redwards
Senior Member
How do you "know" that it was/is "mythology"?
Were you there in person to dispute the claims?
Welcome Guest!
How Intellectual is Atheism?
- Thread starter reformedpastor
- Start date
Were you there in person to dispute the claims?
redwards
Senior Member
The following is accepted by many as "proof" or "evidence" that it is factually based....
.....
Whether you accept it as such is up to you....
Ronnie T
Ol' Retired Mod
In my mind (and please believe me when I say that I'm not patronizing anyone when I say this), there is nothing more pitiful than a man or woman who gladly takes on the title of atheist.
ambush80
Senior Member
You realize that they might think it pitiful that an intelligent person would supersede their reason for superstition, right?
Ronnie T states: " Your comments and beliefs as shown above are the very reasons I don't think atheists are very intellectual." Then says: “I'm not able to say for sure but I suspect God is the originator of the things that I highlighted in blue above. The other things, we humans probably are responsible for them.” Um? Which parts are beliefs? And which parts demonstrate a lack of intellect? All are easily proven parts of the natural world surrounding us. There was not a single leap of faith. Can one honestly think that bacterial and viral plagues are things that man made? Cancers (the natural mutation of cells unchecked by the immune system) are our doing? Undrinkable water (pretty simple), since most of it, from the oceans to the streams, untreated, will kill you, was a man-made problem? And droughts? Probably we made it not rain in certain regions? Wow. So, in this view, we are “probably” responsible for some parts of the natural world, and not at all responsible for others?
Respectfully, sir, one takes natural processes as a whole, as a set of interrelated parts, and does not ascribe some of them to one source and some to another as suits the current, and ever-changing religious doctrine and endless rationalizations. That sort of view is truly anti-intellectual. And, to say true, even those parts you wish to acknowledge as ‘originated’ by God tend to be things that aspire to kill his chosen creatures, rather than to exist as a display of benevolence and mercy. If there is no argument with that , or the point that we only exist because we have learned how to resist those forces as well, then I’m afraid that I have no idea what your point might be . . . thoughtful folks find it difficult to so neatly compartmentalize the simple observations of the natural universe that surrounds us, and place some portions in one basket, and others in another. That is dishonest.
Redwards states: “When an undertaker gets the call to come pick up the body of an individual who has passed on....believe me.... that individual who has passed on knows whether there is an "originator" or not." I vote 'not.' Let me know the moment you get a telegram from the ‘beyond,’ and then we can actually have an intellectual discussion of that point. Lacking that, all the undertaker does is try to bury the bodies before they start to stink and breed even more natural diseases.
Ronnie T states: “In my mind (and please believe me when I say that I'm not patronizing anyone when I say this), there is nothing more pitiful than a man or woman who gladly takes on the title of atheist.” Sir, I do not believe you. The statement, on its face, is patronizing. (Similar to someone saying, I don’t mean any insult, but you are little more than a festering boil on the perineum of Saint Swithin, but, really, nothing personal . . . C’mon, saying that you ‘pity’ someone for not agreeing with you is arrogance writ large.) Believe me, truly, when I say that pity is a highly over-rated emotion, and I can’t find it in my heart to actually pity those who disagree with me. The simple position, that of taking pity, assumes that I stand above them in some fashion, and where belief is concerned nothing could be further from the truth. Belief, for all of the atrocities it has authored, has also stood some of the best works of mankind, and it would not be even-handed or nearly intellectual not to notice that the Catholic Church alone has done, and continues to do, more good in the modern world than any government can claim. Intellect, you might notice, observes without single-minded judgement.
The fact that I personally do not believe, and find no rational reason to do so, takes nothing away from those who do believe, and while the believers must stand with the less than admirable results of their history on their own hands, that takes nothing away from the good they have also done and continue to do without the coercion of government. I find it odd that one would need the authority of either a government or a God to justify doing what you think is right, and I, personally, observe that civilization advances because most folks, regardless of belief, stripe, affiliation, or which book they have read, seem to feel the same. I asked once before, to those who think that what is ‘Written’ and is quoted ad nauseum is all of the truth, a hypothetical question – if your book had said that it was okay to kill and eat babies, would you do it? Of course you wouldn’t. Nor would you do most of what your particular book literally advises. But – by making that decision, you have just proven to yourself your own ability to make an independent moral judgment . . . Darn . . .
Relying on your own mind can be so inconvenient sometimes . . .
Respectfully, sir, one takes natural processes as a whole, as a set of interrelated parts, and does not ascribe some of them to one source and some to another as suits the current, and ever-changing religious doctrine and endless rationalizations. That sort of view is truly anti-intellectual. And, to say true, even those parts you wish to acknowledge as ‘originated’ by God tend to be things that aspire to kill his chosen creatures, rather than to exist as a display of benevolence and mercy. If there is no argument with that , or the point that we only exist because we have learned how to resist those forces as well, then I’m afraid that I have no idea what your point might be . . . thoughtful folks find it difficult to so neatly compartmentalize the simple observations of the natural universe that surrounds us, and place some portions in one basket, and others in another. That is dishonest.
Redwards states: “When an undertaker gets the call to come pick up the body of an individual who has passed on....believe me.... that individual who has passed on knows whether there is an "originator" or not." I vote 'not.' Let me know the moment you get a telegram from the ‘beyond,’ and then we can actually have an intellectual discussion of that point. Lacking that, all the undertaker does is try to bury the bodies before they start to stink and breed even more natural diseases.
Ronnie T states: “In my mind (and please believe me when I say that I'm not patronizing anyone when I say this), there is nothing more pitiful than a man or woman who gladly takes on the title of atheist.” Sir, I do not believe you. The statement, on its face, is patronizing. (Similar to someone saying, I don’t mean any insult, but you are little more than a festering boil on the perineum of Saint Swithin, but, really, nothing personal . . . C’mon, saying that you ‘pity’ someone for not agreeing with you is arrogance writ large.) Believe me, truly, when I say that pity is a highly over-rated emotion, and I can’t find it in my heart to actually pity those who disagree with me. The simple position, that of taking pity, assumes that I stand above them in some fashion, and where belief is concerned nothing could be further from the truth. Belief, for all of the atrocities it has authored, has also stood some of the best works of mankind, and it would not be even-handed or nearly intellectual not to notice that the Catholic Church alone has done, and continues to do, more good in the modern world than any government can claim. Intellect, you might notice, observes without single-minded judgement.
The fact that I personally do not believe, and find no rational reason to do so, takes nothing away from those who do believe, and while the believers must stand with the less than admirable results of their history on their own hands, that takes nothing away from the good they have also done and continue to do without the coercion of government. I find it odd that one would need the authority of either a government or a God to justify doing what you think is right, and I, personally, observe that civilization advances because most folks, regardless of belief, stripe, affiliation, or which book they have read, seem to feel the same. I asked once before, to those who think that what is ‘Written’ and is quoted ad nauseum is all of the truth, a hypothetical question – if your book had said that it was okay to kill and eat babies, would you do it? Of course you wouldn’t. Nor would you do most of what your particular book literally advises. But – by making that decision, you have just proven to yourself your own ability to make an independent moral judgment . . . Darn . . .
Relying on your own mind can be so inconvenient sometimes . . .
reformedpastor
Senior Member
Atheism's Moral Swindle
Atheism's Moral Swindle
From the web site American Vision: Today's Feature Article
By Joel McDurmon
I long since stopped blogging on atheism, deeming it often a waste of time and occasionally counterproductive. Sometimes, however, the issue merits revisiting. After rereading some old classics, I find the following quotation worth sharing:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God."
In this quotation, many of my readers will immediately detect the echo of Van Til, or Bahnsen, or some other related apologist infused with “worldview,” or presuppositional thinking. Such a guess comes close in content, but misses widely. The surprise: this quotation flows candidly—and insightfully!—from arch-atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.[1] This is not, of course, to say that Van Til derived his ideas from reading Nietzsche—highly unlikely. The point—completely lost on modern atheists—is that when you strike down Christianity, Christian morality necessarily goes with it. Nietzsche candidly professed this, as did his earlier French counterpart Marquis de Sade: no God, no moral imperatives; no “thou shalt,” and no “thou shalt not.” Only, “I will.”
But modern atheists have not only ignored this logical conclusion, they have actually attempted to attack Christianity in the name of Christian morality, calling the Christian God cruel, bloodthirsty, racist, sadomasochistic, etc.[2] Richard Dawkins’ now famous book begins an early chapter with such accusations and much more. Whence the moral outrage?
Nietzsche’s honesty above grows all the more relevant (and this is what sparked me to write this article) when we read his context: he wrote the above as a commentary on the English writer George Eliot, decrying her clinging to morality despite her rejection of God. In fact, according to some accounts, and just as Dawkins, she attacked Christianity in the name of morality, calling the faith “immoral.” Nietzsche spies the “English” inconsistency and condemns her (and thus Dawkins) as a weak, effeminate, and illogical atheist. He writes:
G. Elliot: "They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. This is an English inconsistency: we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England [then and now, apparently] one must rehabilitate oneself after ever little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there."
