I picked this one SPECIALLY for this class: it's a very friendly class, we all like each other- but there are a LOT of super-Christians in that class, and the rest of the class has that "go with it" attitude...

Our professor has to FORCE some people to pick a controversial topic and "tread on toes," and me...

I want to stomp on the whole class's foot with a steel-tipped boot. ;)

I AM going to try and put some Beatles/John Lennon music/lyrics in my Powerpoint, two reasons:

-They underscore my ideas and message
-I'm hoping the most popular music of the century will soften the sword just enough

And, of course- I like the Beatles, and John Lennon's... John Lennon (any adjective fails in adequate description, I think...)

@thucidides:

I get what you're saying, will definitely try that a bit- but I also WANT some negative feel.

It's been said that Henrik Ibsen wrote all his then-socially controversial plays to "lay bare and poke at the festering wounds of society" or something along those lines.

THAT's my goal- not to make people feel great, but to make them feel WORSE, bad enough (but in the right way) that they'll re-examine their values, and at least maybe question what that man in fron in church is saying every Sunday, form their own opinions, and if it includes Jesus and all that fine-

But church is NO PLACE for faith to GROW- and faitht being cultivated and grown is, i think the key to the human race developing.

WHY do we, beings lower than a God that we as a majority take to be all-knowing and superior, feel we are so endowed with knowledge that we might make laws and commandments and countries and even KILL in his name?

The Bibble? You may say it's the word of God- but someone wrote it down, and that someone, every someone has an agenda, and over 2,000 years of passing it down... corrupted messages, perhaps?

Who knows?

God may be one or several or all or none- but God IS ALWAYS a quest for the individual to discover, not for the masses to study and learn and take for granted, and huddle in master-slave morality... there's Nietzsche, the start of it...

the problem is super christians have well tailored responses to that.
having been one of them that is.

your best bet is to be show them why theyre better off not believing.

I know- you'd be surprised how far a few trite phrases taught and passed off as faith can go in surpassing real ideas and real pursuit of faith...

But I sort of want to- and this is maybe a bit unethical of me, but to hell with the ethics, they're corrupt here- just jerk those super Christians around a bit, as I know pretty much how they'll respond, have the counter waiting-

And the counter and the argument itself will just be like rattling a bird cage for those uber-Christians...

But I hope to let the bird out and make him free with the rest of the class, as sort of a compare contrast thing- real ideas and real faith will reach SOMEONE in there, and if one person decides to maybe think life over and "Imagine," and I have some fun with those super Chrisitians up there, I'll call it a mild success.

;)

"THAT's my goal- not to make people feel great, but to make them feel WORSE, bad enough (but in the right way) that they'll re-examine their values"

The trick to this is getting them to have a problem with with their views, the trap that so many fall into is just getting people mad at YOU, at which point nothing you say will get through.

I think one way to accomplish this is to get people agree with your points before you give them any reason to disagree. Two general possibilities:
1) Lay out your arguments very broadly, without mentioning the church, get them to agree, then ease them into applying it to themselves
2) start anecdotally, something everyone will agree with, then generalize to include your whole argument.

First of all, you shouldn't be doing this sort of thing unless you are both capable and willing to walk with those people along the path they will be on once you push them towards that sort of disgust.

Second of all, are you sure these people are ready for this? If you're successful you could do severe trauma to some people by way of these actions.

Also, if you're doing this to get your jollies from "jerking" them around, then you're at least as bad as they are - if they're actually well-meaning and truly altruistic then you're definitely worse than them.

"A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die." -Franz Kafka

There's a video on Youtube of Osho regarding this sort of thing, one which could be very helpful for you.

@Don Corleone:

First- I swear my allegiance. ;)

Second, I get what you're saying, and I will try to bear that in mind- I prefer to make a point through analogy and comparison, and to start it early and build, a cascade effect.

