I think that some people, still unable to release their religious beliefs, would find a new justification in all of it. Either the aliens were work of the devil to "test our faith", or the Bible was just the revelation of God to our planet.

6/1/2006 3:50:27 PM

i think that if there is anything wrong with christianity it is just the opposite of what you are arguing. It facilitates a handfull of people to become too powerful, by piggybacking on christian values "in the name of god". It has been shaped through the years to allow for the powerful to stay in power by invoking a higher authority that gives them the blessing to "carry out the will of god" in such a way that nobody can dispute (although that is changing largely with the formation of the US and the convergence or diversity that came with it ). christianity promotes the powerful through the ignorance of the masses, and that's exactly what the people who shaped it (not god or some divine force) intended.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 3:58:12 PM

^ In fact that's not too far off from part of what I am arguing, you're just confused about the terminology Nietzsche uses.

The "powerful" in your definition here is what becomes the ruling class, the priest.

6/1/2006 4:03:18 PM

actually i didn't find that part....point me to it.

6/1/2006 4:12:47 PM

That's awfully lazy of you... I'm not going to find it for you. My post wasn't all that long.

6/1/2006 4:19:58 PM

Oh McDanger- see, people were willing to fight with you!

6/1/2006 4:23:39 PM

Yeah, I kind of figured this thread would become a Rodney King situation.

6/1/2006 4:28:43 PM

Anyway, one of my major points is that the author goes to such lengths to portray christianity as demonizing power, technology ect... but if someone in power presents his agenda in a way that seems to "glorify" god, or in the name of christianity, christians will defend that leader to the death. (i.e. the crusades, or currently Bush), pushing the initial justification to the side to blindly support the leader.

So either they "forget" that "part" of christianity, or it never really existed the way the author portrayed it in the first place. How can a religion preach something that its followers aren't even aware of?

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : e]

6/1/2006 4:30:12 PM

You're confused.

Power is being defined differently than you're using it. The fact that priestly figures take power is not an oversight or even unaccounted for.

6/1/2006 4:31:10 PM

i just don't think the writer has a very strong point. One thing about religion and the bible in particular is that you can use it to make any point you want, but it doesn't make that point correct.

6/1/2006 4:32:35 PM

but don't confuse me with a hardcore bible belter, I don't disagree with him on principle, i just think that some of the ideas he presents are off base.

6/1/2006 4:35:18 PM

I guess I need you to illustrate your points a little more clearly then, to really grasp what you're trying to say.

It seems you're saying that priests gain power through religion. Yes, this is true, and one of the points Nietzsche makes.

6/1/2006 4:42:03 PM

but he seems to indicate that these "priests" are extentions of god himself, he even says that science is a danger to priests as well, but no matter how technologically advanced the world becomes, leaders will still be necessary. he seems to infer that technology will wipe out the ruling class, when infact it will make them stronger.

6/1/2006 4:47:54 PM

Actually what he's claiming is that God is an extension of man. This is probably a little more obvious if you pick up the entire paper (it's free online somewhere I'm sure). Technology isn't so much the problem here, it's science taking the place of religion as the body holding main explanatory power. Once scientific explanations are around and accepted, if they explain anything religion explains, it causes some serious problems for religion -- it puts it into a state of crisis where believers have to either adjust their beliefs, reject science, or reject religion.

6/1/2006 5:01:24 PM

I didn't plow through the whole thread, and I'm probably not going to, but this demonstrated to me how laughably off McDanger's understanding of Christianity is:

Quote :

"I'd argue that religion such as Christianity is nihilism in itself. Christianity saps and drains value and purpose from this life with promise of the life to come."

One of the huge points of Christianity is to give people a purpose, and the value of human life is central to everything it believes. You know this. I know you know this. So why say otherwise?

6/1/2006 5:12:26 PM

And your reply, as usual, demonstrates your ability to pluck something out of context and miss the entire point.

You even admit you didn't read the entire thread, so you shouldn't be too embarassed that you've made such a mistake.

Christianity alleviates the fear of death by giving people a purpose that is postmortem-oriented. That is the entire reason why it is nihilistic.

