but why

are they different phenomenon in kind?

Because it's convenient

or is it to conveniently denounce one

I see

"Religion" is just the opposite of "Nihilism"

the world is alive, and meaningful down to its smallest parts

personally meaningful

the common people understand "religion" as the world of people, not the world itself

"personal" is a circle-jerk

it's the opposite of the sort of "realist" cynicism that is typical of modern people

Religious world is completely dead

or more preciselly numb

It can't die though, that's my point

watch it come back

and that's good, that it will come back

that's how we really are, the current state is an aberration

It indefinitely requires a crude mask over itself, a stiff structure of religious liturgical formality

a blip

that goes for any such thing doesn't it

the natural moral law turns into legalism

A man chasing meaning under religious predispositions

it's only when one aspect is forgotten

that it becomes crazy

Is a man destined to be forever lost and never to really grasp the nature of the wold around it

legalism on its own becomes crazy, but just the fact that there is some structure

nothing wrong with that

And therefore to truly feel alive

In a living, not a dead world

if the west duys, 80% of africa and half of india will just die

also 50% of the west

will just die

I accept that man needs to feel that

but don't accept that he is "destined to be forever lost"

And therefore to understand the real nature of this alive world, what it is, how it relates to him

it's the opposite

when he has some framework of meaning, then he isn't lost

A religious man is a paramount example of a man who cannot see things under his own nose

the non-nationals in europe will mostly die

A greek or germanic pagan is a religious man in this view?

or not