NationStates Jolt Archive

If i wanted something to bind my people together i wouldnt want it to be religion i would want it to be philosophy let ideas bind my people together not false beliefs

If i wanted something to bind my people together i wouldnt want it to be religion i would want it to be philosophy let ideas bind my people together not false beliefs

*blink*

This is relative to...?

to me of course

to me of course

So...

All religion = false

Philosophy = relative?

Religion is much more useful than mere philosophy. Heck, religion is a philosophy. But, one god ruling over all makes the people more obedient as it provides a why for the beliefs, it gives a purpose to live and it gives a reason to do things.

I am not saying that religious people only want to avoid hell, but instead people find it easier to obey a lord instead of an abstraction. Besides most abstract beliefs do not provide people with all of the comforts of a religion.

If i wanted something to bind my people together i wouldnt want it to be religion i would want it to be philosophy let ideas bind my people together not false beliefs
That's nice. I wouldn't want to bind my people together. Makes it real hard to stop the spread of disease.

Akrava, a link for you.

http://www.1-fitness.com/religions/

Be warned, it has a full-page pop-up.

Holyawesomeness said it, religions *are* philosophies. (Of course, everything else he said was wrong.) ;) just kidding!

Really, religion can claim a better basis for morality. Because pure logic does not describe most philosophies. All of them assume something, only religion has an assumption that is not half-assed, there is a reason for the morality. Most philosophies simply do not provide any reason to act in any way, no background for the morality that is less flimsy than a real religion, so why not go with the better deal? Religion is more useful for many things.

Holyawesomeness said it, religions *are* philosophies. (Of course, everything else he said was wrong.) ;) just kidding!
Well, do not mind me being wrong. It does happen a lot. :)

Really, religion can claim a better basis for morality. Because pure logic does not describe most philosophies. All of them assume something, only religion has an assumption that is not half-assed, there is a reason for the morality. Most philosophies simply do not provide any reason to act in any way, no background for the morality that is less flimsy than a real religion, so why not go with the better deal? Religion is more useful for many things.

You haven't read much philosophy, have you? Unless you are talking about post-modern drivel, most of philosophy is far more solidly grounded than any religion, because philosophy is based upon reason; whereas religion is based on the notion that despite the fact that the physical laws of the universe don't change, despite the fact that evil not only exists in the universe but flourishes, despite the fact that there doesn't seem to be any overarching purpose to any part of the universe or the whole of which the parts are comprised, there really is an All-powerful, All-knowing, All-Good God who loves us and provides us with a moral basis upon which we should live our lives. . .and if we don't, this same All-powerful, All-knowing, All-Good God will cast us into the fiery depths of hell.

This isn't an argument about whether God does or does not exist, but merely to point out that it is very hard to reconcile what you can empirically verify in the world with the stuff most religions say God should do about the world were we to carry his abilities to their logical conclusion. As such, it seems much harder to say that we should be moral because God says so than to, say, take a Socratic view and say that we should be moral because in the long term, moral living is the only kind of advantageous living, or the Kantian view that we should be moral because good intents are the only truly good things in the world and it is impossible to know whether actions will have good consequences or not, etc. Simply put, there are some really good arguments for a strongly absolutist moral stance that have nothing to do with God, and some very good arguments for why God wouldn't make a good foundation for morality.

mmm... binding. Super glue works pretty well, but that can get expensive if you have a high population. I'd say use the ol' college method and buy a ton of duct tape.

You haven't read much philosophy, have you? Unless you are talking about post-modern drivel, most of philosophy is far more solidly grounded than any religion, because philosophy is based upon reason; whereas religion is based on the notion that despite the fact that the physical laws of the universe don't change, despite the fact that evil not only exists in the universe but flourishes, despite the fact that there doesn't seem to be any overarching purpose to any part of the universe or the whole of which the parts are comprised, there really is an All-powerful, All-knowing, All-Good God who loves us and provides us with a moral basis upon which we should live our lives. . .and if we don't, this same All-powerful, All-knowing, All-Good God will cast us into the fiery depths of hell.

This isn't an argument about whether God does or does not exist, but merely to point out that it is very hard to reconcile what you can empirically verify in the world with the stuff most religions say God should do about the world were we to carry his abilities to their logical conclusion. As such, it seems much harder to say that we should be moral because God says so than to, say, take a Socratic view and say that we should be moral because in the long term, moral living is the only kind of advantageous living, or the Kantian view that we should be moral because good intents are the only truly good things in the world and it is impossible to know whether actions will have good consequences or not, etc. Simply put, there are some really good arguments for a strongly absolutist moral stance that have nothing to do with God, and some very good arguments for why God wouldn't make a good foundation for morality.
Most philosophy requires a presumption, something must be assumed in order to build on the vagueness of reality. An all powerful deity shows that we exist and that reality exists, it gives reasons for everything. It tells us why we are here, it gives purpose and destiny. I call philosophies half-assed because they are nothing. They focus on a simple aspect of life then make it all important and for no reason(they give reasons but other philosophers refute them and there is little purpose to many of their reasons). Most philosophies do not give purpose, they do not care about your destiny, they simply state this is good and that is bad, they do not help in your fate.

That is why I claim that philosophy is not solidly grounded, it does not provide what I want or need, it does not give anything and all reason is based on initial assumption, we assume many things about our world that can not be proven to be true(like in the Matrix) we can not say how we exist, why we exist or what the purpose for our existance is. I do not really care about life, life is nice and neat but really no crappy philosophy satisfies me, I know that they cannot satisfy me, I seek a long term plan and living for the sake of living is stupid because once you are dead it does not matter how you live unless there is some afterlife(no afterlife and it does not matter whether you killed people or were a great humanitarian). Some may claim that the insistance on an afterlife is foolish and primitive, I claim that they have blinders on the fact that life is inherently trivial and that man is a spiritual creature that often requires spiritual purpose and cannot rely on materialism alone without crippling himself.

I do have some knowledge of philosophy, I go out of my way to read the philosophy articles on wikipedia and I rather like philosophy otherwise I would not even bother discussing its merits or nature with you. I do not like philosophy enough to make a career of it or study it(time and money are important) but I am not some fool who can not grasp an abstract idea. Personally I think that the most logical of philosophies are nihilism and solipsism because their claims are the hardest to find fault in. Nihilism requires a truth that no one has found to refute it(only religion can truly combat the nihilist school of though) and solipsism does not have fault because it is based on the nature of the believer. Unless you think that nihilism and solipsism are the most perfect of philosophies I think that most other philosophies do not offer a complete enough view of the nature of the universe in order to be of good use.