6/1/2006 5:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Technology isn't so much the problem here, it's science taking the place of religion as the body holding main explanatory power. Once scientific explanations are around and accepted, if they explain anything religion explains, it causes some serious problems for religion -- it puts it into a state of crisis where believers have to either adjust their beliefs, reject science, or reject religion."

As best I can figure, the only explanation where both science and christianity overlap is the creation myth. Gravity, Evolution, Technology, none of it is directly contradicted by the bible. As such, it doesn't strike me as that much of a "crisis" when all you have to do is fall back to fundamentals. While the creation myth is fun and all, it really has nothing to do with either the present or future. In other words, it doesn't matter to humanity whether we all believe in the big bang or creationism, as long as we all agree with my chemistry textbook.

Except, of course, killing people. Is it really a conflict between science and religion when we want to decide which trimester we can abort a fetus? Of course not, since there is no soul we cannot measure it, so we cannot scientifically call anything "human" without asking it first. Only a religion (or something like one) could answer this question as, scientifically speaking, any answer is arbitrary.

Beyond these two questions, which are both irrelevant in the long term, religion and science have no insoluble conflicts.

6/1/2006 5:29:13 PM

^ Anything resembling reasonable ontology or psychology should avoid Christianity, but unfortunately that doesn't happen.

I think ontology is ridiculously important, even central to how many people tackle problems, make ethical calls, etc.

Quote :

"Is it really a conflict between science and religion when we want to decide which trimester we can abort a fetus? Of course not, since there is no soul we cannot measure it, so we cannot scientifically call anything "human" without asking it first."

There is, in fact, a bit of a conflict. Many religions would say never at all, because a "soul" is implanted into the "new human" from conception. We need to guide decisions like abortion using a study of human psychology and a strong understanding of ontology -- knowing what makes a human being, knowing what a human being is.

In fact, this line of the quote:

Quote :

"Of course not, since there is no soul we cannot measure it, so we cannot scientifically call anything "human" without asking it first."

demonstrates just how important and pervasive ontology is, despite what you may think. Your rationale betrays acceptance of dialectic, and you're moving within that framework.

Quote :

"Beyond these two questions, which are both irrelevant in the long term, religion and science have no insoluble conflicts."

This is perhaps true, but rational inquiry into life comes into conflict quite often with religion. Reasonable ethics do, as well. We should be basing our laws and ethics off of real concepts.

6/1/2006 5:40:47 PM

Dude, you're a cyclical fuck that goes through modes of hating, liking, and criticising christianity.

Nothing you say is new or original, just noise. Of course I'm going to shit on your threads.

You're a joke

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 5:46 PM. Reason : 6pm]

6/1/2006 5:45:40 PM

Quote :

"We were talking in terms of Islam vs. Christianity, and I've made it abundantly clear why I feel Islam to be the superior."

You like Islam because it is self-absorbed. The very thought that you can get to the afterlife and are rewarded with however many virgins if you kill infidels is extremely self-centered b/c the individual shows no love or remorse for their fellow man while only thinking of himself.

Quote :

"Christianity alleviates the fear of death by giving people a purpose that is postmortem-oriented. That is the entire reason why it is nihilistic."

How can you say that Christianity is nihilistic when nihilists generally believe all of the following: God does not exist, traditional morality is false, and secular ethics are impossible. Therefore, life has no meaning, and no action is preferable to any other.

Do you know how many contradictions between nihilism and Christianity there are?

So this is what Neitzsche thinks, in a nutshell:

Quote :

"A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists. — Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585"

This is not compatible with Christianity. Our existence in this world determines what happens to us in the next life, how we suffer, feel, will and act are central and key as Christians grow closer to the Lord. To state otherwise shows a complete lack and depth of the understanding of Christianity and it doesn't surprise me that somebody who doesn't believe would get it so wrong.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : more]

6/1/2006 5:46:21 PM

Quote :

"Dude, you're a cyclical fuck that goes through modes of hating, liking, and criticising christianity. Nothing you say is new or original, just noise. Of course I'm going to shit on your threads. You're a joke "

Get bent, Engin. You're a guy who acts all nicey nicey with me in person and then tries to come across as this really tough guy on the internet. Go fuck yourself, I'm done with you. You add absolutely no value to my life. Just another passive-aggressive fucker who likes to troll from behind a computer screen, who becomes all smiles in person. How fucking original. Notice you haven't added anything to this thread. If you're actually kidding, then I apologize, but JESUS CHRIST. You ride my cock something fierce on the internet. It makes me ridiculously confused when I hang out with you in person, and everything's cool. I don't see shit as being different just because it's a different medium of communication. Maybe you do.

I never claimed anything I said in this thread was original. I cite Nietzsche to help fill out some points I wanted to bring across. You are beyond irrelevant. You're going to die in Raleigh, whether you actually ever finish your degree or not. Stop fucking replying and shitting this thread up, I shouldn't have to spend extra time in this thread replying to you.

On to revelant replies --

Quote :

"You like Islam because it is self-absorbed. The very thought that you can get to the afterlife and are rewarded with however many virgins if you kill infidels is extremely self-centered b/c the individual shows no love or remorse for their fellow man while only thinking of himself."

That's not true, I don't like Islam. I dislike Christianity because of the "God on the Cross" idea. I've made this abundantly clear. I've provided my reasons, why do you feel the need to manufacture new ones for me?

Quote :

"How can you say that Christianity is nihilistic when nihilists generally believe all of the following: God does not exist, traditional morality is false, and secular ethics are impossible. Therefore, life has no meaning, and no action is preferable to any other."

If you had even bothered to look up the world "nihilism", you'd see that it also relates to the belief that "life is meaningless". The argument is that Christianity is nihilist because it devalues life, by placing all importance on postmortem events (read: not real).

6/1/2006 6:00:12 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nihilism

Quote :

"ni·hil·ism An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist. "

Ok, show me in the definition where it says specifically that life is meaningless.

Quote :

"The argument is that Christianity is nihilist because it devalues life, by placing all importance on postmortem events (read: not real)."

Why would Christ die on the cross in order to devalue the lives of people that He was sent to save?

Importance is placed on the hereafter, but what you and Nietzsche completely miss out on is that it is exactly how people act, what people believe in this life and how people treat others determines which afterlife people are sent to.

Loving thy neighbor as yourself, which has been called the 11th Commandment, was given by Christ to his disciples in Matthew 22:37-39:

Quote :

"Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

So you tell me, how does the above commandments devalue life on this earth?


[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 6:19 PM. Reason : more]

6/1/2006 6:07:26 PM

Ugh apparently we're using different dictionaries. It's what the word means.

Oxford American Dictionary says:

Quote :

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that all life is meaningless"

What Nietzsche's argument states is that Christians are nihilist in their devaluation of all life, and the rejection of natural morals. If you want to be really pedantic about it, then you can miss the point, I guess.

Quote :

"So you tell me, how does the above commandments devalue life on this earth?"

Well, Christian "equality" is certainly against the natural order. The devaluation of life by Christianity stems from the shifting of the center of gravity of existence into the postmortem. You're going to find lots of things about Christian charity, but it doesn't refute my point.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 6:20:05 PM

So loving your neighbor as yourself devalues life because it doesn't fit with your definition of natural morals?

I have offered you counterexamples that contradicts with your definition of a meaningless Christian life.

Tell me, why do all of these Christian charities like Samaritan's Purse or the Salvation Army even exist if their goal is to devalue all of life?

Quote :

"Well, Christian "equality" is certainly against the natural order."

Which brings me back to my original point about Islam and why you found it to be "less corrupt," because it is squarely focused on the individual with little or no care for anybody else. It's all about the self, while Christianity focuses on being selfless.

I can understand why a nonbeliever might feel that Christians devalue what your definition of life and reality might be, but at least get your arguments straight before you throw around terms and words that do not fit.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 6:31 PM. Reason : more]

6/1/2006 6:24:49 PM

You're mistaking Christian charity for valuing this life. There are a variety of motivators behind Christian charity, the driving force being pity, the "desire to preserve what is ripe for destruction". Christian charity is a mirror of the Christian elevation of weakness to virtue. To boot, most Christian charity is a lame attempt at working impoverished people for a chance to evangelize.

6/1/2006 6:27:05 PM

Quote :

"So loving your neighbor as yourself devalues life because it doesn't fit with your definition of natural morals?"

