"god is dead" is a concept for believers and atheists alike. in fact, if you read that passage in "the gay science" carefully, it seems like nietzsche is adressing non-believers primarily. what it means is that while taking god out of the picture a lot of the intellectual comfort that secular people continued to cling to goes aways as well.
I think Nietzsche would have abhorred the connection of his work to anti-semetism and the Third Reich. Too bad that was pushed by his sister (and caretaker) after his death...
nietzsche wasnt a nihilist . he suggested us to break those horrible traditions and showed the way without GOD. he says: we ve killed the god in our minds .
How can anybody see something as "against gods" if one is "without gods?"
If words do indeed "mean things," then you can't be against something that isn't there. There just wouldn't be anything to fight. You couldn't be "against Nazis" before they actually existed, could you?
the point is that only the mad man realises god is dead, even the other people in the village don't believe in god. so that is a paradox. but the mad man sees a deeper truth and its to do with culture. even science is searching for a god called truth, which if you research into history, the platonists and christians searched for also. no other culture has searched for meaning in the world as much as ours, and it is a god we cannot shake off.
also when you read nietzsche he is always rattling against the enlightenment philosophers like kant who tried to find grand theories which were actually according to nietzche, based on christian premises. I cant really argue that point in much depth, but this is the reason i think he believes athiesm is the same as monotheism and is an offshoot from christianity and could not have occured in another culture.
@jakematters... he is not against god per se. hes against the result of what happens to people when believing in a god that doesnt exsist. a detachment from nature and of the things that really matter .
Sure you can be against something that isn't there: Christians are against Satan. But we all know that Satan doesn't really exist. Your analogy with the Nazis is a total failure.
Like you said; to Christianity, Satan IS real and are therefore AGAINST him/her/it..
You are obviously opposed to the belief in Satan as a real being and are subsequently opposed to Christianity.. Again: A Real Thing...
The evils that ensued from Nazi fascism didn't happen until long after it had "proven" itself as the only correct choice for the millions of Germans who bought it all as truth..
The existence of X doesn't depend on one's beliefs about X: the belief that Satan is real doesn't make Satan real. Unless you deny this or believe that Satan does indeed exist, you have to agree that, since Christians are against Satan, they are opposed to something that is not real. Their beliefs about the matter are completely irrelevant.
The reason why people couldn't be against the Nazis before the Nazis existed is because they lacked the concept of "Nazism." It was not because Nazis didn't exist! We can have a concept of something, or be against that something, without that something ever being real.
I am not American and I don't see how politics have anything to do with this...
This is what you said, "you can't be against something that isn't there." What you (now say) you actually meant was, "you can't be against something that you don't believe exists," even though that's not true either. I can be opposed to worship of a made up God without ever believing that there are people who believe in and worship that god, let alone that this god exists.
..and yeah.. People couldn't be against Nazis before the Nazis existed because the average mind (in this case yours) hadn't been aware of a Nazi ever existing...thus never having to pay any mind as to whether or not it should be opposed..
No mind could be against Nazis before NAZISM existed because no one could acquire the concept of a Nazi. It has nothing to do with intelligence, average or otherwise, and it has nothing to do with the existence of Nazis. Nazism can exist without Nazis ever existing. Do you understand? I cannot be against Satan without having an idea of "Satan." But my idea of Satan and Satan's existence are two completely different things.
If you mean by "concept of Nazi" as "genocide, war" then you'd be mistaken. War and genocide has occurred all throughout history all over the globe.. So the "genocide, war" bit already had it's foot in the door.
You have the gall to tell me "perseverate" is not a word and systematically challenge my reasoning?
You aren't against Satan. Christians are. I get it, oh boy, I get it. Your non-United States of America education leaves homeschooling to be desired..
I thought you were misspelling "perseverance" and, no, "Nazi" does not mean "genocide." Those are two completely different things.
Your reasoning is ridiculous, if you actually believe that to be opposed to something, that something must be real. There are no devils, demons, witches, evil spirits, or Satan, yet people have been opposed to these things all throughout history. You must adhere to some weird form of metaphysical idealism if you disagree.
All I'm saying, at root, is that we can have beliefs about things that don't truly exist. This is because the existence of the subject of our belief is determined separately from our belief about the subject. If I have a belief about Minotaurs, say, that they are grotesque, that does not entail neither (1) that minotaurs exist; nor (2) that I believe that minotaurs exist. All it means is that I find the idea of a minotaur to be disgusting.
Hmm, yeah.. "...things that don't truly exist.." is still an opinion.. If your BA from an American university instructed you upon the proof that Satan doesn't exist, then it was well worth your effort to take that course..
I am an Atheist. I do not claim existence of anything supernatural without evidence. Said evidence then procures phenomena as natural; strange though it may be. The universe is once again in order.
I've studied epistemology, metaphysics, and realism/anti-realism, all of which can weigh in on the question of the existence of Satan. But, if you're an atheist, I don't need to convince you that there's no proof for the existence of Satan. If you'd like, I could use a "natural" example instead of Satan to explain my point?
@jakematters Quit hating on Americans, man. Every country has their share of morons, America just puts theirs in the public eye a bit more often because their government/media is a joke. You don't have to believe in something to be disgusted by the general idea of it. Your negative attitude makes you look unintelligent. You can disagree, but you don't need to take things to a personal level. It just makes you look immature and uncivilized.
I've read your comment twice. It seems you have somehow concluded that I am anti-American. Stay with it here, it'll be quick..
I'm an American. That person was not.
Now. Re-read my previous entries and look for anything like this "personal" and "immature" statement directed at you: "Suck it. Go listen to incubus or oasis or some shit like you most likely would. Speaking of your demeanor, 'hate heals you should try it sometime."
The God delusion is hard to break...it took me YEARS to overcome it. Thank "God" I broke free. However I leave behind my fundi christian mom and the rest of her family. Fuck religious divisions.
@missaquaboogie Why divorce yourself from emotional attachment to your family on the basis of your resentment for their beliefs? To overcome your resentment and to exist with them, brushing their ignorance aside in your mind, is in itself a feat. Instead of destroying your ties with your family, educate them through your actions. Be above your own stubbornness. Be an example for those who may not lack intelligence, but lack exposure to the truth.
@xchn1 I disagree, because its only natural that we brush aside the differences of those related to us, because the benefits of doing that are unlimited and it does not take a strong person to do that in my opinion. Conversely, it takes an extreme exertion of will power to alienate yourself from everything and everyone(especially family) on the basis of your beliefs. It is clear that you are mistaking Nietzsche's strength to stand for what he believes is right for weakness.
@Greensanemanic Firmness in what you believe is not weak. People fight with this concept every day and most never achieve it--in the face of public opinion. If you can achieve this in your own mind, it's not only beneficial to you but to others as well. Personal freedom is wonderful.
@xchn1 My bad, let me rephrase: Nietzsche did not believe in anything. He was a skeptic and his intelligence is evidence of his skepticism. My original point should be rephrased as follows: what Nietzsche had tried was harder than merely believing. What I've learned is: meaningless is a scary "abyss"; our beliefs relieve us of meaninglessness which is why we are willing to justify our beliefs through suffering to prove that "firmness in what you believe is not weak."
@Greensanemanic yeah but his infinite skepticism drove him over the edge. he lived his last years insane often chanting prayers he learned as a child.
@baezalejandro A tragedy that such a monster of intellect, courage and overcoming should end in such a way. I think if he could have he would have gone out like Socrates had.
Yet, still...the way he died most likely means nothing, it was how he lived.
@tiakpark I believe you mean to address someone else. You've said, "the abyss" can't be merely objectified by things such as fear, resentment, will to deny, and so on. I agree. All I was saying is that if we truely get rid of our values, morals, and beliefs(tools of objectification, if you will), most of us will easily be devoured by the abyss. In none technical terms, this means we can loose grip on the structures on which we base reality and become insane.
@tiakpark To finish that point. The mental battle therefore becomes a battle for sanity, which is in of itself is a scary hard battle, because once you loose, you either become like poor Nietzsche or Like the Joker :P(for example!). Personally, I don't know if this battle is possible to win. However I have no basis for this because, I will admit, I have not truly let slide all the things that I contentiously know don't matter.
@Greensanemanic It is possible to win...As for Objectivity, it's not that I would disagree with Ayn Rand in the matter of "A is A" but I would rephrase it a "A does A" or "A sees A." It's scary how much of Nietzsche's queries sounded like quantum physics in an age when science still didn't have Albert Einstein to help it along. In another life, Nietzsche could have been a scientist, or so I believe. It's getting to the point where even science is shattering our objective beliefs in the world.
