Technically, this is a very old debate, which you can research for yourself- see the works of (forgot how to spell his name), but it runs like this: Much of what Jesus talks about was talked about much early by the Pagan philosophers (and not to belittle or attack anyone, but more elegantly); many early Xians, in fact mimicked the Pagan teachers in dress, attitude, etc. However, it was felt that Xians made such approaches as for example vows of poverty not a virtue but a rote adherence which offered no spiritual benefit to anyone.

No. Because I was lied to about Santa, lied to about the Easter Bunny and lied to about the tooth fairy.

Do religious people believe in God so they can sin and get away with it?

Nobody gets away with sinning. We all will have to face our maker for every choice/decision we ever made.

MilesoftheUSA wrote:



I just about facepalmed when I read his post.

I mean, here MsHarmony is making an appeal to Christians for greater courtesy, and an atheist responds to that very appeal with derision. This made me sad.

Maybe he is frustrated- I know that certain people will ask me to help them with something, which means do the whole thing for them, to which I will get frustrated and say: do you want me to wipe your *** too? I try to tone that down with: I am sorry about the accident. What accident? The one that broken your legs so that you can't get up and do it for yourself.

That's like asking why adults don't believe in the tooth fairy simply because there is no proof that she doesn't exist. But more to the point, compelling evidence for the existence of God is sorely lacking. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the reasons we humans have believed in God throughout history are not good ones by today's standards. Further, there is ample evidence that what major religions claim about God is patently false.

Is it not that your sins are forgiven as long as you confess?
Forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to religion but that is my general thoughts on it.
I've seen enough people who are heavy into God do very sinful things, in which they blame the attack from the devil..

Probably they love science very much

Catholics believe sins are forgiven if one confesses and one does the necessary penance for their sins, which allows them to take Communion (receiving the body and blood of Jesus). Christians (anyone who believes that Christ is the Son of God) believe all sin is forgiven as long as one accepts into their heart 'The Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins'.


There's always loopholes and wiggle-room to living a Jesus-*like* life, otherwise hope would be difficult to have.

Semi-yes and semi-no. Confessing your sins is a good start. But after one confesses and or asks for forgiveness, then comes repentance. Without repentance there is no forgiveness.

Luke 24:47

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem

Notice repentance is before remission of sins, Repentance - refraining from doing.

Acts 2:38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Repent - To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it

One can not go out sinning and be like -

- You steal from someone, then ask forgiveness in order to be forgiven. But yet turn around and do the same thing over and over, ect.

If one asks for forgiveness one must truly mean it and truly feel remorse for what one has done and turn away from it. Who we worship is shown through our actions. One sins, at that time they are worshiping Satan and following what he wishes for us to do. If one doesn't repent from that action, one is still following Satan over following God. Of course there will be possible leeway's and mercy put upon us, but we are not God so we know not what he will turn the other cheek for.

The 6 Types of Atheists and Non-Believers in America




Researchers polled non-believers to find out who abandons religion and why. The answers tell us a lot about religion and non-belief in America.







6 COMMENTS
6 COMMENTS





















A
A
A

Email


Print





November 17, 2014 |




































With the rising number of people in America—now nearly one in five—who have no religious affiliation at all, more people are asking questions about who exactly these unbelievers are. Not all of them identify as atheist or agnostic or a non-believer, but plenty do, and while there are many people offering to defend this particular community, few are willing to speak for them.

After all, unlike religious believers, non-believers have no authorities, no hierarchies, no theology, nothing for us to look at to determine exactly who these people are. In addition, the public image of atheists, who are a diverse group in reality, is being shaped by a handful of vocal white men—Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens being the most famous—who, while well-respected in the atheist community, are not really representative.

Because of this, researchers at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga decided to poll and interview non-believers to find out what kind of people abandon religious faith and why. Based on this research, the project authors were able to divide non-believers into six basic categories, some of which may surprise you.

First things first: While atheists have a public image of being dogmatic and belligerent—an image that famous atheists like Bill Maher only end up reinforcing—researchers found that to absolutely not be true. Only 15 percent of non-believers even fit in the category of those who actively seek out religious people to argue with, and the subset that are dogmatic about it are probably even smaller than that. But that doesn’t mean that the majority of non-believers are just sitting around, twiddling their thumbs and not letting atheism affect their worldview. On the contrary, researchers found that the majority of non-believers take some kind of action in the world to promote humanism, atheism or secularism. Here is a breakdown of the types.

1. Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic. By far, the most common kind of non-believer, at nearly 38 percent. This group enjoys intellectual discourse, and while they’re often very certain about their beliefs, they’re not belligerent about it. These types often get mistaken for dogmatic atheists, however, because they have a tendency to join skeptic’s groups or otherwise find avenues to discuss non-belief with others. However, as researchers note, these non-believers “associate with fellow intellectuals regardless of the other’s ontological position,” so long as their friends “versed and educated on various issues of science, philosophy, ‘rational’ theology, and common socio-political religious dialog.” They like debating religion, but aren’t particularly interested in chasing down believers to give them a hard time.

2. Activist. This group also gets commonly accused of being dogmatic, but like the intellectual atheist, while they’re firm in their beliefs, they’re intellectually flexible and don’t prioritize attacking believers. Instead, they are motivated by a strong sense of humanist values to make change in the world, often making related issues—such as feminism, gay rights, or the environment—a priority over simply advocating atheism. This group also advocates for a better, more egalitarian atheist community, according to researchers: “They seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere." Because of this, they unfortunately attract a lot of abuse from a small but vocal minority of atheists who disapprove of linking secularism with larger social justice issues, but they do have the numbers on their side. They are the second biggest sub-category of non-believers, making up 23 percent of non-believers.

3. Seeker-Agnostic. This group, which makes up 7.6 percent of non-believers, are unlikely to be as critical of religion as most other groups. They prioritize not-knowingness. If you ever come across people saying, “I don’t know, but neither do you!” regarding religious belief, you’re dealing with a seeker-agnostic. They don’t really believe in anything, but they are uncomfortable committing to non-belief completely. They routinely get accused of intellectual cowardice by atheists, but researchers defend them, saying, “For the Seeker-Agnostic, uncertainty is embraced.”

4. Anti-Theist. This group tends to get conflated with all atheists by believers, but they only constitute 15 percent of non-believers. Like the Intellectual Atheists, they like to argue about religion, but they are much more aggressive about it and actively seek out religious people in an effort to disabuse them of their beliefs. While most atheists limit themselves to supporting a more secular society, anti-theists tend to view ending religion as the real goal. While plenty are aggressively angry, researchers point out this isn’t necessarily a bad thing: “For example, many of the Antitheist typology had responded as recently deconverted from religious belief or socially displeased with the status quo, especially in high social tension-based geographies such as the Southeastern United States,” and being combative with believers might help them establish their own sense of self and right to non-belief.

5. Non-Theist. They don’t believe in any gods, but don’t think about those who do very often. In such a religious society, simply opting out of caring much about religion one way or another is nearly impossible, which is why this group is only 4.4 percent of non-believers. “A Non-Theist simply does not concern him or herself with religion,” researchers explain. In some skeptical/atheist circles, this group is disparagingly referred to as “shruggies," because they simply shrug when asked their opinion on religion. However, some quite likely are indifferent because they’re fortunate enough to live in a bubble where belief doesn’t matter one way or another.

6. Ritual Atheist/Agnostic. While you might think the anti-theist is the non-believer type that scares Christians the most, it turns out that it may very well be the Ritual Atheist/Agnostic. This group, making up 12.5 percent of atheists, doesn’t really believe in the supernatural, but they do believe in the community aspects of their religious tradition enough to continue participating. We’re not just talking about atheists who happen to have a Christmas tree, but who tend to align themselves with a religious tradition even while professing no belief. “Such participation may be related to an ethnic identity (e.g. Jewish),” explain researchers, “or the perceived utility of such practices in making the individual a better person." The Christian Post clearly found this group most alarming, titling their coverage of this study “Researchers: 'Ritual' Atheists and Agnostics Could Be Sitting Next to You in Church,” and giving the first few paragraphs over to concern that people in your very own congregation may not actually believe in your god. The atheism, it seems, might be coming from inside the house (of God).

While a lot of non-believers don’t really do much when it comes to acting on their non-belief, for those who are trying to create a more organized atheist community that takes up activism and offers community, there is plenty of reason to hope. The Intellectual, the Activist and the Anti-theist all, to one extent or another, discuss their non-belief with others or let their non-belief have significant impact on their activities. Taken together, they make up nearly three-quarters of non-believers. That’s a big group that has a lot in common, and perhaps that energy could be harnessed as a force of good.



Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments."

Why do Atheists exist?

The reality is that everyone believes something a little differently. Atheists may have the most unified belief system of all by believing that God doesn't exist or that the spiritual nature of the belief system doesn't exist or is generally invalid.

Some could say that religion is not based on fact and all religious documents are false ... but religious documents, in some cases, documents ancient events in human history. That doesn't necessarily mean that science or aliens or something else couldn't explain the parting of the Red Sea, if it indeed parted. Since the belief in science (or aliens) gives a reason for historical religious events to occur, there are some who find "that is enough" and need go no farther.

There are those who have been hurt and/or betrayed by those who profess religion. Some of the most devout atheists, IMHO, are people who have been subjected to "the teachings of _______" and found that the people doing the preaching are the worst offenders of what the religion says not to do. This hypocrisy leaves a lasting bad taste and tends to turn one in the opposite direction.

