Religion has no place in politics!

[Oleg Bach]

I agree, which is why blindly using "common sense" as any sort of ethical determinant on any scale outside of what is meant by "common" can end up being a nasty trap. I see common sense having its primary use within smaller social or culture groups, but I am very wary of anyone who spouts on about "common sense" outside of the scope of that particular and limited group. Almost as if "common sense" is thought to be transcendent when all it does is limit ones view in the face of social and cultural complexities. That seems like kind of a delusion to me.

Yep. And the problem becomes more accute when mere "common sense" is dressed up and repackaged as rationalism, or worse, democracy. Which is one of the reasons why religion in politics is so insidious and almost impossible to root out since many people get their "common sense" from their religion.

I mean, even 100 years later, the populus is still is not ready for Nietzsche.

Nietzshe is just a laundered version of Herman Gering..an idiot. MONEY is the state religion...it is a coersive religion that controls food and shelter and personal freedom. How do you seperate money from politics? Money and state should not be combined but kept seperate. Those in politics should not have control over the state religion - leave that to the bankers - bankers are money people - poiticans are not.

[WIP]

Yep. And the problem becomes more accute when mere "common sense" is dressed up and repackaged as rationalism, or worse, democracy. Which is one of the reasons why religion in politics is so insidious and almost impossible to root out since many people get their "common sense" from their religion.

I don't think trying to "root out" religious influence would be a good idea even if possible. That would just create some sort of secular dogma that everyone has to follow. If a politician gets their moral values and political philosophy from their religious background, that's fine as long as they can justify their ideas with evidence available for everyone to examine.

I mean, even 100 years later, the populus is still is not ready for Nietzsche.

Me neither!

[Shwa]

I don't think trying to "root out" religious influence would be a good idea even if possible. That would just create some sort of secular dogma that everyone has to follow. If a politician gets their moral values and political philosophy from their religious background, that's fine as long as they can justify their ideas with evidence available for everyone to examine.

By 'secular dogma,' do you mean something along the lines of scientism?

[Oleg Bach]

I think for there for I am - thinking something does not make it manifest into reality...I "think" that the deceased Marylin Munroe is going to rise from the grave and kiss me ---it is not going to happen - God can think something and it will manifest - some cheeze ball atheist "great thinker" can think all he wants and in the end it is irrelevant - other than an entertaining amusement for the wandering minds of acedemics.

[bloodyminded]

I think for there for I am - thinking something does not make it manifest into reality...I "think" that the deceased Marylin Munroe is going to rise from the grave and kiss me ---it is not going to happen - God can think something and it will manifest - some cheeze ball atheist "great thinker" can think all he wants and in the end it is irrelevant - other than an entertaining amusement for the wandering minds of acedemics.

Don't be too hard on atheists...we're awesome, mostly!

[Shwa]

I think for there for I am - thinking something does not make it manifest into reality...I "think" that the deceased Marylin Munroe is going to rise from the grave and kiss me ---it is not going to happen - God can think something and it will manifest - some cheeze ball atheist "great thinker" can think all he wants and in the end it is irrelevant - other than an entertaining amusement for the wandering minds of acedemics.

You see? Oleg knows Nietzsche! Life is indeed tragic.

But Oleg, are you sure you were not before you thought you were?

[ToadBrother]

Nietzshe is just a laundered version of Herman Gering..an idiot.

The only idiot here is you. Goering was seven years old when Nietzsche died.

[bloodyminded]

The only idiot here is you. Goering was seven years old when Nietzsche died.

Doesn't matter. Even the fact that there was no such things as Nazis doesn't matter. Nietzsche is responsible for the Third Reich; Marx is responsible for Stalin; and I suppose Jesus is responsible for Focus on the Family.

[Oleg Bach]

You see? Oleg knows Nietzsche! Life is indeed tragic.

But Oleg, are you sure you were not before you thought you were?

I thought but I was not the thought I thought. Was thinking something esle all together differnt than that..It is tragic when lowly old Oleg knows the key Nietzche phrase - just goes to show you the thousands you all spent on higher education was a waste...you came out of the institution not thinking anything - there for you are not here.

[Shwa]

I thought but I was not the thought I thought. Was thinking something esle all together differnt than that..It is tragic when lowly old Oleg knows the key Nietzche phrase - just goes to show you the thousands you all spent on higher education was a waste...you came out of the institution not thinking anything - there for you are not here.

No I was referring to your somewhat tragic outlook on things. Or at least a recognition of the Tragic.

'I think therefore I am' - 'Je pense donc je suis' - 'Cogito ergo sum' is actually Descartes, not Nietzsche.

[Oleg Bach]

No I was referring to your somewhat tragic outlook on things. Or at least a recognition of the Tragic.

'I think therefore I am' - 'Je pense donc je suis' - 'Cogito ergo sum' is actually Descartes, not Nietzsche.

It is not a particular mood that effects me- it is a strong sense of self and social awareness- I believe what really changed me were the five years in the court system- I traveled from the bottom to the top of this shit heap..and I saw no honour - no justice and deception under the guise of social benevolence was a tragic trend..also - not to have reached full human and spiritual potential is dis-heartening..they say that we are in control of our destiny and the ultimate outcome of your existance..

ONCE you fully understand the very complex system that humaity has created you will understand that it is ALMOST a hopeless and useless endevour to attempt to better the world through your gifts...Like angels we are all messengers (carriers of gifts) but we are thwarted and all the power that evil (supidity) has collectively creates an environment that dispises the ant in the ant hill that can see--they hate the ant but need that ant to survive...it is a sad and lonely position - yes it is tragic.

[Oleg Bach]

Futhermore - once in a while when I am pensive - a deep sorrow passes over and through me..never do I give it much thought - it is kind of a bitter sweet sadness - It is probably the quiet relization that humaity could be so much better - that they have great angelic qualities but they are cowards who do not have the will to toss aside the chains of oppression - that the most cruel rise to the top and rule - and they take great glee and satisfaciton in "winning" what they percieve is a competion..Power struggles can be very subtle.

Having had an on going dialogue with my nemisis...it became apparent that the suffering of others brought this person joy...to me that way of thinking is the product of an inferiour mind..but some how we are ruled by our inferiours - and that brings about a certain hoplessness that the worst rule and the good are slowly caused to parish - it might just be the way of the world - But as I view nature and the beauty that does exist in humanity _ I believe that this is a heaven - The most important line in ancient writing I recall is this "There are violent men that wish to take heaven by force" -

Which led me to believe and understand that there are men in heaven - and heaven is here - the greatest deception through religion is the idea that our reward comes when we die - this is bullshit - we are robbed of our lives and of our heaven by liars..yet we continue to believe in those that torment and degrade the world through violence - not just physical but mental - emotional and spriritual - Just because a person does not show violence outwardly - and appears to be civilized and good does not mean there is not a war raging against his fellows in his heart and mind - these men rule the world.

[Shwa]

...it became apparent that the suffering of others brought this person joy...to me that way of thinking is the product of an inferiour mind..but some how we are ruled by our inferiours - and that brings about a certain hoplessness that the worst rule and the good are slowly caused to parish - it might just be the way of the world...

This also occurred to Nietzsche and he called it the 'Transvaluation of Values.'

The key here, other than he was writing from the perspective of a 19th century European, is that if you can recognize this transvaluation of values, then you are a step closer to being able to shake it off and go beyond the fetters of language constructed to keep you in bondage.

[Oleg Bach]

This also occurred to Nietzsche and he called it the 'Transvaluation of Values.'

The key here, other than he was writing from the perspective of a 19th century European, is that if you can recognize this transvaluation of values, then you are a step closer to being able to shake it off and go beyond the fetters of language constructed to keep you in bondage.

That's freedom..and in a world of slavery - being free and cutting yourself from the herd is allienating..and lonely - but someone has to do it - I believe like all enlightenment - once you go into the light there is no going back...when I look at video footage of myself from 15 years ago - it is another person - a person who was unaware - but was I more happy being stupid? Not really _ I am now capable of greater joy..more intense happiness..when I decide on it - it becomes a choice - just like death..with birth there is no choice - to lose your health and persish is the forfeiture of human resolve...people can live as long as they want - bad habits included - Yet there are those who stress out other and incrimentally murder them - these are to be laughed at..power mongers with no clue on what power is or how to use it if attained.

