I stand to atheists (On Nietzsche)
I decided that I no longer take any more atheists.
Atheists fans of science, liberal democratic and defenders of a secular morality. They are the worst, and if we add a little stale Marxism unbearable.
The problem for me is whether they believe or not believe in God, in this sense the idea of \u200b\u200bthis manuscript is not trying to convince them of its existence, that matter I do not care. The problem is that air of ethical and intellectual self-exuding, the problem is that syndrome rational prophylactic constipation sufferers, the number of animals absurd perpetrators to justify their positions.
On the other hand it is necessary to clarify the following: if I get to choose between living in a godless society and full of fans believers with a tambourine under his arm, rather, in general, to the sordid atheists and touched me to vote every 4 years. I say generally because, for example, if in the communal bath of a prison rather have moral behind the incarnation of Jesus Christ, before an incredulous if I fall gentle soap.
Suddenly, for starters, I think annoying the way the average atheist Nietzsche uses like an avant-garde thinker, a martyr for the holy war of reason against religion. And no atheists page where they seek support in one way or another, in Nietzsche. For atheists, it seems to be what for San Juan Evangelista and Christians must recognize that initially supports the conventional wisdom: was not Nietzsche who wrote the anti-Christ, who rose from his cave with a loud voice "God is dead", who said that religion is declining, the weak and cowardly slaves? Yes, but ... Let's talk
Friedrich Nietzsche, pinching of atheists ignorant (but, dear reader, should you imagine that last sentence with the speech verbalized a Bugs Bunny placing a heavy brick in the white collar that you want slapping Daffy Duck).
...
a critique Nietzsche two main religions: Christianity and Buddhism (considering Buddhism a religion). However, criticism is not the same. In a very general criticism of Buddhism is much kinder and ambiguous. This already suggests something important: not all religions are the same bag. Religions he criticizes religions are pessimists, nihilists, resentful life, those who are in pain, pity and kindness, the core values of morality. Thus, the main disease of Christianity is not the figure of god, but the specific moral (and society) to that is associated.
addition, for Nietzsche, the connection between Christian morality and the decaying democracy is very strong ... Thus, as you my dear ignorant enlightened atheists consider themselves very liberal and democratic, many of you use to Nietzsche without realizing that if he found them a dark and lonely road, it is likely to hurry to kick in disgust until it wore out the soles of shoes.
Let talk Nietzsche himself:
"... the Buddha said:" No flatter your benefactor! "repeat these words in a Christian church they fumigated the air immediately around germ Christian"
"... Christianity was, from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, satiety and disgust of life, that do nothing to hide and overlap under the mask of faith in "other" life, "a better life
" ... Christianity is this denial of the will to live erected in religion "
" ... Christianity with its moral ruin of the entails types stronger, higher and manly, and favors a kind of herd men, Christianity is a preparation of the democratic mind "
" ... making it possible to Christianity was not corruption of the ancient world on it, the old aristocracy, as commonly believed, never condemn the idiotic enough scholarly rigor still holding similar views. Precisely the time when the entire Roman Empire was Christianized masses in sick and corrupt people, as opposed to aristocratic type, found its expression fuller and more beautiful. It imposed the most compact, triumphed Democrat Christian instincts ... "
" ... Christianity, as a great popular movement of the Roman Empire, is the enthronement of the worst, the uneducated, the the oppressed, the sick, the lost, the poor, slaves, old, of cowards, in short, of all those who have reason to commit suicide, but lack the courage to do "
However, Nietzsche criticizes the Christian religion in an aggressive manner, but on the other hand, defends in many parts of what he called a religious feeling or instinct. For Nietzsche this religious instinct manifests itself in man as he is the creator of gods, a creative artist. From this perspective, the critique of Christianity does not come from an atheistic position but, wonderfully, in a particular assessment of the religious instinct: the problem with Christianity is that it deletes the creative instinct, putting a god as the only possible, treating this God, not as a creation in the service of man, but as something that is opposed to man and deprives him of his humanity.
If a religion is possible, Nietzsche would say, be aware of its status as "artwork" and must be the service of life, not against it. At the moment we are creators, we are aware of our "lies", but embrace it as our own, it serves our human purposes.