Some are not exposed to religion at an early age and therefore do not develop a guilt system for non-believing. When eventually exposed, they look at the presentation and just don't buy it.

Some do not understand theology as a concept and cannot believe in something that they truly do not understand.

Some do not believe in their heart but profess otherwise to maintain some semblance of "fitting in" with whatever peer group to which they want to impress. I suspect this group is rather large.

Some profess to be Atheist but are really agnostic. They haven't seen any proof of an "higher being" but deep down inside, they are not sure whether someone else maybe has or that maybe they don't understand the limits of what may be possible in this Universe.

Some simply have no faith, the possession of which is a necessary to believe in something that is otherwise invisible.

I believe that everyone should believe whatever they want to believe as long as the practice of it doesn't adversely affect others.

There's no "semi-correct, semi-wrong" about it.

Please do NOT place your individual Christian-based spin on what Catholicism and Christianity believes and teaches, nor your individual Christian-based spin on what The Bible says is "right".


It is simply your individual Christian-based spin on things; it is NOT universal to all "Christians". Your individual Christian faith does NOT own the term - nor write rules - of what a "Christian" is.

anything that keeps one from wishing to see all of it self, it's worst, and best, is a determent to the better of the world, and any belief can be used for that.

I was non-religious for most of my adult life. But started thinking that Jesus (as portrayed) was a pretty good example ... i.e. per the good samaritan, the tax guy in the tree, the woman who they were about to stone to death examples ... that sort of thing. I think because of all the stupid dogma, the fundamentalists and the rituals, that for many of us, the baby gets to be thrown out with the bath water. I heard once that god is love and I know that love exists. But whether there is love in the energy that the entire universe is made of, I don't know. But that's what spiritual people believe. Perhaps perceiving it to be so, helps us to attune ourselves with that concept. A lot of people spend a lot of time meditating on that to cleanse their thinking. There are many people that follow a spiritual path and it brings them happiness. Andd there are many that don't, that are bitter sceptics and nothing has really worked for them in their private lives. So I don't think the debate is going to end any time soon.

what that wishes for a better world for all be not of christ, as christ was only christ because IT wanted a better world for all, and stood against those whom loved creating a less better world for all to abain more for them self.

Very well put. Sadly most Christians never read the bible from cover to cover and even worse most never look to the history before 2000 years ago. To bad if they did they would discover that the bible and the god in it they so badly want to believe in would be considered the worlds most jealous, psychopathic, narcissistic serial killer of all time. Worse than 1000's of times worse than Hitler and all others combined. Most people in this group talking against Atheist are talking out of their *** holes and know jack **** about it. I was a hard believer as a kid and as I got a work assignment back a fee years before the Arab spring in Egypt where I was able to get to visit the town of Luxor and first hand view carved in stone scriptures from 5900+ years ago that are all the same BS stories in the bible only diff is that the gods are star configurations. The Jesus story has been repeated dozens of times dating back to 4000BC. We are born programed to and reinforced by are parents when we are kids which blocks many people to dig deeper and research history. Religion is now falling and it is amazing how many ministers, priests etc. are Atheists and the clan they preach to weekly know nothing about it. Many that taken the time to read the bible cover to cover and then do some research discover that no historical records show the kings mentioned in the bible during such period 2000 years ago existed.

The passover died and rose from the dead comes from the solstice cycle when winter moves to sprint and a 3 day hold cycle moves from a non growing season for food (dead/died) to the start of the growing season Rising up/Life again. Sadly the Vatican holds most the blame for the misleading of man kind and religion as it was them going back to 500 year and more that would kill scientists and destroy records that showed advancements in knowledge. All for the fear of risk that could destabilize believers and the followers.

There is a reason a mass exodus is happening and that is people are starting to do historical background checks.

clergyproject.org around 700 Ministers etc. are still preaching that are Atheists in hiding

Another site with around 22,000 also .

Plus the big secret (Freemasons, Illuminati and others are hiding is that they were privy to see lots of material that shows the biggest crutch that can be exploited an is fake is religions) Sadly the narcissistic within the groups will let many around think they are believers just for a self serving cause themselves.)

It amazes me how many Christians believe but know nothing about the god they worship and have never done any historical background research. Scary.

Christan religions stem off of Plagiarizing previous belief systems from the middle east and other areas of the world. Such as the Catholic faith and the sign of the cross adopted from pagan symbolism and faith's dating back to 2300BC along with doing the sign was also used as a group hypnotic suggestion phase from India around 800BC. Having a group make gestures together lowers the resistance level of those in a group.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/2705-senior-israeli-archaeologist-casts-doubt-on-jewish-heritage-of-jerusalem

A decade and millions spent digging for evidence of 2000 year old stories of the bible and nothing but just the opposite just stories. But when the time is taken to look further back in history you can discover where the stories were spun from and why!