[Shwa]

That's freedom..and in a world of slavery - being free and cutting yourself from the herd is allienating..and lonely - but someone has to do it - I believe like all enlightenment - once you go into the light there is no going back...when I look at video footage of myself from 15 years ago - it is another person - a person who was unaware - but was I more happy being stupid? Not really _ I am now capable of greater joy..more intense happiness..when I decide on it - it becomes a choice - just like death..with birth there is no choice - to lose your health and persish is the forfeiture of human resolve...people can live as long as they want - bad habits included - Yet there are those who stress out other and incrimentally murder them - these are to be laughed at..power mongers with no clue on what power is or how to use it if attained.

But don't you see? You saying "world of slavery" is merely the fetters of language you have slipped yourself into. Being free is certainly not "cutting yourself from the herd" but actually joining it in a real and meaningful way.

[Oleg Bach]

But don't you see? You saying "world of slavery" is merely the fetters of language you have slipped yourself into. Being free is certainly not "cutting yourself from the herd" but actually joining it in a real and meaningful way.

Been an observer all my life..always was outside - even my grandfather "operated within the private sphere" - never liked team sports - did like track and field and efforts that were individual.. It is peculiar you say that - approaching 60 and still having the persona of an 18 year old the bureacrats I dealt with recently expect me to join the team - be forgiving of humanity and become a full contributing part of it...I guess when I tossed away the idea of going to university - I was never anti-education...but some how I was diverted _ in part it was the eloping with a young head strong heiress - that altered my path..now she is gone from this earth - and I have my life back - just feel that it all came to late and I simply ran out of time.

[Shwa]

Been an observer all my life..always was outside - even my grandfather "operated within the private sphere" - never liked team sports - did like track and field and efforts that were individual.. It is peculiar you say that - approaching 60 and still having the persona of an 18 year old the bureacrats I dealt with recently expect me to join the team - be forgiving of humanity and become a full contributing part of it...I guess when I tossed away the idea of going to university - I was never anti-education...but some how I was diverted _ in part it was the eloping with a young head strong heiress - that altered my path..now she is gone from this earth - and I have my life back - just feel that it all came to late and I simply ran out of time.

You have a 'history' so what? So does everyone else, it just proves you can remember. But can you forget? Here is a passage from Nietzsche's 'Uses and Abuses of History.' Enjoy the link too!

Observe the herd which is grazing beside you. It does not know what yesterday or today is. It springs around, eats, rests, digests, jumps up again, and so from morning to night and from day to day, with its likes and dislikes closely tied to the peg of the moment, and thus is neither melancholy nor weary. To witness this is difficult for man, because he boasts to himself that his human condition is better than the beast’s and yet looks with jealousy at its happiness. For he wishes only to live like the beast, neither weary with things nor in pain, and yet he wants it in vain, because he does not desire it as the animal does. One day the man demands of the beast: “Why do you not talk to me about your happiness and only gaze at me?” The beast wants to answer, too, and say: “That comes about because I always immediately forget what I wanted to say.” But by then the beast has already forgotten this reply and remains silent, so that the man keeps on wondering about it.

But he also wonders about himself, that he is not able to learn to forget and that he always hangs onto the past. No matter how far or how fast he may run, the chain runs with him. It is something amazing: the moment, in one sudden motion there, in one sudden motion gone, before nothing, afterwards nothing, nevertheless comes back again as a ghost and disturbs the tranquillity of a later moment. A leaf is continuously released from the roll of time, falls out, flutters away—and suddenly flutters back again into the man’s lap. For the man says, “I remember,” and envies the beast, which immediately forgets and sees each moment really perish, sink back in cloud and night, and vanish forever. In this way the beast lives unhistorically. For it goes into the present like a number without any odd fraction left over; it does not know how to play a part, hides nothing, and appears in each moment exactly and entirely what it is. Thus, a beast can be nothing other than honest. The human being, by contrast, braces himself against the large and ever-increasing burden of the past, which pushes him down or bows him over...

[GostHacked]

Doesn't matter. Even the fact that there was no such things as Nazis doesn't matter. Nietzsche is responsible for the Third Reich; Marx is responsible for Stalin; and I suppose Jesus is responsible for Focus on the Family.

I guess we can blame all the world's ills and woes on God. He wrote a book too apparently.

It's the interpretation of the book which is the problem. Hitler read a book and got an idea. Stalin read a book and got an idea.

[Oleg Bach]

I guess we can blame all the world's ills and woes on God. He wrote a book too apparently.