Plus, everyone already KNOWS what my porject is and my angle and everything- this project is being ridiculously hyped in-class for a college Comm. 101 speech lol. I've had discussions like this before with those folks on this- nice people, and some are reasonable, but of course some might as well be the brick walls of a church itself- and I'm a pretty high-profile person for my class and a bit around campus...

Next Week, after Fraizer-Ali, Yankees-Red Sox, and Pelosi-Cheney, the main event- an 18-year old Jewish skeptic against some uber-Christians in a 10 minute speech in a 25 person class in a second-rate town in a thrid-rate state!

Catch it at 4pm (3 Central.) XD

@SteevoKum:

My whole point is they should find their OWN path, not have someone hold their hand along a path the holder of the hand thinks is right- I'm trying to wake them up from a dream, but what they awake to will be different, as it should be, for each, because, as Nietzsche stated and I advocate- not all men are created equal, we're all different, with strengths and weaknesses, and thus a uniform "moral" or "ethical" guideline is a fallacy

And I don't think any uber-Christians WILL be actually torn away- I'm really trying to target the middle here, and play my side off theirs- but if they ARE, then no, I doubt they are ready for it.

But no one is- and that's Nietzsche's point, and mine, when Nietzsche proclaims, even half-mourns and says "God is Dead" meaning the idea of the Judeo-Christian God.

What do we do now?
What's next?
How can we live without that security blanket of 2,000 years?

We'll be in a WORSE position han now- but it'll make us THINK AGAIN.

And THAT will lead to the Superman, and, eventually, the better humanity he and Lennon and you and I and everyone wants- because if there's one thing that IS uniform about humanity in general at all, it's that man in general wants the greatest good for himself, wants peace for himself, wants to improve and grow.

A whole society, or a whole world doing that... "Imagine"...

Not everyone is capable of transcending where they are now. Many people (I dare say most) need the security blanket of their beliefs about existence and the world in which they live to keep themselves sane. For many people, forcing the blinders from their eyes prematurely could prove to destroy them psychologically/emotionally in a way from which they may never recover.

If you drop someone who isn't prepared into an interminable forest all by themselves, they may starve to death.

I agree completely with Don Corleone. I have several uber-Church friends and we often have friendly debates. My greatest successes have been along the lines of what Don suggests. For example: "Imagine a man shipwrecked on an island as a boy. He's never seen a bible, never heard the name Jesus. Can he not be saved? Is it not possible for him to find God?" Most will say it would be hard but possible. From there you have all sorts of doors open but most importantly you've shown that God is not a name but rather an entity beyond words. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Our imaginary man on the island might for instance choose the name Buddha to refer to God but this name does not change the divine nature of what he perceives.

@SunZi

That wouldn't necessarily hold true for the mainstream Christian worldview. In that circumstance the mainstream Christian worldview might say the man is mistaken about the name of God, but that he's still worshiping/connecting with God.

@SteevoKun

Exactly my point. Mistaken or not about the name he is still worshiping God.

@SunZi, I was pointing out the fact mainstream Christians wouldn't agree that "...this name does not change the divine nature of what he perceives." I say that because it seems to me this suggests that mainstream Christians would agree the name of their God isn't important but only the nature of what it is they're calling God - I can't imagine the majority of mainstream Christians saying God being "God" and "Jesus" is not important, only the principle behind "God" and "Jesus."

Why do you want to make people unsure with a hypothetical evolutionistic idea?

As Thucydides said, you're better off them how they're better off not believing. I have a response to every question, and they are rather obvious ones.

But church is NO PLACE for faith to GROW- and faitht being cultivated and grown is, i think the key to the human race developing.
-Church is a key necessity for many people to develop social skills. We encourage each other and help anyone in need. We, as a church body, have the ability to make someone strong enough to brave the real world in a manner that is equal or greater than those who don't go to church.