We others hold otherwise.… [then follows the earlier quotation][3]
Upon reading this again, I could not help but think of today’s little rosy-cheeked moralist, Dawkins, preaching against the cosmic bully of the Old Testament, and denouncing the extremes of religion—all the while unaware that he must have the morality of Christendom under his feet (and his audience’s feet) in order to denounce those extremes. Still English, yes, and still inconsistent.
Nietzsche blows up the charade:
"When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem."[4]
For this reason—for his fearless and relentless consistency—I love reading Nietzsche. The arch-atheist—the honest, consistent atheist—foils all the prominent modern atheists. He knows and admits that Dawkins’ moral indignation arises from the very God he denounces. Nietzsche knows that such moral fire only expresses the prior power and dominion of Christianity. Nietzsche knows that moral indignation itself is borrowed capital from Christendom.
Unlike Dawkins, however, Nietzsche refused to keep pretending. Nietzsche had the intellect to see the connection, and the guts to admit the outcome of his worldview. Modern atheism, apparently, has neither. For them, Christian society provides them enough comfort to enjoy the peace and tolerance of Christian rules while denying the existence of the Rule-giver. For them, morality is not yet a problem—simply because they refuse to admit it. Well, despite the “flatheads,” “this point has to be exhibited again and again,” and I don’t mind letting Nietzsche do so for us.
Endnotes
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–6.
2 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.
3 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 515.
4 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 516.
Atheism's Moral Swindle
From the web site American Vision: Today's Feature Article
By Joel McDurmon
I long since stopped blogging on atheism, deeming it often a waste of time and occasionally counterproductive. Sometimes, however, the issue merits revisiting. After rereading some old classics, I find the following quotation worth sharing:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God has truth—it stands or falls with faith in God."
In this quotation, many of my readers will immediately detect the echo of Van Til, or Bahnsen, or some other related apologist infused with “worldview,” or presuppositional thinking. Such a guess comes close in content, but misses widely. The surprise: this quotation flows candidly—and insightfully!—from arch-atheist Friedrich Nietzsche.[1] This is not, of course, to say that Van Til derived his ideas from reading Nietzsche—highly unlikely. The point—completely lost on modern atheists—is that when you strike down Christianity, Christian morality necessarily goes with it. Nietzsche candidly professed this, as did his earlier French counterpart Marquis de Sade: no God, no moral imperatives; no “thou shalt,” and no “thou shalt not.” Only, “I will.”
But modern atheists have not only ignored this logical conclusion, they have actually attempted to attack Christianity in the name of Christian morality, calling the Christian God cruel, bloodthirsty, racist, sadomasochistic, etc.[2] Richard Dawkins’ now famous book begins an early chapter with such accusations and much more. Whence the moral outrage?
Nietzsche’s honesty above grows all the more relevant (and this is what sparked me to write this article) when we read his context: he wrote the above as a commentary on the English writer George Eliot, decrying her clinging to morality despite her rejection of God. In fact, according to some accounts, and just as Dawkins, she attacked Christianity in the name of morality, calling the faith “immoral.” Nietzsche spies the “English” inconsistency and condemns her (and thus Dawkins) as a weak, effeminate, and illogical atheist. He writes:
G. Elliot: "They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. This is an English inconsistency: we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England [then and now, apparently] one must rehabilitate oneself after ever little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there."
We others hold otherwise.… [then follows the earlier quotation][3]
Upon reading this again, I could not help but think of today’s little rosy-cheeked moralist, Dawkins, preaching against the cosmic bully of the Old Testament, and denouncing the extremes of religion—all the while unaware that he must have the morality of Christendom under his feet (and his audience’s feet) in order to denounce those extremes. Still English, yes, and still inconsistent.
Nietzsche blows up the charade:
"When the English actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem."[4]
For this reason—for his fearless and relentless consistency—I love reading Nietzsche. The arch-atheist—the honest, consistent atheist—foils all the prominent modern atheists. He knows and admits that Dawkins’ moral indignation arises from the very God he denounces. Nietzsche knows that such moral fire only expresses the prior power and dominion of Christianity. Nietzsche knows that moral indignation itself is borrowed capital from Christendom.
Unlike Dawkins, however, Nietzsche refused to keep pretending. Nietzsche had the intellect to see the connection, and the guts to admit the outcome of his worldview. Modern atheism, apparently, has neither. For them, Christian society provides them enough comfort to enjoy the peace and tolerance of Christian rules while denying the existence of the Rule-giver. For them, morality is not yet a problem—simply because they refuse to admit it. Well, despite the “flatheads,” “this point has to be exhibited again and again,” and I don’t mind letting Nietzsche do so for us.
Endnotes
1 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–6.
