Why are there so many Christians on /lit/ these days? God is dead, why still believe in a falsity?

File: 1.21 MB, 1464x1986, Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 11:56:56 2019 No.14048428 [Reply] [Original]

Why are there so many Christians on /lit/ these days?

God is dead, why still believe in a falsity?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 11:58:35 2019 No.14048433 God cant die because hes infinite

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 11:59:08 2019 No.14048435 >>14048433 God doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:00:21 2019 No.14048443 >>14048435 Why not

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:01:45 2019 No.14048448 >>14048443 Because no proof.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:02:29 2019 No.14048450 Lonely anons trying to cope with the modern world. It's hard for me to blame them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:02:29 2019 No.14048451 File: 35 KB, 600x439, 1292030903738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048448 Prove you exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:04:15 2019 No.14048456 >>14048451 Prove I don't exist Pro tip: I do

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:05:52 2019 No.14048460 >>14048456 Then prove God does not exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:06:09 2019 No.14048461 He doesn't actually mean God is dead. I wonder, did you make this statement as bait, or are you trying to appear as if you have read anything hes produced?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:07:55 2019 No.14048466 >>14048460 Because there is zero evidence for his existence. There is existence for me because I think using my brain, which physically exists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:08:24 2019 No.14048470 >>14048448 It depends what you mean by proof. What kind are you looking for? It seems like the fact that anything exists at all is the only kind of proof you need.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:09:04 2019 No.14048473 >>14048461 Yes, yes i know. I just didn't know what pic to post, and as we know he didn't have a very favourable opinion on Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:11:49 2019 No.14048478 >>14048470 >It depends what you mean by proof Show me God physically and I'll believe

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 12:20:05 2019 No.14048505 >>14048428 /rel/ (religiously intolerant) and /islam/ on cripplechan went down, so all the altar lickers and goat fuckers are coming here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:36:00 2019 No.14049378 >>14048428 Christianity would be a lot easier to believe if God wasn’t conceived to look just like man. The Greek concept of a Theos or an essence type creator seems much more plausible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:37:28 2019 No.14049389 >>14048428 >these days >not the summer of 2015 when some fag spammed the summa and lowkey started a christfag influx on the board just in time to coincide with traditionalist waves on /pol/ you’ve seen nothing, faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 15:41:58 2019 No.14049423 >>14048466 How can your brain be real if your eyes aren't even real?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:25:00 2019 No.14049680 >>14048478 I can't phisically show that pain exists. Does that mean that pain doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:32:19 2019 No.14049727 >>14049389 >/pol/ reads Guenon lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:36:23 2019 No.14049752 >>14048466 Lol I remember being 16

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:37:00 2019 No.14049755
File: 49 KB, 615x461, D40DDDBF-716B-4EB9-81FA-C15FA1A61FCB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14049680
>tfw we can visibly see and acutely measure pain from an MRI brain scan Can’t do that for God tho. There’s no way to detect for an immaterial spaceless timeless being; the only reason people believe is because they were raised from birth to do so. That, or they don’t see a reason to live without God, and they’re too philosophically lazy to make purpose for themselves

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:42:03 2019 No.14049796 I honestly have no idea why anyone on /lit/ would be a Christian. Why believe in the Christian God over the countless other ones? >>14049752 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:48:52 2019 No.14049844 >>14048451 I am capable of thought

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:50:49 2019 No.14049856 >>14049844 Prove that thoughts are localized to the thinker.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:54:01 2019 No.14049875 >>14049755 You observe the effect and call it the cause. Also, someone who has congenital analgesia won't feel pain and it won't register on the mri.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:54:30 2019 No.14049877

>>14049856
How do you mean?
If you’re asking how my thoughts belong to me, I’d argue because my past memories and impressions have led me to the stateI’m currently at. Even if I were to misremember an event, it would still have an affect on ghe me today that creates a unique self.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 16:59:24 2019 No.14049905 >>14048448 >>14049796 This is bait, only twitter atheists talk like this

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:05:52 2019 No.14049932

>>14049875
>you observe the effect and call it the cause
Never did I call signals in the brain the sole cause of pain, you disingenuous retard. The brain responds to hazards inside or outside the body and sends pain signals accordingly.
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and give a good reason to believe in a God

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:08:46 2019 No.14049944

>>14048428
It’s natural when you think about it in terms of 4chan’s contrarianism. It was edgy to be an atheist back in the early days of 4chan but now every Norman from here to Beirut is an atheist. To be edgy you must be religious. Back to square one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:10:39 2019 No.14049955 >>14049905 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:11:38 2019 No.14049966 >>14048428 afaik only Nietzsche is dead.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 17:12:44 2019 No.14049974 >>14048428 >God is dead, why still believe in a falsity? Idiot, he meant Metapsychics are dead. That's what he literally meant. God will always exist regardless of belief in him.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:10:18 2019 No.14050313 >>14049932 I literally told you that there are some stimuli your fucking brain can't react if it's defective. Maybe everyone else feels God and you are defective.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:17:20 2019 No.14050355 >these days Why are there so many newfags making topics?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:36:29 2019 No.14050476 >>14048428 Flyover states and poorer countries are slow in more ways than one. It took them a while to get adjusted to the internet, and now they're all over it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:42:46 2019 No.14050524 >>14050313 >everyone else can feel God 67% of the planet is either pagan/non religious. Oof, looks like God designed a lot of humans to be defective

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:50:11 2019 No.14050568

>>14050524
>67% of the planet is either pagan/non religious.

Yeah their soulless NPCs so they really don’t matter regardless they react to stimulus not by reasoning

Simply put their monkey brains only living to eat sleep and reproduce and conforming to the society around them (for more or less)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:52:39 2019 No.14050582 >>14050313 Gods are modes of will. Many people feel your God, and many people feel different gods, or no gods. It has nothing to do with being defective or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:52:50 2019 No.14050583 File: 679 KB, 1245x1600, Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048428 Why do people post Nietzsche when he was pre-establishedly BTFO by Leibniz?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:53:23 2019 No.14050588 >>14048428 >Nietzsche wasn’t a Christian cringe

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:54:43 2019 No.14050595 >>14048428 >God is dead, why still believe in a falsity? Perceiving things in temporary separation, deeming them permanent states... Heh. "God is dead" is not the new God, not the new Pan.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 18:58:28 2019 No.14050612
File: 976 KB, 962x3726, 1569027997208 - jesus logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14048428
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/Reuchlin.htm
I. THE GREAT SECRET -- "FOR THERE IS NOTHING COVERED THAT WILL NOT BE REVEALED" (Mat. 10.26)

The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) 1 family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it -- Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist -- are all fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters.

Repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the Judaeans.

The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealots' refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to pacify the Judaeans and strengthen their inlaws' control of the country.

About the year 60 A.D., Lucius Calpurnius Piso composed Ur Marcus, the first version of the Gospel of Mark, which no longer exists. He was encouraged by his friend Seneca 5a and assisted by his wife's kinsman, young Persius the poet.

The Jesus figure which Piso creates is a composite. He inserts redrawn elements from Joseph in Egypt and other Jews of the Bible; elements from Essenic writings; and characteristics of various pagan gods.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:13:00 2019 No.14050672 >>14050568 Define what a soul is, how you know you have one, and how conforming to a society is indicative of not having one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:14:21 2019 No.14050677 >>14049944 What will the future hold, prophetanon? How will the need for contrarianism manifest once religiosity no longer holds such a status?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:15:46 2019 No.14050687 File: 87 KB, 994x374, 1570485339190.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048433 >hes infinite And it's possible the universe is too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:19:39 2019 No.14050704 >>14048428 Incels found out Christianity rewards virginity so they decided it would be easier to become a christian than to have sex.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:19:44 2019 No.14050705 >>14050568 >Christian gets BTFO and acts like a fedoranigger The Absolute State

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 19:37:29 2019 No.14050808
File: 222 KB, 1242x890, 00C7B928-5A63-4B3A-8ECE-4D70A73D268C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14050672
>>14050705

>Define what a soul is

The ability to not find fulfillment out of life even though every need is met such as eating sleeping and shelter. This is what humans (at least us with a soul) define as spirituality

I agree with nietzche on the overman. We as man are between overman and monkey. A lot of us still have monkey brains and act on inactive while some are true blooded men realizing a much larger grand scheme of things and feel emotions much deeper. Now you’ll agree with me that degeneracy is indulging in pleasure, that’s mans definition, but an animals definition is get it while the getting a good. And now the getting is as good as it’s ever been. Why do you think obesity is at an all time high? Why do you think porn viewership is at an all time high? Why are we trying to perfect the perfect sleep? Because many monks brained individuals want this. They’ll drink, smoke, indulge in any vice with no forethought to repercussion but me and you both know their are

I’m a deist btw

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:39:52 2019 No.14051100

>>14048428
Why believe a falsity? Obviously because there is some utility in doing so for many -- perhaps most -- people. The secular do it too (the religions of equalism and liberalism, for example). Either that or they just don't the capacity to comprehend otherwise.