It's the interpretation of the book which is the problem. Hitler read a book and got an idea. Stalin read a book and got an idea.

The difference I find is when reading the book to find the truth - if it does not makes sense or lacks logic then it is always either stupidity or intentional and or mistaken deception...after studying for a few years - I put THE BOOK aside - took the cross referencing books and also put them aside - then I took the bundle and put it in the drawer - by 12o year old emytological dictionary - tossed it into the old wood stove - I always wanted to know the original meaning of words - to truely understand mans language - to avoid re-visionism for political and religious reasons - to clarify what was a lie or a mistake and what was not..in the end - the quest ended abruptly with a little voice inside that said - "The truth can only be found within you" _ that was it. FINDING LIES WAS EASY - The truth was more difficult.

Yes Hitler read a book and took it seriously - the Pope read a book and took it seriously - Stalin and common guys like Jack Layton and Harper took what they read seriously..all people take things seriously including themselves - You can not take mankinds creations seriously - they are imperfect...and that is what makes us human - total and absolute imperfection - to expect to much from humanity leads to disappointment - even my old wife said that was my problem - I am disappointed because I expect to much - now I expect nothing.

[WIP]

By 'secular dogma,' do you mean something along the lines of scientism?

It seems to be part of the new atheist thinking of people like Richard Dawkins, who believes that science and the scientific method are the only pathways to discovery and even finding meaning and purpose in life -- in his books, he describes a kind of Carl Sagan-type of spirituality of contemplating the universe to deal with these questions, and explain how he would replace religion. That may work for Richard Dawkins and the naturalist minority, but for the likely overwhelming majority of people who will not find naturalism fully satisfying, just getting them to accept naturalistic explanations where there is a conflict with a supernatural belief -- may be the best we can expect from them.

A little while back, Sam Harris gave a TED talk called "

", and although he says that a science of morality would presently need to be fleshed out, he seemed to imply that science can answer all moral questions. It's worth noting that the reason why atheistic ethical philosophers have refrained from attempting to create a scientific system of ethics that he wants to start, is because the last time great new scientific insights were adapted to create a moral system was over a hundred years ago when Herbert Spencer created Social Darwinism.....and that one didn't work out so well! You can easily see how to derive social darwinism if moral progress depends solely on evolutionary principles, and if the struggle for survival drives our natural evolution, then being the best equipped to survive is morally best. Long story short, although I am a naturalist, I think we have to reach for higher principles which may be a priori, and be considered arbitrary by some, since our circle of concern needs to be expanded beyond what's best for us, our families, and our nation.

[GostHacked]

It seems to be part of the new atheist thinking of people like Richard Dawkins, who believes that science and the scientific method are the only pathways to discovery and even finding meaning and purpose in life -- in his books, he describes a kind of Carl Sagan-type of spirituality of contemplating the universe to deal with these questions, and explain how he would replace religion. That may work for Richard Dawkins and the naturalist minority, but for the likely overwhelming majority of people who will not find naturalism fully satisfying, just getting them to accept naturalistic explanations where there is a conflict with a supernatural belief -- may be the best we can expect from them.

In terms of understanding how our universe and the how the physical world works, science is our best tool. Spirituality is something that cannot be described/analyzed by science, and is completely subjective to the viewer. Religion and spirituality to me should be personal and that's it. If it works for you, then keep with it.

[Bonam]

In a rational mind, there really should be no conflict between religion and science. Science is about describing the real, physical, world and the laws by which it operates. Faith is a completely different branch of the human intellect. There have been many great scientists that were still religious and believed in god, and they saw no conflict between the two in their minds.

Overt hostility to religion on the part of certain atheists is only counterproductive as it makes religious people feel like they are under attack by atheists who hold their religious beliefs in disdain. A rational atheist should not care what other people believe, it is their choice to do so.

If people are simply left alone to come to their own conclusions, the self-evident truth of a supernatural entity not having any impact on their daily lives will be apparent to most people. But if they are constantly on the defensive about their beliefs they will only grow more entrenched in them.

[dre]

In a rational mind, there really should be no conflict between religion and science. Science is about describing the real, physical, world and the laws by which it operates. Faith is a completely different branch of the human intellect. There have been many great scientists that were still religious and believed in god, and they saw no conflict between the two in their minds.

Overt hostility to religion on the part of certain atheists is only counterproductive as it makes religious people feel like they are under attack by atheists who hold their religious beliefs in disdain. A rational atheist should not care what other people believe, it is their choice to do so.

If people are simply left alone to come to their own conclusions, the self-evident truth of a supernatural entity not having any impact on their daily lives will be apparent to most people. But if they are constantly on the defensive about their beliefs they will only grow more entrenched in them.

Thats a good post.

I do have one comment... You mention relgion being under attack from atheists but I see it as the other way around. Its not the Christians are on the DEFENSIVE they are on the OFFENSIVE. When you have religious people trying to get books on evolution replaced by books on creationism, and creating fake pseudo sciences like intelligent design and trying to them taught in secular schools, and dont really see any choice for Atheists and even Christians that favor secular society to respond.

I dont see scientists demanding that churches teach evolution in church, I see elements of Christianity being on the offense and pushing that creationism gets taught in secular schools, and that evolution text books have little "unproven theory" stickers put on them.

[sharkman]

Atheism takes faith and is just another religion, as is politics.

[ToadBrother]

It seems to be part of the new atheist thinking of people like Richard Dawkins, who believes that science and the scientific method are the only pathways to discovery and even finding meaning and purpose in life -- in his books, he describes a kind of Carl Sagan-type of spirituality of contemplating the universe to deal with these questions, and explain how he would replace religion. That may work for Richard Dawkins and the naturalist minority, but for the likely overwhelming majority of people who will not find naturalism fully satisfying, just getting them to accept naturalistic explanations where there is a conflict with a supernatural belief -- may be the best we can expect from them.

I am no fan of Dawkins. His science is impeccable and he's certainly one of the major biological theorists of the last thirty or forty years, but he's found a new career as a polemicist, picking fights even with groups that in fact have no issue with science in general.

That being said, you can put it all down, but humanity has yet to develop a better methodological framework for gaining knowledge than science. Just because Dawkins can be a prick hardly impugns science. Science shouldn't be a religion, but neither can it simply be discounted.

A little while back, Sam Harris gave a TED talk called "

", and although he says that a science of morality would presently need to be fleshed out, he seemed to imply that science can answer all moral questions. It's worth noting that the reason why atheistic ethical philosophers have refrained from attempting to create a scientific system of ethics that he wants to start, is because the last time great new scientific insights were adapted to create a moral system was over a hundred years ago when Herbert Spencer created Social Darwinism.....and that one didn't work out so well! You can easily see how to derive social darwinism if moral progress depends solely on evolutionary principles, and if the struggle for survival drives our natural evolution, then being the best equipped to survive is morally best. Long story short, although I am a naturalist, I think we have to reach for higher principles which may be a priori, and be considered arbitrary by some, since our circle of concern needs to be expanded beyond what's best for us, our families, and our nation.

Other than the name, social darwinism shares virtually nothing in evolutionary theory. In fact, it like Nazi eugenics, denies one of Darwin's key points, namely variation is key to survival All the social darwinists, eugenicists and the like actively denied that, they believed absurd things like tainting of the species by letting weaker individuals breed. The key to success in any species isn't limiting the variation to keep the bad traits out, but having as much variation as possible, to ensure a greater likelihood of the species as a whole making it through. Look at endangered populations, there's a point at which a population's genetic diversity will drop so low that survivability becomes questionable. That's likely what happened to Neandertals, pushed to the margins of their old stalking grounds, and in the final days, literally pushed to the geographical brink on Gibraltar, they simply died out.

Winnowing down of potential traits good and bad does not make a stronger species, it in fact weakens it. This is a major reason for increasing genetic diversity, in everything from animals to crops. Monocultures can lead to disasters (the Irish Potato Famine and the American Chestnut come to mind as examples of how devastating that can be).

I find it really said that so many people like yourself make these accusations against Darwin's, when it's clear that you know nothing about it. Darwin's point on this matter was the complete and polar opposite of Social Darwinism. I suggest that, rather than listening to the crapola pushed out by those trying to impugn Darwin with movements that little or nothing to do with his theories. To one extent or another Social Darwinists like Spencer almost invoked a form of Lamarckism, which Darwin had taken some great effort to debunking.

Edited June 20, 2010 by ToadBrother