Nietzche was right when he said that religion is the most distructive vice of mankind. I think it's just sad that children are raised to belive in god, because religion completely stops their minds from working. Religions gives us all the answers, without leting us find them for ourselvs. Also religion promotes pitty, which is the greatest weekness of mankind. I think that, in time religion will be just a myth as it should be right now. Nietzche also said that "religion is a the soul of a person without a soul" and it is "the deasprate scream of a dying man" which i find very true. Religion is for the week, but if we think about it, we know that it's just ... bull****. God is like Santa Clause. A story for little children.
I have taken the liberty of correcting your horrible attempt at English. If you spent as little time learning about the basis of religions (and its merits),as you have obviously invested time in learning English; then how can you expect anyone to follow your philosophy? Work on it! I don't think it is any accident that your idolized German philosopher Nietze (you spelled it wrong)resembles so closely the word "Nazi". Perhaps you idolize Hitler too.
religion is just a ****in weeknessweakness
July 23 2004 at 4:27 PM Nyezo
Nietzche Nietze was right when he said that religion is the most distructive destructive vice of mankind. I think it's just sad that children are raised to belive believe in god God, because religion completely stops their minds from working. Religions gives us all the answers, without leting letting us find them for ourselvs ourselves. Also religion promotes pitty, which is the greatest weekness weakness of mankind. I think that, in time religion will be just a myth as it should be right now. Nietzche Nietze also said that "religion is a the soul of a person without a soul" and it is "the deasprate desperate scream of a dying man" which i I find very true. Religion is for the week weak, but if we think about it, we know that it's just ... bull****. God is like Santa Clause. A story for little children.
i find it sad that you took the time to respond with a cryticism to my english
July 24 2004, 1:14 AM
do you think that the problem on this forum is about my english? well, if you must know i'm totaly aware than my english sucks. But that has absolutely no importance whatsoever. I think that you don't understand anything on this matter and i suggest that you read some phylosophy before you get the balls to talk about this matter. And also, Nietzche is spelled Nietzche in german and i don't idolize him at all. Frankly i hate the nazis and i find hitler a stupid man who didn't understand Nietzche's phylosophy. So... next time you try to get an opinion about anything you should keep it to yourself if you have no clue about the problem.
Friedrich Nietzche was born in Russia. He later immigrated to Germany and the family changed the spelling of their last name, so that it fit into the German culture more acceptably. His father was actually a minister--a man of God, but despised by his son. Many nicknamed him the "anti-Christ" because he spoke out so vehemently against the Christian religion. Upon reflection, one can probably see that Friedrich's entire philosophy was spawned from a son lashing out as his father. That is so sad!
I'm sorry to say this but are you a complete idiot ? Do you actualy belive what you have written ? Do you actualy think that Nietzche, one of the greatest phylosophers of all time was lashing out at his father ? Oh my god!
You are the idiot, if you cannot see the logic in my statement. Why else would a Christian minister's son preach so vehemently against believing in God? I notice you don't capitalize the word God. Obviously, you are a bird of the same feather. When is the next Nazi meeting?
Do you think that atheism is equal to being a nazi ? I am not a nazi and i don't belive in their morality. If you can't understand this, and i see that you can't, it is you who is the idiot. Let me explain it to you then. I do no belive in Nietzche's philosophy 100% but i belive that god doesn't exist. It seems that you haven't read Nietzche's philosoply. So next time you have an opinion on this matter, i strolgly sugest that you get some information about it.
I have read much of his philosophy. Did you read the recent post that spelled out the "truth about Nietzche"? It pretty much outlines the type of philosophy he spewed and even the source of influence. Although, he did have some views on other matters besides religion, I am only attacking here his views on religion, and his influence to the Nazi super race agenda.
I would like for you to give me ONE quote that you think was insightful, inspiring and somehow makes a postive contribution to mankind. You claim to know so much about this guy. Tell us what great thing this man said or did.
The Nazi movement followed the concept of a belief of God being a weakness not fitting of Hitler's super race. It was inspired by Nietzche's writings. Like it or not, that is a fact. You may not be a Nazi, but you have two of the important ingredients needed to be a member of that movement. First, you love Nietzche and secondly you are an athiest.
Your name looks German. Could it be that you are like most Germans I know who would like to pretend that Hitler and the Nazi movement never happened? It was inspired by athiests. You are an athiest. There are good German people, don't get me wrong. But those that I have found to be good people are those that apologize for the Nazi regime. They don't stick their heads in the sand. Most of them who are good people believe in God too.
To believe in God requires a certain ability to subordinate your own intelligence and existence to a higher intelligence and existence--namely a God who created this Universe and all the life in it. Your arrogance prevents you from doing that. Your ignorance of science and lack of awareness of the ordered complexity found in all of nature that surrounds you, prevents you from even needing the existence of a Master Architect. God was that architect. It is a sad day, when one of your idols is a man like Nietzche. I suppose you believe that some mortal man created the Universe too.
Don't waste your time or mine responding to whether or not there is a God. I have learned from experience that you athiests either have no capacity for examining facts or lack the intelligence to anlayze the facts. However, I would like you to educate all of us on the "great" contributions in writing and philosophy that Nietzche gave this world.
i'm not german and even if i were, i don't love Nietzche
July 28 2004, 6:32 AM
What makes you say that i love Nietzche? I never said that. The only thing i'm saying is that i belive that some of his concepts are true. Of course Hitler was inspired by Nietzche's philosophy, but that doesn't mean that Nietzche is responsable for all the damage Hitler made to the world. With all great discoveries come great destructions. For example if we wouldn't have had Einstein, we wouldn't have the atomic bomb today. Does this make Einstein responsable for the Hiroshima bombing ? Another example is the birth of comunism. Do you hold Marx and Engles responsible ? The only person i hold responsible is Lenin, and... in this case, Hitler, not Nietzche. If you think that Nietzche had no sense of morality, let me tell you something. He didn't even publish his greatest works. His wife did when he was in a wheel chair. I think that indeed he had morality and he was aware of the damage he could cause. Every amount of knowlege that we gain leads to both good and bad. I haven't become an atheist after reading Nietzche's "The Antichrist". I was an atheist many years before that, and it had no conection to Nietzche. If you want a quote that i find true, here is one:
"religion has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigurous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, ass full of temptation"
What the hell do you get from that quote? I have never read such gibberish in all my life. Tell me, pleeeeeeeeeeease, what gems of wisdom I should extract from these precious words????
I want to understand these high intellectual values...
July 28 2004, 11:56 PM
What were the "high intellectual values" to which Mr. Nietzche was making reference? He says religion has labeled them sinful. Klarissa, you are the expert. Name some of these high intellectual values that have been "corrupted" by religion and made "sinful". Also, how has religion made them appear "misleading"?
I think the truth is, you don't even understand what he is saying. Maybe he did not even understand what he was saying. If you are going to quote someone and add your accolades, then you should be ready to defend and explain the statements.
I had a neighbor once that used to try and impress me with his art collection. Some of the paintings cost thousands of U.S. dollars, yet they looked like they were scrawled by chimpanzee. I asked him why they cost so much and he gave me the name of the artist. I realized that he paid for the right of ownership or association of this person's name and not really the content of the paintings. Do you maybe see a parallel here? A large body of people have labeled Nietsche as a "great philosopher"; and as such, lots of people want to impress others by quoting him here and there. It is the "intellectual" thing to do. I am personally not impressed!
Religion tells you everything. It gives you all the answers without letting you find them out for your own. It tells you how the world was created, who created it, what you should belive in, how you should live your life; what you should and should not do, like the ten commandaments. It stops you from even having the curage to ask yourself questions like "is all this true ?" "what if it is all a lie", because these kind of questions are considered to be sinful.
I understand where you are coming from. The word religion can have different meanings to people. My definition is quite different from yours, and perhaps because of that we seem to be so much in disagreement. Actually, I don't disagree with you despising a doctrine that inhibits free thinking or the labeling of free thought as being sinful. Some churches and religious doctrines do push that sort of agenda.
To me religion is just a private feeling one has regarding the existence of a Creator that lies outside our full understanding and physical perspective. To this extent, I am outside the norm of what most other people call religion. I have a good friend who is a Christian Fundalmentalist. He believes in Noah's ark, Adam and Even and the Garden of Eden, and literally, anything written in the Christian bible. Growing up, I attended some "country church" services with my parents, where "fire and brimstone" sermons were delivered every Sunday---aimed at "putting the fear of God" in every sinner's soul.
I don't believe in any of this. To turn one's brain off, is something I can't do; and obviously, you can't either. But unlike you, I have come to the conclusion (with a completely open mind and without fear)that there must have been a Creator. My religion does not have all the answers, but at the same time it does not preclude me from reaching my own rational decisions.
I do not attend church. I see no need to pay someone to tell me how to live my life or to quote and interpret from a book that I can read on my own just as easily. I have no need to belong to a large group of people and share those thoughts. I am perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions. Sounds like you have done the same.
For the most part then, I do not believe in actively participating in organized religion. When they help the needy and the poor, I support that; but otherwise, I don't need an "organized" form of religion. It is kind of like the fact that I purposely don't belong to clubs or organizations. I don't need them.
So we have an intellectual difference--you an atheist and me a theist. But we don't disagree on the philosophy that everyone should feel the freedom to come to their own conclusions. I only seem to violate this philosophy when someone attacks by own views as being ignorant or mindless. Out of defense, I then attack back.
I attack Nietsche on the basis of his attack on religion in general. Some of his philosophy, I find otherwise thought-provoking and cleverly expressed. His views on "love" for example are not only realistic but somewhat comical at the same time:
Love is like racing across the frozen tundra on a snowmobile which flips over, trapping you underneath. At night, the ice-weasels come.
You say that your religion si private. I agree with the fact that there is in fact a greater power then us in this universe. But this doesn't have anything to do with this subject. I belive that we are weak and religion is a side effect of this weakness. It's ok to be weak because this so called "weakness" is what makes us humans, and makes us different from computers. I also think that we have a missunderstanding on the word "religion". In your opinion religion is a private feeling. I respect that. This means that the only difference between our opinions is that i don't want to call this "feeling" "religion". I don't know what i should call it, but i find that anything that comes from the world "religion" is dogmatic. Religion is "god", "church", "adam and eve", "sin"... and more in my opinion. But let me ask you a question. If say... one of your best friends die in an accident. What do you do ? Do you turn to god ? Or do you try to rationalize the problem ? I think that this makes the true difference between an atheist and a theist.
This a little scary...we started out as enemies (somewhat),and now find some common ground to embrace each other. Heaven forbid!
Seriously, I know what you mean about death. The question you pose is a tough one, and if you have the patience I would like to give you a little personal background before I answer it.
I lost my father at an early age; and one of my younger brothers died about 15 years ago. I think I was most affected by my brother's death. I went through all the typical stages rather quickly. Denial was the most noticeable stage. I can remember calling the hospital and demanding to talk to the attending physicians. I would not believe anyone telling me that my brother was dead. Even when the doctor came to the phone, I was shouting, "You're lying, you're lying!" It seems so insane now. For months after that, I would somehow forget my brother was dead and go to the phone and dial his number. I wanted to talk to him.
As I have grown older too, I find myself looking backward more often and wondering why I squandered so much of my life. What used to seem like an eternity now is so finite and definite. I ponder its insignificance and wish there had been a bigger contribution on my part. I still look forward, but I can't ignore the fact that most of the sand is now in the bottom section of the time glass.
In the course of my life though, I have traveled much of the world and learned from other cultures. I have examined different beliefs and religions along the way. In the midst of that, I have tried to imagine what lies on the other side of death, just as much as I have pondered what lied on the other side of Creation. This "higher being" I have somehow manufactured to be some kind of super intelligence more energy-like than the flesh and blood of mankind. I believe our "souls" somehow have a connection to that higher being and that our souls are just connected to this material, physical world for some unknown finite purpose.
Just as physical sciences have shown us that "energy cannot be destroyed" (but rather manifests itself in yet another form), I believe our souls do not die with our tired worn out bodies. I believe it is recycled with the original source...our Creator.
Perhaps this is some defense mechanism at work (just as my denial of my brother's death), and perhaps I have created my variation of religion to ease my own inevitable journey to death. I really don't know, but I admit I find comfort in it.
So you ask, "Should one turn to rational thought or religion" when one is faced with death of themselves or someone else? I say the two are related and cannot be separated.
"Perhaps this is some defense mechanism at work (just as my denial of my brother's death), and perhaps I have created my variation of religion to ease my own inevitable journey to death. I really don't know, but I admit I find comfort in it. "
By saying this, in fact, you admit that religion is a weakness of mankind. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we shouldn't use it as a "defense mechanism". But let me tell you a little story of my own. About two years ago i was almost killed by an electric shock. I don't remember exactly but i think i was shaking for about one minute. I was absolutely sure i was going to die. Not once during that time did I think of god. Fortunately i didn't die. If this would have happened to a religious man he would surely say that he had been saved by god, and maybe something like this would have changed his entire life. I resisted, and i didn't change my beliefs at all. I think that something like this would make me an atheist. I don't judge religious people because i think that religion is the least important. I have seen evil persons who were indeed religious and i have also seen very good and moral atheists. But still, i belive that religion is a human weekness just as love and pitty. It is this part of Nietzche's philosophy that i find true. But Nietzche says that we should give up all of these feelings, "weaknesses" in order to become "hyperborean", which i find false.
To me, religion is my strength...not my weakness. It gives meaning and purpose to my life. You don't know me, but if you did, you would see for yourself. No one would ever label me weak.
Some think that tears are a sign of weakness too, but I have seen the strongest of men cry. Many men are afraid to cry, for they do not want to appear weak. To me, that is their weakness. We must follow what we "feel", not what some philosopher dictates. Some are afraid of love, because it leaves us vulnerable. But to purposely enter into a state of vulnerability, knowing its consequences, to me is also a sign of strength. One should not fear their real feelings.
Religion is only a weakness when men use it to excuse their weaknesses. For example, I know so-called "religious men" who drink to excess, beat their wife, ignore their children, and in general, turn their backs on personal responsibility. They are able to justify their actions by believing that as long as they attend church on Sunday and believe in God, all their actions are forgiven and nullified. If that is the religion to which you make reference, then I must agree. But as I explained before, my definition of religion is none of this. My definition is simply one of recognizing and giving credit for my existence to a higher being. I respect and admire my Creator, and give thanks that this Creator allowed me this opportunity to feel and experience the pleasures of life.
Unlike many religious people, I don't think God intervenes with issues of life and death. I am one of those who believes that God created a self-winding world. Death was as much of a part of the plan as was Life.
I've been away for a while. I've thaught about something. Check this out: Nietzche claims that every human feeling is a weakness. He thinks that love, pitty, religion ... are all weaknesses. He was obsessed with "the will of power". But doesn't his "weakness" theory aply also for "power". Isn't the "will of power" also a weakness ? I must admit that although i have read his works, i didn't read them all in order to completely understand him, but i think that this is where he went wrong. If every human feeling is a weakness, then isn't the obsession for absolute power also a weakness ? What do you think ?
Your analysis agrees with my own conclusions about the "power" argument and the conclusions that you have drawn from his writing in general. He did have a way with words, though--I'll give him that. But I think his basic premise about feelings being a weakness is what makes everything ring hollow when one really takes the time to think about it.
Most of the people who commit suecide are atheists
August 4 2004, 10:41 AM
I must agree that religious men are and will also be more powerfull than the atheists. It's also a fact that most of the people who commit suecide are atheists. So, of course that religion gives you streangth. But if i don't find it true, i still won't belive. I think that the human mind is too stupid to have all the answers, so that's why i am sceptical in this matter.
