|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 5, 2006 18:53:37 GMT -5
Quote: Saying that religion should be kept as private as possible is against the human nature..since the beginning of human history religion was a big part of the lives of the people.When communism came people firstly thought it was good but after years of no religion people started to miss the over natural since its the part of us that NEVER can disappear.Communism only brings new Srebrenicas,new Hitlers,new Stalins,new Titos etc False. Organized religion is against human nature and especially against free spirited European nature for it restricts though and creates dogma the very things modern secular Europe is against. Organized religions started out in regions such first Mesopotamia and Egypt around 5,000 years ago as means of controlling primitive illiterate masses through means of fear. Belief in religion has been most strongest in regions and time frames where and when a given population is/was illiterate or close to fully illiterate. Examples are Europe through Dark Ages or modern Afghanistan. The moment the population becomes more educated the same moment spells doom for long term existence of organized dogma called religion or at least its undisputed control over such society. Also European free spirit doesn't need any non-European dogma and if there is any need for religion then philosophy based religions such as agnosticism are more then spiritually fulfilling (also logic doesn't allow us to go further for there is nothing to go on - and no, what some human wrote in a book doesn't count since philosophy is not naive - far from it). If someone needs a book on a daily basis to remind them that they believe, out of fear mind you, in an omniscient being then such belief can not possibly be of permanent value for it depend on having such a , man-made, book. Napoleon had the best idea in my view in abolishing any abrahamic dogma (abrahamic=judaism and its offsprings in Christianity and Islam) that is contrary to European spirit and that Europeans had custom made religions for them previously. Certainly if anyone was truly a prophet it would have to be the three humans that were the brightest among all humans, that ones who created single-handedly western civilization. If God was to send a guide it would be most logical (and yes, true religion has to survive the test of logic) to think that such guide would have to have vast knowledge in many human affairs for humans could not be left with any doubt. First such guide was without any doubt Socrates followed by Plato and Aristotle. They created philosophy (original science from which all sciences originated from) or THE LIGHT (hence 'Enlightenment'). On top of that the religious (meaning in simplistic terms, to prove to the primitive masses) side is also covered. Socrates being the first prophet and guided what he was told via Delphi's oracle). Oracle at Delphi serves God of Wisdom Apollo. Apollo is a God, among other things of Apollo is reason and intellectualism which is exacly what philosophy is based on. " According to the version of his defense speech presented in Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded negatively. Socrates, interpreting this as a riddle, set out to find men who were wiser than him. He questioned the men of Athens about their knowledge of good, beauty, and virtue. Finding that they knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing. Among the others, only the artisans came close to having true knowledge of their trade; the remainder of men made false claims to knowledge."
link Therefore I regard the Light or Philosophy as also the only true religion (for who would the God/s select better to guide humanity in all aspects of human life then the most intelligent of all humans of all times) at the same time as well as the ultimate guide for all human affairs. The entire modern civilization is based on philosophy. More radical revolutionaries during Devinne French Revolution (which brought back the light) wanted to fully replace dogmatic Abrahamism with Religion where main deity is one of wisdom. Therefore make no mistake Europe has everything it needs and even the religious part is covered by the most complex and most logic driven ideas that other pseudo-religious dogmas can not even come close to. In fact they can not even enter the same field, logic (the only divine truth that we as humans need to master fully). Also modern Europe, although Secular, is not based nor even friendly towards anything abrahamic (French Revolution, guide to modern Europe, was outright against it) and regards it is essentially non-European in nature (which it is) and the day is coming when ancient greco-roman paganism (albeit modified or this time driven by reason such as in the form of agnosticism) will reemerge as the religion that was made for European by Europeans. To show the power of the word of the only true three prophets one needs to look at the fact that that every organized dogmatic religion had used them to help understand their own religious texts. On the other hand the true prophets (of light or reason) didn't need any religious text as a guide. Also their originator Socrates died for his ideas and was discovered by an Delphi Oracle of God of Wisdom Apollo. In other words they exist independent of everything else. Thus they exist without any need to refer to any dogmatic text. Also, the dogmatic text can not even be understood without their guide (hence categorization in abrahamic scholastics between neo-Platonists and Aristotelians). That speaks in its as far as what supersedes what in importance. It is obvious that if God/s were to send a perfect guide/s for humanism it is obvious as far as who such guides would be. Apollo has given us the gift of reason via prophet Socrates and that is all the religion Europe needs - philosophy. PS: I am pretty sure if secular world lays its weight behind this or similar idea that all other religions are not only done but will be regarded little more then a fairy tales.Lets see some serious, related and intellectual comments.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:44:45 GMT -5
Meltdown711 (1/6/06 1:05 am)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
hmm...organized Abrahamic religion was nice when the world was knee deep in the middle ages. But today, in a world that has long since modernized and has re-developed the classical ideals of humanism it is an ideology of a dark peasant past. Thats what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:46:00 GMT -5
AAdmin (1/6/06 1:16 am)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
Fully agree with what you have stated.
There remains the subject at hand and that is what if there is almost inherent need for a spiritual guidance contains within many humans.
In such a case and considering this is a modern and scientific era I believe that religion also needs to be scientific or to be able to survive the test of logic. In the least, the kind of religion I am talking about should be by far the most logical of all kinds of pseudo-religions that we wrongly regard as religions (since in effect they are little more the fairy tales).
Now, if there is such I need I sincerely believe that Philosophy covers it much more completely then any known so called religion and the , if you will, 'Socratic religion is by far a most logical choice that even can claim to have a divine origin (though the Oracle of Delphi and God Apollo connection).
This would be, plainly put, religion of reason.
I know it sounds radical but I firmly believe that only such religion can be the true one. It has to survive logic (or at least more so then any other religion).
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:47:10 GMT -5
Meltdown711(1/6/06 1:37 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!Quote:In such a case and considering this is a modern and scientific era I believe that religion also needs to be scientific or to be able to survive the test of logic. In the least, the kind of religion I am talking about should be by far the most logical of all kinds of pseudo-religions that we wrongly regard as religions (since in effect they are little more the fairy tales). Can man survive without fairy tales. One of the most attractive things of the Abrahamic faith is that contrary to the dark fate awaiting you in the pagan one, it offered a great paradise. the delusion of eternal happiness will always attract people. People like me or you have to face it that historically, we have been the minority. We may want everyone to awaken to the ideals of Socrates or men like Democratus (technically, the first atheist and first to bring up the idea of the atom). But have their teaching really ever penetrated the masses? Thats what we lack in history, them, the average people. Even those in a modern Europe will be tough to overtake. In ancient Chinese philosophy, they knew that men, in the masses, would never find true intellectual enlightenment, as was ideal, the truest kind of happiness will always be far away. The modern world has opened the doors more then ever, but nevertheless a vast majority are still left out, in need of a delusional form of paradise. The world is tough, everyone needs a way to make it easier, christianity and islam are easy answers, though weak. I remember reading an old ancient Greek quote that said "religion is true to the poor, false to the rich, a weapon for the powerful".
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:48:47 GMT -5
Pankrati0n (1/6/06 4:15 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
if we ask our selves for what purpose did religion start then maybe we can sort things out a bit.
according to the christian orthodox dogma, its because of the attempt for the human to reach "theosis" which in other words can be described as a hell of a wisdom.. the procedure to achieve that is to make several people understand this through their own level of perception.. my complaint is that through the metaphors and way of christianity there are some pretty lame stuff.. for example when virgin mary smelled the flower and got pregnant, when jesus made a mess of the traders outside of the temple when he made the sea pour out fish and stuff like that.. don't get me wrong, they may be great metaphors, but the interpretation that is given from many is too lame. at the end it makes the whole thing unattractive and them most likely disorientated from the main point
well , to be wise you have to be true to your self most of all, observe clearly and make balanced decisions.. to be "free" in this case would most likely mean to "accept" situations.if you don't understand or know situations the you don't go there like Socrates didn't. (makes sense) philosophy as a "science" can give or even overcome that in a more straight logical fashion, but still can be totally screwed by the cynics. there has to be some measure to that. i think thats the key
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:55:05 GMT -5
Prussia1231 (1/6/06 7:53 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion! ('IPT') "False. Organized religion is against human nature and especially against free spirited European nature for it restricts though and creates dogma the very things modern secular Europe is against." Actually the original statement has a lot of truth in it. The lack of religion leads to moral decay and if there is nobody or nothing to enforce morals, than it is far easier for a person or people to promote killing and ethnic cleansing. The loss of morals has other consequences as well, namely the deterioration of society itself. Some of these deteriorations involving homosexuality and the spreading of 'practices' such as BDSM over the mainstream media. You also have the group of pseudo intellectuals who state that based on simply their opinion it is wrong to execute murderers, rapists, traitors and so on. However that assumption is false because cold hard fact such as 'for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction' among other things. Nowhere in science does