Grappling with religion over the past year, after rejecting it all my life

So just leave something behind? What is the issue?

>Anyone that claims to be able to handle the idea of dying and leaving nothing behind is lying to you and themselves.

STOP

...

Nietzsche was just a fag permabutthurt about his dad.

>autism
>literal non-meme autism

t. haven't read nietzsche

How? Nietzsche was just a hedonistic faggot who wanted to live like an African savage rather submit to the moral code that rescued Europe from barbarity.

>Nietzsche was just a hedonistic faggot who wanted to live like an African savage
Nietzsche always stressed that greatness comes only with mastery over the self. He hailed self-discipline and self-restrained as necessary to strength.

And then he willingly got himself infected with syphilis and died in an asylum.

I would say I'm okay with it, but I guess you know my feelings better than me.

I have.

>hate dad is a Protestant German clergyman
>start hating Germany to the point you wish it didn't exist, call it the worst nation in Europe, be so delusional you start calling yourself Polish
>start hating Protestantism and Christianity so much you invent literal horseshit strawmen about Luther being a life-denier and Italian renaissance people being life-enjoyers while in reality it was the other way around

Literally an entire body of work based on butthurt against your dad, worthless shit.

This. He was the prototypical "mad at dad" atheist.

nietzsche was a fag, but you're fucking retarded if you actually believe what you wrote

>kabbalah

That's just Jewish witchcraft.

Actually I have and his """"critique"""" of Christianity basically reads like this:

>Come now and I shall reveal to you the horror of the Christian religion! Look and see how weak and puny these Christians are! Disgusting horrible creatures who are bad dumb doo doo heads! What weaklings! Oh no I can hardly bare to gaze upon them so pathetic they are!

I guarantee you if Nietzsche lived in the 21st century he would be a deviantart furfag.

Listen cuntface, Nietzsche was a white nigger.

>The prime anti-Western fantasy for our age, however, was expressed by Nietzsche. Two years after hearing the piano score of Wagner's epoch-making opera Tristan and Isolde, Nietzsche made a lifelong commitment to sexual revolution by deliberately infecting himself with syphilis in a Leipzig brothel. Thomas Mann saw in that gesture an act of "demonic consecration." Whatever the motivation, Nietzsche was outraged when Wagner had second thoughts. When Wagner "prostrated himself before the cross" by writing Parsifal, Nietzsche flew into a rage not only against Wagner but against German music and all of Europe as well. Turning his disease-damaged eyes southward, he began to discern what he termed the "lewd melancholy" across the Mediterranean. As an antidote to Wagner's prostration before the cross, Nietzsche discovered Africa. "This music," Nietzsche writes, describing his impression of Bizet's Carmen, "is lively, but its liveliness is neither French nor German. Its liveliness is African. It has this destiny; its happiness is short, sudden, and without pardon. I envy Bizet, therefore, because he has the courage to give impression to this sensibility, a sensibility which up 'til this time had no expression in European music, a more southern, browner, more burned sensibility. ... How the yellow afternoons of this happiness give us pleasure! We look out and believe that we have never seen the sea calmer. And how this moorish dance speaks to us so tranquilly! How even our insatiability learns satiety from its lewd melancholy! Finally we have a love that has been transposed back to nature. Not the love for of some "higher virgin"! No Senta sentimentality! Rather love as fate, as fatality, cynical, without guilt, cruel - and as a result just like nature. That love which is war in its means, and at its basis the deadly hatred of the sexes [my translation"

-E. Michael Jones "Degenerate Moderns"

>ad hominem

>power because I can't handle the fact

kek muuh reality sucks so I will make up my for fuzzy feelings

>"Degenerate Moderns"
Sounds like an unbiased source.

Prove me wrong, faggot.

>Hurr that quote can't be real because the guy citing it has opinions

What exactly have you read by Nietzsche?

Antichrist and Zarathustra. I'm basing what I said specifically on Antichrist.

'on the genealogy of morality' is where I think he makes his greatest case against Christianity.

Either counter the things I said in or leave it be. From what I gathered, Nietzsche's general poor education regarding theology and history of Christianism hindered his entire work because it operates on false premises. He isn't refuting Christianity, he's refuting his false idea of what Christianity is, especially when it comes to Lutheranism.

>can't handle the fact I'm going to die
Do people really feel this way? I feel the opposite, I'm not sure I can handle living. If you don't want to die I'd imagine that doesn't really have anything to do with being weak. Most religious people use God as a crutch to avoid mentally dealing with things, thats not weak, its just another coping mechanism.

Do people seriously think that the idea of eternal oblivion is coherent? Is the human snowflake complex that strong?

But Nietzsche didn't initially hate his dad for being a clergyman, in fact he was on his way to becoming one before he began the process towards his philosophical project.

But that's wrong you fucking idiot, several of his ideas are still rooted in Lutheran theology (for instance, his extreme distaste towards hating life is absolutely based in a Lutheran idea that hating the life preordained by God is blasphemous) and he was extremely well educated on the subject.

In what way is it not coherent? Our material consciousness ceases to be a thing when the material brains from which it springs cease to function. It's not incoherent in the slightest.

You're making a lot of baseless assumptions about a lot of things. You think you know exactly what it all is but there is not a hint of rigor in your conceptions of those things.

gr8 b8 m8

You still haven't explained how it's incoherent.

There's no reason to think our consciousness isn't a product of our material brains, or that it ceases to be when our brains cease to function. Our consciousness isn't even a particularly important function of our brains, as all the actual heavy lifting is done behind the scenes of conscious thought.

Define "consciousness". Define "conscious".

Oh shit, here we go...

If he was educated about that, he wouldn't claim the exact opposite you fucking moron.

> Luther, that disaster of a monk, restored the Church and, what was a thousand times worse, Christianity, at the moment when it lay defeated...Christianity, that denial of the will to life become religion!...Luther, an impossible monk who, for reasons of “impossibility,” attacked the Church and — consequently! Restored it...The Catholics would have good reason to celebrate Luther feasts, to write Luther plays...Luther — and the “moral rebirth!” To hell with all psychology! — Without a doubt the Germans are idealists.

and

> The Germans caused the loss of the last great cultural harvest there was for Europe to bring home — that of the Renaissance. Does one understand at last, does one want to understand, what the Renaissance was? The revaluation of the Christian values, the attempt, undertaken with all means, with all instincts, with every bit of genius, to bring about the victory of the opposing values, the noble values... Hitherto there has only been this great war, hitherto there has been no more decisive formulation of a question than that posed by the Renaissance — my question is its question — : there also has never been a straighter, sharper, more fundamental form of attack launched on the entire front and at the center!

Because literally the opposite is the truth. Renaissance was the actual "life denying" event/movement, renaissance painters even scoffed at the art of Flemish masters because it was "too realistic" and thus not connected to heavenly realms. He fetishizes Cesare Borgia as some kind of amoral ubermensch while in reality the renaissance period is more represented by people like Savonarola.

Meanwhile, Lutheranism, like you said, is about enjoying life rather than denying it. Good food, money, wine, that's the Lutheran way of life. Very much rooted in reality until the crypto-Calvinist Pietism gained prominence.

>hating Germany to the point you wish it didn't exist, call it the worst nation in Europe
lol the ironic part being that germany is the most important country in europe

He said nothing about importance or unimportance though.

>Good food, money, wine, that's the Lutheran way if life.
What the actual fuck

well if it was the worst it wouldn't be important now would it

The guy implied, with no proof whatsoever, that Nietzsche infected himself with syphilis (which he never had by the way, it has been comfirmed that is dementia was caused by a brain tumor) deliberately.

Exactly, Lutheranism is traditionally about enjoying good life. It's Calvinism that is ascetic and promoting austere life, and Calvinism swept German Lutheranism in the early 1800s in the form of Pietism, and Nietzsche's father, not coincidentally, drifted towards Pietism. When Nietzsche thinks he's attacking Lutheranism he's actually attacking Pietism because he's a fucking retard unaware of the history of the denomination in question who would rather attack his retarded strawmen than things that actually happened.

Plenty of bad things are important.

No. You fucking moron. The Italian Renaissance was defined in large part by near-continual warfare and politicking in Italy as well as criticism of the church and its values starting to come to the forefront.

As for your bit about Lutheranism, you are further wrong here. The Lutheran conception of this idea was primarily about accepting the hand God dealt you, not about enjoying earthly pleasures. Nietzsche would expand upon the basic idea of not resenting life, but he ultimately took it in a different direction.

Your inner (and before you get on my case about that terminology, I mean inside your brain and nothing more) monologue, the state of experiencing an inner monologue. It's also a vast simplification of the underlying processes of the brain (for an example, compare how the brain experiences pain as a blunt, immediate, and simple sensation when it is in fact and intensely complicated physiological process that conscious thought could not possibly interpret directly).

You still haven't explained how the concept of eternal oblivion is incoherent. In fact there's a good argument against in that we've all already experienced (such as non-experience could be described as experience) oblivion before we were born.

You're clearly leaving something out because a computer has consciousness by that definition.

So?

If that's not a problem, how about the fact that post describes a process, then turns around and implies an object? It's not consistent. Something can't be both a process and a form; a function can't be an argument.

It doesn't imply it's an object at all. Consciousness is a label for the processes of conscious thought, much as "river" is a descriptive label for the processes of water flowing through a natural channel.

Why are you dodging supporting your original premise?

The concept of eternal oblivion only applies if there is a consciousness object; there has to be an object that is subject to eternal oblivion.

But consciousness isn't the object, it's a process of the brain. The brain is the object that oblivion is applied to.

This is the basic mistake everyone seems to make. Your conscious processes are not your self; your brain is your self and consciousness is one of the means by which it interprets its own functioning.

When does a brain start and stop being a self?

When it starts functioning, it ceases when it stops functioning.

Define "functioning".

Also, why does there have to be a self in the first place?

you just still have a lot of wrong assumptions

Engaging in brain activity, ideally conscious, but there's no way to actually verify that.

There isn't a singular "self." There's a broad metaphysical construct we call the self, that's meant as a blanket term for a combination of our multifaceted and momentary will, memory, and instincts. Your self is what's going on within the brain that makes it more than just a lump of fat, in the same sense a functioning machine is more than just a pile of parts.

>that's meant as a blanket term for a combination of our multifaceted and momentary will, memory, and instincts.
In other words, something arbitrary i.e. non-existent.

Everything is arbitrary. The distinctions between objects and forms of matter aren't etched into cosmological ledgers or anything. When you trip over a rock, it's not as though there is etched into the very nature of reality a note that it was indeed a rock: your mass of entangled atoms was just impeded in its forward motion by another mass of entangled atoms. You call the first mass you, and you call the second mass a rock.

When you take this principle and start applying it to ideas and ideologies, it becomes easier to make sense of society itself, since no truly consistent or certainly-grounded idea has ever existed, much less been applied.

DEFINE "x"
God I hate retards who post shit like this.

It annoys me too, but it's an important part of the philosophical dialectic. Understanding the definitions used of terms was a central point behind Socrates' approach to philosophy, and a good portion of his project was just underlying that you need to be clear in your discussions to effectively achieve any manner of understanding.

higher power - yes. religion - no.