WHY do we, beings lower than a God that we as a majority take to be all-knowing and superior, feel we are so endowed with knowledge that we might make laws and commandments and countries and even KILL in his name?
-MOST religions teach peace. "Treat others as you would want to be treated", as the Bible's Golden Rule puts it. The killing in the name is found only in extremist groups who don't act solely on faith, but on their own savage culture.
The Bibble? You may say it's the word of God- but someone wrote it down, and that someone, every someone has an agenda, and over 2,000 years of passing it down... corrupted messages, perhaps?
-This has no relevance to why we should steer away from Church. Once again, the common Church teaches peace and good morals.


God may be one or several or all or none- but God IS ALWAYS a quest for the individual to discover, not for the masses to study and learn and take for granted, and huddle in master-slave morality... there's Nietzsche, the start of it...
-Again, no relevance. A quest to discover is to study and learn.

You're better off sticking to the old argument of how the possiblity of God is impossible. I may elaborate later. I hope this helps, I don't want you to be shot down in all your arguments.

A Theist is so much better than an Athiest :P I'm neither but I've yet to meet an Athiest who wasn't an idiot in regards to concepts where my agnosticism excels. That's another thread though so have fun. Wish I could add to your presentation.

@SteevoKun

If by "mainstream Christians" you mean barefoot Kentucky dirt farmers you may have a point but thousands of Christians speaking thousands of different languages call God by thousands of different names every day. Even the English bible uses different names(Yahweh or Jehovah). Anyway, my original point was not to discuss semantics but rather to give an example of Don Corleone's post and show how a simple point that most people would agree with can be used to open a broader argument.

@SteevoKun:

"Not everyone is capable of transcending where they are now. Many people (I dare say most) need the security blanket of their beliefs about existence and the world in which they live to keep themselves sane. For many people, forcing the blinders from their eyes prematurely could prove to destroy them psychologically/emotionally in a way from which they may never recover.

If you drop someone who isn't prepared into an interminable forest all by themselves, they may starve to death."


GOOD!
Let those who can't adapt, can't go beyond their falsehoods and lies "starve!" (Not literally, obviously, but you know what I mean...)

That's part of the idea- the Ubermensch/Superman will arise, eventually, out of those representatives of mankind who can think for themselves and adapt and evolve mentally, and those who can't will gradually recede until we are left a more intelligent society, a better world. The Ubermensch doesn't succumb to the diseases of the spirit those blinders of the Church bring forth- no bigotry, no racism, no classism, no super-nationalism... the Ubermensch is beyond that mentally and emotionally, he KNOWS THOSE ARE WRONG AND FUTILE and can thus go beyond them.

I'd rather some super-Christians who can't see past the faction-ism and extremist attitudes of THEIR flawed dogma be thrown into that wilderness and go a bit nuts because their false world is shattered than let them keep their ideas in mankind's makeup just because maybe they're "not ready."


2,000 years with this, and even longer before Christ...

If we're not ready now to look beyond the falsehoods and plagues, when will we be?

@obiwanobiwan

For one thing, destroying people's ability to grow and change by dropping a bomb they're not prepared for on them will only leave fewer potential Uebermenchen in the future.

For another, who made you the person to decide who is ready for what? Part of the problem with religion has been the fact it forces people into places they don't need to be.

"Let those who can't adapt, can't go beyond their falsehoods and lies 'starve?'"

So everyone who isn't an Uebermensch already should be forcefully and immediately pushed out of their stability - which could (and most likely will if they're truly stuck in religiosity) cause problems that may ruin their personal growth and cause them to stagnate more than remaining a religious person - and into the realm of the Uebermensch? Unless you've already attained this transcendent personhood then I hardly see how you can pass this judgment on anyone, let alone sentence them to something that could permanently damage them. It doesn't do anyone any good.

I see no benefit to being forceful with people in the way you seem to want to. Spread your views, but don't drop a bomb on someone you're not able to handle yourself (just because you're not religious doesn't mean you're an Uebermensch) - and I severely doubt Nietzsche would classify anyone on this website as an Uebermensch.

I'm aware that part of my own argument for this is an altruistic one - sorry, I'm not completely in agreement with Nietzsche - but it's also half pragmatic, about the future of the human race, which is a concern of anyone who has any sort of desire for the future of humanity.

I'm doing a National History Day paper on Nietzsche so I will read about his concept of the Superman. From what I understand, you must address his hatred of societal restraints (including Religion) or you will fail to grasp what is central to his views. You cannot avoid what is the crux of his ideology, which includes his odium for Christianity in particular. Screw what the rest of your class thinks, that's the attitude Nietzsche would have had (read Ecce homo). Existentialism starts here man, so go bold, and make me proud.

For the record - and going along with who ottovanbis said - completely screw what people think. Just keep in the mind the possible effects of what you do. Hurting people's feelings is irrelevant - doing damage is relevant. Also, an offensive sort of presentation of your ideas will only cause people to close their minds to you anyways.

obiwanobiwan, if this argument is about religon then may i tell you relion is a matress on a hard floor. the only problem is it can be a hard matress and what good does that do you? nothing? exactly, If the matress is just as hard as the floor there is no difference. It's an illusion to make you feal better.

religon*

damn straight denis, right on!

but Nietzsche would say that religion only restricts the power/potential of the Superman in that it tells him how to act and think, thus destroying individuality. However, Nietzsche, was not always pro-rebellion or non-conformism, as he was also a stern denouncer of Socrates (which I don't quite understand). You may have to address the Nazzi issue as well, this one will have some challenges. Best of luck to you.

I have never read Nietzsche so i don't have a say on the subject as whole. that was just my 2 cents.

From "Twilight of the Idols":

"What alone can our teaching be? – That no one gives a man his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself. No one is responsible for existing at all, for being formed so and so, for being placed under those circumstances and in this environment. His own destiny cannot be disentangled from the destiny of all else in past and future. He is not the result of a special purpose, a will, or an aim, the attempt is not here made to reach an "ideal of man," an "ideal of happiness," or an "ideal of morality;" – it is absurd to try to shunt off man's nature towards some goal. We have invented the notion of a "goal:" in reality a goal is lacking . . . We are necessary, we are part of destiny, we belong to the whole, we exist in the whole,–there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, and condemn the whole . . . But there is nothing outside the whole! – This only is the grand emancipation: that no one be made responsible any longer, that the mode of being be not traced back to a causa prima, that the world be not regarded as a unity, either as sensorium or as "spirit;" – it is only thereby that the innocence of becoming is again restored . . . The concept of "God" has hitherto been the greatest objection to existence . . . We deny God, we deny responsibility by denying God: it is only thereby that we save the world."

thank you, QED Steevo. perfect quote (I think I'll use part of that quote in my thesis paper)

You're welcome. NB the part about: "...it is absurd to try to shunt off man's nature towards some goal."

@otto: you said"And THAT will lead to the Superman..." No, the idea of a God as a security blanket is comforting, it is a successful idea because it free's those believers from the need to worry about those things they ascribe to God's power.

Successful ideas tend to crop up again and again just because they are successful, they are useful, (people find uses for them) and thus Even if you convince your entire class to go find their own way, some will come back to a path which concludes that it is easier for humans to believe in God (and God exists anyway) It is a better path to follow for themselves and their children. (even if this is a personal choice to follow the church, and find comfort in it; and they have no problem with other people who make a different personal choice...)

my 2 cent.