it say that eliminating evil (a murderer) is wrong. These are just people who let their emotions take control of their judgment. You have many of the same people supporting abortion which is the ultimate hypocracy given that they advocate letting the guilty live and the innocent die, but I will not go further into that matter. Also I direct you to remember Einstein, born in Ulm Wurttrmberg who is among the greatest geniuses in history, however he was religious. Being able to explain things does not mean being able to explain away religion and faith, something einstein noted and is proof of. With regards to perversion, the Greek philosophers themselves stated to do things in moderation, not to completely give in to every desire, yet that's what these people do and they attempt to use the Greek and later Roman philosophers to back them up when in reality they denounce their actions. "Also European free spirit doesn't need any non-european dogma" And this conclusion is based on what actually? "In such a case and considering this is a modern and scientific era I believe that religion also needs to be scientific or to be able to survive the test of logic." As do I. Things need to be matched up to actual proven events in history such as the base for Noah's flood being the filling of the Black Sea some 8,000 years ago and the need for carbon dating on so called relics. Other events can be explained in different ways, for some connect the volcanic eruption which destroyed the island of (believed by many including myself to be Atlantis) with the plagues of Egypt, the darkness caused by the ash cloud and the poisoning of the water and all caused by the ash itself (when mount St Hellens erupted in the US, there was a major outbreak of Frogs caused by the conditions the ash cloud brang). Such parallels don't dismiss divine intervention, however they are far from the fairy tales of literal . Also, those who dismiss evolution, both with regards to life and to the universe itself are still living in the middle ages. Those who dismiss life abroad in space are equally ignorant and arrogant. However those who refuse to acknowledge that there might be a purpose in why things happen are just as ignorant and arrogant as those who still mentally live in the middle ages. Nobody has the knowledge to disprove divinity and it will be milllennia, if not millions of years before such technology to definitely answer such questions becomes available (inter-universe travel and traveling through and into black holes as some examples of what would be needed). "by far a most logical choice that even can claim to have a divine origin (though the Oracle of Delphi and God Apollo connection)." Hitler claimed something called Providence guided him. And when you look at the situations he was in during WWI and escaped death from, it appears that he was more than lucky. Is that to say that he was both a prophet and his ideas had divine origin?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:58:18 GMT -5
BibleRiot(1/6/06 5:22 pm) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!Although Einstein was a spiritual person he rejected the idea of an anthropomorphic God or one who interferes in the lives of mortals. You don't have to believe in the supernatural to love the human spirit or to marvel at a universe that is beyond our comprehension. You don't have to believe in heaven and hell in order to know you have a soul, as Aristotle showed. But until Darwin most of the the greatest scientific thinkers were often religious, most notably Newton, who was profoundly Christian. Similarly, the greatest philosopher of modern times, Immanuel Kant, was a believer. We Europeans cannot turn our back on the aesthetic, cultural and moral inheritance of Christianity without cutting ourselves off from our greatest symphonies, the masterpieces of painting, or the great architecture of our cathedrals. A man who does not know the Bible cannot understand half the paintings in any European museum, nor will he be able to decipher the twists and turns of most of European history. To reject our Christian heritage is to deliberately become color-blind to our culture. I'm an atheist, not some wishy-washy agnostic, but I remember that the first real existentialist thinker was Kierkergaard.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 2:59:53 GMT -5
Meltdown711(1/6/06 6:21 pm) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!Quote:To reject our Christian heritage is to deliberately become color-blind to our culture. I'm an atheist, not some wishy-washy agnostic, but I remember that the first real existentialist thinker was Kierkergaard. I do agree that there is a large sense of culture. But nobody today believes in the twelve gods, yet the Pantheon stands large and complete. Frescoes depicting mythological creatures are still there. So of course the culture it created cannot be forgotten. Its also a culture that shows unmistakable relation with the pagan past through architecture and art. But the dogma of it is what I am talking about. Still today some of the greatest pieces of architecture were dedicated to that belief.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:02:54 GMT -5
