Jump to content

Friedrich Nietzsche


Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I was not sure where to post this and thought this area was best suited.

 

I'm wondering if anyone has any understanding of this cat's views.

 

I have a brother-in-law who claims now he is a agnoistic. I know is best freind in turkey (instanbul) reads alot of nietzsche's writings. I read some stuff online and it goes over my head.

 

I'm trying to learn a bit on his atheisitic ideas. So perhaps someone can dailouge a bit on things.

 

I would imagine that such people have answers as to how nothing comes from nothing? Or How such a comlex universe came into being?

 

Can anyone help? I know many of you are much more educated than myself so I thought I might ask here.

 

Auggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand a bit about Nietzsche's work... it might help if you were to ask some specific questions about it.

 

Also, I want to make sure you understand an important distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics take a neutral position on the existence of a god, while atheists claim there is no god (unless proof is provided).

 

Oh, and one more distinction: some agnostics may say "I don't know if there is a god or not", others say "it is impossible to know if a god or gods exists". The majority of agnostics I've talked to are not "searching", they are comfortable with not knowing.

 

Hope this helps a little!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank unclean,

Yes I know of that difference between atheism and agnosticism but he seems to calim agn.

 

His main take on the existence of God is that no one can prove God exists. He believes he was raised in a western world so his views are all tainted with christian philosophy.

 

He sees writings which come from the bible and says the same stories are found in other cultures writings; names changed and parts of the stories are altered but basically the same.

 

Of course my father-in-law (devout christian) and I (devout christian) both endorst simply cause it's not seen nor physically tangible does not mean it does not exist.

 

I am basically a liberal christian but I do infact believe there is a designer behind every sub-atomic particle and every strand of DNA.

 

Like I said I know his best freind loves this neechee dude and so I was trying to follow my bros line of thinking.

 

I guess I'm trying to learn the arguments made of agnostics so that I might be able to dialouge a little bit better.

 

for example I know the atheistic ? of can God make a rock he cannot lift which to me is a mix up of words..."can anyone do anything they cannot do?" the question seems to me to be invalid. Can God be god and not be God at the same time? seems like non-sense to me.

 

But he doesnt argue like that he argues mostly based on philosphers writings Neechee and aristotle are two he quotes.

 

Clean, as I remember I do believe you are not a believer?

 

Auggy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, that explanation helps. And yes, I'm not a believer of the Christian faith, but I have the utmost respect for those that are (as I do of other religions). That doesn't mean I don't have my beliefs, though. :) Interestingly enough, I'm struggling with some questions that I as an agnostic can't answer.

 

I think your brother-in-law and myself will share a lot of the same ideas, though. Yes, I too see the parallels between many different religions (re: floods, dying for "sins" of mankind, rebirths, etc). But I can also show him some questions he may not have considered, like "what if the common stories between these religions shows collaboration (of truth), and we just found lots of ways to explain it?". This may cause him to question his beliefs as an agnostic. And I think that's a great thing. I think EVERYONE should be constantly questioning their beliefs... including yourself, ABD. :) It's a way of mentally "trimming the fat". It'll make your convictions stronger or revised, but either way it's a good thing.

 

This might be jumping the gun a little, but it'd be interesting to get your brother-in-law on this forum. I'd be happy to share my beliefs as an agnostic, and some of the logic that is incompatible with my beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try but he's always gone.

 

I did a bit of reading today as to the historical evidence of Jesus and the disciples and what I found is it seems the evidence (seems as always) is questionable.

 

I was not able to find much evidence on the disciples.

 

I too am curious now as I've already began leaving the conservative thinking.

 

for example I find it obvious that Jesus did not adhere to the mosaic law. The mechanics christians use to say he did not is that he literally obeyed all rules and regulations. Yet many times he did not follow through with what the law required.

 

This statement has a bad reaction with my church friends. They respond harshly that I'm trying to bring Jesus down when in fact it's quite the opposite.

 

However this type of liberal thinking has gotten me in trouble and now I am interested in finding the evidence (historical) of Jesus or the 12.