The worse part about most religions when you read from cover to cover you will discover that the biggest victim from it is the females. They are be little by rules and control by the males.


Leviticus 25:44–46

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 kYou may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel lyou shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
Nietzsche and God (Part I)
Adrian Samuel
Abstract
What is distinctive about Nietzsche’s rejection of God is that it is not based upon
mere rational demonstration – e.g., defending the position that there is insufficient
support for the claim X exists, such that X has the properties of God. Rather than
argue that God does not exist, Nietzsche claims that ‘God is dead’. And this is itself
tied up with a belief that rational justification (of which God is both a symptom and a
cause1) has undermined itself due to reducing the question of meaning2 to the question
of the true.3 That is, ‘God is dead’ because the timeless and universal standpoint of
God has led to ‘nihilism’ – the viewpoint that there is essentially nothing meaningful
to our world beyond a set of true facts. Against this, Nietzsche champions an
essentially ‘psychological’ approach to the question of the true, which allows him to
explore what meaning a particular understanding of reality involves. The paper
concludes that Nietzsche’s opposition to God is based upon his psychological
reductionism (his belief that the objects of decision are reducible to the psychological
process of deciding) and his pantheism (his identifying nature as the source of value).4
Nietzsche & Monotheism.
Nietzsche is (in)famous for his denunciation of Christianity, and more broadly
monotheism. He doesn’t mince his words:
‘Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's
nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up
as, faith in "another" or "better" life.’ (Birth of Tragedy, p.23)5
The Jews and Muslims are treated a little more kindly, although even they are seen as
essentially ‘slavish’ and ignoble. 6 In spite of this charged rhetoric, Nietzsche’s
approach to the question of God is subtle and challenging. Nietzsche succinctly
presents his position in what is sometimes called the ‘parable of the madman’, section
125 of the The Gay Science.7
‘Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning
hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I
am looking for God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were
standing together there, he excited considerable laughter.
‘Have you lost him, then?’ said one.
‘Did he lose his way like a child?’ said another.
‘Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated?’
Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and
pierced them with his glances.
‘Where has God gone?’ he cried.
‘I shall tell you. We have killed him -you and I. We are his murderers. But
how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us
the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we
moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward,
sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not
straying as through an infinite nothing?’
From this passage, it is clear that Nietzsche now sees the idea of God to have become
impotent – alienated from the market-place.8 For no-one berates the ‘madman’ for
blasphemy – nor does anyone attempt to help the madman find God. Rather, the
madman’s search for God is taken as a bit of a joke – worthy of being mocked and
little more. Nietzsche coins this sociological movement towards not taking ‘God’
seriously as the ‘death of God’. That is, the former importance ‘God’ had in
structuring our lives has ended.
Further, Nietzsche sees the death of God to be a problem. This is made clear after the
sentence ‘The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.’ To
present this problem, Nietzsche uses the evocative language of the event’s wiping
away the entire horizon of what is meaningful for us. He also presents the death of
God in terms of our world’s losing its centre of gravity and of energy, the sun. The
death of God is also presented as a crisis of direction – of our being sent into free-fall,
losing any sense of the purpose and meaning of our lives, vividly presented in terms
of our ‘straying as through an infinite nothing’.
In brief then, Nietzsche sees the death of God to lead to the problem of
disenchantment – that the ultimate significance of our lives (previously understood in
terms of our relationship to God) has been replaced by an essentially insignificant
world (of mere causal interaction).9
The assumption underlying this is of course that God previously played the role of our
world’s centre of gravity, its energising force and orientating direction. Given that
assumption, it might be thought that Nietzsche would attempt to rethink the idea of
God for his own age. Indeed, there are many examples of Christians attempting to do
this, such as the Anglican Bishop Robinson in his controversial book Honest to God.10
Or we can look no further than the Bible itself for exactly the same thing, such as the
prophet Amos. In the Biblical Book named after him, the prophet presents these harsh
words as coming from God:
I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.
Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!’ (Amos, 5:21-24)11
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
What characterises these religious revisionists is typically an appeal to radicalism.
Radicality is often confused with extremism in the popular press, but in its proper
sense it means going back to the root (radicalism is drawn from the Latin radix
meaning root). As such, Amos is calling the Jews back to a more authentic
