Perhaps the best way to think about it would be: reversing the question that I always got: "What if you're wrong?"
It's pretty easy for an Atheist to respond to "What if there's a God". That's pretty fucking straight forward. Then I got everything wrong and St. Peter can be like, "Hey retard, guess what?" and I'll be like, "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Look, how can you expect me to believe you exist when: X"
But I think reversing that question is a pretty painful one to a theist. What if, in a horrifying turn of events, I'm right? That there is no God. That there never was a God. That no prayer was answered, and never could be. That there was no afterlife. That there was neither a heaven nor hell. That there was no one to correct the wrongs of the world and bend it towards righteousness. That there is no objective morality that you can expect others to follow. That this one life was absolutely all you get. That no forgiveness can be given. That forgiveness can only be earned from your victims, and they get to chose whether or not to grant it. That every sin, immorality, and wrong action scars you permanently and forever defines who you are, even if you move beyond it. And worst of all: the world was never any other way than this. So whatever you did before you realized that this was the way of things, was wasted time and mistakes you can never get back.
It's a much more severe world than maybe anyone wants to live in. But I think it's true. And if there is a path of righteousness, then it must be a path built on truth. The world I describe is terrifying, but it also requires you to take the most responsibility, and force yourself to live in truth. You really do want to make sure that in a world like that, you don't leave your wife in a huff because you can't really know if she'll survive the trip to the grocery store, and the last thing you'll want to live with was being ashamed of how you treated her the last time you saw her alive... because there isn't a second chance.
A truthful path will be righteous, but it will also be astonishingly severe, and gruelingly difficult to bear, but it must also come with the best outcomes because you took responsibility to never make those mistakes and sins in the first place, because there was never a safety net to catch you. It's astonishingly... conservative.
If you kill God, you'd better be ready to take responsibility for that.
But I think reversing that question is a pretty painful one to a theist. What if, in a horrifying turn of events, I'm right? That there is no God. That there never was a God.
Gosh, than religious people might have tried to live a righteous life for nothing. Dang.
That's the thing; it doesn't matter. If the tenants are good, does it even matter if God is real? If you think that a certain way is a good way to live, what's it matter in the end?
"What if God isn't real?" really isn't that hard or painful of a question. It is what it is.
That no prayer was answered, and never could be.
Again, does it matter? Plenty of religious people feel like their prayers are answered, what really changed?
That there was no one to correct the wrongs of the world and bend it towards righteousness. That there is no objective morality that you can expect others to follow.
But, whether or not you believe in God, plenty of people will behave that way anyway. I don't really see a huge distinction or some big reveal. Not everyone can change the world, but living well is certainly a good start. Whether or not you believe in God, whether or not God is real...everyone can agree that there are sinners in the world; quite a lot of them.
That forgiveness can only be earned from your victims, and they get to chose whether or not to grant it. That every sin, immorality, and wrong action scars you permanently and forever defines who you are, even if you move beyond it.
I think plenty of religious people realize this. Plenty of people find God after some failure or harm, and they realize that's still a part of them, but try to live better going forward. Drug addiction is a great example; there are plenty of converts through church programs. You make amends, try to move forward, but don't forget where you came from, and who you were.
And worst of all: the world was never any other way than this. So whatever you did before you realized that this was the way of things, was wasted time and mistakes you can never get back.
Gizortnik, while usually very eloquent and balanced in his thought, gets extremely acerbic and vitriolic when talking about Science (tm). I think we've found his religion.
I had to come back to this because I was closing old browser tabs, and it matters.
If I have zealotry u/DangerCat , it's not The Science, it's truth. If you had read more of my comments, you'd know damn well my position on "I Fucking Love Science" people.
Back to you Kienan.
The existence of your God matters because it is the very core premise of your entire moral framework. If you don't know if God exists, you're not a Christian. Morality must stem from that construct. Otherwise, it stems from... well, there is no Christian answer; there can't be. If God doesn't exist, nothing of what you believe makes any sense, nor is it well founded in anything.
Again, does it matter? Plenty of religious people feel like their prayers are answered, what really changed?
You're missing the point. I'm emphasizing the alternative. It doesn't matter that it feels like. It wasn't. None ever has, and ever will, from anyone. I'm not asking you to defend the idea that other people think prayers works. I'm saying, let us assert that there is no God. By definition, it does not, and can not work. You are doing something that is nothing more than a magical incantation. You are doing something just as ridiculous, useless, and wasteful as 'witches' in Portland. If we assert that God does not exist, and we expound from that. Prayer is no different from "casting Magic Missile". Some of the most meaningful and intimate efforts you have made in your most desperate times of your life, would have been the acts of a silly person deluding themselves into thinking that someone else was going to help them.
I can't imagine that that wouldn't be a painful experience.
But, whether or not you believe in God, plenty of people will behave that way anyway
If you think morality isn't objective, then you aren't religious at all. Not only are you not Christian, you wouldn't even fall into any Abrahamic religion.
I think plenty of religious people realize this.
Again, no religious person would believe that, particularly a Christian. God's forgiveness, is literally the whole point behind why man is allowed to live at all. The greatest gift of The Christ is his forgiveness of all men, of all sin, forever, at the cost of his own life. The value of forgiveness through God, even if your victim isn't involved, is what relieves you of your burden.
If there is no forgiveness, then you have no choice but to live with that burden, forever. It is the entire purpose for why you would worship Him.
What time was wasted?
All of it. Every prayer, every ceremony, every incantation, every second you spent reading, every debate, every donation, every festival, all of it.
If you're an anti-theist, you must believe that it would be better for everyone to stop believing in religions. You're not just ambivalent about what other people do, you have an active interest in stopping them from believing. Is this a legitimate framing of your opinion?
If so, I don't know know how you can believe that. Do you honestly think the average person (or even the above-average person) is capable or even interested in building their own moral framework and metaphysical view of reality? Strip a man of his religious foundation and you don't create a logical, self directed Übermensch, you create a scared, confused, and easily led fool desperate for a framework with which to interpret his existence. I would say look back at the 20th century for evidence of that, but we have had a stark reminder of how malleable the general public is in the past few years, so you don't even need to go back that far.
Do you honestly think the average person (or even the above-average person) is capable or even interested in building their own moral framework and metaphysical view of reality?
Yes. This is how the very first religions emerged.
It's not unreasonable to assume that religions emerged with the beginnings of culture in the stone age. Some of the earliest religions we know are of religions that each city independently had. As we would understand it, each city had it's own "national character", ideologies, culture, traditions, people, and perspectives. The gods of these cities quite literally lived in the cities on their highest building (normally in a statue).
These are not impossible efforts.
Most people already do this through simple experience and then try to rationalize a consistent belief system based on that. Most people also are already inculturated into the society they live in, regardless of whether they are atheists or not.
Moreover, the most difficult effort would be to construct one "out of pure reason". Sure, that's difficult, but mostly it requires introspection. At some point you have to make some fundamental choices on what your fundamental principles are going to be, and then you are going to construct your own narrative of the world around you as you go, living your experiences.
This is already the majority of situations for most people.
Strip a man of his religious foundation and you don't create a logical, self directed Übermensch, you create a scared, confused, and easily led fool desperate for a framework with which to interpret his existence
You're referencing Nietzsche, but you're literally missing his point. Christianity (in particular), but most religions in general, are Slave Mentalities.
If you strip a religious person of his religion, he finds another religion, to cater to his Slave Mentality. The entire point about "God is dead, and it is we whom have killed him." is a warning that you would actually need to remove that Slave Mentality in order to live without God. Otherwise, exactly what he said would happen, happens. We live in the world we do now.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to a lot of atheists from the 2000's, and why Leftists attack religion so fervently. They are attempting to replace themselves as the elites of society, because they have a Master Mentality and are seeking to use their will to impose on those with a Slave Mentality, and those with a Slave Mentality are all too happy to accept.
There is no reason to declare that humanity must be scared, confused, mislead fools without a symbol to tell them what to do. In fact, that's the point. Many sadistic people with a Master Mentality cultivate that Slave Mentality in people in order to protect their power and status. It's important to destroy that conduct, but we also have to undermine it by broadening just how many people have a Master Mentality.
People don't need gods. They just think they do, because someone is telling them that they do. It doesn't have to be this way.
You mention the origins of religion in your post, and I don't disagree with your framing of it. I think we can both agree that religion has been around pretty much since humanity gained sapience. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument, however, as to me it simply proves that humanity will inevitably invent religion regardless of race, culture, geographic or historical circumstances. In addition, everywhere religion has emerged, it has immediately become the domain of the priest, or the medicine man, or the shaman, or whatever. I don't believe this is due to some kind of nefarious influence from power hungry people, either. I think this is simply the emergence of natural hierarchy.
