/lit/ - Literature

>>19006148
Couldn't decipher what i was reading but i agree.

Atheism is poopoo

>>19006148
anti-theists btfo

>>19006148
Yes the atheists who are just Christians without going to church are lame.

>>19006148
If you are a christian you are retarded

>>19006148
The same argument can be made against theism: even those who have accepted Christ and worship God, in their inmost being still follow their egoistic animal instincts that they have inherited from evolutionary pressures, for nothing we think or feel has anything to do with objectivity or truth but with our body and the current physiological state of it.

>>19006190
Wrong

>>19006206
Disprove it then.

>>19006224
Uh...

>>19006148
This is fucking retarded does Dosty think Christianity has a monopoly on morality? Like Christians were the first people to say rape and murder were wrong? I can think of an easy way to be a better person than a Christian that costs nothing stop being a biggot towards homosexuals and women. That's really what the difference is between modern Christians and non-Christians the Christians are bad people about sex.

>>19006233
Yes, you people were literally cavemen unga bunga until you were Christianized

>>19006233
"christianity is le bad cause it disagrees with my post-modernist views"

>>19006190
Since pre-history humans have been religious, pagan at first then christian (or whichever religion we are talking about), any native european is born into an envioment that has been thoroughly christian for at the past 800-1700 years (depending to where we are talking about) and you think people automatically revert to a system that was basically unknown before th 19th century and only became relevant barely 100 years ago? grow up

>>19006362
>Since pre-history humans have been religious
And since modern history humans have discovered DNA and evolution. We're capable of refining our perspective, it's in our DNA to do so.

>>19006190
>materialism ebinnnnnnnnnnn
>t. zogbot

Athiest niggas like de sade are the only ones I respect

>>19006233
No, they have a monopoly on the Christian ideal. It’s more than just “morality”

>>19006368
>materialism ebillllllllllll
>t. poorfag

>>19006384
>n-no you
double digit

>>19006233
>This is fucking retarded does Dosty think Christianity has a monopoly on morality? Like Christians were the first people to say rape and murder were wrong?
Human rights are exactly what the Christian dogma thinks on morality. The countries that do worse in regards of human rights are usually non-Christian countries.
>I can think of an easy way to be a better person than a Christian that costs nothing stop being a biggot towards homosexuals and women
Christianity is not against homosexuals, it's against homosexual behaviour. The idea that homosexuality is a thing you are instead of an action you perform was a clever sleight of hand to add inside the modern moral framework, but it didn't exist until very recently. Thus criticizing Christianity as "anti-gay" is you retroactively adding a concept that didn't exist and very fucking stupid.
>That's really what the difference is between modern Christians and non-Christians the Christians are bad people about sex.
Postmodernists are way worse. They say everything is fair game, yet sexual activities and preferences enforce this magical invisible conspiracy of hierarchies and oppression that only they can see, so every aspect of sexuality must be micro-managed and scrutinized to oblivion.

>>19006190
>: even those who have accepted Christ and worship God, in their inmost being still follow their egoistic animal instincts

And that's why holy martyrs existed. They were just following some evolutionary instinct that made them sacrifice their lifes.

>>19006414
>post straw man argument, receive straw man rebuttal
whoa

>>19006148
Ironically I think Dostoevsky is the main reason I'm an atheist.
The Idiot did it for me.

>>19006422
>Human rights are exactly what the Christian dogma thinks on morality.
Please do explain how the Biblical laws on slavery and blasphemy are consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

>>19006148
He's a convict. So much for Christian virtue.

>>19006463
put to death for wrongthink

>>19006422
>Christianity is not against homosexuals, it's against homosexual behaviour. The idea that homosexuality is a thing you are instead of an action you perform was a clever sleight of hand to add inside the modern moral framework, but it didn't exist until very recently.
I don't like gays and think they are disgusting but holy shit this is the most infuriatingly stupid line of reasoning from Christian morons.
What is the difference between being a homosexual and performing homosexual acts to you?
Being sexual is a natural and undeniable biological imperative. Of course they are going to engage in homosexual behavior, that's what they are. Telling them it isn't a sin to be gay as long as they embark on this extreme quest of self-abnegation is the kind of fucked up bizarre sadistic logic that only a Christian could come up with. You might as well say it isn't a sin to be a bear it's just a sin to eat salmon.
This is the number one reason I don't like Christians, they are this unholy combination of universalism and anti-humanism all in one package.

>>19006484
Having sex outside of marriage is the main sin. Homosexuals tend to have thousands of sexual partners and it's why they are especially gross

>>19006484
>What is the difference between being a homosexual and performing homosexual acts to you?
A homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex as them. Anyone can perform homosexual acts regardless of who they're attracted to.
>You might as well say it isn't a sin to be a bear it's just a sin to eat salmon.
That's not comparable at all. Food is a need. Sex isn't.

>>19006366
oh yeah we are gonna refine thousands of years of being in like 50 years lmao sure. Even if that were true, it would take at least ten times that for humans to get used to that

>>19006484
>as long as they embark on this extreme quest of self-abnegation is the kind of fucked up bizarre sadistic logic that only a Christian could come up with. You might as well say it isn't a sin to be a bear it's just a sin to eat salmon
This is literally the christer answer to every moral question though. I don't know why people attack it over the anti-gay stuff and then miss the forest for the trees. It's their stance on anything—deny the impulse to avoid being a sinner. That contemporary exponents of the religion were able to adapt this framework to contemporary "social issues" is unremarkable unless you've only a superficial knowledge of Christianity.

>>19006501
If sex was not a need these cartoon porn forums wouldn't exist

>>19006510
There were already atheists, hard determinists, materialists, and atomists in Ancient Greece, so I don't know what massive leap you think is being made with modern atheism / evolutionary theory.

>>19006422
>The idea that homosexuality is a thing you are instead of an action you perform was a clever sleight of hand to add inside the modern moral framework, but it didn't exist until very recently.

That's why I'm all for the government banning Christianity. It doesn't even violate any Christians rights because Christians don't exist. Only people who practice Christianity

>>19006484
>What is the difference between being a homosexual and performing homosexual acts to you?
Well, according to Christianity humans are created by God and they have free will to choose what actions to perform.

If a being is created by God and willingly chooses to have sex with people of their same sex (which they cannot love, in the same way you cannot love a plastic vagina), they're being deviants. They're doing something bad just because they can.

In this case stopping a man from having sex with other men is morally good, as you're stopping that man from doing something bad they've chosen to do.

If a being is created by God to be homosexual then it is impossible for them to stop loving people of their same sex and performing sexual activities with them.

In this case stopping a man from having sex with other men is morally unacceptable, as it is part of it's being and forcing him to stop would cause damage upon him.

It is a big difference.

>>19006155
He's saying that people are so passionate in denouncing christianity, that they still haven't found and are working within the 'good things' that christ gave us. In other words: we're still within the parameters of what christ gave us.

>>19006499
That is not what was said.
>>19006501
Sex is obviously a need, it's arguably the strongest passion that we know.

I will explain your own feeble reasoning to you - the reason you come up with these bizarre and frankly stupid lines of reasoning is because the biological reality we observe in ourselves every day doesn't correspond with your God's dictates and you needed a way to answer the question why God created and abides by beings that he apparently finds so objectionable.

>>19006526
You are right, but look how they got treated lmfao. Nothing remains of Democritus' writings, the hedonists got publicaly laughed at no one really took them seriously.

>>19006484
>What is the difference between being a homosexual and performing homosexual acts to you?

Well, I can fuck a dude in the ass, but not enjoy it because I'm not a homosexual.

You can take actions that don't align with what you want or who you are.

it's even in the words you said:
>BEING homosexual
>PERFORMING homosexual acts

You can carry out either without the other.

>>19006569
Kind of like Christians now

>>19006521
>>19006559
Name one person who has died from lack of sex.

>>19006484
But being homosexual, just as all other things, do not exist in a vacuum. Being a homosexual is necessarily interconnected with other things. There are men who were likely or definitely homosexual, but just repressed the urges and were normal. Meanwhile just look at literally any faggot and how they behave, the more they fuck their brains out the more depraved the become in all ways. Mishima was very gay and that his literature and his public shit fucking oozes that

>>19006536
>Christians don't exist. Only people who practice Christianity
Surely you understand that practicing Christianity and being a Christian are one and the same. You can't be a Christian without practicing Christianity, and you can't practice Christianity without being a Christian.

On the other hand you can be homosexual (which by itself is a definition that didn't exist until XIX century) without having gay sex; and in the same way you can have gay sex without being a homosexual.

>>19006569
>but look how they got treated
Just a testament to the inherent barbarism of theists / idealists. Evolution doesn't favor the strongest or smartest but the mediocre and most numerous.