2 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.
3 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 515.
4 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols,” The Portable Nietzsche, 516.
reformedpastor
Senior Member
All of the atheist on here have only proven on thing- they are without answers!!!!!!
We live in a society that is becoming more and more atheistic so what can we expect? More of what we have today. CHAOS!!!!
We live in a society that is becoming more and more atheistic so what can we expect? More of what we have today. CHAOS!!!!
reformedpastor
Senior Member
Nope! Only Christians rightly interpreting God's Word! Remember, these are false religions and just a different expression of atheism.
Ronnie T
Ol' Retired Mod
Diogenes you missunderstand me.
It isn't that I'm shocked that you would dare disagree with me. It isn't that unusual for someone to disagree with me. Sometimes it's wise to disagree with me.
Here's where I'm coming from though.
"Suppose that you are speaking on your cell phone one Saturday afternoon and suddenly the signal obviously gets crossed and you begin listening in on a conversation between two middle east men who are talking about their plans to detonate bombs in the largest mall in Atlanta. From their conversation, you realize it's going to happen this afternoon.
"So you rush to the mall to let everyone know and to tell them to leave the mall. You rush around madly screaming, pleading with people to leave the mall. But they laugh at you. They think you are crazy. They even taunt you. Some leave just to be safe. Most think it could not be possible."
Atheist think it is not possible. It doesn't make sense to them. There's no proof.
It isn't a good feeling to know that there are those who refuse the faith that's necessary to believe the message of the man in the mall.
It isn't that I'm shocked that you would dare disagree with me. It isn't that unusual for someone to disagree with me. Sometimes it's wise to disagree with me.
Here's where I'm coming from though.
"Suppose that you are speaking on your cell phone one Saturday afternoon and suddenly the signal obviously gets crossed and you begin listening in on a conversation between two middle east men who are talking about their plans to detonate bombs in the largest mall in Atlanta. From their conversation, you realize it's going to happen this afternoon.
"So you rush to the mall to let everyone know and to tell them to leave the mall. You rush around madly screaming, pleading with people to leave the mall. But they laugh at you. They think you are crazy. They even taunt you. Some leave just to be safe. Most think it could not be possible."
Atheist think it is not possible. It doesn't make sense to them. There's no proof.
It isn't a good feeling to know that there are those who refuse the faith that's necessary to believe the message of the man in the mall.
ambush80
Senior Member
They've seen evidence; PROOF that that such a thing might occur. Some people will run out of the mall immediately. There is no proof that ANYONE will burn in He11 except for what it says in the Bible, which is hardly proof at all.
Ronnie T
Ol' Retired Mod
reformedpastor
Senior Member
The book "Atheist Manifesto" I am reading is a very easy read and one of the must striking characteristics about the book is, not ONE footnote supporting any of his claims. Its really like we all should take his word for because he is an atheist and opened minded and INTELLECTUAL.
The book is hardly a piece of work that can be taken seriously, other than knowing what is "out there" when it comes to academia, since this guy is highly lauded in those circles.
The book is hardly a piece of work that can be taken seriously, other than knowing what is "out there" when it comes to academia, since this guy is highly lauded in those circles.
Exclusivism.
Ronnie T
Ol' Retired Mod
It is God that is Exclusive.
One must worship the only true God.
One must worship the only true God.
reformedpastor
Senior Member
correct!!!!!!!!
Ah, but we have a problem. Morality is one thing, and ‘Christian Morality’ is another. Quoting someone who cherry-picks quotes from another, and ascribes a position to that other on that basis, is one of the oddest third-hand straw-man attempts I’ve seen in quite some time. Philosophers, unlike evangelists, deal in the exact meanings of words and phrases. So, in context, remove the phrase ‘Christian Morality,’ and insert the phrase ‘Arabic Morality,’ and you will see that it is only the qualifier that makes the point. It might also be enlightening, though more difficult, to read the entirety of the argument Nietzsche made rather than to try to excerpt bits of it out of that context (second hand, even, which should be intellectually humiliating . . . ) in the vain, vague, and futile attempt to find some sort of a condescending ‘Gotcha!’
Nietzsche was disdainful of bad thinking, and his criticism of Eliot, in context, was an argument against a poorly constructed and incomplete argument. Not, as is suggested, a vindication of the evangelical Christian view. One will need to do much better if the argument, as it appears here again and again, is solely that morality sprang fully formed from the bosom of the Christian God, and has no other basis. Nietzsche held that it was the will of men to have power over other men that was the chief motivating factor both of the individual and of society. He held that ‘God’ was invented for this purpose, and that that invention has been particularly powerful, pervasive, effective, and equally destructive when poorly implemented, as it has usually been. In all cases, he boiled that invention, whether well employed for good ends or cited as a cause to persecutions, down to the uses men make of their own thoughts.
In order to even begin to lay a foundation upon which to rest the contention that morality is invested solely in the Christian God, and far from being an exhaustive list of the problems involved, one must first demonstrate four basic things which are not possible to demonstrate: First, that there even exists within the words ascribed to this idea of a God a singular, consistent moral voice. Next, one would need to demonstrate that these consistent and unambiguous words are, in fact, the words of some sort of Supreme Being. Third, one would need to demonstrate that human morality, as the collective need to codify collective behavior for the benefit of the group, does not pre-date the ‘Word’ of this Supreme Being. Then, having overcome those problems, one would be compelled to demonstrate that this morality, being by assertion an exclusively ‘Christian’ concept, not only is not shared by non-believers in that particular dogma but has also never changed. (The idea of a ‘morality’ handed down as an absolute has only one conclusion – it is absolute, and cannot have changed, ever.) None of these things can be substantiated, and three of them can be easily disproven.
It is anti-intellectual and self-defeating to fall back time and again upon Scripture as the proof of itself, and completely avoids the questions and the problems involved. Faith, I have observed before, is the antithesis of proof, and while it has a place in this world that no person here has tried to deny or remove, there is not a single straw of evidence other than that same often quoted Faith that supports a view that there is only one light in all of this darkness, and that it happens to be your own. There is, to an intellectual view of the subject, a preponderance of evidence that says otherwise, in fact, and clinging to personal superstitions rather than asking of them is rather the definition of a lack of manifest, substantiated intellect.
Nietzsche was disdainful of bad thinking, and his criticism of Eliot, in context, was an argument against a poorly constructed and incomplete argument. Not, as is suggested, a vindication of the evangelical Christian view. One will need to do much better if the argument, as it appears here again and again, is solely that morality sprang fully formed from the bosom of the Christian God, and has no other basis. Nietzsche held that it was the will of men to have power over other men that was the chief motivating factor both of the individual and of society. He held that ‘God’ was invented for this purpose, and that that invention has been particularly powerful, pervasive, effective, and equally destructive when poorly implemented, as it has usually been. In all cases, he boiled that invention, whether well employed for good ends or cited as a cause to persecutions, down to the uses men make of their own thoughts.
In order to even begin to lay a foundation upon which to rest the contention that morality is invested solely in the Christian God, and far from being an exhaustive list of the problems involved, one must first demonstrate four basic things which are not possible to demonstrate: First, that there even exists within the words ascribed to this idea of a God a singular, consistent moral voice. Next, one would need to demonstrate that these consistent and unambiguous words are, in fact, the words of some sort of Supreme Being. Third, one would need to demonstrate that human morality, as the collective need to codify collective behavior for the benefit of the group, does not pre-date the ‘Word’ of this Supreme Being. Then, having overcome those problems, one would be compelled to demonstrate that this morality, being by assertion an exclusively ‘Christian’ concept, not only is not shared by non-believers in that particular dogma but has also never changed. (The idea of a ‘morality’ handed down as an absolute has only one conclusion – it is absolute, and cannot have changed, ever.) None of these things can be substantiated, and three of them can be easily disproven.
It is anti-intellectual and self-defeating to fall back time and again upon Scripture as the proof of itself, and completely avoids the questions and the problems involved. Faith, I have observed before, is the antithesis of proof, and while it has a place in this world that no person here has tried to deny or remove, there is not a single straw of evidence other than that same often quoted Faith that supports a view that there is only one light in all of this darkness, and that it happens to be your own. There is, to an intellectual view of the subject, a preponderance of evidence that says otherwise, in fact, and clinging to personal superstitions rather than asking of them is rather the definition of a lack of manifest, substantiated intellect.
Ronnie T : I understand the point you try to make with the 'man in the mall' thought, but even allegorically it serves only a single point, and honestly, everyone from the Shiites to the Democrats can trot out exactly the same story, with few variations, to try to prove that they are right, and all others are blind.
Last edited:
Israel
BANNED
I wonder if one is an atheist because he does not believe in God, or does not believe in God because he is an atheist?
Nietsche is correct about the motivation of man. He just stops short of the remedy.
But even if one were to eradicate all the "defective" theists, you're still left with that underlying base motivation for power.
I always admired his better work as a linebacker, though.
Nietsche is correct about the motivation of man. He just stops short of the remedy.
But even if one were to eradicate all the "defective" theists, you're still left with that underlying base motivation for power.
I always admired his better work as a linebacker, though.
Similar threads
