Why is nazism popular today?

[Immanuel Can]

i think you and i may be around the same age

Yep, we are.

anyway, thanks for reply Sir - thanks for remaining a gentleman and sorry about your dad (i welcome you telling me about his character if you are up to it).

I don't mind at all, though given the difficulties some people these days have had with fathers, I'm often reluctant to speak of him, since it seems insensitive to those who have unresolved issues, and in general, unfair I got the father I did.

He was a fine man, in every way the best of what a person of goodwill would wish for everyone. Not perfect, of course; but he lived a complete life in regard to all the responsibilities of a father. He was dead loyal to my mother, unrelentingly loving to all his children, and so unselfish I never saw him buy himself anything frivolous, so he could provide for us. In raising his children, he used to prompt us to debate ideas around the dinner table...theological or philosophical ideas, mostly. He liked to make us think. Dinners became debate grounds, and we were invited to question, to doubt, and even to criticize anything -- within the bounds of politeness, of course. Thinking for oneself was a highly prized activity, and liberty of expression was granted.

I mystified him a bit. I went a route he didn't fully understand. But to his credit, he let me do it. He gave me a plaque, once; and on it, it had a quotation from Thoreau. It said, "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." I lost that plaque years ago, when it became water damaged...but I never forgot the vote of confidence it expressed.

I remember him without pain, without any regret, and without any feeling of business left undone.

It helps that I'm a Christian, of course. So was he. And we know that God does not lose any that are His, so we are totally fine with the order of events. We will miss Dad for a brief time, then see him again. And given that, who could be so selfish as to be sad? I can't seem to find any reason to do it. The man did it all so well.

But enough said.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Checks and balances did not originate in America.

right, they originated in Europe during the enlightenment 500 yrs ago.

That's another myth which I don't believe is true, no; if my recollection of history serves me, the notion of checks and balances has existed in many different forms of government historically (e.x. the Roman Republic, which influenced America's government and other European Enlightenment ideas was based on a system of checks and balances).

[gaffo]

He was a fine man, in every way the best of what a person of goodwill would wish for everyone. Not perfect, of course; but he lived a complete life in regard to all the responsibilities of a father. He was dead loyal to my mother, unrelentingly loving to all his children, and so unselfish I never saw him buy himself anything frivolous, so he could provide for us. In raising his children, he used to prompt us to debate ideas around the dinner table...theological or philosophical ideas, mostly. He liked to make us think. Dinners became debate grounds, and we were invited to question, to doubt, and even to criticize anything -- within the bounds of politeness, of course. Thinking for oneself was a highly prized activity, and liberty of expression was granted.

wow Sir! thanks for telling me about your dad, i think your dad and mine had they met would have been close friends.

my dad failed in the a marriage role - but it does take two and my mom just has a personality that is not compatible with my dad's - they never should have married in the first place, so i should not exist! - lol, and even though they did make it work - sort of - for 15 yrs, it just was not meant to be - imo. both of my parents are/were good folks, just not compatible. my mom is a codependant type, my dad not so in any way. My mom was always a nicer person, but not introspective, whereas my dad was a bit of a dick, but introspective. Had we been born in Saudi Arabia my mom would be the caring and nice muslim person, assuming Islamism was the proper faith, whereas my dad would be a closet athiest/christian/jew/etc hating to be told to be a Muslim just "because" he was born in Saudi Arabia................he always questioning "stuff" and being philosophical in nature (where my mom just is a product of her culture - again a nicer person by constiution but also non-philosophical in all things - glad for the former, but not the latter - per me relatinging to her.

My dad was born an agnostic - due to his character (thinking about stuff/questioning/etc), whereas my mom was/is just because her parents were.

My "mind" is that of my dads (born an old soul like him) "think about stuff" and "why" - but my personality is like my mom's (easy going - not a A-type personality like my dad was).

my mom hates both philosophy and religion - "what use is it? you can't live off ideas" - the ultimate pragamtist is my mom. ;-/.

she has always hated my idealism, and objectivity, she always wanted me to be a sellout, to be pragmatic and not be an idealist.

sadly, for that is why i cannot be closer to her than i am - though i am closer to her than my dad - due to having her personality and being raised by her and not my dad.

ideally i'd wish she had my dad's perspective on things.

per my dad, i was not as close due to his leaving us in the 70's - we did not have the same personality, but had the same mindset.

so i was always stuck in the middle bet my mom's personality and my dad's mentality - per myself. I share one with one and the other with the other - but never shared both with either!