@SteevoKun: you said:"So everyone who isn't an Uebermensch already should be forcefully and immediately pushed out of their stability"

A general principle of physics (and it probably applies to human behaviour aswell) is that stable things tend to remain as they are. Comfortable people tend not to rethink their ideas (until something de-stabilises them, be it the break up of a marriage, or a painful bereavement which makes them re-evaluate God - for example) They tend to sit their, how much thought went into their original idea tends to form the foundation of their ideas and thus contributes to how shake-able those ideas are (for the individual) but I would argue that indiiduals need to develope the skill of evaluating ideas and thinking things through themselves (rather than having those ideas fed through a straw, and letting them live happily, perhaps subsistance farming outside their local church...) In the same way the i would argue that everyone should develope the ability to interact socially with their peers (which is a benfit of the school system - forcing us to intereact with others and develope socially)

(still haven't caught up with this thread yet)

@Orathaic

The OP's goal seems to be to shake-up the Christians in his class (while his intentions aren't particularly important to this discussion, I imagine that getting his jollies is at least part of the reason, based on his posts here). My point is shaking-up those people would likely be fruitless at best, damaging at worst. I just don't see the point.

Obiwan, I can see (as a teacher with a degree in rhetoric & composition) one fatal flaw in your reasoning that will keep you from affecting most of the comfortable masses. You assume that every church experience is like the ones you've had or heard about. That's a really big problem that puts you into the category of a propagandist (in that you're trying to apply a faulty or broad generalization) if you continue to adhere to it.
Don't get me wrong, propaganda works. My choice in toothpaste is probably a result of it, but you have to remember that it proves nothing.

Basically you're telling people that Church will keep them from thinking freely. You may see that as an unassailable truth. Unfortunately in some cases it is, and I suspect a lot of really intelligent atheists and agnostics grew up in those churches. The problem comes when you speak to an audience who goes to church and talks frequently with highly intelligent, well-educated people who will honestly listen to many different points-of-view and give their own thoughtful responses. They just have no context for your argument. The church you describe isn't the place they go, nor would they stick around if they visited it. The people from those churches will most likely write you off as someone who had a bad church experience and think little more about it. Even if they do suffer some terrible setback in their lives, they will likely have stronger, not weaker faith because of it. For them, church is just not the same experience as you imagine it to be. They are part of a loving, nurturing group who looks out for them and expects the same of them for others. If you're going to challenge "religion" you have to be willing to look at the good as well as the bad. That way you will avoid an argument that relies on an audience having some pre-existing discontent.

Ok, that's a lot of response there (more than i was expecting lol, so let me respond bit by bit:

@Steevokun:

Who made me the person to decide when it's time to shatter someone's illusion and embrace the reality, however terrible or horrifying it may seem?

No one- Nietzsche, and before him Kierkegaard, and before them both PLATO all somehow had that licensce, due to their brilliance, I suppose. I'm presenting the ideas I agree with, the truths that can be acknowledged on the whole even when they might be preferrably hidden. Nietzsche let the genie out; I'm just introducing the genie. Not quite a "justification," I suppose, but then, on the opposite side, who gave the pastors and pontifs and the prophets the "right" to shape people's ideas in their image?

@denis:

I agree- matress on a hard floor. But lying on that matress won't fix the floor being cold and hard- that'll take work, getting off the matress and embracing the terrible cold and hardness of the floor in order to reshape it... a bit strange of a metaphor perhaps, but you get my point.

@crazyanglican:

1st: I was wondering what took you so long, your name after all... ;)

2nd: I WENT to a church this last sunday- needed to for another comm. 101 project, need to listen to public speaker/pastor, and couldn't find a public speaker in my schedule, sadly- and it was what i expected it to be.

All churches have, inplicit in their being churches:

-master slave morality/mentality (even if it's loose, the pastor/preacher is still the head, the "shepard" to the "flock") was enforced, via seating, placement (pastor above and/or seperate from the masses)
-Christian church, christian morals supported. No one will be preaching the Wiccan doctrine, for example; mild or extremists, a Christian, if they are to stick to theri dogma, must dislike/dissassociate with witches/warlocks of the Wiccan kind, they beliefs clash, it's written down in the Bible and everything. Go to the Church, any church, and you limit your faith, at least in part, to their perception.

And I could go on- but dinner time. look foward to more of this really awesome discussion later...