I understand that Nietzsche's declaration that 'God is dead' was not a triumphalist one. He understood what would be required of humanity in order to overcome a lack of religion, and he laid it out in his Übermensch ideal. You seem to believe that humanity is capable of constructing the purely rational moral framework that is required when divorced from religion. I do not.
Even the most rational among us are driven by emotion. Look at all the corrupt scientists who have come to light in recent years; these are people who make their living on being rational. I would even argue that emotional thinking is part of what it means to be human.
I also believe that the majority of people don't have it within them to form a 'Master mentality', nor do they want to. The vast majority of people want to be told what to do, and it comforts them to know that there are people above them who have done the heavy lifting regarding philosophy and metaphysics. They like these ideas to be wrapped up in grand narratives that survive down the generations and are easily taught without having to understand the philosophy behind it. They identify with these things in the same way they identify with their national history. They give a culture a touchstone upon which everyone can base their interactions. That's what a religion is to most people, an instruction manual on how to be a good person without needing to generate these instructions from first principles.
Further, I think this arrangement is essential for societies to actually function. If everyone was a self-directed master of their own moral framework, you would end up with a situation of too many chiefs and not enough braves. People are obviously going to have different opinions on what constitutes a metaphysical framework 'of pure reason', which brings me back to my assertion that humans are primarily emotional creatures, not rational ones. It's a struggle to get two people to agree on what constitutes objective reality, let alone an entire civilisation.
If humanity was capable of forming a society of self-directed individuals who each individually come to the same rational, universal system of morality, I would expect to see at least some evidence pointing to it at some point in history. When I look at history, however, I see the vast majority of people being led in their beliefs by a much smaller number of genuine thinkers. Yes there have been plenty of thought leaders in history who abuse the trust placed in them by the general populace, but I disagree that most leaders 'cultivate a slave mentality' in their followers. Instead, I think this is just natural human hierarchy playing itself out - a few lead, most will follow. That's true from the family, to the workplace, to government, to the church.
I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument, however, as to me it simply proves that humanity will inevitably invent religion regardless of race, culture, geographic or historical circumstances. In addition, everywhere religion has emerged, it has immediately become the domain of the priest, or the medicine man, or the shaman, or whatever. I don't believe this is due to some kind of nefarious influence from power hungry people, either. I think this is simply the emergence of natural hierarchy.
Religion's utility is that it combines science, culture, morality, politics, and tradition into a single, easy-to-use institution. That's the reason why it exists in the first place. However, none of these have to be embedded in an institution lead by those shamen. Yes those "priestly" class will naturally emerge as soon as you start combining them all into a single social structure. Those social structures then, almost immediately, become impenetrable in order to protect the strict social hierarchy that the members have benefited form, which necessitate those structures either being regularly purged, or entirely burned down and re-built. This is even a problem within science. Those exact structures are precisely the problem as they hold back any forces for adaptation, change, or positive growth; since that is what their sole purpose is. That is why Gods die. The Gods don't change, they become useless, and must be replaced. That impermeability of those structures and thier extreme centralization of power is what makes them dangerous. It reminds me very much of the "Cult of Assur" which founded the Assyrian Empire. These single city-state Gods were the manifestation of the city-states influence, and the city-state lived and died with it's God, but it's leadership was effectively a cult. I'll get to our current God with our "Cult of Rationality / Progress" later.
You seem to believe that humanity is capable of constructing the purely rational moral framework that is required when divorced from religion. I do not. Even the most rational among us are driven by emotion.
I do not believe in the Cult of Pure Reason / Rationality. I value reasoning. Reasoning is not devoid of emotion. Reasoning includes emotion. "Why do I feel this way?" is a pretty important question. Reasoning doesn't give you truth, either. It just gives you validity. You can use that to help dispel magical thinking if you can establish some basic true premises, and see what follows. However, you have to be right about what is true already.
However, that is exactly my point. I did construct a rational framework that is divorced from religion. Hilariously, I found that quite a bit of it mirrored Protestantism. That's fine. The point is that based on my priorities and principles, swathes of protestant ethics are correct. I just don't need a man in a flashy garb to tell me that they were correct. This is because the man in the flashy garb doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and can't actually explain anything. The level of blind ignorance and total uselessness among Christianity's institutions is galling.
It is because of that incompetence, ignorance, and maliciousness, that I had to develop an ethical framework and moral principles on my own because the institutions could not be trusted not to abuse or exploit me as it's victim. Instead, what I have now are moral foundations I can have confidence in, not because it's tradition, or because it's what someone in a robe said, but because it was forged in fire and is worthy of being carried on as a tradition. It's a moral framework I can have confidence in, so that when everyone else tells me I'm wrong & evil, I can stand in front of them unflinchingly and know I'm absolutely 'God damned' right.