>>19006575
Have you ever noticed that the more someone hates christianity, the more they tend to also hate people and humanity, or they are just very rich or look down upon it in another way? This way of thinking was also scoffed at in ancient greece

>>19006589
So if the government bans Christian worship all Christians stop being Christian since they can't worship?

>>19006595
if evolution favors the mediocre, then how come society has been getting more complex in all of known history? Should be the opposite

>>19006596
I'm not the one who thinks a large chunk of humanity deserves to burn eternally. Christianity is incredibly hateful compared to humanism

>>19006516
Because it's a despicable and cowardly line of reasoning.
I would have much more sympathy and respect for them if they simply declared that they did not like faggots and that being one was an evil in the eyes of their God.
Why can't they do this?
Because it creates an internal contradiction as to why God would create his own evil.
And therein lies my entire problem with them - they are essentially liberals trying to larp as moral conservatives. They just don't have the balls to actually stand for what they really think.
Those people holding up the God Hates Fags signs are 10000% more virtuous Christians in my mind than these assholes who go around sedately explaining how it's fine if you have sexual impulses your entire life you just can't have sex.

>>19006148
God is an AI and we live in a simulation

https://youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

>>19006599
They would worship it in secret (like they do in China right now) or from their homes (like they did when the western world became a technocratic hellhole in 2020.)

Not that "worshipping" is the only thing that defines Christianity.

>>19006578
Eliot Rodger

>>19006601
>Should be the opposite
Because it is the opposite. The world is populated with mediocre retards. Ancient Greece had entire schools of philosophers, genuinely innovative thinkers and geniuses, while we have essentially none. Outliers are always just that, outliers, who have had to struggle against the majority all their lives.

Pretty good from Fyodor but I was lucky enough to be witness to a true BTFO in college one day.

A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

”How old is this rock, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”

”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

Semper Fi.

>>19006190
You just stumbled across the idea of original sin, well done sir

>>19006612
So homosexuals deep in the closet are still homosexuals. And stopping them from having homosexuals sex is discriminating against them just like stopping secret Christians from practicing Christianity is discriminating against them.

>>19006621
Damn son. He must have been trained in gorilla warfare to pull off some wordfu like that.

>>19006612
>they'll just worship from their homes bro
Yeah sure. That's known as the protestant-to-atheist pipeline.

>>19006625
Original sin is just the demonization of the self / the dehumanization of the human. The fight against sin is no less driven by animalistic desire / no less "sinful."

>>19006621
This but unironically.

>>19006603
If you beat a kid for misbehaving are you evil? There is genuine want to help people, and every true christian is like that. Just personally, how many people who hate everyone or are evil that you know are christian vs atheist? My parents brought me up extremelly liberally (do what you want lol) and they were very loving too but I almost turned out into a complete punk, that is what liberalism does to you, if they had been a bit stricter I would have turn to the right path sooner.

>>19006618
You do realize that almost all of the relevant ancient greece philosophers lived in circa one century? From Parmenides till Aristotle (and a bit after or before, depending on how you look at it). Sometimes for some reason, strong schools just form, like how russia had extremely prestigious literary school in the later 19th century. Of course if you brand everyone as retarded, you will never see the wisdom that every person has and you will never come out of your shell

>>19006615
He committed suicide.

>>19006605
>they are essentially liberals trying to larp as moral conservatives. They just don't have the balls to actually stand for what they really think.
Ah but they are "conservative" relative to the non-christer "liberal" moralizers, whose concept of "sin" is thought instead of deed, who require you to openly profess your love and tolerance of all non-normative behaviors, especially the ones you don't participate in yourself, otherwise how would we know if you are a thought-sinner or not?

>>19006578
Childless old people without families and social groups have lower life expectencies
>>19006615
This sort too

>>19006645
I live in central Texas most of the people I know are rabid fundamentalists and not coincidentally a large number of them are massive pieces of shit. Going to college was where I ran into a bunch of liberals and they were dramatically better people. Spend any time in rural America and you'll how fucked up Christianity is

>>19006655
Ah, I suppose suicide is somehow not dying now. More profound insights from the Christians.
>>19006656
I'm not even arguing in favor of liberalism or gays.
I'm arguing against your duplicitous hedging.
Liberals are disgusting in their own right but Christians are no better. In fact you're the ones who gave birth to them.

>>19006628
Yes.

The point being that homosexuality wasn't understood, so what the Christians were attacking was "sodomy" under the assumption that it was a deliberate act; not realizing that those individuals can't change their ways because it's not a choice (which was the entire LGB campaign of the XX century.)

Once "homosexuality" became a concept, that is, a man or woman who inherently loves people of their same sex; the Church's stance on sodomy didn't change. Which is why we have hilarious statements such as the current Pope saying that gay people can be good Christians and go to Heaven, but gay sex is a sin.

Ironically enough the XXI century LGBTQIA+ activists want to make the world believe there is no such thing as a "biological" sexuality (be it homosexuality or heterosexuality) but instead a set of behaviors that society forces on us. By this definition, homosexuality is once again reduced to a choice, reduced to nothing more than gay sex. Except now it has a political component to it.

>>19006645
>Of course if you brand everyone as retarded, you will never see the wisdom that every person has and you will never come out of your shell
It's you who needs to come out of your shell. The vast majority of the species is a retarded consuming automaton waiting to be phased out by robots and the vast majority of "intellectuals" today either regurgitate the Greeks or stick to a single specialization (i.e., they aren't genuinely philosophical). Mass literacy has done seemingly nothing for the species besides make literature shallower and authentic genius becomes rarer and more obscure with each passing century. Darwin himself agreed with the premise that natural selection does not favor the strongest or smartest but whatever is best at adapting (i.e., the mediocre, who don't commit to anything long-term and blend in the best with the herd on account of that).

>>19006190
you are a jew

>>19006689
So my original response stands. Saying banning homosexual acts doesn't discriminate against homosexuals is like saying banning Christianity doesn't discriminate against Christians. A fucking retard level argument

>>19006674
Committing suicide is not dying from a lack of sex. Turn on your brain please.

>>19006674
>I'm arguing against your duplicitous hedging.
You really think someone who calls them "christers" is a christian? Is everyone here an idiot? I imagine you also have some autistic definition of conservative that you are highly defensive of too for no good reason. It's a relative term; christers are more conservative than progressives. There is no disputing this. Progressives look at christers the way christers look at the pagans or Jews.

>>19006708
It's the reason he killed himself. Sounds like a pretty god damn powerful force to me if it can drive a man to do such a thing.

>>19006705
When was I in favor of banning homosexuality? When did I claim that it wasn't discrimination?

I merely explained why the Church had that stance and the difference between being homosexual and performing sexual acts with people of the same sex.

You're spinning your wheels trying to make this a pro-gay vs anti-gay discussion.

>>19006693
Nope.

>>19006719
>the difference between being homosexual and performing sexual acts with people of the same sex.
There is no difference.
One necessarily follows from the other.

>>19006717
you are painfully stupid

>>19006734
No worries, I think the same about you.

>>19006190
>The same argument can be made against theism: even those who have accepted Christ and worship God, in their inmost being still follow their egoistic animal instincts that they have inherited from evolutionary pressures
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

>>19006717
He killed himself because the police were chasing him. Elliot Roger was entirely responsible for his terrible life, as are all incels. Blaming lack of sex on your mental health problems is just a cope. You don't see monks and priests doing mass shootings.

>>19006638
>The fight against sin is no less driven by animalistic desire / no less "sinful."
Wew lad

>>19006748
>He killed himself because the police were chasing him.
I'm quite certain he foresaw that outcome before he implemented his plan.

>>19006730
If that was the case gay people wouldn't exist right now in Islamic states, because gay sex is outlawed. Gay people didn't exist in the western world until the XIX century, and all the men who have been raped by other men are automatically gay.

Dude, your stance is completely absurd. Even modern day activists admit there's a difference between being gay and having gay sex.

>>19006233
>This is fucking retarded does Dosty think Christianity has a monopoly on morality? Like Christians were the first people to say rape and murder were wrong?
See old testament.
> I can think of an easy way to be a better person than a Christian that costs nothing stop being a biggot towards homosexuals and women.
And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

>>19006672
Well I am not from the US so I would not know, but as far as I know, that is just southern culture. And also, are the liberals only better cause they are "live and let live"? Cause that is a bad attitude

>>19006674
Christianity is literally the mortal enemy of liberalism, the latter only exists as a tool to kill the former.

>>19006691
Lol, you need to be 18 to post here

>>19006719
You are either pro gay or anti gay, if you are apathetic then you automatically take on whichever stance is currently mainstream, so rn you are pro gay

>>19006719
And I merely pointed out how the same distinction could be applied between Christians and performing Christian acts or worship. Generally when people talk about banning Christian acts or worship they say it is bigoted against Christians but following your logic it isn't

>>19006750
It's one of Nietzsche's fundamental reasons for denouncing Christianity. Christianity is deeply hypocritical; we haven't overcome animalistic cruelty, we've simply spiritualized and baptized it in the form of Christian pity. Christians are far more cruel than the barbarians they claim to have domesticated in the past.