Master slave mentality (going from the mere sound of the term) I'd say would be a hard sell for me. Sure the pastor is an advisor (Shepherd of the flock) it's important to know what a lowly position a shepherd was though. A shepherd was the guy who you'd find out at night tending the goats, etc. Certainly a necessary job, but one you'd pay someone else to do if you had the money. King David is seen as a shepherd as a young boy.

As for pastor or priest, it's an advisory role. I'm not averse to telling our priest "No" and questioning him (I've done so in the past on different occasions). That's not how a slave behaves toward a master. If I have the master-slave morality mentality wrong, I'm sure that you'll correct me on this. I’d certainly say that it would be more appropriate to my boss at work (great guy, btw) or my Karate instructor (also a great guy, who would be very much amused by the analogy).
There are plenty of people whose advice I'd heed as readily, if not moreso, than my priest. If someone in that role demands obeisance that is precisely the type of church I'd avoid. My fealty is to God and Christ not to any earthly man. To take any one person's word as God's will is not what I feel called to do. In my opinion, the Scriptures; the history and traditions of the Church; the advice of respected church members; and my own feelings; are all available to me as resources on any given decision that I might make. It comes down to my own judgment though as I'll be the person how is ultimately responsible for my actions. This is not in any way a slave carrying out his master's will.
Certainly I'd like to perform God's will for me, but even that is a choice. It's also left up to me to interpret what His will might be. So this is a prime example of the failing of that argument from my perspective. You're telling me that "All churches have, implicit in their [design]" the master slave morality mentality but I look around at the churches I've attended and none of them had such a structure. I'm sure that it's individual perception, and there will be some that are persuaded by attaching such an unflattering name to the relationship between a pastor and Church. I, however, see membership at any Christian church as voluntary. Whether I take the advice of any deacon, priest, bishop, or archbishop is also voluntary. In that way I feel entirely comfortable rejecting the idea that I've somehow made myself a slave in that I am every bit as free as you are to choose a course of action.
As to the idea that a Christian will shun pagans, I've a couple of good friends that would get a laugh at that one. I'm sure they'd like me to shun them from time to time. I've attended pagan gatherings and had some nice discussions with folks there. Often times they're surprised that I'm familiar with pre-Christian Ireland at all, and certainly so that I’ve read the Irish Sagas (or those I could get ahold of). My scriptural basis for forming these friendships is none other than the Great Commission set down by Christ himself. I’d defy anyone to tell me that I’m not being a good Christian merely because I associate with these people. I do not worship alongside them, but I do make my case for Christ in their midst. To say that I’m not being true to the dogma of my religion, based upon this alone, is to call into questions the actions of St. Patrick specifically and many of the other apostles on the same grounds. With that as my defense I think I’m pretty safe with regard to that charge. With all due respect you seem to see Christians as clannish little sycophants. My experience is quite the contrary.

**many of the Apostles (neither of the St. Patricks was an apostle)**

@ Orthaic, grrrrrrr Open up another thead and we can "take this one outside" as they say. Yes Religious people are bound to flock back like subservient sheep to the manipulations of more mentally powerful individuals who invented God in a system (the lack of the existence of a God or the lack of necessity thereof is another matter entirely) for their own selfish purposes to gain power over masses of stupid people. I'm glad my generation is the "new atheists" and I can't wait for this arrogant system of religion to come crumbling down for the facade that it has been throughout human history. BRING IT!!

What is easy isn't always what is best, or what is true, as both are relative to the human mind. Man created God in his own image. That's my two bits. Chew on that. And @ Obi- don't compare Plato to Nietzsche (Nietzsche purposely separates himself with most of those that came before him, and he openly slams Socrates and his disciples).

"Plato was a bore" -Nietzsche

Keep in mind Plato's theory on the Realm of Ideas directly conflicts with Nietzsche's hatred of anything idealistic (non-physical).

Also, re-read that bit I posted here (the quote from Twilight of the Idols) concerning goals and keep in mind you're setting goals for other people.