 

today I didn't find much

 

Any thoughts

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I want to make sure you understand an important distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics take a neutral position on the existence of a god, while atheists claim there is no god (unless proof is provided).

Perhaps this is symantics, but athiest do not claim there isn't a god, just that they don't believe in one.

 

Voltaire once said that if there isnt a god, it would be necessary to invent one. I have often thougt about that line when people start discussing the views of religions, or lack there of. So, while you take this journey of religious self debate, consider that line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aug-

 

Ok, if I'm understanding you correctly, you have some questions about historical evidence about Jesus and the 12 disciples. And these questions haven't been going so well with your church friends.

 

I think it's all in the way you explain your actions. Your research is not trying to take away any of the glory of Jesus. You're trying to better understand him. He didn't follow the mosaic law to the letter? Ok, why not? There's gotta be some kind of reason for that. You're looking for some solid historical evidence of the disciples? That might be tougher. Maybe you'll find evidence, but it's not rock-solid. Maybe you won't find evidence. That doesn't mean anything either way. Your questioning is NOT a threat, though.

 

I truly believe that people that do not question their beliefs are afraid of being wrong, and those that do question their beliefs end up having stronger convictions.

 

Also, I want to make sure you understand an important distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics take a neutral position on the existence of a god, while atheists claim there is no god (unless proof is provided).

Perhaps this is symantics, but athiest do not claim there isn't a god, just that they don't believe in one.

I think you're falling under the same misconception as I warned about earlier. What you described is a very broad definition that encompasses atheists, agnostics, the undecided, those that are "still searching", those that don't care, etc.

 

Every dictionary definition I could find of "atheist" involves an active denial of a god or deity:

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

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...=4607&dict=CALD

 

Voltaire once said that if there isnt a god, it would be necessary to invent one.

That's a GREAT line, and one that will definitely be coming up later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're falling under the same misconception as I warned about earlier. What you described is a very broad definition that encompasses atheists, agnostics, the undecided, those that are "still searching", those that don't care, etc.

 

Every dictionary definition I could find of "atheist" involves an active denial of a god or deity:

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

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...=4607&dict=CALD

 

It isn't so easy to do it like that....

 

Source

Comprehensive dictionaries generally define atheism as the “disbelief in or denial of the existence of gods,� and atheists commonly refer to atheism as simply not believing in any gods  but is not believing something the same as denying it?

 

 

The problom Unclean, there is general misconseption of what a broad range of people believe or don't believe. Athiesm has been labeled from disbelief in god in general, to disbelief in the "local" god.

Link

There are no positive beliefs or attitudes which can be assumed on the part of all atheists. If you want to know what an atheist believes or believes in, you have to ask - and ask with specifics. It doesn't work to simply ask "what do you believe in"?

 

So, while it may be easy to define it simplistically, it isn't exactly correct. While the way I say it makes agnostic and athiest sound the same, they are not.

 

Link

Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. Some claim that there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because even theists do not claim to know God exists, only to believe it, and many even agree there is room for doubt; and atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one.

 

It really is a muddy pool of water. But so is the this religious idea. Simplictically, to define athiesm in about four words will work, but my point is, it isn't exactly correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having a really hard time understanding what you meant by that last post, duma. Hopefully it's not because my last post was unclear.

 

My point is this: atheists take the negative stance on a god or gods. "There is no god" or "there are no gods".

 

Agnostics take the neutral stance on a god or gods. "There is no way to tell if there is a god or gods".

 

Anything different is someone trying to redefine the very terms "atheist" and "agnostic", as evidenced by all dictionaries I could find.

 

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not agree.

 

You should read this site:

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/

 

I am not redefining anything; just pointing out the simplistic definition as noted. Athiesm isn't a clean cut definition that fits into four words.

 

Just a bit of what I am talking about:

Source

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined, so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

Edited by duma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like a semantic to me.

 

An athiest would deny God becase of the lack of evidence, I assume.

Isnt that the reason why a agnostic would say they don't believe there is a god or gods due to lack of evidence.

 

ahhhh this just crossed my mind.