>>19006148
Cope

>>19006762
>Christianity is literally the mortal enemy of liberalism, the latter only exists as a tool to kill the former.
Liberalism is literally just secularized Christianity.

>>19006763
>Generally when people talk about banning Christian acts or worship they say it is bigoted against Christians but following your logic it isn't
Except I never said that it wasn't discriminatory against gays. And also your comparison made no sense because being religious requires practicing a religion, but being gay does not require sex.

>>19006483
Uhm, yes?

>>19006771
We've already been over this you think being a secret Christian is still being a Christian so no you don't need to practice your religion to be a Christian

>>19006501
>Sex isn't.
kek

>>19006757
I could not give a shit what "modern day activists" say and I don't have a strong feeling on whether or not people are "born gay."
If someone says they are, then that is good enough for me, and people who are intrinsically gay are going to have gay sex because that is what they are biologically compelled to do.

>>19006765
>Nietzsche said it's true so it must be

>>19006536
>That's why I'm all for the government banning Christianity. It doesn't even violate any Christians rights because Christians don't exist. Only people who practice Christianity
Based

>>19006800
>people who are intrinsically gay are going to have gay sex because that is what they are biologically compelled to do.
Wew lad!

>>19006800
>I don't have a strong feeling on whether or not people are "born gay."
>and people who are intrinsically gay

>>19006802
He explained in great detail how it's true, specifically in Genealogy of Morals. Christians are more animal than animals themselves.

>>19006817
Not my problem.
Sounds like your god shouldn't have created the conditions that will necessarily result in the behavior that he has prohibited.
It's almost as the entire system is a giant ad hoc cope.
Not sure what to tell you.
You should just become a Manichean or something. At least then you'd still be able to judge others and demand anti-human expectations of them while still preserving a semblance of intellectual honesty.

I used to hate gay people because I thought they were all faggots but it turns out not all gay people are faggots.

The issue is faggots. Trust me.

>>19006823
Meaning, I don't really care one way or the other, and I'm willing to grant the existence of those who tell me they are. Nice gotcha attempt though, I'm sure jesus is proud.

>>19006847
>doesn't know what intrinsically means
>uses it anyways
based retard

>>19006589
>You can't be a Christian without practicing Christianity, and you can't practice Christianity without being a Christian.
The ch*rch counts me as cretin even if I am excommunicated, explain that.

>>19006841
It you wouldn't pound her ass you're objectively gay

>>19006839
>the entire system is a giant ad hoc cope
This is your life without Christ. What's your flavor of the day principle today?

>>19006861
enlighten me then.
oh wait you don't have a point.
>>19006866
not being a morally bankrupt piece of shit who justifies evil as god's will

>>19006874
You seem to have a fixation about Christianity, anon. I'll pray for you.

>>19006874
>oh wait you don't have a point.
you don't either. your ideology is self-refuting and you don't even realize it
next time you see the midwit bell curve, understand that it's you

>>19006874
there is no such thing as "evil", stop being a secular Christian

>>19006879
i'm posting about christianity in a thread that is about christianity
>>19006880
for someone who is so intellectually superior to me you seem very intent on dragging me down into the mud with you.
did you miss the part where i just invited you to educate me on the definition of intrinsic? i can't help but notice you declined.

>>19006612
>They would worship it in secret (like they do in China right now)
???

>>19006621
*hide post*

>>19006896
you're uninterested in dialogue - you're merely attempting to brute force your ill-thought materialism
pearls before swine, as it goes

>>19006896
>i'm posting about christianity in a thread that is about christianity
Exactly. You have posted quite a bit too. You are obviously emotionally and otherwise invested in Christianity. I will pray for you because you seem curious about the faith.

>>19006645
>If you beat a kid for misbehaving are you evil?
Uh, yes?

>>19006925
>you're merely attempting to brute force your ill-thought materialism
pearls before swine, as it goes
Did you just call yourself swine?

>>19006937
Good fuck you people are insufferably smug and full of yourself. Vanity.

>>19006957
Bro I'm not the one who called you a pig. You did that to yourself. You can't even properly use a cliche

>>19006748
>he thinks monk and priests are not having sex
ngmi

>Mount Athos (/ˈæθɒs/; Greek: Άθως, [ˈa.θos]) is a mountain and peninsula in northeastern Greece and an important centre of Eastern Orthodox monasticism. It is governed as an autonomous polity within the Hellenic Republic. Mount Athos is home to 20 monasteries under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
>Typikon (Charter) of the Monastery of Great Lavra which dates to 970 states: "You will not own any animal of the female sex, for the purpose of doing any work which you require, because you have absolutely renounced all female beings." Here we thus read that it is not necessarily all female animals that are prohibited, but all female domestic animals that labor for the needs of the monastery (specifically here of Great Lavra). The Typikon for Athos which dates to 1045 begins with the exclusion of eunuchs and beardless youths, which is another ancient monastic tradition, because like females both eunuchs and beardless youths were seen to be effeminate and presented a temptation for weaker male monks.

Imagine being so degenerate.
Christ*anity is cancer

it was almost certainly true for his time, probably right up to the end of the 1940's, but i think the modern world is starting to prove dosto wrong here as popular culture in the west has begun full on embracing satanism and is finally fully abandoning christian moral philosophy

>>19006975
Makes you think about how much gay sex and even gay rape was happening in the monasteries.

>>19006978
What's satanism according to you?

>>19006978
The period of time since the end of WW2 has been the most peaceful time in human history with the least war deaths per capita ever.

>>19006148
The Christian ideal is a pagan one, taken from the philosophers. There's no specifically Christian content in the moral ideal of Christ, he's just portrayed as a Cynic philosopher in the mould of Diogenes or Socrates.

>>19007011
making monuments out of our sins and worshiping them like idols and becoming enslaved by them, usually under some feel good platitudes about how its real freedom

>>19006748
>Genie was entirely responsible for his terrible life, as are all incels.
>She should have just gone outside, touched grass and learned to be a pleasant person

>>19007045
>and becoming enslaved by them
Why do Christians / quasi-Christians misuse the concept of slavery like this always?

>>19007083
i dont see how its being misused here

>>19007067
>the actual cope

>>19007083
Next you're going to tell me that capitalism is not slavery.

>>19006484
The issue I have with christianity boils down to trying too hard to fit a square peg in a round hole. In times of uncertainty and turmoil a brotherhood founded upon rule following and conformity is essential. In times of decadence such a restrictive conformist social contract is pointless and actively chafing. The bonds formed by misbehavior and vice are far more potent and powerful than the bonds of social obedience. These will always lead to a richer life IF the individual can afford to act capriciously which is not a decision within their control but entirely a chance product of the times they are born into. It is unthinkable for any intelligent person to feel like they have lived a fulfilling life by forming bonds using a tired and superfluous social contract in times of peace and idleness. All the glory that belongs to christianity is closely tied to the proportional suffering following such a social contract thwarted. Without sufficient suffering to negate, the purpose of christianity is lacking.

In serious times choose conformity. In clown world actively make mischief (not the serious kind lest you usher in serious times with your foolishness).

>>19006148
Christfags just copied gayreeks. I don't know where this sense of originality comes from.

>>19007045
Can you be more specific? This could be anything

>>19007093
Would it be correct to say you were enslaved by Christianity? Would burning every Bible free people from slavery to a literal idol?

>>19007093
Sins = desires, right? You can't be enslaved by your own desires. It's like saying you're enslaved by your body. This is a morbid interpretation of the self and what's really happening is that you're abusing your body, which has become agitated and "wild" in your eyes.

>>19007095
Don't see how this is relevant.

>>19006190
>in their inmost being still follow their egoistic animal instincts that they have inherited from evolutionary pressures, for nothing we think or feel has anything to do with objectivity or truth but with our body and the current physiological state of it.
Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to martyrize themselves for the benefit of some abstract ideal such as justice or God
Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to become celibate
Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to commit suicide

>>19006802
Nietzsche said it and the world is still waiting for a through refutation of his constructed argument.

>>19007134
sins are not just desires, they are self destructive impulses that can overwhelm the will. you can desire food without losing your life to gluttony and eating yourself into an early grave. someone who eats themselves into obesity and eventually death has without a doubt become enslaved by their own sinful impulses and is not merely "desiring"

>>19007143
>Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to become celibate
>Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to commit suicide
Bad genes lead to inability to further your bloodline, and from an evolutionary pov it's probably just best if such a specimen just end itself

t. incel with an history of suicidal thoughts

>>19007134
>You can't be enslaved by your own desires.
>What even is addiction?