It's the human condition, and will be until we transcend our humanity in some significant way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:48:38 2019 No.14051131 File: 95 KB, 600x1024, toxic christianity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14050568 Christianity is literally NPCs: The Religion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:53:30 2019 No.14051148 File: 71 KB, 460x460, kierkegaard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048428 I don't have to prove anything, I took the leap of faith anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:54:54 2019 No.14051153 >>14051148 Based

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:56:50 2019 No.14051162 >>14050808 There is zero proof for a soul. Scientifically the soul is not required in any way for us to exist and function. Simply stating there is one does not constitute as proof because there is literally ZERO evidence of any kind that it exists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:56:54 2019 No.14051163 >>14051100 >a falsity Please demonstrate that Christianity is a falsity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:58:18 2019 No.14051171 >>14051148 Most redpilled, as we say, comment on this forum right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:59:08 2019 No.14051177 >>14051163 There is no proof for a God, there is no proof for a soul. Prove to me Thor doesn't exist by your logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:59:20 2019 No.14051181 >>14051162 >proof for a soul That's a coping mechanism for damaged weaklings who have no intuitive connection to the divine/higher forces.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 20:59:31 2019 No.14051182 File: 115 KB, 795x960, 1546198470251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14051148

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:00:20 2019 No.14051184 >>14051181 >intuitive connection AKA: making shit up Anyone can make shit up retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:00:24 2019 No.14051185 >>14051177 Please demonstrate that there is no proof for a God and that there is no proof for a soul. Also, don't dodge my question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:02:45 2019 No.14051195 File: 46 KB, 640x960, oeli4n7l1ku31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14051182 Haha! That is so cool and edgy my friend! I laughed when I say this post too!

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:04:23 2019 No.14051202 >>14051184 I feel pity that your intuitions are so damaged that you feel the need to hide behind such obvious (to anyone functional) coping mechanisms.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:04:26 2019 No.14051203 >>14051185 Why would we need a soul to exist? If we don't and there is no proof for one then why do you think it exists? Just because you "feel like it does". Well I feel like it doesn't, so am I wrong but you are right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:05:31 2019 No.14051208 >>14051202 I have an intuition that God doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:06:22 2019 No.14051211 >>14051208 That's what we call having no connection to the divine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:06:39 2019 No.14051213 Death spasms.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:07:36 2019 No.14051217 >>14051211 That's what we call lying to yourself to feel good about being special

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:08:13 2019 No.14051219 >>14051203 the b8 is getting bad these days

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:08:48 2019 No.14051222 >>14051195 You have to be 18+ to post here.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:08:50 2019 No.14051223

>>14051203
>there is no proof for one
See my previous post.
>Just because you "feel like it does".
I actually know that it does. God/the soul is a qualia, he is not something you can understand with a damaged brain. That being said, it's easily possible for even someone like you to fix yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:09:47 2019 No.14051226 >>14051182 I can tell a teenager wrote this or someone with the mind of a teenager

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:09:53 2019 No.14051227 File: 96 KB, 720x540, enlightened.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14051217 >being special Like being an EPIC Atheist who somehow truly Knows that God does not exist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:12:16 2019 No.14051237 >>14051223 Ok, clearly logic isn't for you Why is your Christian God the right one?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:14:41 2019 No.14051244 >>14051148 Lauded and godpilled

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:15:07 2019 No.14051246

>>14051237
>logic isn't for you
Says someone who is blatantly dodging my simple request to PROVE (something logic deals with) that there is no proof for the soul or proof of god.
>Why is your Christian God the right one?
Because his Son incarnated on this Earth, died for our sins and rose from the grave.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:15:28 2019 No.14051248

>>14051185
>Demonstrate there’s no proof of God

This is what’s called “Proving a Negative.” (IE shifting the burden of proof) You can’t necessarily prove that something beyond our realm of understanding is or isn’t. You can prove 2+2=4 by using math and logic from the natural world. God, however, is (cleverly) written to be beyond the natural world. You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist if it supposedly exists outside our natural world of understanding.
However there are a lot things that go against the credibility of the Bible. There’s no historical records of Jesus outside of the new testament. The Earth isn’t flat, nor 6,000 years old. There’s no geological evidence of a world flood in the last 3,000 years, in fact there are many world flood stories that predate the Bible. And on that subject, Christianity isn’t even the oldest religion.
And if you feel as though you have evidence, please do present it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:16:27 2019 No.14051255 >>14051184 Making shit up is one of the proofs for the existance of (((God))), if you can create something out of nothing who wouldn't a higher being be able to create (You) out of nothing?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:17:26 2019 No.14051258 >>14051246 And Muhammad came to spread the message as the final prophet. Why is he false if I have an intuition that he is?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:17:45 2019 No.14051262

>>14051248
>can’t prove that something doesn’t exist if it supposedly exists outside our natural world of understanding.
So you admit defeat, in that you're just spouting random nonsense when you say "God does not exist" or "there is no proof of God". Glad to see that we agree on this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:19:25 2019 No.14051271 >>14051262 Glad to see you clearly didn’t read past that one point

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:19:28 2019 No.14051272 >>14051248 >There’s no historical records of Jesus outside of the new testament Tacitus Josephus Lucian Pliny the Younger I'm an Atheist but there is proof for Jesus unless you're REALLY grasping at straws

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:19:50 2019 No.14051276 >>14051258 Because he clearly did not display any supernatural authority on the level of Christ. >Why is he false if I have an intuition that he is? His brain was broken, much like modern Reddit atheists such as yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:20:30 2019 No.14051279 >>14051262 cope

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:21:06 2019 No.14051281 >>14051271 Glad to see that you didn't even pass Logic 101 with that poor of a grasp on basic reasoning skills. For an epic fedora-tipping Rationalist/Logicist Atheist you sure seem to be utter shit at logic.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:21:14 2019 No.14051282

so what if God doesn't exist, religion still provides many valuable functions to a society, and its decline is likely one of the main reasons for the impending fall of the West

vonnegut's Cats Cradle and the idea of "foma" were prescient in this regard

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:21:32 2019 No.14051284 >>14051276 >Because he clearly did not display any supernatural authority on the level of Christ. He went to heaven on a unicorn, so he clearly did

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:22:08 2019 No.14051287 >>14051279 >cope Low intelligence meme-spouting pl*bbitor spotted. Next.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:22:34 2019 No.14051289 >>14051282 Why can't we have a religion/moral code without believing in something we know to be false

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:23:34 2019 No.14051294

>>14051202
Can you describe how exactly this intuition feels? Just any articulation of the thought process or sensation so that it can be objectively related to or even remotely understood by another consciousness.

In the anticipation that you're unlikely to have come up with a convincing way to relate that to anyone who doesn't reside in your brain, perhaps consider that the reason as such is that there is nothing to articulate, your 'intuition' is likely just an illogical lapse of reasoning and nothing short of a way to avoid having to confront the question on its rational grounds, perhaps you wouldn't like the conclusion that you'd come to if you did so?

By the way, before you post some reddit-tier 'fedora' ad hominems, I believe in a God/creator deity myself

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:23:38 2019 No.14051295 >>14051287 >Low intelligence meme-spouting >pl*bbitor spotted You're literally meme-sputing yourself

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:23:55 2019 No.14051296

>>14051284
Many people went to heaven. You have to be legitimately moronic to believe that this places him on the same level as the literal Son of God.
>>14051289
>we know to be false
How do you """"""know"""""" Jesus Christ to be a false prophet? Please explain this to me. The only way you can """"""know"""""" this is via revealed wisdow/knowledge, which you obviously deny even exists.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:24:59 2019 No.14051301 >>14051294 >objectively related to or even remotely understood by another consciousness >illogical lapse of reasoning this board should have passing Philosophy 101 as a basic posting requirement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:25:10 2019 No.14051305 >>14051281 Prove there’s no proof for Allah. Or Vishnu. Or Zeus. Going by your logic, since you can prove these things don’t exist, they MUST exist

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:25:48 2019 No.14051309

>>14051296
>How do you """"""know"""""" Jesus Christ to be a false prophet
Because miracles do not exist

>Many people went to heaven. You have to be legitimately moronic to believe that this places him on the same level as the literal Son of God.
So you actually believe in the divinity of Muhammad? What even are you, clearly you aren't a Christian

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:26:05 2019 No.14051312 >>14051301 Okay that's great and all, but what exactly do you mean by that?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:26:25 2019 No.14051313

>>14051289
Because it doesn't work, as atheistic fedora-tippers have shown time and time again throughout history. Negating a very important part of your existence is just running away from having to confront the fact that there is a part of you which is clearly divine in nature.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:27:56 2019 No.14051320

>>14051289
Whether you believe in religion or not, religion has shaped your life for good in some way or form.

Imagine you lived on a cultist island with no outside influence. You were raised to kill or slaughter outsiders. You were taught to rape women, or steal from people you didnt like. You would have a bad morality, however that morality would be good to you, since you no nothing else.
Or imagine you were raised on your own. You would then come up with your own morality and it will have flaws.
But Christian morality was the most pure. The followed codes and constitutes have been proven to lead a healthy and peaceful life. These codes shaped up our law, and whether you beieve in God or not these codes have shaped you into a somewhat reasonable citizen due to the fact that those values and morals were passed down to you by an influence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:28:06 2019 No.14051321 >>14051313 >the fact that there is a part of you which is clearly divine in nature Which part is that exactly? Science, which is provable, shows that there isn't.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:28:07 2019 No.14051322

>>14051309
>Because miracles do not exist
Please prove that miracles do not exist.
>So you actually believe in the divinity of Muhammad?
Yep, you seem to be struggling from brain damage if you believe that "going to heaven" (assuming he did) means "being divine".
>>14051312
Not him, but read a book and then and only then give yourself permission to even view this board.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:29:52 2019 No.14051331

>>14051321
>Which part is that exactly?
The qualia we non-redditors call "the soul". Something your kind wants to religiously (epic irony, heh) deny with such fervor that it even seems puzzling at first, until you understand precisely what kind of defective existence you're dealing with.
>shows that there isn't
Citation needed.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:29:54 2019 No.14051333

>>14051320
We went from pagan Gods, to the Abrahamic god. Now we have no God as people can actually use science to prove that God doesn't need to exist for us to exist.

Just because primitive men believed in region doesn't mean that the rational modern man should.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:31:00 2019 No.14051337 >>14051331 but the soul doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:31:17 2019 No.14051340 >>14051337 Citation needed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:32:27 2019 No.14051348 If you'd read Nietzsche you'd know that there are multitudinous reasons for 'believing a falsity'

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:32:54 2019 No.14051350 >>14051340 citation needed it does, retard

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:32:56 2019 No.14051352

>>14051322
What, are you suggesting that one cannot objectively relate to someone's internal logic and thought process as you would when you read someone's writing and that it's stupid to ask someone to do so? I'll cede that not thinking rationally isn't necessarily always illogical, although I'm afraid you'll have to be a little more specific than your suggestion to 'read a book'

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:33:51 2019 No.14051355

>>14051289
because people are too stupid to understand the logic at would underpin it. a lot easier to teach the parables and the bible to kids in sunday school than actual philosphy. There's a reason religion was and still is so successful, especially amongst the less educated.

Also, many people might rationally opt out of this code, with no consequences outside of this life on earth.

Dawkins was asked what he thought would fill the moral vacuum that would inevitably arise from the decline of religion. Like you he seemed to think that moral philosophy would take its place, a classic mistake of smart people thinking everyone is as smart as them

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:35:33 2019 No.14051364 >>14051305 crickets

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:35:40 2019 No.14051365

>>14051352
>afraid you'll have to be a little more specific than your suggestion to 'read a book'
Sure, I can be more specific. Go outside into the fresh air and read a philosophy book under the sun. Try to sincerely ask God to show you via undeniable qualia that he exists. It should be quite trivial if you can drop the venomous atheistic fedora-tipping pseduo-rational mentality you have, for even an hour.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:36:44 2019 No.14051367 >>14051331 It's an open question whether 'qualia' exist, anon. No evidence as of yet.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:39:26 2019 No.14051376

>>14051305
>since you can prove these things don’t exist
I know they don't exist, but there is provably no proof for that. It's something you can only know when you are in a certain state of being.
>>14051367
>No evidence as of yet.
It is clear and trivial to see that they exist. This kind of wording is merely something weaklings hide behind.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:41:41 2019 No.14051388

>>14051365
>Try to sincerely ask God to show you via undeniable qualia that he exists. It should be quite trivial if you can drop the venomous atheistic fedora-tipping pseduo-rational mentality you have, for even an hour.
This was essentially my experience, although it was anime-related stuff and not even a philosophy book.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:42:23 2019 No.14051393

>>14051365
Not sure if you fully read my post, but as I said I do believe in a creator deity, certainly, although not as a product of any conveniently indescribable 'intuition', but from the rational argument of how in-quantifiable unlikely the existence of life as a byproduct of cosmic coincidence, then again you never know, we could be very fortunate lottery winners of cosmic chance although the way I see it our existence coming into place without conscious direction seems unlikely.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:43:47 2019 No.14051401 >>14051376 Really? Then it should be trivial for you to logically demonstrate they do, right now. You could probably win some kind of prize or grant for doing so.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:44:58 2019 No.14051408

>>14051393
>rational argument of how in-quantifiable unlikely the existence of life as a byproduct of cosmic coincidence
This just shows how your mind is still defective and poisoned. Belief in a creator deity is not sufficient to fully be in a state of being where you can experience revealed knowledge. This is only possible once you drop ALL pseudo-rational pretenses.
>>14051401
>logically demonstrate they do
I'm not sure you understand what that even means.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:46:08 2019 No.14051416 >>14051408 Keep ducking.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:47:31 2019 No.14051420 File: 59 KB, 500x638, free thinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14051416 Is this the level of discourse I should expect from a fedora-tipping epical rationalist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:47:56 2019 No.14051422 who made god? if there is one at best deisms (not involved) right (but theres not)

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:48:44 2019 No.14051429 File: 73 KB, 1229x1160, 1536308061931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14051408 >stop thinking critically and it will all come together anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:49:23 2019 No.14051435 >>14051422 Why would he need to be created?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:50:00 2019 No.14051437 >>14051420 Are you going to make a logical argument for the existence of qualia or not? You claim that their observation is a trivial matter, so what is the problem?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:50:03 2019 No.14051438 >>14051435 how does he exist before anything? he was just always there? seems like baloney

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:50:46 2019 No.14051443 >>14051422 >implying creation is possible

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:50:46 2019 No.14051444 >>14051148 thread should've ended here

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:51:45 2019 No.14051447

>>14051429
>thinking critically
This is usually just a codeword for admitting that you're too cowardly to _actually_ think critically, challenge your fedora-tipping pressupositions and try to sincerely feel the existence of God. There is nothing """rational""" about merely postulating that he doesn't exist because it seems unreasonable to your limited and defective mind.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:51:48 2019 No.14051449 >>14051226 This coming from someone defending Kierkegaard's leap of (bad) faith.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:53:23 2019 No.14051458

>>14051408
So by pseudo-rational pretences you mean what exactly? The way I interpret it you mean to surrender any independent thought and/or logic to follow the teaching of some Abrahamic religion in order to experience 'revealed knowledge' (which as far as I consider have no meaning inherently), although I said I have cause to believe in a conscious creator, which doesn't extend to the teachings of the various (and conflicting) faiths' accounts of him.

What exactly is your conflict with rationality or 'pseudo-rational' pretences, could I sincerely ask critically, what is false in my attempt to be as reasonable as possible in my approach?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:53:52 2019 No.14051461 >>14051438 If he doesn't exist before anything, he is not God. God exists, this is knowable, therefore he has to exist before anything else does.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:54:41 2019 No.14051464 >>14051461 what made him exist instead of nothing existing

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:54:55 2019 No.14051466 >>14051437 >observation == logical argument not him, but read a f*cking book.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:56:14 2019 No.14051470 >>14051464 This is not a well-defined question. Nothing made him exist, nor could have anything made him exist. He is something that always existed. >nothing existing This is meanigless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:57:02 2019 No.14051473 >>14051470 why has he always existed

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:57:17 2019 No.14051475 >>14051444 Yes, if only all mysticfags would admit it's simply a matter of faith and not pretend that there is any standard of logic or evidence that supports their claims.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:58:10 2019 No.14051481 >>14051473 This is not a question you can answer meaningfully. He is by definition something that has always existed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:58:11 2019 No.14051482 >>14048428 >>14048433 doesn't the 'death of God' refer to the death of the personal God, ie an idol?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:58:18 2019 No.14051483

>>14051447

It seems that your refutation to any line of reasoning against your beliefs seems to be:

A: Ad hominems, usually along the lines of the mundane and fairly worn out 'fedora-tipper', and the suggestion that anyone whose brain doesn't follow the same belief as your own is inherently 'defective' or 'limited', or...

B: Recommend something along the lines of 'feeling' a convincing reason, as a substitute for any logical (or otherwise) proof of divine existence

I hate to say it anon, but maybe you're the one who should pick up a book once or twice?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:58:35 2019 No.14051485 >>14051447 Why are your arguments limited entirely to ad-hominem? Is your position that weak?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 21:58:53 2019 No.14051488 >>14051481 well i don't believe it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:00:49 2019 No.14051501 >>14051466 Well, can't he use his observations to structure a logical argument? We're not talking about something purely abstract here after all, he's claiming that 'qualia' actually exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:01:30 2019 No.14051508 File: 89 KB, 480x608, Perish_Like_a_Dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048466 not believing in God has become unfashionable. base materialism reveals you from disguise.

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:03:41 2019 No.14051515

>>14051458
>So by pseudo-rational pretences you mean what exactly?
I mean the set of qualia leading to your separation from God and the inability to know that God is true.
>surrender any independent thought and/or logic
What makes you believe that you have any meaningful independent thought (when it concerns the question of God) in your current reddit-like state of being?
>follow the teaching of some Abrahamic religion in order to experience 'revealed knowledge'
You should get the urge to follow Christ if the suggestion I outlined works for you. It isn't strictly necessary to follow him before you experience this revealed knowledge.

>what is false in my attempt to be as reasonable as possible in my approach?
You assume that God is somehow knowable from a purely "rational"/"deductive"/"mystery-denying" viewpoint. This is a grave mistake a lot of people make.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:04:49 2019 No.14051522 Nigger https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCWJC9t8Nk&index=&list=PLR65pnJMDoappuPmzEtLZqptypEEDucCE

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:05:19 2019 No.14051524 >>14051501 >he's claiming that 'qualia' actually exist as would any non-brainwashed and non-sissyfied person.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:06:08 2019 No.14051528 >>14048451 You're talking to me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:06:36 2019 No.14051530 >>14048448 prove that there is no proof. i will wait.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:08:15 2019 No.14051539 >>14051131 Cool I’m not a Christian

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:08:15 2019 No.14051540 >>14048428 What is it called when you want to believe desperately, but you also don't think a loving God could possibly be sovereign over the current world?

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:08:37 2019 No.14051541

>>14051508
Extreme skepticism is a strange defense... It's like scorched earth: "We can't kno nuffin!"

Even if there is a technical uncertainty, we can still deal with what is probable... The same way you do when making mundane, quotidian judgements. You only suspend this standard for certain questions, questions that 'strike a nerve'.