I'm not sure what's going on here, but loving your neighbor as yourself because you want to go to Heaven doesn't fit with my definition of "natural morals."

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 6:28 PM. Reason : Editors Anonymous kicked me out.]

6/1/2006 6:27:06 PM

^ Bullseye.

Couldn't have explained that better myself.

6/1/2006 6:27:34 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what's going on here, but loving your neighbor as yourself because you want to go to Heaven doesn't fit with my definition of "natural morals.""

Natural morals had to come from somewhere. Otherwise, the definition of what natural morals are or may be are nothing more than what the man with the biggest stick says they are.

6/1/2006 6:35:04 PM

That's what morality is anyway.

It's why it should be questioned, not accepted as dogma. If the man with the biggest stick determined morality, then the morality of the weak would not have reigned so long in Europe, especially. It wouldn't have been a doctrine that lasted for two thousand years.

Identifying what's natural to life by observing life isn't contrived, it's a revaluation, a return.

6/1/2006 6:41:11 PM

So, what you're saying is...

You have issue with your perception that Christians do things for the sole reason of going to Heaven. And, since Heaven doesn't exist to you, you believe that the Christians are doing everything for nothing. Additionally, you believe that Christians act out of italicized, weak morals, and not out of any true valuation of human life.

Is that about it?

6/1/2006 7:32:26 PM

^Actually, no, that's not all that's up for discussion. That's just the one point that's being discussed right now.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 8:55 PM. Reason : sss]

6/1/2006 8:33:57 PM

Quote :

"In a sense, those who suffer from reality, the weak, seek escape from it. One way to do this is to deify all things weak, and demonize all things strong."

Nietzsche was weak and sought out to demonize Christianity as a way to escape from reality. The only way he could feel strong is by calling others weak. I agree with that portion of his spiel.

6/1/2006 8:54:02 PM

^Do you know that about Nietzsche? Where did you read that? It sounds interesting, and I'd love to check it out.

6/1/2006 8:57:36 PM

I have a hard time understanding how somebody can get the most out of their existence by being totally self-absorbed, carrying out an attitude like the world was created for them and only them and to hell with the rest of us.

At least a Christian faith gives a person meaning and purpose in life that is inwardly and outwardly focused. The world that Nietzsche wanted sounds depressing, animalistic, and highly selfish.

6/1/2006 9:15:10 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: I have a hard time understanding how somebody can get the most out of their existence by being totally self-absorbed, carrying out an attitude like the world was created for them and only them and to hell with the rest of us."

Yeah, some of us don't need Christianity in order to care about others.

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: At least a Christian faith gives a person meaning and purpose in life that is inwardly and outwardly focused. The world that Nietzsche wanted sounds depressing, animalistic, and highly selfish."

LOL, you just used "at least" to describe your faith. GG

6/1/2006 9:20:16 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, some of us don't need Christianity in order to care about others."

Then McDanger/Nietzsche would say that you're a nihilist too.

6/1/2006 9:27:39 PM

^But what would you say about me?

6/1/2006 9:29:22 PM

I'd say that you're on the right track.

6/1/2006 9:30:22 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, some of us don't need Christianity in order to care about others."

What I don't understand is, why do you (and apparently McDanger) begrudge those that do? What does it matter to you that promises of heaven are empty? Why does it matter that other's reasons for helping differ from yours?

I am by no stetch of the imagination religious (I'd fall under areligious in the mcworldview), but I don't go out of my way to point out 'shortcomings' in Christianity.

6/1/2006 9:43:22 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, some of us don't need Christianity in order to care about others. "

Which leads to the inevitable question of "Why?"

Why do you care about others?

The point that McDanger and others who hold the "we don't need religion to tell us to be nice" is that every reason can be equally dismissed.

If you say you care because you want others to care about you, a christian could say "I don't need to try to bribe others into helping me to be nice to them"

6/1/2006 9:50:41 PM

Yeah, some of us Christians don't need Christianity in order to care about others either.

6/1/2006 10:04:04 PM

I'M TAKING A DAY OFF OF THIS THREAD BECAUSE WE WON.

FINALS.

HOLY SHIT.

I LOVE YOU, EVERYBODY.



EDIT:

ALSO...

Quote :

"(I'd fall under areligious in the mcworldview)"

YOU REFERRED TO THE MCWORLDVIEW. MUCH LOVE.

I'M SORRY, I HAVE CONSUMED MUCH BEER AND THE HURRICANES HAVE WON. REJOICE. TAKE A DAY OFF. WHO CARES WHAT WE ALL BELIEVE... TAKE A DAY OFF PEOPLE.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : !!!]

6/1/2006 10:23:31 PM

Christianity worse than Islam? I don't know about that. At least American Christians are protected by their own hypocrisy. They'll ignore a lot of rules that suck for them. On one day they'll listen to the good Samaritan story and hear about how hard it is for a rich man to get into Heaven. The next day, they'll step over a bum on their way into Best Buy to get a plasma TV. But the Arabs seem to have lost all connections with reality altogether.

But anyways, there's really no value in debating what religion is worse than another. The problem is not the content of the belief, but the nature of the belief. The problem is that people accept supernatural stories without requiring proper justification.

6/1/2006 10:53:10 PM

And there's also the problem with over-simplification and generalizations, but you know...

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 10:57:21 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Why do you care about others?"

Because I am a product of a Christian society indirectly (the majority of my family is agnostic, but I'm still surrounded by other Christians), it's hard for me to deny that or any other influence...

However, I ask that you consider one idea of mine, and I'm going to put it as simply as possible:

When I burn my hand on the fucking stove, it hurts. It hurts badly. And after I've been hurt, I know that I don't like being hurt, and the fact that I'm human and the people around me are also humans suggests to me that they probably wouldn't enjoy being hurt either.

So when I see someone else who is about to make the same mistake, I tell them, "Don't put your hand on the stove. It hurts."

For me, it's called "humanity," not "religion."

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 11:15 PM. Reason : sss]

6/1/2006 11:04:17 PM

WON'T SOMEONE SAVE US?

6/1/2006 11:07:54 PM

Quote :

"You're going to find lots of things about Christian charity, but it doesn't refute my point. "

it ABSOLUTELY refutes your point. Just because christianity puts an emphasis on the afterlife does not mean that it devalues the current life. Its possible to place emphasis on both at the same time. This idea that christianity somehow devalues human life is absolute garbage

6/1/2006 11:18:24 PM

i think most arguments against christianity are weak. I'm going to attempt to prove that a Christian God is an asshole.

first, we define asshole to be someone who is either sadistic (enjoyment at causing pain) or perhaps is into schadenfreud.

Take it that God created man.

He created man with judgement, and with curiosity, and also skepticism.

He had his preachers teach that man was inherently evil, and falable, not to be trusted.

He puts his holy book in the hands of these very men.

He then bases the fate of your everlasting soul on the ability discern between taking the word of corruptable men or using the skeptecism, curiosity and judgement that he has given you. There is no in between, no grey area. It is either up or down. On or Off. 1 or 0.

If God created us "for his pleasure" (as i believe appears in genesis), then "his pleasure" involves the tormultuous task of using tools he gave us to decifer faults he himself presented.

** side notes**

-You need not believe the bible to have been tainted to believe this, merely that it is possible.
-This may not be clear, i'm drinking at the moment.
-(personal belief)... alan watts was asked whether he thought god would give his people a guide to live by, he replied "no, i do not believe that he would do something that would rot our brains." this is somewhat counter to my argument, but i want to present it as evidence for unbiased observation.

6/1/2006 11:23:37 PM

I thought God wants us to trust each other.

6/1/2006 11:28:49 PM

McDanger,

I dont generally like christian values but this thread reeks of someone who just read some Nietzsche and bought everything hook, line, and sinker without thinking.

There are Christians in this thread explaining how their beliefs do give their life meaning and you have the arrogance to tell them it does no such thing. Thinking they have a weak morality is one thing but when someone tells you what their beliefs and values are and that they are rooted in this life, its fucking stupid to then turn around and tell them that is not what they belive.

The only thing worse is to watch someone like BridgetSPK who if you read any of her other posts in the soap box could be the definition of weakness hop right along beside.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/1/2006 11:48:47 PM