The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Okay, God, A Lot of people thing he exists, but does he (or she). I mean with all the bad things going on in the world, you would think that he/she would have had enough by how.
I do think, the older you get, the more you tend to believe in a after life, but is death actual the end or are we all just playing a Virtual reality game, in one big room, and when you die, its just game over, and you come back another day, and start all over again.
Could it be, that everything is in reverse, i.e. the church is actual Satan at work. I give you an example, many wars have been started over religion, and today with technology advances, aren’t we creating what Satan would like, pain and suffering.
Imagine if the rise of the anti-Christ predicated to happen in the bible is actual the rise of Christ, who is coming to put all these things this that religion has caused to happen over the years, decades, and even centuries right.
I’m not here to mock people religion, or anything else like that, just that until I see something for my self, I tend not to be a believe it
Many churches, temples and over places of worship, get built, which all cost money, yet I can’t understand why we plough all that resource, weather it time or money into a place of worship, when there is no proof of a GOD, what ever religion you are.
I would be interested to hear what over people views are on the subject, both church go-ers and non-believes.
I do think, the older you get, the more you tend to believe in a after life, but is death actual the end or are we all just playing a Virtual reality game, in one big room, and when you die, its just game over, and you come back another day, and start all over again.
Could it be, that everything is in reverse, i.e. the church is actual Satan at work. I give you an example, many wars have been started over religion, and today with technology advances, aren’t we creating what Satan would like, pain and suffering.
Imagine if the rise of the anti-Christ predicated to happen in the bible is actual the rise of Christ, who is coming to put all these things this that religion has caused to happen over the years, decades, and even centuries right.
I’m not here to mock people religion, or anything else like that, just that until I see something for my self, I tend not to be a believe it
Many churches, temples and over places of worship, get built, which all cost money, yet I can’t understand why we plough all that resource, weather it time or money into a place of worship, when there is no proof of a GOD, what ever religion you are.
I would be interested to hear what over people views are on the subject, both church go-ers and non-believes.
Page:
pb wrote:
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion. One example is
> the Christian teaching of all men being created free to think,
> but this is not touched on as Nietzche concentrated almost soley
> on the teachings of Jesus and was actually following a movement
> at the time which reflected his attitude. He did have some
> interesting things to say, and agreed with the teachings of
> Jesus pretty much wholesale, but always had an agenda behind his
> writings driven by being a casualty of his peers.
It sounds unlike Nietzche to be following anyone, it maybe simply that other people were thinking along the same lines. Anyway...
The Christian teaching of all men being free to think isn't the same thing as being free to act or total freedom which is what Freddie advocates as part of the ubermensch. He liked Jesus simply because he was his own man with his own ideas and through that he gained power over those who didn't, it's the master and slave thing. You either stand on your own and accept complete responsibility for you life (Jesus) or you take the nihilistic miserable road of the slave, deny the joys and freedoms of this life and gamble that it's all waiting for you in the next (Christianity).
In the end i like that he advocates enjoying this life, free from any judgement or controls but your own. I think it's certainly a healthier and more rewarding philosophy if you can do it.
On the other hand however, apply it to modern day England. Who actually fits that mantra? It's the bloody chavs. Nietzche was the worlds first chav!
> His eventual decline into madness also makes me wonder about his
> theories...
He died from a syphylitic infection of the brain or brain cancer. I dont get why that affects anything he had written beforehand. He didn't write anything in the 11 years before he died when he was ill.
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion. One example is
> the Christian teaching of all men being created free to think,
> but this is not touched on as Nietzche concentrated almost soley
> on the teachings of Jesus and was actually following a movement
> at the time which reflected his attitude. He did have some
> interesting things to say, and agreed with the teachings of
> Jesus pretty much wholesale, but always had an agenda behind his
> writings driven by being a casualty of his peers.
It sounds unlike Nietzche to be following anyone, it maybe simply that other people were thinking along the same lines. Anyway...
The Christian teaching of all men being free to think isn't the same thing as being free to act or total freedom which is what Freddie advocates as part of the ubermensch. He liked Jesus simply because he was his own man with his own ideas and through that he gained power over those who didn't, it's the master and slave thing. You either stand on your own and accept complete responsibility for you life (Jesus) or you take the nihilistic miserable road of the slave, deny the joys and freedoms of this life and gamble that it's all waiting for you in the next (Christianity).
In the end i like that he advocates enjoying this life, free from any judgement or controls but your own. I think it's certainly a healthier and more rewarding philosophy if you can do it.
On the other hand however, apply it to modern day England. Who actually fits that mantra? It's the bloody chavs. Nietzche was the worlds first chav!
> His eventual decline into madness also makes me wonder about his
> theories...
He died from a syphylitic infection of the brain or brain cancer. I dont get why that affects anything he had written beforehand. He didn't write anything in the 11 years before he died when he was ill.
Sibelius wrote:
> pb wrote:
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion.
>
> The problem I've had with religion is that it does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to truth.
The problem i've had with religion is that it has nothing to do with the truth and is infact a load of mystical nonsense.
> pb wrote:
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion.
>
> The problem I've had with religion is that it does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to truth.
The problem i've had with religion is that it has nothing to do with the truth and is infact a load of mystical nonsense.
pb wrote:
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion.
The problem I've had with religion is that it does tend to simplify things a bit when it comes to truth.
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion.