relationship to God after they had become overly preoccupied with the outward form
of the rituals that were meant to open them on to just that relationship.
Nietzsche however, is different. He is not concerned to rethink and thereby
reinvigorate our relationship to God. For Nietzsche, God is the problem. Or, to put the
issue more clearly, God is the clearest symptom and cause of the problem, which is
justificatory rationality as the standard for all understanding. To explore Nietzsche’s
rejection of God, we must therefore digress to firstly explore his rejection of
justificatory rationality.12
Justificatory rationality.
Justificatory rationality is the attempt to ground our beliefs upon basic elements.
These foundational elements are typically held to be self-evident or self-justifying,
and thereby afford an ‘objective’ standpoint. The truth of our beliefs thereby lies in
their being appropriately referred (either directly or through some more complex
chain of reasoning) to an objective standard of justification.
Nietzsche’s critique of objectivism lies in his questioning the question of truth. In
section 1 of Beyond Good & Evil13, he writes:
‘The will to truth, which is still going to tempt us to many a daring exploit,
that celebrated truthfulness of which all philosophers up to now have spoken
with respect, what questions this will to truth has already set down before us!
What strange, serious, dubious questions! There is already a long history
about them—and yet it seems that this history has scarcely begun. Is it any
wonder that we finally become mistrustful, lose patience and, in our
impatience, turn ourselves around, and learn from this sphinx to ask questions
for ourselves? Who is really asking us questions here? What is it in us that
really wants "the truth"? In fact, we pause for a long time before the question
about the origin of this will—until we finally remain completely and utterly
immobile in front of an even more fundamental question. We ask about the
value of this will. Suppose we want truth. Why should we not prefer untruth?
And ignorance? Ignorance of the self? The problem of the value of truth steps
up before us—or are we the ones who step up before the problem? Who
among us here is Oedipus? Who is the Sphinx?’
In this passage, Nietzsche puts the question of truth into question.14 That is, instead of
merely attempting to answer the sphinx’s15 question of ‘What is truth?’, Nietzsche
puts his own question to the enigma of truth. He interrogates the traditional
philosophical question of ‘What is truth?’ in terms of the question ‘Why truth?’. And
he approaches this question ‘Why truth?’ in terms of the ‘value’ of this ‘will to truth’.
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
Now the question of value assumes a standard of evaluation – i.e., some way of
determining the value of the thing. And that standard is typically the significance the
thing has for someone or something else. For example, a picture of my father is
valued because I value it – it is valuable to me. 16 Now, as we have seen, Nietzsche is
asking after the value of the ‘will to truth’. So he similarly needs to identify what the
‘will to truth’ is valuable to.
Nietzsche’s answer to this is ‘life’. And by ‘life’, Nietzsche means some causalorganic
movement to which the act of knowing belongs. 17 Rather than simply
attempting to answer the question of what truth is therefore, Nietzsche attempts to
situate the question of truth and its answer within the holistic movement of ‘life’. That
is, Nietzsche does not see life in terms of truth, as philosophers typically do, when
they treat biographical questions as at most useful for determining the validity and
accuracy of argument. He rather sees truth in terms of life, inquiring into how
different approaches to the question of truth transform the significance or value of life.
Nietzsche’s approach is therefore to treat the question of truth not as a problem that
has to be solved, but as rather a symptom and aspect of something greater, which he
terms ‘life’. And by ‘life’ he means an all-embracing movement, that includes both
causality and consciousness within itself.
We are now in a position to understand why Nietzsche rejects objectivism. This is
principally because it takes the question of ‘What is truth?’ as basic, and attempts to
simply answer this question by referring our beliefs to an objective standpoint.
Against this, Nietzsche raises two criticisms.
Firstly, it is insufficiently honest since it fails to inquire into the reasons for a concern
for the truth. – i.e., ‘Why truth?’ (BGE, 25) That is, it is interrogatively deficient,
meaning that the significance of the question and answer are inadequately explored.
Secondly, and leading on from the first point, Nietzsche sees objectivism to implicitly
reduce our motivations to a merely instrumental role in acknowledging reality. That is,
such an approach implicitly reduces the question of meaning (the contextual
significance something has) to the question of objective knowledge (the mindindependent
reality something has). Nietzsche argues that this is problematic, since
knowledge is not simply of a mind-independent reality, but it is also indicative of how
our mind conceives and relates to the world. If we are properly to understand the
relationship between the question of the true and the question of meaning, we need to
abandon such attempts to reduce the question of meaning to the question of the true
and thereby recognise the ‘perspectival’ nature of our knowledge. That is, all knowing
takes place within a ‘horizon’ of meaning (BGE, 43), and it is through this context of
meaning that we are granted a perspective on reality.18 Perspectivism then, can be
