What are human behavioral issues


Anyone who wants to understand the intention behind religiosity must gain a more comprehensive understanding of the semi-religious, provided that he is well-willed.


In the well-meaning semi-religious one can clearly trace what is religious and what distinguishes religious from one another:

Whether someone is religious or not depends on the claim that a person grants to the sources of knowledge by which he or she orientates himself. Either one depends on human knowledge or gives knowledge a claim to perfection (VA). If you give knowledge to a VA, you become religious.

Religious differentiates in which areas they apply the VA of their source of knowledge. One can apply the VA to the borderline questions and the behavioral questions:

- The religious applies the VA to the border questions and the questions of behavior.

- The non-religious dispenses with a VA in all questions.

- The semi-religious uses the VA only for border questions. He's got a better livelihood on border issues. He does not apply the VA in questions of conduct. The semi-religious has his own way of dealing with behavioral issues.


The semi-religious acts largely in a human sense when it comes to questions of behavior. He does take advantage of the opportunity, feels a little sublime here, thinks he knows a little better there, but overall it's just a game of little things. When it comes to questions of behavior, the will of God is either private or irrelevant, depending on one's taste and personal agreement. When it comes to questions of behavior, he remains largely independent and takes the guidelines of the source as a guide. That is very nice and exactly what every reasonable person does. Actually, he recognizes the problem. The trustful acceptance of superhuman knowledge is only bearable for a person living together if one refuses to accept the VA. But he only draws indirect conclusions from this knowledge.

The semi-religious holds fast to the superhuman in order to get the borderline questions answered in his favor. When it comes to border issues, he feels that he is in good hands in religion and gladly and wholeheartedly accepts the offer of the superhuman. He knows no alternative and that makes the world easier for him. So he has not broken away from a VA, but uses it unilaterally,


The emotional world of the semi-religious is clearly structured. God stands for the good, he himself is of good will. So that fits. God stands for the higher, better, spiritually far superior, he himself would like to be guided by a like-minded but more far-sighted being. That also fits. This means everyone Well-willed people tend to be religious, insofar as the aforementioned conditions are met. To turn to God means for the semi-religious to turn to the good. To trust in God means for him to underline his goodwill. Religiousness serves to send a positive, outward signal. A commitment to good. With this turn, the semi-religious also connects his livelihood with the world, he now feels welcome and arrived in it, he feels guided. And with this turn he connects his livelihood in the hereafter.

There is therefore a need for good reasons to refuse this turn. And the non-religious does not give him these good reasons to refuse.


The non-religious approaches the subject in a similar way. He is also well-willed. He, too, tends to be religious, but is deterred by the negative effects of religion. So he gets to know - and quickly finds what he is looking for. On the one hand, he is bothered by how improbable and contradictory the ideas of God are; on the other hand, the sources of knowledge offered contain content that cannot be interpreted in a good sense. He sees them primarily as the reasons for the negative effects of religion.


If the non-religious and the semi-religious meet once a year, the non-religious have exactly 12 hours to convince the semi-religious of his views.

The non-religious spends the first 8 hours trying to show the semi-religious how improbable their conception of God is. These first 8 hours will be a complete waste of time. Logical objections do not hit the religious at all, especially not if they cannot be sustained. Evidence and counter-evidence will be given, and the bottom line will be that you actually cannot know. The semi-religious will also notice that they therefore also call it a belief and are mainly irritated about how one can degrade an emotional topic, the turning towards the good, to a purely logical level. He will notice to himself that the other does not understand what belief means, but neither would he be able to explain it. In these first hours the contradictions of the ideas of God will also come up for discussion, but the semi-religious will take this into account for the indiscernibility of God and so these reasons will not be able to convince him either. For him, contradiction is part of it.

For the next 3 hours, the non-religious will name the semi-religious text passages in which the concept of God is related to inhuman and socially hostile rules of behavior. The non-religious will criticize the idea of ​​God mentioned in the text passages as patriarchal, angry and vengeful. That doesn't bother the semi-religious. He knows that enforcement also belongs to good and because of these traits God becomes more accessible and human for him, because it is human traits that are criticized.

The passages of text calling for violence and intolerance do not bother the semi-religious either because they do not adhere to them. For him, the criminal history of religions is a criminal history of humanity. He sees the past as overcome. And in the negative examples of the present he sees exceptions and dismisses them as misunderstood religiosity. He sees himself as an example that one can get along with religion in a positive sense.

His one-sided treatment of a VA becomes clear in his behavior. He uses it to get along with God and to have calming thoughts for the hereafter; In relation to questions of behavior, he refuses the superhuman character of his dedication, it only serves as a rough guide. In this conversation, of course, there is no talk of a VA, but only of a belief.

The semi-religious believes in God, believes in the hereafter, believes that everything is fine.

And the non-religious see the belief in God as unfounded, will dismiss the belief in the hereafter as ridiculous and nothing is okay for him - more precisely, he will accuse the semi-religious of being a complete idiot.

Both sides will spend the last hour nicely.


The reasons given by the non-religious are all correct, but they do not hit the essence. They show that he has just as little understood religion as the semi-religious himself. In his criticism of religion, he not only managed to become illogical himself and seem cold-hearted, he also managed to make the semi-religious feel to be right. In other words, he was very poorly prepared for this interview. But that doesn't matter. The conversation will arise again and we now have time to prepare more thoroughly so that we can make better use of the next 12 hours. Ethical reasons are important to the semi-religious, so one must also give him ethical reasons.


If you want to improve your criticism of religion, you must:

- understand the essence of religion,

- create a religion with seductive content,

- and then become religious yourself.


We only have 12 hours available and we won't waste that time again.