Yes, you are correct that determinism is the Only logical conclusion to draw from Classical traditional theology. That also implies those Christian theologians who make up the idea and excuse of Free will and say basically: "God's predeterming decision and foreknowledge contra our Free will is a paradox that can Only be explained by the fact that God is omnipotent and capable of making man free and unfree at the same time".

"The real weakness is that of the Emperor and those who go along with it. The child exposes this weakness. There is strength in acknowledging imperfection and the harshness of reality, yet affirming life in spite of this, which is what Agustino fails to appreciate in Nietzsche. Our concern should be with this world, and we should not allow ourselves to be duped into otherworldly concerns. In fact, one could argue that it is our duty to burst this deceptive bubble, much like the child does."

Unfortunately it seems to me that most Christians dont understand Nietzsche at all. Which is a great shame for them. Berdyaev is an exception. I respect him. He also knows that most theologians and theologies in history are sadistic and based on the lowest and most despicable kind of human spiritual quality.

Some children lie, or really don't know what they are talking about. :P One can't know with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist; hence, atheism is proclaiming with certainty something that is unknowable. It is not something that is obviously not there, as many offer convincing arguments in proof of a god. The people in your story were not deceived, but chose to act as though they were convinced.

I agree with this, for the most part. Humans are truly weak and inferior compared to many things. Strength wise, a horse or a bear can quickly over power us. A powerful storm leaves us small and insignificant. What is man, but a worm? But as for the statement that we NEED God. Humans can choose to not be a theist, so it is not a need, such as we need to eat and drink. I think it is more of a desire, but where we choose to satisfy that desire is up to us in part.

One can't know with hard evidence that a superior being does not exist; — Lone Wolf

That you and I exist is proof that a superior being does exist. (I am that superior being).

hence, atheism is proclaiming with certainty something that is unknowable. — Lone Wolf

No, not atheism, atheism of the strongest sort. Just as there are different sorts of theism, there are different sorts of atheism.

It is not something that is obviously not there, as many offer convincing arguments in proof of a god. — Lone Wolf

That some people are convinced by such arguments is not that they're good arguments, which is what matters. Besides, atheists don't find them convincing enough, and most theists are already convinced - and, of those who accept the arguments, many merely do so due to confirmation bias. There's also nonconformity amongst theists in which arguments are accepted, if any, and which are rejected.

The people in your story were not deceived, but chose to act as though they were convinced. — Lone Wolf

Yes, that's true, but I only said that it reminded me of the tale, not that it's a perfect analogy.

That you and I exist is proof that a superior being does exist. (I am that superior being). — Sapientia

What is superior? Clearly, you cannot control me (although you could delete my posts >:O ). You can't control what I think or do, so are you really superior? :P

No, not atheism, atheism of the strongest sort. Just as there are different sorts of theism, there are different sorts of atheism. — Sapientia

Yes, of course there are different types. Atheism in general declare there to be no god, just as theism generally must declare there to be a god. Agnosticism is in the middle, where one realizes that there could be a god, but there could also not be a god.

That some people are convinced by such arguments is not that they're good arguments, which is what matters. Besides, atheists don't find them convincing enough, and most theists are already convinced - and, of those who accept the arguments, many merely do so due to confirmation bias. There's also nonconformity amongst theists in which arguments are accepted, if any, and which are rejected. — Sapientia

If what you say is correct, then it would place an atheist at the same level of "irrationality" as a theist. One who believes there to be a god could say that atheists are already convinced that there is no superior being, and accept all arguments against a god to be confirming their bias. It would be most rational to believe the argument that has the most evidence, not just believing to believe or not believe. I do agree with you that many theists do not agree on which arguments, but is that really all that important? What matters is which one is truth, if one has deemed truth to exist.

What is superior? Clearly, you cannot control me (although you could delete my posts >:O ). You can't control what I think or do, so are you really superior? :P — Lone Wolf

Well, I could try to explain it to you, but an inferior being such as yourself couldn't possibly understand.

Yes, of course there are different types. Atheism in general declare there to be no god, just as theism generally must declare there to be a god. Agnosticism is in the middle, where one realizes that there could be a god, but there could also not be a god. — Lone Wolf

No, atheism in general is a rejection of theism, the belief that there's a god. It's a specific type of atheism which declares there to be no god. There's a large overlap between atheists and agnostics.

If what you say is correct, then it would place an atheist at the same level of "irrationality" as a theist. — Lone Wolf

No it wouldn't. At least, not necessarily.

