Friedrich Nietzsche and the rise of atheism while Christianity's popularity continues to wane

the media, owned by the inter-nationalists are pretty much one race right?
most 'athiests' have similar 'last names' to inter-nationalists.

its like how howard stern always condems religion. yet he continues to talk about killing mozlems and bombing people to protect izreal.

if he is a true athiest, he would not care about the chosen land.

lots of athiests seem to have a lot in common with inter-nationalist religion.

so they condem other religions in the media, saying its not cool or popular. but at the same time their athiesm follows the inter-nationalist (religious) agenda.

that is why so many people say 'jesus christ' in a movie when something goes bad. you never hear them say, 'moses, solomon, david, etc' in times of distress. they curse the name of jesus for a reason.

its all a subtle scam that slowly becomes reality, like it was protocoled.

Atheism is men seeing through the eyes of men. Christianity is men seeing through the eyes of God.

Men are searching endlessly, but finding very little to satiate the need to answer life's lingering questions. Such is the desire for existential purpose that they will wax romantic, coming to seemingly reasonable conclusions.

The most intelligent of men, in their effort to lift humanity through philosophy, hit their heads on a mirrored ceiling. This causes a feedback loop of men looking to men for answers. Thus their 'wisdom' reflects their human condition. A perspective limited by a prison of their own making.

These philosophical epiphanies are about ego and self. As long as men look to self, the answers will always be elusive. Foolish notions will not satisfy created beings disconnected from their creator.

a reply to: one4all

Truth is making old religons obsolete...not science....truth is becoming popular and people feel good when liars are corrected....truthing feels better than living under lies. If a doctrine wishes to be globally endorsed all it has to do is promote truth....tis simple.

Truth is a wonderfully amazing thing .

a reply to: Raggedyman

Fair enough, polite disagreement. I just don't christianity to have morals - for another thread though (maybe).

a reply to: Freth

Obviously, based on your comments, you did not watch the video. There's more to it than your simple analysis.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I've been wrestling with the implications of the experimental results shown in the video you've referenced. However, regardless of the evidence presented and the death of materialism, there still does not appear to be any anthropomorphic evidence for the existence of God. There certainly seems to be some evidence for a pantheistic type God having concrete decisions around observational results the moment those results need to be material and real.

Regardless of our understandings of objective reality, the primary focus of Friedrich Nietzsche's work was our subjective experiences of reality. In the realm of the subjective experience, ways of being based on our moral values define our subjective experience of reality according to Nietzsche. Nietzsche was advocating a certain set of values designed to achieve the highest ideal of human subjective experience. Although very difficult to achieve, Nietzsche did provide a map on how to get there.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Freth

Obviously, based on your comments, you did not watch the video. There's more to it than your simple analysis.

Your video came after my post. Yes, I did watch the video. I was speaking of philosophy, as it relates to the need to explain away the existence of God for selfish purposes.

I'm noticing a disturbing trend here. Other than Neo's post (HERE), people aren't using stats to back up their claims about this.

I'm pointing that out because while Christianity is decreasing in Europe & possibly in the US (I'll need to see stats for this one), it's actually increasing around the world. Pew Research estimated that in 2010 there were 2.16 billion Christians worldwide (HERE, check the 2010 tab), which is where the 2.2 billion Christians worldwide stat comes from. But Pew's estimates show that there were 2.3 billion Christians in 2015 (HERE), meaning there was a net increase of 100 million Christians in just 5 years. How does that equate to Christianity waning?

It's like people are intentionally overlooking the fact that Christianity is by far the dominant religion in Mexico, Central America, the entire Caribbean, and all of South America. Christianity is also one of the 2 largest religions in Africa, with roughly half of all Africans being Christian. And it's the dominant religion by far in Sub-Saharan Africa, with countries like Seychelles, Angola, Rwanda, Swaziland, and the DR Congo having at least 90% of their populations being Christians (somewhat reliable wikipedia link lol). And even in Europe, most of the countries are still Christian majority.

Are you really on the side of logic and reason if you come to conclusions without using the facts to back up those conclusions?

a reply to: dantanna

It's Luciferianism. Lucifer setting himself up as the counterfeit to God, so you are partially on the right track. Whether you believe it or not, the globalist cabal does, and their messiah, the counterfeit, will declare himself king in Israel.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You might find Jordan Peterson's take worth checking out

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: one4all

Truth is making old religons obsolete...not science....truth is becoming popular and people feel good when liars are corrected....truthing feels better than living under lies. If a doctrine wishes to be globally endorsed all it has to do is promote truth....tis simple.

Truth is a wonderfully amazing thing .

There is an algorithm which can be used to define truth....

Great video....I might add to it in saying that it takes 2....2....independantly functioning but symbiotic self-aware inputs...to create.....and the more inputs you dd the greater the potentiality to create...and the more difficult it is for the individual to control what is manifested of this volume of potentiality which has bean born of the unified oneness.....the less each individual optimises or realises all of their potential the greater the window for the growth of chaos which fills the void .Chaos makes it difficult for the group to control the factors surrounding manifestation until the volume of chaos filling voids is so big the chaos becomes a self-supporting entity of its own. This is the good vs evil intepretation we all see accepted.....it is really a unified humanity trying desperately to balance the optimisation of individual potentiality so as to decrease chaos and bring order...chaos being evil and order being good....on sidenote this is why we see global sufferage of varying degrees forced upon everyone....preventing optimisation of potential...in poor underdeveloped places and in rich developed places alike....when the sufferage stops unity manifests in its place so when everyone is treated properly and optimises their potential good defeats evil.....evil representing the vices which prevent us from optimising our potential as individuals or being good.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Christianity lost popularity because it got all Charismatic and legalistic. The Great Awakenings where a turning point in American Christianity, which put the church in a downward spiral. It went from scholarly based study of biblical manuscripts to emotionally driven stupidity. In light of that trend, its no surprise that people like Nietzsche took the spot light.

originally posted by: Freth

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Freth

Obviously, based on your comments, you did not watch the video. There's more to it than your simple analysis.

Your video came after my post. Yes, I did watch the video. I was speaking of philosophy, as it relates to the need to explain away the existence of God for selfish purposes.

Right back at you. Maybe it is you who is really being selfish. You can't explain away something unless you assume God exists. From atheist perspective, there is nothing to explain away because there is no evidence for the existence of God. No evidence for Gods existence implies God only exists in our imagination.

Nobody denies the existence of apples. I can hold an apple in my hand, we can both look at it and say, "apple". You can't do that with God. The atheist's position is nothing but a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence. It is not a denial of the existence of God based on selfishness according to your superstitious construct which only exists in your imagination. Superstitious delusions about atheists are just as bad as superstitious delusions about the existence of God.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dantanna

It's Luciferianism. Lucifer setting himself up as the counterfeit to God, so you are partially on the right track. Whether you believe it or not, the globalist cabal does, and their messiah, the counterfeit, will declare himself king in Israel.

It is pure delusion to think Lucifer is responsible for people's behaviors. At some point, people are responsible for their own character. There's a popular saying in Eastern religion. If you see the Buddha on road kill him. Absolute authority comes from within. Only slaves bend a knee to authority. Bending a knee to authority with your king of Israel delusion may be the only way you can comprehend the World. Without Lucifer who can you blame when God screws up?

originally posted by: one4all
There is an algorithm which can be used to define truth....

What is it?

Contrary to modern mythological delusions around computers, computers do have limitations as outlined in the study of computability theory.

There is no algorithm to determine what is objective truth. The problem with objectivity is all good objective truth is determined by subjective judgement.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Really good!

a reply to: dfnj2015

Have you watched Petersons God Series ? ...I was so surprised what he systematically discovered dissecting the Bible story[s] .Even more surprised to find out he wasn't a believer .But I did pick up on a few small errors or assumptions he made, so you could say he is like 99.997 there . He is actually much closer then most believers are when they take that step of faith .

a reply to: Josephus
“You Received Free, Give Free”

Jesus issued that instruction to his apostles when he sent them forth to preach the good news. Did the apostles obey this directive? Yes, and they continued to do so even after Jesus departed from the earth.

For instance, when the former sorcerer Simon saw the miraculous powers possessed by the apostles Peter and John, he offered to pay them to impart that power to him. But Peter rebuked Simon, saying: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought through money to get possession of the free gift of God.”—Acts 8:18-20.