I mystified him a bit. I went a route he didn't fully understand. But to his credit, he let me do it. He gave me a plaque, once; and on it, it had a quotation from Thoreau. It said, "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." I lost that plaque years ago, when it became water damaged...but I never forgot the vote of confidence it expressed.

I remember him without pain, without any regret, and without any feeling of business left undone.

Indeed, i feel the same way per my dad.

It helps that I'm a Christian, of course. So was he. And we know that God does not lose any that are His, so we are totally fine with the order of events. We will miss Dad for a brief time, then see him again. And given that, who could be so selfish as to be sad? I can't seem to find any reason to do it. The man did it all so well.

But enough said.

more power to your per your Faith - none in my family have been christian since my grandparents - or great grand - seriously. not being flippent.

my dad was an agnostic due to his character (his parents were not Christian - but i suspect he would not be if they were) - and per my mom, she was just born in a house with parents that were not christian, and never gave it thought either way and just grew up non-religious).

thanks for reply Sir!

-------

Apollo 13 not 14 btw - LOL

[Immanuel Can]

more power to your per your Faith - none in my family have been christian since my grandparents - or great grand - seriously. not being flippent.

I didn't become a Christian because my father was one. I actually pretty much carved my own course until second year of university, when I made my own choice about that. But it didn't hurt me that when I did decide to consider that option seriously, I'd already seen what kind of a man a strong faith could make one. And it helped me a lot that I was allowed to think freely, be as cynical as I wanted to, and make my own choice when the time came.

Ironically, the people who drove me in the direction of Theism were agnostics like Thomas Hardy and Atheists like Nietzsche. Neither of them would like that thought, but it was true. Such philosophers and artists laid open the cold, dead heart of Atheism for me; and it made me wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- I should take one last look at Theism for myself before I dispatched that option...

That was their fatal mistake, in my case.

my dad was an agnostic due to his character (his parents were not Christian - but i suspect he would not be if they were) - and per my mom, she was just born in a house with parents that were not christian, and never gave it thought either way and just grew up non-religious).

Your situation doesn't seem like this, but it's interesting how many people who struggle with the whole idea of faith had bad, abusive, distant or uncaring fathers. Not mothers. Just fathers, in particular.

In fact, you could run the list of major Atheists throughout history, and find that almost to a man (or woman), they hated their fathers. There's actually a whole book of biographies of that kind, called "Faith of the Fatherless"; and it doesn't even include the present day Atheists, such as Dawkins and Hitchens in its account. But that's the one factor that, more than any other, seems to derail a young person's inclination to trust any other Father. And that makes a kind of sense, doesn't it?

Anyway, my own father never did anything like that to me.

thanks for reply Sir!

You're most welcome, and thanks for the details in return about your own home life. It's interesting.

[gaffo]

Hi Immanuel - your posts show you have a good character, so i do like you, and welcome your discourse.

I didn't become a Christian because my father was one.

I did not intend to imply such - only knew you are. - but now i'd curious.

was your dad a christian?

no business of mine, but just now - due to your reply above - if he was. You made a point of your Christianity is outside of your dad? - or maybe (in otherwords you made a point from something i never spoke about - so now curious about thats all.

no biggie and none of my business, just noted it via your reply to me.

I actually pretty much carved my own course until second year of university, when I made my own choice about that. But it didn't hurt me that when I did decide to consider that option seriously, I'd already seen what kind of a man a strong faith could make one. And it helped me a lot that I was allowed to think freely, be as cynical as I wanted to, and make my own choice when the time came.

Indeed every man makes his path in this world. i concur.

Ironically, the people who drove me in the direction of Theism were agnostics like Thomas Hardy and Atheists like Nietzsche. Neither of them would like that thought, but it was true. Such philosophers and artists laid open the cold, dead heart of Atheism for me; and it made me wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- I should take one last look at Theism for myself before I dispatched that option...

I've hard of Tom Hardy - but do not know more - who was he? as for Nietzsche, always thought he as a blowhard myself (maybe he had widsom, and i my nature is too low to see it - but just sayin i'm no fan of him).

my dad was an agnostic due to his character (his parents were not Christian - but i suspect he would not be if they were) - and per my mom, she was just born in a house with parents that were not christian, and never gave it thought either way and just grew up non-religious).

Your situation doesn't seem like this,

your "life play" differed from mine - as one person to another - i welcome you telling who your exerience was different from mine (though none of my business).

but it's interesting how many people who struggle with the whole idea of faith had bad, abusive, distant or uncaring fathers. Not mothers. Just fathers, in particular.