I also believe that the majority of people don't have it within them to form a 'Master mentality', nor do they want to.
I know that most people in our society are willing slaves, but that's a bad thing. I intend to break that, certainly for my family/friends/community. People are not innately of a slave mentality. It is because of our authoritarian institutions that people are incentivizes to a slave mentality. Every cult cultivates/grooms people into slave mentalities, it makes having a master mentality horrifically painful, risky, and dangerous. It is better that 100 slaves kill themselves, then a single rival master emerge. This is what we would expect to see as master's centralize their control. However, I don't believe that people are slaves by default. Humans are far more capable than you give them credit for. They are all capable of a master mentality, they've just been told all their lives that they can't or they shouldn't.
Further, I think this arrangement is essential for societies to actually function. If everyone was a self-directed master of their own moral framework, you would end up with a situation of too many chiefs and not enough braves
Again, I see this as a lie disseminated to slaves, by cowards with a master position. A cowardly master so scared of losing position that they break society to protect themselves. A society of any value would require it's people to seize the initiatives and responsibilities in their lives.
Put it like this: why does an armed society become a polite society? Because an armed society has each member taking responsibility for their own protection. This creates a system where each person is capable of defending themselves from attack, and no one person can monopolize violence or intimidation enough to hurt another member. A master mentality, that isn't cowardly, would welcome this as every person has the ability to protect what is theirs. A cowardly master invokes his will to ban guns for the slaves so that he may protect himself. A slave may even accept this disarmament because he's afraid of being attacked by other slaves. A society worth saving isn't one made up of disarmed slaves and cowardly masters, so petrified of responsibility that death from a rampaging force is preferable.
If humanity was capable of forming a society of self-directed individuals who each individually come to the same rational, universal system of morality, I would expect to see at least some evidence pointing to it at some point in history.
You are referring to the Cult of Reason. Reason does not, and can not, provide you with a universal outcome. It can only provide you with logical validity.
Societies of self-directed individuals is, what I would consider, the best possible society. It will actually have a pretty common moral framework as it would heavily focus on liberty and personal responsibility. There are not many systems like it, because most previous societies existed to prosper elites in control, rather than the general benefit of each person.
Well if there is nothing I wouldn’t know. Granted my belief is based on faith but nobody can truly say what happens after death with full certainty. Even those with NDE experiences. While I believe them it all could be in the mind. I’ve had some paranormal experiences that lead me to believe there is more to life than three physical dimensions. God has always made sense to me but I’ve been going to church as long as I can remember and most of my life life has been mostly traditional/Christian areas.
Even with discoveries on quantum physics or consciousness, you don’t think there could be more outside our physical reality?
I've studies physics, so to be honest, it's shown me where God isn't.
We already exist in at least four dimensions. The many fields that intersect with spacetime are very interesting, but none of them provide a God. God is a literary device, not a scientific one. A tool to help you in right-ordering yourself and the world around you. God can not be found among muons subatomic particles, the colors of Quantum Chromodynamics, or among the binary pulsars of the galaxy.
God will not be found in science, because science tells you about the material world.
I too have had paranormal experiences, I remain convinced that the "arrow of time" is merely a perception, and that reverse causality seems to be absolutely possible. That humans may even have some basic capability of premonition, because time is only an axis of spacetime and isn't the barrier people think it is.
But God still isn't going to be found there either.
As for consciousness...
The thing which you are is an humanoid ecosystem designed to be a self-contained unit for survival and perpetuation of the ecosysem of many different life forms within the thing which you are.
"You" are a brilliant evolutionary creation. The body and it's ecosystem of life isn't capable of chemically or physically detecting enough information to respond correctly to stimuli. Instead "You" are an abstract creation, built to use pattern-recognition and long-term time preference to survive longer and prosper more than any other lifeform that has ever existed. "You" are quite the accomplishment. "You" are an abstraction, a metaphysical construct in a fully material world. "You" are designed to help your material form survive as long as possible. That thing which you are, needs "Your" help. One of "Your" greatest advantages is "your" ability to abstract and create narratives to understand the information presented by the world, but never forget that "Your" dynamic and abstract nature exists to benefit the thing in which you are. "You" have been granted a moment of existence, but with that comes an obligation to the thing which you are. "You" must help yourself. Yourself needs "You".