The apostle Paul displayed a spirit similar to Peter’s. Paul could have allowed himself to be a financial burden to his Christian brothers in Corinth. However, he worked with his own hands to support himself. (Acts 18:1-3) Thus, he could say with confidence that he had preached the good news to the Corinthians “without cost.”—1 Corinthians 4:12; 9:18.

Sad to say, many who claim to be followers of Christ have not shown the same willingness to “give free.” Indeed, many of the religious leaders in Christendom will “instruct just for a price.” (Micah 3:11) Some religious leaders have even become wealthy from money collected from their flocks. In 1989, one U.S. evangelist was sentenced to a jail term of 45 years. The reason? He had been “defrauding supporters of millions of dollars and using some of the money to buy homes, cars, holidays and even an air-conditioned dog kennel.”—People’s Daily Graphic, October 7, 1989.

In Ghana, according to the Ghanaian Times of March 31, 1990, a Roman Catholic priest took money that had been collected during one church service and hurled it back at the congregation. “His reason,” says the paper, “was that, as adults, they were expected to contribute in higher denominations.” Not surprisingly, many churches even try to appeal to greed in its members, actively promoting gambling activities and other schemes in order to raise money.

By way of contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavor to imitate Jesus and his early disciples. They have no paid clergy. ...

“Go, . . . and Make Disciples of People of All the Nations”

...
What should be the motive for doing the preaching work? It should not be to collect money and construct elaborate buildings. Jesus told his disciples: “You received free, give free.” (Matt. 10:8) The Word of God should not be commercialized. (2 Cor. 2:17, ftn.) Those preaching the message should not seek personal gain for the work that they do. (Read Acts 20:33-35.) Despite this clear direction, most churches are sidetracked by collecting money or by making efforts to survive financially. They have to support a paid clergy, as well as a multitude of other employees. In many cases, the leaders of Christendom have amassed great wealth.—Rev. 17:4, 5.
...

I'm sure Nietzsche made plenty of money from selling books as well. Just like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku and Richard Dawkins. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye make most of their money in or with MSM (documentaries, appearances on TV, their own TV-shows, etc.). Still, I doubt the last 2 will completely neglect the bookselling business (or market), allthough they perhaps will opt for a DVD or smaller brochure or tract (magazines, articles in magazines, regular writing columns, etc.). Had a quick check on wikipedia and I'm noticing that Neil deGrasse Tyson has quite a list of books for which my signature and text under my name is very relevant. It's actually Bill Nye with the fewest books. Bill Nye the Main Stream Media (MSM) guy.

Ecclesiastes 12:12

12 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: one4all
There is an algorithm which can be used to define truth....

There is no algorithm to determine what is objective truth. The problem with objectivity is all good objective truth is determined by subjective judgement.

Just use your rational thinking abilities, don't overcomplicate matters (such as adding the word "objective" and subjective" in front of "truth" to make thinking about what is true or false more blurry, foggy, unclear, ambiguous). Practice makes perfect, it's very simple:

True or False IQ TEST

Not that you did the latter, using the term "subjective truth" as I've seen others do, which relates to the claim and philosophy that is going around humankind that truth:

...is not absolute but relative and ever changing. ...Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”—John 8:32).

Source: “What Is Truth?”

For details see my commentary in the thread "What is Truth? ..." some time ago on this subforum and possibly "What is knowledge?" on the green philosophy and metaphysics subforum. Synopsis of my commentary in that last thread: knowledge is a familiarity with facts/truths, the latter 2 words being synonyms, or another way of phrasing that with a few more details is:

Essentially, knowledge means a familiarity with that which is factual/true/absolute/certain/conclusive/definitive (all synonyms) acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. That sentence does read a little better if you put "facts" where I put "that which is factual", but that was for clarity purpose regarding the earlier mentioned philosophy and claim that is gaining popularity or traction among mankind, especially those who refer to themselves and eachother and are admired by many as intellectuals (and sometimes "agnostic"). But also those who are promoting and describing "blind faith" as "faith" or "believing" (and even divine guidance or revelation to them by the holy spirit, or "The Holy Ghost" as some Trinitarians will say to give the impression it's a person which "the Holy Spirit" will do as well because of the capitalization; at this point, I always have to think about Casper the Ghost when I bring this up, don't mention it very often though).

Hmmm, perhaps I should have left the context in there previously...

