But perhaps a God decides what is best for all things and everyone and we should use our intelligence to understand what God wants and then impose that on everyone. The state is God and it must use any means necessary to make everyone comply with the will of God. Or taking God out of our politics how do we determine democratically what should be? — Athena

The problem is existing at all. Why do we bring people into existence? Any way you answer that is a political answer. Apparently YOU know why existence just NEEDS to be experienced and so you procreate more people into the world. So why do people need to be here? Your answer will be revealing. To work? Why? To take your time in various survival and maintenance activities? If you say to discover, learn, and make relationships, I’ll just ask why people need to do this on the first place. Rocks don’t need anything. No existence hurts no one. Why do more individuals need to be created? Again a political question, as your answer means other people must follow (pay) the consequence of being born and go through the gauntlet of living..all because you have a notion of things and what’s best for others. Rather, there’s a nothingness, a lack at the heart of things. Just creating more people to overcome constant lack. Schopenhauer’s Will manifested over and over in yet more beings procreated into the world. Existence is ti be endured and you are creating more victims because you think they need to live out some lifestyle that YOU think is good for them. But if they didn’t exist, they didn’t need anything to be lived out in the first place.

You mean join a nudist colony? That would give some people joy. :grin: — Athena

Old time mourning and repentance!

Classic things that philosophers also have cherished.

The Greek gods never existed, the atheists, christians and muslims all agree on that one. — universeness

May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? Each one is a concept and concepts are powerful. Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods.

The Greeks slowly began slipping out of this superstition with questions like "Is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do they say it is bad because it is bad?" If it is the latter, something exists besides the gods. Now we are creeping into universals and the laws of nature. And we have Hippocrates who says the conditions of the body are not caused by the gods. But before those who love knowledge replaced superstition with universals, people experienced their gods as very real. If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. :grin:

There is also a great deal of bad organisation. I live in Scotland, our population is quite small (Around 5 million). We could build a few more major cities in Scotland, we also have hundreds of uninhabited islands that could be developed but 'there's not enough profit in it.' Hah! total BS, we need to nurture people not profit. — universeness

And there we become the gods. It is as we create it. :grin: It is as Zeus feared. With the knowledge of the technology of fire, we have discovered all other technologies and now rival the gods. However, as you hint, with concepts such as socialism and humanism we can create a reality that encourages happy families, or we can feed the beast and make the beast strong.

I see little difference between the mafia Don's and Don Elon Musk or Don Donald Trump. — universeness

Oh burn, ssssss- :fire: That was nicely said. I could totally off topic with you what you said, but maybe if we focus on your lead in statement we can have a very meaningful discussion!

Rich, global family dynasties formed out of the dying national aristocracies and monarchies. These became the basis for establishing global banking systems and global conglomerates. — universeness

Yes, and what does the Bible have to say about that? :naughty: The Bible is a very complex book with something for everyone in it, but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. The Council of Nicaea was all about power. The Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. The God of Abraham gave man kings, not democracy, and one's life's work was defined by inheritance, not the merit system of the Greeks that enable any qualified person to have a government position.

Some conversations can not happen until someone opens the door so we can see what there is to talk about. Your statement about we are organized as we are organized opens a door. Conservatives want to cling to tradition but democracy is not a Christian tradition.

The socialists/humanist are still here and we still number in the many many millions globally. We will defeat the nefarious completely one day and become an interplanetary/interstellar species. — universeness

Are you aware that

Jefferson and the Scottish Enlightenment - Independent Institutehttps://www.independent.org › publications › article
Wills observes that the study of Scottish Enlightenment thought played a prominent role in American education in the second half of the eighteenth century. https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2790 — RONALD HAMOWY

We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy.

So why do people need to be here? — schopenhauer1

Because "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man." Chardin.

I am less familiar with the Mayan Factor explanation of our light bodies and the universal entrance.

Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss.

In reading your post overall, it seems to me you are trying to explain/analyse/appreciate why early humans were so attracted to theism. I understand, but I prefer to summarise all of those reasons into the one main driver. Jungle law manipulation of human primal fears.

May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? — Athena

Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death.

Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods. — Athena

I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to.

If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. — Athena

I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats.

but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. — Athena

Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity and people like the treacherous Josephus helped write the gospels and the popes are the direct inheritors of the embers of the roman empire etc etc. I support the positions held by folks like Joseph Atwill, James Vallient, Professor Robert Price, Dr Robert Eisenman, the folks on Mythvision et al.

We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy. — Athena

I would enjoy that Athena, we could go back even further to the 'Declaration of Arbroath,' and 'The Magna Carta.' and how those documents influenced the American constitution etc. You are correct that all the winding historical threads do weave us all the way to where we are now and why we live like we do now and the purist philosophers can suggest a myriad of 'thinking processes' and epistemologies that governed/directed/conducted our pathway to 'now.'
I always enjoy such discussions but we are just going over the same old ground again and again and again. There must be quicker ways to drive human global unison forwards, than constantly going back over antiquity. We should not even have to go back as far as the enlightenment to make progress.

EDIT: I suppose the path was more the American Declaration of Independence to The American Constitution.