 

Just because something is not seen nor proven does not make it so.

Thus an agnostic might reason that they don't deny there MIGHT be a God. They kind of leave it open???

 

Hope I'm ont he right track

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you read the link I have provided, and then ask any question that they leave unanswered? If you really want to understand, it is going to take more then a few posts.

 

Perhaps an example will do. Suppose someone doesn't believe in Jesus, nor any god of the christian belief. However, they are not willing to say there isn't another god.... this is very much like agnostic, but they are willing to say that tehy don't believe in the Catholic religion. That is still a simple way of saying it. It is very much like I said in my original post (denial of the "local" god).

Edited by duma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're saying the same thing, but in two different ways. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding you.

 

What is the difference between "disbelief" and "denial"? Is "disbelief" just an absence of belief, while "denial" is an active negative position?

 

And I think it may help if you were to provide what you think the major differences between agnosticism and atheism are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists  atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

 

 

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made  an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

 

 

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods  making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

 

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god  if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

 

Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite  a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

 

Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.

 

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god  and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

 

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined  so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

 

As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.

 

 

As for the difference between agnostic and athiest: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already read the link you provided, and see some flaws in the logic. For simplicity's sake, I will respond to the parts you placed in bold/italics. But if you want just the quick version, here's my main point:

 

Ask a person if they believe in any god or gods. It doesn't matter if it's from a known religion or not.

 

If he/she answers "yes", then he/she is at least a theist.

If he/she answers "no", then he/she is an atheist.

If he/she answers "I don't know", then they may be an agnostic, but more questioning is required.

 

Now, on to the longwinded version:

No claims or denials are made  an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

This sounds good up until you ask an atheist "are you a theist?" If they say "no", they are making a claim of their beliefs and a denial of theism. That simple question invalidates this point.

 

Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god  if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

I agree with the last line -- if you ask a person if they believe in any god/gods/deities/supernatural beings, ask! See what they say. If they say no, they are taking an active denial role, and hence they are an atheist. If they say they don't know, they could be an agnostic. If they say yes, they are a theist.

 

and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

 

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined  so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

This is semantics... replace "God" with "any supernatural beings or deities" and watch what happens. :)

 

As for the difference between agnostic and athiest: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

This article follows the same flawed logic, and hence becomes invalid.t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol2:

 

This thread got totally derailed. Sorry Aug - I guess we got sidetracked with the agnostic/atheist thing. But hopefully you learned a thing or two about different perspectives on that.

 

So how goes your most recent line of questioning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will throw a wrench into all your thinking!

 

remember stay away from philosophy classes in college they will mess you up for life!

 

a paper I had to write once "What is the nature of meaning in a human existance as in relation to Albert Camus's 'The Stranger'?"

 

the angle of the paper was why was he beheaded? it was not for killing an arab(which in france in WWI was not a death sentence) but he had no meaning in life and essentially was put to death because of this?

 

we have to have a working knowledge in our heads as to how we fit in the BIG plan so to speak we need meaning in our lives it is an essential human condition!

 

try this and this is my philosophy---go into the woods preferably the mountains and sit for a couple of days make sure no humans interfere with you thoughts submit to every thought let them wander embrace the earth with just your being and listen.............

you will hear the great spirit that moves all things it is not good it is not evil!

those are definitions that humans put on it to control "it" in their minds! it cannot be defined it is everywhere and nowhere at once! we come from it we go back to it when we die we are it! if you listen you will see that the american indian listened and lived in harmony with the earth nature and nurture!

 

all religions are like putting square blocks into round holes never seems to fit just right?

 

 

"survival of the fittest"

you see the rules of the natural world and understand your place and how to survive! that is what we are just another species! Yet most of us never listen to the earth and we all try to adapt our environment to fit our beliefs!

 

you cannot understand the workings of the world through the words of humans! ever play the telephone game? get 25 people in a circle whisper a story to the one next to you and pass it on......by the 25 person the story WILL be completely different its the way we communicate we hear and see what we want to reinforce our beliefs!

Edited by w8t4time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...