@Greensanemanic Anyone who wishes to cross would need...a tether. For Nietzsche, man was that tether. But that would only work for simple voyages across the abyss (the Chesed-Binah path in Kabalah). But even that tether had to be overcome as Zarathustra did when he overcame his pity for the Higherman in book four. That, to me, would be symbolic of the final cross over the abyss (Tiphereth-Kether). Where the Overman becomes king...or even a god. The eternal femimine would be Malkuth, which Kether
@tiakpark I like what you are saying, and I find it interesting! Nevertheless, hear my relatively simple idea of this. I am sure you would agree that we boost our egos by objectifying our significance through what we call "success". Right? Well the abyss as a surpass-able obstacle, implies success, and is therefore egotistical. All I am trying to say is that "staring at the abyss" is exactly that. Its scary, real and constant. Its nude reality, not an ego boosting obstacle.
@Greensanemanic I'm not disagreeing with you, either. I know I have a somewhat big ego that I'm proud. (I often fantasize about being a rich aristocrat in a powerful empire led by a badass emperor). The real test is to able to turn off the ego like a light-switch. Obejctivity is important, of course, it's just not the whole truth. Truth itself is reletive, but that doesn't warrent us the right to be nihilistic, because that is itself a product of the ego which we use to try to trump existence.
@Greensanemanic I think what Nietzstche hated the most were so called "selfless" people who were "moral" and who were somehow more "holy" just for having a pessimistic outlook when deep down these people had huge egos. Nirvana, or egolessness, wouldn't automatically make you an anti-materialist since such thoughts or still the product of a resentful ego. Sometimes the most egotistical people are those who damn the ego itself. So the real logical thing would be to acknowledge the ego.
@tiakparkI What you say is true, only I would not say Nietzsche hated anyone. I mean, do you think it is possible for someone who thinks objectification is a crude tool to turn around and hypocritically objectify others enough to hate them? Without objectification there could be no judgment, and therefore no hate. My guess is that Nietzsche was extremely impartial on such matters. Besides, his extensive and original work is proof enough to me that he wasted little time hating people.
@Greensanemanic Okay, maybe hate was too strong a word. And I wasn't saying Nietzsche hated people who were objetive. Even though he wouldn't be first in learn to join the Objectivism philosophy (or any philosophy for that matter) he knew people needed to be able to objectify things. That's not what I was saying at all. I was thinking about his book "The Antichrist" and how he takes a hammer to not just Christians but anybody who would distort reality to the point where people have no trust...
@Greensanemanic ...no trust in reality. I know he understood the importance of objectivity. Consciouness is ground-zero. We only begin to understand anything until we learn to count forwards from one. Getting back to that ground-zero, egolessness could either be the work of a person dedicated to knowing the truth about reality (Buddists, on one hand) or it could be the work of a person so filled with hatred for reality that they wanted to deny or destroy reality (St. Paul).
@baezalejandro no atheism is almost a religion of it self...the real problem is GROUP think...even if atheism killed millions...religion combined is responsible for perhaps billions of death of the 100 000 or 2000 0000 existence of human experience. Not believing in God does not make a person an atheist however belief in fair tales that are BRAINWASHED from childhood is more problematic and the brainwashing depends on location. Anyways carry on in your religious self-deception.
@missaquaboogie you're understanding of christianity is deeply flawed. a "christian" who commits an atrocity is not a true christian.
an atheist who commits an atrocity however is just that.. an atheist. in rebelling against everything u lose your right to condemn anything. an atheist will condemn religions 4 acting like beasts yet turn around and with the highest scientific mind declare that they practically are beast.
it's funny how atheists try to use judeo-christian morals to condemn them
". a "christian" who commits an atrocity is not a true christian."
"an atheist who commits an atrocity however is just that.. an atheist"
Oh the hypocrisy! In other words, you can cherry pick your members so you don't look bad. Bullshit. You can't. People are part of the religion to which they subscribe themselves and have personal belief in.
@tskasa1 "Oh the hypocrisy! In other words, you can cherry pick your members so you don't look bad."
if i claim i'm a muslim and go to a christian church does that make me a muslim? same goes for a christian who goes around exterminating ppl and raping ppl.
you judge the faith not those who distort the faith.
"it's funny how atheists try to use judeo-christian morals to condemn them"
Lol, first of all, these morals have existed long and FAR before judeo-christian cultures EVER came into even SLIGHT contact with cultures all over the world. So this is complete and utter bull.
It's to point out your hypocrisy and the irony of it all.
"an atheist will condemn religions 4 acting like beasts yet turn around and with the highest scientific mind declare that they practically are beast."
Which has been known for centuries and we accept... However it does not change the fact that your HOLY BOOK is the one that commands you to act like beast and carry out genocides and ethnocides while atheists have no such book that not only makes it seem holy to murder nonbelievers, but makes it a COMMAND FROM GOD!
@tskasa1 "Which has been known for centuries and we accept... However it does not change the fact that your HOLY BOOK is the one that commands you to act like beast "
you should really read the teachings of Jesus christ sometime.
2nd i find it odd that an athiest can make such an ABSOLUTE claim of morality in a relativistic and circumstantial worldview.
"you should really read the teachings of Jesus christ sometime."
I've read the bible, cover to cover. Both old and new testament. Several times. And I've WRITTEN it cover to cover about three times. I have.
Are we talking about the same Jesus Christ who spoke of a parable about a lord wanting his enemies killed before his eyes? Or the one who constantly affirmed and stated the validity of the Old Testament?
Yes, God commanded these things and Jesus supported them.
u seem to forget when the Phairsees asked Jesus about divorce. they said since MOSES had given them the law saying they can divorce with a certificate of divorce,
He told them "BECUZ OF YOUR HARDENED HEARTS MOSES GAVE U THIS COMMANDMENT! BUT IT WAS NOT SO FROM THE BEGINNING."
thus making anything in contradiction to Jesus' teaching null.
"thus making anything in contradiction to Jesus' teaching null."
From Jesus' own mouth:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." -Matthew 5:17
Jebus has spoken. The New Testament>>>Your Bullshit. There are MANY more like this.
@tskasa1 you also forget Jesus healed many on the Sabbath when one was commanded to do no work. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and told them if they only knew these words, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice,"
"you also forget Jesus healed many on the Sabbath when one was commanded to do no work."
Yes. Then again, healing is NOT considered work. The Jews actually have lists of what they can and cannot do during the Sabbath. Miraculous healings and miracles is not on that list.
Furthermore, Jebus was supposedly God, so those rules probably didn't apply to him anyway.
Not to mention that there ARE exceptions to work during the Sabbath so long as they classify under emergencies or neccesities that absolutely cannot be avoided.
"u don't destroy the constitution by repealing 1 or 2 laws which were given after the constitution was made"
So you're arguing that not only is God NOT omniscient and NOT perfect, but that his laws as well are flawed? You are saying that God's laws are flawed even when Jesus repeatedly said they weren't?
@tskasa1 "So you're arguing that not only is God NOT omniscient and NOT perfect, but that his laws as well are flawed? You are saying that God's laws are flawed even when Jesus repeatedly said they weren't?"
-How hard is "Becuz of your hardened hearts Moses gave u this command. but it was not so from the beginning," to understand???
if u insist on continuing in your sin u know what God will do? stand by and let u do so. he can never violate your free will.
Also, thank you for admitting that not only is God not perfect, but that he is not all knowing. Oh, how wonderful is the bible? After all, if you want to find the ultimate argument against religion, all you need to do is look inside.
@tskasa1 again u have to think of it as the constitution.
2nd God sees all and knows all of mans sin and the sins of a nation. that is what the brother said in maccabees "We, indeed, are suffering because of our sins."
and there were times in the past when the Isrealis were commanded to become God's wrath.
but those were the ways of old. that is why Jesus had come to bring forgiveness to ALL nations for all nations would be judged including the Isrealis.
And again, that would PROVE that God is NOT perfect OR omniscient OR omnipotent OR OR omnipresent. The constitution is ONLY modified when its shown to be faulty and needs to be fixed to be just and fair. So...
@tskasa1 how would that prove that God is not perfect? if one insists to continue in thier sin God will stand by and let them do so, for that would be a violation of free-will.
"and there were times in the past when the Isrealis were commanded to become God's wrath."
It it is TRULY the words of an ETERNALLY and INFINITELY just word of a God then it SHOULD hold for ETERNITY and should be morally IMPECCABLE. Yet...it doesn't...
Also, quoting fairy tales isn't going to do much on me. I've WRITTEN the bible thrice and read it even more. You're not going to convert me so shamelessly.
@tskasa1 "Also, quoting fairy tales isn't going to do much on me. I've WRITTEN the bible thrice and read it even more. You're not going to convert me so shamelessly."
well then you're obviously being a hypocrite in trying to pick and choose what u want to interpret.
"What do you expect to achieve by questioning us? We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors."
At that the king, in a fury, gave orders to have pans and caldrons heated.
While they were being quickly heated, he commanded his executioners to cut out the tongue of the one who had spoken for the others, to scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of his brothers and his mother looked on.
@tskasa1 After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put out his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely held out his hands,
as he spoke these noble words: "It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."
Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man's courage, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
@tskasa1 But you, wretch, vilest of all men! do not, in your insolence, concern yourself with unfounded hopes, as you raise your hand against the children of Heaven.
You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty and all-seeing God.
Also, lets not forget when God slaughters a guy's family (a very faithful man btw) and royally screws up his life... To win a bet (and make a point) with the devil....
@tskasa1 Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, u who pass judgement on someone else for at whatever point u judge the other, u are condemning yourself, becuz you who pass judgement do the same things.
@tskasa1 think of it like the constitution. u don't destroy the constitution by repealing 1 or 2 laws which were given after the constitution was made.
"2nd i find it odd that an athiest can make such an ABSOLUTE claim of morality in a relativistic and circumstantial worldview."
What absolute claims did I make?! All I stated is that the morals of which you speak have existed before even Judaism. And they also existed in areas that had yet to come into contact with even the Jews and had had them for several hundred to thousands of years. So no.
Morals have always and shall ALWAYS be decided by society and man.
"atheistic divisions and butcher millions upon millions like Mao and Stalin in the name of the state."
Exactly, IN THE NAME OF THE STATE. Mao and Stalin didn't kill because they were atheists, but because they were driven by their state-centric ideologies.
NO man has EVER killed for atheism or in the name of atheism. Far too many are those who have killed for God.
No, the state is not the same as humanity. They did not what was good for the people of Russia, but what they believed to be good for Russia as a whole. And in the process they were willing to risk and kill as many civilians as possible. Two completely different things. They did what they believed to be best for their country. They were not following holy scripture or text. So no, they do not speak for the majority of atheists.
"i chimp doesn't care about a baby from another tribe. in fact they often tear those babies apart limb by limb."
Your point is? Humans are not chimps. We are animals. But not chimps.
And, just so you know, in fact, chimps and other apes have been documented in taking in lost children from another tribe as one of their own and raising them within the tribe. So yeah.....
"EXACTLY. history has proven that humans are even worse than animals."
And the worst of it is in the bible. As commanded by God.
"again u're ignoring jesus' teachings"
Am I the only one who read the bible? Jesus made some exceptions, yet he made it clear enough that he approved of the law of the old testament. And yes, this included killing nonbelievers. Jesus contradicted himself. Much like the rest of the bible.
@tskasa1 lol. if such things can be done by manipulation of religion imagine the lawlessness that would ensue by saying "evil is simply a matter of what u make it."
2nd i'd like to see where he approved killing non-believers?
"i'd like to see where he approved killing non-believers?"
Who, Jesus or God? Because God was VERY clear that nonbelievers and followers of other faiths should be killed. And Jebus repeatedly supported daddy-oh-in-the-sky-oh.
No, I haven't. He was saying that the Pharisees were reading too much into it. He was telling them that they were corrupting the original law and twisting it for their own sanctimonious needs. They were being hypocrites and using the law to slander others.
It is VERY hard, however, to misinterpret God's commands to kill any and all nonbelievers and pagans. As well as his commands to loot their towns, ravage their women, and kil their childrn
@baezalejandro "where was the order to kill all non-believers then?" *whistles* There are a LOT. Just to name a few: 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 Deuteronomy 13:13-19 Deuteronomy 13:7-12 Just a few. "he can never violate your free will." Yes, he only kills you and damns you for eternity because he's too petty to be able to stand people not praising him... How arrogant, self-absorbed and idiotic for a supreme being... God the 3 year old...
"and chimps have also been documented killing other baby chimps."
You completely miss the point. Chimps have been shown to be as equally able to sympathize and show compassion as to be brutal and murderous. Humans are much the same.
@tskasa1 "NO man has EVER killed for atheism or in the name of atheism. Far too many are those who have killed for God."
ok u can argue that. "no one has killed in the NAME of athiesm"
BUT athiesm is akin to anarchy as it has no rules or regulations. would u get rid of government all together? of course not becuz it frees the reigns on a man and and end up in a world were any act can be justified.
@baezalejandro you also forgot say: butcher millions in the name of Christianity, Islam, and other such beliefs that we find ourselves so special to blindly believe.
@LittleSn00py are you talking about the book? I've read it and it was OKAY...not convincing for someone like me who already is already anti-religion to begin with but at least it is an attempt however his tone is very condescending and a bit pretentious with the unnecessary intellectual jargon. But with religious people I guess most often that type of cynicism and mockery is needy because you can't get thru someone is so dedicated to their religious opinion.
Nietszche le dio influencia a Hitler.... con su idea del superhumano, te sientes bien decir eso? especialmente cuando Nietszche destruyo la idea de moralidad, y su objeccion a la moralidad era porque el lo dijo...
Nietzche y su filosofia influencia halgo llamado Nihilism en Ingles, que quita toda responsabilidad de moralidad. Nietzche dijo que ser humilde y moral eran parte de inferiodad humana. Dijo que Jesucristo y su filosofia eran equivicadas, dijo que Socrates era un 'bafoon' o idiota, y dijo que realidad no existe. El es el antitesis the Razon y Logica, el es un enemigo a la Ciencia, A la Religion, a la Moralidad, a Razon, y mas importante a Dios.
It's pretty clear that Nietzsche didn't believe in the "reality" of any gods. But that doesn't mean he was against all gods. Do I even need to mention the importance of Dionysus to Nietzsche's work as an emeblem of life-affirmation? "Dionysus versus the Crucified." Also, read GM II, 23. I hope this leads you to reasses your reading of N.
Sure was, but if you think Nietzsche would have had a problem with a culture/society that actually believed in Dionysus (in the sense he conceived of him), then I think his writings prove you dead wrong. And, as metaphorical as it was, there's no contradiction in thinking of Nietzsche as a disciple of Dionysus, or as a believer in eternal recurrence (and maybe also will to power) in a metaphysical sense, even though he repudiated all metaphysics.
True, but he favored the ancient Greeks, OVER the culture of Christendom. It's culture, whether it was influenced by a god, or not, that he was admiring, not so much the gods they claimed to have followed. We can even say the god's Characteristics (still embodied by man, however), more so, than the god itself. Eternal recurrence can be godless. Mystical doesn't necessarily mean God-affirmed.
I won't even argue about whether he admired the gods or not, because it has nothing to do with what you tried calling me out on - whether he was against all gods or not. I think it's clear that he wasn't against all gods, due to the significance of Dinoysus to his philosophy, his admiration of the Greeks, and other comments.
The eternal recurrence has nothing to do with gods. I used that as an example of a metaphysical doctrine Nietzsche held, while he still rejected metaphysics completely.
Yeah, but he was talking about the Judeo-Christian god. And he called himself the disciple of Dionysus. The final sentence of his autobiography reads - "Dionysus vs. the crucified"!
My point about eternal recurrence is this - it's metaphysical, Nietzsche rejected metaphyics, but still adhered to ER, because it was a life-affirming doctrine. Gods are similar: they don't exist, but belief in some gods is not necessairly harmful to life and can even promote its flourishing. Therefore, it's OK.
Yes.Nietzsche supports the followers of Dionysus, not of the Christian God. To quote Nietzsche himself: "How can we be so tolerant of the naïveté of Christian theologians as to join in their doctrine that the evolution of the concept of god from "the god of Israel," the god of a people, to the Christian god, the essence of all goodness, is to be described as progress?"-The Antichrist
Again it's metaphorical, not literal. He would ascribe Dionysian traits in the cultures he admired like the vikings, samurai,etc, because they affirm life.
Yes, it's metaphorical. But the question is whether Nietzsche was against "all gods" or not, not whether he believed in their existence. Clearly, he didn't. If you can find evidence that he was against all gods, apart from stupid "Zarathustra the godless" remarks, then please share. Otherwise, I think you could just read GM II, 23, and ponder Nietzsche's exhalation of Dionysus, and that should be enough to convince you that he thought that belief can be OK, if it was life-affirming/enhancing.
When Nietzsche wrote "Zarathustra the godless," he was referring to God of the Bible/Torah. That's automatic, because Zarathustra is immoral, in the traditional sense. However, a dithyramb and Dionysus are two different things.
Nietzsche admiring Dionysus is different than actually supporting him. Nietzsche was an agnostic, but his focus was on admiration of Dionysus, with admiration on his traits, found in men, not outright worship. What I'm trying to say is Nietzsche wasn't against ALL gods, but one: The Christian one.
Actually, Nietzsche wasn't an atheist, since, like we've just discussed, he'd be against ALL gods, which he clearly was not. There are many instances of his agnosticism. One is: "I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers"
?!?!?! Being an atheist isn't the same as being "against all gods." It means to not believe in the reality of a God(s). One can be an atheist and support a belief in a God (for the sake of moral guidance, for example, or anything of the sort)
In that passage from EH, Nietzsche is saying that he IS an atheist! He's saying that atheism came to him by instinct.
The claim that "God does not exist" is descriptive. It says something about the way the world is, i.e., in this case, that there is no such entity as "God." The claim "I am against belief in God" is prescriptive - it requires an evaluation, i.e., in this case, that the belief in God is harmful, or bad. There is no necessary relation between the descriptive claim and the prescriptive one. One can be "without gods" and still endorse or be ambivalent about the VALUE of belief in gods. Understand?
If you are against belief in god, I guess that you are most likely without god. But that's a botched answer for the real question here, which is, namely, does atheism necessitate being against theism (i.e., against the value of the belief, regardless of its epistemic status). The form is: "If P(atheism), then Q (anti-value of theism)." You've turned it into, "If Q (anti-value of theism), then P (atheism)"!!!! That's not legit!!!!
"How is 'without gods' one and the same as 'against all gods'?"
i see it as some type of paradox in which being against all gods is being without gods, but being without gods is not necessarily being against all gods.
There's no paradox here, and I posed that question to MarcoutesGabber, who thought that "without gods" is the same as "against gods," which is clearly not true..
There is a lot of negativity in his writings, however I feel Nietzsche writes so harshly to make people think why they believe things, if it is actually in love of life or not.
"the 'kingdom of Heaven' is a condition of the heart not something that comes 'upon the earth' or 'after death'... The 'kingdom of God' is not something one waits for; it has no yesterday or tomorrow it does not come in a thousand years- it is an experience in the heart: it is everywhere, it is nowhere..."
Metaphysics are the way we understand the nature of 'being'. Nietzche had no stance whatsoever, he had no stance on reality. Nietzsche was one of the craziest philosophers of all time, I doubt anyone can call him great.
Are you saying that Nietzsche never talked about "being" (in the broadest sense of the term) in his work; or that he denied the existence of the thing-in-itself, of the "will," of free will, of the ego, of sin, of God, of the reality of Christian morality, all of which have metaphysical components? You should probably reread Twilight of the Idols.
noisy music. does not go with the text.
ruzickaw 10 months ago
"god is dead" is a concept for believers and atheists alike. in fact, if you read that passage in "the gay science" carefully, it seems like nietzsche is adressing non-believers primarily. what it means is that while taking god out of the picture a lot of the intellectual comfort that secular people continued to cling to goes aways as well.
fede2 10 months ago
Nietzsche is dead - God.
bluewater454 11 months ago
I have read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but it was really hard to discern any real philosophy or ideology - it was more like a story.
HorridDreams 1 year ago
@HorridDreams You didn't get it.
VivaTheEnd 1 year ago
@VivaTheEnd I DID ''get it''. I only said it was hard to read. I read it in german, and it's not very straight forward.
HorridDreams 1 year ago
@HorridDreams "You didn't get it."
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic I DID ''get it''. I only said it was hard to read. I read it in german, and it's not very straight forward.
HorridDreams 1 year ago
Thus spoke Zarathustra is Nietzsche's greatest achievement.
MrtnMrnv 1 year ago
The philosophy of Nietzsche is perfectly matchable with the existence of a god. Conclusions have nothing to do with the processus that brought them.
pierolivier111 1 year ago
Ah, the ubermasche in one form from part four. I just read Neitzche's works, so I can sound like I have a fantastic memory.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 1 year ago
God is deader than dead!
TheArtificialAtheist 1 year ago
Nietzsche should not be set to music. The choice of music is subjective and can influence the viewer as to the actual meaning of the words.
CRIMINALSUICIDELTD 1 year ago
It's a better bet to say Nietzche is dead.
TheJasperkitty 1 year ago
nietzsche was a complete fool among fools.
jesusb71 1 year ago
@jakematters If you're an atheist, a theist, or even an agnostic, you've missed the fucking point of Nietzsche...
EnterpriseE1701E 1 year ago
I think Nietzsche would have abhorred the connection of his work to anti-semetism and the Third Reich. Too bad that was pushed by his sister (and caretaker) after his death...
edthewave 1 year ago 5
@edthewave I agree.
miku282 1 year ago
nietzsche wasnt a nihilist . he suggested us to break those horrible traditions and showed the way without GOD. he says: we ve killed the god in our minds .
THE IDEA OF GOD IS DEAD IN OUR BRAINS
chauchidze 2 years ago
How can anybody see something as "against gods" if one is "without gods?"
If words do indeed "mean things," then you can't be against something that isn't there. There just wouldn't be anything to fight. You couldn't be "against Nazis" before they actually existed, could you?
jakematters 2 years ago
the point is that only the mad man realises god is dead, even the other people in the village don't believe in god. so that is a paradox. but the mad man sees a deeper truth and its to do with culture. even science is searching for a god called truth, which if you research into history, the platonists and christians searched for also. no other culture has searched for meaning in the world as much as ours, and it is a god we cannot shake off.
soursourapples 2 years ago
also when you read nietzsche he is always rattling against the enlightenment philosophers like kant who tried to find grand theories which were actually according to nietzche, based on christian premises. I cant really argue that point in much depth, but this is the reason i think he believes athiesm is the same as monotheism and is an offshoot from christianity and could not have occured in another culture.
soursourapples 2 years ago
..great, now I'm eating truckloads of chocolate.. Thanks. ;)
jakematters 2 years ago
@jakematters
thats exactly what I did. then i moved on to pringles :(
soursourapples 2 years ago
@jakematters
You can be agiant somethng like the Nazis--the cruelity. Nietzches was very much afraid of such movements.
gator153 2 years ago
@jakematters... he is not against god per se. hes against the result of what happens to people when believing in a god that doesnt exsist. a detachment from nature and of the things that really matter .
ubermensch81 2 years ago
Sure you can be against something that isn't there: Christians are against Satan. But we all know that Satan doesn't really exist. Your analogy with the Nazis is a total failure.
Thresholds 2 years ago
Nope. You're wrong.
Like you said; to Christianity, Satan IS real and are therefore AGAINST him/her/it..
You are obviously opposed to the belief in Satan as a real being and are subsequently opposed to Christianity.. Again: A Real Thing...
The evils that ensued from Nazi fascism didn't happen until long after it had "proven" itself as the only correct choice for the millions of Germans who bought it all as truth..
I bet you voted Obama..
jakematters 2 years ago
The existence of X doesn't depend on one's beliefs about X: the belief that Satan is real doesn't make Satan real. Unless you deny this or believe that Satan does indeed exist, you have to agree that, since Christians are against Satan, they are opposed to something that is not real. Their beliefs about the matter are completely irrelevant.
Thresholds 2 years ago
The reason why people couldn't be against the Nazis before the Nazis existed is because they lacked the concept of "Nazism." It was not because Nazis didn't exist! We can have a concept of something, or be against that something, without that something ever being real.
I am not American and I don't see how politics have anything to do with this...
Thresholds 2 years ago
..look..wherever you are..this isn't about IF Satan is real... It's simply about not being able to be against something that is denied of existence..
Simply denying it renders need for opposition obsolete..
Well, then I bet in a past life you went to the colloseum every "Fleshy Friday Family Night"..
And why not? Everybody else did in one way or the other..
jakematters 2 years ago
This is what you said, "you can't be against something that isn't there." What you (now say) you actually meant was, "you can't be against something that you don't believe exists," even though that's not true either. I can be opposed to worship of a made up God without ever believing that there are people who believe in and worship that god, let alone that this god exists.
The Colosseum? What are you talking about?
Thresholds 2 years ago
..and yeah.. People couldn't be against Nazis before the Nazis existed because the average mind (in this case yours) hadn't been aware of a Nazi ever existing...thus never having to pay any mind as to whether or not it should be opposed..
You perseverate so well..
jakematters 2 years ago
No mind could be against Nazis before NAZISM existed because no one could acquire the concept of a Nazi. It has nothing to do with intelligence, average or otherwise, and it has nothing to do with the existence of Nazis. Nazism can exist without Nazis ever existing. Do you understand? I cannot be against Satan without having an idea of "Satan." But my idea of Satan and Satan's existence are two completely different things.
"perseverate" is not a word...
Thresholds 2 years ago
Perseverate:verb; to repeat something insistently or redundantly..
That may not be a word in your dictionary, but it sure is in mine..
jakematters 2 years ago
If you mean by "concept of Nazi" as "genocide, war" then you'd be mistaken. War and genocide has occurred all throughout history all over the globe.. So the "genocide, war" bit already had it's foot in the door.
You have the gall to tell me "perseverate" is not a word and systematically challenge my reasoning?
You aren't against Satan. Christians are. I get it, oh boy, I get it. Your non-United States of America education leaves homeschooling to be desired..
jakematters 2 years ago
I thought you were misspelling "perseverance" and, no, "Nazi" does not mean "genocide." Those are two completely different things.
Your reasoning is ridiculous, if you actually believe that to be opposed to something, that something must be real. There are no devils, demons, witches, evil spirits, or Satan, yet people have been opposed to these things all throughout history. You must adhere to some weird form of metaphysical idealism if you disagree.
My BA is from an American university.
Thresholds 2 years ago
All I'm saying, at root, is that we can have beliefs about things that don't truly exist. This is because the existence of the subject of our belief is determined separately from our belief about the subject. If I have a belief about Minotaurs, say, that they are grotesque, that does not entail neither (1) that minotaurs exist; nor (2) that I believe that minotaurs exist. All it means is that I find the idea of a minotaur to be disgusting.
Thresholds 2 years ago
Hmm, yeah.. "...things that don't truly exist.." is still an opinion.. If your BA from an American university instructed you upon the proof that Satan doesn't exist, then it was well worth your effort to take that course..
I am an Atheist. I do not claim existence of anything supernatural without evidence. Said evidence then procures phenomena as natural; strange though it may be. The universe is once again in order.
jakematters 2 years ago
I've studied epistemology, metaphysics, and realism/anti-realism, all of which can weigh in on the question of the existence of Satan. But, if you're an atheist, I don't need to convince you that there's no proof for the existence of Satan. If you'd like, I could use a "natural" example instead of Satan to explain my point?
Thresholds 2 years ago
@jakematters Quit hating on Americans, man. Every country has their share of morons, America just puts theirs in the public eye a bit more often because their government/media is a joke. You don't have to believe in something to be disgusted by the general idea of it. Your negative attitude makes you look unintelligent. You can disagree, but you don't need to take things to a personal level. It just makes you look immature and uncivilized.
powermetal32 1 year ago
I've read your comment twice. It seems you have somehow concluded that I am anti-American. Stay with it here, it'll be quick..
I'm an American. That person was not.
Now. Re-read my previous entries and look for anything like this "personal" and "immature" statement directed at you: "Suck it. Go listen to incubus or oasis or some shit like you most likely would. Speaking of your demeanor, 'hate heals you should try it sometime."
I am an American.
jakematters 1 year ago
You might be American, but you are still a moron.
refuckulate420 1 year ago
*its..
jakematters 1 year ago
The God delusion is hard to break...it took me YEARS to overcome it. Thank "God" I broke free. However I leave behind my fundi christian mom and the rest of her family. Fuck religious divisions.
missaquaboogie 2 years ago 6
@missaquaboogie Why divorce yourself from emotional attachment to your family on the basis of your resentment for their beliefs? To overcome your resentment and to exist with them, brushing their ignorance aside in your mind, is in itself a feat. Instead of destroying your ties with your family, educate them through your actions. Be above your own stubbornness. Be an example for those who may not lack intelligence, but lack exposure to the truth.
xchn1 1 year ago
@xchn1 I disagree, because its only natural that we brush aside the differences of those related to us, because the benefits of doing that are unlimited and it does not take a strong person to do that in my opinion. Conversely, it takes an extreme exertion of will power to alienate yourself from everything and everyone(especially family) on the basis of your beliefs. It is clear that you are mistaking Nietzsche's strength to stand for what he believes is right for weakness.
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic Firmness in what you believe is not weak. People fight with this concept every day and most never achieve it--in the face of public opinion. If you can achieve this in your own mind, it's not only beneficial to you but to others as well. Personal freedom is wonderful.
xchn1 1 year ago
@xchn1 My bad, let me rephrase: Nietzsche did not believe in anything. He was a skeptic and his intelligence is evidence of his skepticism. My original point should be rephrased as follows: what Nietzsche had tried was harder than merely believing. What I've learned is: meaningless is a scary "abyss"; our beliefs relieve us of meaninglessness which is why we are willing to justify our beliefs through suffering to prove that "firmness in what you believe is not weak."
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic yeah but his infinite skepticism drove him over the edge. he lived his last years insane often chanting prayers he learned as a child.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro A tragedy that such a monster of intellect, courage and overcoming should end in such a way. I think if he could have he would have gone out like Socrates had.
Yet, still...the way he died most likely means nothing, it was how he lived.
tiakpark 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic The abyss, or Daath in Kabalah, is knowledge itself. It takes a special kind of power to cross over it.
Not fear, or resentment, or the will to deny knowledge, objectivity or anything else the world relies on, but will to truth, will to power.
tiakpark 1 year ago
@tiakpark I believe you mean to address someone else. You've said, "the abyss" can't be merely objectified by things such as fear, resentment, will to deny, and so on. I agree. All I was saying is that if we truely get rid of our values, morals, and beliefs(tools of objectification, if you will), most of us will easily be devoured by the abyss. In none technical terms, this means we can loose grip on the structures on which we base reality and become insane.
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@tiakpark To finish that point. The mental battle therefore becomes a battle for sanity, which is in of itself is a scary hard battle, because once you loose, you either become like poor Nietzsche or Like the Joker :P(for example!). Personally, I don't know if this battle is possible to win. However I have no basis for this because, I will admit, I have not truly let slide all the things that I contentiously know don't matter.
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic It is possible to win...As for Objectivity, it's not that I would disagree with Ayn Rand in the matter of "A is A" but I would rephrase it a "A does A" or "A sees A." It's scary how much of Nietzsche's queries sounded like quantum physics in an age when science still didn't have Albert Einstein to help it along. In another life, Nietzsche could have been a scientist, or so I believe. It's getting to the point where even science is shattering our objective beliefs in the world.
tiakpark 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic Anyone who wishes to cross would need...a tether. For Nietzsche, man was that tether. But that would only work for simple voyages across the abyss (the Chesed-Binah path in Kabalah). But even that tether had to be overcome as Zarathustra did when he overcame his pity for the Higherman in book four. That, to me, would be symbolic of the final cross over the abyss (Tiphereth-Kether). Where the Overman becomes king...or even a god. The eternal femimine would be Malkuth, which Kether
tiakpark 1 year ago
@tiakpark Becomes perpetually, forever and ever...The Eternal Return, or when consciousness reaches the speed of light and meets itself.
tiakpark 1 year ago
@tiakpark I like what you are saying, and I find it interesting! Nevertheless, hear my relatively simple idea of this. I am sure you would agree that we boost our egos by objectifying our significance through what we call "success". Right? Well the abyss as a surpass-able obstacle, implies success, and is therefore egotistical. All I am trying to say is that "staring at the abyss" is exactly that. Its scary, real and constant. Its nude reality, not an ego boosting obstacle.
Greensanemanic 1 year ago 4
@Greensanemanic I'm not disagreeing with you, either. I know I have a somewhat big ego that I'm proud. (I often fantasize about being a rich aristocrat in a powerful empire led by a badass emperor). The real test is to able to turn off the ego like a light-switch. Obejctivity is important, of course, it's just not the whole truth. Truth itself is reletive, but that doesn't warrent us the right to be nihilistic, because that is itself a product of the ego which we use to try to trump existence.
tiakpark 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic I think what Nietzstche hated the most were so called "selfless" people who were "moral" and who were somehow more "holy" just for having a pessimistic outlook when deep down these people had huge egos. Nirvana, or egolessness, wouldn't automatically make you an anti-materialist since such thoughts or still the product of a resentful ego. Sometimes the most egotistical people are those who damn the ego itself. So the real logical thing would be to acknowledge the ego.
tiakpark 1 year ago
@tiakparkI What you say is true, only I would not say Nietzsche hated anyone. I mean, do you think it is possible for someone who thinks objectification is a crude tool to turn around and hypocritically objectify others enough to hate them? Without objectification there could be no judgment, and therefore no hate. My guess is that Nietzsche was extremely impartial on such matters. Besides, his extensive and original work is proof enough to me that he wasted little time hating people.
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic Okay, maybe hate was too strong a word. And I wasn't saying Nietzsche hated people who were objetive. Even though he wouldn't be first in learn to join the Objectivism philosophy (or any philosophy for that matter) he knew people needed to be able to objectify things. That's not what I was saying at all. I was thinking about his book "The Antichrist" and how he takes a hammer to not just Christians but anybody who would distort reality to the point where people have no trust...
tiakpark 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic ...no trust in reality. I know he understood the importance of objectivity. Consciouness is ground-zero. We only begin to understand anything until we learn to count forwards from one. Getting back to that ground-zero, egolessness could either be the work of a person dedicated to knowing the truth about reality (Buddists, on one hand) or it could be the work of a person so filled with hatred for reality that they wanted to deny or destroy reality (St. Paul).
tiakpark 1 year ago
@xchn1 epic win.
MaestroMan999 1 year ago
I was waiting for the 'DUN... DUN!' near the end there, from space odyssey :( lol
MaestroMan999 1 year ago
@missaquaboogie yeah so let's all embrace atheistic divisions and butcher millions upon millions like Mao and Stalin in the name of the state.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro no atheism is almost a religion of it self...the real problem is GROUP think...even if atheism killed millions...religion combined is responsible for perhaps billions of death of the 100 000 or 2000 0000 existence of human experience. Not believing in God does not make a person an atheist however belief in fair tales that are BRAINWASHED from childhood is more problematic and the brainwashing depends on location. Anyways carry on in your religious self-deception.
missaquaboogie 1 year ago
@missaquaboogie you're understanding of christianity is deeply flawed. a "christian" who commits an atrocity is not a true christian.
an atheist who commits an atrocity however is just that.. an atheist. in rebelling against everything u lose your right to condemn anything. an atheist will condemn religions 4 acting like beasts yet turn around and with the highest scientific mind declare that they practically are beast.
it's funny how atheists try to use judeo-christian morals to condemn them
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
". a "christian" who commits an atrocity is not a true christian."
"an atheist who commits an atrocity however is just that.. an atheist"
Oh the hypocrisy! In other words, you can cherry pick your members so you don't look bad. Bullshit. You can't. People are part of the religion to which they subscribe themselves and have personal belief in.
Torquemada and Hitler not being Christians, lol.
tskasa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 "Oh the hypocrisy! In other words, you can cherry pick your members so you don't look bad."
if i claim i'm a muslim and go to a christian church does that make me a muslim? same goes for a christian who goes around exterminating ppl and raping ppl.
you judge the faith not those who distort the faith.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Oh the hypocrisy! In other words, you can cherry pick your members so you don't look bad"
if i'm a muslim and pray at a christian church does that make me a muslim?
same is true of christians who commite murder, and go around raping ppl.
of course one can repent and change but we're talking of unrepentant sinners.
again, u should read the teachings of Jesus christ
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baezalejandro
"in rebelling against everything u lose your right to condemn anything."
Condemn EVERYTHING?! No, we only condemn God because there is no proof of God.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"it's funny how atheists try to use judeo-christian morals to condemn them"
Lol, first of all, these morals have existed long and FAR before judeo-christian cultures EVER came into even SLIGHT contact with cultures all over the world. So this is complete and utter bull.
It's to point out your hypocrisy and the irony of it all.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"an atheist will condemn religions 4 acting like beasts yet turn around and with the highest scientific mind declare that they practically are beast."
Which has been known for centuries and we accept... However it does not change the fact that your HOLY BOOK is the one that commands you to act like beast and carry out genocides and ethnocides while atheists have no such book that not only makes it seem holy to murder nonbelievers, but makes it a COMMAND FROM GOD!
tskasa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 "However it does not change the fact that your HOLY BOOK is the one that commands you to act like beast "
you should really read the teaching of Jesus christ.
2nd i find it odd that an athiest could make such an ABOSOLUTE moral judgement on genocide and war.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Which has been known for centuries and we accept... However it does not change the fact that your HOLY BOOK is the one that commands you to act like beast "
you should really read the teachings of Jesus christ sometime.
2nd i find it odd that an athiest can make such an ABSOLUTE claim of morality in a relativistic and circumstantial worldview.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"you should really read the teachings of Jesus christ sometime."
I've read the bible, cover to cover. Both old and new testament. Several times. And I've WRITTEN it cover to cover about three times. I have.
Are we talking about the same Jesus Christ who spoke of a parable about a lord wanting his enemies killed before his eyes? Or the one who constantly affirmed and stated the validity of the Old Testament?
Yes, God commanded these things and Jesus supported them.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 lol.
u seem to forget when the Phairsees asked Jesus about divorce. they said since MOSES had given them the law saying they can divorce with a certificate of divorce,
He told them "BECUZ OF YOUR HARDENED HEARTS MOSES GAVE U THIS COMMANDMENT! BUT IT WAS NOT SO FROM THE BEGINNING."
thus making anything in contradiction to Jesus' teaching null.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"thus making anything in contradiction to Jesus' teaching null."
From Jesus' own mouth:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." -Matthew 5:17
Jebus has spoken. The New Testament>>>Your Bullshit. There are MANY more like this.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. "
you forget when jesus said.
"BECUZ OF YOUR HARDENED HEARTS MOSES GAVE U THIS COMMANDMENT! BUT IT WAS NOT SO FROM THE BEGINNING." BEGINNING BEGINNING BEGINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 you also forget Jesus healed many on the Sabbath when one was commanded to do no work. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and told them if they only knew these words, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice,"
he was quoting Hosea 6:6
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baezalejandro
"you also forget Jesus healed many on the Sabbath when one was commanded to do no work."
Yes. Then again, healing is NOT considered work. The Jews actually have lists of what they can and cannot do during the Sabbath. Miraculous healings and miracles is not on that list.
Furthermore, Jebus was supposedly God, so those rules probably didn't apply to him anyway.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
Not to mention that there ARE exceptions to work during the Sabbath so long as they classify under emergencies or neccesities that absolutely cannot be avoided.
"u don't destroy the constitution by repealing 1 or 2 laws which were given after the constitution was made"
So you're arguing that not only is God NOT omniscient and NOT perfect, but that his laws as well are flawed? You are saying that God's laws are flawed even when Jesus repeatedly said they weren't?
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "So you're arguing that not only is God NOT omniscient and NOT perfect, but that his laws as well are flawed? You are saying that God's laws are flawed even when Jesus repeatedly said they weren't?"
-How hard is "Becuz of your hardened hearts Moses gave u this command. but it was not so from the beginning," to understand???
if u insist on continuing in your sin u know what God will do? stand by and let u do so. he can never violate your free will.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
Also, thank you for admitting that not only is God not perfect, but that he is not all knowing. Oh, how wonderful is the bible? After all, if you want to find the ultimate argument against religion, all you need to do is look inside.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 the point of those events is that the punishment for sin is death.
but Christ was sent down to save us from the coming wrath.
you should read the story of a mother and her sons in
2 Maccabees chapter 7
even they understood this and died brave deaths in the name of God's law.
in fact God could of ended adam and eve after they'd sinned in the garden but chose to give them a 2nd chance.
yet mankind constantly turns from Him and is yet forgiven
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"the point of those events is that the punishment for sin is death."
Your point? It still doesn't justify it.
"but Christ was sent down to save us from the coming wrath."
And yet he stated multiple times that the law of the old testament and moses was relevant and that that would never change...
So either Jesus contradicted himself and didn't know what he was talking about (highly probable after all it IS the bible).
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 again u have to think of it as the constitution.
2nd God sees all and knows all of mans sin and the sins of a nation. that is what the brother said in maccabees "We, indeed, are suffering because of our sins."
and there were times in the past when the Isrealis were commanded to become God's wrath.
but those were the ways of old. that is why Jesus had come to bring forgiveness to ALL nations for all nations would be judged including the Isrealis.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"again u have to think of it as the constitution"
And again, that would PROVE that God is NOT perfect OR omniscient OR omnipotent OR OR omnipresent. The constitution is ONLY modified when its shown to be faulty and needs to be fixed to be just and fair. So...
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 how would that prove that God is not perfect? if one insists to continue in thier sin God will stand by and let them do so, for that would be a violation of free-will.
it was done to prove a point.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"and there were times in the past when the Isrealis were commanded to become God's wrath."
It it is TRULY the words of an ETERNALLY and INFINITELY just word of a God then it SHOULD hold for ETERNITY and should be morally IMPECCABLE. Yet...it doesn't...
Also, quoting fairy tales isn't going to do much on me. I've WRITTEN the bible thrice and read it even more. You're not going to convert me so shamelessly.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Also, quoting fairy tales isn't going to do much on me. I've WRITTEN the bible thrice and read it even more. You're not going to convert me so shamelessly."
well then you're obviously being a hypocrite in trying to pick and choose what u want to interpret.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 you should really read again the sermon on mount.
there was a reason Jesus shamed bigots who were "devote" in their own minds yet condemning of others.
"for he who so much looks at a woman with lust has commited adultery with her in his own heart."
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 i also find it odd that if the bible is simpy a fairy tale why do athiest get so angry at it??
the anger at which ppl speak about God they would not speak of against the tooth fairy.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 here's pieces of it.
"What do you expect to achieve by questioning us? We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors."
At that the king, in a fury, gave orders to have pans and caldrons heated.
While they were being quickly heated, he commanded his executioners to cut out the tongue of the one who had spoken for the others, to scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of his brothers and his mother looked on.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put out his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely held out his hands,
as he spoke these noble words: "It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."
Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man's courage, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "What are you waiting for? I will not obey the king's command. I obey the command of the law given to our forefathers through Moses.
But you, who have contrived every kind of affliction for the Hebrews, will not escape the hands of God.
We, indeed, are suffering because of our sins.
Though our living Lord treats us harshly for a little while to correct us with chastisements, he will again be reconciled with his servants.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 But you, wretch, vilest of all men! do not, in your insolence, concern yourself with unfounded hopes, as you raise your hand against the children of Heaven.
You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty and all-seeing God.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
Also, lets not forget when God slaughters a guy's family (a very faithful man btw) and royally screws up his life... To win a bet (and make a point) with the devil....
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 lets not forget that that man never blasphemed God either
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, u who pass judgement on someone else for at whatever point u judge the other, u are condemning yourself, becuz you who pass judgement do the same things.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 having an earthly king was also an insult to God but He eventually let the Isrealis have one becuz they insisted.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 think of it like the constitution. u don't destroy the constitution by repealing 1 or 2 laws which were given after the constitution was made.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@tskasa1 u also forget when they brought the woman caught in adultery.
under the law they were obligated to stone.
but Jesus told them "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her!"
again u're ignoring jesus' teachings.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"2nd i find it odd that an athiest can make such an ABSOLUTE claim of morality in a relativistic and circumstantial worldview."
What absolute claims did I make?! All I stated is that the morals of which you speak have existed before even Judaism. And they also existed in areas that had yet to come into contact with even the Jews and had had them for several hundred to thousands of years. So no.
Morals have always and shall ALWAYS be decided by society and man.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"atheistic divisions and butcher millions upon millions like Mao and Stalin in the name of the state."
Exactly, IN THE NAME OF THE STATE. Mao and Stalin didn't kill because they were atheists, but because they were driven by their state-centric ideologies.
NO man has EVER killed for atheism or in the name of atheism. Far too many are those who have killed for God.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 the "State" is the same as "humanity"
he did it in the interest of the state becuz he viewed it the interest of the russian ppl (humanity)!
i chimpl don't care what happens outside his tribe.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"the "State" is the same as "humanity""
No, the state is not the same as humanity. They did not what was good for the people of Russia, but what they believed to be good for Russia as a whole. And in the process they were willing to risk and kill as many civilians as possible. Two completely different things. They did what they believed to be best for their country. They were not following holy scripture or text. So no, they do not speak for the majority of atheists.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 lol. i chimp doesn't care about a baby from another tribe. in fact they often tear those babies apart limb by limb.
so stalin was justified in his cruelty
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"i chimp doesn't care about a baby from another tribe. in fact they often tear those babies apart limb by limb."
Your point is? Humans are not chimps. We are animals. But not chimps.
And, just so you know, in fact, chimps and other apes have been documented in taking in lost children from another tribe as one of their own and raising them within the tribe. So yeah.....
"so stalin was justified in his cruelty"
No you idiot.....
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "Humans are not chimps. We are animals. But not chimps"
EXACTLY. history has proven that humans are even worse than animals.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"EXACTLY. history has proven that humans are even worse than animals."
And the worst of it is in the bible. As commanded by God.
"again u're ignoring jesus' teachings"
Am I the only one who read the bible? Jesus made some exceptions, yet he made it clear enough that he approved of the law of the old testament. And yes, this included killing nonbelievers. Jesus contradicted himself. Much like the rest of the bible.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 lol. if such things can be done by manipulation of religion imagine the lawlessness that would ensue by saying "evil is simply a matter of what u make it."
2nd i'd like to see where he approved killing non-believers?
PLZ PLZ PLZ show me that text
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"i'd like to see where he approved killing non-believers?"
Who, Jesus or God? Because God was VERY clear that nonbelievers and followers of other faiths should be killed. And Jebus repeatedly supported daddy-oh-in-the-sky-oh.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@baezalejandro
"you forget when jesus said."
No, I haven't. He was saying that the Pharisees were reading too much into it. He was telling them that they were corrupting the original law and twisting it for their own sanctimonious needs. They were being hypocrites and using the law to slander others.
It is VERY hard, however, to misinterpret God's commands to kill any and all nonbelievers and pagans. As well as his commands to loot their towns, ravage their women, and kil their childrn
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 it's also very hard to misinterpret Christ healing the CANAANITE woman's daughter; a PAGAN.
where was the order to kill all non-believers then?
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baezalejandro
"it's also very hard to misinterpret Christ healing the CANAANITE woman's daughter; a PAGAN."
And you COMPLETELY ignore the fact that the reason Jesus healed her daughter was because she HAD GREAT FAITH.
Directly from the bible:
"Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour."
-(Matthew 15:28)
tskasa1 1 year ago
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 and chimps have also been documented killing other baby chimps. there's videos on the net if u dont believe me.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baezalejandro
"and chimps have also been documented killing other baby chimps."
You completely miss the point. Chimps have been shown to be as equally able to sympathize and show compassion as to be brutal and murderous. Humans are much the same.
tskasa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 lol. a chimp doesn't care about a baby from another tribe. in fact they often tear those babies apart limb by limb.
so stalin was justified in his cruelty
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tskasa1 "NO man has EVER killed for atheism or in the name of atheism. Far too many are those who have killed for God."
ok u can argue that. "no one has killed in the NAME of athiesm"
BUT athiesm is akin to anarchy as it has no rules or regulations. would u get rid of government all together? of course not becuz it frees the reigns on a man and and end up in a world were any act can be justified.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro you also forgot say: butcher millions in the name of Christianity, Islam, and other such beliefs that we find ourselves so special to blindly believe.
Greensanemanic 1 year ago
@Greensanemanic yes but u judge the belief, not those who distort the belief. hold
the difference is what stalin did could be JUSTIFIED under his athiestic beliefs.
the same doesn't hold true for those who commited the inquisitions.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@missaquaboogie The God Delusion was critically panned by most educated men. It is the plebeians who adore it.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py are you talking about the book? I've read it and it was OKAY...not convincing for someone like me who already is already anti-religion to begin with but at least it is an attempt however his tone is very condescending and a bit pretentious with the unnecessary intellectual jargon. But with religious people I guess most often that type of cynicism and mockery is needy because you can't get thru someone is so dedicated to their religious opinion.
missaquaboogie 1 year ago
Also, Nietzsche's attacks are always against God, of the Judeo-Christian heritage, never Dionysus.
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
this is magnificent
DIEZAUBERFLOTEMENSCH 2 years ago
¡Dios ha muerto!
¡Viva el superhombre!
ABERWlTZ 2 years ago
@ABERWlTZ:
Nietszche le dio influencia a Hitler.... con su idea del superhumano, te sientes bien decir eso? especialmente cuando Nietszche destruyo la idea de moralidad, y su objeccion a la moralidad era porque el lo dijo...
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
1. Nietzche no le dio "influencia" a Hitler. Que Hilter haya tomado y tergiversado el pensamiento del filósofo es diferente.
2. No es lo mismo "superhombre" que "superhumano".
3. La idea de la moralidad en Niezsche se explicaría en una investigación de mucho rigor y varias páginas, no aquí.
4. Es necesario leer y releer bien a Nietszche antes de meter la mano al fuego.
SALUDOS.