Gotcha. Well I mentioned paranormal experiences due to the fact that they hunt at something more but granted that isn’t proof of God. I believe but I admit it’s faith. There are things that lead me to believe in God but I can’t write a formula and prove the existence. A very interesting chat.
As for the paranormal what happened to you? Generally speaking? Immune was ghost related and Dream related. I also tried astral projection but got scared. I too believe that premonitions can be possible and think that there is something to esp
Long story short, premonitions. Seeing future events. Going into detail would be a bit too personal. But suffice it to say, I think trauma seems to have some sort of bi-directional temporal impact.
I can't even remotely explain how, but the idea of premonition in war and combat seems to be a very common occurrence. It's the classic "I got a bad feeling about this" but cranked up to 11. People see shit that happens, or shit that didn't happen because they avoided it. Sometimes it's dreams, and sometimes it's just extremely intense emotion.
Perhaps the best way to think about it would be: reversing the question that I always got: "What if you're wrong?"
It's pretty easy for an Atheist to respond to "What if there's a God". That's pretty fucking straight forward. Then I got everything wrong and St. Peter can be like, "Hey retard, guess what?" and I'll be like, "Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Look, how can you expect me to believe you exist when: X"
But I think reversing that question is a pretty painful one to a theist. What if, in a horrifying turn of events, I'm right? That there is no God. That there never was a God. That no prayer was answered, and never could be. That there was no afterlife. That there was neither a heaven nor hell. That there was no one to correct the wrongs of the world and bend it towards righteousness. That there is no objective morality that you can expect others to follow. That this one life was absolutely all you get. That no forgiveness can be given. That forgiveness can only be earned from your victims, and they get to chose whether or not to grant it. That every sin, immorality, and wrong action scars you permanently and forever defines who you are, even if you move beyond it. And worst of all: the world was never any other way than this. So whatever you did before you realized that this was the way of things, was wasted time and mistakes you can never get back.
It's a much more severe world than maybe anyone wants to live in. But I think it's true. And if there is a path of righteousness, then it must be a path built on truth. The world I describe is terrifying, but it also requires you to take the most responsibility, and force yourself to live in truth. You really do want to make sure that in a world like that, you don't leave your wife in a huff because you can't really know if she'll survive the trip to the grocery store, and the last thing you'll want to live with was being ashamed of how you treated her the last time you saw her alive... because there isn't a second chance.
A truthful path will be righteous, but it will also be astonishingly severe, and gruelingly difficult to bear, but it must also come with the best outcomes because you took responsibility to never make those mistakes and sins in the first place, because there was never a safety net to catch you. It's astonishingly... conservative.
If you kill God, you'd better be ready to take responsibility for that.
Gosh, than religious people might have tried to live a righteous life for nothing. Dang.
That's the thing; it doesn't matter. If the tenants are good, does it even matter if God is real? If you think that a certain way is a good way to live, what's it matter in the end?
"What if God isn't real?" really isn't that hard or painful of a question. It is what it is.
Again, does it matter? Plenty of religious people feel like their prayers are answered, what really changed?
But, whether or not you believe in God, plenty of people will behave that way anyway. I don't really see a huge distinction or some big reveal. Not everyone can change the world, but living well is certainly a good start. Whether or not you believe in God, whether or not God is real...everyone can agree that there are sinners in the world; quite a lot of them.
I think plenty of religious people realize this. Plenty of people find God after some failure or harm, and they realize that's still a part of them, but try to live better going forward. Drug addiction is a great example; there are plenty of converts through church programs. You make amends, try to move forward, but don't forget where you came from, and who you were.
What time was wasted?
Gizortnik, while usually very eloquent and balanced in his thought, gets extremely acerbic and vitriolic when talking about Science (tm). I think we've found his religion.
Yeah, he's usually very good on things, but his view on this honestly seems pretty warped.
I had to come back to this because I was closing old browser tabs, and it matters.
If I have zealotry u/DangerCat , it's not The Science, it's truth. If you had read more of my comments, you'd know damn well my position on "I Fucking Love Science" people.
Back to you Kienan.
The existence of your God matters because it is the very core premise of your entire moral framework. If you don't know if God exists, you're not a Christian. Morality must stem from that construct. Otherwise, it stems from... well, there is no Christian answer; there can't be. If God doesn't exist, nothing of what you believe makes any sense, nor is it well founded in anything.