This leads us to think very importantly, if "atheism" means to affirm that God does not exist , then Nietzsche is an atheist (although there are different forms of existence that he would be willing to admit). But if atheism means the not believe in God (or gods) , Nietzsche is not only an atheist, but his way encourages us to believe .
even wondered what it would be a religion that claimed life, and how would the god (or gods) of such a religion. So all those neat rational atheists can imagine what would be the blessed and valuable life of a man if a god had a wanton slut goddess of infinite trembling clitoris erotic ecstasy, which gives you satisfy symbolically (with all the mystical and ritualistic adornment for ) all of its sacrosanct depraved pleasures. And even in this last (Nietzsche accepted), Christianity has something to offer.
Again it is he himself who put the coup de grace in the brain atheist
"... the Christian moral God is not sustainable. Accordingly, "Atheism," as if there could be no other Gods "
"...¡ and how many new gods are still possible! ... In myself, who want to relive again the religious instinct, ie, the creator of gods, how diverse, how different is revealed to me more divine! ... Too many strange things have already gone before me in those moments without time we fall in life and from the moon and where ultimately nothing is known of the old one already is or how young he still is ... I will not doubt that there are many kinds of gods "
" ... we need of lying to overcome this "truth", ie to live [...]. Metaphysics, morality, religion, science [...] are taken into consideration only as various forms of lies: with their help you believe in life. "Life must inspire confidence": the duty outlined in these terms is immense. To meet him, the man must be a liar by nature, must, before anything else, an artist ... "
" for example, the religious intoxication and sexual arousal (two deep ; feelings, almost strangely so coordinated. What is that like all pious women, old or young? Answer: a saint with nice legs, still young, still idiot ...)"
"... to make love possible, God must be a person, so they can be enforced buried instincts God must be young. It should be a nice foreground for the burning of holy women, and a Virgin for men. This on the assumption that Christianity wants to prevail in a land where religion and Adonis aphrodisiacs or have given the concept of worship. The concept of chastity and strongly emphasizes the depth of the religious instinct, given the cult character warmer, more exalted, more fervent.
Love is the state in which man sees things, more than any other, as they are not. It fully shows the power of illusion, like the transfiguration "
other hand there is the matter of reason and science. Those who love the figure of the priest atheist" by They are usually superfreaks of science and rationality. What they do not realize these poor souls
"is that Nietzsche condemns modern science for the same reasons that condemns Christianity: the science is not recognized as a lie, and to that extent you impose a world view that destroys all others, including the religious instinct of which we spoke.
can be said that Nietzsche even religious instinct aesthetic-erotic, is more valuable than science. This idea is one of their deepest thoughts:
"... seventeen years I never tire of denouncing the influence despiritualized of our current scientific world. The hard work that the tremendous amount of science sentence today for all individuals is one of the main causes for the spirits that full, plethoric and deep and there is neither an education or educators that they are appropriate "
" ... but what principle, what creed expresses more accurately the turning point, the preponderance now reached by the scientific spirit of the religious spirit inventor of the gods? "
" ... not in things nothing but what one has added to them: to this childish game of who do not want to think evil is called science? On the contrary, continue with both activities, we need good courage for both, one to rediscover the others we others, to introduce!
Man finally finds in things nothing but what one has added to them: rediscover called science, introducing art, religion, love, pride "
So next time you, my respected atheist talk about Friedrich Nietzsche as a support to your deepest convictions, seeks to first get yourself a copy of " Antichrist" and read it, and if are those who have had the courtesy to read it without understanding it, so I suggest you wrap restrained and you enter it where better for you sprawling. Reading Nietzsche and want out of reading what one gifted him the win, is one of the most accurate symptoms of imbecility academic (with the single cause and struggle of classes.)
donkey not only to use Nietzsche to support critical atheism and fundamentalist religion, it is as wrong as
tend to show the Church-Turing thesis relying on what one is written in a box of tampons.
conclude with a final reflection on science teacher tormented:
"So it is with this belief with which many scholars are satisfied materialist belief in a world that must have its equivalent and its measurement in human thought in the human evaluation, in a" real world " which we could bring in the final analysis using our human reason, small and square. How? Do we really stop the degradation of the existence thus be an exercise in calculators and a sink of mathematicians in his room ? First, it should not be wanting to strip of the plurality of sense of his character: it requires good taste, gentlemen, the taste of respect toward all so far beyond your horizon! Only correct interpretation of the world [...] an interpretation which enables counting, calculating, weighing, see and feel, and nothing else, this is a clumsy and naive, assuming it is not a mental illness or an idiot [...] An interpretation of "scientific" world, as the understand you could be therefore even one of the most stupid, that is, the poorest of all possible interpretations of the world "
PS: If you were upset that there was no appropriate reference citation, can understand as an invitation to read Nietzsche. Nor are they going to make work easier.