BibleRiot(1/6/06 8:21 pm) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!Sure, Meltdown, ignorance of the ancient Greek pantheon or of the works of Homer, Aeschylus, etc, is a sad loss for any thinking person. But the proposition here is whether such knowledge can in any sense be a substitute for an appreciation of the ‘Hebraic’ ethics and eschatology that came afterwards. I am in any case suspicious of the motivations of those who find it difficult to accept that the cult of the ‘Jew on a stick’ is fundamental to a European identity. Europeans have used a Christian vocabulary to address many of the issues covered by Socrates and Plato since the days of Augustine of Hippo. But Aadmin is right that the spirit of the French Revolution, and hence the spirit of modern Europe, was radically opposed to Augustine’s contention that “not only the greatest but also the smallest good things can not be, except from him from whom are all good things, that is, from God”. Rousseau’s idea of man as intrinsically noble rather than tainted by original sin is however not derived from the ancients. A key influence on the era that Aadmin eulogizes was Baron Paul-Henry d’Holbach, portrayed by Rousseau in La Nouvelle Heloise as Womar, an atheist who nonetheless embodied Christian virtues. He it was who contended that The ignorance of natural causes created Gods, and imposture made them terrible. Man lived unhappy, because he was told that God had condemned him to misery. He never entertained a wish of breaking his chains, as he was taught that stupidity, that the renouncing of reason, mental debility, and spiritual debasement, were the means of obtaining eternal felicity. [System of Nature, 349-350] And who was the major influence on d’Holbach himself? Spinoza. As for organized religion being the enemy of the classical mind, it is important to remember that in the ancient world both Greek and Roman priests were civic officials, and that respect for the Gods was seen as important because it signified respect for the (political) city itself, as Aristotle argued. The fact that the Church has often been reactionary and obscurantist should not blind us to the fact that it is very hard for humans to live without institutions which preserve and embody their ethical values. Even the French Revolution created a deistic cult. As an atheist I deplore the negative influence of Protestant fundamentalism, Orthodox bigotry and Catholic dogmatism, but as a humanist I detest the loss of respect for the human aspiration towards goodness that is so manifest in the glorification of vanity, violence and greed in our soulless contemporary media culture. One thing that Aadmin and I do probably agree about: all European children, whatever their ethnic or cultural origins, should be taught Greek philosophy from an early age, so that they know who they are.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:05:15 GMT -5
AAdmin (1/7/06 12:07 am)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
Meltdown711
Again I understand about no need for fairy tales for people like me, you and many other ‘forumites’ and that masses may be indeed (in fact very likely) very different in the manner in which they view reality. I am not exactly referring to masses as much as concentrating on whatever is keeping the dogma active and countering it on the philosophical level but this time as theological subject not as theological tool to better understand 'holly' books. Example, Internet will be and already is also a major cultural force globally and it is of scientific nature. It alone, can bring (long term speaking - in say several decades) a final death blow to dogma but something will still need to replace it. You said it, many people are emotionally and intellectually too weak to we self-sufficient. Also, they will sway to whatever direction winds are blowing so don't worry about what they might have done or are doing. One thing is constant; they can change opinions with ease often but need a right stimuli and timing. Therefore because of their weak character they need fairy tales. I say lets guide them through reason even in that field and not let 'fairytalers' do it.
Annitas
You are asking "how did they control the massed through means of fear?” Well, let first say it was 5000 years or 7000 or whatever 1000s of years ago (which is really irrelevant here). According to what was happening in ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia we clearly have highly religious states and illiterate masses (which stayed illiterate throughout a world until 100-200 years ago). The rulers were claiming decent directly from the 'Gods'. Why, to express love towards masses - NO. Machiavelli nailed it. What do masses (illiterate or not, especially illiterate ones - it’s practically like dealing with kids) respond to better - affection or fear. Obviously fear. Affection doesn’t ensure their predictable behavior as much as fear would. Predictable behavior means increased social order while affection could easily mean chaos. Imagine one being in love and then feeling all of a sudden betrayed (whether such perception is logically justified or not and we all know how logical is love why is another reason it is a big NO-NO). Now, imagine illiterate masses with such feelings - in unison). The only remaining reason why such rulers would claim decent from Gods is to equate themselves (at least in some ways) with Gods and control masses through means of fear (even Abrahamic tradition is primarily based on this - fear from Hell and fear from God). Make no mistake, the only reason there is even need for religion is fear.