You're missing the point. I'm emphasizing the alternative. It doesn't matter that it feels like. It wasn't. None ever has, and ever will, from anyone. I'm not asking you to defend the idea that other people think prayers works. I'm saying, let us assert that there is no God. By definition, it does not, and can not work. You are doing something that is nothing more than a magical incantation. You are doing something just as ridiculous, useless, and wasteful as 'witches' in Portland. If we assert that God does not exist, and we expound from that. Prayer is no different from "casting Magic Missile". Some of the most meaningful and intimate efforts you have made in your most desperate times of your life, would have been the acts of a silly person deluding themselves into thinking that someone else was going to help them.
I can't imagine that that wouldn't be a painful experience.
If you think morality isn't objective, then you aren't religious at all. Not only are you not Christian, you wouldn't even fall into any Abrahamic religion.
Again, no religious person would believe that, particularly a Christian. God's forgiveness, is literally the whole point behind why man is allowed to live at all. The greatest gift of The Christ is his forgiveness of all men, of all sin, forever, at the cost of his own life. The value of forgiveness through God, even if your victim isn't involved, is what relieves you of your burden.
If there is no forgiveness, then you have no choice but to live with that burden, forever. It is the entire purpose for why you would worship Him.
All of it. Every prayer, every ceremony, every incantation, every second you spent reading, every debate, every donation, every festival, all of it.
If you're right I lived a good life trying to help people and at the end nothing happens.
If I'm right you go to hell.
This is not the argument you think it is.
Did you?
Or did you just say you were a good person because someone told you that you were?
If you're an anti-theist, you must believe that it would be better for everyone to stop believing in religions. You're not just ambivalent about what other people do, you have an active interest in stopping them from believing. Is this a legitimate framing of your opinion?
If so, I don't know know how you can believe that. Do you honestly think the average person (or even the above-average person) is capable or even interested in building their own moral framework and metaphysical view of reality? Strip a man of his religious foundation and you don't create a logical, self directed Übermensch, you create a scared, confused, and easily led fool desperate for a framework with which to interpret his existence. I would say look back at the 20th century for evidence of that, but we have had a stark reminder of how malleable the general public is in the past few years, so you don't even need to go back that far.
Yes.
Yes. This is how the very first religions emerged.
It's not unreasonable to assume that religions emerged with the beginnings of culture in the stone age. Some of the earliest religions we know are of religions that each city independently had. As we would understand it, each city had it's own "national character", ideologies, culture, traditions, people, and perspectives. The gods of these cities quite literally lived in the cities on their highest building (normally in a statue).
These are not impossible efforts.
Most people already do this through simple experience and then try to rationalize a consistent belief system based on that. Most people also are already inculturated into the society they live in, regardless of whether they are atheists or not.
Moreover, the most difficult effort would be to construct one "out of pure reason". Sure, that's difficult, but mostly it requires introspection. At some point you have to make some fundamental choices on what your fundamental principles are going to be, and then you are going to construct your own narrative of the world around you as you go, living your experiences.
This is already the majority of situations for most people.
You're referencing Nietzsche, but you're literally missing his point. Christianity (in particular), but most religions in general, are Slave Mentalities.
If you strip a religious person of his religion, he finds another religion, to cater to his Slave Mentality. The entire point about "God is dead, and it is we whom have killed him." is a warning that you would actually need to remove that Slave Mentality in order to live without God. Otherwise, exactly what he said would happen, happens. We live in the world we do now.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to a lot of atheists from the 2000's, and why Leftists attack religion so fervently. They are attempting to replace themselves as the elites of society, because they have a Master Mentality and are seeking to use their will to impose on those with a Slave Mentality, and those with a Slave Mentality are all too happy to accept.
There is no reason to declare that humanity must be scared, confused, mislead fools without a symbol to tell them what to do. In fact, that's the point. Many sadistic people with a Master Mentality cultivate that Slave Mentality in people in order to protect their power and status. It's important to destroy that conduct, but we also have to undermine it by broadening just how many people have a Master Mentality.
People don't need gods. They just think they do, because someone is telling them that they do. It doesn't have to be this way.
Firstly, thank you for a detailed answer.
You mention the origins of religion in your post, and I don't disagree with your framing of it. I think we can both agree that religion has been around pretty much since humanity gained sapience. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument, however, as to me it simply proves that humanity will inevitably invent religion regardless of race, culture, geographic or historical circumstances. In addition, everywhere religion has emerged, it has immediately become the domain of the priest, or the medicine man, or the shaman, or whatever. I don't believe this is due to some kind of nefarious influence from power hungry people, either. I think this is simply the emergence of natural hierarchy.