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth—especially moral and spiritual truth—is not absolute but relative and ever changing.

Didn't want anyone distracted with the phrase "especially moral and spiritual truth". This philosophy is also ideal for spin and biased (but elaborate, sophisticated and a beguiling way of) arguing, selling books filled with unverified (sometimes contradictory or utterly illogical*) philosophies and speculations that have little bearing on real scientific investigation and discovery, yet still having the book categorized in the "science" section of libraries (online or otherwise). Such as books like "The Grand Design" (by Stephen Hawking), "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" (by Richard Dawkins), "The Blind Watchmaker"(by Richard Dawkins) and "A Universe from Nothing" (by Lawrence Krauss).

*: utterly illogical: I'm thinking about things like an incorrect use of language such as suggesting that truth is relative and not absolute, when absolute is a synonym for true/factual/certain/conclusive/definitive (listed under the column for the meaning "accurate; adj. correct, without error" on thesaurus.com). Or warping the meaning of the word "nothing" and talking about it as if it's "something" as is done below for example (which is a discussion based on the last book I mentioned above, but Stephen Hawking does it too in his book "The Grand Design"):

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Perhaps regarding the title of the playlist above I should leave a reminder that "science" is also sometimes used as a synonym for "knowledge" (also listed on thesaurus.com, and which word is often part of the definition in dictionaries with some of those details I mentioned regarding the type of acquisition of that knowledge, an etymology dictionary might remind one that the word comes from the Latin "scientia" which means, tatatataaah... "knowledge"). An example for an eytomology dictionary cause I couldn't resist checking up on it:

...from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness,"

Source: science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary

Of course as I indicated, there are both more broader and specific meanings and usages for the word "science" as well (that have some more to say about the methodology of acquisition), developed around the time when Latin was very popular in certain circles and back when that field of investigation (and for some people rather wild speculation like Bishop Berkeley, the one who UC Berkeley owes its name to, example: his treatise on tar water, called Siris: a chain of philosophical reflexions and inquiries concerning the virtues of tar water, and divers other subjects connected together and arising one from another, which promoted drinking tar water for your health, which according to the Encyclopædia Britannica around the same time "causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning") was still called "natural philosophy" (and there was a time where it was both called "natural philosophy" and "science" and those involved were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science", quoting from the wikipedia page about "scientist").

originally posted by: whereislogic
...I'm thinking about things like an incorrect use of language such as ... . Or warping the meaning of the word "nothing" and talking about it as if it's "something" as is done below for example (which is a discussion based on the last book I mentioned above, but Stephen Hawking does it too in his book "The Grand Design"):

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

For those interested, details about the bolded part above are discussed below from 16:10 - 23:04 (I don't recommend the rest):

Don't drink the tar water! Nietzsche's philosophical tar water included. See my signature and text under my accountname. Don't swallow the black(dark) goo, break free, pull out the tubes:

You can swap out the concept of a battery above with "a chatbot". You'll have to think it through a little and in light of what John Lennox above says about "nonsense" and "statements made by scientists" and the example I gave from Bishop Berkeley; perhaps even the videos that follow and precede in the playlist that's linked in that part I just quoted from my own comment, the context. Newton's advice on the contrary is solid, have a drink:

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Based on:

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

"That the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses", or worse "wishful speculations", "just-so stories" and maybe-so stories. See quotation at 30:54 below, runs from 30:08 - 39:30 including "the argument of induction" I'm alluding to that should not be evaded as is the favorite passtime of some of the people I've mentioned and described in my commentary so far under the self-professed term "intellectuals"; even though that term may be appropiate in describing the knowledge and intellect they possess, I'm not particularly impressed by the "nonsense" they espouse and express at times in spite of that knowledge or intellect they possess. Showing a certain level of biased dishonesty and self-interest, an agenda where financial interests and telling people what they want to hear*, entertaining, intriguing them, are major factors. That's what we have Hollywood for already:

*: 2 Timothy 4:3,4

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories [Greek: mythos; KJV: myths].

1st *: Or “healthful; beneficial.”
2nd *: Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”

Among those myths you can count the illogical, unreasonable or sometimes outright contradictory "wishful speculations" spoken of by the philosophical naturalist Franklin M. Harold.

edit on 14-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)