One who believes there to be a god could say that atheists are already convinced that there is no superior being, and accept all arguments against a god to be confirming their bias. — Lone Wolf

Of course, one could say that, but what matters is whether it's true. I think with most atheists, it's not so much about arguments against a god, but about arguments for god, and the large holes in them.

Well, I could try to explain it to you, but an inferior being such as yourself couldn't possibly understand. — Sapientia

I suppose just the same as the emperor couldn't explain why no one could see his new "clothes"... I am just too silly to understand that. I am a mere child, no?

No, atheism in general is a rejection of theism, the belief that there's a god. It's a specific type of atheism which declares there to be no god. There's a large overlap between atheists and agnostics. — Sapientia

What you are saying is essentially the same as what I was saying. Atheists deny the existence of any god. If theism is the belief of a god, and atheists deny theism, then they deny the existence of a god.

No it wouldn't. — Sapientia

Why? Because you said it wouldn't? Is logic dependent on you?

Of course, one could say that, but what matters is whether it's true. I think with most atheists, it's not so much about arguments against a god, but about arguments for god, and the large holes in them. — Sapientia

So you are saying atheists have no structure, no real purpose for not believing; they just pull down whatever they can? What if one found many faults and holes in the rebuttals against arguments for a god? How do you know what is true?

It is by the way curious that it seems like you think that your idea about man's weakness being an argument for the existence of God would be something that Nietzsche hadn't already thought of, and rejectes as shallow. Especially since the depth of the missunderstood Nietzsche and his thought so far surpasses that of most of the greatest Christian thinkers that it is almost laughable. Though there are of course those with depth in Christian thought: Dostoevsky (who was 50 percent atheist), William Blake (who many unfortunately call a satanist and not a christian. But it is true he denied doctrines such as the atonement that says Christ payed for our sins example, and much, much else), Augustine (Though Nietzsche is obviously more insightful, there is so much evil too in Augustine and his thought), Kierkegaard (though he despised the Church and called for a radical version of christianity. And he claimed he had no faith - at least finally an honest 'christian' -, and often seems to have thought he was damned), Simone Weil (Though she was one of the biggest and most serious critics against the Old Testament in the history of thought, as well as to the church she sometimes defined as a 'Collective Beast'. She also refused to be baptized). Blaise Pascal also had depth, but that was despite of his christianity, not because of it.

I suppose just the same as the emperor couldn't explain why no one could see his new "clothes"... I am just too silly to understand that. I am a mere child, no? — Lone Wolf

More like a pup. A lone pup, surrounded by other lone pups, feebly crawling around and bumping into things, whilst an owl looks down on them, perched on a branch in a nearby tree.

What you are saying is essentially the same as what I was saying. Atheists deny the existence of any god. If theism is the belief of a god, and atheists deny theism, then they deny the existence of a god. — Lone Wolf

No, that's not what I'm saying. These are positions about belief. Why make theism about belief but not atheism? If theism is the belief that there's a god, then atheism is the rejection of that belief. Atheism needn't make the claim specific to strong atheism that there's no god, it can instead just be the position that there's not good enough reason to believe that there is a god. You say that you know that there are different types of atheism, yet you haven't demonstrated that you've grasped this key distinction, and seem to want to turn atheism into strong atheism.

Why? Because you said it wouldn't? Is logic dependent on you? — Lone Wolf

Yes. All things are dependent on me, the supreme being.

So you are saying atheists have no structure, no real purpose for not believing; they just pull down whatever they can? — Lone Wolf

No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. That's you twisting what I'm saying out of all proportion.

What if one found many faults and holes in the rebuttals against arguments for a god? — Lone Wolf

What of it? Maybe one would change one's mind. I don't know. Why ask me? That's not a situation that I've found myself in. The classical arguments are clearly flawed.

How do you know what is true? — Lone Wolf

That's a big question which I won't attempt to answer here.

Dostoevsky (who was 50 percent atheist) — Beebert

No Dostoevsky was zero percent atheist. Here was a man who died with the Bible in his lap... Although neither was he an exemplary Christian in his life, to be fair. But he did seek to be a Christian.

William Blake — Beebert

I don't think Blake is a Christian for that matter.

Especially since the depth of the missunderstood Nietzsche and his thought so far surpasses that of most of the greatest Christian thinkers that it is almost laughable. — Beebert

:s Compared to Aquinas for example, Nietzsche is just a confused man.

William Blake
— Beebert
I don't think Blake is a Christian for that matter.

He was a Swedenborgian, a Christian gnostic.

Especially since the depth of the missunderstood Nietzsche and his thought so far surpasses that of most of the greatest Christian thinkers that it is almost laughable.
— Beebert
:s Compared to Aquinas for example, Nietzsche is just a confused man.