I understand that Nietzsche's declaration that 'God is dead' was not a triumphalist one. He understood what would be required of humanity in order to overcome a lack of religion, and he laid it out in his Übermensch ideal. You seem to believe that humanity is capable of constructing the purely rational moral framework that is required when divorced from religion. I do not.
Even the most rational among us are driven by emotion. Look at all the corrupt scientists who have come to light in recent years; these are people who make their living on being rational. I would even argue that emotional thinking is part of what it means to be human.
I also believe that the majority of people don't have it within them to form a 'Master mentality', nor do they want to. The vast majority of people want to be told what to do, and it comforts them to know that there are people above them who have done the heavy lifting regarding philosophy and metaphysics. They like these ideas to be wrapped up in grand narratives that survive down the generations and are easily taught without having to understand the philosophy behind it. They identify with these things in the same way they identify with their national history. They give a culture a touchstone upon which everyone can base their interactions. That's what a religion is to most people, an instruction manual on how to be a good person without needing to generate these instructions from first principles.
Further, I think this arrangement is essential for societies to actually function. If everyone was a self-directed master of their own moral framework, you would end up with a situation of too many chiefs and not enough braves. People are obviously going to have different opinions on what constitutes a metaphysical framework 'of pure reason', which brings me back to my assertion that humans are primarily emotional creatures, not rational ones. It's a struggle to get two people to agree on what constitutes objective reality, let alone an entire civilisation.
If humanity was capable of forming a society of self-directed individuals who each individually come to the same rational, universal system of morality, I would expect to see at least some evidence pointing to it at some point in history. When I look at history, however, I see the vast majority of people being led in their beliefs by a much smaller number of genuine thinkers. Yes there have been plenty of thought leaders in history who abuse the trust placed in them by the general populace, but I disagree that most leaders 'cultivate a slave mentality' in their followers. Instead, I think this is just natural human hierarchy playing itself out - a few lead, most will follow. That's true from the family, to the workplace, to government, to the church.
Religion's utility is that it combines science, culture, morality, politics, and tradition into a single, easy-to-use institution. That's the reason why it exists in the first place. However, none of these have to be embedded in an institution lead by those shamen. Yes those "priestly" class will naturally emerge as soon as you start combining them all into a single social structure. Those social structures then, almost immediately, become impenetrable in order to protect the strict social hierarchy that the members have benefited form, which necessitate those structures either being regularly purged, or entirely burned down and re-built. This is even a problem within science. Those exact structures are precisely the problem as they hold back any forces for adaptation, change, or positive growth; since that is what their sole purpose is. That is why Gods die. The Gods don't change, they become useless, and must be replaced. That impermeability of those structures and thier extreme centralization of power is what makes them dangerous. It reminds me very much of the "Cult of Assur" which founded the Assyrian Empire. These single city-state Gods were the manifestation of the city-states influence, and the city-state lived and died with it's God, but it's leadership was effectively a cult. I'll get to our current God with our "Cult of Rationality / Progress" later.
I do not believe in the Cult of Pure Reason / Rationality. I value reasoning. Reasoning is not devoid of emotion. Reasoning includes emotion. "Why do I feel this way?" is a pretty important question. Reasoning doesn't give you truth, either. It just gives you validity. You can use that to help dispel magical thinking if you can establish some basic true premises, and see what follows. However, you have to be right about what is true already.
However, that is exactly my point. I did construct a rational framework that is divorced from religion. Hilariously, I found that quite a bit of it mirrored Protestantism. That's fine. The point is that based on my priorities and principles, swathes of protestant ethics are correct. I just don't need a man in a flashy garb to tell me that they were correct. This is because the man in the flashy garb doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and can't actually explain anything. The level of blind ignorance and total uselessness among Christianity's institutions is galling.
It is because of that incompetence, ignorance, and maliciousness, that I had to develop an ethical framework and moral principles on my own because the institutions could not be trusted not to abuse or exploit me as it's victim. Instead, what I have now are moral foundations I can have confidence in, not because it's tradition, or because it's what someone in a robe said, but because it was forged in fire and is worthy of being carried on as a tradition. It's a moral framework I can have confidence in, so that when everyone else tells me I'm wrong & evil, I can stand in front of them unflinchingly and know I'm absolutely 'God damned' right.