>>19007143
Celibacy is easy there are multiple species with neuter worker drones. We're even multicellular organisms where the reproduction of individual cells are heavily regulated. Martyrdom is easier to understand if you don't think there are truly abstract ideas, every idea is inherently tribal underneath all it's decorative reasoning. Sacrificing yourself for a kin group is not hard to understand evolutionarily. Suicide is harder but there are still multiple species that exhibit destructive behavior or apathetic behavior to the point of being destructive when they are isolated or put in hopeless situations.

>>19007143
Watch out as he cops out with "ur all just creazy people lol!"

>>19007176
>doesn't actually answer any of the three points directly

>>19007177
That pic is based btw

>>19007168
>Bad genes lead to inability to further your bloodline
I said celibate, not INCEL

>and from an evolutionary pov it's probably just best if such a specimen just end itself
Wrong, Newton had amazing genes and he never reproduced
There are countless successful people who committed suicide as well

>>19007176
>Celibacy is easy there are multiple species with neuter worker drones. We're even multicellular organisms where the reproduction of individual cells are heavily regulated.
That's not an evolutionary purpose, how is Newton not reproducing beneficial to the survival of the species? Not every celibate has bad genes

>Martyrdom is easier to understand if you don't think there are truly abstract ideas, every idea is inherently tribal underneath all it's decorative reasoning. Sacrificing yourself for a kin group is not hard to understand evolutionarily.
People don't always sacrifice themselves for the survival of the tribe, sometimes they have sacrificed themselves for abstract things like faith or knowledge, such as Galileo Galilei enduring martyrdom for his heliocentrism

>Suicide is harder but there are still multiple species that exhibit destructive behavior or apathetic behavior to the point of being destructive when they are isolated or put in hopeless situations.
Suicide is still usually detrimental to the survival of the species, most people who commit suicide are not in "hopeless situations", the vast majority of suicide is commited by people with cushy material conditions, not by miserable third worlders, and their survival and self-improvement would have greatly benefitted the species

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210600616300430#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20this%20study,and%20life%20expectancy%20in%20women.

Neither of you have proven that there is good reason to think these behaviors are the direct result of evolutionary instinct

>>19007163
>sins are not just desires, they are self destructive impulses
Is there something unnatural about self-destruction? Why is the glutton eating himself into obesity not just nature working as intended?

>>19007173
>What even is addiction?
The natural impulse of an abused body/self, further abused by the label "addiction," as if the body isn't doing exactly what it should do in that situation. At no point does this mean the self is separate from the body and the former is "enslaved" by the latter.

>>19007186
Celibacy and martyrdom can directly lead to the increased success of the same copies of a gene carried by different genetically related individuals. Suicide is harder to understand but there are multiple species of animals that display suicide like behavior in certain situations and there is a presumed evolutionary reason for the animal behavior. At the very least you can say suicide is an animalistic instinct

>>19007168
>Bad genes lead to inability to further your bloodline
I said celibates, not INVOLUNTARY celibates

>and from an evolutionary pov it's probably just best if such a specimen just end itself
Wrong, Newton had amazing genes and he never reproduced
There are countless successful people who committed suicide as well

>>19007176
>Celibacy is easy there are multiple species with neuter worker drones. We're even multicellular organisms where the reproduction of individual cells are heavily regulated.
That's not an evolutionary purpose, how is Newton not reproducing beneficial to the survival of the species? Not every celibate has bad genes

>Martyrdom is easier to understand if you don't think there are truly abstract ideas, every idea is inherently tribal underneath all it's decorative reasoning. Sacrificing yourself for a kin group is not hard to understand evolutionarily.
People don't always sacrifice themselves for the survival of the tribe, sometimes they have sacrificed themselves for abstract things like faith or knowledge, such as Galileo Galilei enduring martyrdom for his heliocentrism

>Suicide is harder but there are still multiple species that exhibit destructive behavior or apathetic behavior to the point of being destructive when they are isolated or put in hopeless situations.
Suicide is still usually detrimental to the survival of the species, most people who commit suicide are not in "hopeless situations", the vast majority of suicide is commited by people with cushy material conditions, not by miserable third worlders, and their survival and self-improvement would have greatly benefitted the species

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210600616300430#:~:text=The%20results%20of%20this%20study,and%20life%20expectancy%20in%20women.

Neither of you have proven that there is good reason to think these behaviors are the direct result of evolutionary instinct

>>19007143
>Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to martyrize themselves for the benefit of some abstract ideal such as justice or God
The instinct for cruelty which has been forced inward.

>Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to become celibate
The instinct for cruelty which has been forced inward.

>Explain what evolutionary instinct drives someone to commit suicide
The instinct for cruelty which has been forced inward.

>>19007205
who cares if you consider it "natural" or not? and its about as natural as a tumor is. the point is that the conscious will is dominated by a subconscious impulse, which in effect enslaving of the conscious will and hijacks it an uses it to hurt both its self and others around it

im still failing to see why you think "enslaved" is an inappropriate term here

>>19007214
What's this?
60 year old girl who can't talk, can't eat, can't walk still living out of her own volition? (If that is even left in her)

>>19007242
>its about as natural as a tumor is.
So completely natural, then? Do we say that we are "enslaved" by a tumor? The idea here is that the self is separate from the body, which is just a coping mechanism in a body that dislikes itself.

>>19007215
With Einstein's physics we got nuclear weapons that could potentially annihilate human life. It's probably advantageous for our species if people like that weren't born.

>>19007260
we dont say a tumour enslaves us because a tumour does not exert control over our counscious will, what possible reason would we have to say it? are you retarded lol?

>The idea here is that the self is separate from the body,
is irrelevant and has no bearing on what i am saying

>>19007272
I want more people like him born.

>>19007272
Not really, nukes are one thing but the vast majority of science is advantageous to the species as a whole, after all, we wouldn't have taken over the whole ecosystem without science

>>19007279
>is irrelevant and has no bearing on what i am saying
And yet you say just before this:
>a tumour does not exert control over our counscious will
As if the body does "exert control over our conscious will," i.e., is separate from the self. Without the distinction, your statement would read as, "the self exerts controls over the self, therefore the self is enslaved by the self."

>>19007134
>>19007205
>>19007260
>>19007295
>You can't be enslaved by your own desires.
>As if the body does "exert control over our conscious will," i.e., is separate from the self. Without the distinction, your statement would read as, "the self exerts controls over the self, therefore the self is enslaved by the self."
Do you not have a consciousness? Are you an NPC?
Do you not understand what the difference between conscious and subconscious is?
Have you never resisted your subconscious with your conscious?

Secular morals always appeal to feels or humanity (a spook) Pragmatic legalism would make more sense.

>>19007295
im talking about different aspects of the self, conscious and unconscious will, what does that have to do with the body being seperate from the self? (which is in its self a dubious unproven claim)

>>19007306
>morals

>>19007288
How do you know that taking over the whole ecosystem is an evolutionary benefit to survival? Cockroaches will almost certainly outlive and out reproduce the human race without being anywhere close to dominating the ecosystem.

>>19007304
>Do you not understand what the difference between conscious and subconscious is?
Do you not understand that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience? The whole view that one has a subconscious / unconscious separate from the conscious doesn't prove anything about the self, it just demonstrates a very stupid understanding of the self. The self is all of it combined.

>>19007318
The american believes himself superior because he has bigger toys.

>>19007288
us "taking over the whole ecosystem" is going to leave it uninhabitable for us soon enough

>>19006190
>man is fallen
What a revelation

>>19007328
>The whole view that one has a subconscious / unconscious separate from the conscious doesn't prove anything about the self, it just demonstrates a very stupid understanding of the self. The self is all of it combined.

>it's stupid because
>UHHHHH
>IT JUST IS

Holy shit, do you actually not have a subconscious? Have you never tried to oppose an "order" your body was giving you, like resisting pain or addiction?
The unconscious should be so obvious that it exists to anyone that has it, i don't know how you'd deny it unless you yourself are an NPC, like consciousness itself

Also, by saying "the self is all of it COMBINED", you are directly implying that the self has multiple parts that are combined into a greater whole

>>19006366
>evolution
Quite literally a hoax. A materialist myth

ttp://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
https://back2godhead.com/science/
https://archive.org/details/WilliamA.DembskiJonathanWellsTheDesignOfLifeDiscoveringSignsOfIntelligenceInBiol/mode/2up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/

>>19006190
wrong

>>19006148
Christianity bans gambling.

Dosty debunked.

>>19007390
I can't even imagine a situation where evolution couldn't happen. Random mutation plus inheritance is always going to optimize whatever parameters define the probability of continued existence. It's a math thing at the very bottom level.

>>19007376
It's stupid because at bottom it's just a body saying "I am not my body." If you don't see how that's stupid, then you're stupid, end of story; and since it is stupid, and body is what the self is throughout, then the view that the body could "enslave" the self is just as stupid.

>>19007437
You're just reaffirming your premise (you are nothing except your body) and stating that i'm stupid for questioning it, with no arguments given as to why

Such smarts

And even if you WERE just your body, there could still be conflicting orders within your brain, retard, the subconscious would be base instincts like your amygdala and your conscious would be impulse control like your prefrontal cortex

Either way you're being absolutely retarded and making no arguments

>>19007306
All morals appeal to power just disagree who/what to assign power to. Might makes right is true for the consequentialist as it is for the christfag.

>>19007455
Show me scientific evidence for this self-separate-from-body / soul of yours. Better yet, make a decent argument at all justifying this view. You can't and never will; you're a body claiming you aren't one and always will be this, and everyone who isn't retarded can see it.

>>19007460
i assign the power to myself

>>19007215
>I said celibates, not INVOLUNTARY celibates
Doesn't matter what you said, the reason you decide to go celibate is probably that --->
>Bad genes lead to inability to further your bloodline

>Wrong, Newton had amazing genes and he never reproduced
He was notoriously antisocial (and this, for a social species, means bad genes). Anyway reversing my argument is not a refutation.
>There are countless successful people who committed suicide as well
If they had children, their suicide is meaningless (evolutionarily speaking), it they had no offspring, see above.

>>19007437
but you haven't proven that the body is not separate from the self yet, and actually relevant to this conversation, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the body being seperate from the self, it has to do with different aspects of the self, and you also haven't explained why its inappropriate to use the word enslaved to describe one aspect of something exerting control over another aspect of of something. you seem to be genuinely autistic about this extremely benign but apt use of language.

>>19007376
>The unconscious should be so obvious that it exists to anyone that has it
Nobody realized there was an unconscious for thousands of years, they called it "demons", "god", or whatever

>>19007496
>they called it "demons", "god", or whatever
That was psychedelics. Ancients used to trip balls roughly every single day.

>>19007477
>IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the body being seperate from the self, it has to do with different aspects of the self
This isn't a different argument, you're just rephrasing it. The self is made up of different aspects, but it isn't separate from these aspects, so they can't "enslave" the self without saying "the self has enslaved itself" which is meaningless gibberish.

>>19007531
when you acknowledge that different aspects exist, which you just did, you are infact literally acknowledging a distinction, however minor, between different parts, and you STILL have not explained why using the word "enslaved" to describe one of those distinct parts dominating the other

youre arguing "how can one human enslave another human, theyre both part of the same species brooo"


being part of the same system is irrelevant, the only relevant thing is distinct aspects of the system overriding each other, one distinct thing, however nuanced in its distinction, exerting its function over the other distinct thing. it doesn't matter if they are apart of the same system in the grand scheme of things

>>19007580
*you STILL have not explained why using the word "enslaved" to describe one of those distinct parts dominating the other is inappropriate

>>19007474
>the reason you decide to go celibate is probably that --->
>>Bad genes lead to inability to further your bloodline
No it isn't, only the most fucked up and disabled invididuals avoid reproduction due to "bad genes", especially not healthy and smart people like Newton, go to a celibate community and ask them why they're celibate and it's usually some sort of abstinence to focus on some other goal or an antinatalist morality, not because of their genes
>b-b-but they just don't know they're doing it subconsciously because of their genes
Considering you admitted to being an incel, this just sounds like projection

>He was notoriously antisocial (and this, for a social species, means bad genes).
So you're saying antisocial/high functioning autist = bad genes, doesn't matter how intelligent or physically fit you are
That's absolutely retarded, humans can serve more than one role for the species, not everyone is meant to be a leader, that doesn't mean they have "bad genes"
>Anyway reversing my argument is not a refutation.
Yes it is, i just demonstrated that these things are very often an evolutionary detriment

>>19007467
>Show me scientific evidence for this self-separate-from-body / soul of yours.
You can't even demonstrate scientific evidence that consciousness exists or why we perceive a specific spectrum of light as the color red, science doesn't understand shit about consciousness nigger

>Better yet, make a decent argument at all justifying this view. You can't and never will; you're a body claiming you aren't one and always will be this, and everyone who isn't retarded can see it.
I guess if this is so "obvious to anyone who isn't retarded", countless intellectuals and scientists were/are retarded
I guess Heisenberg was a retard, Descartes was retarded, Dostoevsky was a retard, Leibniz was a retard, holy shit, you must be so smart that all these geniuses PALE in comparison to you so much that you can dismiss them entirely with NO arguments!
You're just so insanely smart that all these intellectuals are retards in comparison to you, damn, i'm shook, are you a moderator on r/atheism?

>>19007580
>when you acknowledge that different aspects exist, which you just did, you are infact literally acknowledging a distinction
No. "Self" is just a useful word for referring to a bundle of "aspects." It doesn't refer to anything unique in its own right.

>youre arguing "how can one human enslave another human, theyre both part of the same species brooo"
Also no. I'm arguing that the self can't enslave itself.

>>19007437
>>19007531
>>19007602
>indirectly admits the consciousness has distinct parts
>refuses to acknowledge that one part could dominate/override the other in such a way that it could be appropriately called "enslavement", even though this is an apparent reality to anyone who has ever overcome or tried to overcome things such as addiction or pain

So this is the intellectual power of materialists...

>>19007656
See >>19007650

>>19007650
>"Self" is just a useful word for referring to a bundle of "aspects."
thus a distinction can be made between those aspects, since we are literally acknowledging them as different aspects which serve different functions , and since we know one of those aspects can exert its primary function over other aspects, it is well within the realm of appropriate use of language to describe one aspect enslaving the other when one aspect exerts itself over the other, given that the word "enslaved" means to be "subject to the arbitrary will of a master", and here we have one aspect of the mind made subject to the purpose of another

>>19007650
>>19007687
>Also no. I'm arguing that the self can't enslave itself.
Nobody is saying the whole self enslaves its' own whole... just that some parts enslave or resist others

>>19007620
>You can't even demonstrate scientific evidence that consciousness exists
That's only the case when people hold a non-scientific definition of consciousness. Redefine the word consciousness to meaningfully communicate something comprehensible and science can certainly demonstrate it.

>or why we perceive a specific spectrum of light as the color red
Colors have wavelengths which the eye is designed to interpret, creating the impression "red" and so on. Nothing unscientific or beyond the scope of science there.

>I guess if this is so "obvious to anyone who isn't retarded", countless intellectuals and scientists were/are retarded
On this matter, absolutely, though in the past, before philosophy resolved the issue, it was far more forgivable.

>>19007705
>thus a distinction can be made between those aspects
Of course.

>and since we know one of those aspects can exert its primary function over other aspects, it is well within the realm of appropriate use of language to describe one aspect enslaving the other
But this isn't what we started with / what I was disputing. One aspect can come to dominate the other, but at no point is there a "true self" being enslaved by any of these aspects like Christianity posits.

>>19007760

this is literally what we started with, we started with the idea that sin is a compulsive subconscious instinct that overrides the conscious will resulting in self destructive behavior or behavior that is harmful to others. just as fear can overwhelm a man and take control of his conscious will and leave him unable to act, so to can mans conscious will be lost to gluttony or lust or wrath.

>>19007793
>we started with the idea that sin is a compulsive subconscious instinct that overrides the conscious will resulting in self destructive behavior or behavior that is harmful to others
You are so fucking disingenuous. All you've done here is reinserted the same old gibberish claim that there is a "true self" being enslaved by desires of the body, while masking these terms in other terms ("compulsive subconscious instinct" and "conscious will"). The entire premise you're working with is BULLSHIT. The concept of sin is BULLSHIT. The body is never "sinful." It's never "addicted." It just fucking does! It is doing itself! You've made unnatural what is completely natural; it is completely natural for certain bodies to destroy themselves. Decadence is completely natural. Decadence isn't even decadence, but it is labeled as decadence because of your idealism. So you don't like your body's "decadence," but it only exists as decadence because you've called it as such, and it's only there because you don't know how to treat your body the right way in the first place. An "addiction" isn't a weakness in the body but an agitation of it; it isn't "sin" or "decadence" but the body's natural, biologically intended response to certain stimuli, a kind of tension which is only aggravated further when you don't release it.

>>19007620
>Considering you admitted to being an incel, this just sounds like projection
How is that? I didn't want children long before being an incel.
>>b-b-but they just don't know they're doing it subconsciously because of their genes
Genes dictate most of what you do, there's no shortcut.


>humans can serve more than one role for the species, not everyone is meant to be a leader
Exactly, and in Newton case reproducing wasn't one (Geniuses rarely have genius offspring anyway)

>Yes it is
No it isn't
>Some birds do not fly
>But some mammals do! Checkmate!

>So you're saying antisocial/high functioning autist = bad genes, doesn't matter how intelligent or physically fit you are
Being phisically fit and/or intelligent isn't even necessarily a good thing when it comes to survival. Read some lager memories, the well-built dudes died first because they needed a lot of food, slim guys needed less. Some argue that anxiety was developed because imagining non-immediate, non-real threats helped devising solutions if/when these threats became real. It seems that generation after generation this summed up to the point of being an hindrance (Dawkins mentions something similar about peacocks colourful tails, I think)

>>19007843
>Exactly, and in Newton case reproducing wasn't one
Well that's stepping into cuck and dare I say "bug-man" territory. Which put's this cleanly beyond worth consideration as a valid line of thought to go down.