Additionally, we can derive values from our own nature; we need not appeal to externals to justify doing so.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:09:25 2019 No.14051545 >>14048428 >Why are there so many Christians on /lit/ these days? Because cripplechan died and nobody told them we have a new board http://christchannel.xyz/boards.js http://christchannel.xyz/boards.js http://christchannel.xyz/boards.js

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:10:04 2019 No.14051549 >>14051541 >Extreme skepticism is a strange defense... It's a mental illness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:10:47 2019 No.14051555 >>14051131 Except this is actually beautiful and one of the few not disgusting aspects of modern Christianity

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:11:12 2019 No.14051557

>>14051515
So I should get the inherent compulsion to subscribe to the Christian faith after reading a book of philosophy on a summers day and sincerely ask God to show me some sort of indication as a grounds for my life-long belief? Apologies for the hyperbole could you explain what exactly this would result in, is a golden duck going to appear and shit on my lap or something?

As to your point about God being beyond our comprehension, thanks for the explanation of your belief, helps me to understand now why you are so vehemently opposed to logic in regards to the divine. Although why exactly can't God be understood rationally, as can seemingly all things in our world one way or another, with respect it seems to me that this is just an over-played cheap-out when it comes to the absence of any logical reason to believe in your specific God or faith

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:17:39 2019 No.14051593 >>14051541 The existence of God and the insight of theology is a semantic problem. It's really not a question of whether or not God exists, it's whether or not you can conceive of God. Also meme is meme, I just like its attitude.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:21:44 2019 No.14051609 >>14051131 >hating a dead person who can do no harm (thus experiencing negative emotions and leading to an objectively shittier mental state) is so Rational™ you guys! Off yourself, pseudorational cuckold.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:22:54 2019 No.14051613 this board is just /tv/ with an distended vocabulary

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:23:29 2019 No.14051615 >>14048505 >altar lickers All the anti-religious language on here reeks of reddit, and at the same time that people started getting banned for racism. Strange coincidencd

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:26:02 2019 No.14051627 >>14051541 >we can derive values from our nature “Our?” Lmfao this nigga hasn’t read Lemaitre

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:33:00 2019 No.14051659

>>14051557
>explain what exactly this would result in
This just confirms what I already believe about your inability to use certain modes of reasoning/understanding which are very important in being able to feel God. I already explained it in simple terms, i.e., God will reveal himself to you and you will have no choice but to accept his existence. This desire to distill the experience into something more """logical""""/""""rational"""" (as you would see it) is extremely common among the kind of people afflicted with this disease most of the Western world seems to be experiencing.
>opposed to logic in regards to the divine
I'm not opposed to logic. I'm only opposed to blaming your lack of understanding and lack of willingness/sincerity to give it a try on something being """"irrational"""" or """"unreasonable"""". You're essentially demanding a """"logical""""" set of rules you could use to explain away any and all mysteries regarding God.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 22:44:57 2019 No.14051717 File: 683 KB, 647x656, 1571035199759.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Are atheism and autistic thinking correlated? I noticed myself becoming far less atheistic when I dropped my autismal outlook on life.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:14:37 2019 No.14051834 >>14051717 Genuinely autistic kids tend to always be WASPs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:18:25 2019 No.14051848 >>14051834 and genuinely autistic WASPs tend to actually be pretty good people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:19:43 2019 No.14051855 >>14051848 Yeah, but goodness doesn't pay the bills, or create any of the things we deem awesome.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:22:15 2019 No.14051864 >>14048433 What exactly is a god?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:25:05 2019 No.14051879 >>14051864 There is no article. The very word contains sin because it is connotative. Comprehension of God's majesty is as impossible as comprehension of all. God is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:26:03 2019 No.14051881 >>14051864 See >>14050582

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:26:50 2019 No.14051886 >>14051879 So, even if the set of gods only contains one element (singleton), this doesn't tell us what a god exactly is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:30:57 2019 No.14051905 >>14051886 God is the set which contains all sets. There are many ways to know God. I think this is one of the principal questions of theology anon, to conceive of God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Friv6u_3gJU

Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:34:04 2019 No.14051918

>>14048428
2 Nephi 4:34
>O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.
Man is fallible. The best thing we can do is to subject ourselves to the will of God and keep His commandments.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:35:04 2019 No.14051919 >>14048451 cogito ergo sum

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 24 23:45:49 2019 No.14051950 >>14051919 But then what is it to think? A rock is conscious. >>14051918 Matthew 6:19 Ecclesiastes 1:3

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 00:28:28 2019 No.14052172

>>14050612
>used to lock the Western world in misery and poverty for a thousand years

That the Dark Ages are seen as a time of stagnation in terms of civilizational advancement is an unconscious acknowledgement of Western superiority. Such superiority would have been impossible without Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:12:26 2019 No.14052337 File: 68 KB, 679x443, 1571150226189.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14050687 Actually, that's anti-scientific. If the universe was eternal, then we would have an infinite amount of entropy.

>>	Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD Fri Oct 25 01:22:44 2019 No.14052382 File: 923 KB, 1365x577, antiviralscenecloudsbehindsun.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048428 /lit/ is a Christian board. Stop spamming this board with that morbid creature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:25:17 2019 No.14052389 >>14052337 Entropy only increases in an isolated system. If the universe has no bounds, it can’t be isolated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 01:27:32 2019 No.14052398 It's bait or retards that fell for some major bait.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 02:20:32 2019 No.14052586 >>14052172 We don't know that. Great advancements in science and art were made by pagan Greeks & Romans... There's no reason to assume that Europe wouldn't have blossomed without Christianity in particular.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 02:37:26 2019 No.14052643

>>14051905
If you're just going to slap the moniker 'God' on whatever the great unknown is, then it doesn't really mean anything. The truth is that 'God' is a loaded term which seeks to imbue the unknown with certain properties (like a will), despite there being no sound logic for supposing so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 03:10:29 2019 No.14052746 >>14050524 >Appeal to consensus Yaiks

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 03:31:44 2019 No.14052796

>>14051227
No. You clearly don't value the truth.
The truth is you haven't proved god and the burden of proof is on the believers. Until then any belief in the supernatural is conjecture.
On top of that we should focus on results. What results does believing in a god give you? Nothing besides psychological comfort, everything else morality, values, technological progress, is brought to you by humans whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
The belief in god is nothing but conjecture and wont get you anywhere compared to the real tangible methods of science and objective truth seeking that can be used to predict and understand the world more accurately than simi-literates thousands of years ago.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:42:26 2019 No.14053103

>>14049755
>There’s no way to detect for an immaterial spaceless timeless being; the only reason people believe is because they were raised from birth to do so
You think there's no reason to believe in anything unless you can detect it empirically? This is your brain on naturalism. Your entire epistemology is self refuting. Have fun trying to justify how your empirical methodology produces real knowledge when you asset that your mind that sifts through the data is nothing but a biological machine which is a slave to its programming.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:44:14 2019 No.14053111 >>14052796 >god Define God.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:45:45 2019 No.14053118

>>14052796
>the burden of proof is on the believers
Only if you think of God as something that needs to be proven within a naturalistic metaphysical worldview. It doesn't. Theism competes with naturalism. There's no such thing as naturalism + God. If you think the "natural laws" of the universe exist as a matter of fact and not because God ordains the material universe to behave that way then there is nothing to prove, your understanding of the nature of reality is fundamentally flawed. You come to theism when you realize that naturalism isn't possible, not because someone "proves" God exists as if God is another hypothesis to be proven or falsified within your erroneous metaphysical worldview.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:46:02 2019 No.14053120 >>14051615 >anti-religious Reminds me of feminists complaining about misogynistic language whenever someone isn't kissing wymyn's feet. Strange coincidencd.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:46:46 2019 No.14053122 >>14052586 We do know that because that's how it went down. Alternative histories don't exist. Also, we would have nothing withot christians preserving much of the pre-chistian literature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:47:38 2019 No.14053128 >>14048428 Humans believe in all kinds of falsities and nobody seems to care. What makes god so special that belief in him must be eradicated before other falsehoods?

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:52:03 2019 No.14053136

>>14053128
Because fedora tippers have zero understanding of human nature and think we'll immediately begin to live in a Star Trek style post scarcity utopia if religious people stop existing. I'm not kidding. That's their entire plan.

1. Stop religion existing

2. Secular humanist socialist paradise

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:55:12 2019 No.14053143 >>14048428 >>14048460 There you have it. Russel has a teapot

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:59:18 2019 No.14053149 >>14053143 God is not analogous to a teapot. The question is whether the fundamental nature of the teapot is material or not.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 05:59:48 2019 No.14053151

>>14048466
You are going thru a phonmanon right now. Everything around you is made with intention because it has meaning from what it is. Everything around falls into place and can be used from one point to another. You exsist with atrabutes that give you will. Why only asume you dont have meaning when everything else does and why only asume with your unique abuility to shape things around you is not intended. Is it because you know nothing about what is not physical? Why think this is it. Your like a gambler in a casino who only has one shoot to hit the jackpot, you only have one day to be there and its going to close eventualy, you dont know whats on the other side of the door. You might never get a chance again why not try

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 06:18:37 2019 No.14053194 >>14048428 Could be the end times have arrived, awakening a new spirituality which is being reflected in the growth of popularity in Christian literature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 06:45:11 2019 No.14053238 >>14051148 Atheist BTFO'd

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 06:57:54 2019 No.14053272 >>14053149 There is no teapot. What may be asserted, you know the rest

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 07:02:57 2019 No.14053284
File: 227 KB, 1361x734, 1144875657885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Christians today still live as though the last three centuries didn't happen. They ignore all of the developments in philosophy and the sciences and focus solely on the decadence generated from these centuries (as though decadence was exclusive to just these centuries and not an attribute of all centuries) so that they may continue to feel prideful over keeping their noses in their ancient text founded by the slave revolt in Rome.