Prussia1231
No one is proposing lack of religion. I am proposing eliminating un-needed fairy tales. Also if the main concern is morality let me assure you that abrahamic morality has been greatly influenced also by the teachings of 'true (3) prophets' of philosophy. Philosophy is very simple when it comes to morals. The right path is the mean or medium (or in between two corresponding extremes, such as in between deficiency and excess). Easy to grasp formula and happens to work more then any other one by far. And, yes every reaction creates opposite reaction. Let’s take that into account shall we. Mean for a human is to be himself and regard himself as self sufficient (meaning not placing others above his own worth regarding as a being). Fear within him will cause at least some spirituality (especially in more intellectually primordial forms of humans such as illiterate masses). Same fear will also cause him to be at least somewhat superstitious. So far we are within the mean. Excess is going in one extreme where all of a sudden there is a organized religion and holy books. Now this is action. Reaction or deficiency is atheism or belief that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever whether spiritually or regarding superstition.
Also, European free spirit doesn't need any non-European dogma. Europeans are product of thousands of Years of unique evolution and cultural influences as are any given population as is their culture. Now, introducing abrahamic dogma (which is really a reflection of Semitic culture from a given time frame) into an alien environment will course such alien influence to mutate into more acceptable forms for locals (hence the reason Christianity has been mutating since in entered Europe). It’s like a body rejecting a transplant that is not suited for it. Today’s Europe is drastically different from Europe of middle ages and the reason - continuous and gradual distancing from abrahamic dogma which is a natural process (which is also occurring and has been occurring in traditionally Islamic cultures such as Iran, Turkey, Central Asia and of course in fully European ones like Bosnia and Albania such change was the most noticeable as well as in much of Turkey.)
BibleRiot
I am by no means proposing full elimination of abrahamic dogma as much as full blown marginalization of it especially within the western world first. Reason, I see it as an obstacle to reason-based western world that is gradually engulfing the globe. The dogma and scientific age do not complement. Christianity might have had its day with us but I firmly believe that such days are gone and passed and its primary place should and will (most likely) be is the museums, in classes of theology and isolated religious and long forgotten religious objects rather then anywhere else. For one to move ahead that one has to regard whether there is anything that is slowing down the advance. Abrahamic dogma is certainly not accelerating it, on the contrary is has been trying to stop or corrupt science for its own benefit. The dogma is not there for us but we are there for the dogma (which is also a profit based business as well as cultural 'guide'). In my view modern Europe owes nothing to Christianity, nothing positive that is. All the scientific western advancements occurred IN SPITE of Christianity (and in spite of Christianity's blown opposition) and French Revolution was there to practically fully cement the hold of reason over the western world and fully marginalize dogma. Next logical step is in the era of continuously increased scientific hold over the society is to focus on dogma itself and find a suitable replacement. Modern scientific era and full blown dogma do not correlate in any manner, in any matter positive that is.
iapetus72
Ares has no part in this thread whatsoever. In fact he is the worse possible Greek God to bring in here since he is furthermost from reason. Ares has no connection with the subject. The subject is philosophy. I am afraid you are missing the point all together. Therefore either contribute to the subject at hand or stop posting irrelevant fairy tales here. Also, let’s show less emotion in this thread and far more reasoning. Thank you.