You're really both wrong here. Nietzsche neither surpassed Christian thinkers nor was a confused man. His project was decidedly different from the Aristotelian Aquinas, but not that different from the more mystical theologians like Anselm, Augustine and Eckhart.

Aquinas more deep than Nietzsche? Lol. That finished our discussion probably. Since you dont understand Nietzsche, and I doubt I am capable of making you understand. Dostoevsky wouldnt have written what he wrote if he was 100 percent sure that christianity was true. He hoped it was, that is true. But he wasnt as silly and shallow as Aquinas, who knew not much about true psychology. Sure Aquinas had a great intellect. But what for? He drains the will to live from you with his letters of boring blocks of stones. Now Dostoevsky wouldn't have said the thing about sticking to Christ rather than truth if Christ was outside of truth if he was certain that Christ was the Truth with a big T, nor would he, if he was certain about that being the case, have written that all his life had been a struggle about the question he constantly asked himself; whether or not God existed. I have enough knowledge about Dostoevsky, believe me, to know for sure that his will and wish that christianity was true might have been close to 100 percent, but his convictions about it being true was far from as certain, if you by "Christianity is true" mean that God DID create everything, that Christ literally rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and Will come back to judge the world. And if you believe Dostoevsky was closer to Aquinas than to Nietzsche in his ideas about man, what drives man, and in his observations about mankind in general, about life and human psychology, then I am sorry to say that I will find it hard to have a serious discussion with you.

Btw. Have you read William Blake's 'The Lamb'? One of the greatest poems written : It seems more 'christian' to me than anything written by the stiff, boring, humorless, life-drayning dry-head Thomas Aquinas.

Not true that Blake was a Swedenborgian. Blake was an original and an artist. He is not to be classified or cathagorized I believe. Blake had rejected Swedenborg by the time he composed 'Marriage between Heaven and Hell'.

"You're really both wrong here. Nietzsche neither surpassed Christian thinkers nor was a confused man. His project was decidedly different from the Aristotelian Aquinas, but not that different from the more mystical theologians like Anselm, Augustine and Eckhart."

Then you and I agree. I try constantly to tell Agustino that Nietzsche resembles many Christians and have many times mentioned thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Blake, Dostoevsky, Pascal, Eckehart etc as a few examples. And if you read my whole post you would see that I never claimed Nietzsche was superior in depth to all Christian thinkers, and I mentioned like 5-7 examples of Christian thinkers that reached basically the same heights as Nietzsche.

It is true that he was a Swedenborgian as he and his wife attended services, and even if he eventually grew enchanted with Swedenborg, that does not change the fact he was a Swednborgian:

In the late 1780s and early 1790s, when Blake sought out Swedenborg and other mystical and occult sources, he was also a radical in politics. Most noticeably, he wrote a eulogy to The French Revolution (1791), which was originally planned in seven books, and celebrated the liberation of the thirteen colonies in America: A Prophecy (1793). Traditionally, scholarship has separated Blake’s interest in occultism from his political radicalism. One branch of Blake studies (originating with another great poet of the occult, W.B. Yeats, and reaching its apex in Kathleen Raine), sees Blake primarily as a researcher of mystical sources; whereas a line fathered by David Erdman glosses over the mystical influences in order to draw a picture of a political Blake, whose writings reflect directly on contemporary events in a straightforward manner. However, studies by E.P. Thompson, Jon Mee and Marsha Keith Schuchard have encouraged us to bring these two lines together. [4] The essay at hand proceeds from the historical precepts brought to light by these scholars and aims to show that the rationalistic ideologies of Voltaire or Thomas Paine were not alone in fuelling radical or revolutionary programmes. What I intend below is a historical investigation of how the reception of how Swedenborg’s esoteric teaching was absorbed into the socio-cultural matrix of the late eighteenth century to become a platform for opposition politics. This, in turn, will give us cause to re-evaluate the motivation behind the “radical” Blake’s affiliation with the Swedenborgians in the New Jerusalem Church.

↪Thanatos Sand "You're really both wrong here. Nietzsche neither surpassed Christian thinkers nor was a confused man. His project was decidedly different from the Aristotelian Aquinas, but not that different from the more mystical theologians like Anselm, Augustine and Eckhart."

Then you and I agree. I try constantly to tell Agustino that Nietzsche resembles many Christians and have many times mentioned thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Blake, Dostoevsky, Pascal, Eckehart etc. And if you read my whole post you would see that I never claimed Nietzsche was superior in depth to all Christian thinkers, and I mentioned like 5-7 examples of Christian thinkers that reached basically the same heights as Nietzsche.