- its sex related, Mothers per sons and Dads per daughters.

---but in my case my "distant father" (and being a son - my mom's actions had a more influence BTW) - did not "make me an Athiest"

i understand your point, but do not appreciate you using your pop psychology to put me in your box. you are wrong per this particular and me.


just saying.

In fact, you could run the list of major Atheists throughout history, and find that almost to a man (or woman), they hated their fathers.

2 errors on your assumption (but acknowledge your point - but you do not affirm there are two types of Athiests - where i do).

1. Per boy's their mommy issues define them/ per girls their daddy issue define them (i.e. they difine their character to 20 or so............some can grow from that 20 something via latter life experience, other do not).......so you are wrong about "Fathers" - per your point, it depends upon the sez of the child. - and yes i'm sure there are exceptions to that rule (there are always exceptions - but the general rule still applies)

2. There are two forms of Athiests (as there are of Muslims/Christians/etc) - those that hated their overbearing religous parents - so out of rebelion, make war on their parents, by denying thier parents god and becoming Athiests (I call them emotional Athiests) - I'm not that. I am the other (which you seem to deny) - just not seeing He IS. I had a good upbringing, and would love to be a Christian (or even a Muslim! - or anything! - other than an Athiest). but just am not. I am such not out of Emotion nor war with my parents, but out of lack of empircal evidence, so i am an Athiest out of the second camp (which you seem to deny) - as a disspationate person.

There's actually a whole book of biographies of that kind, called "Faith of the Fatherless";

is there another book called "Faith of the motherless"???????

and it doesn't even include the present day Atheists, such as Dawkins and Hitchens in its account.

I have no respect for either, per thier views of Athiesm - RIP Hitchens (I'm not hating on either men's character) - just saying i do not respect their "views" - i find them both shallow.

I've always like Paul Carus - having read some of his works - was he an Athiest? no clue. but respect his works much more than you guys you mentioned.

But that's the one factor that, more than any other, seems to derail a young person's inclination to trust any other Father. And that makes a kind of sense, doesn't it?

Yes it does per Type 1 Atheist - who uses classical tranfurance from hating their dad/mom to hating God. they are emotional Atheists, at war with God (assuming there is a God or gods - and i make war with him/them - who will win?) - they play a fools game. they are emotionally based, and not of the Type 2 Athiest.

I am of the latter. I hope i am wrong in my Athiesm, never foolish enough to make war on God/gods, and just hope if he/they exist I shall not find myself in HELL FOREVER - due to my folly in this short life (i.e. I hope your God has the Grace/Love/Mercy - to allow me to repent from Hell itself - upon finding me there and me being wrong about my Athiesm in this life (your bible says i stay in hell forever) - i'm not a fool and do not make war on your God - either his mercy is limited (adn your bible is correct - i cannot be saved from hell) - or your god's mercy is greater than what is told in your bible (and i shall be saved upon seeing i'm still alive in Hell and immediately repenting for my folly in his life)

I don't know the limits of mercy WRt to your God - and leave it up you Him and you on that count, and will just live my life until the day i die.

You're most welcome, and thanks for the details in return about your own home life. It's interesting.

welcome back Sir!

[gaffo]

Mr Kant - may i ask you to take a test? - i think i know where you will end up - IMO - lower center - -y axis.

though the questions are simple, and the number of them sparse - imo the results are accurate - my results (near-on point to Ghandi for me) - is what i assumed - knowing i'm a Liberartian socially but not economically (opposite of Henry - who would be near Freidkin i suspect).

I'd like you to take the test if you are willing to do so.

curious where you end up on the graph.

https://www.politicalcompass.org


https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

[Immanuel Can]

was your dad a christian?

He is.

Ironically, the people who drove me in the direction of Theism were agnostics like Thomas Hardy and Atheists like Nietzsche. Neither of them would like that thought, but it was true. Such philosophers and artists laid open the cold, dead heart of Atheism for me; and it made me wonder if maybe -- just maybe -- I should take one last look at Theism for myself before I dispatched that option...

I've hard of Tom Hardy - but do not know more - who was he?

A novelist and poet, actually. He was agnostic or Atheist...it's hard to say which, because he saw that a universe without God was going to turn out to be desolate of meaning and hope, but he felt that he could not maintain the shallow faith of his conventional English upbringing. So he spent a lot of time working over the question of why the universe is so unfair, and why the innocent suffer. He was quite pessimistic, overall.

as for Nietzsche, always thought he as a blowhard myself (maybe he had widsom, and i my nature is too low to see it - but just sayin i'm no fan of him).

Well, he's a stylist, for sure. But he did have some insight, and some rather clever things to say. His starting point was an assumption...not an argument or a proof, but a decision to believe that God, as a hypothesis, is no longer relevant: "God is dead," he said. But then, he went on to describe what that fact entailed for the universe and the people in it. He saw that is would result in amorality -- being "beyond good and evil," as he put it, and in a world in which power was the deep fact of all human activity. No ethics, no justice, no hope beyond the present, no guarantees, and so on. So again, from Nietzsche, you get a rather bleak landscape...and while Nietzsche himself despised Nazism, there is actually nothing in his theory of how the world works that makes Nazism a particularly bad or unreasonable option. In fact, he rendered it a rather good-looking one to his later disciple, Adolph.

but it's interesting how many people who struggle with the whole idea of faith had bad, abusive, distant or uncaring fathers. Not mothers. Just fathers, in particular.

- its sex related, Mothers per sons and Dads per daughters.

There's something to that, but not quite that, I would say.

I would suggest that mothers are the most important person developmentally to small children -- no question -- a child can make do without a father at that stage, but not a mother. But as they move toward puberty, both boys and girls become increasingly dependent on their relationship with their fathers for their sexual, psychological and social maturation. And at that stage, being without a father is a major disaster.

---but in my case my "distant father" (and being a son - my mom's actions had a more influence BTW) - did not "make me an Athiest"

i understand your point, but do not appreciate you using your pop psychology to put me in your box.

I was not speaking of you. That's why I wrote, "This doesn't seem to be your situation..." at the start. I didn't think it was you.

There are two forms of Athiests (as there are of Muslims/Christians/etc) - those that hated their overbearing religous parents - so out of rebelion, make war on their parents, by denying thier parents god and becoming Athiests (I call them emotional Athiests) - I'm not that. I am the other (which you seem to deny) - just not seeing He IS.

I wasn't actually "denying" that, G. I was rather speaking of the Hitchens-Dawkins "angry Atheist" types.

But I think if one is of the second type of which you speak, that is, somebody who just is "not seeing that he IS," you're not really an Atheist...or shouldn't really want to be called that. Because to say "I haven't seen God," does not lead one to the position, "Therefore there IS none" by any rational steps. Rather, the logical conclusion from "I haven't seen God" is..."I haven't seen God so far." In other words, it's agnosticism, the belief that there may or may not be a God, but one personally doesn't know.

Ironically, even Dawkins doesn't want to be called an "Atheist," because he knows it's not rationally defensible. So he backs off that, whenever somebody calls him that.

There's actually a whole book of biographies of that kind, called "Faith of the Fatherless";

is there another book called "Faith of the motherless"???????

Apparently not, because empirically, hatred of mothers doesn't seem to translate into Atheism the way that fatherlessness does. So that's interesting.

I hope i am wrong in my Athiesm, never foolish enough to make war on God/gods, and just hope if he/they exist I shall not find myself in HELL FOREVER - due to my folly in this short life (i.e. I hope your God has the Grace/Love/Mercy - to allow me to repent from Hell itself - upon finding me there and me being wrong about my Athiesm in this life (your bible says i stay in hell forever) - i'm not a fool and do not make war on your God - either his mercy is limited (adn your bible is correct - i cannot be saved from hell) - or your god's mercy is greater than what is told in your bible (and i shall be saved upon seeing i'm still alive in Hell and immediately repenting for my folly in his life)

I find one thing curious about your position: you say you want to wait until after death. Why?

Suppose God has actually provided good reasons to believe in Him, but done it in this life, not the next? Would you not be better to entertain the case for God now, rather than rolling the dice on what may come hereafter? And if God has provided good reasons for you to believe here and now, and you don't, what choice will you have when you actually see God? At that point, the human will to believe or disbelieve will be gone. But what state will one be in at that point...believing in Him as friend and advocate, or believing in Him as Judge? I believe that the situation we shall be in relative to Him is being chosen by us right now.

I do think God is indeed merciful. But I also think He's a God who has created and values human freedom and individual personhood. We have the option to know God; but we also have the option to reject God. And that's rationally inescapable, because love cannot be forced. It requires a free choice, by a free agent. Right now, very clearly, we have freedom. The choices we make get confirmed, at some point...with all the consequences intact...for good or for ill. They are, after all, our choices. The only question is, when is the time of our freedom, and when are the choices we make confirmed?

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Kant - may i ask you to take a test?

It it the "four quadrants" test? It's badly flawed. There would be no point.

[gaffo]

was your dad a christian?

He is.

thanks for anwsering that particular, just wondering from your phrasing of prior post.

A novelist and poet, actually. He was agnostic or Atheist...it's hard to say which, because he saw that a universe without God was going to turn out to be desolate of meaning and hope, but he felt that he could not maintain the shallow faith of his conventional English upbringing. So he spent a lot of time working over the question of why the universe is so unfair, and why the innocent suffer. He was quite pessimistic, overall.

hmmmmm sounds like a man i may have much in common with. maybe i should read some of his works?

was your dad a christian?

as for Nietzsche, always thought he as a blowhard myself (maybe he had widsom, and i my nature is too low to see it - but just sayin i'm no fan of him).

Well, he's a stylist, for sure. But he did have some insight, and some rather clever things to say. His starting point was an assumption...not an argument or a proof, but a decision to believe that God, as a hypothesis, is no longer relevant: "God is dead," he said. But then, he went on to describe what that fact entailed for the universe and the people in it. He saw that is would result in amorality -- being "beyond good and evil," as he put it, and in a world in which power was the deep fact of all human activity. No ethics, no justice, no hope beyond the present, no guarantees, and so on. So again, from Nietzsche, you get a rather bleak landscape...and while Nietzsche himself despised Nazism, there is actually nothing in his theory of how the world works that makes Nazism a particularly bad or unreasonable option. In fact, he rendered it a rather good-looking one to his later disciple, Adolph.

I've noted you mention Nietzsche quite a lot (so must respect him on some ways). i know little about him myself.

you talk about him above - welcome clarification though - His starting point was an assumption...not an argument or a proof, but a decision to believe that God, as a hypothesis, is no longer relevant: "God is dead," he said. and from that supposition he assumed the result is "might make right/no morality" (I reject this assumption, beleiving men are moral animals and why Saudis are as moral as Americans, even though their culture is a lesser one (their nature is not lesser than ours).

but clarify if you can from above? - was Nietzsche an Atheist, or just playing that game for his arguments sake (that without God man is immoral (which i've now said i for the last 2 yrs here that i reject per my view on the matter)).

I was not speaking of you. That's why I wrote, "This doesn't seem to be your situation..." at the start. I didn't think it was you.

I thought you were, thanks for clarifying.

But I think if one is of the second type of which you speak, that is, somebody who just is "not seeing that he IS," you're not really an Atheist...or shouldn't really want to be called that. Because to say "I haven't seen God," does not lead one to the position, "Therefore there IS none" by any rational steps. Rather, the logical conclusion from "I haven't seen God" is..."I haven't seen God so far." In other words, it's agnosticism, the belief that there may or may not be a God, but one personally doesn't know.

I understand your point, its just i do not like the "Agnostic" label, is see most of them as "fence sitters" (hedging their bets), rather than authentic. but if you wish to call me an Agnostic thats ok my me.

I call myself an Atheist, but whatever.

Ironically, even Dawkins doesn't want to be called an "Atheist," because he knows it's not rationally defensible. So he backs off that, whenever somebody calls him that.

interesting.

I find one thing curious about your position: you say you want to wait until after death. Why?

your curiousity is a missunderstanding of my position - i assume when i die and find myself in Hell, I'll see either Legion or Belial, before me as existing - so then repent of my mortal ways.

I do not Choose to deny your God until i die, i just do not seem him here and now in this life and assume if he IS, i wil l see his fallen angel when i am in Hell - and so repent from there.

if given a choice i'd prefer your god to show himself to me in this life and the afterlife - but to date i've not seen him in this life.

i assume i will see his Belial/ or some of the Legion in the next life, and if so then GREAT! - then i will know He is and shall repent from there.

maybe that assumption is wrong, maybe your God - and even his enemy Belial will not show themselves even in Hell - then i state per belief/unbeleif will be the same in Hell as it is here on Earth.

all this us up to your God, not me.

Suppose God has actually provided good reasons to believe in Him, but done it in this life, not the next?

I need empirical proof - for your God to stand in front of me and shout "i am" (like he did with Moses).

to dote in this life on earth i've not seen evidence of God before my eyes - maybe in the nest life? or not? (if or not is not knowable by me currently)

Would you not be better to entertain the case for God now, rather than rolling the dice on what may come hereafter?

Irrelivant.

