This thread is intended to discuss some outtakes and quotes from Nietzsche’s The Anti-Christ and to evaluate them in a modern context. Some of these comments are on historical aspects and effects of Christianity, so they can be discussed in a “timeless” sense. However, some of these writings are particularly relevant to the Germans Nietzsche despised (remarkably similar to the idealism-poisoned Christians of modern-day America).

I suggest reading the entirety of this work, which is remarkably accessible without knowing the full range of other topics Nietzsche discussed; that is to say, it more or less stands alone. However, I’m going to include a variety of quotes in this thread to guide the initial discussion of these topics. Some of the quotes will be abridged.

We’ll begin with the discussion of Christianity’s wholesale rejection of reality, of rationality, of science, and it’s replacement of reality with its own imaginary constructions.

In essence, Christianity takes nature and vilifies it. In demonizing nature, reason, natural science, and normal modes of causal thinking, it ensures that its victims will stay ensnared. A good question would be, why would anybody do this? Nietzsche makes the point that Christianity is a religion aimed at destroying the strong, created by the weak. It is a system of thought developed by life in decline; fearing independence, intelligence, and greatness, it seeks to suck the vitality from people with these qualities by diagnosing them with “sin”.

Once the problem of sin has been established, man in his unbridled glory is thus tamed, caged, and reworked into the weak Christian, a man lacking any semblance of intellectual honesty, courage, reason, and sense of causality. It goes further to devalue this life through the construction of eternal life, a goal and reward that extends “beyond this life”. This shifting of value beyond what can actually be experienced cheapens and erodes life. In response to the general decline of life, it seeks the decline of all life to preserve its own weakness.

Everything from the Tree of Knowledge to the fall of Satan illustrates the mortal fear Christianity has for intellectualism, science, greatness, and power. Adam and Eve’s original sin was to gain knowledge, which was an act God did not permit. Already it is established that the first moral God has laid down is that man should remain ignorant. Linking this image together with the image of the fallen Satan, an angel who wanted to achieve the heights of power, Christianity rounds out its image of sinfulness.

The two greatest examples of sin: original sin and the war in Heaven fully illustrate the kind of man Christianity abhors, the kind of man Christianity wishes to reform. This man is the intellectual who respects the natural order, who wishes to grow full in his potential. This kind of man, free of the chains of the priest, is characterized as demonic, as in need of taming and reform. It is through this grave crime against humanity that the knowledge of antiquity has been lost, and antiquity mocked and derided in modern society. It is the reason why science has been held back harshly over the years, and why progress is still stifled.

Though today religion and Christianity in general is becoming more irrelevant in public policy (and rightly so), it still holds a disturbing amount of sway over what should be an enlightened and rational public. The death throes of religious extremism are violent, and who knows whether the developed world will ever truly fall into its clutches again. We can only hope against it, and continue to fight this vile viral meme that has plunged mankind into a dark nightmare for too long.


Nietzsche on Christianity and its imaginary, contrived reality and forces:

Quote :

" In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. Nothing but imaginary causes (‘God’, ‘soul’, ‘ego’, ‘spirit’, ‘free will’ – or ‘unfree will’): nothing but imaginary effects (‘sin’, ‘redemption’, ‘grace’, ‘punishment’, ‘forgiveness of sins’). A traffic between imaginary beings (‘God’, ‘spirits’, ‘souls’); an imaginary natural science (anthropocentric; complete lack of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (nothing but self-misunderstandings, interpretations of pleasant or unpleasant general feelings, for example the condition of the nervus sympathicus, with the aid of the sign-language of religio-moral idiosyncrasy – ‘repentance’, ‘sting of conscience’, ‘temptation by the Devil’, ‘the proximity of God’); an imaginary teleology (‘the kingdom of God’, ‘the Last Judgement’, ‘eternal life’). – This purely fictitious world is distinguished from the world of dreams, very much to its disadvantage, by the fact that the latter mirrors actuality, while the former falsifies, disvalues and denies actuality. Once the concept ‘nature’ had been devised as the concept antithetical to ‘God’, ‘natural’ had to be the word for ‘reprehensible’ – this entire fictional world has its roots in the hatred of the natural (-- actuality! --), it is the expression of a profound discontent with the actual…. But that explains everything. Who alone has reason to lie to himself out of actuality? He who suffers from it. But to suffer from actuality means to be an abortive actuality…. The preponderance of feelings of displeasure over feelings of pleasure is the cause of a fictitious morality and religion: such a preponderance, however, provides the formula for decadence… "

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.