>>19008083
???
Whatever

>>19007735
After reading a physics textbook, does a colorblind person understand what it's like to see red?

>>19008170
Consider this:
Would you willingly work and expend your whole efforts to support another random man in getting cunny and then support their family your entire life "because the other male is clearly genetically superior"?

>>19008191
What does understanding mean in this context? Do you understand what it's like to see red, or are you just recalling a memory of a certain sensory experience?

Jesus, materialists ITT are such soulless bugmen.

>>19007843
>Genes dictate most of what you do, there's no shortcut.
You misunderstood what i meant... i didn't mean that their lack of desire to reproduce wasn't motivated by their genes, but that their reason not to reproduce was unrelated to the QUALITY of their genes

>Being phisically fit and/or intelligent isn't even necessarily a good thing when it comes to survival. Read some lager memories, the well-built dudes died first because they needed a lot of food, slim guys needed less. Some argue that anxiety was developed because imagining non-immediate, non-real threats helped devising solutions if/when these threats became real. It seems that generation after generation this summed up to the point of being an hindrance (Dawkins mentions something similar about peacocks colourful tails, I think)
That's an edge case where there's no food and strength and athleticism doesn't help get more food, 99.9% of humans will never experience anything like that, because generally speaking the stronger and more athletic will scavenge food and get back to safety more easily in a survival situation, since they can fight better, scavenge better and hunt better which makes up for calorie requirements. And anxiety definitively can cripple intelligent people but not to the point of making intelligence more advantageous than disadvantageous on average

>>19007735
>That's only the case when people hold a non-scientific definition of consciousness.
Provide "a scientific definition of consciousness"
>Redefine the word consciousness to meaningfully communicate something comprehensible and science can certainly demonstrate it.
It means what you're experiencing right now, but we have no way to describe it that isn't self-referential

>Colors have wavelengths which the eye is designed to interpret, creating the impression "red" and so on. Nothing unscientific or beyond the scope of science there.
You literally answered nothing
I asked "Why do our eyes interpret a certain spectrum of light as the color red?"
You answered
"Our eyes interpret a certain spectrum of light as the color red"
That's not an explanation of anything, we don't know at all how the perception works or why that interpretation is there, science has no answer, it's what >>19008191 asked
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

>>19008248
>Do you understand what it's like to see red, or are you just recalling a memory of a certain sensory experience?
That's just semantics, both of these experiences are consciousness, and again, science has no explanation for consciousness

>>19008265
>That's just semantics
Or you're using words inappropriately. You don't "understand" what it's like to see red, you just see it, and you see it not because of "consciousness" but because your eyes are functioning normally (normal as defined by what is common in the species).

>>19008281
>You don't "understand" what it's like to see red, you just see it, and you see it not because of "consciousness" but because your eyes are functioning normally
I give up, the way you can't seem to differentiate consciousness from your body or even acknowledge that consciousness is an internal experience and not just an externally observable event, leaves me with only two logical conclusions: You're either baiting, or you're a philosophical zombie like Dennett https://philarchive.org/archive/KEACDD
In either case it's futile to argue

>>19008248
You obviously know what "understanding" means. But whatever, say that all I have is a memory of a sensory experience. Why can't I communicate an understanding of this sensory experience to a colorblind person in the same unambiguous way that I can communicate a description of light waves and optic nerves?

>>19006233
b8

>>19008315
>DUDE my eye can interpret the wavelength of light that produces red and my brain can graph the synaptic conjunction that produced the experience onto tissue resulting in a memory of the experience of red WHICH MEANS CONSCIOUSNESS IS SEPARATE FROM LE BODY!!!
How about you define consciousness for once. Can you even do that? Are you willing to admit that it's just a word for something about the body, or not?

>>19008351
>How about you define consciousness for once
Can you see, touch, hear, quantify the "invisible hand" of capitalism?
It is there, it arises from Many small parts, which summed up don't create "the hand", but they still create the egregore of "the hand".
How do you scientifically prove that it exists?

>>19008383
>the "invisible hand" of capitalism
That's just your ape brain inappropriately anthropomorphizing a word that originally referred to a complex relationship of various parts.

>>19008351
>How about you define consciousness for once.
Internal experience

>Are you willing to admit that it's just a word for something about the body, or not?
Generated by the body? Maybe, part of the body? No, radio waves are not part of a radio

There is zero scientific evidence of internal experience, simple as

Oh wait, i forgot i'm talking to a philosophical zombie...

>>19008409
And? Elaborate.
How is consciousness different from that? Why can't you quantify it or measure it if it's just "a complex relationship of parts"?
There's no difference between these two.

>>19008417
>Internal experience
And what about this experience do you think is independent of your body?

>>19008423
>And? Elaborate.
Capitalism doesn't exist. The word "capitalism" is what has existence. The word exists as a short-hand so that we can communicate a complex set of ideas and working parts within a certain span of time. You've mistakenly taken, in ape-like fashion, this complex set to have a form of being. Same with the word consciousness, which doesn't refer to a thing, but simply to something about the body.

>>19008457
So you're saying that consciousness doesn't exist?
It's literally there nigga. I can see it right now. I can prove it experimentally. Just because it can't be reduced to a mathematical formula doesn't make it not real.
Your tools are simply insufficient.

>>19008488
>So you're saying that consciousness doesn't exist?
Consciousness doesn't exist, but whatever aspect of the body the word is being used to describe does.

>>19008488
>IQ
>science
That's gonna be cringe for me dawg

>>19008207
In part, that's what unmarried siblings to towards their nephes/nieces.
I became an uncle 2 days ago btw.

>>19008497
Can you define "just see it" from >>19008281? You've argued that "just seeing it" isn't something that a complete physical description of the body enables. Then in what sense is "just seeing it" an aspect of the body?

>>19008532
t.failed man

>>19008488
What the hell is that pic, good G*D
>Tesla
>Procreation

>>19008539
Yes, that's my whole argument. Can you not read?

>>19008497
Since you're retarded. Pic related.
Alone These figures cannot climb over the obstacle.
But if they combine they develop an entirely new concept that is not achievable alone. They create something that is greater than the sum of it's parts.
Consciousness is not the parts, and it's not the addition of them. It arises from them.

>>19008535
The eye interprets something and the brain interprets the nerve signal from the eye. The brain graphs it onto grey matter tissue, creating a memory. Both organs are informed by various parts, including but not limited to DNA and other graphed signals, which influence the interpretive process. Where in all this is consciousness as a separate, unique thing? Any use of the word that doesn't refer to some aspect of this complex relationship of working parts in the body is nonsensical.

>>19008552
The only reasonable conclusion to be taken from this argument is that the word is, as I said, just a word. Nowhere in your argument have you demonstrated consciousness as having a separate, unique existence.

>>19006607
AI is not a God. It's Demiurge. So many people confuse the two, it's infuriating.

>>19006607
If this was indeed a simulation it would be impossible to ever perceive or comprehend the outside world. You simply cannot be exposed to it. So this is as real as it gets.

>>19008765
>If this was indeed a simulation it would be impossible to ever perceive or comprehend the outside world. You simply cannot be exposed to it. So this is as real as it gets.
You don't believe in consciousness uploading, do you?

If you do, then this statement is quite retarded, since if we can put a consciousness inside a virtual body then nothing should stop whoever runs the simulation from pulling our consciousness out of the virtual

>>19008782
>You don't believe in consciousness uploading, do you?
Not possible. Will never be possible.

>>19006148
Explain the Chinese empire in this framework.

>>19008830
Chinks aren't human and have no soul. Would be explaining an ant hill no relevance at all to human beings

>>19008830
Chinese have the CCP aka the Community of all Chinese People as an Egregore to guide them instead of God. It's a necessity in achieving their dream. Complete faith in the Chinese people and the CCP.

>>19008869
>Chinese have the CCP
I'm not talking about modern day China, I'm talking about what was going on in China before the revolution and before constant contact with the west. They had some ideal of "man and virtue" that they followed and that was necessarily not whatever the fuck the christian one happens to be. How is it so much worse?
Also in what way the christian ideal of man and virtue deviates from the one that existed in ancient greece and rome?

>>19008590
>The eye interprets something and the brain interprets the nerve signal from the eye. The brain graphs it onto grey matter tissue, creating a memory. Both organs are informed by various parts, including but not limited to DNA and other graphed signals, which influence the interpretive process.
Is this your response to "define 'just see it'"? This is a description of physical processes. I can't use this to see red if I'm colorblind. It doesn't even contribute at all towards helping me imagine the sensory experience. Yet it's all the available scientific information. Would you concede that "creating certain sensory experiences" is something beyond the scope of science?