But yes, if you haven't ever felt hunger, how can you value a good meal? — ssu

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.

Sometimes something lousy can make you appreciate good.

That's appreciation for people who have no value system.

Yep, the cool kids never like optimism or happiness - such responses are viewed as gauche, and don't you know life is grave and dreadful? — Tom Storm

Optimism is seen as naive and stupid while pessimism as realistic and intelligent. So perhaps we should rip our clothes and put ash on our head. Sackcloth and ashes. — ssu

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas???

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal. — baker

We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily.

That's appreciation for people who have no value system. — baker

Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet. You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e

For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.

It's telling that actually now days being overweight is many times a sign of poverty.

I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas??? — baker

Of course it's nonsense, but haven't you noticed these sentiments?

Your attacks on me make me want to avoid what you are saying. You might drop assuming what I think, know, and do, and focus on the concepts you want to discuss. — Athena

The "you" in the last post is the universal "you", not you specifically. It's a hypothetical "you".

There is a certain sense in which one is made a slave by being born. True that some have a blast but still...

Slave.. ok.. go on.. how?

Slave.. ok.. go on.. how? — schopenhauer1

You should know schopenhauer1.

I don't know your particular take.. give me a summary and I can talk to that.

Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death. — universeness

Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. The Romans with their superior military force were winning wars so obviously they have the strongest god, right? Except the Germans in their forest. Whoo, those guys were badasses and you didn't want to get too close to them. People from the south feared the forest and the way the Germans defended their territory was terrorizing. Eventually, they accept the God of Abraham but then they claimed the Holy Roman Emperor as their own, and when the Church in Rome did not give them the power of authority they protested and started their own religion built on the God of Abraham stories. This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace.

I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to. — universeness

Yes, that is exactly the point. Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god.

I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats. — universeness

Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. You might like reading Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book Gods in Everyman" or "Goddesses in Everywoman". The God of Abraham religions have given the gods a bad reputation. I can see I need to work on this explanation. A blog might be the best way to handle what the gods have to do with democracy and why they are in a painting at the US Capitol Building and science instead of superstition. The God of Abraham mythologies are perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to humanity.

Thoughts control our behavior and even our physical condition. It is not necessary to attach superstition to the stories. We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. If we are not superstitious we can appreciate all the others. My point is these stories hold truths and good moral lessons. They all work the same, even if the story is folklore or a native American explanation of life. Being open to the stories of others is also a path to knowing truth and learning science. The question can be more important than the answer. Greeks and Romans didn't believe they had a revealed god's truth. They learned of the gods of others and created their own in their image.

Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity — universeness

They stole the religion from others. 5 of the Biblical stories are from Sumer, so the mythology begins in Ur a Sumerian city and it was plagiarized by Abraham and his people who he lead from Ur to Egypt. In the beginning, everyone had many gods and it is curious how the idea of one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god caught on spread. A nation at war might desire such a war god. Constantine meant well but making Rome and Christianity the same thing, created a monster. Important is the idea that a god chooses the king and gives the king power, and everything relies on inheritance. That is Judaism not a family of gods. There is no one to correct that god as Greek gods could argue their case.

Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people?

If one thinks life is wonderful or that it sucks may depend on psychological matters. I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D..

"To feel authentic means to be free to develop traits and potentials that are innate predispositions. When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy. From childhood on, first our family and then our culture are the mirrors in which we see ourselves as acceptable or not. When we need to conform in order to be acceptable, we may end up wearing a false face and playing an empty role if who we are inside and what is expected of us are far apart....

When life feels meaningless and stale, or when something feels fundamentally wrong about how you are living and what you are doing, you can help yourself by becoming aware of discrepancies between the archetypes within you and your visible roles. Men are often caught between the inner world of archetypes and the outer world of sterotypes. Archetypes are powerful predispositions; garbed in the image and mythology of Greek gods, as I have described them in this book, each has characteristics drives, emotions, and needs that shape personality. When you enact a role that is connected to an active archetype within you, energy is generated through the depth and meaning that the role has for you. "

The "you" in the last post is the universal "you", not you specifically. It's a hypothetical "you". — schopenhauer1

Thank you for clarifying that point. I have covid and want to avoid things that pull me down.

I want to quote from the book Gods in Everyman by Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.. — Athena

Interesting and good quote indeed. But I disagree with Jean Shinoda Bolen in the following fact:

The text says: When we are accepted and allowed to be genuine. it's possible to have self-esteem and authenticity together. This develops only if we are encouraged rather than disheartened by the reactions of significant others to us, when we are spontaneous and truthful, or when we are absorbed in whatever gives us joy.

I think having self-esteem is not connected to be accepted by others. A good example of this could be the Japnase writer Yukio Mishima. He had a lot of self-esteem... but trust he was so far of being accepted by the Japanese society.
This is why I like him a lot. He represents the art of writing and thinking not matter if the "mass" would accept you or not.
The important achievement here is gaining self-esteem with your own self. Not caring if we do not fit in the society or we are not accepted by them

I don't know your particular take.. give me a summary and I can talk to that. — schopenhauer1

A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants. — Schopenhauer

Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. — Athena

Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear.

