A more complete view on my religious views

[dtq123]

I am a "rational pragmatist", my idols are Nietzsche, Foucault and Machiavelli. (Summary/ TL;DR @ Bottom)


Based on Nietzsche I am able to see that, though God may be dead in his world; in the life of the typical American, God is very much alive and controlling.

God is a double edged sword:

On one hand, (I frankly do believe that) Without God, Morality would not develop into what it is now. Just as creatures grow and lose parts for functions, we grew religion in order to find a sense of community and ethics. Yet now we as we streamline our power as a species, we need to sever our ties with religion as it has become burdensome.

On the other hand, As I have said religion is burdensome now that we have developed other support structures for morality. When the more advanced structures are interfered with by tradition, morality shifts gears and goes in reverse, and is only pushed back forward by more moral structures of experience and knowledge.

We owe a lot to religion, especially making great art that even I can enjoy, and giving the best stories that can be used to teach morals. However, we need to use both the subjective, and objective gaze to divorce our relationship with religion.

As I have said above, God is not Dead in America, as is evident by the culture of prayer and shrines in homes. It however is fading by each day. In 1863, slaves were freed. In 1920, Women gained the right to vote. Right now, June 2015, Gay Marriage was legalized. Soon religion itself is going away.


However, as Foucault demonstrates, somethings that were considered primitive in nature can teach us lessons if we understand why they were such.

For instance, Many Christians want a sense of community and tradition, and are deeply saddened when this is destroyed by secular laws. In order to gain the sway of influence over them, we have to promise more community and a greater heritage than before. Should one forget this, they will fall into a "Depressed Atheism."

Where people see no community, breeds depression. Where people see no meaning, begets death to them. In order to overturn religion, we need to create a new community where we can be supportive of each other, like this one for instance, in order to maintain the sanity of people.

We can also use what made religion so successful, (the art, the stories, the sereneness, the consolations, and the forgiveness,) in order to help us build a better society. Note that the traits above are inherent of religion, especially Christianity, but religion does not own these traits. Thus we can build a "new religion of objectivity" that creates art, stories, and love for each other.


In order to do this, as Machiavelli has shown, is to use cunning and at times coercion in order to climb to the top and sever the ties with religion. As the world is now, one of the primary leaders are the religious, guiding our actions for better or for worse.

We must use the crumbling structure of religion to gain power, using PR's and a friendly guise in order to do so. Atheist leaders may have to even feign ignorance or apathy toward our true goals which forces us to suppress who we are, but in exchange gain greater access and manipulation over religion.



(Summary/ TL;DR)

Nietzsche shows me that religion had good use, but those uses have not been sufficient for allowing it to live.

Foucault shows me that religion can still be of use, if we understand what made it successful.

Machiavelli shows me that religion should be used as good PR to gain power and ultimately end religion.

[Solitary]

Machiavelli, Bushes hero?  Religion is definitely pragmatic, and why it won't go away. I honestly don't agree that religion is why we are moral. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic, Hindu, modern Buddhism schools, have done everything in the past, and now, to under mind what being truly moral is with their dogmas and shall not's. Is sex really wrong for enjoyment, is nudity really wrong, is being gay or lesbian really wrong, is being a so-called coward who doesn't want to kill or be killed wrong, is not wanting kids, or a family really wrong, is being a free spirit or thinker really wrong, is having a drink or smoking pot for recreation responsibly really wrong etc.? Society gives too much credit to religion for moral behavior that forgives transgressions and saying their all powerful God forgives them. Their absolute right and wrong thinking, and morality, is ridiculous in so many ways. Examples: Thou shall not kill!  Thou shall not masturbate! Thou shall not disrespect authority! Thou shall turn the other cheek! Being poor is noble! Nietzsche was correct, Christianity is for sheep, not humans.


     

[dtq123]

Machiavelli, Bushes hero?

Yep, Bush was pretty smart, just enough to get into office though.

I honestly don't agree that religion is why we are moral.

Oh well, It's no mistaking it's a part though. Where would we be without the strict authoritative measures of Christianity and Islam. They created order, just a shitty one mind you, but and order. Now we add some sense to that.

Nietzsche was correct, Christianity is for sheep, not humans.

What about the art? The calmness? Sure we can take charge, but we also need a refuge once every while

[Solitary]

You forgot the music. Are you saying you can't have great art without religion? Bush was an idiot with connections, just like Sarah. How smart does one have to be to listen to Cheney for advice that  got the best that America has to offer killed based on a lie? Religion is not a part of morality accept their own BS. Calmness? Ever try meditation, or smoke pot? Did you know that the painter of the cysteine Chapel ceiling was not only an atheist, but gay. The inquisitions and Holy wars are hardly an example of morality. Machiavelli is also a poor example of moral thinking. Right, Saddam wielded an iron fist and kept order too by killing innocent people like Bush and his cronies did, are we suppose to use him for an example of being moral? Sheep and cattle led to slaughter are kept in order too by their overlords. Are the people in ISIS being controlled and in order? You know they are, just like rabid dogs of war.   

