As stipulated in our mandate, the FAO wishes to achieve food security. This means people ought to have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives. The factors to attain this goal are to raise the levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.

We, at the FAO, are concerned with the famine in East-Africa. We draw attention to this issue for it is crucial if we are to achieve our mandate. We proclaim that ridding the world of starvation is a condicio sine qua non if we are to achieve any other goals worth achieving. If we are to entertain any political, technological or humanitarian ideals; it is difficult to see how we could not start with feeding ourselves. Food is something everybody needs. And one billion people are in dire need of it. In identifying to most appropriate scale of intervention, we find East-Africa to be a priority. Having examined the most appropriate form of food distribution, we conclude this is to be done in schools. We emphasize this equalizes the gender inequality; allowing girls to go to school instead of working on the field. Women, especially in East-Africa, do most of the sustenance farming. Without education, a population cannot reach higher agricultural productivity, nor can it contribute to the growth of the economy; both of which remain our mandate.

Keeping in mind, our planet is inhabited by another billion people who suffer from being overweight, one third of which are obese. We conclude these problems are not technological. We, the FAO, therefore direct our appeal first and foremost to those countries where there is a problem of want, not of need. Fully aware, there are no countries where nobody is the population is neither hungry, nor overweight; we do not single out any one country, nor absolve any country of responsibility to feed their own [national] population. However, we reaffirm, our population is a global one and humanity deserves to be fed. The focus of mankind is too narrow. As stated before, women are the key and education in turn, is the key to women’s emancipation. We believe we must enable people to help themselves.

This is not merely the right thing to do. It is the smart thing. We need education if we are to survive as a human species and this is the way to do it. The labor market requires people whom are able to work. Health costs will always be around and people will never be a completely healthy. But food is medicine. And the cheapest medicine is preventive medicine. As the World Food Programme, our sister organisation, points out: “Hunger kills more people than HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria combined”. These are not easy diseases to prevent and even harder to combat. We do not claim to have solved all the worlds problems if we start here. But it is the only logical place to start. This basic need will never go away. We note, that at this moment, we have the means to address it in a human way. No child needs to go hungry, yet so many do.

It is true, without education, this cycle will happen again and again. Without guidance, without responsibility, without -in short- education, nothing will ever change. But without food, nobody will go to school. Nobody will be able to change. We, who are able to gather and debate these issues, must begin by feeding those who do not know, not what, but whether they will eat today.

We do not wish to minimize other problems. Repression is a horrible thing. But no doubt food prices played an important role in the uprising in the Arab World. Inflation caused many Egyptians to not be able to feed themselves. When food was located in the same region, it remained too expensive. GMO’s are a controversial issue and although the green revolution has fed many, more and more questions regarding regulation of hazardous and untested products are abundant. We do not need these new technologies, for we can feed the world today if only we have the leadership to change the distribution. However, we at the FAO are not blind to the surge in human population and future developments require increased productivity. We have stated in this paper how we are to achieve this goal, as well as many others. Nowhere in the world is this problem more urgent than in East-Africa. Where people aren’t merely hungry, they are starving. Fiscal problems – and energy concerns too – are no trivial matters, but we will never have enough money – or energy – to solve all of the worlds problems. Nonetheless, we express our hope that we can solve this one.

We therefore call on all nation states and organizations attending, to make this a priority and to implement food security concerns in to every relevant aspect of policy-making. Noting with satisfaction this is already the case to a large degree, we urge all parties to follow our strategic priorities in attaining this goal.

An astroid is heading towards earth. It destroys all macro life on impact. To make matters ‘worse’ (this will become a problematic qualifier), the remainder of the planet heads towards the sun. All micro-life (bacteria) is incinerated. Because of a cosmic waste of space (and time) this turned out to be the only place (and again, time) in the universe capable of supporting life. There is now no more suffering in the cosmos. Is it ‘better’ off? The SMBC response could be “There is nobody to think of it in those terms, so it’s not worse off”. But that was not the question. If suffering is indeed such a horrible thing and we must “sacrifice the ego, before it is far too late” (Tool), why not collective suicide. Now, I know why I did not commit individual suicide (when first really contemplating the issue). It was because there is other suffering. And such an act would undoubtably increase the suffering of those near me. Or so they claimed, though after discussing the issue there was more understanding. As there should be, because there would be no just cases of euthanasia otherwise. Things have gotten better and through the use of reason (philosophy, science, truth, whatever you want to call it) I have decreased suffering immensely. My own and that of others (which in turn decreases my suffering, because I enjoy doing good). But what if we take away all suffering? What if we all dissolve our egos, being meditative or in a pleasure machine that provides for our basic needs in a matrix-like setting (the first matrix, where there was no suffering and lets assume our mind would be able to handle that bliss). What if we take away all sentient beings (and the chance that there will ever be sentience). It seems overkill. But is it?