PS: Thanks to all who participated and I want to see more responses from whoever wants to participate under the IPT rules. Let’s bring the ancient reasoning back to life in threads like this. Let’s surprise ourselves. Proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:11:21 GMT -5
iapetus72 (1/7/06 2:28 am)" Look at the big picture which is not necessarily Ares, but there is a religion for all people, which is a philosophical question within itself. Philosophy being a question within a question. Ares is a magnificent case study." ______________ AAdmin (1/7/06 6:01 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!I actually read what you posted before it was edited and decided to respond later on, which is now. I am not a spiteful person and I understand that at times people are driven by emotions and accordingly respond. I will not even respond to personal remarks since as I said this is an intellectual thread and I will ignore primordial balkanoid emotion-based responses which are well bellow the standards of this IPT thread. It is simple, the thread is about philosophy and reasoning. "In Greek mythology, Ares ("battle strife"), is the god of war and before battle people worshiped him. The Romans identified Mars, the god of war (whom they had inherited from the Etruscans) with Hellenic Ares, but among them, Mars stood in much higher esteem. Among the Hellenes, Ares was always mistrusted: His birthplace and true home was placed afar off, among the barbarous and warlike Thracians (Iliad xiii.301; Odyssey viii.361; Ovid)." >> link
Ares is a God of war. War is anything but about reasoning. What I mean by that is that during the war people are not overly reasonable, on the contrary. In fact the most senseless acts are committed during the wars when people can resort to their primordial caveman self and can turn to coldblooded killers. In a war the hate is widespread (which is extreme emotional based response and emotion is not about reasoning, in fact two can be classified in opposite camps). I came from a war town country and I have seen what war does to peoples mindset. It basically turns them (at least temporarily) into mad or semi-mad individuals who are full of hate and who are fully guided by 'halo-effect' (tunnel vision) which either makes them see something in an all positive light or in an all negative light. Again War has nothing to do with this thread since I fail to see in what way is reasoning involved when war occurs. If anything, war is failure to reason. Thus opposites.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:13:21 GMT -5
Anittas (1/7/06 9:13 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!I don't think that Ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamian states tried to control the population with the means of fear. Religion at that time was much more like a contract between humans and gods: sacrifice and worship in exchange for favors. Everyone was pretty much free to worship whatever they wanted. Sumerians didn't believe in an afterlife, nor did they believe that the main gods cared about what they had to say; so instead of praying directly to them, they prayed to minor gods, instead, which in turn would ask the greater gods for favors. Egyptians believed in an afterlife which was reserved only for some. I'm sure that those religions were incentive, but not in the way you portrait them to be. People were not persecuted for not worshiping a certain god. Quote: False. Organized religion is against human nature and especially against free spirited European nature for it restricts though and creates dogma the very things modern secular Europe is against. Sure, but the person you quoted said nothing about organized religion. They just said that "since the beginning of human history religion was a big part of the lives of the people." And wars are not all based on emotions. Most wars are simply started for economical interests, which would then give them a logic. So Aadmin, since you like philosophy so much; what have you been reading lately? BR: you are doing another of your recursive arguments. You've been saying all of that stuff before.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:16:18 GMT -5
iapetus72 (1/7/06 9:52 am)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
Why do you get the notion that because I am mentioning "war" that it entails emotion?
What makes you think that I am not posting about peace? Moreover, what makes you think that I am not talking about laws and justice.?
What makes you think you should judge a book by its cover?
You have the wrong information, if you get my gist this is not about Ares per se in fact it is not about Ares at all, this is about being able to live according to ones conscience and having the freedom to see oneself according to who you are. Why?
Because you are asking a question about ethics, morality, moral philosophy and moral repugnance. You are trying to establish a doctrine of what philosophy is and how to discuss it, which in itself is a dogma.
You have not the slightest clue, because in a deep philosophical discussion, philosophy ALWAYS tends to lead to a religious discussion
Then we go to my Ares, because he was the best of all gods...why? Not because he is the god of war and I like war... because he is the most honest, upfront and sincere. This has nothing to do with emotion, it's a question of being surrounded with 100 mirrors and one of the reflections in those mirrors is the real matter. In other words you would not have a clue who that person is, because it tries to shade its personality. Then you have another who has no mirrors but an ugly book cover that no one bothered to read the story apart from second guessing what the story is from a visual look at the cover. In other words, no matter who the person is, you will only glean some 5% of the information. Why do couples that live together for 50 years divorce...because 1/ the religion is flawed 2/ the philosophy is flawed..because no one has the faintest idea how to discuss metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and logic.
You are not discussing philosophy, you are trying to discuss a social science. A mere assumption about ethical underpinnings of human behavior. To discuss about these matters, you need to understand the anthropology because of the complexities involved in relating one culture to another, economics because of its role in the distribution of scarce resources, political science because of its role in allocating power, sociology because of its roots in the dynamics of groups, law because of its role in codifying ethical constructs like mercy and punishment, criminology because of its role in rewarding ethical behavior and discouraging unethical behavior, and psychology because of its role in defining, understanding, and treating unethical behavior.