seen to articulate Nietzsche’s alternative to objectivism – a context-specific model of
knowing.
In summary then, Nietzsche champions an essential holism19 against objectivism, by
rethinking the question of truth in terms of its belonging to (and being a symptom of)
the movement of ‘life’. All knowing takes place within and from life, meaning that
knowledge is not seen as simply objective (as opposed to subjective), but as
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
perspectival (a contextually embedded position, that allows Nietzsche to bridge the
opposition between subjectivity and objectivity).
Objectivism and God
If Nietzsche is against objectivism then, this still raises the question why he is against
God. The principal reason for this is because Nietzsche sees God to be the clearest
symptom and cause of objectivist thought – God is the ultimate standard to which our
thoughts need be referred and to some extent justified or at least judged. God
therefore typifies such an approach, as well as encourages us to see the world in terms
of this approach. That is, Nietzsche identifies God with what Thomas Nagel would
much later term the ‘view from nowhere’20 – a purely objective standpoint essentially
divorced from our subjective involvement in the world, and yet one which acts as the
standard for deciding whether our subjective involvement in the world (principally
our decision-making) is true or false.
As we have seen, Nietzsche’s holistic ‘perspectivism’ leads him to reject such a
universal standpoint – what might be termed the viewpoint of God. And as we have
also seen, Nietzsche’s argument is that such a standpoint fails to take the question of
meaning seriously. That is, the attempt to abstract out of contextual specificity so as to
achieve an objective standpoint implicitly reduces the contextually specific questions
of meaning (what meaning does something have within its context) to a set of
objective and yet essentially meaningless ‘truths’. Or more damagingly in the case of
God, it projects what is meaningful beyond our world into some ultimate standard of
meaning (‘God’, understood as the standard by which we judge the significance of an
act). And this is a problem, since it implicitly undermines the meaning of the world
for the sake of a ‘fictitious’ ‘other world’.
Nietzsche’s critique of theistic belief is therefore that it is essentially ‘nihilistic’21 –
undermining the meaning of our world (acknowledged through our contextual
involvement in it) 22 for the sake of a fictitious reality (a projected standard of
meaning), identified with the ‘truth’.
Nietzsche’s critique does not stop here however. For he is not simply interested in
claiming that a belief in God undermines our meaningful involvement in the world.
He is also interested in exploring how ‘life’ came to undermine itself (deny its own
meaningfulness) through that aspect of life which is religion.
Religion and Psychology
This question of the ‘genealogy’ of nihilism leads Nietzsche to adopt an essentially
psychological approach to truth claims. That is, Nietzsche is not principally interested
in the logical validity or empirical support a particular theory or religious position
achieves. He is rather interested in the drives that lead us to attempt to defend
particular theories of truth or religious positions (e.g., why was Descartes concerned
to identify truth with absolute certainty or why do some people believe that God
affords a transcendent justification of life).23
Nietzsche explores these drives through the discipline of psychology. Psychology
however, should not be understood in merely mental terms. Rather, for Nietzsche, our
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
psychological drives are not essentially separate from the world we inhabit, but
continuous with it. And he explores this continuity between consciousness and
causality in terms of his concept of the ‘will to power’. The will to power then, as
Deleuze24 rightly notes, is not principally a desire to get power over others (though it
can be this at times). It is rather the power to will – the unifying element that all
action belongs to, including inorganic matter and consciousness. To embrace the will
to power might therefore be understood in terms of immersing oneself in the power to
will.
Now by exploring the will to power, of which the psychological process of willing is
a part, and of which the will to truth is a smaller part, Nietzsche aims to better
understand how our will shares in the movement of life. As Nietzsche writes at the
end of the ‘Prejudices of the Philosophers’, the first chapter of Beyond Good & Evil:
‘All psychology so far has remained hung up on moral prejudices and fears. It
has not dared to go into the depths. To understand it as the morphology and
doctrine of the development of the will to power—the way I understand it […]
For from now on psychology is once more the route to fundamental
problems.’ (BGE, 22)
Instead of attempting to answer the question of the reality of God then, Nietzsche
rethinks the question and any attempt to answer it in terms of its revealing a
psychology – understood in terms of its disclosing a complex of drives. Different
philosophical positions and religious standpoints are therefore evaluated in terms of
their being expressions of and drives sharing in the will to power.
We are now in a position to supplement Nietzsche’s objectivist critique of God with
his psychological critique. For Nietzsche diagnoses life’s attempt to transcend its
affirmatively interactive drives so as to arrive at a timeless and neutral standpoint as
symptomatic of ‘life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked
by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.’ That is, the motivating drive
behind such a standpoint is interpreted as a form of escapism from life’s drives, rather
than as anything substantial in its own right. We might therefore term such a critique
of God (and more broadly of truth) as psychological reductionism – the belief that
truth’s identification is reducible to the psychological process of identifying. Or in
other words, a belief in God is reducible to the process by which we came to believe
in God.
Nietzsche’s psychological reductionism leads to his third principal reason for denying
the reality of God. And this is Nietzsche’s pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that
nature is divine – that everything participates in the divine reality. And Nietzsche’s
attempt to situate our decisions (about truth) within a universal interplay of drives (the
‘will to power’) leads him to see the unifying element of the ‘will to power’ to be the
source of value. The transcendent God of monotheism is therefore critiqued on the
grounds that it undermines the source of value (nature in its totality, understood as the
will to power) for the sake of a fiction.
In summary then, for Nietzsche, the world we directly experience is the only world,
and self-denial for the sake of a fiction is psychologically symptomatic of life’s
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
sickness.25 Against this approach of self-denial for the sake of service, Nietzsche
articulates a viewpoint that is celebratory of our drives (the ‘will to power’).
Beyond Good & Evil.
This ‘affirmative’ philosophy leads Nietzsche to reject not only the authority of God,
but also the authority of all standards of truth that stand over and above ‘life’ –
including moral ones. That is, Nietzsche is also led to reject moral standards of truth,
which typically defend the weak against the oppression of the strong. Against this
essentially defensive approach to authority, Nietzsche celebrates a culture that
respects greatness but is disdainful of respecting those who fail to achieve greatness:
‘The European disguises himself with morality because he has become a sick,
sickly, crippled animal that has good reasons for being "tame," for he is almost
an abortion, scarce half made up, weak, awkward ... It is not the ferocity of the
beast of prey that requires a moral disguise but the herd animal with its
profound mediocrity, timidity, and boredom with itself.’ (The Gay Science,
352)
In short, respect for God and for the weak are sacrificed by Nietzsche for the sake of
the freedom of the great, and this is seen to logically follow from a commitment to
celebrating the creative possibilities of the will to power.26
Conclusion
If Nietzsche is right then, the ‘death of God’ poses a more significant challenge than
whether we attend an act of religious worship or not. God is both a symptom and a
cause of the world’s disenchantment. That is, a belief in God firstly involves
projecting meaning beyond our involvement in the world, due to the fact that we can
no longer find sufficient meaning there – i.e., we are psychologically ‘sick’. And by
projecting meaning beyond our involvement in the world (in the figure of ‘God’), we
progressively undermine the meaning of that involvement, since meaning now has to
be ascribed to events by their being referred to God. God might therefore be seen as a
vicious circle of meaninglessness.
To simply abandon a belief in God is therefore not an adequate response for Nietzsche.
We rather have to address the fact that our world is now essentially disenchanted – we
have lost any essential understanding of the meaning of our world. To simply accept
the mechanistic view of modern physics merely assumes this disenchantment, rather
than challenges it.
In articulating his own response, Nietzsche tantalisingly points towards the ‘overman’
(ubermensch), but this is never sufficiently developed. It seems to be less a particular
person, and more an event, in which our world will be re-enchanted through a
celebration of greatness. The ethical implications of this mode of re-enchantment are
questionable however.
Whatever the limitations of Nietzsche’s proposal to the problem though, he remains a
key thinker due to his clearly identifying the problem of the world’s disenchantment.
That is, Nietzsche radically challenges philosophy’s traditional assumption of the
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
question of meaning in its answering the question of the true – a tradition going right
back to Plato. For Nietzsche, the question of meaning is irreducible.27 Theists reading
Nietzsche need to clearly distinguish between the problem Nietzsche identifies and
the answer he gives to that problem. By rejecting the latter, while acknowledging the
former, like Amos, they might be able to radicalise and thereby reinvigorate a
relationship to God in our own age.
Adrian Samuel
Humanities
Richmond upon Thames College
adrian.samuel@rutc.ac.uk
1 That is, God as symptom is the ultimate example of an ultimate ground for all our knowledge, and
God as cause encourages us to believe that our knowledge requires to be grounded.
2 The question of meaning does not refer here to the semantic question of how lexical signs denote
elements of reality. It rather concerns meaning as significance – the question of what significance our
experiences are understood to have.
3 Nietzsche’s rejection of God is often presented in terms of an attempt to champion our drives against
monotheism’s demand for submission. Here I argue that this attempt is itself based upon Nietzsche’s
more essential challenge to philosophy’s traditional approach to inquiry.