Christianity ended roughly three centuries ago, and its death was not a homicide, but a suicide. After the Christians conquered Europe and spent centuries refining the aristocratic thinking man's sense of truthfulness, that sense of truthfulness eventually turned on itself as it explored deeper into the natural state of things.

The nature of things is chaos; the order of the world is disorder. The world is turbulent, cruel, and violent. Violence is everywhere, it underlies every single Christian and non-Christian teaching. The world is not peaceful. Peace is a temporary state, and a very recent one in history.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 07:24:38 2019 No.14053338

>>14053272
>There is no teapot.
That's not the question though. Whether or not X exists within the physical universe is not a question that is relevant to theism. The question is whether the teapot is fundamentally material. To provide an example think of simulation theory. To say that you can disprove we're in a simulation by saying that there's no teapot orbiting Saturn is silly, isn't it? Since whether or not we're in a simulation doesn't hinge on empirical evidence since what we're discussing isn't the evidence within the universe but the fundamental nature of that evidence. Is the teapot simulated or is it material? That's a question that's more relevant.

Atheists have this huge blind spot where they think God is just another thing to be either proven or falsified within their naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is false though. There isn't any such thing as the "natural" world and never has been. The universe acts in an ordered way because God wills it so. There are no "natural" laws. What physics and science describes are the regularities that occur due to God willing things to act in specific and predictable ways.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 07:25:24 2019 No.14053341 >>14053272 >There is no teapot. What may be asserted, you know the rest

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:17:43 2019 No.14053479

>>14053118
See my first point. You don't value truth which makes what you postulate fundamentally flawed because you're assuming things you have no idea about and don't care about what's true only what makes you feel like you "get it". You basically just said "it doesn't need proof because I said so, it makes sense to me so your wrong"

The reality is you can't really do anything valuable with your flawed understanding of the world and with my methods of understanding I can, so you saying "you're understanding is flawed" to me is like a chef telling a programmer that they don't understand computers because they don't incorporate cooking into it. It just means you don't actually understand what you're talking about. You're clearly into wishful thinking and assumptions. I focus on and seek truth and get real results in doing so while you just say "no, I understand it better and god doesn't need proof because i said so" You're just hurting yourself in the end because while people are actually making real changes in this world and furthering our understanding of the world people like you hold humanity back and are as evil and dumb as a human can get without being considered retarded or psychopathic.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:19:30 2019 No.14053486

>>14053479
>You don't value truth
It's the opposite. It's precisely because I do value truth that I reject naturalism which has a logically inescapable conclusion that you cannot know truth since your consciousness is the result of deterministic biological processes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:34:19 2019 No.14053545 File: 196 KB, 1024x864, Historicity of Jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14051248 >There’s no historical records of Jesus outside of the new testament

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:48:41 2019 No.14053595

Humans are so pathetic. We cannot live with the fact that our existence is pointless, so we invent stories to make ourselves feel important and moral and smart. God/soul is a human invention that helps our overly developed brain cope with its insignificance. Whether we live or die makes no difference, but every single cell in our body screams "live, procreate" so we choose to live. God or morality or whatever comes after that to tell us that we've made the right choice.

And btw the whole christian revival in here comes from US redditors that migrated to 4chan after 2016. If you are on the right in the US you must be a christfag, or else you'll be shunned by the community.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 08:50:50 2019 No.14053606 >>14053595 >God/soul is a human invention that helps our overly developed brain cope with its insignificance Cool assertion. Got any evidence?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:01:08 2019 No.14053639 >>14053595 >Humans are so pathetic. >our existence is pointless Speak for yourself, lowly creature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:03:40 2019 No.14053645 File: 67 KB, 480x608, ALLOFREALITY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:05:09 2019 No.14053651 >>14052643 God has quite a few properties which are to us perceptible and scientifically supposable. Telesis is the tendency of material to self-configure. By the very fact of your cognition, God has a will.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:09:16 2019 No.14053663 >>14053341 That's not true.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:13:29 2019 No.14053674

>>14053651
> Telesis is the tendency of material to self-configure.
Wtf are you talking about?
>Telesis (from the Greek τέλεσις) or "planned progress" was a concept and neologism coined by the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward (often referred to as the "father of American sociology"), in the late 19th century to describe directed social advancement via education and the scientific method.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:14:28 2019 No.14053676
File: 42 KB, 200x182, 123123216.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Just follow my man Jesus. Give everything you own away, pick up a cross and walk up that mountain. If you know God exists, take that knowledge and throw it into the river - because if you don't, it just might pull you down and the water will drown you.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:19:49 2019 No.14053696

>>14053674
"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible." -C. Langan

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:21:06 2019 No.14053701 >>14048428 Believing in falsities is what I do. I can't make life real but I can believe it. The truth can suck my dick

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 09:49:04 2019 No.14053807

>>14053696
> Langan told Muscle & Fitness magazine that "you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you're willing to admit that it's both physical and mental in nature"
So this is where /lit/ is at right now. Literally the galactic brain meme.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 10:22:48 2019 No.14053969 Can someone prove god to me? I pose this question not from the position of a smug atheist but as someone who wants to believe.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 10:51:07 2019 No.14054144

>>14053969
Why do you need a proof if you want to believe? I thought that proving that god exists would defeat the purpose of religion. The point is to accept the rules and morals of whatever religion you chose as the ultimate truth, beyond logic. And follow them not because someone provided a neat logical proposition, but because in yourself you are absolutely convinced that they "true".

And back to Nietzsche, I thought that people perceive him as "godless" because he pointed out that that this ultimate conviction in gods existence is no longer achievable in most people.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:08:19 2019 No.14054234 >>14053807 the only pathway you have to understanding the universe is cognition

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 11:16:49 2019 No.14054284 >>14049955 I mean he’s not wrong

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 12:53:43 2019 No.14054798

>>14049755
Not using this as a defense for god. Your example is horrible. I do pain research (with neuroimaging), and very few types of pain can be evidenced by fMRI. Almost all chronic and idiopathic pain states have no specific signature and can only be detected by patient self-report. A lot of pain science completely depends on trusting the patient's words. This include quantitative sensory testing, which seems objective at first glance but still boils down to patients reporting their own pain threshold.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 13:00:44 2019 No.14054848

>>14049755
>>14054798
>"Sean Mackey, an associate professor and member of this project's team, only measures "thermal pain" in a lab setting, and "We should take care not to extrapolate these findings to say we can measure and detect pain in all circumstances."

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 13:28:25 2019 No.14055016
File: 2.55 MB, 4160x3120, IMG_20191025_192507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14053545
This single line: the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, is supposed to be Suetonius's mention of Christ.
I don't know about your other sources but this one is pretty flimsy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:42:22 2019 No.14055505 >>14053120 >redditor jumps straight to sjw shit This shits not interesting anymore, retard, its self evident. Go back to looking at screenshots on your circle jerk and stop coming here to resurrect shit from four years ago

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 14:49:09 2019 No.14055552

>>14053122
Terrible logic. Our particular history does not demonstrate that this particular religion was necessary for civilizational advancement. The Greeks didn't need it, so why assume Europeans did? On what basis do you assign such heavy necessity to christianity vs. genetic, economic, climatological factors, and so on?

>>14053103
Why does that need to be justified? What is actually impossible or unlikely about that scenario? Does empirical knowledge necessitate 'free will'? Does knowledge have to be 100% certain or just highly probable?

>>14053118
Well, how did you arrive at the conclusion of naturalism being impossible? What is your conduit to knowledge? Wouldn't it be more fruitful to share the core of your understanding instead of referencing it obliquely?

>>14053128
It's the obvious, high-profile target. It's both the most extraordinary in terms of claims, and the most psychologically compelling (for most). So, I'm guessing the logic is that if religion is dispelled, other falsities will be minor challenges in comparison. I don't think they're right about that though... 'Religious thinking' is very fundamental to our psychology... It goes much deeper than the manifestation of religion itself.

>>14053238
Not at all. That anon is just honest enough to admit that it's a matter of faith, not something which is logically or empirically indicated.

>>14053486
>inescapable conclusion that you cannot know truth since your consciousness is the result of deterministic biological processes.
How does that follow at all?

>>14053595
Well, if you're going to be that edgy about things, you can see why they might shun you. Existence may be pointless, but that doesn't mean it's silly to value it from our internal perspective.

>>14053651
If it's not too much bother, could you logically connect the self-organization of matter/energy to
the assumption of 'will'? Is it not more elegant to suppose that such a tendency negates the need for and notion of a 'will'?

>>14054234
>aka Empiricism

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:09:37 2019 No.14055663

>>14055552
I'll admit that 'will' does not do justice to this analogy. 'mind' or perhaps 'conscience' is more suitable if only for the additional dimension of unconsciousness. When I first conceived of God, it was as unconscious.
>also my post
Empiricism, as founded in the philosophical tradition. There is no point at which science diverged from philosophy. Empiricism is the philosophy of perception and consequence, two realms which are assumed by it as foundational principles but are as yet undefined by it. Empirical thought can assert nothing about events which are unreproducible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:18:31 2019 No.14055705 >>14055552 >Terrible logic Yeah but awesome empirical evidence. Christianity performed all of these functions, whether it was neccessary or could have been different is like debating whether you could have had the same children with a different woman.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:22:04 2019 No.14055721 >>14055016 Source?