I like to use reason. But it’s merely a tool. It would be perverse to want to use means instead of sticking to the goal when possible. The goal was to eliminate suffering. Suffering is a part of life. In the though experiment posed, life is gone. So what’s the problem? As I mentioned, it seems like overkill. But this seemingness doesn’t answer the basic question. Let’s see of buddhism can answer it. The second truth is that suffering comes from ignorance (lack of reason I would like to call it), which leads to craving, grasping and clinging. Merely surpassing this vain desire, would be enough to achieve happiness. But is it? Could we ever truly become gods? Knowing all and accepting reality. Simply being as a rock simply is. Not even a bacteria, attempting to be something else. Somewhere else. The Schopenhauerian had previously mentioned that a rock ‘wills’ to be one. It has a tendency to clump together. However, when asked to define this, it was a problematic issue. For this tendency results in things being flung apart too. If you reduce it to saying that things that stick together, stick together, you have a tautology. We concluded we should not discuss such mysterious thing, being reminded of what Wittgenstein said. But I do wish to discuss these things and therefor made an appeal not to bring Will into the matter if we cannot define it. I was posed with the problem of what defines what is my basis. That there is a foundation is of course an axiomatic answer to Agrippa’s trilemma. Applied to moral questions like this one, though I would argue morality is the basis for reason, not the other way around. Of course, for ethics we need both and perhaps this would allow for a circular argument. Though it would be difficult to see how this reaches the same appeal of (contextualism or) coherentism, as it does in epistemic inquiries. But this is becoming needlessly technical. Can we not get simple answers from a simple philosophy?

The third truth is that we can become free of suffering and achieve happiness. I have a lot of problems with this one. It gives a positive content to the question of suffering. This is what most people tend to argue when I pose that life is merely about eliminating suffering. I hold the first truth is such high regard, that I feel we can never* get away from it. We can merely lessen it. Buddhism goes on to tell you why you should follow buddhism. You should follow the Noble Eightfold Path. This sounds a little like a religious recruiting propaganda tool. The way (Tao) to Salvation is X, for it is the Light and the only path to divinity (knowing all, so one will never suffer again). Because we’re alive, I think this does have a lot of good things going for it (knowledge or ‘wisdom’, acting morally and meditation). But it doesn’t answer the basic question. Why have something, capable of suffering?

Theologians have answered this question in a number of ways. A popular one was free will. Indeed, a lot of people like the idea of autonomy. I feel freedom to set goals and attain them is merely a psychological tool to achieve happiness. Though you never truly achieve it. Or if you do, it’s only for a moment and as soon as you ask yourself if you’re happy, you’ve lost that moment. You’re analyzing the mystic experience. You’ve lost what positive psychology calls the ‘flow’. Therefor I would use utilitarianism as my meta-ethics. Furthermore, because you can never reach total ecstasy (dopamine would run out rather fast and you’d become depressed), I merely attempt to lessen suffering. But what if there’s no more suffering? The other thought experiment can also be posed and was mentioned. In theological terms, why would the gods and goddesses not simply create a life form that’s always having a good time? But of course, if you’re always having fun, you don’t know what it means not to have a good time and you’re not really having it. It’s why a pantheist God could never be happy (or sad), ‘he’ can only simply be. And, perhaps, not be. Because what would existence mean to such an entity? Some argue this entity would exist outside of existence, but this gets so nonsensical (being both rational and irrational), we ought not to discuss these things. We may as well assume such contradiction do not exist. We would be no more wrong in assuming such a thing as in assuming they do exist.