The problem I've had with religion is that it does tend to simplify things a bit when it comes to truth.
Alfonse wrote:
> Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Alfonse wrote:
> So where did this infinite loop come from then?
>
> I'm fairly sure that would make it a finite loop.
>
> Sorry that's just stupid.
You could have misinterpreted me and I may therefore be misinterpreting your reply, but assuming you mean what I'm thinking then no, it's actually not.
Well, this is confusing because technically we're working backwards here, but looking at it chronologically, the loop clearly ends with the big bang. Therefore it has an end. If it had a "came from" then it must also have a begining. If it has a beginning and an end, it has a measurable length. If it has a measurable length then it is as infinite as a 30cm ruler.
I was suggesting it had an end (chronologically - the big bang, although really a beginning for the purpose of my "loop") but then recurred backwards infinitely, as explained below:
What I actually meant was that it begins with the big bang and then we work backwards to determine the cause. We bring in God, but if the big bang had must have had a cause then it would be contradictory to make God an exception. Thus the cause and effect problem remains. It could be expanded on infinitely but never solved (in that manner, anyway).
Although you actually highlighted the underlying point by asking where it came from.
> Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Alfonse wrote:
> So where did this infinite loop come from then?
>
> I'm fairly sure that would make it a finite loop.
>
> Sorry that's just stupid.
You could have misinterpreted me and I may therefore be misinterpreting your reply, but assuming you mean what I'm thinking then no, it's actually not.
Well, this is confusing because technically we're working backwards here, but looking at it chronologically, the loop clearly ends with the big bang. Therefore it has an end. If it had a "came from" then it must also have a begining. If it has a beginning and an end, it has a measurable length. If it has a measurable length then it is as infinite as a 30cm ruler.
I was suggesting it had an end (chronologically - the big bang, although really a beginning for the purpose of my "loop") but then recurred backwards infinitely, as explained below:
What I actually meant was that it begins with the big bang and then we work backwards to determine the cause. We bring in God, but if the big bang had must have had a cause then it would be contradictory to make God an exception. Thus the cause and effect problem remains. It could be expanded on infinitely but never solved (in that manner, anyway).
Although you actually highlighted the underlying point by asking where it came from.
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> Alfonse wrote:
> So where did this infinite loop come from then?
>
> I'm fairly sure that would make it a finite loop.
Sorry that's just stupid.
> Alfonse wrote:
> So where did this infinite loop come from then?
>
> I'm fairly sure that would make it a finite loop.
Sorry that's just stupid.
pb wrote:
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion.
I'm sure i've read that same exact sentence somewhere before, damn that's going to annoy me trying to think where i've seen that now.
> The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to
> simplify things a bit when it comes to religion.
I'm sure i've read that same exact sentence somewhere before, damn that's going to annoy me trying to think where i've seen that now.
Voltaire wrote:
> God is a defence mechanism for death anxiety and for those afraid
> to take responsibility for their own lives.
> When you're gone, thats it.
> As usual, i refer to Nietzche on religion. He liked Jesus,
> thought he was a great guy with good ideas, what he hated was
> the people who followed him blindly instead of thinking for
> themselves. Loved Jesus, hated organised religion.
>
> "When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a
> literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."
> Anais Nin
>
> Had to throw in a lil Nin as well ;P
The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to simplify things a bit when it comes to religion. One example is the Christian teaching of all men being created free to think, but this is not touched on as Nietzche concentrated almost soley on the teachings of Jesus and was actually following a movement at the time which reflected his attitude. He did have some interesting things to say, and agreed with the teachings of Jesus pretty much wholesale, but always had an agenda behind his writings driven by being a casualty of his peers.
His eventual decline into madness also makes me wonder about his theories...
As for the original post on this topic, I think its a simplistic view of the whole thing and as I've said before, there is no evidence for or against the whole existence of a God thing. Psychologists and thinkers can pretty much come up with an arguement for or against anything, including religion and science.
> God is a defence mechanism for death anxiety and for those afraid
> to take responsibility for their own lives.
> When you're gone, thats it.
> As usual, i refer to Nietzche on religion. He liked Jesus,
> thought he was a great guy with good ideas, what he hated was
> the people who followed him blindly instead of thinking for
> themselves. Loved Jesus, hated organised religion.
>
> "When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a
> literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."
> Anais Nin
>
> Had to throw in a lil Nin as well ;P
The problem I've had with Nietzche is that he does tend to simplify things a bit when it comes to religion. One example is the Christian teaching of all men being created free to think, but this is not touched on as Nietzche concentrated almost soley on the teachings of Jesus and was actually following a movement at the time which reflected his attitude. He did have some interesting things to say, and agreed with the teachings of Jesus pretty much wholesale, but always had an agenda behind his writings driven by being a casualty of his peers.
His eventual decline into madness also makes me wonder about his theories...
As for the original post on this topic, I think its a simplistic view of the whole thing and as I've said before, there is no evidence for or against the whole existence of a God thing. Psychologists and thinkers can pretty much come up with an arguement for or against anything, including religion and science.
:-D
Alfonse wrote:
> So where did this infinite loop come from then?
I'm fairly sure that would make it a finite loop.
> So where did this infinite loop come from then?
I'm fairly sure that would make it a finite loop.
I do like that theory :)
All a bit of fun though, isn't it.
All a bit of fun though, isn't it.
Page: