"God is Dead"

[kage69]

always see your sig with pleasure. Remind me again when I made that remark?

Then I guess you take pleasure in contradicting yourself. Funny thread to hang out in then, given the topic? The quote was made by you in a thread concerning the movie Outfoxed I believe, maybe 10-12 months ago? I know I quoted it verbatim not 20min after you had posted. Remarks of resounding stupidity tend to stand out in memory it seems, go figure. Funny how you've never brought this to my attention in the ages its been since I last touched my profile/sig, what with you always seeing it with pleasure and all I mean...

Like I've said, you win. Lollerskates.

I'll take this to mean you finally realized how foolish you sounded earlier. Atta boy! :thumbsup:

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: kage69

always see your sig with pleasure. Remind me again when I made that remark?

Then I guess you take pleasure in contradicting yourself. Funny thread to hang out in then, given the topic? The quote was made by you in a thread concerning the movie Outfoxed I believe, maybe 10-12 months ago? I know I quoted it verbatim not 20min after you had posted. Remarks of resounding stupidity tend to stand out in memory it seems, go figure. Funny how you've never brought this to my attention in the ages its been since I last touched my profile/sig, what with you always seeing it with pleasure and all I mean...

Like I've said, you win. Lollerskates.

I'll take this to mean you finally realized how foolish you sounded earlier. Atta boy! :thumbsup:

When I see your posts it does appear there, does it not? There was apparently nothing that made me want to reply to your posts in the past, so maybe that is why? But that is not the point, the point is that you apparently think you've somehow did something terribly important by pointing out something in the past that has no relevence right now. I don't want to discuss the Fox News bias or not because it has been gone over many times and opinions won't change, but using that lone post as a way to judge something is great. This is a great discussion, btw.

Hooray!:thumbsup:

 

[kage69]

Feel better now?


Feel free to PM whatever babble you want my way, the threadcrappin has to stop ok?


Where were we, Nietzsche?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
It's also very possible that some of the people just had the wrong philosophy and should discover a better philosophy. For example, I've known people who were raised to be religious and who ended up carrying all sorts of poisonous religious baggage and philosophy with them even after they claimed to have become atheists. So, in a sense, it might very well be the poison of the religion that makes them feel empty inside. I suggest that they consider a different philosophy, one based on the notion that reality is objective in nature, that reason is man's means of knowledge, and that pursuing one's own life is the good. I might put it this way:

"There is a philosophy out there that is completely different from anything else that you've ever heard. If you're interested, read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

I've read those and a few other Rand books, thank you. She's good, but not an end-all-be-all IMO.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sentinel
The phrase "God is dead" isn't saying that God died, or we killed him. It is saying that the God that has always been in existence has ceased to be a viable part of peoples lives. In his writing he said that the madman was shouting this in the streets, shouting it to the atheists. So shouting God is dead is not saying that he is dead that would be obvious. He was trying to say that people should believe in the world, this present world, instead of worrying about trying to get into an afterlife. Live for cause and effect, instead of for God. Don't fall to the temptation of nihilism.

At least you understand it. Otherwise, his "God is dead" statement is possibly the least understood and most often confused in history.

The funny thing though is where he was wrong. While I understand that the Catholic church has often allowed this thinking for the propagation of its own earthly power, any religious person who spends too much time worrying about getting a good seat in the afterlife is not going to get a good seat according to the Bible. That would be a lack of faith and a wasting of God's gifts. Religious people are supposed to live for this world. That's the purpose of life. That's what their faith demands. Be a good person! Help your fellow man! Improve the lot of this world, and so forth. Yes, life is hard, but shoulder your burdens bravely!

Nietzsche was wrong. And the manner in which he was wrong has led to generations of immature and uneducated interpretations about the nature and understanding of religion and faith, and an overall weakening of philosophy. He, Kant, and Hegel pretty much killed philosophy, which IMO is one reason why people feel so empty inside today.

I tend to agree with your last statement although I would add a few others to that list. The idea that religious people are supposed to live for this world on the other hand, I believe many could see a very different side of that view. A simplistic view, help others and be the Good Samaritan yes, but for many this world/life is temporal and thus a means to something greater.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Sentinel
The phrase "God is dead" isn't saying that God died, or we killed him. It is saying that the God that has always been in existence has ceased to be a viable part of peoples lives. In his writing he said that the madman was shouting this in the streets, shouting it to the atheists. So shouting God is dead is not saying that he is dead that would be obvious. He was trying to say that people should believe in the world, this present world, instead of worrying about trying to get into an afterlife. Live for cause and effect, instead of for God. Don't fall to the temptation of nihilism.

At least you understand it. Otherwise, his "God is dead" statement is possibly the least understood and most often confused in history.

The funny thing though is where he was wrong. While I understand that the Catholic church has often allowed this thinking for the propagation of its own earthly power, any religious person who spends too much time worrying about getting a good seat in the afterlife is not going to get a good seat according to the Bible. That would be a lack of faith and a wasting of God's gifts. Religious people are supposed to live for this world. That's the purpose of life. That's what their faith demands. Be a good person! Help your fellow man! Improve the lot of this world, and so forth. Yes, life is hard, but shoulder your burdens bravely!

Religion is not the book. Their faith does not demand that they live for the world. it demands that they fear what may happen after this world, if they do something wrong. This is of people, and those with power that will twist any words and actions they can to their ends. Also, those people gullible enough to go along with that. What they should be taught, what they should be concerned about, and what they should be doing matters not, if they are thinking and acting in a different manner.

Nietzsche was wrong. And the manner in which he was wrong has led to generations of immature and uneducated interpretations about the nature and understanding of religion and faith, and an overall weakening of philosophy. He, Kant, and Hegel pretty much killed philosophy, which IMO is one reason why people feel so empty inside today.

I think he was as much right as wrong. Good ideas, and then taking a very vengeful turn. Anyway, though, I do agree about the last part. Tell anyone you're a philosopher and they'll look at you funny. Rather than living to learn themselves, they dissected life.

 

[slash196]

Very few people these days are willing to examine god in a philosophical vein, to really examine the rational arguments for the existence of a god. In my philosophy course, I'm quite often sneered at by people for excercising basic philosophy on the idea of god. To my classmates, their beliefs are more important than their reasons for belief. More distressingly, many believe that we need not even question god, since he exists and that is that. It's quite upsetting for a philosophically minded person such as myself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Religion is not the book. Their faith does not demand that they live for the world. it demands that they fear what may happen after this world, if they do something wrong. This is of people, and those with power that will twist any words and actions they can to their ends. Also, those people gullible enough to go along with that. What they should be taught, what they should be concerned about, and what they should be doing matters not, if they are thinking and acting in a different manner.

There are so many faiths and sects out there I'm not sure which one you're referring to where you say "they."
Jews don't believe in an afterlife. Muslims believe in hell, but only that it is temporary and that almost all souls will eventually find paradise. Mormons and JW's don't believe in hell at all, only varying degrees of heaven.
Virtually all Protestant sects stress the importance of charity, good works, and good living, which is why most charities and hospitals are religious organizations.
I already made my point about the Catholic church and its sins in this regard, but even it stresses good works on earth possibly more than any other church.
They're not all doing that just to get a better seat (that would actually be a sin). A good many of them are good people who really believe in helping others and actually get out there and do it (as opposed to protesting in the streets or even worse sitting at the computer bitching on the internet about people not helping others to their satisfaction and how there oughta be a law to make sure they do).

I think he was as much right as wrong. Good ideas, and then taking a very vengeful turn. Anyway, though, I do agree about the last part. Tell anyone you're a philosopher and they'll look at you funny. Rather than living to learn themselves, they dissected life.

This part of your post I agree with. It would be a secret shame to consider oneself a philosopher these days.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cerb
Religion is not the book. Their faith does not demand that they live for the world. it demands that they fear what may happen after this world, if they do something wrong. This is of people, and those with power that will twist any words and actions they can to their ends. Also, those people gullible enough to go along with that. What they should be taught, what they should be concerned about, and what they should be doing matters not, if they are thinking and acting in a different manner.

There are so many faiths and sects out there I'm not sure which one you're referring to where you say "they."
Jews don't believe in an afterlife. Muslims believe in hell, but only that it is temporary and that almost all souls will eventually find paradise. Mormons and JW's don't believe in hell at all, only varying degrees of heaven.
Virtually all Protestant sects stress the importance of charity, good works, and good living, which is why most charities and hospitals are religious organizations.
I already made my point about the Catholic church and its sins in this regard, but even it stresses good works on earth possibly more than any other church.

By 'they', I mean almost everyone I've met of any religion, and a few that aren't tied to any. While I've only met a handful, the Muslims and Jews are definitely closer to being free in thought than any Christians I've met. Even so, social rules fully mixed with issues of individual spirituality is something that does not sit right with me.

They're not all doing that just to get a better seat (that would actually be a sin). A good many of them are good people who really believe in helping others and actually get out there and do it (as opposed to protesting in the streets or even worse sitting at the computer bitching on the internet about people not helping others to their satisfaction and how there oughta be a law to make sure they do).

Maybe they exist. I haven't seen as many of these good many as I have people excusing their own responsibility off to God.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Nietzscheism is absurd.

No more absurd than the bible.

Hmm, I doubt you ever read the bible all the way for you to make such a comment. Read the book, take some of that information in and then make a judgement. There are huge gaps in the bible with parts missing, parts altered and other things that are hard to explain. Some of the translations may not be totally accurate as far as we know. But still, it is among the greatest works of literature ever.

You keep making this claim and it's simply not true.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Maybe they exist. I haven't seen as many of these good many as I have people excusing their own responsibility off to God.

Good and bad come in every group. Hell, the leftists on this board are the worst of those I've ever seen about excusing their own responsibility and their god is government.

As it is, if all you look for is the negative, then all you will see is the negative. You will never see the good if you only look for the bad.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You keep making this claim and it's simply not true.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

It's not intended to be literature. I have been told, however, that parts of it are quite poetic in their original languages, as the Quran is considered to be beautifully poetic in the original Arabic.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Sentinel

Anyone have any input or comments?

Yep. Your proclamation is absurd.

I agree, no god ever existed, therefore something that never existed can't be "dead."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You keep making this claim and it's simply not true.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

It's not intended to be literature. I have been told, however, that parts of it are quite poetic in their original languages, as the Quran is considered to be beautifully poetic in the original Arabic.

I never said it was supposed to be literature; I don't hold it against the Bible that it's not 'high quality' literature. I find works like the iliad seem to maintain some literary merit even in translation, which is very much missing from the Bible, though in fairness it has often been translated by committee, with more emphasis on supporting social agendas than any sort of accuracy.

At any rate, I just find raildogg's claim to be so utterly ridiculous that I had to respond.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Nietzscheism is absurd.

No more absurd than the bible.

Hmm, I doubt you ever read the bible all the way for you to make such a comment. Read the book, take some of that information in and then make a judgement. There are huge gaps in the bible with parts missing, parts altered and other things that are hard to explain. Some of the translations may not be totally accurate as far as we know. But still, it is among the greatest works of literature ever.

You keep making this claim and it's simply not true.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

Actually the Bible is for the foolish and weak and not for the intelligent, wise and strong, it even says so here.

1 Corinthians 1

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Nietzscheism is absurd.

No more absurd than the bible.

Hmm, I doubt you ever read the bible all the way for you to make such a comment. Read the book, take some of that information in and then make a judgement. There are huge gaps in the bible with parts missing, parts altered and other things that are hard to explain. Some of the translations may not be totally accurate as far as we know. But still, it is among the greatest works of literature ever.

You keep making this claim and it's simply not true.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

Actually the Bible is for the foolish and weak and not for the intelligent, wise and strong, it even says so here.

1 Corinthians 1

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

What does this have to do with 'the Bible as literature'?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Nietzscheism is absurd.

No more absurd than the bible.

Hmm, I doubt you ever read the bible all the way for you to make such a comment. Read the book, take some of that information in and then make a judgement. There are huge gaps in the bible with parts missing, parts altered and other things that are hard to explain. Some of the translations may not be totally accurate as far as we know. But still, it is among the greatest works of literature ever.

You keep making this claim and it's simply not true.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

Actually the Bible is for the foolish and weak and not for the intelligent, wise and strong, it even says so here.

1 Corinthians 1

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

What does this have to do with 'the Bible as literature'?

Using your own words one has to have experience, intelligence and wisdom with great literature in order to make a statement like that, at least provide greater literature so we may be able to see why you use such debasing language for your beliefs which you present as facts.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Using your own words one has to have experience, intelligence and wisdom with great literature in order to make a statement like that, at least provide greater literature so we may be able to see why you use such debasing language for your beliefs which you present as facts.

The bible is an important collection of history and fables, and has had a profound influence on history.

It is not a great work of literature. In terms of quality literature, it's a big steaming pile. And yes, I have read it, cover to cover, more than once.

I claim only that the Bible is not a cohesive piece of literature with artistic merit; nothing else.

While I do not believe the spiritual claims of the book, I think it's an important historical document, and merits respect and study as such.

Other somewhat contemporary epics like the works of Homer are considerably more interesting, artistically (though the long list of ships isn't very stimulating). The writings of and about plato and aristotle aren't particularly brilliant either from a 'writing' perspective, but are certainly historically valuable.

A modern equivalent might be someone like George Orwell; not a brilliant writer, but with an interesting and relevant set of ideas.

 

[Sentinel]

The bible in terms of Jew and Christian religions is the premise for all belief. Without that there would be nothing. Without the branching off of that, there would be no Islam.

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: Vic
Nietzsche was wrong. And the manner in which he was wrong has led to generations of immature and uneducated interpretations about the nature and understanding of religion and faith, and an overall weakening of philosophy. He, Kant, and Hegel pretty much killed philosophy, which IMO is one reason why people feel so empty inside today.

Good point. However, a more likely killer of philosophy today, I think, are the science teachers in public institutions who preach a hidden philosophy of naturalism to their students.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I suggest that they consider a different philosophy, one based on the notion that reality is objective in nature, that reason is man's means of knowledge, and that pursuing one's own life is the good.

For a person who claims to be objective, Ayn Rand?s morality is surely as subjective as any that have been invented. Making selfishness the basis for morality is as arbitrary as making ?the common good,? a phrase she is adamantly against (for good reason), it?s basis.

Originally posted by: kage69

Hmm, I doubt you ever read the bible all the way for you to make such a comment. Read the book, take some of that information in and then make a judgement. There are huge gaps in the bible with parts missing, parts altered and other things that are hard to explain. Some of the translations may not be totally accurate as far as we know. But still, it is among the greatest works of literature ever.

Going on past experience in this forum, I'll wager he has spent more time reading it than you have. Stop regurgitating what you hear on TV, it makes you sound stupid.

I agree with kage, stop buying into the propaganda which forces holes and gaps into the Bible. Not only is it among the greatest works of literature, it is also one of the best preserved works in history.

Originally posted by:cerb
the Muslims and Jews are definitely closer to being free in thought than any Christians I've met.

Ugh... it hardly matters anymore if a mind is logical, so long as it?s ?open.?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: stinkz
Good point. However, a more likely killer of philosophy today, I think, are the science teachers in public institutions who preach a hidden philosophy of naturalism to their students.

It's not naturalism, it's ancient mother earth goddess worship wrapped in a modern pseudo-scientific disguise. If they actually taught naturalism, they wouldn't teach things like the unnatural evil of humanity. Naturalism believes that humans and their activities are just as natural and normal as the animals and their activities (which it is). Naturalism is REAL science, as it believes the so-called supernatural can be explained (for example, your computer is not magic, though even educated persons just a few generations ago would have thought so).

For a person who claims to be objective, Ayn Rand?s morality is surely as subjective as any that have been invented. Making selfishness the basis for morality is as arbitrary as making ?the common good,? a phrase she is adamantly against (for good reason), it?s basis.

Contrary to popular belief, selfishness is NOT the basis of Rand's morality. Rational self-interest in self-improvement is. Think tending to your own garden first before telling other people how to grow their gardens. Think Matthew 7:3-5.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: stinkz

Originally posted by:cerb
the Muslims and Jews are definitely closer to being free in thought than any Christians I've met.

Ugh... it hardly matters anymore if a mind is logical, so long as it?s ?open.?

Being logical has little to do with it (well, in so far as just being open-minded is concerned!).

Open-mindedness requires the ability to change frames of reference, to assimilate new concepts, or old concepts in new garb. Some parts of that frame cannot change, if you accept certain facets of existence and morals to be explicitly true or explicitly false, and without questioning them. Now, "why are we here?" is a bit far to expect to find anything, of course. Have any discourse on homosexuality, and you're sure to have someone who thinks it's wrong because they've been told it's a sin, and that's enough for them.

 

[GoingUp]

The man was a genius. I'll post some of my favorite quotes of his later.

 

[GoingUp]

Es gibt nicht genug Liebe und Güte in der Welt, um noch davon an eingebildete Wesen wegschenken zu dürfen.

There is not enough love and goodness in the world to waste it on imaginary things.

One of my favorite quotes by him

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Es gibt nicht genug Liebe und Güte in der Welt, um noch davon an eingebildete Wesen wegschenken zu dürfen.

There is not enough love and goodness in the world to waste it on imaginary things.

One of my favorite quotes by him

In many cases people's love for a god helps them to feel more love for everything. That is one of the purposes of theistic religions. It makes them feel like there is a powerful force of love holding the universe together and that they are therefore safe to love freely.