Is there any meaning to us???

funk-you

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: God created the world with all it's wonder and has given man dominion over it. I personally, don't see the idea that the earth came from nothing to be a very solid hypothesis in comparison to a Creator, creating the laws of science and then creating us under those laws.

Why are we here is a different question - My answer is simply this. We are here to serve others, and to serve God, and to make this place a better place by the time we left than the time we came in. The ultimate goal in this life, and I agree with Thomas Aquinas on this is to be in communication and a relationship with God through Jesus Christ after that how you operate and how you live will be transformed forever so as to be beneficial in your relationships and interactions with other people. This is a relationship that anyone can enter into, it isn't reserved for the religious or people with a religious mindset, only those who are curious about finding out why things are.

As for why isn't there life anywhere else - I don't think this is a defence for religion if life isn't outside earth, or an attack on it if it is. I personally think that God's revelation to man is just that, God's revelation to mankind. If other intelligent species exist in the universe, it would be very interesting to see if God had revealed Himself to them in another revelation. Personally I would be even more fascinated at God's creation.

Do you think man is that important/more important than eg: a blade of grass? If so mans ego must be more all encompassing than anything else in the universe.

-Funk

Irishcrx

osnola ivax wrote: »

Was it Neo?

Who's to say, makes more sence to me than religion.

philologos

Irishcrx wrote: »

.....Right , Well I think alot of people just hide behind religion as an answer because there afraid to actually think for themselfs and see how many holes is in the whole theory of it or actual proof. Whole thing drives me crazy but people believe what they believe.

I don't hide behind it. Rather I have nothing to hide from. Judeo-Christianity does shape how I think about the world and how I think about my interactions with other people. I found the Judeo-Christian worldview to be superior to the secular postmodern view that I held before I decided to give Christianity a shot.

I don't see why my beliefs should make you or anyone else crazy. I find that there are considerably less holes in the Judeo-Christian worldview from a personal respect, than from the secular worldview. Most of the people I encounter with issues to Christianity have never consulted the Bible and thought about it for themselves. They base their knowledge on the pulpit and from the priest. I think that is dangerous. It is dangerous because the congregation should be a check and a balance to the priest or pastor.

Infact I think secular humanism and the worldview from the Protestant Reformation have a lot in common. Both involve skepticism, and it might be a reason why former Protestant societies like Sweden, Denmark and so on have employed the same skepticism to religion. I think skepticism is a positive thing, but skepticism also involves being skeptical of the secular worldview. I found Judeo-Christianity won out over the secular worldview in a personal respect, therefore I felt compelled to adopt it

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'm on the evolution side, I think too much in this world is perfect and by perfect I mean the way our emotions work, our bodys, our funtions, our food and water supply, air from the tree's , day, night, the sun , animals that have their own instincts and purpose I mean come on think about it.

Interesting. Do you think believing that God created the world excludes evolution as a means of the creation of life?

I personally consider religion to answer the whys of existence, but I hold that science answers the hows. God intended to create the world, however there is a place for discussion as to how God created the world. Some people leave the how to science, some people make an answer for themselves.

By the way, too much in the world is perfect is incompatible with a belief in God? Please elaborate on this when you get a chance.

Irishcrx wrote: »

the idea that a God created all this and sits up in heaven judging people and watching down on us, sending the sinners to hell (Even though he's forgiving), having eternal space in heaven for everyone from every generation and all the animals, then we've got all the differant religions with completely differant believes each thinking that theres is the only one yet all pretty similar in alot of ways, abuse in the church, giving money to go to heaven in the older days....RIDICULAS!!

The idea that creation has a creator seems to make more sense to me than what the secular worldview puts across. It also explains the interactions of God with humanity through divine revelation. God created the world, and as such takes an active interest in it, and more importantly has authority over us.

As for condemning sinners to hell. I personally think that is fair and reasonable. Mercy is only dependant on you repenting of your sin. If you are not sorry for your sin you cannot be forgiven, nor do you deserve to be forgiven. God is a God of justice, and He will have mercy on those who seek it. If you do not seek mercy, you cannot attain it.