Back to the existence of suffering then. Because to me, this is the only relevant question. It’s why I’m reasonable, it’s why I renounced an almighty god (that is also completely good). To answer this question, I have used reason. It allows for no contradictions. It is a binary mode of thinking. I’m reticent do accept any paradox. Perhaps even more reluctant to quote Ayn Rand: “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong”. Because her philosophy tends to promote a lot more suffering (and is based mostly on fiction, which I abhor), I’d rather not have to resort to such a thing again. To me, objective is inter-subjective. Meaning something we can all agree on (as reasonable people). I have no need for an ‘objectivist’ account of why the ego is such a good thing and would lessen suffering (and would increase the net balance of pleasure). I could be wrong and perhaps I’ll give some of her non-fiction works a chance some day. In the meanwhile, let’s just stick to universality as an important ethical framework. No contradictions. No limiting of ethical actions to one entity. Rather, extend it to all entities that can claim that identity (eg. a moral agent). But I notice I’m starting to contribute all suffering (since neoliberalism took power) to Ayn Rand, which is an unfair position to take. I’m also implicitly attacking her (lack of) theory of mind and because she says she got it all from Aristotle, I should refrain from making harsh judgements until I’ve read up on what he wrote too. Though that would take a lifetime.

So, as I’ve just established. I have little tolerance for logical fallacies. If less of A is good, surely no A is the best. I also have little respect for works of fiction. The only one I didn’t abhor is the unbearable lightness of being. The (bearable) gravity of being is that we’re only around for a moment. A brief moment. Our decisions matter. That is why it is so important to act ‘right’ (as the buddhist would say). I have no quarrel with there being a time when humanity did not exist, nor that there will one day be a time when it does not. But if an astrophysicist (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) would claim we could stop the asteroid and we should, I would not feel inclined to say: “But Neil, we’ve finally found a way to eliminate all suffering!”. One reason is that we’ve got reason. Which I think is so awesome, we should try to hold on to it for as long as we can. It would also satisfy my personal curiosity to find some answers to life’s greatest mysteries. Though I’m sure I’ll never find out what they are. To me, the mysteries are:
There is existence (there could have been none)
There is life (which emerged from animate matter)
There is consciousness (hence there is suffering, my personal priority)
*As long as we have these three things (and I believe you merely need a big cosmos to get to the latter somewhere, some when), there will be suffering.
Even from a quantum flux of nothing, could a universe arise (Lawrence Krauss). So you wouldn’t even need existence for suffering to come into existence again.

That’s why we should use reason to try and alleviate it. If we didn’t realize we suffer, we wouldn’t try to fix it. So perhaps this is there reason (no pun intended) why there is suffering. Because suffering “wills” reason. Then again, I could have been talking to a Schopenhauerian too much.

I must expound a little more. This deals with some of the issues of non-dualism I’ve addressed elsewhere. Whenever I hear somebody say “I can’t explain it. It’s what I believe”. What I hear is ” I don’t want this belief to be scrutinized. It’ll entail suffering”. I happen to think if you want answers, if you’re truly on a search for truth, the truth shall set you free. It’ll comfort you. But that’s not what they’re saying. What they’re saying (or what I’m hearing) is “I’m not ready”. I feel awkward and am not inclined to press the issue. After all, suicide is a real issue. Perhaps, the first question of philosophy. Not why do I exist, but why should I exist? And if you can’t think of an answer, instead of looking for one, some avoid posing it ever again by ending the questioner rather abruptly. However, the most important reflection on suicide (in my opinion, so far) has been the one from an obscure footnote of a translator of Schopenhauer. It is not men who lack a desire of life that wish to end it, rather, it is of wanting too much from it. I won’t get into asceticism and the Will here, but let’s keep the blind passions (mentioned in the Hart Sutra) in mind here. It’s the things we cannot change, that we wish to change, that cause suffering. This is a vain attempt. Some respond to all (moral) idealism as though we cannot make any difference. This is a bit naieve, as living people clearly influence events all the time.

So what the horrible revolution of ideas that people are so unwilling to undergo (and I’ve only come to grips with in recent years myself and perhaps am projecting on humanity a bit much)? One does not want one’s core belief to be questioned. It’s the reason why one’s alive. If that’s taken away, there will be no more reason and the person will still be alive. Confronted with this void, one either makes values again (valuing life to begin with) or one perishes rather quickly (why eat, why breath if you can stop?). My core belief is the lessening of suffering, but an individual who’s dead, does not suffer. In buddhist terms, they return to the state of being unborn. For the sake of my unborn children, I’m not having any. That’ll avoid their suffering. An avoidable suffering. People are reproducing though, so I might have to adopt. The procedure is too hard, so I might have to be a foster parent. That might be too hard on me (making me a very poor parent) and I’ve found a way not to have to take care of any body from the next generation. But this conclusion is not a core belief, and I’m willing to question it. As I’m question my core belief “less suffering”.

I’ve read this all or nothing train of thought is symptomatic of a depressed mind. Perhaps there’s a neurological deficiency going on in my brain. Perhaps people who hold contradictory beliefs are simply suffering from cognitive dissonance. Either way, reason will guide me to an answer, I believe. Perhaps it won’t. But I’ll leave it up to reason to debate the issue. I’ve tried zen koans and found them to be intellectually not very satisfying. I admit, they’re not intended to be. They’re meant to lessen suffering, in which they failed too because I use reason for that. There’s nothing more satisfying than thinking about a problem to reach a conclusion. Because if all you have is a conclusion, than you have suffering as soon as you start thinking again. I believe the latter cannot be avoided, so we have to reason. But what if it can be avoided. What if the sentient life can end itself? Thus eliminating the problem. It’s this all or nothing attitude that we find in the Brothers Karamazov:”Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing”. This haste to leave alone all that is given, is not in my nature. I’m a very patient person. I’m also very passive. Waiting, analyzing.

What is the price of harmony? How much injustice must there exist for there to be justice? How much evil for there to be good? I would claim, only a little. But this article is about the question whether there should be any at all. Because I only find matters of morality to be important (to ease suffering), I would argue that we must analyze what values (the basis of any morality) are. Value comes from being able to make a distinction. Good or bad, true or false. Not only from one of them. You must have at least one bad moment, to enjoy any other part of your life. To be in constant bliss makes it all meaningless. An eternity of joy would be rather boring and not very joyfull. Even in heaven, you’d have to remember the ‘birthpangs’ of mortal life as you entrance ticket and thinking about it would entail a minimum of suffering, for you to enjoy all else that follows. So there would have to be at least a little suffering for it to be a heaven of any meaning. We cannot conceive of one without the other. We need to have both to want either. You can’t want yin without the yang, or the other way around. To attain either is impossible. It would be death/nirvana. You can’t even desire to not desire anymore. Perhaps desiring not to suffer is more important than not suffering. It enables us to use reason. Perhaps reason is more important than not suffering.

But this seems like a perverse point of view. It would entail suffering because it builds character. Mother Theresa liked suffering because it brought people closer to Jesus Christ. This seems like a very dubious path indeed. Perhaps I feel that because we’re all going to die one day and be one with god/nature/everything, there’s no hurry. In the meanwhile, we should try to know the mind of god (as Einstein and Spinoza put it). It seems like a waste to return to a state of unborness in such a hurry. But as I’ve mentioned, that’s not a very deep philosophical grounding.

I will need to contemplate the matter further. If only to alleviate the suffering the question has posed on so many others. If it turns out we’d be ‘better’ off without a planet earth (full of these earthlings capable of suffering) and we’re the only ones in the cosmos, I’ll be sure to promote a CERN so it’ll make a black hole. Despite sensationalism, the chances of that happening are rather slim. But who knows, if we’re the only planet in this universe capable of sentience and we don’t end up in another universe -through a white hole on the other end- capable of sustaining us further and there is nowhere in the multiverse where there’s this problem of a theodicy which needs answering, maybe we should do that. But we’ll need reason to answer this question. Giving up (on reason) doesn’t seem like an answer (to eliminate all suffering everywhere and for all time). I’m afraid, no matter how you look at it, there is suffering. This seems like the first truth. Not sure about the other ones.

Ending world hunger: Starting with East-Africa

As stipulated in our mandate, the FAO wishes to achieve food security. This means people ought to have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives. The factors to attain this goal are to raise the levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.

We, at the FAO, are concerned with the famine in East-Africa. We draw attention to this issue for it is crucial if we are to achieve our mandate. We proclaim that ridding the world of starvation is a condicio sine qua non if we are to achieve any other goals worth achieving. If we are to entertain any political, technological or humanitarian ideals; it is difficult to see how we could not start with feeding ourselves. Food is something everybody needs. And one billion people are in dire need of it. In identifying to most appropriate scale of intervention, we find East-Africa to be a priority. Having examined the most appropriate form of food distribution, we conclude this is to be done in schools. We emphasize this equalizes the gender inequality; allowing girls to go to school instead of working on the field. Women, especially in East-Africa, do most of the sustenance farming. Without education, a population cannot reach higher agricultural productivity, nor can it contribute to the growth of the economy; both of which remain our mandate.

Keeping in mind, our planet is inhabited by another billion people who suffer from being overweight, one third of which are obese. We conclude these problems are not technological. We, the FAO, therefore direct our appeal first and foremost to those countries where there is a problem of want, not of need. Fully aware, there are no countries where nobody is the population is neither hungry, nor overweight; we do not single out any one country, nor absolve any country of responsibility to feed their own [national] population. However, we reaffirm, our population is a global one and humanity deserves to be fed. The focus of mankind is too narrow. As stated before, women are the key and education in turn, is the key to women’s emancipation. We believe we must enable people to help themselves.

This is not merely the right thing to do. It is the smart thing. We need education if we are to survive as a human species and this is the way to do it. The labor market requires people whom are able to work. Health costs will always be around and people will never be a completely healthy. But food is medicine. And the cheapest medicine is preventive medicine. As the World Food Programme, our sister organisation, points out: “Hunger kills more people than HIV/Aids, tuberculosis and malaria combined”. These are not easy diseases to prevent and even harder to combat. We do not claim to have solved all the worlds problems if we start here. But it is the only logical place to start. This basic need will never go away. We note, that at this moment, we have the means to address it in a human way. No child needs to go hungry, yet so many do.

It is true, without education, this cycle will happen again and again. Without guidance, without responsibility, without -in short- education, nothing will ever change. But without food, nobody will go to school. Nobody will be able to change. We, who are able to gather and debate these issues, must begin by feeding those who do not know, not what, but whether they will eat today.

We do not wish to minimize other problems. Repression is a horrible thing. But no doubt food prices played an important role in the uprising in the Arab World. Inflation caused many Egyptians to not be able to feed themselves. When food was located in the same region, it remained too expensive. GMO’s are a controversial issue and although the green revolution has fed many, more and more questions regarding regulation of hazardous and untested products are abundant. We do not need these new technologies, for we can feed the world today if only we have the leadership to change the distribution. However, we at the FAO are not blind to the surge in human population and future developments require increased productivity. We have stated in this paper how we are to achieve this goal, as well as many others. Nowhere in the world is this problem more urgent than in East-Africa. Where people aren’t merely hungry, they are starving. Fiscal problems – and energy concerns too – are no trivial matters, but we will never have enough money – or energy – to solve all of the worlds problems. Nonetheless, we express our hope that we can solve this one.

We therefore call on all nation states and organizations attending, to make this a priority and to implement food security concerns in to every relevant aspect of policy-making. Noting with satisfaction this is already the case to a large degree, we urge all parties to follow our strategic priorities in attaining this goal.

Yet the mystic teaches nothing except acceptance. And even that is not truly taught but perceived in your mind. Though you perceive with your eyes. You could look at this as pairs. One or the other. It’s easy. Perhaps it’s easier than trying to perceive only perception. None dually accepting which is. Seemingly irrational, because there’s no more true or false. There is only. Not even that. Nonsensical zen koans enter the mind and the mind enters them. No, not really. Not both. Again. To have thought the thought is to have lost that which you attempt to find. No not again! Another losing. A slight variation. Another nothing. A nothing, a something and lots of in between. So many of them, they longer have the significance the one and the two had. The zero and the one. However you want to think of it. That easy, binary way of viewing things. Like an automaton, a computing mechanism. Negating the complex organism that attempts to recreate. Beyond the infinite calculating. To a beginning and an end an to realise that it is all one. A seeming nothingness. But the subtleties are in nature just as much as in the mind. Acceptance of the unchanging changing enables recreating of the own ego. The viewpoint from which to view the universe. To surpass the neural operating system using ancient cultural tricks. The use it to our advantage. The advantage of all sentient beings. All conscious beings. Caught in the hasty world between simple being and complex doubt. To recognize the almost both-ness and to know it is neither nor both, is to accept transcendent reality.

It can be framed from the ego, but this has now become a fluid concept. Susceptible to change. Voluntary change. Enabling compassion and insight.
I have broken as many hearts as have broken mine.
I have killed as many as I have conceived.
I have disappointed as have disappointed me.
I have gotten to know as many people as have gotten to know me.
I have suffered as I have caused suffering.
I have enjoyed as I have caused joy.
I have caused as I am caused.
I am that which I am.
There is existence.
Balance, equal. Point one for karma. Everything is zero.

Must sacrifice ego, before it is far too late.

The next day, she kept on repeating everything I had said aloud. So she wouldn’t forget. She wasn’t bothering anybody. There was nothing to be said against it. It would have seem old in times when people would have written it down and never read it again. But she said it, looking upbeat and inquisitive. As if every thing she said would be corrected as soon as she uttered the words. But I was right the first time and there was nothing left to correct. It was perfect, as is. The next day, she mumbled to conversation we had. Her questions, my answers. Instead of searching for eye contact, her eyes hit the ground. And the ground was heavy. It lay there, unable to get up and be flung into space as earth does. But it did, and she forget to ask about it. She just made herself remember. Day three arrived and it was getting cyclical. She had internalized it almost entirely. She look worried, though there was nothing to worry about. She wasn’t going to forget any of it, but she ran the words through her mind. Running and running and running. Never stopping. Never letting up. Never allowing her to ask another question. I felt sorry for her. But there was nothing I could say. It was all true.

“Don’t worry about it”, I tried. But trying is for pussies. “It?”, she looked as though I had made her think of it all. “Everything. Quiet your mind. Be at peace. We all are”. “I don’t like peace”, she said with a trembling voice. “It is death” followed, expecting a quarrel. “Yes, it’s true. That’s part of life. Without it, we’d be a virus at most. A phantom. Not even immaterial. Maybe we’d be in existence. But it would be a lousy existence. You may think this is lousy. Maybe it is. But it’s the best we’ve got. It’s all we’ve got. All we’ve got left”. Sophia whispered “A poor philosophy. I dream of more. But do not ask me what, for I do not know.” I stated that this makes us equally poor and the concept loses all meaning. “You are no richer than I. But if you wish, it can be said that we are equally rich. For we have it all. We know everything that has happened so far. We know it to the degree we know how it’ll all end. We have the here and now. We have it all. There can be no more. We’re the richest anybody has ever been that has ever lived. We can’t reach more than everything. We’ve reached an absolute. Certitude. To expect more is to ask for the divine. More than everything. Infitine amounts of everything. It’s asking too much. It’s asking what cannot be asked, nor answered. It’s more and beyond sense. It’s nonsensical. I can only help you understand. Not be content with confusion. Only to contend that there is no confusion. There is only that which is. But this is not divine. This is within all of us. It is human and it makes sense”. “I still don’t understand”, she said before offering herself the chance to think about it. Her ladylike voice comforted me. I wished it would all last. But it didn’t. It never has and it never will. In the meanwhile, I’ll just stick to what I know. The here and now. Even though it contains everything, from beginning to end. I was hoping she’d ask again, what happened. But she knew now, and she’d never be able to ask the question again. The cosmos, life, consciousness. It all happened. Humans would disappear, life will disintegrate and the cosmos shall dissipate. The end of ends. The stillness moved me. Moved me nowhere. It was divine. The goddess of wisdom walked away and the wind eroded her footsteps in the sand. I returned to what happened.

BARSAMIAN: ….You’re very patient with people, particularly people who ask the most inane kinds of questions. Is this something you’ve cultivated?

CHOMSKY: First of all, I’m usually fuming inside, so what you see on the outside isn’t necessarily what’s inside. But as far as questions, the only thing I ever get irritated about is elite intellectuals, the stuff they do I do find irritating. I shouldn’t. I should expect it. But I do find it irritating. But on the other hand, what you’re describing as inane questions usually strike me as perfectly honest questions. People have no reason to believe anything other than what they’re saying. If you think about where the questioner is coming from, what the person has been exposed to, that’s a very rational and intelligent question. It may sound inane from some other point of view, but it’s not at all inane from within the framework in which it’s being raised. It’s usually quite reasonable. So there’s nothing to be irritated about.

But instead, I found this:
Though Love. Seems relevant because I just had a class today on Judaism and how they extracted moral lessons from all their sufferings (being enslaved all the time, having their elite be exiled, etc). It’s weird how it’s all connected. Coincidence and a willingness to associate loose data into a whole, it’s almost like dreaming. Speaking of which, I’m going to force myself to go to sleep instead of typing another blog post. Though love, but somebody has to do it. It’s the only way things are going to get better. I wish there was another. But wishing doesn’t make it so.

And that is the basic foundation of our beliefs. I am interested to hear from you about this, and I’ll try to make my responses as often as I possibly can. Good day to you and God bless.
Sageangel18000
Part 2:

As to the belief in a god or divine being, that is mostly up to you. I can give many logical and scientific reasons to believe in the existence of a god, but I find that most refuse to accept them. I can give scientific and logical proof for my beliefs, but again most people refuse to accept what I say. I CAN offer you this:
If you believe in the existence of a god and a god does exist, there are major rewards.
If you believe in the existence of a god and a god does not exist, you gain nothing, but you have lost nothing.
If you don’t believe in the existence of a god and a god does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
If you don’t believe in the existence of a god and a god does exist, there are MAJOR consequences.