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:32:02 2019 No.14055760

>>14055705
Not at all, obviously the results would not be identical, just as the children wouldn't be. A more accurate analogy for my argument would be: Debating whether you could have had intelligent children with a different (but still intelligent) woman.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:40:58 2019 No.14055790

>>14055663
The point is that emprically apprehending consistencies in our experience is the only conduit we have to knowledge. The wholly unknown is just that -- you have no basis for assuming it takes the form of 'god' as opposed to an inanimate (in terms of life) quantum soup.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 15:50:43 2019 No.14055832 >>14048428 imagine this board meant to be so smart but dont know the first thing about life

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 16:03:14 2019 No.14055883

>>14055790
That's a hefty caveat, 'in terms of life', anon. The highest causation is telesis, acknowledgement of which is akin to knowing God's 'will' or 'mind'. Material is telic, this is observable. I don't know what noun exists other than 'God' to describe God. God is. I don't trust that you could appeal to nihilism ('quantum soup') if you believe in perception and causation. It is continuous with the notion of God.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 16:51:34 2019 No.14056163

>>14055883
>God just is (negative)
>notion of God (specific)
Make up your mind anon. Is god something specific, or is it just the unknown which you disingenuously attribute with characteristics reflective of yourself?

Why is perception and causation -- or self-organization -- continuous with your as yet unspecified notion of god? How is nihilism relevant here?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 16:55:59 2019 No.14056190 >>14051717 Autism isn't something you can "drop".

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 17:35:23 2019 No.14056370

>>14056163
I suppose I lack the eloquence to convey this to you. It feels vulgar to try and define the infinite; I can only try to characterize it in a way which is semantically acceptable to your outlook. Langan's CTMU is where I draw much inspiration from, and then I suppose John A Wheeler's 'participant universe.'

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 18:22:57 2019 No.14056601 >>14053486 You value a lie that you like to call truth.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 19:04:08 2019 No.14056813

I think the most impressive thing in this whole thread is that people don't fucking know basic logic. Just because you can't prove the existence of God that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. In the same way that just because you can't disprove God that doesn't mean that he exists.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 19:59:37 2019 No.14057048

>>14056813
That's a bit of a strawman.

Firstly, if the godfags only claim was that there is to some degree an 'unknown' that our means of knowledge does not permit access to, I doubt they would encounter much opposition. Their claim is not so neutral, however. That there are things neither provable nor disprovable is a trivial truth, but to claim some intuitive (and certain!) understanding of such things is extraordinary -- which is to say, dubious.

Secondly, a perfect 'proof' of god is not required. All that is really being asked for is evidence and/or logical argument which establishes a significant probability for this explanation. This is not forthcoming, because at its heart the issue of god is about what people want to believe (faith) and not about what is most probable/indicated.

I'm glad you know some basic logic, but I think perhaps you're stuck there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 20:02:49 2019 No.14057064 >>14055721 The twelve Ceasars - Suetonius In the chapter on Caligula.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:15:07 2019 No.14057480

>>14057048
>Determinacy and indeterminacy…at first glance, there seems to be no middle ground. Events are either causally connected or they are not, and if they are not, then the future would seem to be utterly independent of the past. Either we use causality to connect the dots and draw a coherent picture of time, or we settle for a random scattering of independent dots without spatial or temporal pattern and thus without meaning. At the risk of understatement, the philosophical effects of this assumed dichotomy have been corrosive in the extreme. No universe that exists or evolves strictly as a function of external determinacy, randomness or an alternation of the two can offer much in the way of meaning. Where freedom and volition are irrelevant, so is much of human experience and individuality.
>But there is another possibility after all: self-determinacy. Self-determinacy is like a circuitous boundary separating the poles of the above dichotomy…a reflexive and therefore closed boundary, the formation of which involves neither preexisting laws nor external structure. Thus, it is the type of causal attribution suitable for a perfectly self-contained system. Self-determinacy is a deep but subtle concept, owing largely to the fact that unlike either determinacy or randomness, it is a source of bona fide meaning. Where a system determines its own composition, properties and evolution independently of external laws or structures, it can determine its own meaning, and ensure by its self-configuration that its inhabitants are crucially implicated therein.
from Langan's website, hology.org

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:15:11 2019 No.14057481
File: 74 KB, 1110x690, DWNyYjEU8AAvNqY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Morality is a consequence of self-consciousness. Morality, as it is necessarily social, exists insofar as we are aware of our own vulnerability and that of others, as such awareness imposes on us the question of whether to reciporcate or exploit the people we encounter. If we take for granted that true morality equals true reciporcation (fairness), it becomes necessary to have faith (belief without proof) in the fundamental value of all human beings in order to pursue morality, or to treat people the way you would like to be treated. The conviction with which people live by this value varies; the greater their conviction, the more closely their personality resembles the transcendent masculine ethic. This line of reasoning extends beyond social morality, as at any given moment you are becoming thirsty, hungry, etc. and need to act in order to preserve. This embeds all action into a hierarchy, ranging from most optimally adapted to the present and future to least, which again, imposes a transcendent masculine ethic upon every moment of conscious experience. But if you decide to conceptualize yourself as a community of yous accross time, self-preservation becomes a matter of moral decision as well because you must act in a manner that serves the interests of you now and the yous that exist into the future. If one decides that the preservation and flourishing of their own mental and physical state, as well as the state of their family, community, country and world are good and that good behavior constitutes their active maintainence, an omnipresent, transcendent masculine ethic is immediately cast upon every moment of conscious existence.

Anybody who claims not to believe in God while acting in any manner described above lives in cognitive dissonance. His existence is implicitly self-evident, proof is not required.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:19:09 2019 No.14057499 >>14051501 >qualia don't exist What did anon mean by this

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:20:13 2019 No.14057503 >>14056190 Why? According to what principle? What principle also says you can't develop it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:22:32 2019 No.14057518 >>14057481 >reciporcate

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:25:13 2019 No.14057537 >>14057481 i don't believe in any of that lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:26:12 2019 No.14057541 >>14057518 English isnt my first language and I'm phoneposting give me slack pls

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:29:15 2019 No.14057554 >>14057537 Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the argument is flawed or that you're nihilistic?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 21:30:06 2019 No.14057560 >>14057537 >>14057541 yeah it's not really convincing. I just don't really agree that reciprocity proceeds from self-consciousness or that 'exploitation' is the only other option. My nigga here don't know about the intelligence of evil.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 22:14:46 2019 No.14057754

>>14057560
I dont understand the disagreement. Self-consciousness and the awareness of other people's vulnerability is necessary for a moral faculty, otherwise how could you attribute "immorality" to someone's behavior? I never said that self-consciousness introduced reciprocity, only that reciprocity becomes a moral behaviour when the person reciprocating is a self-conscious being because only then are they capable of judgement and of the decision to prefer exploitation.

Think of it like this: were always playing a game, and the object of the game when you're playing for Team Good is to preserve the state, be it the state of yourself, your family/community circles or the state of the world. If you act in a manner that serves any of these states, you are morally "good" with respect to the state(s). If you act in a manner oriented towards the destruction of these states, you play for Team Evil likewise. You can decide in your own sense of morality that you are the only person that matters and that only your own self-preservation is of any value, such that you would be morally good to yourself, but if following that line of ethic caused you to indiscriminately harm any state of being around you, you would be an enemy of that state. If one chose to behave in a manner that actively sought to destroy any state merely for its own sake, such that the destruction of states was valued instead of their preservation, they would be evil with respect to whatever states they sought to undermine.

And I dont believe that reciprocation and exploitation are the only two options, as you can ignore states as well, interacting with them only as a means to pursue whatever goal you have in mind. This would effectively move you into the category of "enemy" with respect to them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 22:21:23 2019 No.14057788 >>14057554 Saying something is transcendental doesn't make it so. The existence of masculine ethics (a useful survival tool) doesn't point towards anything outside of itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 22:23:41 2019 No.14057798 >>14057788 Its transcendent of time and space because no matter where you are you are constantly subject to it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 22:28:36 2019 No.14057827 >>14057798 It happens in time, in space, and in living matter, it is entirely dependant on it.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 22:46:45 2019 No.14057874

>>14057827
If you are anywhere in time and space, that is, if you are a conscious entity plotted somewhere in the material realm, you are necessarily embedded into an immaterial hierarchy of action, that is, you have an infinite number of decisions at your disposal and some are more viable than others. The hierarchy is always oriented towards an ideal mode of being (diety spirit/personality), and your position in the hierarchy is directly proportionate to your resemblence to that ideal. No matter where you are or what you're doing, you're either acting to preserve a state or to undermine one, thus you are always necessarily embedded into a hierarchy and subordinate to a transcendental masculine ethic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 23:15:19 2019 No.14058006 >>14057499 It's not ambiguous. I'm guessing you haven't heard of trope theory.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 23:30:16 2019 No.14058082

>>14057874
>If you are anywhere in time and space, that is
where else could one possibly be
>if you are a conscious entity plotted somewhere in the material realm, you are necessarily embedded into an immaterial hierarchy of action
Calling something immaterial doesn't make it so. All your choices are determined by the material circumstances of the material world around you and the capacity of the material brain.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 23:33:22 2019 No.14058102

>>14055552
>How does that follow at all?
How are you able to make free decisions if all your decisions are the result of chemical interactions occurring within your brain? The whole idea of free agency relies on the concept that your mind is separated from the physical world and can make judgement about it without those judgement being dictated by the world itself. Most honest naturalist freely admit they believe themselves to be "zombies" with no free will or agency of their own.

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 23:40:27 2019 No.14058129

>>14055552
>Does empirical knowledge necessitate 'free will'?
Yes, absolutely and you're a brainlet if you think otherwise. Without free will you could be the same as a computer that is programmed to spit out 3 as an answer to 1 + 1. The answer is completely wrong but the computer doesn't know and doesn't care. The computer acts only according to its logic gates. It takes an agent with free will like a human to verify whether the computer is spitting out correct answers or not because we know we can arrive to the correct logical conclusion through unfettered reason. But if you do not believe you have the free will to weigh up different options and freely choose between them based on reason alone then you are the same as the computer and there is zero reason to trust your judgement since all your decisions are the result of wonky biological circuitry.