As for abuses in the church. Humans corrupted the Church. You are referring to indulgences. However in the Bible this practice is condemned (Acts chapter 8). The Church was not living according to God's will. I don't intend to defend the Church. I am glad that skeptical men (during the Reformation) stood up against the Church to restore it to Christian values. However, this may be my bias coming in.

Irishcrx wrote: »

So I believe something or someone helped us along the way, but not a God even though the idea of it is nice, it's just not plausable.

What something is this. I think this is much much more implausible than believing in God who revealed Himself to mankind. What on earth is this something? You would need to adequately give a description before one can take that view seriously surely? I don't understand why people so harshly criticise the Judeo-Christian worldview, and then are not willing to apply the same criticism to their own beliefs.

Blazer

yeah I say God created the world.
Wonder what he created the other 300 billion galaxies for? :rolleyes:
Man's expansion?

thelordofcheese

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

yeah I say God created the world.
Wonder what he created the other 300 billion galaxies for? :rolleyes:
Man's expansion?

His side projects, like the Krogan.

philologos

dan719 wrote: »

Funny how you expect atheists to use a certain standard of work, when your entire world view is based on a two thousand year old book containing as much reality as Harry Potter.:rolleyes:

I don't expect anyone to do anything. I'm merely saying that I appreciate atheists such as Nietzsche and Albert Camus who attempt to make sense of a secular worldview in comparison to others like Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett who rant about religion. Camus and Nietzsche have a much better approach, and a much more creative approach. Many atheists would agree with me on this.

As for the Bible containing as much reality as Harry Potter, luckily even secular theologians disagree with you. Perhaps you should consult the actual facts on the historicity of the Bible before you try to discuss it. Have you ever read the Bible by the way, just curious?

funk-you wrote: »

Do you think man is that important/more important than eg: a blade of grass? If so mans ego must be more all encompassing than anything else in the universe.

I personally think that mankind is the most intelligent form of life on this earth, also in the Judeo-Christian worldview it is believed that mankind is created with a likeness to God the Father which allows us a means of communicating and relating to Him that other forms of life do not have. As such if we have this intelligence, it is sensical to believe that God would entrust mankind with the ability to manage the resources that were provided for us.

I consider all of God's creation to be important. I do at the same time believe that man has a unique means of relating to God that other forms of life do not have. This makes us more accountable to God's judgement as well as more intelligent.

Canis Lupus

Jakkass wrote: »

it is sensical to believe that God would entrust mankind with the ability to manage the resources that were provided for us.

Why would an all powerful god make us gardeners? If he loves us why give us finite resources and just blinking why do I have to potter about on earth for an average of 75 years just to have a chance to go to heaven? Can't I just skip this part?

philologos

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Why would an all powerful god make us gardeners? If he loves us why give us finite resources and just blinking why do I have to potter about on earth for an average of 75 years just to have a chance to go to heaven? Can't I just skip this part?

People have various theories about why the earth is the way it is. I personally see the earth as possibly a tribulation period to assess whether mankind will gain a connection to God, or whether or not they will abandon this connection to God. I also think that experiences both good and bad in peoples lives form their character. If everything was good on this earth and if you got everything your own way you would not develop into the person who you are now. The existence of evil is necessary for the existence of good to be remarked upon. If everything was good, then mankind would start to see that good was "normal" and take it for granted. There are so many different theories in relation to the purpose of the earth that we could talk all night about it.

Canis Lupus

I give up. I'll meet you in the nothingness and tell you I told you so.


EDIT: I think that's what ultimately annoys me about religious people now that I think about it. I will never get the chance to be smug and say I told you so

dan719

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't expect anyone to do anything. I'm merely saying that I appreciate atheists such as Nietzsche and Albert Camus who attempt to make sense of a secular worldview in comparison to others like Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett who rant about religion. Camus and Nietzsche have a much better approach, and a much more creative approach. Many atheists would agree with me on this.

As for the Bible containing as much reality as Harry Potter, luckily even secular theologians disagree with you. Perhaps you should consult the actual facts on the historicity of the Bible before you try to discuss it. Have you ever read the Bible by the way, just curious?