I feel like I have been visited by Paul. Perhaps I have merely read Act 17 too recently and the feeling is based on nothing but my own thoughts, rather than by the input provided by this Sage Angel. It is line 32 (in Athens) which concerns me te most. Most believers I meet in real life don’t see one child of god (I only capitalize things I know exist, beliefs without reason are another matter I’ll get into) as having special zombie-like powers, but mostly as somebody who was very wise (a moral teacher). When they’re christians, I try to point out this is a muslim point of view and this often startles them. They are more moderate than they thought (even more ‘modern’ as Islam, which usually scares the hell out of them). But this is beside the point, as Sage angle does believe some of these things mentioned in the bible (if you’re going to have Holy Scripture, I’m happy this is the one as I’m rather familiar with it). Why you have to accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior is beyond me (as the moderates I come in contact with tend to see multiple paths to the one and only God -there are no other paths, we all have our religion in their view-). Sending people who don’t accept him as their savior to hell, tends to come in conflict with ‘good’ god they see as equal to love. Instead of Deus sive natura (Spinoza), they tend to see God as Love (being the same thing and within all of us, think Tolstoj and the Kingdom of God). Why an all powerful being would want to create something he knows (all knowing) is going to hell for eternity also boggles the mind of many. This does not appear to be a loving and kind god. And when you want cruel and vengeful gods, there’s a lot of choice. But let’s go through the list, because I’ve obviously missed something.

God taking 6 days to invent the universe is fine with me. A LOT was happening in the first moments after the big bang and it only took a ‘moment’ (not even the right word because there ‘was’ no time) to create time and space. Requiring 6 days is going rather slow. Having to rest on the 7th day testifies this deity isn’t as all-powerful as most religions claim their deity is. It seems we’ve moved a long way from the theological debate of the all-powerful creator (can god make a rock so heavy, not even he can lift it). However, it would take a lot longer for the earth (4.54 billions years ago instead of 13,7) to form; so creating living creatures in the first week is a bit fast in my opinion. I was going to argue days didn’t exist yet as the earth wasn’t revolving around its axis yet. But that’s as silly as claiming the years couldn’t have passed before the earth was formed, merely because it wasn’t going around the sun yet (and I do think it sort of is now). Let’s assume God made Adam and Eve, I’m anthropocentric, I’ll grab onto anything that makes man/humankind special. Their sin remains unclear to me. They attempted to know (the difference between good and evil). I’ve read genesis (both stories in the bible) and I never understood this part. Being in the Garden of Eden was like being an immortal animal. Everything that makes us human was gained by becoming in Gods’ image (as the snake explained rather sagely). Animal sacrifice was rampant and was almost replaced by human sacrifice, though Abraham was told at the very last moment by God he didn’t have to do it (though he was willing, making him a sinful fellow indeed).

But we shouldn’t get into the OT, it would take too long (and too many genocides and I don’t have the stomach for that). There’s a lot of Messianism in there and indeed, many jews still believe this (though most have become rather secular, Kantian and believe we should make the world a better place regardless of how it all ends). This Messianism can be spun a number of ways (there were a lot of people in those days already claiming to be a Messiah, there were a lot of prophecies of things that never came to pass). It can provide a historical argument (though not that many historians see the bible as a document relating facts about the world). But not a logical one. Insofar as it is logical (if people claim there’s another Messiah coming, other people will tend to claim they are that one), it’s not very strong (there’s a lot of claims in the bible that simply contradict other ones. Eg Elia ascending to heaven and Jesus being the only one to ever have according to the NT).