>aka Empiricism
Cognition is not synonymous with empiricism. The idea that you have a real existence, "I think, therefore I am" precedes any empirical investigation of the world. Under naturalism you can't even justify your own mental existence so your epistemology is a house of cards. How do you know you're not in the matrix? That all your empirical evidence isn't just false sensory information fed into your mind?

Anonymous Fri Oct 25 23:41:33 2019 No.14058136

>>14058082
>where else could one possibly be
The point is that you're subject to the hierarchy regardless of your position in time in space. Time and space are variables and the hierarchy is not, therefore the hierarchy transcends time and space. It is immaterial because it is an abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 25 23:49:09 2019 No.14058165 >>14058136 You can say that about any abstraction, like survival of the fittest, but why would anyone call it transcendental, it arose within the material universe.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:14:54 2019 No.14058268

>>14058165
It transcends time and space because time and space vary and the hierarchy doesn't. Yes you need time and space in order to have phenomena as such but that's not the point.

When you see, you dont just see the matter in front of you; you have to categorize all the sense data hierarchically to make sense of it. If you didn't, your perceptions would be useless as the world would be an indescernable homogenity. A chair isn't merely a seat with four objects because treestumps, beanbags and tables become chairs once you decide to sit on them. A chair is not an object, but an abstract category to which certain material patterns can be assigned. The assignment is entirely dependent on its position relative to your goal (if you want to sit on a treestump it is a chair, if you want to walk by it it is a tripping hazard/obsticle). Matter and abstraction are two different things but existence requires both. One is the matrix and the other is the boundaries drawn within the matrix to distinguish meaning.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:16:27 2019 No.14058275

>>14051918
yeah it made a lot of sense to hope for some afterlife and deny reality back before any semblance of medicine or any of the breadth of entertainment, arts, and culture of today. christianity is a coping mechanism for a barren, meaningless world and to apply logic from before you could a potato on the eastern side of the atlantic to the contemporary world is absurd

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:16:51 2019 No.14058278 File: 39 KB, 640x723, 1556497593584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14048428 >Why are there so many Christians on /lit/ these days? God is dead, why still believe in a falsity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:24:31 2019 No.14058308 >>14058268 >seat with four objects Seat with four legs*

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:26:08 2019 No.14058318 File: 195 KB, 461x399, 1546332705336.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] SIEG HEIL, KILL ALL JEWS.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:40:23 2019 No.14058369

>>14058268
>Yes you need time and space in order to have phenomena as such but that's not the point.
How can something transcend time and space if it is also dependent on it? You might say that the abstraction precedes it, but for me it neither precedes it, not arises as a result of it, it's only pointing at itself at the current moment.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:47:27 2019 No.14058409

>>14051905
What of extensions to the concept of sets and wholes, not including lattices and abstract algebras, that exist outside the domain of sets? Unordered concepts and inconceivables that cannot be included in sets at all?

What of a series of sets that are defined as being excluded from the set of all sets?

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 00:58:40 2019 No.14058457

>>14058369
By phenomena as such I meant conscious experience. The hierarchy is not dependent on time and space, it is omnipresent. Matter, the matrix or the feminine mother nature is opposed by father God, the transcendental masculine ethic, and both in conjunction create existence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:09:31 2019 No.14058490 >>14058457 >The hierarchy is not dependent on time and space, it is omnipresent. That's just a baseless, unfalsifiable claim. >the matrix or the feminine mother nature Mother natures consists of nothing but natural selection.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:12:47 2019 No.14058498

>>14057874
>Transcendent masculine experience
Why is this masculine?

It seems to me that you're projecting Judeo-christain conceptions of omnipotence onto your argument for a god. At the very least, arrogant human self-importance, projecting your own cultural perceptions onto the blank celestial canvas. The greatest living organisms of the earth are fungal, which feature no analogue to your conception of masculine or feminine. A measurable intelligence, yet so foreign as to only be barely conceivable with our most advanced semantics.

Your entire bloodline will fall out of existence before a single specimen of that fungus dies to old age. To live alongside such an incredible organism is a gift to understand your own insignificance. Even this extremely finite entity, that shares so many features with you, is completely inconceivable to your own mind, your own preconceived notions of the nature of things. The audacity to project "masculine" as a meaningful quality on this fungus is laughable. To call omnipotence masculine is deluded enough to warrant routine dosages of thorazine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:16:38 2019 No.14058513 >>14058498 Heroism is masculine.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:28:07 2019 No.14058536

>>14058513
Only in your extremely limited perception. You are projecting the sexual dimorphism and traits (which are always subject to change) of humans as universals.

Which is not to say that heroism is anything more than a meaningless platitude. What does a weather system, or a star, or a nebula, or a galaxy know of heroism? Each of these an animated system far more complex and meaningful than you. Yet all you assume of reality is never once ruminated over by these abstract titans. The assumptions of your mind - barely more advanced than an insect's - aren't even capable of being considered at just a few levels of existence above your own. Pray to your "father" the veil is never lifted from your eyes, I fear it would break your precious mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:29:18 2019 No.14058541 http://christchannel.xyz/boards.js

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:31:10 2019 No.14058548
File: 345 KB, 1080x2220, Screenshot_20191026-012620_Google.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14058490
No matter where you are in space and time, you are subject to it. What part of this dont you understand? Space and time are dependent variables, the hierarchy is not, this is simple logic.

Matter means matrix and matrix means mother. The matrix is the feminine womb from which the masculine abstraction impregnates it with hierarchical categories to create existence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:34:12 2019 No.14058559 >>14058548 you said it yourself without space and time it would not exist, what part of what you yourself said do you yourself not understand?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:39:50 2019 No.14058577 >>14058559 When?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:42:38 2019 No.14058583 >>14058577 >Yes you need time and space in order to have phenomena as such but that's not the point.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:46:20 2019 No.14058591
File: 425 KB, 1080x2220, Screenshot_20191026-012838_Google.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14058548
>>14058536
Order is symbolically masculine and chaos is symbolically feminine. Masculine heroism creates order out of chaos. Matter without abstraction is a homogenity within which objects cannot be discerned, it is chaos. The hierarchical categorization we apply to the matrix of sensory input to create the world as we perceive it is the order we make of it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 01:49:26 2019 No.14058599 >>14058583 As I said >>14058457 here when I said "phenomena as such" I just meant immediate conscious experience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:01:10 2019 No.14058615 >>14058591 the matrix will continue to happen regardless of your abstractions though, whereas abstractions will not arise without the matrix

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:04:53 2019 No.14058621 >>14058599 >immediate conscious experience. which wouldn't arise without matter

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:17:35 2019 No.14058645

>>14058615
When the matrix is undisturbed by conscious intervention, you have a state of cosmic harmony. When a conscious disturbance alters the state of the matrix, the degree to which it deviates from the transcendental ethic is proportionate to the disruption of alignment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:24:00 2019 No.14058654 >>14058645 you like to vomit word salad as much as peterson, I talked to you long enough, I poop from my asshole and piss from my dick like a regular monkey, you and your hierarchies don't scare me one bit

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:43:34 2019 No.14058703

>>14058621
In conjunction with abstraction. Matter alone without categorization is an indiscriminate homogenity within which nothing exists, equal to a void. Everything you see is categorized according to its status as a tool relative to your immediate goal. Your goal is always to either preserve or undermine the state of something. In the process of achieving that goal, you are embedded into a hierarchy of ethic and your winner status is judged by your distance from the superordinate masculine diety that the hierarchy is oriented towards.

Think of it like chess. You have the board and the pieces and how they are allowed to move, analogous to matter and its nature. Then you have the corresponding hierarchy of skill, oriented towards a superordinate ethic, analagous to God. These two things are essential properties of Chess, such that even when chess isnt being played the mere concept of chess involves them.

Time is a continuum that occurs throughout a game of chess, and space I guess you could say is the arrangement of the pieces at any given point during a game. Both are variables and exist at a lower tier than the game itself and it's truest ethic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:44:51 2019 No.14058708 >>14058654 >word salad You sound insecure. Thanks for filtering yourself, brainlet.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 02:54:48 2019 No.14058725

>>14058708
>>14058703
the earth has a geomagnetic field, and is at a certain distance from the sun which allows for life to flourish on the surface, which means that the idea of distance and geomagnetism exists outside of space and time, this is your argument, basically

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 03:10:19 2019 No.14058752 There has been a resurgence of Christianity in the past 3 years. It was cool to be skeptic in 2003-2012. Why do you think Sam Harris isn't the flavour of the month anymore and kids love Jordan Peterson nowadays?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 03:20:37 2019 No.14058773 >>14048428 >People laugh at Peterson for getting addicted on meds, but worship a german incel that died in a sanatorium from a degenerate mental disorder Disclaimer: I don't like or support Peterson in any way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 03:23:44 2019 No.14058784 God is just a massive Ego check and is therefore necessary for a man otherwise he will degenerate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:01:14 2019 No.14058877 >>14058129 You btfo that particular anon, as all pseud-fatalist have been btfo by this argument since Leibniz, but a true fatalist would go all the way and admit epistemological 'nihilism'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:01:39 2019 No.14058878 >>14050583 Because he wasn't. Leibniz was a retarded lesser-Netwton.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:08:37 2019 No.14058894 >>14048428 There is not that many of them, they are just trying to flood the board so they can get their own. Most of them just larp or have views/personalities that prevents them from using the multitude of christian forums so they come here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 04:16:01 2019 No.14058911 >>14058275 How do medicine and entertainment hello is deal with the fact that we will die?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:26:50 2019 No.14059195 >>14048466 >his This is where your brain stops and your programed conceptualization steps in