>>19008816
>Soul
???

>>19007842
>You are so fucking disingenuous.
he says
then he says
>All you've done here is reinserted the same old gibberish claim that there is a "true self" being enslaved by desires of the body,
which is not only something i literally never said, but i also made it explicitly clear that what i was saying has literally nothing to do with "mind and body" which, once again, i literally never brought up at any point.

whos being disingenuous here? youre completely fucked in the head, bud

>>19008903
Well even the greats sometimes talk mad shit way out of the line. Just gotta agree with him and then ignore it and do your own thing anyway.

>>19008842
>Chinks aren't human
*Sigh*

>>19008910
That retard is confusing interpretation and definitions with the real thing.

>>19007842
also what in the FUCK does the distinction of \"natural or unnatural" have to do with anything? once again, you are so completely fucked mate

>>19008910
>This is a description of physical processes.
Right, which is what I consider "seeing red" to be and nothing more.

>I can't use this to see red if I'm colorblind.
Of course you can't. Why would you be able to experience these physical processes just by reading about them? We're describing physical processes, and if you're colorblind, these processes have malfunctioned in your body. As usual, you've made absolutely no progress towards demonstrating the existence of something separate from your body in the overall experience.

>>19008915
>what i was saying has literally nothing to do with "mind and body"
To use the word "enslaved" at all implies that there is something doing the enslaving and something else being enslaved. In the original statement, if this didn't mean mind / soul / consciousness / etc. versus body, then what were you talking about?

Imagine if the Christian ideal originated from human nature, instead of God
That also explains the, relative, uniformity of human cultures
What a novel thought, haha

>>19008929
It's the opposite, retard. Everyone going on about consciousness or "seeing red" NOT just being a description for something about the body has confused language with what the body actually experiences.

>>19008986
Do you hear yourself right now?
>I consider "seeing red" to be [a description] and nothing more.
>Why would you be able to experience [seeing red] just by reading about it?

>>19009014
Because you're retarded, I'll spell it out for you:

>I consider "seeing red" to be [a description] and nothing more.
I wrap "seeing red" in quotes here to denote that I am talking about the words "seeing red" as opposed to the physical process that these words are intended to make reference to.

>Why would you be able to experience [seeing red] just by reading about it?
I wrote out "these physical processes" here because now I'm talking about the processes themselves rather than the words we use to refer to them.

Now, can you distinguish between the two statements?

>>19008986
>To use the word "enslaved" at all implies that there is something doing the enslaving and something else being enslaved

as ive said a hundred times, in this case its purely animalistic instinctual impulses overriding the conscious logical will. the subconscious dominating the conscious. the enslavement of conscious thought process by instinctual impulse. defying all logic and cognitive thought for self destructive behavior driven by the need to satiate some deep seeded animal instinct

>>19009000
>>19009036
#FF0000
Is this red you fuckin nigger?

>>19009059
When did I argue that it was? You don't know what the fuck I'm even arguing, do you?

>>19009074
When you started equating descriptions and interpretations with reality.

>>19009086
My entire point is that these descriptions that we're using don't have existence as anything other than descriptions for something about the body. As for interpretations being separate from reality: good luck justifying this as an endlessly interpreting body.

>>19009036
Here's what you said way back:
>Colors have wavelengths which the eye is designed to interpret, creating the impression "red" and so on. Nothing unscientific or beyond the scope of science there.
Is communicating what the sensory experience of seeing red is like to a colorblind person beyond the scope of science?

>>19009151
>Is communicating what the sensory experience of seeing red is like to a colorblind person beyond the scope of science?
No. First of all, you couldn't communicate such a thing without making an appeal to other experiences that the body has. Second of all, if the colorblind person was born colorblind, then you won't be successfully communicating anything to them no matter what you appeal to. Why? Because the body is all there is, and if it lacks the means to parse something, it's never going to access that something through mere words.

>>19009191
>parse
Should have said experience

>>19009038
The "conscious logical will" is formed of "animalistic instinctual impulses" though. It isn't anything other than this. Further, logic is formed chiefly by the most brutal and violent impulses in us, because at bottom it coldly breaks everything down into rigid shapes for the sole purpose of dominating over them. So, what you've done is created a false dichotomy, again.

>>19006556
most teachings of christ were already normalised in the world before him. People werent murdering each other on sight before Christ said ''thou shall not kill''

>>19009309

the thing is, even if we completely accept your terms laid out here, there is still a clear cut distinction between the two phenomena I am addressing here even if they are ultimately of the same nature. if you come face to face with a delicious piece of cake, and you feel an overwhelming impulse to eat it, something deep in you is telling you that you have to eat it, that it will feel good etc, and you almost feel pressured by this impulse to act on it, but then you regain composure and say to yourself "im on a diet i cant eat it" and you successfully resist, even though the impulse is there and doesn't just go away, there are clearly two forces working against each other here, and one of them wins out over the other. when I say someone is enslaved by sin i am saying that there is a chronic pattern in the failure of the will to resist the impulse, the impulse to eat the cake comes to absolutely dominate the will and there is no resistance time and time again. the impulse has control, and thus, enslaved is STILL a perfectly fine word to use in this context, and you STILL have not provided aa SINGLE reason why it isnt. im sorry anon but you are wrong, and also genuinely autistic to chose this as a hill to die on lol

>>19009389
Gr8 b8

>>19009427
>no argument
confirmed you're 21 or below

>>19009389
The law is written in the hearts of Jews and Gentiles. Read like the first two chapters of Romans

>>19009437
its not like you made an argument either, all you did was cherry pick one blatantly obvious example to make a broad reaching claim about things that, in the fast majority, contradict your claim

>>19009439
>The law is written in the hearts of Jews and Gentiles
Except when it isn't, and then you're labeled [derogatory term suggesting you're less than human]

>>19009457
Anyone who sins is in error and is dehumanizing himself long before he is called any sort of mean words

>>19009468
>Anyone who disagrees with me is evil and going to hell

>>19008765
Have you ever seen that move, with Keanu Reeves? The name escapes me..

>>19006148
Even though he is correct, that isnt evidence that God exists, it's just an observation that all atheists so far have not been able to shake off their Christian morals.

>>19009139
>these descriptions that we're using don't have existence as anything other than descriptions
>>19009191
>if it lacks the means to experience something, it's never going to access that something through mere words
The thing is a description and nothing else, but it also can't be accessed merely by description?

>>19009498
I don’t know who will ultimately be condemned and who will be saved, only God does.

>>19007373
More like the genesis of a path to Truth, I'd say.

>>19009828
Fuck, you're never going to get this. I'm done.

>>19009504
Was it that movie that got Baudrillard completely wrong?

>>19007148
Christ refuted Nietzsche 2000 years ago bro

>>19010212
The Christ you think you know never existed

>>19006148
Eh, he's not wrong, I follow many of their ideals, because they appeal to me, doesn't change the fact that for my whole existance there hasn't been one single second in which I've believed in God and I doubt that will ever change.

>>19010186
There's nothing to "get" regarding "A and not A", it's simply incorrect. Whatever it is that you agree the colorblind person can't access via description is the same thing "seeing red" describes, to all non-zombies. This thing isn't "something about the body", because a colorblind person can learn all physical facts about any body, regardless of whether it's his own.

>>19006190
>in their inmost being still follow their egoistic animal instincts that they have inherited from evolutionary pressures, for nothing we think or feel has anything to do with objectivity or truth but with our body and the current physiological state of it.
God created us in limited material state, he evolved us to be what we are and feeling and thinking are that of we perceive from his absoluteness and our limited body and mind reacts.

>>19010279
>This thing isn't "something about the body"
It is.

>a colorblind person can learn all physical facts about any body
These "facts" don't allow the colorblind person to experience color. Their brain allows for "facts" though. What if we crushed their skull in, would they still know about these "facts" you think?

>>19006148
I hate materialism, I hate scientism, yet I can’t help but think anyone who says they know the properties of an ineffable all-powerful being and have enough knowledge of this deity to faithfully follow its directives, is drunken with arrogance. On the question of virtue, as far as we know, all morality is rhetoric, a pious man’s moral rhetoric is strong, but mostly because it is built on unknowable premises designed to necessitate it.

>>19010286
>God created us in limited material state
An even more than usual limited material state created God.

>>19010340
That's what you wish so much. Interestingly except mental though blockade and depravity, who stops you to live and waste your entire life on that delusion?

>>19010347
God is an empty word. Only Lucifer is real. Cry more about it.

>>19010355
If only Gnosticism was about anything more then hating YHWH.

>>19010316
Which of these do you disagree with:
>experience is something that exists
>you cannot describe an experience to someone without an analogous experience
>experience is not something separate from the body
>you can describe a body to someone without that body

>>19010396
I'm not sure what the fourth greentext means, can you clarify?

>>19007115
>In times of decadence such a restrictive conformist social contract is pointless and actively chafing
If anything, they are even more important then. Restrictive social contracts can bring people together and build social discipline more when people are willingly sacrificing luxuries to participate in the community. It's one of the main reasons religious groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Orthodox Jews have been resilient in the west these days, while less demanding sects like Catholicism and Evangelicalism have been losing followers.

>>19010438
It's possible (in theory) to describe all features of a body, i.e. create a symbolic representation of all components of a body and their relations, and it's possible to understand all information conveyed in such a representation without it being a representation of your own body.

>>19010486
Are you really arguing that a person born colorblind could experience color just by reading about it?

>>19010510
>a person born colorblind could experience color just by reading about it?
People who are born colorblind can see color. Even "true colorblindness" just means that people see in grayscale, which is a color spectrum.

Though idk if they could understand what "red," "blue," and the like mean.

>>19010510
>>19010528
What's the point of the argument when in reality there is millions of colors invincible to our eyes. We describe them with length waves outside the visible spectrum. Does our lack of experience and sense make them any less existent?

>>19010510
No. The statement I disagree with from >>19010396 is
>experience is not something separate from the body
The body is not a sufficient means to experience color.

>>19010528
>People who are born colorblind can see color.
This has to be a troll. I refuse to believe you wrote this with a straight face.

>Even "true colorblindness" just means that people see in grayscale, which is a color spectrum.
Okay, so you're just being a dickhead.

>>19010534
The point is that the body is where our reality comes from, demonstrated clearly by pointing out how the malfunctioning of organs drastically alters what constitutes reality for us.

>>19010537
>The body is not a sufficient means to experience color.
But your body is precisely how you experience color, retard.

>>19010576
>The point is that the body is where our reality comes from, demonstrated clearly by pointing out how the malfunctioning of organs drastically alters what constitutes reality for us.
This seems arrogant and solipsistic. Reality exist even with no one to experience it. Even a quadruple, blind, deaf, numb, etc... person cannot escape reality even though he can't communicate, sense, manipulate. If meteor felt down, would his lack of sense really save him from objective existence?

>>19010576
>This has to be a troll. I refuse to believe you wrote this with a straight face.
You're just retarded, then. Colorblindness includes such things as red-green colorblindness, where people can see some colors but not others. Since you didn't specify which form of colorblindness, all the variants are valid.

>But your body is precisely how you experience color, retard.
Way to miss his point. Just because you can't experience a color, doesn't mean you can't understand it.

>>19010584
>quadruple
quadruple amputee*

>>19010584
>Reality exist even with no one to experience it
And whose reality would that be? Yours? Even time is subjective.

>>19010587
>Since you didn't specify which form of colorblindness, all the variants are valid.
lol

>Way to miss his point.
His point was that the body is not all that's involved in the experience of color, except he did nothing to substantiate that claim which makes no sense anyway.

>>19010593
That's what you wish is true. Truth is self evident and truth also does not need anyone to think it.

Why are you so self invested into solipsism and sensationalism?

>>19010606
>That's what you wish is true.
No, that's what physicists know is true. Time to open a physics textbook and learn something.

>>19010611
Spare me your pathetic appeals, implication that entire class of physicist is uniform, hivemind that agrees on X, especially philosophical question that go above empiricism is comical, appeal to learning when you don't know variants of color blindness and insult other anon due to your ignorance.

I will ask again. Why are you so self invested into solipsism and sensationalism?

>>19010606
>>19010611
And note that by subjective I meant relative.

>>19010634
>when you don't know variants of color blindness
You still going on about this retarded point? If you didn't know what was meant in this discussion by colorblindness then you had no business entering it.

>Why are you so self invested into solipsism and sensationalism?
There's nothing solipsistic or sensationalist about what I'm saying.

>>19010593
>And whose reality would that be? Yours?
Ours. We all live in the same reality, on the same planet.
>Even time is subjective.
Time is relative, not subjective.

>>19010647
>If you didn't know what was meant in this discussion by colorblindness then you had no business entering it.
It's a completely valid point, and it shows that you failed to properly formulate your argument.

>>19010576
>But your body is precisely how you experience color, retard.
Well, no. It's certainly an input. It seems to be necessary, even. But it's not enough. All I'm arguing at the moment is the falsity of "the body is all there is". You can't have a (good) cake without sugar. And changing the sugar changes the cake. Doesn't mean a cake is just sugar.

>>19010603
The substance is this: >>19010396
(I'd change the 4th to "you can completely describe a body to someone with a different body" for clarity)
I assume you can see the contradiction if all the statements were true. 3 is the one I find most reasonable to reject. If I was a zombie, it'd be 1.

>>19010669
>We all live in the same reality
There are shared aspects because our bodies share some aspects, but wherever are bodies differ, that's also where there are differences in our realities.

>Time is relative, not subjective.
Yeah, that's what I meant. My bad.

>It's a completely valid point
I don't see what it adds to the discussion, it just derails it.

>>19010678
>But it's not enough.
Care to argue this? Because I can easily argue against it. For instance: you couldn't describe anything about the experience that didn't result from the body even if you tried.

>The substance is this
So we're back to "a person born colorblind could experience color just by reading about it," and this counts as substance to you?

>>19010701
>There are shared aspects because our bodies share some aspects, but wherever are bodies differ, that's also where there are differences in our realities.
LMAO this is like a query you use as a steping stone to continue on the though path and this nigga be tripping over this one as a dogma

>Yeah, that's what I meant. My bad.
Relative as to objects with the mass, also in meta sense time is also indefinate, it has nothing to do with our experience of it, but with the movement of matter in space regardless of our sense of it.

>So we're back to "a person born colorblind could experience color just by reading about it," and this counts as substance to you?
Do you really think that the person who processes color red differently would treat color red as anything other then color red in it's essence? Even if the behavior is altered, he was still afected by the essence that was in reality, regardless of his sense of it.

>>19010701
>Care to argue this?
Not really, since your reading comprehension doesn't seem very good.
>"a person born colorblind could experience color just by reading about it"
How do you get this out of "you cannot describe an experience to someone without an analogous experience"?

>>19010195
>that wikipedia entry
lmao

>>19010744
>LMAO this is like a query you use as a steping stone to continue on the though path and this nigga be tripping over this one as a dogma
Not an argument.

>Relative as to objects with the mass, also in meta sense time is also indefinate, it has nothing to do with our experience of it, but with the movement of matter in space regardless of our sense of it.
Point is, our bodies play a direct role in our experience of time.

>Do you really think that the person who processes color red differently would treat color red as anything other then color red in it's essence?
What is red "in it's essence"?

>>19010850
To you what is true and what is false is not self evident.

What's the point of continuing? Even math would not function in your delusional worldview.

>>19010866
Do you have an argument? Otherwise no, there's no point in continuing if you're just going to spout platitudes at me as if it's meaningful in the slightest.

>>19010875
It has been repeatetly been evident that your reading, cognition and communicating comprehension is not quite to par, as other anons stated, not I am third to point it out.

Lack of ability to draw pattern as to why an argument would lead to another question that is querying affect of the presented, is sad. Work on these things first before living your entire life in self righteous dogma you set for yourself.

Somewhere along the way, you just sopped questioning and have decided to settle for midwitery because it's comfy to you for what ever reason. Don't think that we here will not shit at your for such depraved intellectual laziness.

>someone knows all there is to know about the colour red, without ever having seen anything red. Do they learn anything new upon finally seeing it?
What is even entailed in "knowing all there is to know about something", does it entail having plugged into the Matrix and seen an illusion of the colour red?
If so, my answer is: No.
But I don't think this question does (as seeing the colour red in the Matrix, would constitute having seen the colour red. Assuming the simulation corresponds to reality.)
So my answer is yes. You would learn something new.

We are talking about just a human with knowledge here, right? Humans are not in full control of their own bodies or minds. Can't modify their minds freely.
Knowing exactly what will happen in my brain, after receiving a certain input from my eyes... doesn't mean I can force myself into the brainstate, or any brainstates, without jumping through hoops, such as actually seeing it through my eyes.

>>19010903
So no argument. I guess I was right here:
>you couldn't describe anything about the experience that didn't result from the body even if you tried.

>>19010946
You are hurting yourself, not me. I just get off onto letting you dogmatize yourself out of spite ahahhaha

>>19010960
You have no argument, buddy. At the very least you could stop being a shitstain and admit it.

>>19006190
OY VEY
we need another holocaust

>>19010225
That is false

>>19006148
So what? Jist because I agree on dome things with christianity doesn't mean that I have to buy into christian (or any) theology.

>>19006501
>Food is a need. Sex isn't.
Following the same logic talking to other people is also not a need. I hope you know why your logic is erronious.
>>19006607
>God is an AI
I fucking hate techbros so fucking much, go worship elon musky or something.
>>19007045
You mean like christians?