And if God has provided good reasons for you to believe here and now, and you don't, what choice will you have when you actually see God? At that point, the human will to believe or disbelieve will be gone.

horseshit - so if God showed himself he would remove man's freewill to reject him is your argument.

horseshit.

if your god showed himself - right here and now - it would end all religious wars - remove all false faiths and save almost all men and women.

But what state will one be in at that point...believing in Him as friend and advocate, or believing in Him as Judge?

WTH you taking about - i dont follow.

I believe that the situation we shall be in relative to Him is being chosen by us right now.

ibid

???

I do think God is indeed merciful. But I also think He's a God who has created and values human freedom and individual personhood. We have the option to know God; but we also have the option to reject God. And that's rationally inescapable, because love cannot be forced. It requires a free choice, by a free agent. Right now, very clearly, we have freedom. The choices we make get confirmed, at some point...with all the consequences intact...for good or for ill. They are, after all, our choices. The only question is, when is the time of our freedom, and when are the choices we make confirmed?

I need empirical proof your God exists - place him before me (as he did with Moses) - if so, then I'll convert to your Faith.

otherwsie, i see no evidence your God exists here in my life.

thanks for thoughtful reply Sir.

[gaffo]

speaking of being motherless.

do you know the song? 1850's Slave song "motherless child" - Sweetwater - late 60's rock band did a great rendition of (top 10 of all rock songs) - sadly Nanci lost her voice via a drunk driver, the band diss-banded (no play on word intended) shortly afterward.

sad too, they (Sweetwater) was a top tier rock band and could be up there with all the greats of legend had they had more time with Nanci - but shit happens and Sweetwater is now utterly forgotten.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26b5CMMzdcw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXg9UFUXFXU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-2yrEaLXHo

[Immanuel Can]

hmmmmm sounds like a man i may have much in common with. maybe i should read some of his works?

Not everybody likes late 19th Century English novels, and Hardy makes you work for it...he's long, and he's got a massive vocabulary. So it depends on your tastes, really.

I've noted you mention Nietzsche quite a lot (so must respect him on some ways). i know little about him myself.

Well, I don't "respect" Nietzsche in some senses...I don't admire his life choices, or share his philosophy. But I have to give him credit where credit is due. He came as close as any Atheist philosopher ever did to actually spelling out the real consequences of Atheism. He was bad, but rationally consistently bad -- for the most part, anyway. And any Atheist who really admires Nietzsche in more than a superficial way is bound to find himself challenged to rethink the consequences of his Atheism, unless he's as nasty as Nietzsche himself was.

you talk about him above - welcome clarification though - His starting point was an assumption...not an argument or a proof, but a decision to believe that God, as a hypothesis, is no longer relevant: "God is dead," he said. and from that supposition he assumed the result is "might make right/no morality" (I reject this assumption, beleiving men are moral animals and why Saudis are as moral as Americans, even though their culture is a lesser one (their nature is not lesser than ours).

It depends what you mean when you use the word "moral." Do you mean "consistent," or "earnest," or actually "good"? If it's the former two, then yeah, the Saudi's are pretty consistent in treating women, children, 'infidels,' and dissenters with all the cruelty of Sharia Law, in many cases. And they are earnest about doing it. I would not say that makes them "good" for doing it.

A person can be totally devoted and consistent with an evil doctrine. Nazis were. So it's not the "nature" that makes the difference; it's the actual ideology one is following.

but clarify if you can from above? - was Nietzsche an Atheist, or just playing that game for his arguments sake (that without God man is immoral (which i've now said i for the last 2 yrs here that i reject per my view on the matter)).

No. He wasn't playing games at all. He was saying that if Atheism is true, then there's actually no reality to morality. People can play at being what they consider moral, he would say, and many do; but they're fooling themselves. There's actually no such thing, he said. It's just a conspiracy of Jews and Christians to keep the Supermen (like Nietzsche himself, presumably) from using their power to dominate. And for Nietzsche, to be a successful human being was to wake up, stop playing games about good and evil, and get on with using your power to get whatever you want.

But I think if one is of the second type of which you speak, that is, somebody who just is "not seeing that he IS," you're not really an Atheist...or shouldn't really want to be called that. Because to say "I haven't seen God," does not lead one to the position, "Therefore there IS none" by any rational steps. Rather, the logical conclusion from "I haven't seen God" is..."I haven't seen God so far." In other words, it's agnosticism, the belief that there may or may not be a God, but one personally doesn't know.

