a semantical (right word?) disagreement.
Semantic. And yes, I think its mostly in wording, but maybe I am looking for something more broad. At the risk of sounding like an elitist prick, maybe you'll understand one day - and maybe you won't, or maybe you do understand it but just don't see that in my words. :P


Don't worry, I admit that my mind was wandered away while trying to read your arguement of the old meanings of religion. nothing wrong with your writing it's just me not being very interested in it unfortunately.

Ah... at least you're honest.

[eyedrop]

Much of the Jewish tradition, for instance, is filled with anecdotes and philosophical standpoints which are useful from a philosophical perspective. I don't think its fair to blanket these traditions as if they were totally fallacious and useless by calling them basically superstitious, especially when many adherents focus on the non-supernatural elements. Why not call those anectdotes just philosophical anectdotes and get rid of the whole connection with religion? It doesn't gain anything to be associated with the superstitious parts of religion.

I also always prefer to read things from the modern age, with language and word associations which I understand easier. I once tried to read Max Stirners book "My ego and it's own" and hated all the ways consepts were explained in such an old way.




But do we throw it out with the supernatural beliefs just because it is vaguer? Does that make it any less important? No, but we salvage it away from the association with the superstitious beliefs in religion. Philosophy is exactly that. If you haven't read any popular books on cosmology lately I can recommend A Briefer History of Time (2005, ISBN 0-553-80436-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0553804367)). Lots of such questions are taken up by Stephen Hawking in the book, without the needlessly association with religion. I don't see what religion has to offer us we can't get in other ways, except the superstition.




Yeah, but you have to understand that capitalism is a human organization.
Good.


Semantic. And yes, I think its mostly in wording, but maybe I am looking for something more broad. At the risk of sounding like an elitist prick, maybe you'll understand one day - and maybe you won't, or maybe you do understand it but just don't see that in my words. :P Such discussions as these should preferably be done while sitting in the corner of a quiet bar, with a cold beer. Not typing on a computer, well truth to be told, with a beer in my hand. I think I get what you mean. I rather like the existance without any meaning. Then I can feel free to do and feel whatever I do, without having any guilt of not living up to any higher meaning.




Ah... at least you're honest.I'm sorry :( Well the world would be boring if everyone had the same interests

[Dean]

Why not call those anectdotes just philosophical anectdotes and get rid of the whole connection with religion? It doesn't gain anything to be associated with the superstitious parts of religion.

I also always prefer to read things from the modern age, with language and word associations which I understand easier. I once tried to read Max Stirners book "My ego and it's own" and hated all the ways consepts were explained in such an old way.


No, but we salvage it away from the association with the superstitious beliefs in religion. Philosophy is exactly that. If you haven't read any popular books on cosmology lately I can recommend A Briefer History of Time (2005, ISBN 0-553-80436-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0553804367)). Lots of such questions are taken up by Stephen Hawking in the book, without the needlessly association with religion. I don't see what religion has to offer us we can't get in other ways, except the superstition.

Good.

I'm sorry :( Well the world would be boring if everyone had the same interests

This all seems to stem from the same disagreement. I believe that religion is simply a different word for philosophy which has been used to give creedence to the outlandish claims many major theological institutions make. If people looked at religion from the context that it is just another form of philosophy, we would be salvaging the philosophical concepts while throwing out the superstitious. But if you create mutually exclusive categories of religion and science (here meaning any inquiry into nature) then you not only condemn many of the positive ideas associated with the religious institutions, but you also give power to religious institutions by creating a paradigm which assumes that religion falls outside of reason.

Every time a person is questioned about their faith in god or religious morality, they always justify it a priori. If spoke from the standpoint that religion is just a way of thinking, no different from any other philosophy, it would open all the bullshit up to reasoned inquiry, the adherents would question the more bogus claims, and the moral and philosophical traditions which are indeed useful would flower.

I mean, consider those who don't believe in Global Warming, or people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens. People don't call them religious, but why not? Conversely, why should we call Buddhists, or Joseph Fletcher (an Episcopalian anti-supernaturalist) religious? There is a simple reason. Religion does not indicate a belief in supernaturalist ideas. It simply indicates a social trend to defend certain institutions associated with the more spiritual philosophical tendencies of a people. Historically (and sometimes still in language) it means your modus operandi.

[i]"Religio"[i] is latin for "ritual." It refers to an activity and an outlook - it is our society which has made the term a dangerous distinction threatening to strip the old spiritualism of its meaning and to solidify the Church's place and position in society and on the issues. It is as if to say "religion is a certain kind of worldview on which a few specific churches are the authority, and this is exactly what it is." From a social standpoint, accepting such a view is very dangerous for a society, for it lends it to slip into blind faith and extreme conservatism.


Such discussions as these should preferably be done while sitting in the corner of a quiet bar, with a cold beer. Not typing on a computer, well truth to be told, with a beer in my hand. I think I get what you mean. I rather like the existance without any meaning. Then I can feel free to do and feel whatever I do, without having any guilt of not living up to any higher meaning.

I like these discussions, but I understand what you mean. Really, I wish more discussions online were deeper because I don't understnad how people can think to have learned anything without seriously and deeply analyzing the issues.

[Bud Struggle]

What do I think about religion? That it isnt really about God at all, its all about us. And after a grueling upbringing, and in times of complete desperation I have asked, what if?

You are an interesting thinker, Debora Arno.

[Baconator]

Religion = Irrational concept.

Religions don't exist. Not in objective material reality anyway. Religion is a concept in people's heads that claims supernatural 'gods' exist but must incorporate 'faith' into their program. Faith is the belief that something exists regardless of proof or logic.

The debate about religion is really a debate about metaphysics. Religious and fundamentalist individuals make claims about reality which cannot be shown to be real and they make claims about morality and especially a 'moral god' which is anything but.

I have no problem with people believing in god and maintaining that as a personal or communal thing. I still think its irrational and the product of mental abuse but who am I to choose what other people believe? I just get irked when religious and fundamentalist types make positive claims that outright contradict anything scientific. Its like pissing in the fountain of knowledge when logic and rationality through the scientific method has given us so much.

[eyedrop]

This all seems to stem from the same disagreement. Yep, I'll give it a sound sleep.




I like these discussions, but I understand what you mean. Really, I wish more discussions online were deeper because I don't understnad how people can think to have learned anything without seriously and deeply analyzing the issues. It's a lot easier to spout some dogmatic dogma isn't it? I don't particularly like the tendency to just quote some old guru instead of arguing for one self that goes around alot here. I think that can be said to be a weakness of marxism. Marx has too much prestige.

[Peacekeeper]

Organized religion kind of sucks, but other than that it's okay.