Someone called Jesus existed sometime around O A.D. He was a prophet blah blah blah. So basically the historical accuracy of the bible is that these peoplee existed and so did the places they lived. There is a place called London, a Kings Cross station and I am sure there is a Harry Potter running around somewhere in the world. I reckon they contain exactly the same amount of reality.;)

And, yes I have read the bible. Poor read tbh, so I went back to Stephen king for my horror novels.

funk-you

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think that mankind is the most intelligent form of life on this earth,

Thats a very important word. Does intelligence mean importance though?

Jakkass wrote: »

also in the Judeo-Christian worldview it is believed that mankind is created with a likeness to God the Father which allows us a means of communicating and relating to Him that other forms of life do not have.

I won't diparage their belief but i do personally disagree.

Jakkass wrote: »

As such if we have this intelligence, it is sensical to believe that God would entrust mankind with the ability to manage the resources that were provided for us.

Again, does intelligence mean importance though? Also the world/universe was here long before us and will be here long after so is it not egotistical to think that it belongs to us?

I'm from Dublin, I think Dublin is the best place, I think Dubliners are the best people. Neither of them points are true but my ego makes me believe they are. Would this not be the same for man believing the world was created for us and we are the most important to God?

Jakkass wrote: »

I consider all of God's creation to be important. I do at the same time believe that man has a unique means of relating to God that other forms of life do not have. This makes us more accountable to God's judgement as well as more intelligent.

Again though, is this not the ego kicking in trying desperately to assign meaning to everything and making ourselves seem more special than anything else. Is it not in mans nature to want to be the best/better at everything?

I'm not in any way attacking your beliefs BTW, I'm genuinely interested.

-Funk

philologos

dan719 wrote: »

Someone called Jesus existed sometime around O A.D. He was a prophet blah blah blah. So basically the historical accuracy of the bible is that these peoplee existed and so did the places they lived. There is a place called London, a Kings Cross station and I am sure there is a Harry Potter running around somewhere in the world. I reckon they contain exactly the same amount of reality.;)

Utterly ridiculous. Considering that many figures that are in the Bible are attested for historically. You're making assumptions without actually looking up the facts concerning the text, and it's a pity as it would save us both a lot of time if you actually did some research before making such accusations.

There is a difference between the Biblical text and Harry Potter.
1) There is much more that is historically verified in the Bible than in Harry Potter. Hence they are not on the same scale of comparison.
2) There are much more historically verified figures in the Bible than in Harry Potter. Therefore they are not on the same scale of comparison.

Jesus of Nazareth is historically accounted for in several different texts. Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and the Babylonian Talmud come to mind. Most historians hold that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. The only debate to be had is if Jesus was who the New Testament says that he was. If Jesus did claim Himself to be the Son of God, we have a dilemma to encounter. This is known as the Mad, Bad, or Son of God dillemma which was coined by C.S Lewis in the 1940's in his bestseller Mere Christianity.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

dan719 wrote: »

And, yes I have read the bible. Poor read tbh, so I went back to Stephen king for my horror novels.

How much of it?

philologos

funk-you wrote: »

Thats a very important word. Does intelligence mean importance though?

No it doesn't. If mankind is the most intelligent creature in God's creation, it is pretty clear that mankind has the intelligence to control the resources. Unfortunately selfish ambition often gets in the way for many, but by and large mankind has managed to reasonably control the resources that God has given us.

funk-you wrote: »

I won't diparage their belief but i do personally disagree.

I'm not going to get hot and bothered if you disagree with me , and other Christians. You're welcome to disagree in any respect with what I have to say. This discussion welcomed what we are talking about now, so I joined in to give an alternative view.

funk-you wrote: »

Again, does intelligence mean importance though? Also the world/universe was here long before us and will be here long after so is it not egotistical to think that it belongs to us?

I never said that the universe or the world belongs to us. It is God's. God has given us dominion over it, but by and large we are merely tenants on God's creation. Luckily we don't have to pay rent, all we have to do is follow the rules that God has given us for our own personal benefit, and try to be the best we can to others.

funk-you wrote: »

I'm from Dublin, I think Dublin is the best place, I think Dubliners are the best people. Neither of them points are true but my ego makes me believe they are. Would this not be the same for man believing the world was created for us and we are the most important to God?

