User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 127

  1. #31
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    I'm thinking over that Nietzsche's ideas on destruction of Christian morality and the status of humans and underhumans, and Marx's idea of whole class-wide revolution influenced the two 20th C. evils. And that this influence, moreso than weapon technology, is what formed their evil actions. Thus the Christian powers of Medieval times would not have been in favor of such grand scale killing. Of course one could challenge me with the Allied bombing campaigns killing civilians, but I think the reasons behind the Evils and the Allies (excluding USSR, if you count that as part of the Allies) killing innocents are fundamentally and irreconcilably different, plus the scale killing is totally imbalanced.

    When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.

    To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.

    As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.

    To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...

    ... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    A little like the arguments made against religion and relgious people, dont you think?
    I like that, so true.

  3. #33
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.

    To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.

    As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.

    To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...

    ... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.
    Indeed I do see with a Christianized lens, so naturally I judge things according what I already know. I am not concerned about this, all the moreso since everyone in this thread is using today to look at the past.

    While Nietzche, Marx, and Kierkegaard may or may not have had valid complaints about the Church, I think it's important to remember that regardless of that, N and M rejected God altogether, not just a Church and not just Christianity. Naturally as a Christian I am committed to judging that they went overboard. Important also is that rejection of God was not all they wrote about.

    It seems like you are having a disagreement with my previous posts because I am arguing that atheism has led to more evil than belief. However, this was not the point of those posts. There I am more specifically talking about why the grand scale slaughters of the Nazis and Soviets, nor the bombing campaigns of the Allies, would not have happened in the Middle Ages. This is in reference to somebody claiming that the Inquisition and crusades would have destroyed Europe's population moreso than the atrocities of the Nazis and Soviets, if people in the Middle Ages had access to weapons technology of the mid 20th century. My position is that this would not have happened, due to temporal differences in the reasoning behind violence. This I think is within bounds of decision.

    I do have an opinion on the matter of whether atheism has led to more evil than belief and God (you can guess my position on that). This on three levels: 1) violent atrocities, 2) economics, and 3) spirituality. Obviously a Christian must necessarily consider the evil done by atheists in the realm of spirituality and religion, although a secularist would not factor this into the amount of evil generated, if one has no belief in souls. Provable by violence and economics alone? Not likely by me because I don't have enough knowledge of all relevant details; however, I do think it is worth trying to find an answer.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  4. #34
    Member Eye 'n' Teepee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    55

    Default

    I think it's obvious that any sort of radical doctrine has the potential to be very dangerous, whether the doctrine be religious or in many cases political. Hitler's belief in the superiority of the German race was radical and illogical, for example, and disaster came of it. There are varying degrees of radicalism within religion and politics, of course, but even the "moderate" religious people are quite radical. If you believe that you're in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space daddy who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever (thanks Bill Maher)...well, that is not a moderate view in my opinion.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    And so? You made a false claim, viz.:



    I addressed this specifically. What the linked video is about is irrelevant to the truth value of your claim.
    Its not a false claim, its my opinion, offered as a counter to the opinion of Fry expressed in the video.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
    I was replying to the post by lark, where he says that Nazism was atheistic. Its not, as my above posts points out very clearly




    There is only so much killing one can do, given medieval weapons. Contrast that to the Bombing of Dresden, or the firebombing of Japan.


    Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between the intent behind the murders committed by Stalin/Mao (who were atheists) vis-a-vis the ones committed by religious crusades/jihads/inquisition/pogroms/terrorism etc etc

    The difference is that in the religious wars people were targeted because of their religion/or lack of one. The mass murders by Stalin and Mao were not targeted at any specific religious/non religious denomination. They murdered indiscriminately, which can be seen as ethnic/cultural wars rather than an "atheist" war. When did anyone get killed because he was a 'religious" person by atheists? Mao and Stalin are no different from some deranged person who shoots people in the mall, albeit in a larger scale.

    There is no evidence to associate atheism with the actions carried out by Mao and Stalin. Atheists don't have a "religious high command"/affiliation/branch or whatever....therefore individual actions by atheists are just that, actions of individuals. I didn't hear Stalin claiming that he is killing people in the name of "the universal church of atheism"..did you?


    religions on the other hand, when engaging in wars, take the "Kill them all, God will know his own" attitude.
    I reckon that's a facetious argument, Stalin, Mao and others definitely did kill and persecute religious believers because they where religious believers and anathema to Marxism as they understood it.

    If you want something that more closely resembles the "command structure" of a religious institution then I'd refer you to the Cult of Reason or Deists during the French Revolution, although not strictly atheistic they where fellow travellers.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.

    To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.

    As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.

    To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...

    ... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.
    The problem with this type of argument Jenn is that you're as liable to be interpreting things, including the post you've cited, through your own biased filters or blinkers too, just as you suggest Take Five is.

    I'm not offering an opinion as to who is correct in this instance, just hghlighting that aspect of communication theory.

  8. #38
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The problem with this type of argument Jenn is that you're as liable to be interpreting things, including the post you've cited, through your own biased filters or blinkers too, just as you suggest Take Five is.
    Um... read this exchange again:

    1. Someone insists they know what "ultimate reality" is.

    2. I say "Since you have no way to make such a declaration, here are some other views that you can look at that run counter to what you're saying, and then you can be more well-rounded." I did not say a particular view was ultimately correct, I was saying, "You're not considering <THIS> and it would help color what you are thinking, since you're claiming you already know the truth. It helped me in my continuing journey to try to understand life."

    3. You wander in and say, "You have no clue what ultimate reality is, either, you're just as biased as everyone else."

    Well, YEAH. I am biased, I never said I wasn't! I'm human, just like you. My point was that NONE of us can speak definitively, so everything we believe is a CHOICE and not "compelled" by some impossible-to-have sense of ultimate reality. And that our choices still do not define reality!

    If I've read enough of your posts, I'd figure that's something you would approve of -- that we don't get to define reality. It is what it is, it's outside of us, and I get really tired of people claiming they know what it is... especially when I see they haven't even looked at various aspects of the topic under discussion.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #39
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its not a false claim, its my opinion, offered as a counter to the opinion of Fry expressed in the video.
    Indeed, it is your opinion. Your opinion (or "claim") is false.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Um... read this exchange again:

    1. Someone insists they know what "ultimate reality" is.

    2. I say "Since you have no way to make such a declaration, here are some other views that you can look at that run counter to what you're saying, and then you can be more well-rounded." I did not say a particular view was ultimately correct, I was saying, "You're not considering <THIS> and it would help color what you are thinking, since you're claiming you already know the truth. It helped me in my continuing journey to try to understand life."

    3. You wander in and say, "You have no clue what ultimate reality is, either, you're just as biased as everyone else."

    Well, YEAH. I am biased, I never said I wasn't! I'm human, just like you. My point was that NONE of us can speak definitively, so everything we believe is a CHOICE and not "compelled" by some impossible-to-have sense of ultimate reality. And that our choices still do not define reality!

    If I've read enough of your posts, I'd figure that's something you would approve of -- that we don't get to define reality. It is what it is, it's outside of us, and I get really tired of people claiming they know what it is... especially when I see they haven't even looked at various aspects of the topic under discussion.
    You sound a bit miffed, defensive even, like when you randomly gave me feedback that I'm judgemental all the time (if nothing else then I'm true to type but that's not something I necessarily agree with).

    I read all the posts, how would I convey to you that I had, as you put it, "looked at various aspects of the topi under discussion"? Enter the thread with a simple "Why, I agree whole heartedly with Jennifer +1 there" perhaps?

    I'm being facetious of course but I notice a trend in responses to me, I want to assure you there's nothing personal, I'm not trying to upcast or upstage or anything else, its just a basic flaw with reasoning that others simply misunderstand because they are filtering whatever through whatever values that they can response with yeah, exactly the converse is true and that's all I was saying.

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Fry
    By Salomé in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-24-2015, 10:41 PM
  2. World without NT's.
    By Athenian200 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 05:19 AM
  3. A world without INTPs
    By Salomé in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 05:46 PM
  4. World without Cars!
    By Little Linguist in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 03:40 PM
  5. Most beautiful word you know
    By pocket lint in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 04-01-2008, 08:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO