/lit/ - Literature

>tfw people have trained themselves to think richard dawkins and fedora everytime they read anything that attacks christianity

you christians should embrace nietzsche. it'll make your faith stronger.

Nah.

>>4655346

This is simply the result of everyone taking everything literally.

Guys, it's very simple: the Bible is just a book filled with stories. It's a metaphor for the hardship we all have to face in live. It's basically like the Odyssey, except that the last guy tells you that an eye for an eye is not such a good idea

you are now aware that nietzsche never stopped being christian and that his übermensch was a new jesus ideal with special compatibility features for christians

>>4655353
Except a large portion of levitical laws were based upon eye for an eye.

>Dawkins will be as cool and loved as Nietzsche in the 22nd century

>>4655366
Nietzsche fucking HATED Christianity. I think Nietzsche's personal hell would be attending a service.

Who can blame him when the bible says within the first page that people who work harder get killed (Cain and Abel), and then later on that if you deceive people you get rewarded (Jacob and Esau). The purpose of Genesis is actually 'this is how people started, and then look how corrupted they became'. I think that's why Genesis is the best book in the bible, because in some ironic way it is actually probably one of the most truthful sections, truthful regarding morality.

>>4655389

Yes, the Old Testament is basically the Iliad, and the New Testament is basically the Odyssey, except that Odysseus forgives the guys who drink his wine

>>4655392
>Nietzsche
>loved
>not just cool

>>4655353

That's not what actual real followers of the Christian faiths believe though. If that is your view on the bible, you are just a bad christian.

>>4655405
If you're not a pastor's son you don't know shit about Nietzsche's Christianity.

>>4655389
Why do so many people think Christians take Leviticus seriously? Is it a Dawkins thing? Protip: New Testiment is law Old Testament is background information about why Jesus needed to change the law and clarify it for humanity.

>>4655416
Not true Scotsman fallacy

>>4655418
If you believe in moral nihilism and practice Christianity at the same time, you are essentially being a literate retard.

>>4655392

>god save the dawkins

>>4655420
Or alternatively, the old testament didn't apply to the new generations anymore because of the very nature of objective culture and morality and subsequently the church rule had to impose new standards upon the world.

"Nietzsche is dead"
- God

>>4655429

>>4655422
>thinking Nietzsche was a moral nihilist

>>4655421

No its not.

>A socialist who believes in and supports libertarianism is not a true socialist.

According to you this a No True Scotsman fallacy?
Dont feel bad, a lot of people wrongly accuse others of No True Scotsman.

>>4655330
>mfw your reading comprehension skills

>>4655420
>Protip: New Testiment is law Old Testament is background information about why Jesus needed to change the law and clarify it for humanity.
>Confirmed for not reading The Bible

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -Jesus, Matthew 5:17-19

>>4655458
>implying Gentiles are bound by the Old Covenant

This is covered in the Acts of the Apostles. Gentiles don't even have to be circumcised. Granted, if you're an ethnic Jew you're kind of SOL.

>>4655451
You're not even making sense anymore. All true socialists are libertarians. Otherwise they're statist scum.

>>4655330
What the hell did you even read? It's pretty darn clear even in his earlier works that he would've hated Dawkins just as much as judeochristianity.

>>4655330
tfw you're right
>>4655469
tfw you're wrong

Not really, Nietzsche wouldn't be fond of Dawkins or his kind.

>>4655330
Look at how irrational theists are. Don't even need to make a case for it.

>>4656669
Did Nietzsche hate Darwin?

>>4657013
If this essay is accurate then maybe?

http://www.academia.edu/759427/Nietzsches_Aesthetic_Critique_of_Darwin

>>4657013
http://cadra.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/hello-world/

>>4655353
>>4655405
>>4655389
>>4655421
>>4655451
mfw people think they can speak for every category system x.

>>4657149
but actually i fucked up every single one of those links.
>>4655353
>>4655416
>>4655418
>>4655420
>>4655452
>>4655451
>you accuse me of a no true scotsman? allow me to defend myself via false analogy.

>>4655429
"Both are dead"
- Me

>people not realizing that Nietzsche clearly believed that an infinite being existed

you're missing the whole point of all of his words if you think he didn't believe in god.

>>4657348
>god is dead
>but I'll believe in him anywas

>>4657381
I'm a terrible Christfag and even I know that Nietzsche was speaking of 'God' as an idea that had permeated society. Whether he believed in any actual deity or not is another matter entirely.

>>4657381
God as the moral foundation and justification of society is dead.

No, see, when it's fresh, it's not fedora. Philosophy in the Bedroom isn't fedora because in the context of its time, the attacks on Christianity made sense. Sade's other work isn't "edgy" because in the context of the Enlightenment and "muh reason", it was actually a shit on fedoras in silk stockings.

So please keep time in mind, and remember that back then Christians weren't just folks who smiled and went to church, but all around assholes with a lot of power that paralyzed thought.

Isn't funny how feminists only single out male atheists, by male traits?

>>4657436
I am suddenly intrigued to see if there are any prominent female atheists.

>>4655330
Sage, hide & report all shitposting threads

>>4657449
There aren't. Women don't have original or edgy ideas, ever.

>>4657348
So people have been judging to conclusions because of his criticisms? That's believable.

>>4657449
Emma Goldman was a fairly outspoken atheist.

>>4657449

>>4657449
Also Cady Stanton

>>4657624
Kids are also superstitious which kind of contradicts that.

>>4657663
It referring to how religions only come to the same conclusions when taught.

As opposed to say, mathematics or repeatable experiments.

>>4655420
Because the Christian establishment was using the Old Testament for moral justification for a lot of abhorrent behavior up until like 30 years ago, and many fundamentalists still do

>tfw reading The Antichrist

Truly, Nietzsche is an anti-christian christian.

>>4657348
>people not realizing that Nietzsche clearly believed that an infinite being existed
>an infinite being
>an
>only one
>not everything

I think Nietzsche's problem was the indifferent Christianity of modern times, people who pretend to hold to it while not actually giving a fuck. He had a respect for serious belief.

>>4659057
Technically everything is one thing.

>people who think there's anything wrong with Dawkins

You're just parroting opinions by people who disagree with him, and since he's popular, you do too. Read his scientifically inclined books (i.e ALL of them except The God Delusion) and he's pretty fucking great. Even The God Delusion isn't bad, it's just that /lit/ is so concerned with being contrarian that now that atheism is on the rise it's time to start tipping bibles instead of fedoras. If you're going to criticse these new atheist guys then at least criticse the right people (e.g Harris, who is a totalitarian cunt).

>>4659177
He's not perfect. His gradualist stance may have issues in light of psuedogenes and phenotypic plasticity.

I'll continue shit posting with him though because I know the Xtians here love him.

>>4659197
Also, the response theologians give to him is complete bullshit. Their arguments are not nearly as sophisticated as they think they are, and they're not as interested as reforming theists as they suggest. Not that I blame them. Why would they?

>>4659211
That's true. People who believe in God aren't interested in truth, really, so having decent arguments doesn't matter to them. They rely on sophistry for everything they do.

>>4657496
>Women don't have original or edgy ideas, ever.
but you do

>>4659216
>not relying on sophistries for everything
how long have you been a moran

> people who think neitzsche's most important "thing" is atheism

once you graduate undergrad you'll realize there's more important shit to nietzsche than being an edgy atheist

>>4661135
No, we've already fixed society, and all things still broke we're already working on so there is no reason to point out problems with the ruling classes' influence on society anymore. Postmodernism is dead. No going back ever so there we're done lol

Also, christianity works now that its been interpreted to have all the right values and will soon be entirely reformed. Hahaha we win.

>>4657186
>pointing informal fallacies as ways of "winning" a internet discussion
america pls remove internet acess from students who took debate classes