@ottovanbis:

Yes, Nietzsche sperated himself, but that doesn't mean he doesn't share facets of his ideas with Plato and Kierkegaard- those similarities are rather blatant, and usually acredited.

Plato and Nietzsche share the "how do you judge good from bad, is it off of God/gods, well, they conflict, and anyway what's right for one isn't right for all." Plato wrote about it in "The Trial and Death of Socrates" and Nietzsche again in "Beyond Good in Evil."

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, thoughout their works, they both slam the church system, Nietzsche for them essentially grounding the common man and his idealism in the dirt and Kierkegaard for a slightly different reason, his being that he thought churches grouded active worship, the only kind he deemed real worship (he, unlike Nietzsche, agreed with and liked Christianity- just not how churches were practicing it, or really NOT practicing it.)


@CrazyAnglican:

Master-Slave Morality/Mentality doesn't have to be a literal I'm-in-charge-of-you thing: having a system where a dictator seperates himself from the masses and "suggests" they vote for him, or, on the spiritual level, a priest who "suggests" an action/inaction to his congregation is just as much master-slave interaction as Hitler acting the master at rallies or a war being fought because a medevial Pope said to do it.

When the one is responsible for and controls to ANY GREAT EXTENT, however varying that extent may be, the intimiate political/spiritual thoughts of the LARGE masses (this isn't "one friend suggests a move, the other three agree as they're more passive than the first" as that's not really an intimiate decision; it has to be something so meaningful it defines the people being influenced and controlled, as religion and politics do) then it is Master-Slave Morality.

@SteevoKun:

Again, Nietzsche doesn't correspond 100% or even close to that with Plato or anyone else- it is just in the instance I cited abouve the two are strikingly similar in their thoughts, no matter how much Nietzsche thought Plato to be a bore.

Then how do you respond to the idea that bosses at work or even martial arts instructors have this same Master-Slave Morality? Why is it just religion that we should be free from? Why not our vocations and our hobbies.

As to Great Extent, my parish only has 100 members and my Tae-Kwon-Do association has millions of members. Please do not suggest to a black belt that he does not identify himself as a martial artist. That's a pretty large mass of committed people. Should we abolish Tae-Kwon-Do?

@Crazy Anglican

Nietzsche says that all morality has been destroyed ("DEAD ARE ALL THE GODS: NOW DO WE DESIRE THE OVERMAN TO LIVE." -Thus Spoke Zarathustra), he doesn't just say we shouldn't observe Christian morality.

Anything that tells us what to do is meaningless (hence the above quotes concerning goals and why they're preposterous). Nietzsche advocates the idea that the world in which we live has lost meaning. The current nihilism in which we live (as we awaken and realize all morality/goal-making is dead) is what Nietzsche claims will give rise to the Uebermensch. He says the Uebermensch is the individual (successful in his eyes) response to this meaningless world, which will prove the Dionysian answer to the Apollonian world that has thus far existed (that is, aesthetics will replace ethics).

It's getting late. I'll have to look into that later. Have fun all.

@CrazyAnglican:

The difference with religion and bosses/workers in the corporate workplace, says (I tohugh I said this already... maybe I was unclear...) is that religion/politics affects the spiritual CORE of a man. Even an atheist must acknowledge the human spirit, that thing, call it sould, spirit, determination, being, whatever- that which keeps us going.

A karate instructor instructing pupils is not impacting the spirit, but rather teaching a skill, and a superficial one at that when compared to the spiritual "skills/ideas/morals" taught by a priest. He is sperate from the class not because he is their spiritual master (speaking strictly about karate and such here, so don't tie in the religious-karate that sometimes goes along with it, just talking about a karate instructor in Los Angeles teaching a group of kids) but because he is proficient and they are not, and he is instructing them to be so. He possesses that which they do not- and furthermore, he is helping them to gain those skills, so one day they may in fact surpass the teacher if they are gifted enough. But even if they do, it is not a spiritual elevation, merely an elevation in skill.

