God is dead and we have killed him

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Good, the Abrahamic god sucks anyways. Embrace Wodan!

Nonsense you forget the Abrahamic pantheon has many very powerful beings in it right?

[Infected Mushroom]

the problem here is that Mr. N isn't claiming to be writing poetry or classic fiction, he's writing what he wants us to treat as facts; and when you are communicating facts (or what you believe to be facts anyways), you have a responsibility here to use language that will not be misleading

if you mislead others, then you shouldn't expect anyone to defend your imprecise use of language and you should expect plenty of criticism

I can't believe I'm taking this obtuseness seriously, but...

Nietzsche's writing is designed to have metaphors and to be poetic in nature, he's not the sort of guy who writes cut-and-dry. Not to mention that if you're so obtuse you can't get the message, Nietzsche has no interest in writing for you anyways. His audience was never meant to be that huge and that is why a lot of his books are difficult to digest.

so he's a terrible writer and a terrible communicator

so how do you even know what he meant anyways? Actually, do you even have quotes where he clearly said ''Oh when I said God is Dead... I ACTUALLY meant this'' or are we still involved in guesswork here? If so, then I think its only responsible to treat him as having presumptively said what he said literally (as you would do in any conversation). But I suppose certain people in the field of academic philosophy, have an interest in keeping him as relevant as possible just so they can arbitrarily ascribe meaning to incoherent writing.

Since I believe he is to be treated as having presumptively said what he said (you know, like in any normal conversation unless he's explained otherwise), my answer to the OP is clear. There is nothing to avenge. God definitionally can't be dead, its a contradiction, the premise can never be true because the setup is unconditionally flawed.

[New Frenco Empire]

We killed God? Well, in that case, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

[Dyakovo]

:palm:

I can't tell which is more annoying.

The extremist who made the thread, or the people who use this thread to "voice" their opinion on a being they just choose to hate on.

I'd go with the one that actually exists...

[Dumb Ideologies]

If we have this kind of power why would we remake the vengeful ancient Jewish patriarch of bastardy? No, I want an omnibenevolent sandwich box who floats like a butterfly and swings like your mother's beaver.

That is an incredibly inaccurate description mind you.

I know this might be hard to come to terms with, but I'll have you know that back in the day when your mother's beaver entered the room the entire crowd spontaneously broke out in a chorus of "Swing Low Sweet Chariot".

[Cuprum]

Or we can conclude that your vision is defective. Go see an optometrist before you crash into any street lamps.

Wouldn't him going to see an optometrist cause him to crash into said street lamps?

If you're familiar with quantum mechanics, this is sort of like saying that because Schroedinger's Cat is both alive and dead, and because we cannot conceive of such a state, yet such a state has clearly been conceived by something else it could not exist, G-d must exist. I hope Nietzsche isn't around.

[The Wolven League]

Good, the Abrahamic god sucks anyways. Embrace Wodan!

Nonsense you forget the Abrahamic pantheon has many very powerful beings in it right?

Aye, praise the thunder god! Amen.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

I was not aware the dead could hate.

By your logic, he is literally dead.

"Or are we live remains/Of Godhead dying downwards, brain and eye now gone?"

I mean in The Elder Scrolls the Aedra sacrificed themselves to create the mortal world so their essence, and loose conscience are all that remains so in a manner of speaking I don't see why something like that couldn't have happened.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Good, the Abrahamic god sucks anyways. Embrace Wodan!

Nonsense you forget the Abrahamic pantheon has many very powerful beings in it right?

And none of them can compare to the sheer badassery of Germanic gods.

[Infected Mushroom]

the problem here is that Mr. N isn't claiming to be writing poetry or classic fiction, he's writing what he wants us to treat as facts; and when you are communicating facts (or what you believe to be facts anyways), you have a responsibility here to use language that will not be misleading

if you mislead others, then you shouldn't expect anyone to defend your imprecise use of language and you should expect plenty of criticism

You've no clue who Friedrich Nietzsche was, do you?

That's impossible.

I have at least some clues. Both you AND the OP and through the contents of our recent conversations... have at least given me some clues (though some of those clues could be misleading, but clues nevertheless).

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Nonsense you forget the Abrahamic pantheon has many very powerful beings in it right?

And none of them can compare to the sheer badassery of Germanic gods.

One of them managed to singlehandedly slaughter the entire pantheon of Egypt.

So beat that.

[Highfort]

so he's a terrible writer and a terrible communicator

so how do you even know what he meant anyways? Actually, do you even have quotes where he clearly said ''Oh when I said God is Dead... I ACTUALLY meant this'' or are we still involved in guesswork here? If so, then I think its only responsible to treat him as having presumptively said what he said literally (as you would do in any conversation). But I suppose certain people in the field of academic philosophy, have an interest in keeping him as relevant as possible just so they can arbitrarily ascribe meaning to incoherent writing.

Since I believe he is to be treated as having presumptively said what he said (you know, like in any normal conversation unless he's explained otherwise), my answer to the OP is clear. There is nothing to avenge. God definitionally can't be dead, its a contradiction, the premise can never be true because the setup is unconditionally flawed.

...