Next comes the beginning and root of all priestly thought, the creation story and original sin:

Quote :

" Has the famous story which stands at the beginning of the Bible really been understood – the story of God’s mortal terror of science? … It has not been understood. This priest’s-book begins, as is only proper, with the priest’s great inner difficulty: he has only one great danger, consequently ‘God’ has only one great danger. … Man himself had become God’s greatest blunder; God had created for himself a rival, science makes equal to God – it is all over with priests and gods if man becomes scientific! – Moral: science is the forbidden in itself – it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, the germ of all sins, original sin. This alone constitutes morality. – ‘Thou shalt not know’ – the rest follows. "

Next priests go on to stifle scientific inquiry, thought, and a healthy view of causality:

Quote :

" Have I been understood? The beginning of the Bible contains the entire psychology of the priest – The priest knows only one great danger: that is science – the sound conception of cause and effect. But science flourishes in general only under happy circumstances – one must have a superfluity of time and intellect in order to ‘know’. … ‘Consequently man must be made unhappy’ – this has at all times been the logic of the priest. – One will already have guessed what only came into the world therewith, in accordance with this logic – ‘sin’. … The concept of guilt and punishment, the entire ‘moral world-order’, was invented in opposition to science – in opposition to the detaching of man from the priest. … Man shall not look around him, he shall look down into himself; he shall not look prudently and cautiously into things in order to learn, he shall not look at all: he shall suffer. … And he shall suffer in such a way that he has need of the priest at all times. … The concept of guilt and punishment, including the doctrine of ‘grace’, of ‘redemption’, of ‘forgiveness’ – lies through and through and without any psychological reality – were invented to destroy the causal sense of man: they are an outrage on the concept cause and effect! -- And not an outrage with the first, with the knife, with honest hatred and love! But one from the most cowardly, cunning, lowest instincts! An outrage of the priest! An outrage of the parasite! A vampirism of pale subterranean bloodsuckers! … When the natural consequences of an act are no longer ‘natural’ but thought of as effected by the conceptual ghosts of superstition, by ‘God’, by ‘spirits’, by ‘souls’, as merely ‘moral’ consequences, as reward, punishment, sign, chastisement, then the precondition for knowledge has been destroyed – then one has committed the greatest crime against humanity. – Sin, to say it again, that form par excellence of the self-violation of man, was invented to make science, culture, every kind of elevation and nobility of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin. "

So we can see where Nietzsche considers a departure from natural mankind to the perversion of Christianity, described in the following passage:

Quote :

" I call an animal, a species, an individual depraved when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers what is harmful to it. A history of the ‘higher feelings’, of the ‘ideas of mankind’ – and it is possible I shall have to narrate it – would almost also constitute an explanation of why man is so depraved. I consider life itself instinct for growth, for continuance, for accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline. My assertion is that this will is lacking in all the supreme values of mankind – that values of decline, nihilistic values hold sway under the holiest names. "

(continued in the second post)

5/31/2006 10:43:35 PM

A vague exposition of the higher man, and how Christianity has targeted him:

Quote :

" Let us not undervalue this: we ourselves, we free spirits, are already a ‘revaluation of all values’, an incarnate declaration of war and victory over all ancient conceptions of ‘true’ and ‘untrue’. The most valuable insights are the last to be discovered; but the most valuable insights are methods. All the methods, all the prerequisites of our present-day scientificality have for millennia been the objects of the profoundest contempt: on their account one was excluded from associating with ‘honest’ men – one was considered an ‘enemy of God’, a despiser of truth, a man ‘possessed’… We have had the whole pathos of mankind against us – its conception of what truth ought to be; every ‘thou shalt’ has hitherto been directed against us … Our objectives, our practices, our quiet, cautious, mistrustful manner – all this appeared utterly unworthy and contemptible to mankind. – In the end one might reasonably ask oneself whether it was not really an aesthetic taste which blinded mankind for so long: it desired a picturesque effect from the truth, it desired especially that the man of knowledge should produce a powerful impression on the senses. It was our modesty which offended their taste the longest. "

And finally, an exposition of Christianity’s explicit war on this type of man:

Quote :

" One should not embellish or dress up Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has excommunicated all the fundamental instincts of this type, it has distilled evil, the Evil One, out of these instincts – the strong human being as the type of reprehensibility, as the ‘outcast’. Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, ill-constituted, it has made an ideal out of opposition to the preservative instincts of strong life; it has depraved the reason even of the intellectually strongest natures by teaching men to feel the supreme values of intellectuality as sinful, as misleading, as temptations. The most deplorable example: the depraving of Pascal, who believed his reason had been depraved by original sin while it had only been depraved by his Christianity! "

There is plenty else that is “quotable” from The Anti-Christ, but I’d end up quoting the entire book if I kept going. This is a decent starting point from which to spring off.

How long do you think it’ll be until the poisonous specter of Christianity is shrugged off from an enlightened western world? Will Christianity fizzle out, or will another philosophical movement strike it dead? (is one even possible in today’s society, drugged and domesticated with entertainment?)

Or, do you believe it’ll regain its grip over humanity and continue the nightmare of the weak dominating the strong? Will it continue to plague us with a notion of revenge, a notion of outrage towards the powerful, and with nature turned on its very head? How long can we operate in this state as a civilization, and once we move away from it more than we already have, is it possible to regress to it again such as in the post-Renaissance?

It has been two-thousand years since the advent of a western religion of actual note, of the same weight and influence as Christianity. It has stifled not only philosophical and scientific thought (by imposing its bogus context upon western thought), but also further theological thought by associating the God-idea with everything weak, everything pitiable. Sometimes it seems too malignant to excise. Surely in all of this time, if western man were truly worthy to break free of his self-imposed prison, he would have done so. It is depressing, however, to see such a perverse system dominate the western world for nearly two millennia, and perhaps more.

5/31/2006 10:44:09 PM

Considering how long it's actually been in place, I tend to doubt it's going to dissolve. I think, what, 90% of the world believes in a monotheistic God anyway? In fact, the further we're plunged into this nonsensical world, I'd guess that people will still look to religion for answers. Maybe not in the numbers they used to- perhaps the existentialists/postmodernists will win out a small minority. But at least here in America, in rural places where cities have not yet creeped, I don't think there's any chance religion will fade.
At the same time, it's extremely unlikely that religion will have a larger influence in the future- I don't think it's going to come back to a Christian reign thing- even the Religious Right is on the decline here, although we're still the most religious (by numbers who attend church, anyway) country in the world. And people don't take the Catholic Church as seriously as they might've before, either. I think it's adaptability is what maintains its hold on the population- they even have a patron saint of the internet (lawl).
Everyone's doing their own shit now- it's hard to have a huge strong group mentality anymore.

5/31/2006 11:27:16 PM

^Well you have also got to consider that it is not just about trying to counter Christianity but also the relativism/nihilism which sadly seems to be the main alternative for people in today's society.

Most of stuff you list as reducing the effect of christianity is leading to the latter and not a return to the values of the ancients.

5/31/2006 11:48:54 PM

A return to the values of the ancients isn't necessarily what would be positive, here -- just a revaluation of values, the movement away from a system so heavily corrupted by an upside-down view of nature.

5/31/2006 11:53:06 PM

A revaluation of values that takes place among the masses as christianity is turned away from will lead to nihilism.

The values of the ancients would work well as the basis for today's society and be an extremely positive step in my opinion. I think it is important that there be a real alternative to christian values for the majority of people if they are going to turn away from that religon.

And in the end I think it might be better if christianity is simply changed or manipulated than to get people to try and reject it.

6/1/2006 12:11:16 AM

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. As Nietzsche would argue, it "shifts the center of gravity" of life into a place past life, a place which consciousness cannot experience.

How do you suggest Christianity be changed?

6/1/2006 12:16:50 AM

WWGD = What Would Ganesh Do

or

WWBD = What Would Buddha Do

6/1/2006 12:25:26 AM

Thank god it wasn't Islam. Now there is a shitty religion. The best thing about xtianity is that it changes with the times (eventually). People in the future will wear sexy transparent clothes and have public sex all the time (love your neighbor, right?), all the while praising the lord.


If you look at the shitty religions of the world such as Islam, they allow no flexibility to modernize. If shit is going wrong, it's obviously because you aren't religious enough -- not that you are anti-knowledge, anti-freedom, anti-anything-that-makes-fucking-sense.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 12:52 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

6/1/2006 12:47:02 AM

amen brother

6/1/2006 12:47:30 AM

Islam is actually far from a shitty religion by these standards, regardless of how the extremists practice it today.

Just take a look at the Moors and their strength. Islam, at least then, was a worship of strength, a blossoming of the fullness of life.

To claim that Islam is a shit religion just shows your ignorance of history. Did you even read the original post?

6/1/2006 1:01:21 AM

Ignorance of history? Ha. Once upon a time the muslims were less shitty than christians. Christians realized this, changed, and in short order, destroyed the old muslim empire. Realizing that they were now shitty compared to the christians, muslims became even more religious, insular, and backwards. It's been that way for hundreds of years. I think we can pretty much close the book on Islam being a good religion.

Quote :

" Did you even read the original post?"

No. Ok, i just read some of this crap you wrote.

Quote :

"Islam is actually far from a shitty religion by [Nietzsche's] standards"

hahahahaha, because clearly when Nietzsche talked about ubermensch, he meant Ayatollahs

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 1:44 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

6/1/2006 1:36:37 AM

You are... remarkably uninformed. Until you fix it, it's hard to have an actual discussion with you.

Nothing about the Christians' ability to drive Islam out of Europe suggests they "changed", it suggests they mobilized their forces in an attempt to drive an opposing ideology out of the region. In a time when Christianity had plunged Europe into a period that basically squandered the entire harvest of antiquity, Islam supported a thriving culture that preserved and expanded upon a lot of ancient wisdom. Islam at that time was a worship born of the strength of the people, you can tell by how they flourished.

When Christianity had its tightest grip over Europe, it was the darkest most ignorant time in Europe's history.

Your assertion that somehow Christians are less shitty than Muslims is hilarious. The roots of the religion are different, and yes, NOWADAYS Christians happen to be by and far less violent than Muslims. I don't attribute this to difference in fanaticism between the extremist sects of both religions -- I attribute this more to decadence and the posh lifestyles that most Christians have in comparison.

Comfort really dulls the want and need of religious fanatics to become violent. Christians in this country don't do the horrible things that extremist Muslims of today do not because they're not capable of it due to some religious-wide change (this change you claim is undocumented and pretty much didn't happen, by the way), but due to lack of balls and fortitude. Posh lifestyles tend to do that to a population -- they don't zap the zeal from the people, just the willingness to do something about it.

What demobilizes most Christians these days in the fact that entertainment and comfort is a much more potent drug that Christianity.

6/1/2006 1:57:37 AM

where is teh FroshKiller quote when you NEED IT

6/1/2006 2:56:48 AM

In fact, I thought about the Islam/Christianity reference some. It's hard to assert your superiority over Islam in any meaningful way as a Christian, and to do so is to be more than foolish -- it's flat wrong.