Now we shall move on to ethics and my final point!
ETHICS - many persons and situations, notably traditional religionists and lawyers, find this approach either against accepted religious doctrine or impractical because it does not conform to existing laws and court decisions. Casuistry is a completely different form of applied ethics that is widely used in these cases and by these groups. Casuists compare moral dilemmas to well established cases (sometimes called paradigms). The well-established methods for coping with the well-established cases are then adapted to the case at hand.
The special virtue of casuistry over applied moral theory is that groups and individuals often disagree about theories, but may nonetheless have remarkably similar paradigms. Thus, they may be able to achieve substantial social agreement about actions, even though their theories are incompatible. This may be why casuistry is the foundation of many legal systems.
The ethical problems attacked by applied ethicists (of whatever sort) often bear directly on public policy. For example, the following would be questions of applied ethics: "Is getting an abortion ever moral?"; "Is euthanasia ever moral?"; "What are the ethical underpinnings of affirmative action policies?"; "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?"; "Do animals have rights?"
Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and practice of arbitration – in fact no common assumptions of all participants – so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing.
But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example: Is lying always wrong? If not, when is it permissible? The ability to make these ethical judgments is prior to any etiquette.
Bottom line is, Ares is not irrelevant... it is totally relevant.Not only Ares, but take a glass of water and that too is relevant. But you have no idea...hence to approach me in that manner shows me that you are just as dogmatic as the next person. Philosophy and religion goes hand in hand.
We have already seen it with Socrates in the Euthyphro; where he puts forward the notion of holiness/piety as a form of commerce: giving the gods gifts, and asking favors of them in turn. Socrates presses Euthyphro to state what benefit the gods get from the gifts humans give to them. Euthyphro replies that they are not that sort of gift at all, but rather 'honor, esteem and gratitude'. In other words, as the young man admits, holiness/piety is intimately bound up with what the gods approve of. The discussion has come full circle; Euthyphro rushes off to another engagement, and Socrates faces a charge of unholiness/unpiety!
What followed?
The Apology!
The charges against him against him were typical of the charges against the the "sophists". Socrates was wrongly associated with the sophists. It is noteworthy that a sophist is, literally, a "wise person". Socrates will never claim to be wise, but only to be able to love wisdom (philosophy).
Do you know, who these sophists where?
One one side you had these men that held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge. Their philosophy contains criticism of religion, law and ethics. Though many sophists were as religious as their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views.
On the other hand....they were merely showponys! They had absolute no interest in the "truth" other that using "sophistry" which is a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical validity of the statements being made.
Got it?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:17:36 GMT -5
Kubrat (1/7/06 11:07 am)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
religion is for the weak, it also allows the masses a sense of unity. if something bad happens, it is God's will,if something good happens, it is God's will....hence giving the people a reason for things that happen, and not allowing them to take responsibility for their actions.
to a certain extend, religious people are practically sheep following a black sheep...or you can say, another sheep wearing a lion's skin
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:18:41 GMT -5
iapetus72 (1/7/06 12:24 pm)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
Religion is not for the weak. Never was never will be...
Philosophy always leads to religion. But there is a different religion that suits the individual to live freely according to his or her conscience. It all comes down to the deity that best suits your personality. If you're good at something, let it define you. I like going from one extreme to another, whether it's sport or whatever, because I do not like nor accept mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:20:34 GMT -5
Anittas (1/7/06 2:54 pm)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
Philosophy always leads to existential questions and that involves religion; but that doesn't mean that philosophy condones religion. It merely examines it. Are you suggesting that you would start worship Ares simply because you find him cool? What about believing in his existence? Do you believe in him?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:23:02 GMT -5
BibleRiot(1/7/06 9:00 pm) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!Next logical step is. to find a suitable replacement AAdmin, while I agree with you that the religious obscurantism that still afflicts America has no place in the modern world, I think that the the real problem is that freedom is hard to bear. Although Kant was a devout Christian he felt it very important to derive his system of ethics from human realities and logical deductions, not from the divine. Whether he succeeded or not is another debate, but most modern ethics is either deontological in a Kantian sense, or utilitarian. And yet many modern philosophers will still argue, like David Hume, (to whom Kant’s work is in some sense a response) that one cannot derive an ‘ought’ statement from an ‘is’ statement (and vice-versa). Anthropology, psychological studies, even games theory all suggest that hatred of lying and broad altruism have some real biological basis, but it is still very difficult to move from that to a rational basis for law – a concept of natural justice. If our code for living does not come from God, what is its foundation? How are we to respond to Thrasymachus?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:24:27 GMT -5
iapetus72 (1/8/06 12:40 am)
Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!
