Different Models
Posted: 04 July 2007 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2007-04-14

Anyone read any of Friedrich Nietzsche?? I have read a little bit, and find his writting extremely dangerous.  He suggests we find happiness out of having "power" etc.  That we should let the weak die, and even help them??  It's extremely troubling.  In regards to this forum, I am just showing an example of the possible dangers involved without there being religion.  For example, the phrase, Blessed are the meek"  and other examples found in christianity.  Hitler was a fan of Nietzsche and used it for what he did as an example.  Without religion would we have other Hitlers and people controlling and gaining power, forming cults and other groups?  I'm an openminded person and wonder what dangers pose the world without religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2007 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2007-06-08

It’s not the lack of religion we need to worry about. It is religion itself that created monsters like Hitler.

Read my Signature.

Religion has warped and twisted many peoples minds over the millennia and has much to answer for.

The law of nature is a very powerful force and if left to its devices always gives the correct outcome (result). It is only when we mess with nature i.e. spout unfounded and idiotic religious ideas that we have imbalance, chaos and extreme violence that carries on for centuries.

ps. Just how open minded are you?

Dom

 Signature 

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  533
Joined  2006-07-14

Lest we forget his most infamous quote:

“GOD IS DEAD.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“Jefe”]

The following 2 rules (posted repeatedly by myself) work as a great start to any philosophy of being:

1) Be Kind.

2) Do to others as you would have others do to you.
(or… do not do to others as you would not have done to you.)

Those 2 rules are a great start and cover pretty much any scenario you care to throw at them.


This is a nice starting point and will suffice with 90% of the world. I am curious about the other 10%

How do you do unto the terrorist, the child molester, the rapist. How do you show kindness to the unrepentant murderer? Maybe you are able to but how do you make this into a consistent ethic. How does explain to the now childless father the necessity of kindness to his child’s killer? I am truly curious. YOur philosophy is similar to Christ’s but one could reasonably see the need for kindness in a Christian universe. (Kindness makes us God-like) How does one rationalize such a kindness in a meaningless universe? Why should I be kind to the killer who just took someone eternally out of existence?

I am NOT saying that atheists are immoral and unethical. I am just looking for a convinincing argument for kindness in the face of evil people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2007 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

The problem I have with your answer is how does it fit in with your philosophic principles. I think you need to add a third principle which would be follow the Law. The problem again may be how do we know the laws are just? Take for instance Euthanasia. It is argued that such an action is kind and merciful. It is also argued that it is cruel and merciless to prolong the dying person’s suffering. The opposite is also argued for reasons of kindness. Some want to be uethanized if they are in such a state, others are vehemetly against it. How do you solve such a dispute with your philosophy especially with your legalistic tendency. Your principles seem can be put at odds and I would like to know how you prioritize and the basis for your priority.

Am I to do unto others? then be kind then follow the law? Am I to only follow the law if it is a kind law and one that I would want done to me? Your philosophy is a bit holey.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2007 12:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2007-06-08

[quote author=“frankr”]The problem I have with your answer is how does it fit in with your philosophic principles. I think you need to add a third principle which would be follow the Law. The problem again may be how do we know the laws are just? Take for instance Euthanasia. It is argued that such an action is kind and merciful. It is also argued that it is cruel and merciless to prolong the dying person’s suffering. The opposite is also argued for reasons of kindness. Some want to be uethanized if they are in such a state, others are vehemetly against it. How do you solve such a dispute with your philosophy especially with your legalistic tendency. Your principles seem can be put at odds and I would like to know how you prioritize and the basis for your priority.

Am I to do unto others? then be kind then follow the law? Am I to only follow the law if it is a kind law and one that I would want done to me? Your philosophy is a bit holey.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Hello frankr. Back spouting you nonsense again?

How do good Catholics decide which morals in the Bible are the “good ones” and which ones aren’t.  You bunch seem to think you have a monopoly on morals yet you spout such rubbish.

Society functions quite well without religion. The law of the land takes care of the law breakers.

Dom

 Signature 

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed