0
   

Religion and Philosphy

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 06:03 am
@Grimlock,
Grimlock wrote:
Don't worry - he got Nietzsche profoundly wrong. Nietzsche understood the power of faith much more clearly than the priests and physicists he harangued. The only similarity I see between you and N is that you both take for granted that god is dead. The light in which you two view the consequences, however, seems to come from different stars, entirely.

I do not think God is alive, or ever was. I think that would be considered and anthropomorphism, and I hope I got that big word right, for though I live I will never live long enough to spell all the words I know a meaning for.

Nietzsche seemed angry at God, but I suspect he was angry at fate. His situation had a lot more to do with being raised by his Mother primarily and Grandfather. There is a natural situation in regard to childhood, and his was less than ideal. For a son, the natural situation is to fear the father, and be protected by the mother, and in time to protect the mother. No father believes his son because he understands what lying scum most men are. Because a mother believes her son's lies out of wanting him to be good, and truthful; she actually teaches him lies, and contempt for women, who are most contemptable because they can be made to accept lies.

It was not Nietzsch's god that was dead, but his father, and the result was the same in any event, because Nietzsche was not corrected until beyond correction. His morality did not have consequences so he had no morality, and even morality he saw backwards. Sons need fathers more than mothers. For a son to recieve correction from the very person he should be able to rely on for love without judgement, or to recieve love without judgement when he needs correction is not good. Like Anni Defranco rightly said: Women learn to be women, and men learn to be men... We need to learn this from living people. Fathers cannot be powerless and invisible. Mothers cannot be loving and mindless. Neither teaches anything about maintaining good relationships. We need to see relationships to learn how to relate.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 07:03 pm
@Grimlock,
Grimlock commented:

"Don't worry - he got Nietzsche profoundly wrong".

Please, in all due respect, you are profoundly "right". We are talking about Nietzsche. No one understood this extemely troubled man. There are as many arguments concerning his philosophy than any philosopher that ever lived, and I am "profoundly wrong". No one can make that statement. Nietzsche didn't understand himself, how could we possibly. Nice try though. There are only "opinions" concerning Nietzsche, and I have mine.

Regards,
William
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 09:24 pm
@William,
William wrote:
Grimlock commented:

"Don't worry - he got Nietzsche profoundly wrong".

Please, in all due respect, you are profoundly "right". We are talking about Nietzsche. No one understood this extemely troubled man. There are as many arguments concerning his philosophy than any philosopher that ever lived, and I am "profoundly wrong". No one can make that statement. Nietzsche didn't understand himself, how could we possibly. Nice try though. There are only "opinions" concerning Nietzsche, and I have mine.

Regards,
William

I don't think there is any doubt that the guy was troubled, especially by relationships. He had a contempt of women that was likely reciprocated, and the closest thing he seems to have had to a healthy romantic relationship was a financial relationship with a prostitute. Look at the conlusions he drew about crime and punishment. He did not understand the evolution of pain and loss for debt from its opposite nearly everywhere of debt being incured from injury to others. And what did he hate so much as Christianity when that was the cause of universal equality, if only in the eyes of God? And look at the sterility of his over man. Where is baby overman, and mommy over man? The whole of it smacks of obsession. So much of rot and decadence fills his pages. If that boy wasn't half murdered for playing with poopy as an infant shut my mouth cause I don't know nothin. The guy was weird.
0 Replies
 
skeptic griggsy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 04:47 am
@Grimlock,
:flowers:That God never is lets us acknowledge that when we help ourselves, we help ourselves period! There are fewer social problems in the more advanced, less industrial countries, other than ours, particulary my South.:surrender: The Ages of Faith were horrific morally for human beings! With the rise of reason and the use of facts, the humanist morality, we are so much better off [ See my friend Richard Carrier's 'Sense and Goodness without God: a Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism."].
:surrender: The ignostic-Ockham challenge , the presumption of natualsim and the Euthyphro show no need to posit God period.:shocked:
Philosophy should liberate, not serve to keep humankind in the thrall of religion! "Mr. Secular Humanist" himself, Paul Kurtz ever cheers for the exuberant, abundant life.
:flowers:
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 08:05 am
@skeptic griggsy,
If you don't believe in God, you better believe in humanity and have some love for them and trust in them and in their better natures because if all you believe in is yourself you have just traded your life for an illusion.
skeptic griggsy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 12:39 pm
@Fido,
Smile Fido, that makes my point that the covenant morality for humanity involves us all to do good. That is the humanist morality.:cool:
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 03:44 pm
@skeptic griggsy,
skeptic griggsy wrote:
Smile Boagie, I agree with you. George Smith also shares the sentiment in his "Why Atheism?"
One should not bray at Existence for not providing meaning and purpose for us as Albert Ellis would say [ See his" The Myth of Self-Esteem." This Sally Field life, human love and our own purposes do so count. We can have abundant lives without a future state, divine love and purpose. Life is its own validation and purpose and meaning. :flowers:
It is such a twisted notion to cry out that things do not endure. The breakfast that I had this morning did its purpose for me. What our Revolutionary soldiers did still counts.
Yes, the arguments go ever on. I find that theists just cannot make their case, and that we naturalists make ours.But naturalistic fallibilism enters the scene such that we might be wrong.:shocked:


Skeptic griggsy,

Yes in the formation of truth, as the experience of ones life, the meaning of the relation between subject and object is in agreement with our biology, in agreement with object. Religion declares knowledge without its object, and we must imagine having a relation to it. Ablert Ellis, yes there was a man with a philosophy well grounded, one needs realize its the individuals responsibility to give meaning to ones life, meaning to the world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.23 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:50:19