Islam hasn't quite degenerated to the level of Christianity yet -- the main mode and emotion of Christianity being pity. God on the Cross is a quite different concept than other religions have explored, it has a way of scooping up all the rabble, and redefining weak values as virtues. You have to look no further than the Beatitudes for proof of this as central Christian practice.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 8:32 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 8:29:15 AM

your defendeing Islam over Christianity??...if so....you are defending religion??

6/1/2006 9:00:24 AM

^hahaha I think McDanger's real objective is the denigration of Christianity, not a discussion on the pros and cons of religious belief.

Quote :

"When ChristianityIslam had its tightest grip over Europe the Middle East, it was the darkest most ignorant time in Europe's the Middle East's history."

It could easily be said that the Middle East is experiencing its own dark age.

6/1/2006 9:36:39 AM

This entire thread. Where are these christians whose psyche is dominated by weak values? If a certain religion did in fact cause its followers to adopt weak values, what would this group of people look like?

The reality that you ignore in order to construct your strawman argument is that christianity does not dominate how people behave, which puts it at an advantage over a lot of shittier religions, such as islam. Thus, there are very few if any christians who completely bound their behavior by christian values. This is a positive of the religion.

With a crappy religion like islam, that is not the case. Those idiots actually let their religion control all aspects of their behavior. As a result, they are still pre-reformation, pre-enlightenment societies. If you wanted to construct an argument divorced completely from reality that attacks a caricature of a religious person, Islam would be the religion of choice.

Christian societies became stronger than any other ones because the people were allowed to change their values over time and the religion adapted to that (mainly, by becoming weaker).

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 9:45 AM. Reason : dsf]

6/1/2006 9:44:38 AM

Quote :

"I think McDanger's real objective is the denigration of Christianity, not a discussion on the pros and cons of religious belief. "

and we have a winner

6/1/2006 9:46:25 AM

AHAHAHAHAHHAA

ANOTHER MCDANGER OMFG CHRISTIANITY THREAD

I DONT THINK A MORE CLUELESS KID EXISTS ON THE PLANET.

6/1/2006 9:51:02 AM

Even if his purpose was to have an honest discourse, he's confusing christianity with catholicism in many places.

6/1/2006 9:55:59 AM

Sigh. Let me get to responding to some of these statements. I wish an actual philosophy and religion thread could get discussed on this board without it degenerating to a pathetic flame war within the first page.

Quote :

"your defendeing Islam over Christianity??...if so....you are defending religion??"

Evaluating the basis of both religions, I'd prefer Islam to Christianity for reasons mentioned before. However, Islam still has the unfortunate system of punishments/rewards stemming from the same tainted roots from which Christianity derived its own. I'm not defending religion, I'm just not taking the position that all religions are equally bad (in their inception and core beliefs).

Quote :

"^hahaha I think McDanger's real objective is the denigration of Christianity, not a discussion on the pros and cons of religious belief."

You're halfway right. My real objective is to criticize Christianity. If you held my view of what Christianity is and what effects it brings about, you'd be a hypocrite not to adopt a strong stance against it. This is not a thread about religion in general, but a thread about the one that has fallen the furthest -- the one that has created ideals and virtues from weakness.

Quote :

"It could easily be said that the Middle East is experiencing its own dark age."

This is very true, and it's unfortunate. However, the core of Islam is less corrupt than the core of Christianity, due to the arguments I expanded upon earlier in this thread.

Quote :

""

Your entire post. Let me get to it bit by bit.

Quote :

"This entire thread. Where are these christians whose psyche is dominated by weak values? If a certain religion did in fact cause its followers to adopt weak values, what would this group of people look like? "

You have to evaluate the whole of western culture since the advent of Christianity. Christianity has built a system based upon weak virtues, unnatural virtues. The virtues of pity, of faith, of humility, of anti-intellectualism. This group of people, most predominately, would look like any number of the people in America who try to push their religiously-charged agenda through government, whether it be Creationists trying to get their tripe taught in public science classrooms, or Catholics trying to ban abortion and push abstinence-only policies.

Quote :

"The reality that you ignore in order to construct your strawman argument is that christianity does not dominate how people behave, which puts it at an advantage over a lot of shittier religions, such as islam. Thus, there are very few if any christians who completely bound their behavior by christian values. This is a positive of the religion."

And the reality that you choose to ignore (conveniently) is that the reason why these Christians do not follow their values is a fall into the decadence and comforts of modern-day western society. What you're pointing out is that many Christians cherry-pick their values from the Bible, and that by and far are not bound to following them. This is text-book hypocrisy. Perhaps it's positive, perhaps its not, but the core of the religion remains: man must be "improved" and "tamed". The keys to this are convincing man that he has a problem, "sin", and that there is a solution, "redemption".

Quote :

"With a crappy religion like islam, that is not the case. Those idiots actually let their religion control all aspects of their behavior. As a result, they are still pre-reformation, pre-enlightenment societies. If you wanted to construct an argument divorced completely from reality that attacks a caricature of a religious person, Islam would be the religion of choice."

Islam is a good religion to attack these days due to the extremism and violence prevalent in their ranks. I'd argue there are just as many extremist Christians as well, but posh living does a lot to zap the violence from a populace. Many Muslims live in such shitty conditions that they have nothing to lose when they resort to violence.