I never said the world was created for us. Rather I believe that humans have been given authority and control over it's resources due to intelligence.

This point about ego has little significance if we believe that the Bible was revealed from God to man. It would only have significance if God was contrived by man. Hence why I don't think we will agree that it is an egotistical text. When you are granted certain authority by another, it isn't an egotistical act in any respect.

funk-you wrote: »

Again though, is this not the ego kicking in trying desperately to assign meaning to everything and making ourselves seem more special than anything else. Is it not in mans nature to want to be the best/better at everything?

See above. If you do not believe the Bible has been revealed to us from God, it is obvious why you would hold this view. I do believe the Bible was revealed to mankind. Therefore I hold my view that it couldn't be egotistical. So much of discussion about God depends on what assumptions we have beforehand, thankfully you've been relatively transparent and that helps the discussion to go along much more easily

funk-you wrote: »

I'm not in any way attacking your beliefs BTW, I'm genuinely interested.

Attack my beliefs if you want, I don't particularly care if you do. I don't believe that your criticisms or anyone elses will cause me to lose faith in God. They should be kept under scrutiny, as should yours

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

This is known as the Mad, Bad, or Son of God dillemma which was coined by C.S Lewis in the 1940's in his bestseller Mere Christianity.

Except that is a false dichotomy.

By claiming only two options lewis is trying to argue that you can either believe in jesus as the son of the magic man in the sky, or you're some kind of weirdo who listens to madmen.

Not that i expect much from C.S Lewis, subtlety was not that mans forte.

dan719

Jakkass wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous. Considering that many figures that are in the Bible are attested for historically. You're making assumptions without actually looking up the facts concerning the text, and it's a pity as it would save us both a lot of time if you actually did some research before making such accusations.

There is a difference between the Biblical text and Harry Potter.
1) There is much more that is historically verified in the Bible than in Harry Potter. Hence they are not on the same scale of comparison.
2) There are much more historically verified figures in the Bible than in Harry Potter. Therefore they are not on the same scale of comparison.

Jesus of Nazareth is historically accounted for in several different texts. Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and the Babylonian Talmud come to mind. Most historians hold that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. The only debate to be had is if Jesus was who the New Testament says that he was. If Jesus did claim Himself to be the Son of God, we have a dilemma to encounter. This is known as the Mad, Bad, or Son of God dillemma which was coined by C.S Lewis in the 1940's in his bestseller Mere Christianity.





How much of it?

All of it unfortunately.

Shall we have a one to one comparison then? I list out all the 'historically verified' people and locations from Harry Potter and you list them from the bible and then we can see if they are on the 'same scale of comparison'?

I'm up for it.

Well the answer to your question concerning 'mad, bad or the son of God'? Go look in any psychiatric hospital, plenty of messiahs in there. None of them to your tastes no?

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Except that is a false dichotomy.

By claiming only two options lewis is trying to argue that you can either believe in jesus as the son of the magic man in the sky, or you're some kind of weirdo who listens to madmen.

Not that i expect much from C.S Lewis, subtlety was not that mans forte.

I personally agree with C.S Lewis. There is no way if you are intellectually honest that you can believe that Jesus was a great teacher and not see Him as either a fraud or insane for making metaphysical claims about Him being the Son of God. If Jesus was truly a fraud or a liar, I agree with C.S Lewis that that would be more worthy of Pharasaic scorn than not. Makes logical sense to me.

philologos

dan719 wrote: »

All of it unfortunately.

Shall we have a one to one comparison then? I list out all the 'historically verified' people and locations from Harry Potter and you list them from the bible and then we can see if they are on the 'same scale of comparison'?

I'm up for it.

If you actually researched first, you wouldn't need to put forth such a petty challenge to me. I'm merely saying that you have absolutely nothing to claim that it is fiction, yet I have several indications that it is most likely to be true. I have no interest in wasting my time and yours, just know for next time to do your research before starting an argument about historicity.

dan719 wrote: »

Well the answer to your question concerning 'mad, bad or the son of God'? Go look in any psychiatric hospital, plenty of messiahs in there. None of them to your tastes no?

Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophesies, that's what distinguishes Him from other Messiah claimants. Not just anyone could be the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled 300 of these prophesies. Again, do some research. It's amazing how quick you are to rubbish other peoples beliefs without having the slightest clue as to why they believe what they do.

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally agree with C.S Lewis. There is no way if you are intellectually honest that you can believe that Jesus was a great teacher and not see Him as either a fraud or insane for making metaphysical claims about Him being the Son of God. If Jesus was truly a fraud or a liar, I agree with C.S Lewis that that would be more worthy of Pharasaic scorn than not. Makes logical sense to me.

or he could just ahve been a guy with some crazy ideas. The "he had to be a fraud or insane" doesn't hold up because it's based on the contents of the new testament, most of which was written on 3rd or 4th hand accounts, up to 110 years later.

Given how fucking unreliable people are, i can see plenty of scope for a little padding and creative lisence in the tale.

Logical my arse.


Not that i agree that jesus was anything special or even a 'good moral teacher' i just thing C.S Lewis is permanently full of shit.

dan719

Jakkass wrote: »

If you actually researched first, you wouldn't need to put forth such a petty challenge to me. I'm merely saying that you have absolutely nothing to claim that it is fiction, yet I have several indications that it is most likely to be true. I have no interest in wasting my time and yours, just know for next time to do your research before starting an argument about historicity.



Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophesies, that's what distinguishes Him from other Messiah claimants. Not just anyone could be the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled 300 of these prophesies. Again, do some research. It's amazing how quick you are to rubbish other peoples beliefs without having the slightest clue as to why they believe what they do.

People coming back to life.
Transformation of water to wine.
Restoration of sight.
Any of the other 'miracles.


Ah yes the prophesies. Like how Jesus would be a descendent of David? But Joseph wasn't Jesus' daddy was he? How exactly did Jesus claim his ancestors so?

And who said I rubbish your beliefs? Not at all, I put them on a par with Islam, Judaism, the Norse religion and so on? Don't think your special on my account.

philologos

dan719 wrote: »

People coming back to life.
Transformation of water to wine.
Restoration of sight.
Any of the other 'miracles.

Logically that depends whether or not you believe in a Creator. You don't, therefore you consider it irrational that miracles could occur because you already don't believe that God exists.

I personally believe that a Creator who formed the laws of science and the universe according to the laws of science exists. For me it is perfectly rational that this Creator could manipulate the laws of science in order to perform a certain deed on the earth.

It isn't a logical difficulty for me, yet it is for you. I used to have doubts concerning miracles, now I don't as I found that Christian explanations made sense to me.

dan719 wrote: »

Ah yes the prophesies. Like how Jesus would be a descendent of David? But Joseph wasn't Jesus' daddy was he? How exactly did Jesus claim his ancestors so?

Luckily I have an answer for you. It comes from Eusebius in The History of the Church:

Eusebius - History of the Church - Book 1.7 wrote:

In tracing thus the geneology of Joseph, Africanus has virtually proved that Mary belonged to the same tribe as her husband, in the view of the fact that under the Mosaic law intermarriage between different tribes was forbidden, for the rule is that a woman must wed someone from the same town and the same clan, so that the family inheritance may not be moved from tribe to tribe. Let us leave it at that.

There is a much much longer explanation before that piece in the book but this sums it up.

In Jewish geneologies the husbands of the wives were used. Eusebius is entirely correct that in the Jewish law intermarriage between different tribes of Israel was forbidden. I can quote the exact passage infact:

Numbers 36:5-6 wrote:

Then Moses commanded the Israelites according to the word of the LORD, saying, "The descendants of the tribe of Joseph are right in what they are saying. This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, "Let them marry whom they think best; only it must be into a clan of their fathers tribe that they are married so that no inheritance shall be passed from one tribe to another; for all Israelites shall retain the inheritance of their ancestral tribes.

Brief run through. You know if you have read the Torah, that Moses divided the land of Israel into plots for each tribe of the nation of Israel to live in. At the end of the book of Numbers a group of women come to Moses as there was no male heir for the property to be passed to. So they asked Moses if they could inherit the land of their father. He said yes, but under the condition that you remain married to your own tribe so that the land wouldn't get shifted around to different tribes, or that different tribes wouldn't own land in other Israelite territory.