I got ya.

You should read Blake's Works instead. He rejected Swedenborg in the end. By the time he wrote his most influential works it is true that he was INFLUENCED by Swedenborg, but he rejected his thought claiming that Swedenborg just repeated the same old lies as those that had always been told. Sure he might have started out as a follower of Swedenborg but later on he rejected him and went his own way.

You should read Blake's Works instead. He rejected Swedenborg in the end. By the time he wrote his most influential works it is true that he was INFLUENCED by Swedenborg, but he rejected his thought claiming that Swedenborg just repeated the same old lies as those that had always been told.

I have read and taught Blakes works. I know he eventually rejected Swedenborg, but he still was an attendant of his religious masses and took substantial gnostic influence with him. I'm no longer a Catholic, either. That doesn't mean I was never one.

But from what I have read about Blake, he almost never went to a church service in his whole life. I don't believe he was a Swedenborgian in the same way you probably were once a catholic (by that I mean someone who goes often to Church and follows the Church's rule of life). Are you still a christian today?

Sorry, my mistake, it is true he did attend a Swedenborg Church, but was it regular attendance over a long period of time?

I get what you're saying. I won't argue he ever was a full-bodied practitioner, but its clear his times of attendance had significant interest in them. I'd say I'm a Christian in the way Martin Buber, the Hasidic scholar of Christianity was. I'm still a great admirer of its Humanist, Romantic philosophy, but I am no longer a believer in its central mythology.

↪Thanatos Sand Sorry, my mistake, it is true he did attend a Swedenborg Church, but was it regular attendance over a long period of time?

No, it wasn't, so there is semantic room for argument based on what someone sees as the prerequisites for being a follower. He certainly wasn't a Catholic like Tolkien or an Anglican like Lewis.

I see. Thanks for sharing your current view on Christianity!

No problem...:)

More like a pup. A lone pup, surrounded by other lone pups, feebly crawling around and bumping into things, whilst an owl looks down on them, perched on a branch in a nearby tree. — Sapientia

A lone pup surrounded by other lone pups? :s >:O >:O If I didn't know better, I would think that the owl may have had a bit too much to drink if it was seeing things like that... I advise that owl to not fly for awhile, just in case it would falter and fall into the pups, who may or may not be so feeble.

No, that's not what I'm saying. These are positions about belief. Why make theism about belief but not atheism? If theism is the belief that there's a god, then atheism is the rejection of that belief. Atheism needn't make the claim specific to strong atheism that there's no god, it can instead just be the position that there's not good enough reason to believe that there is a god. You say that you know that there are different types of atheism, yet you haven't demonstrated that you've grasped this key distinction, and seem to want to turn atheism into strong atheism. — Sapientia

That would be like a theist saying s/he didn't believe there to be a god for an atheist to believe a god. I don't have time to explain it to you, but here is the definition of atheist and theist from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That is generalized, but fundamentally what each believes at its roots.



Definition of atheism:
a :  a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b :  a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Definition of theism
:  belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :  belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

The statement that atheists merely have disbelief proves my statement that atheists do not have any of their own structure, it is only disbelief of someone else's structure.

Yes. All things are dependent on me, the supreme being. — Sapientia

>:O

No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. That's you twisting what I'm saying out of all proportion. — Sapientia

No, that's not what I'm saying. These are positions about belief. Why make theism about belief but not atheism? If theism is the belief that there's a god, then atheism is the rejection of that belief. Atheism needn't make the claim specific to strong atheism that there's no god, it can instead just be the position that there's not good enough reason to believe that there is a god. You say that you know that there are different types of atheism, yet you haven't demonstrated that you've grasped this key distinction, and seem to want to turn atheism into strong atheism. — Sapientia

That some people are convinced by such arguments is not that they're good arguments, which is what matters. Besides, atheists don't find them convincing enough, and most theists are already convinced - and, of those who accept the arguments, many merely do so due to confirmation bias. There's also nonconformity amongst theists in which arguments are accepted, if any, and which are rejected. — Sapientia

Do you even know what you are saying?

Either you believe there is a god, or you don't. If there is a god, then the atheist denies it. If there is not a god, then the atheist merely expresses this.

What of it? Maybe one would change one's mind. I don't know. Why ask me? That's not a situation that I've found myself in. The classical arguments are clearly flawed. — Sapientia

Perhaps, and so are many modern ones.

That's a big question which I won't attempt to answer here — Sapientia

Don't then. :P

Nietzsche's own physical weakness and inability to escape the atmosphere of the study made him take a rather unrealistic view of the man of action sometimes, that is his main weakness, not his critique against the aspects of christianity he criticized, and certainly not his "confusion". His praise of the man of action and insights in it being the correct way for man is spot on though, as is his understanding of the human psyche. Nietzsche is, as Freud said, quite likely the man with the greatest and most penetrating knowledge of himself, more so than any other man who ever lived and likely will ever live. That is one way of understanding what being deep means, which in this case then would even suggest that he was quite likely the deepest person to have ever lived. That might be to be going a bit too far though, but he is certainly up there in the top among the few greats.

A lone pup surrounded by other lone pups? :s >:O >:O If I didn't know better, I would think that the owl may have had a bit too much to drink if it was seeing things like that... I advise that owl to not fly for awhile, just in case it would falter and fall into the pups, who may or may not be so feeble. — Lone Wolf

Oh gosh, you've caught me out. How quick you are. And there was I thinking that'd I'd done that intentionally for comedic effect. A bit of the old British humour. But no, that must be the whiskey talking.

That would be like a theist saying s/he didn't believe there to be a god for an atheist to believe a god. — Lone Wolf

What?? Have you been at my whiskey?

Definition of atheism:
a :  a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods — Lone Wolf

Yes... that's what I was telling you. There are different kinds of atheism, and it's about belief. Whether one is or is not an atheist is determined by examining belief, rather than, say, knowledge, desire, or doughnuts.

The statement that atheists merely have disbelief proves my statement that atheists do not have any of their own structure, it is only disbelief of someone else's structure. — Lone Wolf

No, it does not. You're confusing atheism and atheists. Atheists are mostly normal guys and gals who have the normal structure and beliefs that normal people normally have. Atheism, on the other hand, by that definition, is indeed a negative position about theism. It's about destruction rather than construction.

Do you even know what you are saying? — Lone Wolf

Yes, one of many talents which you seem to lack. Do you think that gathering together those quotes of me demonstrates that I've somehow managed to shoot myself in the foot? It only demonstrates your own failing.

Either you believe there is a god, or you don't. If there is a god, then the atheist denies it. If there is not a god, then the atheist merely expresses this. — Lone Wolf

No, you still don't get it. The denial that there's a god is not necessary, and is secondary. Like I've been saying, primarily, atheism is a position about belief, and your definition is testament to this. You only need the first part about whether you believe that there's a god or you don't. The rest will depend on the strength of your position, as in how far you're willing to take it. As I explained before, an atheist could go only as far as claiming that there isn't good enough reason to believe that there's a god without actually denying that there's a god. Alternatively, one could go further than that, and deny that there's a god. That's a distinction between weak and strong atheism. Do you get it now?

No, it does not. You're confusing atheism and atheists. Atheists are mostly normal guys and gals who have the normal structure and beliefs that normal people normally have. Atheism, on the other hand, by that definition, is indeed a negative position about theism. It's about destruction rather than construction. — Sapientia

You can't say they are normal unless you choose to define what normal is. It depends on the culture. A theist is one who believes in theism, so an atheist must be one who believes in atheism. No way around it.

Yes, one of many talents which you seem to lack. Do you think that gathering together those quotes of me demonstrates that I've somehow managed to shoot myself in the foot? It only demonstrates your own failing. — Sapientia

It is a weak stance to attack a person, it merely proves the inability to counter the proposition. You are getting no where with your weak and conflicting definition of atheism.

No, you still don't get it. The denial that there's a god is not necessary, and is secondary. Like I've been saying, primarily, atheism is a position about belief, and your definition is testament to this. You only need the first part about whether you believe that there's a god or you don't. The rest will depend on the strength of your position, as in how far you're willing to take it. As I explained before, an atheist could go only as far as claiming that there isn't good enough reason to believe that there's a god without actually denying that there's a god. Alternatively, one could go further than that, and deny that there's a god. That's a distinction between weak and strong atheism. Do you get it now? — Sapientia

Sigh...you really don't get it do you. Atheism is either a denial or a disbelief in any god. Otherwise one cannot call oneself an atheist. It would be like a Christian denying or disbelieving that Jesus existed. That person would not be a Christian. It does not matter how strong or weak one believes or disbelieves something, either you accept there is a god or you don't. There is no middle ground on that, but one chooses how far to take it. There are strong religious people, say fundamentalist Muslims, and there are weak religious people, such as one who simply think a god exists. But they are still theists. The same goes for atheists. I really don't have time to explain basic ideas, so I'm done here. You clearly are in your own world and not even reading what I am posting.