However, in evaluating the core of the religions (which this argument is based on), I've arrived at my conclusions. In fact, pointing out the current state of Islam as, which is in effect, a hijack by people with political (rather than religious) interests, is the real strawman here. If you actually read any of my arguments or passages from Nietzsche, you'd understand this much better. To claim that Christianity is in its core a better religion because by and far there are lukewarm practicioners and a large body of hypocrites is not a compelling case for its superiority to Islam as a religion.

Quote :

"Christian societies became stronger than any other ones because the people were allowed to change their values over time and the religion adapted to that (mainly, by becoming weaker)."

Most of the strength you refer to comes from technological advancement, not from the enhancement and refinement of human beings themselves. There's a big difference from surging ahead in applied sciences (which only could occur in the light of Christianity losing ground -- science always has provided better and better explanations that force Christianity to "live in the margins") and enlightenment of a society.

Quote :

"and we have a winner"

If you can't craft a better response than that, everybody is better served if you stay out of this thread.

Quote :

"AHAHAHAHAHHAA ANOTHER MCDANGER OMFG CHRISTIANITY THREAD I DONT THINK A MORE CLUELESS KID EXISTS ON THE PLANET."

Engin get the fuck out of here. If you don't have anything intellectual to contribute to this topic (I seriously doubt you do), then go back to playing World of Warcraft or whatever pointless game you heavily waste your time on these days. You never get those hours upon hours back, ever.

Quote :

"Even if his purpose was to have an honest discourse, he's confusing christianity with catholicism in many places."

We could apply many of this to German idealism and the Lutheran Church, as well. Many parallels can be drawn between this and idealists in America as well, I believe. That was partially the point of this thread.

I'd really rather people take the time to seriously respond to this thread, as opposed to what amounts to dry, trite drive-by responses. If you disagree with me and I'm so obviously wrong, then you should at least take the time to elucidate your point and create some meaningful discourse.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 10:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 10:34:31 AM

Quote :

" However, the core of Islam is less corrupt than the core of Christianity,"

wtf? you should stick to philosophy, because obviously the study of religion is not your strong suit.




[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 11:00 AM. Reason : ]

6/1/2006 10:53:28 AM

Excellent response. Did you even read the thread? Did you even comprehend the argument? Obviously not.

Go back and read first, then write a response.

6/1/2006 10:55:51 AM

your knowledge of christianity is apparently entirely derived from Nietzsche's writings.

what you imagine to be the "core" of christianity is not even a significant fraction of the diversity and richness of the intellectual and theological traditions that has spanned 2000 years. I'm sorry to disturb your tidy, concrete, black-and-white world-view, but ive got a news flash for ya: the sum of christianity is not described by televangelists and conservative catholic reactionaries.

and, for the record, I am not a christian.

talk about smug self-righteousness and anti-intellectualism. ive never seen someone so impressed by their own knowledge, yet steadfastly refuse to consider perspectives different from your own.

6/1/2006 11:10:35 AM

Quote :

"your knowledge of christianity is apparently entirely derived from Nietzsche's writings."

Or from being raised as a Catholic, and nearly going through with confirmation! Also, maybe from attending Baptist church for a few years. Isn't the assuming game fun? You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious everytime your uneducated ass happens to stumble into one of my threads.

Quote :

"what you imagine to be the "core" of christianity is not even a significant fraction of the diversity and richness of the intellectual and theological traditions that has spanned 2000 years. I'm sorry to disturb your tidy, concrete, black-and-white world-view, but ive got a news flash for ya: the sum of christianity is not described by televangelists and conservative catholic reactionaries."

It most certainly isn't, and that's why Nietzsche chose some of the basic, core beliefs of the Bible to go after. It's why I choose to harp on the same points.

Quote :

"and, for the record, I am not a christian."

This adds nothing to your argument, and your tacit claim that it does illustrates something disturbing about your capability to reason.

Quote :

"talk about smug self-righteousness and anti-intellectualism. ive never seen someone so impressed by their own knowledge, yet steadfastly refuse to consider perspectives different from your own."

How do you think I've come to the conclusions I've come to, or why my conclusions happen to shift one direction or another with time? I consider the body of knowledge out there, and I explore. I read and try to learn as much as I can about different viewpoints in an attempt to adopt or synthesize the viewpoint that makes the most sense to me given what I know.

It's not like I picked my viewpoint first and then went out and tried to find corroborative sources. I don't refuse to consider perspectives other than my own, I have, and I continue to. This thread's entire POINT is to garner a diversity of perspectives. So far it has only received half-baked, baseless, shrill tripe.

6/1/2006 11:18:06 AM

Quote :

"Isn't the assuming game fun?"

yes blind faith in the metaphysical is fun

6/1/2006 11:19:04 AM

Again, a useless potshot. How am I supposed to derive anything from garbage such as that? If you have a point to make, then elucidate it. If you're actually right then I'd much rather learn something from being wrong than simply listen to your chit-chat worthy (read: stupid, ineffectual) flames.

I don't have blind faith in the "metaphysical", whatever that is supposed to mean. I do, however, consider well-constructed arguments. Where's yours?

6/1/2006 11:22:31 AM

Honestly, the only way I see Religion being altered on a global scale would be if Aliens invaded our planet. People would need an unexplainable and monumental event to alter their dependance on Religion. Aliens would probably do a good job of shaking up the world, I'd wager. Besides E.T. contact, I think the imaginary friends network will persist indefinitely. As you have already said, Religion is comforting and reassuring, and it has very high payoffs if you are a good little zealot.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 11:34 AM. Reason : -]

6/1/2006 11:31:49 AM

I disagree that the payoffs are high -- I'm more of the opinion that the payoffs are placed postmortem, which causes a devaluation of life.

6/1/2006 11:34:40 AM

Quote :

"I don't have blind faith in the "metaphysical", whatever that is supposed to mean"

if you follow a religion and believe in a god, then yes you do have blind faith in the metaphysical

unless of course you have seen god and have proof that he exists

6/1/2006 11:49:22 AM

Dear Mike.

You aren't intellectual.

You repeate the same bullshit every time you have an identity crisis, which is like every fucking week these days.

You became a bible thumper for a chick that didn't even fuck you.

So all in summation

Your "serious" threads suck.

6/1/2006 11:51:29 AM

Right, but people that actually believe in a Religion with an afterlife, believe that the postmortem payoffs are, in fact, real. It's like an unending circle of comfort that cannot be tested by mortals. Overall, I think most societies view christians, especially [WASP's], as good hard-working citizens. I have always believed that Religion is a blueprint for good citizenship, but hardly a blueprint for truth. If anything, it is a blueprint for an easier life, a life unquestioned, a life that lives by the code of comfort.

6/1/2006 11:51:30 AM

Quote :

"Dear Mike. You aren't intellectual. You repeate the same bullshit every time you have an identity crisis, which is like every fucking week these days. You became a bible thumper for a chick that didn't even fuck you. So all in summation Your "serious" threads suck."

Fuck off Engin. You're a shitty troll, an even shittier immitation of FroshKiller. I don't care that you don't like my threads, but don't shit them up with this stupid shit. People getting away with your level of mental retardation on these boards is why TSB won't ever be an actual forum for exchanging ideas.

People like you on this website is why it's a total shithole. People like you don't know how to participate in something without taking a dump all over it. (btw Greece rules)

Quote :

"if you follow a religion and believe in a god, then yes you do have blind faith in the metaphysical"

I don't do either. I don't get your point.

Quote :

"I have always believed that Religion is a blueprint for good citizenship, but hardly a blueprint for truth. If anything, it is a blueprint for an easier life, a life unquestioned, a life that lives by the code of comfort."

This might be true. There's a shift in the trend of Christianity lately that has mixed it in many ways with Capitalism (not sure how this happened -- they're like oil and water). Before, at least, a system of belief that instilled revengeful feelings in the weak versus the strong had a different effect than today.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 11:53:51 AM

Quote :

"here's a shift in the trend of Christianity lately that has mixed it in many ways with Capitalism"

Lately? I dont really consider the reformation as something that happened recently.

6/1/2006 12:00:56 PM

words

6/1/2006 12:02:08 PM

I'd say it's recent considering the full historical context that we're discussing here. ^^

^ God damn it, fuck you. If it's too many words, stay out of the fucking soap box, or at least out of the thread.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 12:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 12:02:30 PM

Quote :

"“In Christianity neither morality nor religion has even a single point of contact with reality. Nothing but imaginary causes (God, freewill), nothing but imaginary effects (sin, redemption). Intercourse between imaginary beings; an imaginary natural science; an imaginary psychology: an imaginary teleology. Nietzsche Human, All too Human"

6/1/2006 12:11:53 PM

go read some books

6/1/2006 12:23:24 PM

How about you add something to this thread other than your presence?

6/1/2006 12:27:01 PM

Quote :

"Most of the strength you refer to comes from technological advancement, not from the enhancement and refinement of human beings themselves."

WTF does this mean? What is wrong with technological advancement? Technological advancement is not the result of rampant anti-intellectuallism. What is the "enhancement and refinement of human beings themselves"? Perhaps you need to explain what you consider to be weak and strong values, and why they are weak and strong. In your mind, what is an enlightened society?

Back to my original comment about you simply attempting to denigrate Christianity, I find it interesting that you consider problems with Christianity to be innate to the religion itself--the inevitable result of 'weakness' and 'posh living', whereas the problems with Islam are simply due to hijackers with political agendas. What difference does it make if Islam is controlled by politicos rather than true believers? Islam still uses promises of afterlife rewards to mold and manipulate its followers into a certain pattern of behavior; you say it's OK for Islam, yet this seems to be one of your sticking points with Christianity.

6/1/2006 1:02:55 PM

McDanger...everyone here can see that you have a ridiculous double standard for Islam... you make comments like the core of christianity is corrupt and the core of Islam is pure. how on earth can you make such comments? what substantive proof do you have of this?

6/1/2006 1:20:25 PM

Which is worse - a Christian martyr who lays down his life for his faith or a Muslim martyr who straps a bomb to his back and takes a bunch of people with him?

You think that Islam is less "corrupt" because it feeds into the basic human instincts of self-preservation by putting oneself on a higher plateau than everyone else?

I've got news for you and Neitzsche - being meek and humble in the face of your enemies takes a lot of strength and courage. Christianity's main theme is love, a love for the Trinitarian God above and your neighbor below. What is so evil and corrupt about that?

6/1/2006 1:26:06 PM

I find it sort of ironic (concerning the view of the author) that to a large extent christianity has been shaped into what it is today by various powerful people from the past. And i might add that one of the most revered people in the christian faith is the pope, who is very powerful on a world wide scale ( not just concerning religion, but politics as well). so it seems that according to the author that current christianity is a big paradox (controlled and shaped by the people/ideals it demonizes).

6/1/2006 1:27:51 PM

^^ditto

6/1/2006 2:25:54 PM

Quote :

"Most of the strength you refer to comes from technological advancement, not from the enhancement and refinement of human beings themselves."

McDanger, do you see no common thread during the past few centuries? For whatever reason predominantly christian nations have brought about the idea of technological advancement. The industrial revolution didn't begin in the middle east, it didn't begin in China, it began in a protestant England.

Now, if we assume you are right that Christianity is fundamentally flawed then one might theorize this is why mankind has been allowed to experience the enlightenment and the marvelous benefits that followed. As such, if we assume you are right, should we not rejoice in Christianity's flaws? If not for Christianity we might have been left with an Islamic Europe and still be living in the dark ages. Perhaps Islam, being "less corrupt", is too reliable a faith and therefore agile at crushing the spirit and individualism necessary for the betterment of mankind?

If the presense of Christianity allowed the entire Christian world to attain at least middle-income country status, while the only non-predominantly Christian countries that have succeeded in the modern world have been dominated (politically) by other Christian countries (Japan, HK, etc), perhaps we should encourage the spread of Christianity as a way to better the overall lot of mankind?

Maybe it is the contradictions and flaws which allow people to control their religion instead of the other-way around?

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/1/2006 2:28:24 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: If not for Christianity we might have been left with an Islamic Europe and still be living in the dark ages."

Watch yourself, LoneSnark. The Moors were known for enlightened intellectualism during the Dark Ages.

Don't be an ass.

(I'm also confused why you would suggest the Industrial Revolution came out of England because of their Christianity. You know that's not the case, so why suggest it?)

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 3:35 PM. Reason : sss]

6/1/2006 3:30:44 PM

Oh my. Okay, let me get to responding...

Quote :

"WTF does this mean? What is wrong with technological advancement?"

Nothing's wrong with it, but it's not the measuring stick by which you should determine a society's level of "enlightenment."

Quote :

"Technological advancement is not the result of rampant anti-intellectuallism."

Now that's just silly, nobody's saying that. It took a break with Christianity in some places, and in others, just a break with Catholicism to achieve scientific breakthrough. For a while, it didn't necessarily conflict with some parts of the Bible and so it was tolerated. As more natural causes were discovered, and the need for a God all but disappeared, religious folks that wanted to cling to their beliefs either rejected science or tried to mix science and religion ("but what if God really causes evolution?" -- this kind of nonsense).

Quote :

"Perhaps you need to explain what you consider to be weak and strong values, and why they are weak and strong."

Well my argument would probably break from Nietzsche's in this. Nietzsche claims that power is the good virtue, that anything that increases power and overcomes obstacles is a good virtue. Bad virtues (false virtues in that sense) are piety, pity, humility, and above all faith.

Quote :

"Back to my original comment about you simply attempting to denigrate Christianity, I find it interesting that you consider problems with Christianity to be innate to the religion itself--the inevitable result of 'weakness' and 'posh living', whereas the problems with Islam are simply due to hijackers with political agendas. What difference does it make if Islam is controlled by politicos rather than true believers? Islam still uses promises of afterlife rewards to mold and manipulate its followers into a certain pattern of behavior; you say it's OK for Islam, yet this seems to be one of your sticking points with Christianity."

Let me use this as the opportunity to state that I'm not trying to make this an "Islam is way better than Christianity" argument, though that's what a lot of people are trying to force this into. I only claim that the posh, cushy lifestyles of Christians today is what saps their resolve for extreme, violent action. Islam uses promises of the afterlife too, and is guilty of the same devaluation of life that Christianity is.

This is where you get even more wrong -- I'm not venerating Islam, I'm simply pointing it out to be less corrupt than Christianity. The Christian concept of "God on the Cross" is remarkably perverse, to the ends of elevating pity, sacrifice, and martyrdom as virtues. A martyr dying adds nothing to his argument.

Quote :

"McDanger...everyone here can see that you have a ridiculous double standard for Islam... you make comments like the core of christianity is corrupt and the core of Islam is pure. how on earth can you make such comments? what substantive proof do you have of this?"

You need to read what I write instead of projecting your assumptions onto me. I claim no double standard for Islam. Islam has plenty of flaws, and its priests are corrupt as any these days especially. My claim is that Christianity's "God on the Cross" concept, central to the religion, is the ultimate source of its corruption that catapults it over Judaism and Islam.

Quote :

"Which is worse - a Christian martyr who lays down his life for his faith or a Muslim martyr who straps a bomb to his back and takes a bunch of people with him?"

Obviously the Muslim martyr. Why even try to force this trite argument into my mouth? You know I don't condone suicide bombing. To claim Islam is more corrupt than Christianity just due to the current swap of a "dark age" and violence is silly. I don't condone suicide bombing, and I don't give Islam a buy for it. I don't even like Islam. We were talking in terms of Islam vs. Christianity, and I've made it abundantly clear why I feel Islam to be the superior.

Quote :

"You think that Islam is less "corrupt" because it feeds into the basic human instincts of self-preservation by putting oneself on a higher plateau than everyone else?"

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'll have to ask you to reword it.

Quote :

"I've got news for you and Neitzsche - being meek and humble in the face of your enemies takes a lot of strength and courage. Christianity's main theme is love, a love for the Trinitarian God above and your neighbor below. What is so evil and corrupt about that?"

Well Nietzsche's dead, but I'm sure he appreciates the thought. I have to refer you back to my post to answer that objection, because you apparently glossed over the information:

Quote :

"I call an animal, a species, an individual depraved when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers what is harmful to it. A history of the ‘higher feelings’, of the ‘ideas of mankind’ – and it is possible I shall have to narrate it – would almost also constitute an explanation of why man is so depraved. I consider life itself instinct for growth, for continuance, for accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline. My assertion is that this will is lacking in all the supreme values of mankind – that values of decline, nihilistic values hold sway under the holiest names."

Quote :

"I find it sort of ironic (concerning the view of the author) that to a large extent christianity has been shaped into what it is today by various powerful people from the past. And i might add that one of the most revered people in the christian faith is the pope, who is very powerful on a world wide scale ( not just concerning religion, but politics as well). so it seems that according to the author that current christianity is a big paradox (controlled and shaped by the people/ideals it demonizes)."

This is probably because you're missing some information, or failed to pick up some in the original post. The pope is from the "priestly" classification. Reread it and you'll get a better understanding of where you misunderstood my view.

Quote :

"McDanger, do you see no common thread during the past few centuries? For whatever reason predominantly christian nations have brought about the idea of technological advancement. The industrial revolution didn't begin in the middle east, it didn't begin in China, it began in a protestant England. "

This is correct -- some Christians worked in the framework of "discovering God's universe". There was a definite change in how things were done -- but the framework should have surely been abandoned in light of its uselessness and outdatedness. Once science exposed the natural causes to things, supernatural causes were no longer needed. This thrusts religious people into a precarious position -- to reform their beliefs with science which is folly, or to abandon them altogether. People unwilling to reform or abandon their beliefs are the ones still trying to block scientific inquiry today (whether successfully or not).

Quote :

"Now, if we assume you are right that Christianity is fundamentally flawed then one might theorize this is why mankind has been allowed to experience the enlightenment and the marvelous benefits that followed."

This has little to do with Christianity and much more to do with the underlying work completed in philosophy -- especially ontology and philosophy of science.

Quote :

"As such, if we assume you are right, should we not rejoice in Christianity's flaws?"

Because they exemplify the downtrodden. Your ends-justify-the-means mentality in terms of merely technological advancement is troubling.

Quote :

"If not for Christianity we might have been left with an Islamic Europe and still be living in the dark ages."

This is hard to believe given the state of Islam at the time of the attempted conquests.

Quote :

"Perhaps Islam, being "less corrupt", is too reliable a faith and therefore agile at crushing the spirit and individualism necessary for the betterment of mankind? "

That's not true. You misjudge my meaning in "corrupt". The veneration of Christian morality is what I consider corrupt, seeing as how it stands the natural order on its head. People are not inherently equal. The only people who wish to believe this are the weak, whose attributes become "holy" in a perverse religion such as Christianity.

(Jesus! I've exceeded 10,000 characters, this'll be continued in a second post)

6/1/2006 3:35:38 PM

Quote :

"If the presense of Christianity allowed the entire Christian world to attain at least middle-income country status, while the only non-predominantly Christian countries that have succeeded in the modern world have been dominated (politically) by other Christian countries (Japan, HK, etc), perhaps we should encourage the spread of Christianity as a way to better the overall lot of mankind? "

Christianity in the modern world is a different beast than what has been argued against in this thread (for the most part), and that's most of the reason why I started this thread -- to open an inquiry into the modern relevance and situation. I would argue that the spread of Christianity isn't a good thing for the betterment of mankind, because we have not seen an improvement in the understanding man has of his true nature and his true being. These questions are paramount to somebody being enlightened, that somebody at least think and have the method readily available to open an inquiry into the nature of his own being. Most everything else derives itself from whatever framework is established.

A lot of formerly Christian nations are nowadays moreso secular, as if industry and scientific inquiry to fuel said-industry has usurped it in Europe (and thus countries which Europe has influenced directly). This is also part of the question I posed...

Quote :

"Maybe it is the contradictions and flaws which allow people to control their religion instead of the other-way around?"

Well, in modern times, people tend to have a lot more personal choice in religion. What this typically leads to is people not practising the religion in whole, or, cherry-picking their beliefs. Most religions have done this historically as well. The problem comes when people, who are deceived into believing that these delusions have some intersection with reality, try to enact change and legislation based upon their misunderstanding.


Edit: Bridget's my homegirl. She covered a topic for me.

[Edited on June 1, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2006 3:36:08 PM

what do you guys think would happen if we met some aliens and prooved that all of this was bullshit?

6/1/2006 3:48:47 PM