I think Ares is a mere representation, it may not exist in matter but it exists none the less. There is a bit of Ares in everyone. There is also a bit of Apollo, Athena, Hephaestus, Prometheus, Hercules, Oceanus, Atlas etc in everyone too.
There are literally hundreds of minor deities.... we probably have experienced all these "representations" at some stage in our lives. However, as an example, you are weighted more towards a deity depending on your personality whether it is sky, water or earth based. It could be Triton, Eos, Achilles, Priam etc..
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:26:43 GMT -5
Prussia1231 (1/8/06 2:40 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!"Although Einstein was a spiritual person he rejected the idea of an anthropomorphic God or one who interferes in the lives of mortals." I follow his lead so to speak. I do not see a world where God does everything but rather a world where events were set in motion by God who withdrew to his domain. I believe that when things happen they have a purpose that is above human understanding, more or less divine in nature, however the hand of God is not everywhere at all times. More or less like when you knock over the first domino, the others continue to fall without your hand being needed. The difference is that I am a Christian so events some 2012-1982 years ago are hard to explain away. Unfortunately there isn't time travel available to definitively answer the questions once and for all. It would make things a whole lot easier, regardless of what would be uncovered. "I am proposing eliminating un-needed fairy tales." So do I for the most part. Whenever a logical explanation comes up, it should replace the tale or at the very least be listed as the most probably actual event. "Also, European free spirit doesn't need any non-European dogma. Europeans are product of thousands of Years of unique evolution and cultural influences as are any given population as is their culture." The problem is that so much of the dogma shaped the history of Europe, especially Catholic Europe. They are intertwined in the past and even in the very fabric of the present culture. "Religion is not for the weak. Never was never will be..." It depends on how seriously you take it and with how much fervor you put into it. It is for the week in the case of those who refuse to modernize (Amish and such) as well as the backwards deep south of the US. On the other hand if you factor in science and logic whenever possible and take it lightly but seriously it's more of a strength. "Philosophy always leads to religion." Iapetus makes sense! Despite our great differences we agree on that point. The very reason why Christianity was able to spread so rapidly throughout the ancient world had to do with both the path of philosophy and the general feeling by the masses that it failed to explain everything. Furthermore they were fed up with the childish behavior of the Greek and later Roman versions of the Greek deities. "I agree with you that the religious obscurantism that still afflicts America has no place in the modern world" The strange thing is that despite being born and raised in the US, I have yet to meet a religious maniac. Perhaps it is simply a southern (southern Baptist with their 13th century zeal) and southwest (Mormon) phenomena, however it does not grip the entire nation. The main churches around where I live are Protestant and scientific (not going against science with regards to DNA and so all, rather including it in their sermons). Granted I seem to live in an unusual region of the US, both religiously and politically but still. You just have over powerful religious groups dominating regions like with the unions in Italy. In both respects you have people thinking that they are in the right causing their nations much harm. I won't deny that the US is a screwed up country, just more in the consciousness of the average person and their political beliefs (this is regardless of political parties, most people in the US have a superiority complex and refuse to focus on the rest of the world because of that).
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 29, 2007 3:28:41 GMT -5
iapetus72(1/8/06 3:53 am) Re: Philosophy as the only true religion!The very reason why Christianity was able to spread so rapidly throughout the ancient world had to do with both the path of philosophy and the general feeling by the masses that it failed to explain everything. Furthermore they were fed up with the childish behavior of the Greek and later Roman versions of the Greek deities. I am unsure if you are aware, but that statement is false. Greeks were brutally converted to a foreign religion, it wasn't done of choice it was forced conversion. Christianity is alien to the Greeks. Read the following. www.wcer.org/members/europe/Greece/persec.htmGreeks are natural pagans. The whole Greek establishment are closet pagans.
|
|