[aitm]

Oh well, It's no mistaking it's a part though. Where would we be without the strict authoritative measures of Christianity and Islam. They created order, just a shitty one mind you, but and order. Now we add some sense to that.

Though I understand what you are trying to say, religion didn't do anything except to allow for PEOPLE to have strict authoritative measures. PEOPLE invented religions for their use. Religions are not something outside of mankind's imagination. And as to where would be we be without those measures? I dare say a whole lot further along. While we can spend days listing the scientific inquiries that religion fought to stop, I think we would have trouble finding scientific inquiries that religion pushed other than anything to do with killing.

[dtq123]

You forgot the music. Are you saying you can't have great art without religion?

It inspires people to stay in it, that's my point. We need to use art to our advantage.

Bush was an idiot with connections, just like Sarah. 

A-...Nope, point taken.

Calmness? Ever try meditation, or smoke pot?   

Extroverts can't meditate well, and marijuana can cause damage to the body. We need a community outside of religion.

The inquisitions and Holy wars are hardly an example of morality.   

A-...Point taken... Again

Machiavelli is also a poor example of moral thinking.

He does teach us the power of coercion, and we should exercise it when need, especially using the law to our advantage.

Religions are not something outside of mankind's imagination.

Religious followers are the embodiment of religion.

And as to where would be we be without those measures? I dare say a whole lot further along.

At what cost though? Philosophy to most people is dull, so an easy way to find guidance in life was religion. Thus we need ways to develop philosophical thinking that gives people a way to give their life meaning.



I'm trying to give credit where it is due, and be solution oriented. And I think I've said it somewhere before, I'm not exactly rational.

[aitm]

Yes followers are the embodiment of religion, but what does that have to do with religion not being outside of mankind's imagination, it actually makes my point.

At what cost? I don't understand the question. How can we assume that history would have us being worse off without religion? Consider that prior to merely the last 50 years, nearly every religion had no problem and mostly backed "military" actions against other religions and sects. Hell, the vast majority of wars were fought "in the name of" religion, but certainly not because of religion.

I would think we would declare without hesitation that humanity would be better off without religion, but lets see how the arguments go, I am interested in the speculative nature of what humanity would be like without religion back in the 800's or so.

[dtq123]

Yes followers are the embodiment of religion, but what does that have to do with religion not being outside of mankind's imagination, it actually makes my point.

At what cost? I don't understand the question. How can we assume that history would have us being worse off without religion? Consider that prior to merely the last 50 years, nearly every religion had no problem and mostly backed "military" actions against other religions and sects. Hell, the vast majority of wars were fought "in the name of" religion, but certainly not because of religion.

I would think we would declare without hesitation that humanity would be better off without religion, but lets see how the arguments go, I am interested in the speculative nature of what humanity would be like without religion back in the 800's or so.

Let's draw the line right here. I'm not in the mood for fist fights now *Yawn*

[aitm]

I'm not in the mood for fist fights now

really? You got fist fights from an invitation to discuss how humanity may have progressed without religion? Wow….*makes note not to comment about dt's font*.

[dtq123]

really? You got fist fights from an invitation to discuss how humanity may have progressed without religion? Wow….*makes note not to comment about dt's font*.

I just feel irrational at times and don't want to explain, you know? At least I admit it...

[aitm]

Fair enough. You should seriously reconsider posting threads then eh?

[Mike Cl]

Religious followers are the embodiment of religion.

Not really sure what you mean.  But I would add that the real damage is by the hierarchy of each religion.  It is that element that wants control, gets it and then fights to maintain it.  They espouse the tenants of the religion they espouse, but do not let those ideas or ideals control their actions.  Maintaining control is what it  is about--and they will do anything to keep it.  The sheeple just go along with whatever the leaders tell them.  That's what causes the damage.  I think you will find that those religions that has less of a rigid hierarchy the less dangerous they are.

[dtq123]

Fair enough. You should seriously reconsider posting threads then eh?

This was more of a FYI post, I didn't expect much.

[Baruch]

dtq123 ... thanks for sharing.  You have a substantial and developed view.  I certainly have a soft spot myself for Nietzsche and Machiavelli ... though I am not as knowledgable about Foucault.  I think this might have been better in one of the General sections rather than the Intro section.  Also shame on most of you responding ... this wasn't an opportunity to quibble with dtq123 .. but to exposit your own "more complete view".

Mike CL ... "Religious followers are the embodiment of religion." is exactly where I am coming from.  This proposition was defended in different terms by dtq123 and aitm.  Your concern is about clergy in general and politicians who use religion for nefarious purposes ... you oppose authoritarianism ... and I agree.

[aitm]

Also shame on most of you responding ... this wasn't an opportunity to quibble with dtq123 .

I am sorry, maybe we should have a section where you are expected to post threads and no one is allowed to respond….what the fuck, is this kindergarten?

Maybe you skipped the part where I thought this would be a fun opportunity to discuss what we think humanity would look like without religion.

I would think we would declare without hesitation that humanity would be better off without religion, but lets see how the arguments go, I am interested in the speculative nature of what humanity would be like without religion back in the 800's or so.

Don't get so caught up in the shit in your own underwear that you think other people are trying to steal them….sheesh.