Re: Most of the people who commit suecide are atheists
August 5 2004, 5:05 AM
I didn't know about that fact concerning atheists. I saw a study once concerning suicide that showed rate of incidence by job professions and parts of the world. It showed that dentists were the highest number of suicide victims and that Sweden had the most suicides per its population. I don't know anyone Swedish, but I have a friend who is a dentist. He tells me that it is a job that can really get on your nerves. Apparently, it is not much fun working inside someone's mouth and not being able to have much conversation throughout the day.
I laugh silently about that nowdays when I visit the dentist, and she tries to have a conversation with me while my mouth is numb and there is a rubber dam stretched from one side to the other. I just go "Uh,uh merf, gim blub,blub." in response. I don't want her jumping out the window of a high building.
Regarding your comments on the capacity of human understanding...
I am reading a book right now by Rudolf Ruker. It is kind of a primer for helping one to better understand the multi-dimensional math of current cosmology theory. I don't know if you have been keeping up with it, but the science community has advanced way beyond the old Big Bang theory as being the initial word on how Creation really took place.
Now days everyone is following the more up-to-date "Superstring" theory that believes prior to the Big Bang there was an "existence" having 10-spatial dimensions, plus time. For some reason that larger dimensional space became unstable and cracked into our 3-spatial dimensions (plus time) Universe. The smallest constituents of that early Universe were very small "building blocks" they have named "strings". These are much, much smaller that the quarks of our current day atomic model.
Anyway, the science community believes that all matter (including humans, planets, stars, elements, atoms, even quarks)are merely different vibrations and configurations of these strings. The vibrations affect and take place in the entire 10-dimensional model, but the other 7 dimensions are outside our human capabilities for detection. We see only the results of the vibrations that occupy our 3-dimensions.
In other words, theory and extrapolation of the mathematical processes we use and apply in our world, are giving us reason to believe in the existence of "something" far outside our world but directly linked to it.
A skeptic can say, "Well, if we can't see this other world, I have no reason to believe it exists or that it had anything to do with the world I currently experience." Most people are skeptics. The strongest evidence that anyone can provide for this "theoretical math" is that it is the only mathematical model that "unifies" all the known forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravity). Einstein died before he could come up with a mathematical model that unified all the forces. Now we have such a model, but because we can't examine these higher dimensions, it is doubtful that man will ever confirm directly the theory's validity.
The point I am trying to make is that we are reaching the outer limits of our intellectual and physical capacities. It divides us into those who see the "glass half full" and the "glass half empty". I am a "glass half full" person. I think the skeptics are those who lean more in the "glass half empty" direction. In a similar manner (even directly related to the science issues perhaps), believing or disbelieving in a God really boils down to the need for direct proof. Some can believe without the direct proof, and some can't. It's a personal decision.
First of all, I was not the one who made the statement. But I will defend it anyway.
Athiests can be mentally ill too, right? I agree, it does take someone with a severe mental problem--one so large they can no longer deal with it--to commit suicide. What was being said was NOT "athiests constitute most of the suicide population." Athiests are indeed a subclass of that population that is comprised of predominantly those with mental problems. What was being said is that if one examines just the athiests and theists among those who have committed suicide, more athiests than theists commit suicide.
The reason more aetheists commit suicide is because all christians are coerced by their fake and foolish beliefs inot not killing themselves. The christians are fascist nazis who are not prosecuted because they use their religion as a weapon. They think they have diplomatic immunity. but in realioty they are arrogant evil, snobby, slaves to a book that tells them that they are free but forces them to obey inpractical rules. The nook says they are not allowed to iill themselves so they agree without question because they have no will of their own. Christians are arrogant bastards (scuse my french) untrue in : muslims, buddhists, hindus, sikhs and jews. The christians are no different to the nazis
As mentioned above, I dont see a geniune reason for your arguements. Christians have a very stable ingredient which is Christ. If a new Philosher comes with a new idea, I wouldn't be surprised you all will run after him like a pack of wolves running after a deer.
This is what the bible tells me about human philosophy; Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:8.