Basically in a nutshell. Joseph had to be of the same ancestral tribe, which was the tribe of Judah, that of King David. So Mary would have also had descent from David. Which is also interesting as in Judaism, Jewish lineage is passed through the mother.

dan719 wrote: »

And who said I rubbish your beliefs? Not at all, I put them on a par with Islam, Judaism, the Norse religion and so on? Don't think your special on my account.

I don't claim to be special. Generally people find that one should actually attempt to research what they criticise before they do.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I can safely say that if I was an atheist, I wouldn't use the feeble work of Dawkins and Hitchens to argue my case. I would use the works of Nietzsche, Albert Camus and other great secular thinkers.

You told me you only read a few chapters of Dawkins book. Have you read the rest now or did you decide it was feeble some other way?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You told me you only read a few chapters of Dawkins book. Have you read the rest now or did you decide it was feeble some other way?

I'm currently reading Hitchens' God is Not Great, which is a lot more interesting than Dawkins' God Delusion. I.E I've managed to reach chapter 12 compared to reaching chapter 4 in the God Delusion. I just don't like repetition to get a point across.

Nietzsche and Camus are far more creative in how they portray their disbelief than Dawkins will ever be.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the Bible containing as much reality as Harry Potter, luckily even secular theologians disagree with you. Perhaps you should consult the actual facts on the historicity of the Bible before you try to discuss it. Have you ever read the Bible by the way, just curious?

I've read some of it alright

edit: please don't point out that you don't consider the bible solid proof, I know. That doesn't change the point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm currently reading Hitchens' God is Not Great, which is a lot more interesting than Dawkins' God Delusion. I.E I've managed to reach chapter 12 compared to reaching chapter 4 in the God Delusion. I just don't like repetition to get a point across.

Nietzsche and Camus are far more creative in how they portray their disbelief than Dawkins will ever be.

repetition =/= wrong
less creative =/= wrong

He never claimed to be creative, in fact being creative is pretty much what he's against. I wouldn't even call Dawkins a philosopher, he's just putting forward rational arguments

well horse

My own opinion is that all life is just a chemical phenomenom on earth that has the property of "wanting" to keep going on living.

I think everything ultimately boils down to being energy efficient.
Something to do with thermodynamics...

philologos

I'm merely saying that Nietzsche and Albert Camus manage to get their point across differently and in a way that can be appreciated more than a rant.

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying that Nietzsche and Albert Camus manage to get their point across differently and in a way that can be appreciated more than a rant.

really, i find Nietzsche to be an insufferable bore.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying that Nietzsche and Albert Camus manage to get their point across differently and in a way that can be appreciated more than a rant.

Right so you think that Nietzsche is a better writer than Dawkins because he's more creative and less ranting. Dawkins work is not meant to be judged on its creativity or writing style, it's meant to be judged on what it's saying. Phrasing it in a ranting manner doesn't make him wrong. So how is what he's saying feeble?

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

really, i find Nietzsche to be an insufferable bore.

He's arguably one of the best writers in the last 500 years. If his ideas didn't influence Hitler I would probably be a little bit more appreciative of him. Certainly if I were to consider a group of writers for a compendium of literature on secular understanding I would personally include him far quicker than Dawkins or Hitchens. Hitchens I will say is entertaining however.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so you think that Nietzsche is a better writer than Dawkins because he's more creative and less ranting. Dawkins work is not meant to be judged on its creativity or writing style, it's meant to be judged on what it's saying. Phrasing it in a ranting manner doesn't make him wrong. So how is what he's saying feeble?

Actually Sam, I can judge Dawkins work, and Nietzsches work in whatever way I want without you telling me how to assess it for myself

I think Nietzsche communicates secularism / atheism in a far better way than Dawkins ever could. Dawkins also spends much of his time making errors concerning the Biblical text before too long. This is the issue with a rant, you will generally tie yourself into factual errors concerning things, whereas with an allegory or a narrative to communicate your point it is much much more effective in helping those who are astranged from a secular viewpoint to understand it.