The priest is quite different- he preaches a faith, and if that faith is to be accepted, then he is affecting the spiritual core, the being of the man- and in the most profound way possible, for Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist or what have you, there is no greater power availabe to man than that of the inner power. It is the growth of that power that can lead to the Superman (at least it is one of many factors that can bring him about, albeit it is one of if not the biggest factors.)

If a priest tells his congregation what is right, and what is wrong, what to believe, he is the master impacting their spiritual core in a MAJOR way; throw in his interpretation of a religion, which in and of itself will affect the man's core in a major way, and the result is the priest and his dogma having such an influence over man he IS the Master.

An example: I went to church for the first (hopefully only, I'm Jewish as it is, and with all these Jewish and Nietzschean beliefs it was truly fish-out-of water for me) time on Sunday, and the preacher is preaching about:

Patience- and how it relates to submission to Jesus and God.

THAT is a HUGE impact on the masses. It's a big thing in Christianity, telling them to submit, and to just "believe" it'll be ok... to just stick with God's plan and love Jesus and the church is there for you... submit. Be patient with your life, don't jump off a cliff, don't take any radical actions to CHANGE your life- submit to Jesus, and he'll make it all better, belief in God and Jesus, if if it is ONLY belief in Jesus and not actual ACTION.

Again, I'm totally for true religious activities a la David, Moses, even Jesus- they had a belief and actually DID someting, they didn't just sit in a church and submit to God and say their belief would carry them through.

If you have true faith in something, ACT., and ACT FOR AND OF YOURSELF

DON'T let someone tell you how and why to act.

THAT is Master-Slave Morality, at least in part...

obiwan if you quote me I will be very happy. =)
unfourtunately i know nothing about the subject and didn't bother to read the thread so I understand if you wish not to.

You said something up earlier in the thread- shall I quote that? ;)

@ottovanbis: sorry, don't have time to start a new thread right now, i think i was trying to point out a small flaw i precieved.

@obiwanobiwan: Regarding your right to 'pull the rug' out from under their belief system, i think it's called freedom of speech. It is important to allow the discussion of ideas. If their belief system lies on such weak foundations that it is shaken by these ideas then i doubt it is worth keeping.

You may of course simple reinforce some people's ideas by forcing them to re-investigate their beliefs. I don't think there will be many people who are really crushed by their new found atheism...

Again I'm a little fuzzy on how the Master Slave Mentality is supposed to be just religious and political in nature. My intial reaction is that it seems a bit convenient to say that this relationship only exists in this particular instance. I have to disagree with your take on martial arts. I'm going to venture into the appeal to authority fallacy here so take my words for what they are. I speak as someone with a particular knowledge of how the master - pupil realtionship works in martial arts, I've been both with nearly thrity years of training and a master rank (5th degree black belt). In saying that, I do not intend to dismiss your take on my analogy, but to bring in personal experience and establish my credentials as one might with a college degree, etc.

It is my experience that Tae-Kwon-Do is a very spiritual art. It has hard and fast rules, and if one intends to remain a part of a dojang those rules are to be obeyed without question. I have stripped a newly earned black belt from one of my students for inappropriate behavior outside of the class. It is assumed in many traditional classes that a student's behavior reflects upon the school and the instructor. The instructor has the right to expect his or her students to behave a certain way.
In my life I have had seven priests (that I remember) and will likely have many more. I only have one Tae-Kwon-Do instructor, and he is very much like an additional father to me. I met him when I was thirteen, and have been in contact with him ever since. I will certainly give him my attention if he makes a suggestion. That's the loyalty and respect that I give him, and it is much closer to a Master-Servant Mentality than my relationship with my priest. I view my priest as an equal. He's the spiritual head of our parish; I'm the spiritual head of my family. I would never view my martial arts instructor as an equal. I owe him far too much. Even with that being said, my reverence for God far surpasses my respect for either man. As I've said before though, ultimately I'm the final authority on what I feel God's will is for me. I need no priest to dial that number for me.