Nietsche was the syphilis-plagued philosopher who insisted that “God is dead” and that humanity need not be constrained by traditional morals. His contemporaries thought him a madman.
Within 40 years of Nietzsche’s death, however, Europe was burning. Hitler, in pursuit of Nietzche’s “super race,” stood unopposed in purging Jews and gypsies from his new reich. Six and a half decades after Nietzshe’s death. Time Magazine emblazoned its cover with three shocking words: “God Is Dead.” Bible reading and prayer were thrown out of state schools in the United States and sex education and a spirit of free love were ushered in.
Before a century had passed, the logical end of this philosophy had taken hold of a whole generation: not only was God dead, but so was truth. The absolutes on which morality had been based were dead. Determination of right and wrong became a relative matter. Nietzche may not be the direct cause of the confusion and emptiness of postmodernism, but he at least was the cultural prophet who heralded its coming. The age of enlightenment ushered in cultural modernism. It gradually displaced God’s authority with man’s reason.
In its pursuit of the discovery of the secrets of the universe, academia believed that it could solve all the problems of humanity. With each scientific and technological advance from the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries, God became less and less relevant. While rationalism marginalized God, it did not solve the endemic problems of human suffering and inhumanity.
The twentieth century has been the bloodiest century in world history. Nietzsche himself predicted this bloodbath as modern man would come of age, jettisoning medieval social mores for a morality of his own creation. Man would become free to play God.
Ironically, the age of reason that promised to give solutions for the woes of civilization has given birth to an era of willful ignorance and indifference. Modernism’s technological and philosophical contributions to the barbarity of this century, not to mention its lack of answers for personal and world peace, have resulted in a reactionary movement against rationalism.
So you see, Nietsche planted the "seeds" of immorality because he felt man was above the laws of God and could decide for himself. He then predicted the outcome of what would happen as those seeds were nutured. Turned out that his predictions were correct. But, that is like soaking a house with gasoline and then predicting that it will eventually catch fire and be destroyed.
I do not call this man a "great philosopher". I call him evil and irresposible. He must accept even in death the responsibility of such acts as those committed by one of his philosophical followers....Adolf Hitler!!! Even worse, he may well be one of the biggest contributors to the immoral world we live in today. Certainly, he has influenced some of the most out-spoken athiests. And as I can see from this web site, many of you posting here follow his philosophies (either knowingly or unknowingly).
Nietzche's parents were Russian, but he was born in the little town of Röcken, Germany. He never was awarded a German citizenship though.
The Prussian King, Friedrich Wilhelm IV, after whom Nietzsche was named, was responsible for Nietzsche's father's appointment as Röcken, Germany's town minister. Nietzsche's grandfathers were also Lutheran ministers, and his paternal grandfather, Friedrich August Ludwig Nietzsche, was further distinguished as a Protestant scholar, one of whose books (1796) affirmed the "everlasting survival of Christianity."
I too find it strange that Friedrich Nietzsche was so much in opposition. However, I think the real "influence" behind his feelings about Christianity and religion in general stem from his accidental discovery of Arthur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation (1818) in a local bookstore.
Schopenhauer's atheistic and turbulent vision of the world, in conjunction with his highest praise of music as an art form, captured Nietzsche's imagination, and the extent to which the "cadaverous perfume" of Schopenhauer's world-view continued to permeate Nietzsche's mature thought is still a matter of scholarly debate.
After discovering Schopenhauer, Nietzsche read F.A. Lange's newly-published History of Materialism and Critique of its Present Significance (1866) -- a work which criticized materialist metaphysical theories from the standpoint of Kant's critique of metaphysics in general, and attracted Nietzsche's interest in its view that metaphysical speculation is an expression of poetic illusion.
On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life. Upon witnessing a horse being whipped by a coachman at the Piazza Carlo Alberto, Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck and collapsed, never to return to full sanity. Some argue that Nietzsche was afflicted with a syphilitic infection (this was the original diagnosis of the doctors in Basel and Jena), believed to have been contracted while he was a student
Actually, Nietsche was born in Prussia; and parts of that country were gobbled up by Germany and Russia in different wars. That, I guess, is why there is the confusion of whether he was German or Russian.
Nietzche combined the ideas of Darwin and Hegel, pointing to progress throught the emergence of a superman who would be superior to the rest of us in that he would abandon traditional moral standards and substitute the "will to power." Hitler bought into this idea big time; and decided that he would nuture a super race in the German society. He ended up killing thousands of Jews as a part of the attempted process.
This guy was afraid that religion would stop children from thinking. Somehow it seems something stopped him from thinking very much too. Wow! What a lot of English mistakes! Even I can do better than that.
Did you know that Nietze's "superman" philosophy was the model of the Nazi "super race" movement and one of the prime motivations behind the attempted extermination of all Jews? It is certainly a nice man that you choose to quote and follow. I think that it has been mentioned on this site before, that at least religion has provided some guidelines for morality. Nietze had no moral standards. He believed that morality was a weakness and only got in the way of being "super".
I agree with the fact than Nietzche was a mode for the nazis. But, also did you know that Hitler suffered from paranoia ? I think that he missunderstood nietzche's phylosophy. And let me tell you another thing. Maybe you think that Nietzche had no moral standards, but did you know how hitler got to read his books? Nietzche didn't publish any of the books that hitler read. At first they were rough copies. And when Nietzche was dying, his wife published them without his knowlege. So, i think that shows that he had some moral standards. Also i think that Hitler missunderstood Nietzche's phylosophy, because he was a week and sick man without the propper culture, making him incapable of understanding what he read.
I think that you "missunderstood Nietzche's phylosophy, because [you are] a week and sick man without the propper culture, making [you] incapable of understanding what [you] read."
There---I used your own quote even with its horrible English. Please recognize your own stupidity and realize you fall into the same pile of cow dung with the likes of Hitler.
at least respect something, because if you don't... that makes you a hypocrite
July 24 2004, 3:37 AM
You sound like a convinced religious man my friend. But doesn't your own religion say that you should respect my opinion ? If you belive in god you should belive in him the right way. Calling me stupid shows, in fact that you not only mock me, but you also mock your god, which i find disrespectfull. I don't know you, so i'm not in the position to judge you. But just let me say that from what you have said, i think that you are one of those who only turn to your god when you need him, taking him for granted when you don't. If this is what you call religion, my opinion is that you are nothing but hypocrite and you should either truely belive in him or deny him, like i have. It is not me who is weak my friend, but sadly you are.
You are not my friend, so please don't address me as one. It always amazes me that when athiests insult the intelligence of those having some religious beliefs, they play the old "I thought religious people were taught to love one another!" card. You insult, but you do not want to be insulted in return. Why?
It is okay to have your opinion, but do not insult those who have an opposing opinion by comparing it to a childish concept like Santa Claus and to accuse those who bring up their children in the context of religion of preventing children from using their minds. I hope you have learned something from this public humiliation. In bashing others, you have only made a fool of yourself.
As for picking someone to idolize, I believe you can find someone more worthy than your Friedrich Nietze. What did he contribute to the world, other than a contempt for religion and a hate for Christianity? Whether intentional or not, his writings inspired the likes of Adolf Hitler. Do you want your children to follow that same philosophy. A true measure of worth when you pass from this world is measured by how much you gave to it, compared to how much you took from it. There have been many "givers" in this world. You would do well to model your behavior from the life and philosophies of one of them instead.
Although i disagree with you, you musn't think that i do not respect your opinion. As for Nietzche, don't think that i idolize him. I only agree with him on some matters. I love all sorts of phylosophers such as Bernard Williams, Platon, and so on. It's obvious that you were raised as a christian. But did you ever ask yourself what religion would you be, if maybe you were bourn in India, or Turkey, or Japan ? I think that you you agree with me when i say that you wouldn't have grown up to be a christian. And isn't it wierd for you that people from around the world have different religions based on the place they were bourn ? And also, belive me when i say that i will raise my children exactly the way that i was raised. My mother is a christian and my father is a moslem. I could have chosen one of these two religions. And i didn't chose any. I made up my own mind which is exactly what i will let my children do. I don't want to insult anyone or tell them what they should chose but in my opinion children sholuld discover these things in their own. I don't think that religion is something that should be teached in school or at home.
I owe you an apology for misjudging you a little. I don't think you intentionally meant to insult anyone when you expressed your views. And I am glad you cleared up how you plan to raise your children. It is one thing for us adults to make life-changing decisions, but we must always guard against controlling the minds of our children. Otherwise, they may become prisoners of making the same mistakes as we do.
Yes, I am very fascinated by how growing up in different cultures affects one's thinking and perspective. I am married to a woman that lived on the opposite side of this planet Earth from me. Her life growing up was so different from my own that I am currently writing a novel based on it. I think everyone from my country should feel her struggle for survival, and to have the opportunity to view the world through someone else's eyes. It does make a difference to how you view life and this world we live in.
There are good things and bad things associated with religion. Sometimes the most horrible things that have ever been done were in the name of religion. 9/11 in America was such an example. The Christian Crusades are still other examples. But the good part of religion is to give humanity a set of rules for morality and treating one another in a civil manner. Perhaps that can be learned without religion, but I am certain it is not an innate trait we receive at birth.
Whether one believes in a religion or not, the real test of "goodness" is how you treat others; and to whether there is a balance struck between the taking and giving in one's life.
Peace be with you...sorry for lashing out at you. I need to watch my aggressiveness sometimes.
It is important to remember that all religions are social constructs. That is to say, they are invented by people, in social and cultural contexts. The sociology of religion is a good place to start, if you really want to understand why people are religious. As an analogy, all sports are just versions of the same thing: i.e. they all have rules, boundaries, referees, time limits, equipment, opposing teams etc. Religions are just like this - they all have rituals, dogmas, beliefs, concepts etc. The important thing to remember when debating religion and science, is that science asks 'how' and religion asks 'why'. Religion offers what science can't deliver - a meaningful life, even if it is just another version of 'Santa Claus'. Don't be too hard on religious people. They just want to experience happiness in their lives. By the way, I personally think that there is a God who created the universe, but I am not religious, because people created religions. The universe, I believe, is just too complex to have happened by accident. Too many things had to happen just right (gravity, electomagnetism, the expansion during the Big Bang etc) for it to be a blind accident.
It's interesting how you draw the comparison between religion and science. While surfing the net, recently I ran across an interesting fellow that has related religion and science in a way that boggles the mind. I had actually stumbled upon him several times at science forums previously, and had thought at first he was a credible scientist.
The guy, I believe, is a genius. However, he is also mentally disturbed at the same time, I am afraid. His depth of science knowledge is amazing, but his scientific conclusions are bizarre, to say the least. You can check out his web site at:
He calls himself Archimedes Plutonium, and he believes that the planet Earth inhabits a "speck" in the electron cloud of one of the orbital paths of a Uranium-231 isotope. As if that is not bizarre enough, he believes God is the isotope.
Needless to say, he believes the superstring theory is a lot of bunk. He believes that the smallest building block of the Universe is the hydrogen atom, and that everything else smaller has no real meaning.
Even though most people will agree this guy is a kook, I am amazed at the amount of effort and detail he puts into his postings. Unfortunately, it seems that he reads the surface information only. Consequently, before he can gain the full knowledge of the mainstream science theories, he draws the conclusion that he is smarter than the authors and has a better theory of his own. This seems to send him on a series of obtuse intellectual journeys that one has to read in order to imagine.
People are kind of a hobby for me. The more bizarre they are, the more interesting I find them. I decided to dig deeper and research the fellow a little. He has been posting on the Internet since its conception. As best I can tell, he is an American of German parentage. He used to post under the name of Ludwig Plutonium. Here is a link to one of his earlier postings. It even gives you some humorous insight into his college sexual experiences.
I meant to say that he believes the planet Earth is a speck in the electron cloud of one of the orbits of a Plutonium 231 isotope. I said "Uranium". Sorry, Archie for misquoting you.