4 This paper aims simply to present Nietzsche’s position, rather than criticise it.
5 Nietzsche, F. (1967) The Birth of Tragedy & the Case of Wagner, trans. Kaufmann, USA: Random
House
6 Nietzsche sees the other-worldiness of monotheism to be most clearly revealed in Christianity, since
this religion emphasises the inwardness of our coming to experience God (in contrast to Judaism and
Islam, which tend to emphasise more the public dimension of godly rule). And that experience is one of
denying oneself so as to belong to a more true or godly world – what Jesus termed the ‘kingdom of
God’, and which he enacted in his passion, crucifixion and resurrection. This makes Christianity more
overtly life-denying than the other two faiths, but nevertheless, all three faiths share the same essential
logic of slavishness rather than creative affirmation for Nietzsche.
7 Nietzsche, F. (1974) The Gay Science, trans. Kaufmann, USA: Random House
8 That is, the God of religion has died in Europe. However, Nietzsche believes that the idea of God
does linger on in a sublimated form such as in ideals of progress or in the nation state. These are
themselves ultimately doomed however, leaving us with the problem of ‘nihilism’ – a world in which
we can no longer properly inquire into the meaning of our world.
9 After the ‘death of God’ and its ‘death throes’ (such as a belief in progress, etc.), Nietzsche believes
that we are left with an essentially barbaric culture of instrumental manipulation. The sociologist Max
Weber, following Nietzsche, would later memorably characterise our age in terms of an ‘iron cage’ of
rationality – where we know how to interrelate and use everything, but have lost any real sense of the
intrinsically significant (what is significant for its own sake).
10 Robinson, J.A.T. (1963), Honest to God, London: Westminster John Knox Press
11 Old Testament of the Bible, NIV
12 Theologians have responded to Nietzsche’s challenge by attempting to radicalise the faith. In
particular, Don Cuppitt in his Sea of Faith has integrated the ‘death of God’ into a non-realist
conception of our relation to God.
13 Nietzsche, F. (1998) Beyond Good & Evil, trans. M. Faber, Oxford: OUP
14 For Nietzsche, the question of truth is not a objectively neutral enterprise. He discusses how the
question has changed its meaning over different epochs (e.g., from Plato’s eternal standard of truth,
through Stoicism’s ideal of the natural order, through Descartes’ demand for absolute certainty, etc.).
By putting the question of truth itself into question, Nietzsche is attempting to explore how to ask that
question – which paradigm of inquiry we should adopt.
15 The Sphinx is an iconic image of a recumbent lion typically with the head of a person, invented by
the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom. Nietzsche is referring to Sophocles’ play Oedipus Tyrannus, in
which the sphinx asks all passersby the famous riddle: "Which creature in the morning goes on four
Nietzsche and God (Part I) Richmond Journal of Philosophy 14 (Spring 2007)
Adrian Samuel
feet, at noon on two, and in the evening upon three?" She strangles anyone unable to answer. (The
answer is humanity.)
16 Things can of course be intrinsically valuable (e.g., a husband might be valued for his own sake), but
even such things are necessarily valued by something else (e.g., a wife).
17 In adopting such an approach, Nietzsche is following Schopenhauer, who similarly understood all
reality (inorganic and organic) to belong to the movement of the ‘will’. Nevertheless, Schopenhauer
adopts an essentially negative approach to the eternal struggles of ‘life’, in contrast to Nietzsche’s
essentially positive attitude. [Schopenhauer, A. (1967) The World as Will & Representation, trans.
Payne, New York: Dover, vol. 1 & 2]
18 Nietzsche’s perspectivism can be seen as a development of Kant’s transcendental Idealism, with its
claim that what we know is always shaped by how we know (the ‘categories’ of our knowing).
19 That is, a standpoint in which question of meaning and the question of truth are inextricably
intertwined.
20 Nagel, T (1989), The View from Nowhere, Oxford: OUP
21 ‘Nihilism’ is Nietzsche’s term for reality’s meaning essentially nothing.
22 Heidegger terms this ‘being-in-the-world’. Heidegger’s four-volume discussion of Nietzsche is a
classic for understanding the insights and limitations of Nietzsche’s thought. [Heidegger, M. (1991)
Nietzsche, trans. D.F. Krell, Australia: HarperCollins]
23 Nietzsche’s approach therefore comes close to an ad hominem argument, since he explores the
character implicit within a particular psychological approach to truth.
24 Deleuze, G. (1986) Nietzsche & Philosophy, trans. Tomlinson, London: Athlone Press
25 Similar to a ‘beautiful soul’, who wants to fade away from the cut and thrust of life into some fiction
of pure, defenceless beauty.
26 These achievements need not be at the expense of the weak, for greatness is principally to be
achieved psychologically rather than merely physically. And psychological greatness involves our
going beyond negative drives such as resentment (‘ressentiment’) which can lead us to be vicious to
others or judge ourselves relative to others (e.g., understand our authority in terms of our authority over
others). Nevertheless, greatness for Nietzsche might involve treating the weak as merely a resource for
its own creativity, as he acknowledges.
27 Heidegger terms Nietzsche’s philosophy ‘reversed Platonism’, due to its subordinating the question
of the true to the question of meaning, in contrast to Plato who subordinated the question of meaning to
the question of the true. (See Martin Heidegger’s The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking.)