Agnostiscism and atheism

Nietzsche like me believed in the world you say,that is plus.As to my belief in rationalism,I do not believe any knowledge is to be had without experience.As to the credibility of science,we might talk about that,certainly science has made it easier to manipulated the physical world.I to believe in irrational forces but it is best to limit their interplay while trying to have a rational debate.

I think your interpretation of Nietzsche may be one of a common mistake,certainly I am no authority, but is this not the interpretation that is said to be the common error of public evaluation? You sound like you fear a return to the jungle,that indeed would be horrific.Consider your term,natural standards,Christianity arose from natural standards,that identification with ones fellow man is natural,Christianity did not create it.Why do you believe,seeing that you are not a Christian,that Christianity cannot be replaced?

Yes,we might discuss the changes taking place,one thing you might consider is man himself is part of nature,and Christianity is an expression of that nature.I am sure over time,we can solve the problems of the world,but as is my belief,Christianity is a corrupt expression,and anti-earth.

Your right science being due to the existence of Christianity is a stretch.Certainly Christianity has done its best to stifle free thought for a very long time.Easier the argument, science is the child of philosophy.

Yes,I am sorry if I got a little difficult to deal with.I may disagree with you a great deal, but over all I think you are a man of good intent.I am looking forward to dialogueing further with you.

But we are not talking about rational debate. We are talking about reality and nature. What is it about reality that you find so rational? What is it about human experience that is rational? Reality is partly chaotic and experience is usually subjective and sensual. Reason it seems, is that explanatory part which should accompany experience, which is human and which is therefore irrational, as opposed to the hypothetical 'experience' of a computer or a robot, for example. Reason is only the clarity given to the essential irrationalism of reality after the irrational human animal has had his chaotic experiences. There is a difference between the types of calculations that computers make and the average life of the average person."

If you are happy with the products of the irrational nature of man we have no common ground.ADD EDIT:I only say this because know you are not.



"I maintain that I have made no interpretive mistake regarding Nietzsche's teachings. I have lived with them for too long. I have reviewed my statements and can find no error in interpretation."

What then is said to be the common misinterpretation of Nietzsche.I know many who condem him,who know little to nothing of his thinking,in fact,in most instances they have not even read him.

I disagree with you that Christianity arose from natural standards. It rose from supernatural stories and words of the Bible. And Christianity is already being replaced. It is a matter of understanding the nature of that which is replacing it. The question seems to be this: Is the new naturalistic standard that is currently rivaling the older Christian moral standard better or worse? Also, is the new standard conducive to the best possible future or is it going to lead to a violent plunge into force, group murder, human torture and political greed and money grubbers who rule your life and tell you what to do, for example? It is up to us to make the fateful decision based upon what we believe will be the best possible outcome.

Where did these supernatural stories come from? Where indeed do you think the words of the bible came from.Actually you seem stressed over this fateful decision, when in fact it is largely a done deal--------if you wish to mourn Christianity that is understandable.


I doubt very strongly that we can solve the problems of the world, even if we had a thousand years. Part of being a mature adult is understanding how to live with imperfection. The world is imperfect by nature, to embrace nature is to embrace imperfection and irrationalism, as Nietzsche has also taught us so well in his work.

Solveing the problems of the world was rather tongue in cheek.So,you wish to understand irrationalism with irrationalism---this indeed should be interesting.



"I would say that Christianity embraced philosophy (Descartes was Christian, Leibniz was Christian, Berkeley, Isaac Newton, et. al.). All of the first modern scientists were Christian. Modern science arose only from Christian societies. Christians have always been the most successful of people. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, for example, it was the most devout Christians who made the first inventions. Christians invented the steam engine (a Quaker), developed chemistry, and the whole practical, scientific approach to life. America was always considered the most practical nation in the world and Americans have always been the most deeply religious nation, they even considered their country, America, to be a new Jerusalem."

You are pro Christianity and I con.All I need to reassure me of my stance is examples of the government's pressure through right wing religious groups to supress any statements about the geological age of the grand cayon,as it is not supported by scripture.Apparently the whitehouse is in agreement,the grand cayon was craved out by Noan's flood------say good night Gracy! I truely do not know why American's are not insulted by this profound knowledge of the church.

Pathagorean,I think we need to tackle this discussion in parts,to try to discuss this topic in its entirety would only lead to confusion,how many systems,structures ect.., involved in the down fall of civilization? Perhaps if we tried to understand civilization as an organism or as a system with in systems,there is no doubt even at this, that we would need focus[limitation] in order to approach the topic.

You are pro Christianity and I con.All I need to reassure me of my stance is examples of the government's pressure through right wing religious groups to supress any statements about the geological age of the grand cayon,as it is not supported by scripture.Apparently the whitehouse is in agreement,the grand cayon was craved out by Noan's flood------say good night Gracy! I truely do not know why American's are not insulted by this profound knowledge of the church.

I think what you are missing here though Boagie is that the same folks who lobby the Federal government to suppress knowledge are also active in their community to make their communities better. They are feeding the poor, visiting the sick, and in many ways are improving their community.

That's not to justify the suppression of any scientific knowledge--it's definitely wrong to do so. But, this will be corrected in time. The largest grants for scientific projects are in the United States from 51% of taxpayers who believe that God created humans in their present form and that evolution is not correct.

harvey,

Sure sounds like a justication to me.I think you miss the point my friend.

Sure sounds like a justication to me.I think you miss the point my friend.

Sure sounds like a justication to me.I think you miss the point my friend.

The response you both chose was a wretched justification for something there is no justication for.What if I said to the Jewish population,Hilter was not such a bad chap,he was very fond of small children and puppies and the trains ran on time.This thing about the Grand Cayon should make people realize that Christianity is not simply against the understanding of evolution,not simply against science,but against reason itself.It is a display of their political will,their political power.

Again, I didn't mean to upset you, so please be patient with me.

I wasn't justifying their actions, I was against demonizing a whole group of people who behave without selfish interest in some circumstances, and who behave horribly in a small number of instances. I don't think the Hitler comparison is justified since Hitler's sins were crimes against humanity, whereas failing to inform people of how the Grand Canyon was created is a sad display of political power, but in my view it is not a crime against humanity.

Who would you say is accountable? Actually the willing promotion of ignorance IS a crime against humanity.

However, much more to the point, there's numerous fallacies in your thinking (e.g., Unrepresentative Sample (namely, the Volvo fallacy), One-Sidedness, Sweeping Generalization, Appeal to Consequences, Black or White fallacy, and many more).

Dispite my many flaws,you do say yourself you see the absurdity,personally I find it frightening this absurdity has found its way into the whitehouse and into whitehouse policy.

"For example, I'm a Christian and believe that evolutionary processes made the Grand Canyon. I belong to a Christian church that believes that evolutionary processes made the Grand Canyon."

Yes,I realize all Christians do not have two heads.Many of the Christians I know would go along with this in silence.I realize to there are some Christians who accept evolutionary biology.The Christian church must decide if it is interested in spirituality of politics.If it choses politics it should not be tax exempt.

"Just to put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose I said that whenever an atheist government gets into power, they slaughter millions of people. This would be true since the Soviet Union, China's Cultural Revolution, etc., etc., were all atheistic. Does that qualify for red faces against atheism? Should you leave atheism because of their abuses? Similarly, if I could show proof of a number of prominent atheists (e.g., Dawkins) that acted like extreme jerks at times, is a little defense on your part out of the question?

Who would you say is accountable?

Dispite my many flaws,you do say yourself you see the absurdity,personally I find it frightening this absurdity has found its way into the whitehouse and into whitehouse policy.

Tell me why they take offense at being called irrational,in order to be a born again one has to take a leap of faith----this is not a rational process.

This business of the Grand Cayon,even if someone was not worried about the church this should certainly do it.You say a number of secularists have declared war, but only out of necessity,because the church has declared war on reason,and understandably so,for in the light of reason the Christian church does have something to worry about doesn't it.

Christianity is always more powerful in a country suffering from the greatest poverty,where it can own and operate the minds of the most desparate aliterates.

Bush,last and least,was ushered into the whitehouse by the Christian right wing,the dumbest man to ever inhabit the whitehouse.

I have been trying to understand what kind of people tend to faith and I suspect it is largely those who's preference it is to decide things on an emotional level.If this were true,women should figure into these numbers disproportionately,any thoughts on that?

No one likes being called crazy. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they fight back, even going so far as to cause the secular opponents to lose government grant monies. Welcome to the world of politics."

Christian ethics? IN MANY,IF NOT ALL STATES, ATHEISTS CANNOT HOLD OFFICE.Tell me how a Christian can acknowledge that a leap of faith is irrational,meaning as I have been told you must leave reason behind.Then this same Christian has balls to be offended when it is pointed out as such?----isn't that irrational,and if irrational is crazy,the shoe fits does it not?How do Christians live with such contradiction--------the bag of rocks principle?

"Fighting is not going to work. If secularists fight religion, they'll only going to lose. They'll be more Bush's who'll come along on a national and local level."

If they do not want to fight,they should get out of the science classroom.I know the odds against religion and its depressing.Christianity has set the board however and with the absurbities setforth,it leaves a thinking person little choice.


"Christianity offers people hope no matter how bleak their circumstance. If someone is doing pretty well off, then they might let entertainment and the cares of this life dominate their thinking."

Agreed,if you have nothing the pie in the sky looks good.



"If the left doesn't address the needs and desires of the religious mindset, then it will happen again and again."

Depressing isn't it,why even bother with a school system,just creates more trouble makers.:eek:

Faith is not the issue. There are plenty of people of faith who live with scientific knowledge and are not threatened by it. The problem is dogmatism and fundamentalism, and this bug bites just as many secularists as it does religious folks. Our society has to come to understand that dogmatism is a bad thing, and that we need to learn to accept and appreciate the differences in others. "Us" and "them" thinking is not effective and will not promote the needed changes that humanity must make in order to survive and prosper.

Faith is not the issue. There are plenty of people of faith who live with scientific knowledge and are not threatened by it. The problem is dogmatism and fundamentalism, and this bug bites just as many secularists as it does religious folks. Our society has to come to understand that dogmatism is a bad thing, and that we need to learn to accept and appreciate the differences in others. "Us" and "them" thinking is not effective and will not promote the needed changes that humanity must make in order to survive and prosper.

Such a being defies all rational thought since rational thought and adherence to scientific knowledge do no permit such a being.

The fact that many actually chose not to accept it all should show that there is a flaw in the premise of belief in a diety.

Why do you say that? It seems to me that rational thought and adherence to scientific knowledge require such a being.

Please elaborate,your really on to something if you can prove this rational.



But, these people are heavily in the minority in the world. There's probably more Islamic extremists in the world.

No,not such a minority,actually in the east belief in a personal god is just about none existent.In the west the numbers are ever growing.