Shall I go through the list of people born from a virgin? Parthenogenesis is so common a claim in the ancient world, it’s difficult to imagine how anybody first thought of having sex (although, I’m sure some people will figure it out without having it explained to them). It’s either part of nature (which is totally fine with me) or it’s a miracle (which is also totally fine with me, though I would make the Humean claim that it should also be regarded as part of nature requiring evidence or you’d have to take all the Miraculous Births -see Wikipedia seriously). No sex, means no sin. That’s one way of looking at things. Jesus didn’t preach celibacy, so I don’t see why cloning (you could be born from a virgin that way) makes you so much better than other people. Jesus may have been without sin, but I don’t see why god was. He made something that required salvation (I would never do that on purpose and I’m just human). Why he needs to commit suicide (being himself and all) to fix things is beyond me. He had many names, which makes it such a tricky thing to define the historical Jesus. All we know it that Pontius Pilate had Jesus hung to a cross (about as common as killing lambs back then) and that his brother was James the Just. We have no proof of anything else, other than what the father of the church decided not to burn around 400 CE (what is now called, the Holy Bible). Only in the Gospel of John is it really claimed the Jesus was more divine that other human beings. Christ does mean “anointed one” and I believe he was with Kaneh-bosem (this is merely a belief that suits my purposes, I have no proof other than what the bible says; that’s not really proof of something happening in the real world though) as all other jewish kings were before him and that he wished we would all be christians, meaning anointed with this topical. It heals skin disease and helps you through pain (where before you were near death, and death is still a tricky medical issue). That followers didn’t dare to complain when they followed Jesus to an island where he went to be left alone, isn’t surprising. Nor does it proof that they really had enough to eat (if everybody just ate some crumbs and passed the food without really taking anything, it remains a parable about how you shouldn’t complain at most). Alcohol is the drug of choice in Christianity. I personally don’t drink a single drop. So I can’t be involved in the vampiric ritual of drinking my god. Transubstantiation remains about as tricky an issue as the Holy Trinity, so I try not to touch it. Glaucoma can also be relieved by lowering eye pressure, but I won’t speculate on what the medical community was and was not aware of in the realm of fixing things with herbs (all remaining knowledge was lost during the burning of witches anyway, we have to start pretty much from scratch). Walking on water was explained to me as a metaphor for conquering evils and being beyond them, but again, if you want to say miracles occur; there’s plenty going on right now according to followers of those religions (eg. Satya Sai Baba). It just seems a little gullible to me. But let’s get into the metaphysical bit. Let’s disregard causation a little (god being the cause of humans being the cause of sin). Let’s skip straight to taking all the sins away (including the ones in the future). That means I can’t sin anymore. I can do whatever I want and it won’t be a sin. This seems like a problem. I maintain I can act in a blameworthy manner (altough, I admit, I’m reluctant to use the word sin). As I already indicated, of all the Gospels, I care for John the least. He’s a self-righteous, arrogant author who makes Jesus out to be one to. Being the only son of god and all, as if we’re not all gods’ children. Being afraid to die and skipping that part by merely believing this is the case, isn’t very convincing either. I don’t think it’s a free gift (let’s consider all the suffering up to that point in the name of free will or whatever the excuse was). If the love of Jesus is that you will suffer without him, I love all sentient beings at least at much, for I fear they will be doomed to ignorance without my sacred reasoning abilities. It doesn’t make me a good person, arrogant at most. But I do like proselytizing and I always wished I could believe in god, because his followers make it sound so easy (and have the biblical imperative to do so). I would like to end with saying something like “god bless”, but I sneeze a lot and people have said “bless you” one too many times for me to take this wishful thinking (of health and other good fortune) seriously. If there is a god, I hope he’s on your side. But I can’t help thinking of the phrase “gott mit uns”, so I’ll just go on to the second part of your message/the Good News.

You say the belief is mostly up to me. Believe me when I say I have tried and tried to believe and so far I have failed. I wish to blame my creator, but I can’t. I don’t think nature can be blamed for anything. To ascribe the forces that have conspired against me to make me who I am with the power to send a son to be nailed to a cross, doesn’t solve it for me either. I’m glad you claim you have science on your side, because this is something I hardly ever hear from believers (or they cherry pick and say science is against them something, but on their side on other occasions).
1) Rewards. This is not a scientific claim, but I like quoting Einstein because I think he’s rather smart:
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
2) Believing something that is not true, does not gain me anything. But I do lose out on something. Something somewhat related to reality, I’d like to call it knowledge. But this could be more than simply justified true belief. I won’t get into epistemology here, I’m an agnostic in the literal sense. I don’t know (anything, has nothing to do with god).
3) If you have a false belief, there are MAJOR consequences in this life. Martyrdom is a good example of that. It brings up the issue of what kind of god you believe in and why you would. My god as I pointed out is not supernatural, he’s natural. But that means I can’t use the word. I just have to say nature (or truth, or reality or objective knowable things or something of that order).