I understand your point, its just i do not like the "Agnostic" label,

Well, the advantage to it is that it does not make a claim one can't possibly sustain with reasons. At least an "agnostic" is honest about where his knowledge stops and starts. Atheism pretends to certainty about matters it can't possibly prove its case about. That's its problem.

is see most of them as "fence sitters"

Some might be. But I just see them as honest and self-aware. They're not blind and angry, like Atheists tend to be. They say, "Well, I haven't seen your God, so I don't have reason to believe in Him." Fair enough, if that's so.

Ironically, even Dawkins doesn't want to be called an "Atheist," because he knows it's not rationally defensible. So he backs off that, whenever somebody calls him that.

interesting.

Yeah. Even he 'gets' the problem with Atheism. He would WANT to be an Atheist, if he could be; but he knows he'd get rationally defeated instantly if he did. Here he is, doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4

if given a choice i'd prefer your god to show himself to me in this life and the afterlife - but to date i've not seen him in this life.

That's fair enough. That's agnosticism. Nobody has reason to believe in evidence they just don't have.

At the same time, what if there were good evidences? And what if the very thing God expected was your own search of the evidence he WAS providing to you, and your freewill decision to choose Him or not-Him?

i assume i will see his Belial/ or some of the Legion in the next life, and if so then GREAT! - then i will know He is and shall repent from there.

The problem is that free choice will not longer be possible. The same would happen if God Himself appeared to you right now: you'd instantly have no choice but to believe. What if that sort of forceful compelling of your will is the very thing God doesn't want? What if He wants you to be able to choose without being constrained by such overwhelming force of evidence you can no longer choose anything else?

I need empirical proof - for your God to stand in front of me and shout "i am" (like he did with Moses).

Or like he did with Jesus Christ?

if God showed himself he would remove man's freewill to reject him is your argument.

It's not complicated to see that that is true. Once you've seen undeniable evidence in front of your eyes, can you deny it anymore? Do you have any choice but to believe?

if your god showed himself - right here and now - it would end all religious wars - remove all false faiths and save almost all men and women.

And take away any choice any of these people had to disbelieve, if they wished to.

Maybe God is just as serious about protecting and valuing your free will as you are. Is that possible, do you think?

thanks for thoughtful reply Sir.

You're most welcome. Same to you, G.

[Immanuel Can]

do you know the song? 1850's Slave song "motherless child"

Yes, I do.

[gaffo]

hmmmmm sounds like a man i may have much in common with. maybe i should read some of his works?

Not everybody likes late 19th Century English novels, and Hardy makes you work for it...he's long, and he's got a massive vocabulary. So it depends on your tastes, really.

I've noted you mention Nietzsche quite a lot (so must respect him on some ways). i know little about him myself.

Well, I don't "respect" Nietzsche in some senses...I don't admire his life choices, or share his philosophy. But I have to give him credit where credit is due. He came as close as any Atheist philosopher ever did to actually spelling out the real consequences of Atheism. He was bad, but rationally consistently bad -- for the most part, anyway. And any Atheist who really admires Nietzsche in more than a superficial way is bound to find himself challenged to rethink the consequences of his Atheism, unless he's as nasty as Nietzsche himself was.

you talk about him above - welcome clarification though - His starting point was an assumption...not an argument or a proof, but a decision to believe that God, as a hypothesis, is no longer relevant: "God is dead," he said. and from that supposition he assumed the result is "might make right/no morality" (I reject this assumption, beleiving men are moral animals and why Saudis are as moral as Americans, even though their culture is a lesser one (their nature is not lesser than ours).

It depends what you mean when you use the word "moral." Do you mean "consistent," or "earnest," or actually "good"? If it's the former two, then yeah, the Saudi's are pretty consistent in treating women, children, 'infidels,' and dissenters with all the cruelty of Sharia Law, in many cases. And they are earnest about doing it. I would not say that makes them "good" for doing it.

A person can be totally devoted and consistent with an evil doctrine. Nazis were. So it's not the "nature" that makes the difference; it's the actual ideology one is following.

but clarify if you can from above? - was Nietzsche an Atheist, or just playing that game for his arguments sake (that without God man is immoral (which i've now said i for the last 2 yrs here that i reject per my view on the matter)).

No. He wasn't playing games at all. He was saying that if Atheism is true, then there's actually no reality to morality. People can play at being what they consider moral, he would say, and many do; but they're fooling themselves. There's actually no such thing, he said. It's just a conspiracy of Jews and Christians to keep the Supermen (like Nietzsche himself, presumably) from using their power to dominate. And for Nietzsche, to be a successful human being was to wake up, stop playing games about good and evil, and get on with using your power to get whatever you want.

But I think if one is of the second type of which you speak, that is, somebody who just is "not seeing that he IS," you're not really an Atheist...or shouldn't really want to be called that. Because to say "I haven't seen God," does not lead one to the position, "Therefore there IS none" by any rational steps. Rather, the logical conclusion from "I haven't seen God" is..."I haven't seen God so far." In other words, it's agnosticism, the belief that there may or may not be a God, but one personally doesn't know.

I understand your point, its just i do not like the "Agnostic" label,

Well, the advantage to it is that it does not make a claim one can't possibly sustain with reasons. At least an "agnostic" is honest about where his knowledge stops and starts. Atheism pretends to certainty about matters it can't possibly prove its case about. That's its problem.

is see most of them as "fence sitters"

Some might be. But I just see them as honest and self-aware. They're not blind and angry, like Atheists tend to be. They say, "Well, I haven't seen your God, so I don't have reason to believe in Him." Fair enough, if that's so.

Ironically, even Dawkins doesn't want to be called an "Atheist," because he knows it's not rationally defensible. So he backs off that, whenever somebody calls him that.

interesting.

Yeah. Even he 'gets' the problem with Atheism. He would WANT to be an Atheist, if he could be; but he knows he'd get rationally defeated instantly if he did. Here he is, doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4

if given a choice i'd prefer your god to show himself to me in this life and the afterlife - but to date i've not seen him in this life.

That's fair enough. That's agnosticism. Nobody has reason to believe in evidence they just don't have.

At the same time, what if there were good evidences? And what if the very thing God expected was your own search of the evidence he WAS providing to you, and your freewill decision to choose Him or not-Him?

i assume i will see his Belial/ or some of the Legion in the next life, and if so then GREAT! - then i will know He is and shall repent from there.

The problem is that free choice will not longer be possible. The same would happen if God Himself appeared to you right now: you'd instantly have no choice but to believe. What if that sort of forceful compelling of your will is the very thing God doesn't want? What if He wants you to be able to choose without being constrained by such overwhelming force of evidence you can no longer choose anything else?

I need empirical proof - for your God to stand in front of me and shout "i am" (like he did with Moses).

Or like he did with Jesus Christ?

if God showed himself he would remove man's freewill to reject him is your argument.

It's not complicated to see that that is true. Once you've seen undeniable evidence in front of your eyes, can you deny it anymore? Do you have any choice but to believe?

if your god showed himself - right here and now - it would end all religious wars - remove all false faiths and save almost all men and women.

And take away any choice any of these people had to disbelieve, if they wished to.

Maybe God is just as serious about protecting and valuing your free will as you are. Is that possible, do you think?

thanks for thoughtful reply Sir.

You're most welcome. Same to you, G.

I'm not going to debate with whether God exists or not - you do you and i me.

per cultures, ya Nazism and Wahhabism sucks, but there were/are good Nazis/Saudis - ya the dicks use their thuggery religion to justify their nature (its does not make their nature) - but (I know you dissagree - you think culture influences how many are good/bad - i think that is fixed in the Human man since a million years ago. so you think as a percentage there are more good Christians than Muslims (American than Saudis) - i think the percentages are fix and the same and culture is irrelivant.

so we agree to dissagree on this. so be it.

[gaffo]

question for you (BTW i think i have more faith in the goodness of man than you - i think 90-percent of men are good - fixed percentage from Saudi arabia to America).

my question to you (since you dissagree with my view - and think the default man is more evil than i).

what are the percentages (good/evil folks)?

Nazi Germany

Saudi Arabia

America (Canadian -in your case)

[Immanuel Can]

question for you (BTW i think i have more faith in the goodness of man than you - i think 90-percent of men are good - fixed percentage from Saudi arabia to America).

You'd have to have more faith in the goodness of man than I do.

I have none.

I think that when we compare ourselves to one another, sometimes we get feeling pretty good about how we stack up; but that's because we don't put ourselves up against moral perfection. If we did, we'd be a lot less sure of just how good we all are.

So some of the men in Saudi might be bad. And the meningitis America or England might be better than some of them. But so what? We're all a good deal less than we ought to be.

what are the percentages (good/evil folks)?

I think this is the wrong question. The right question is, where are the truly good people? The people who have never lied, stolen, lashed out, spoken cruelly, desired wrongly, hated, plotted harm, taken advantage, neglected their duties, ignored the poor, laughed at the innocent, falsely boasted of their achievements, or remained silent and passive when they ought to have done good? You won't find any of them in any of those countries...or here, either. And that's precisely the problem with human nature.