This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace. — Athena

So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism?

Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. — Athena

I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today.

What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god. — Athena

I agree and like you, I am trying.

Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. — Athena

I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archétypon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ἀρχή archḗ, "beginning, origin", and τύπος týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.

Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother.

We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. — Athena

Yeah, I understand what you mean but imo, we need to 'grow away from' such stories. 'When we are children we can act and speak like children when we grow up, we should put childish things away,' including god stories. I prefer the true stories of what humans did or are doing (when I can find reliable examples of such). I think we need to focus on finding the TRUTH and take all 'stories,' as suspect unless they can be confirmed as accurate! Fake news is a real killer and always has been.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.

Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people? — Athena

Might be better if we just had a PM exchange Athena, if you think that could establish some foundational common ground between us. Perhaps a useful 'philosophical' thread could come from that.
Scots history certainly suggests we have celtic aspects to our national origin but exactly who and what was 'celtic,' extracts from a very foggy past indeed. Little is known about the inhabitants of scotland before the Romans arrived in Britain. All the early tribes have italian/roman names. The umbrella name is Pictii (or picts, picture/painted people). Individual tribes named as the votadini, novantae, caledonii etc. These are all latin based names. These names probably were not used by the actual groups they refer to, who I am sure had their own chosen names but we don't know what these were.
I think all humans gained a very mixed heritage quite early in the last 10,000 years.

@Baden

Since you closed out "Why should life/existence by valued if i can choose to not want to value it?" and added it to this thread, it would make sense if you moved @obscurelaunting's OP over here.

By the way Obscurelaunting, welcome to the forum.

It's very possible for me to see all there is to life, the good and the bad and yet still not think this is enough for me to stay. Life is nothing but a slip of consciousness and just like that you could say it is amazing but I will say this is to be destroyed. Why? Because it can. Do not tell me it's a matter of what feels good and what doesn't, because then choosing to feel bad by choosing to die becomes something that feels good; so feeling good isn't the pinpoint at hand here.

So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.

I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis. — Obscurelaunting

So you’re talking of Will.
Even if it isn't a true metaphysics, the idea of desiring/craving that is never satisfied, remains true. For all intents and purposes, life works on this principle. From a scientistic/mechanistic point of view, you can point to evolutionary variation/mutation/population statistics, but it just informs more about this principle. It doesn't replace this viewpoint. Entropy/enthalpy, the organism's metabolic needs and environmental fit.. The organism being is the organism dissatisfied.

I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s).

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal.
— baker

We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily. — ssu

You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. I've been hungry almost as much as the average hungry African.

Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet.

And for a good part of my life, I have eaten exceptionally good food, and I've grown proper organic food until recently.

You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e

I do know. It makes me want to puke.

For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.

The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today.

I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.

Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste.

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas???
— baker

Of course it's nonsense, but haven't you noticed these sentiments? — ssu

Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them?

@obscurelaunting

It's very possible for me to see all there is to life, the good and the bad and yet still not think this is enough for me to stay. Life is nothing but a slip of consciousness and just like that you could say it is amazing but I will say this is to be destroyed. Why? Because it can. Do not tell me it's a matter of what feels good and what doesn't, because then choosing to feel bad by choosing to die becomes something that feels good; so feeling good isn't the pinpoint at hand here.

So since I CAN think like this, how can I not think like this? Do not tell me to just be one with life in experience because this is futile and never has been fulfilling. Do not tell me that if I can choose either I should choose life, because I'm saying to you my choice IS non-existence, this is the dilemma: the choice and the confusion of life.

I am looking for the answer that breaks down this thinking and builds myself a new thought basis.

What you're asking for cannot be done in the framework of secular culture and science. They'll just write you off as mentally ill, as an aberration. They certainly don't think you have some insight into the futility of life as it is usually lived.

I don’t think I ever considered myself anti-life, but lately I don’t know… How do I find meaning in meaningless universe?

How to answer question to be or not to be? Problem with suicide for me is that you can’t change your mind after… but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on (although I’m no entirely convinced by one option or another…)

but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on — rossii

One reason to go on: your family, friends or relatives. I understand what you are feeling because I walked through the same process. If suicide would sink your beloved ones in devastation and misery, please do not do it. That would be disrespectful and dishonorable.
If you feel that you don't find a meaning in life you would end up in an infinite loop because the nature of life is meaningless

I don’t think I ever considered myself anti-life, but lately I don’t know… How do I find meaning in meaningless universe?

How to answer question to be or not to be? Problem with suicide for me is that you can’t change your mind after… but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on (although I’m no entirely convinced by one option or another…) — rossii

I guess there are a lot a people experiencing the same dilemma, I know quite a few and I also cant find any meaning actually but there are a few considerations here. The first is about loved ones, this has been mentioned before throughout this thread, and their pain and grief should one take his own life. The second is about the unknown, which leaves lots of room for any plausible theories. Some claim for there to be nothing, not even a void (in death) while others claim utopia awaits us while others think we will get reborn and so on. Yet the truth of it all is that nobody knows and anything is possible. Which means we also have to take into account that the possibility exists that we get punished (or 'disciplined') if we would take shortcuts.