Alright, all philosophy professors, throw away your books. Forget about all the painstaking translation and investigation into Nietzsche's life and letters because obviously the only logical conclusion is to take him literally.

I'm done with you, enjoy not understanding literature whatsoever.

[Infected Mushroom]

We killed God? Well, in that case, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Like I've said countless times, thats definitionally impossible.

You can't have a scenario where you have a God (who according to every single Christian deomination) is immortal who can be killed just as you can't have a painting that's not a painting.

[Dyakovo]

Ftfy.

Sorry about the mistake, I kinda paraphrase the definition of Atheist.

No worries, your reasoning was sound.

[Immoren]

And none of them can compare to the sheer badassery of Germanic gods.

One of them managed to singlehandedly slaughter the entire pantheon of Egypt.

So beat that.

Bah! Even a pharaoh managed to slaughter pantheon of Egypt. They are not that impressive.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And none of them can compare to the sheer badassery of Germanic gods.

One of them managed to singlehandedly slaughter the entire pantheon of Egypt.

So beat that.

Anyone could do that, the Egyptian pantheon sucked

[Old Tyrannia]

And none of them can compare to the sheer badassery of Germanic gods.

One of them managed to singlehandedly slaughter the entire pantheon of Egypt.

So beat that.

Sekhmet and Shezmu were out of the office that day.

[Immoren]

Somehow this feels relevant

[Dumb Ideologies]

so he's a terrible writer and a terrible communicator

so how do you even know what he meant anyways? Actually, do you even have quotes where he clearly said ''Oh when I said God is Dead... I ACTUALLY meant this'' or are we still involved in guesswork here? If so, then I think its only responsible to treat him as having presumptively said what he said literally (as you would do in any conversation). But I suppose certain people in the field of academic philosophy, have an interest in keeping him as relevant as possible just so they can arbitrarily ascribe meaning to incoherent writing.

Since I believe he is to be treated as having presumptively said what he said (you know, like in any normal conversation unless he's explained otherwise), my answer to the OP is clear. There is nothing to avenge. God definitionally can't be dead, its a contradiction, the premise can never be true because the setup is unconditionally flawed.

...

Alright, all philosophy professors, throw away your books. Forget about all the painstaking translation and investigation into Nietzsche's life and letters because obviously the only logical conclusion is to take him literally.

I'm done with you, enjoy not understanding literature whatsoever.

The boy needs no invitation to embark on the brave journey of not understanding yet another field.

[Kelinfort]

You're not taking me seriously.

Of course not

[Genivaria]

We killed God? Well, in that case, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Like I've said countless times, thats definitionally impossible.

You can't have a scenario where you have a God (who according to every single Christian deomination) is immortal who can be killed just as you can't have a painting that's not a painting.

You really need to learn what sarcasm and metaphors are.

[Dyakovo]

You've no clue who Friedrich Nietzsche was, do you?

That's impossible.

I have at least some clues. Both you AND the OP and through the contents of our recent conversations... have at least given me some clues (though some of those clues could be misleading, but clues nevertheless).

I'll take that as "No, I don't have a clue as to who Friedrich Nietzsche was"...

[Genivaria]

You're not taking me seriously.

You've given us every reason no to.

[Infected Mushroom]

so he's a terrible writer and a terrible communicator

so how do you even know what he meant anyways? Actually, do you even have quotes where he clearly said ''Oh when I said God is Dead... I ACTUALLY meant this'' or are we still involved in guesswork here? If so, then I think its only responsible to treat him as having presumptively said what he said literally (as you would do in any conversation). But I suppose certain people in the field of academic philosophy, have an interest in keeping him as relevant as possible just so they can arbitrarily ascribe meaning to incoherent writing.

Since I believe he is to be treated as having presumptively said what he said (you know, like in any normal conversation unless he's explained otherwise), my answer to the OP is clear. There is nothing to avenge. God definitionally can't be dead, its a contradiction, the premise can never be true because the setup is unconditionally flawed.

...

Alright, all philosophy professors, throw away your books. Forget about all the painstaking translation and investigation into Nietzsche's life and letters because obviously the only logical conclusion is to take him literally.

I'm done with you, enjoy not understanding literature whatsoever.

If someone goes to court, being charged with conspiracy to commit a crime does he get away by saying... ''When I told X that I was planning to do Y... ACTUALLY I didn't mean Y, Y is a metaphor for Z instead?''

I don't think so.

So why do people who write contradictory phrases get a free pass if they are considered by some elites to be ''a great philosopher''? Shouldn't they first have to earn that title by communicating clearly what they say and mean? Why does someone get to write something that is evidently an impossible contradiction and a statement of ignorance (really? God is dead? That's like saying water is not water) and then get credited for it as though he's actually making sense. Its like someone built a damaged puzzle... years later scholars add other pieces to make the puzzle work, and then go... oh WOW he was a brilliant toy designer. Its completely artificial and pretentious.

[Jacobania]

And none of them can compare to the sheer badassery of Germanic gods.

One of them managed to singlehandedly slaughter the entire pantheon of Egypt.

So beat that.

Well considering that there's no evidence for such an event (or any events given for any deity), I would say that I could easily come up with a greater feat by a greater deity because this "My god is bigger than your god" neanderthal argument is purely theoretical.