ABERWlTZ 2 years ago
@ABERWlTZ:
Nietzche y su filosofia influencia halgo llamado Nihilism en Ingles, que quita toda responsabilidad de moralidad. Nietzche dijo que ser humilde y moral eran parte de inferiodad humana. Dijo que Jesucristo y su filosofia eran equivicadas, dijo que Socrates era un 'bafoon' o idiota, y dijo que realidad no existe. El es el antitesis the Razon y Logica, el es un enemigo a la Ciencia, A la Religion, a la Moralidad, a Razon, y mas importante a Dios.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
Eh... Me parece que no es tan simple. Nietzsche escribió con rigor, y debemos leerlo con el mismo rigor.
En fin. No hagamos aquí y de esto un "debate", pues ni el tema, ni el lugar, ni el espacio son apropiados.
Hasta luego.
ABERWlTZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God is dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead - God
wh4tever84 2 years ago
N wasn't against all gods, he was against the Judeo-Christian God. You can read GM II, 23 for verification.
Thresholds 2 years ago
Wrong. He was clearly against all gods as he saw it as an obsolete understanding of reality.
chaoticfutility 2 years ago
It's pretty clear that Nietzsche didn't believe in the "reality" of any gods. But that doesn't mean he was against all gods. Do I even need to mention the importance of Dionysus to Nietzsche's work as an emeblem of life-affirmation? "Dionysus versus the Crucified." Also, read GM II, 23. I hope this leads you to reasses your reading of N.
Thresholds 2 years ago
that was metaphorical
evelsteev 2 years ago
Sure was, but if you think Nietzsche would have had a problem with a culture/society that actually believed in Dionysus (in the sense he conceived of him), then I think his writings prove you dead wrong. And, as metaphorical as it was, there's no contradiction in thinking of Nietzsche as a disciple of Dionysus, or as a believer in eternal recurrence (and maybe also will to power) in a metaphysical sense, even though he repudiated all metaphysics.
Thresholds 2 years ago
True, but he favored the ancient Greeks, OVER the culture of Christendom. It's culture, whether it was influenced by a god, or not, that he was admiring, not so much the gods they claimed to have followed. We can even say the god's Characteristics (still embodied by man, however), more so, than the god itself. Eternal recurrence can be godless. Mystical doesn't necessarily mean God-affirmed.
evelsteev 2 years ago
I won't even argue about whether he admired the gods or not, because it has nothing to do with what you tried calling me out on - whether he was against all gods or not. I think it's clear that he wasn't against all gods, due to the significance of Dinoysus to his philosophy, his admiration of the Greeks, and other comments.
The eternal recurrence has nothing to do with gods. I used that as an example of a metaphysical doctrine Nietzsche held, while he still rejected metaphysics completely.
Thresholds 2 years ago
Let me put it simply: Nietzsche didn't say
"Dionysus is dead." You catch my drift?
Plato, Heidegger, and Schopenhauer was also metaphysical, in their arguments, but none outwardly supported God.
evelsteev 2 years ago
Yeah, but he was talking about the Judeo-Christian god. And he called himself the disciple of Dionysus. The final sentence of his autobiography reads - "Dionysus vs. the crucified"!
My point about eternal recurrence is this - it's metaphysical, Nietzsche rejected metaphyics, but still adhered to ER, because it was a life-affirming doctrine. Gods are similar: they don't exist, but belief in some gods is not necessairly harmful to life and can even promote its flourishing. Therefore, it's OK.
Thresholds 2 years ago
Right. That's pretty much what I said (???)
Again, not the gods themselves, but their doctrines. (??)
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
The doctrines of the Gods?
Thresholds 2 years ago
Yes.Nietzsche supports the followers of Dionysus, not of the Christian God. To quote Nietzsche himself: "How can we be so tolerant of the naïveté of Christian theologians as to join in their doctrine that the evolution of the concept of god from "the god of Israel," the god of a people, to the Christian god, the essence of all goodness, is to be described as progress?"-The Antichrist
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
As far as I know, there are no "followers" of Dionysus but Nietzsche.
Thresholds 2 years ago
Again it's metaphorical, not literal. He would ascribe Dionysian traits in the cultures he admired like the vikings, samurai,etc, because they affirm life.
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
Yes, it's metaphorical. But the question is whether Nietzsche was against "all gods" or not, not whether he believed in their existence. Clearly, he didn't. If you can find evidence that he was against all gods, apart from stupid "Zarathustra the godless" remarks, then please share. Otherwise, I think you could just read GM II, 23, and ponder Nietzsche's exhalation of Dionysus, and that should be enough to convince you that he thought that belief can be OK, if it was life-affirming/enhancing.
Thresholds 2 years ago
When Nietzsche wrote "Zarathustra the godless," he was referring to God of the Bible/Torah. That's automatic, because Zarathustra is immoral, in the traditional sense. However, a dithyramb and Dionysus are two different things.
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
I know he was referring to the Judeo-Christian god.
I'm not at all sure what you're arguing about or trying to say. You've confused me.
Thresholds 2 years ago
So did i (???)
Nietzsche admiring Dionysus is different than actually supporting him. Nietzsche was an agnostic, but his focus was on admiration of Dionysus, with admiration on his traits, found in men, not outright worship. What I'm trying to say is Nietzsche wasn't against ALL gods, but one: The Christian one.
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
Uh, that's exactly what I'm saying. (N wasn't agnostic, though. He was an atheist).
Thresholds 2 years ago
Actually, Nietzsche wasn't an atheist, since, like we've just discussed, he'd be against ALL gods, which he clearly was not. There are many instances of his agnosticism. One is: "I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers"
-Ecco Homo
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
?!?!?! Being an atheist isn't the same as being "against all gods." It means to not believe in the reality of a God(s). One can be an atheist and support a belief in a God (for the sake of moral guidance, for example, or anything of the sort)
In that passage from EH, Nietzsche is saying that he IS an atheist! He's saying that atheism came to him by instinct.
Thresholds 2 years ago
It IS the same. Theism relates to all gods. In ancient Greek, "atheism" meant literally, "without gods" Atheism cam also mean rejection of Theism.
He is "athiest" towards the Christian God, in that context. Remember, he's anti Christ, not anti Dionysus.
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
How is "without gods" one and the same as "against all gods"?
Thresholds 2 years ago
how is it not? If you are against gods, then eventually, you are without them, as in dependence.
MacoutesGabber 2 years ago
Comment removed
Thresholds 2 years ago
The claim that "God does not exist" is descriptive. It says something about the way the world is, i.e., in this case, that there is no such entity as "God." The claim "I am against belief in God" is prescriptive - it requires an evaluation, i.e., in this case, that the belief in God is harmful, or bad. There is no necessary relation between the descriptive claim and the prescriptive one. One can be "without gods" and still endorse or be ambivalent about the VALUE of belief in gods. Understand?
Thresholds 2 years ago
If you are against belief in god, I guess that you are most likely without god. But that's a botched answer for the real question here, which is, namely, does atheism necessitate being against theism (i.e., against the value of the belief, regardless of its epistemic status). The form is: "If P(atheism), then Q (anti-value of theism)." You've turned it into, "If Q (anti-value of theism), then P (atheism)"!!!! That's not legit!!!!
Thresholds 2 years ago
Comment removed
Thresholds 2 years ago
Comment removed
Thresholds 2 years ago
@Thresholds
"How is 'without gods' one and the same as 'against all gods'?"
i see it as some type of paradox in which being against all gods is being without gods, but being without gods is not necessarily being against all gods.
samueleishion 2 years ago
There's no paradox here, and I posed that question to MarcoutesGabber, who thought that "without gods" is the same as "against gods," which is clearly not true..
Thresholds 2 years ago
There is a lot of negativity in his writings, however I feel Nietzsche writes so harshly to make people think why they believe things, if it is actually in love of life or not.
"the 'kingdom of Heaven' is a condition of the heart not something that comes 'upon the earth' or 'after death'... The 'kingdom of God' is not something one waits for; it has no yesterday or tomorrow it does not come in a thousand years- it is an experience in the heart: it is everywhere, it is nowhere..."
nyyankee2006 2 years ago
Uh, OK.
Thresholds 2 years ago
@Thresholds:
Metaphysics are the way we understand the nature of 'being'. Nietzche had no stance whatsoever, he had no stance on reality. Nietzsche was one of the craziest philosophers of all time, I doubt anyone can call him great.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Are you saying that Nietzsche never talked about "being" (in the broadest sense of the term) in his work; or that he denied the existence of the thing-in-itself, of the "will," of free will, of the ego, of sin, of God, of the reality of Christian morality, all of which have metaphysical components? You should probably reread Twilight of the Idols.
Thresholds 2 years ago