Taser, ty for your explanations. I had pretty much written 3 times now an essay to explain myself, nihilism and why it fucked me up. I deleted it 3 times and decided now to not go into it any further detail then: I was never a very religious guy, but there was a time i had a strong believe of my purpose in life, when i got in contact with nihilism, that changed and i changed. It wasnt a pleasent experience, that one can be shaken badly by only thinking theoreticly about ... a Theory, a concept ... something which nearly had been my job description before ^^
...Your existence always has meaning to you.
Sadly there you are wrong, it may not be concievable to you, then just let this one go.
This is a well ment advice.There's no one free of conceit.
true
I'm more intrigued with the idea of the universe observing itself- and what's more, playing with itself, through us.
Like us being parts of a body, or part of a cell, which in the end extends to be a consious being, not nessarily conciousness about its parts though ^^?
Anyway, for those of you arguing for religion, or at least, acknowledging the benefits of religion, what kind of relationship should the state and religion share?
while i am not part of either of those categories, i can play the part of advocatis diaboly.
advantages for the religion
a) taxes which are regularly and without big fuzz are colelcted by teh state and transfered to the organization backing the religion ( the church for the christian westerners )
b) having influence onto the education of childreen, thereby imprinting concepts on the young minds like getting them used to see tehmselves as f.e. christians or muslims or ...
c) tax free income for priests and other religious handymens ^^
advantages for the state
a) having a way of influencing the voters f.e. "vote for the good christian kinngrimm, kinngrimm for president" (who gives a shit that he is an agnostik, when the other message had been repeated a thousand times)
b) You can scare people pretty good, the texts of the books koran and bible, leave quite soem room for interpretatiosn, depending who doing the interpreting the sinners could be punished quite extremly
c) stability. remember why in Konstantinople the first bible had been put together? Peace around the mid terrainien sea. One religion without struggles betwen different interpretations, therefor one book, where the preists from all over the empire of rome would come to Konstantinople and talk about, what goes into the bible what stays out of it.
advantages of such a symbosis for both, state and religion
controll, you think
devide and conquer doesnt count here. Think again. What had been shared/devided, to what outcome? Who is in controll of what? Taking here the cathlic church as an example comes quite naturaly to my mind ^^