I know that most people in our society are willing slaves, but that's a bad thing. I intend to break that, certainly for my family/friends/community. People are not innately of a slave mentality. It is because of our authoritarian institutions that people are incentivizes to a slave mentality. Every cult cultivates/grooms people into slave mentalities, it makes having a master mentality horrifically painful, risky, and dangerous. It is better that 100 slaves kill themselves, then a single rival master emerge. This is what we would expect to see as master's centralize their control. However, I don't believe that people are slaves by default. Humans are far more capable than you give them credit for. They are all capable of a master mentality, they've just been told all their lives that they can't or they shouldn't.
Again, I see this as a lie disseminated to slaves, by cowards with a master position. A cowardly master so scared of losing position that they break society to protect themselves. A society of any value would require it's people to seize the initiatives and responsibilities in their lives.
Put it like this: why does an armed society become a polite society? Because an armed society has each member taking responsibility for their own protection. This creates a system where each person is capable of defending themselves from attack, and no one person can monopolize violence or intimidation enough to hurt another member. A master mentality, that isn't cowardly, would welcome this as every person has the ability to protect what is theirs. A cowardly master invokes his will to ban guns for the slaves so that he may protect himself. A slave may even accept this disarmament because he's afraid of being attacked by other slaves. A society worth saving isn't one made up of disarmed slaves and cowardly masters, so petrified of responsibility that death from a rampaging force is preferable.
You are referring to the Cult of Reason. Reason does not, and can not, provide you with a universal outcome. It can only provide you with logical validity.
Societies of self-directed individuals is, what I would consider, the best possible society. It will actually have a pretty common moral framework as it would heavily focus on liberty and personal responsibility. There are not many systems like it, because most previous societies existed to prosper elites in control, rather than the general benefit of each person.
Well if there is nothing I wouldn’t know. Granted my belief is based on faith but nobody can truly say what happens after death with full certainty. Even those with NDE experiences. While I believe them it all could be in the mind. I’ve had some paranormal experiences that lead me to believe there is more to life than three physical dimensions. God has always made sense to me but I’ve been going to church as long as I can remember and most of my life life has been mostly traditional/Christian areas.
Even with discoveries on quantum physics or consciousness, you don’t think there could be more outside our physical reality?
I've studies physics, so to be honest, it's shown me where God isn't.
We already exist in at least four dimensions. The many fields that intersect with spacetime are very interesting, but none of them provide a God. God is a literary device, not a scientific one. A tool to help you in right-ordering yourself and the world around you. God can not be found among muons subatomic particles, the colors of Quantum Chromodynamics, or among the binary pulsars of the galaxy.
God will not be found in science, because science tells you about the material world.
I too have had paranormal experiences, I remain convinced that the "arrow of time" is merely a perception, and that reverse causality seems to be absolutely possible. That humans may even have some basic capability of premonition, because time is only an axis of spacetime and isn't the barrier people think it is.
But God still isn't going to be found there either.
As for consciousness...
The thing which you are is an humanoid ecosystem designed to be a self-contained unit for survival and perpetuation of the ecosysem of many different life forms within the thing which you are.
"You" are a brilliant evolutionary creation. The body and it's ecosystem of life isn't capable of chemically or physically detecting enough information to respond correctly to stimuli. Instead "You" are an abstract creation, built to use pattern-recognition and long-term time preference to survive longer and prosper more than any other lifeform that has ever existed. "You" are quite the accomplishment. "You" are an abstraction, a metaphysical construct in a fully material world. "You" are designed to help your material form survive as long as possible. That thing which you are, needs "Your" help. One of "Your" greatest advantages is "your" ability to abstract and create narratives to understand the information presented by the world, but never forget that "Your" dynamic and abstract nature exists to benefit the thing in which you are. "You" have been granted a moment of existence, but with that comes an obligation to the thing which you are. "You" must help yourself. Yourself needs "You".
Gotcha. Well I mentioned paranormal experiences due to the fact that they hunt at something more but granted that isn’t proof of God. I believe but I admit it’s faith. There are things that lead me to believe in God but I can’t write a formula and prove the existence. A very interesting chat.
As for the paranormal what happened to you? Generally speaking? Immune was ghost related and Dream related. I also tried astral projection but got scared. I too believe that premonitions can be possible and think that there is something to esp
Long story short, premonitions. Seeing future events. Going into detail would be a bit too personal. But suffice it to say, I think trauma seems to have some sort of bi-directional temporal impact.
I can't even remotely explain how, but the idea of premonition in war and combat seems to be a very common occurrence. It's the classic "I got a bad feeling about this" but cranked up to 11. People see shit that happens, or shit that didn't happen because they avoided it. Sometimes it's dreams, and sometimes it's just extremely intense emotion.