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:29:01 2019 No.14059198 >>14049378 Ironic that dumbing it down in this way for peons would be so successful and yet ultimately become its own downfall.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:30:19 2019 No.14059204 >>14058784 God was the scientific study of the ego for everyone in the Middle Ages who wasn't a faggot or a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:32:54 2019 No.14059212 >>14058894 I dont think we should get our own board desu. We must live amongst the people so that we can have a living faith instead of a purely intellectual isolated one.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:34:48 2019 No.14059218

>>14058877
I have a lot more respect for atheists who admit to nihilism actually being a problem for their worldview as Nietzsche did than I do the more common brand of internet atheists who try to pull some bullshit about "But I create my OWN meaning dude, lol videogames". Absolute hypocrites who look into the void that is the logical conclusion of their own beliefs and pussy out with some pseud tripe that makes their dumb crusade against religion irrelevant anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:36:47 2019 No.14059220 >>14058773 They are both unfortunate souls who think they are too smart to be saved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:40:26 2019 No.14059236 >>14058559 It would exist, it would just be unmanifest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:49:00 2019 No.14059269 >>14058275 >back then people didnt know they will diemso they needed a cope >today we know our lives never mattered so we don't meed a cope Briliant lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:51:24 2019 No.14059278 >>14056190 Yes you can. I did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:53:23 2019 No.14059285 >>14059212 It is nice to see that there are actual Christians on this board. You are not at all the sort I was referring too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 06:53:28 2019 No.14059286 >>14055760 Yeah but we are talking after the fact. It's done and there is no going back. Christianity made the West great and western man brought it low in his hubris.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:00:23 2019 No.14059310 >>14058275 2 Nephi is from the book of Mormon, not the Bible you massive retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:04:22 2019 No.14059326 Nietzsche is comfort food for bourgeois teenagers who imagine themselves to be cultured aristocrats rather than parasites who never do a day's work in their lives.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:05:15 2019 No.14059329

>>14059286
Humanity is at it's best when it reaches towards transcendent ideals. Humanity is at its worst when it rejects the transcendent and starts to view itself as nothing more than another animal.

Secularism is destructive because ir rejects beauty, goodness and truth in favor of a worldview that boils down to "lol you're just an evolved ape so do whatever you want"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:06:20 2019 No.14059332 >>14059326 Sounds like someone bought into the Marx meme. Marx was a shitty philosopher and an even worse economist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:07:40 2019 No.14059338 >>14059326 0/10, apply yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:11:11 2019 No.14059345 >>14059332 Marx's philosophy paved the way for the Soviet Union, which defeated the Nietzschean Third Reich and his economics have led to China's rise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:13:28 2019 No.14059353 File: 35 KB, 600x600, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14059345 >his economics have led to China's rise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:16:43 2019 No.14059366 >>14059353 read governance of china https://monthlyreview.org/2018/10/01/on-the-nature-of-the-chinese-economic-system/

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:21:16 2019 No.14059380 >>14059338 He is right though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 07:58:38 2019 No.14059490 >>14053111 Define "define".

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 08:00:08 2019 No.14059496 >>14048466 you seem to misunderstand the definition of faith

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:07:06 2019 No.14059694 >>14057481 how is your masculine ethic not underneath survival of the fittest

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 09:18:17 2019 No.14059732
File: 285 KB, 1484x1079, Cuck-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There seem to be a lot of knowledgable Catholics here, so I'll ask a question: as someone who had a religious experience leading me to Catholicism, how does one reconcile the fact that this thing is supposedly the Vicar of Christ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 10:27:01 2019 No.14059982 >>14048428 We are all brazilians

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:10:03 2019 No.14060191

>>14058591
>Order is symbolically masculine and chaos is symbolically feminine
Only because you have been encultured to see it as such, which you still don't seem to be grasping.

Asserting the etymology as reasoning for your argument not only misses the point, but it underlines another flaw in your thinking. Signs aren't the ideas they communicate, the signifier and signified are discrete in a dyadic system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:10:40 2019 No.14060195 >>14058725 I cant tell if this is bait or if you're retarded but that's not even remotely similar to anything I have said

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:15:01 2019 No.14060211

>>14059732
Perhaps you should actually study the doctrine of Christ without dogma clouding your interpretation. One of the chief virtues of Christ was humility, which is the demonstrated expression in your picture.

If this is repulsive to you, perhaps Islam would be a more suitable theology for your outlook on life.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:23:05 2019 No.14060249

>>14059329
Humanity is at it's worst when it reaches towards transcendent ideals. Humanity is at it's best when it grounds itself to material existence, analyzes what course of action best aligns to its norms and mores, and views itself as a collaborative effort between billions.

Holiness is destructive because it rejects material importance, leaving millions to starve and die in vitriolic war in favor of a worldview that boils down to "lol you're an elevated being, do whatever you want while saying it's God's will"

>>14059345
>his economics have led to China's rise
Maoism and subsequent ideologies are centered in Legalism, not Marxism. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is just code for "The same economic system we've been using for thousands of years with a new name"

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:46:30 2019 No.14060341 >>14060195 >abstract concepts actually exist in a non-corporeal form >therefore god exists that represents this abstract concept I picked that I personally like both are completely retarded statements

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 11:59:32 2019 No.14060403

>>14059694
Idk what you mean by "underneath". Natural selection and moral ethic arent really the same thing, although it's true that natural selection favours those who exist near the top of the hierarchy. The ethical hierarchy is none other than the fact that at any given moment there are an infinite number of things you could possibly do, and that your perceptions are persistently couched in a goal, embedding those possibilities into a hierarchy oriented towards said goal in order of viability.

The difference between the ethical hierarchy and natural selection is that animals cannot reflect and decide to change their goal; natural selection merely regulates what gets to continue to exist. If you suddenly decided your highest value was to propagate suffering for it's own sake and to disturb as many states as possible you would no longer be under the same hierarchy. You would be under a masculine ethic but it would be oriented towards evil rather than good. In other words, you get to decide what God you would like to serve, but you cannot escape Natural Selection or the fact that you serve a God.

Before the emergence of self consciousness, the state of the cosmos depended only on natural selection. Upon the awakening of self-consciousness, a second variable entered: how we decide to act in the world. This means that unlike animals, we are constantly confronted by a landscape of potential, from which we visualize possible outcomes and then actively manipulate our environment in a manner that makes them actual. What we desire is usually under conflict between the you of today and the yous accross time, and our selection process is usually occupied with making the decision as to which you to act in service towards or whether to prioritize an external state (your family, city, country, world).

Natural selection is the unfolding of nature accross time whereas the ethical hierarchy is the room full of doors to alternative outcomes of the universe. Nature selects you, you select the state of the universe you would like to bring into being.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:00:04 2019 No.14060406

>>14058409
>Reality Principle – The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).
>Syndiffeonesis – The expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax. Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or “difference-in-sameness”. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.
again from hology.org

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:01:18 2019 No.14060411 >>14060341 You dont get it, and that's okay.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:11:12 2019 No.14060444 >>14060411 oh I get it, a subset of survival of the fittest represents god for you

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:18:23 2019 No.14060487

>>14060444
What do you mean of survival of the fittest? Natural selection? If so, you are incorrect, because nature does not select your position in an ethical hierarchy, your conscious decisions do. Nobody is born incapable of acting to the best of their ability towards whatever goal they have in mind, nature isn't the variable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:30:38 2019 No.14060546 >>14060487 "Masculine ethics" is a survival tool, among others, it falls under the wider umbrella of survival, yet you don't call god as the supreme survivalist, and transcendent surviving as cast upon every moment of conscious existence.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 12:58:58 2019 No.14060710

>>14060546
I'm not sure what you think I mean by masculine ethic but I'll try one more time.

Nature is the situation you're thrown into, the variable you cant control, symbolized as feminine chaos because it is the womb of potential within which different possibilities can emerge. Ethic is symbolically masculine because it is the action with which you impregnate potential to create the present state of being. At all times, you are subject to the hierarchy, because at all times your perceptions are nested within a goal and some actions are more viable in terms of achieving it. At all times and in all places, there is a masculine personality transcendent of yourself which you by definition should aim to embody, and your resemblence to it mediates your perception of the state of things and the moral status of other people (how good are things compared to what they could be? Of these 10 people, rank order each in order of "good person" to "bad person").

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:07:02 2019 No.14060753

>>14060546
Also, you would call God the supreme survivalist. When you call somebody a "God" at chess, you say so because they are exceptionally competent in the domain of Chess. Survival is a domain of competence. So is sex, so is morality, so is war. The principle that mediates success in a competence hierarchy is the same accross all hierarchies at the highest level of abstraction: confront unknown potential with courageous truth and minimal necessary force.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:09:49 2019 No.14060767

>>14060710
>At all times and in all places, there is a masculine personality transcendent of yourself which you by definition should aim to embody
At all times and in all places, there is a survivor personality transcended of yourself which you by definition should aim to embody, and your resemblance to it mediates your perception of the state of things and the moral status of other people. It's your personal bias that selected ethics over survivorship as the highest good. Either one is a matter of opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:17:09 2019 No.14060808 >>14060753 Some actions can be "immoral" and "unethical" yet rational and competent aids in survival.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:18:42 2019 No.14060816

>>14060767
That's not my argument. You can select whatever you want as your highest good, I used survival to illustrate the point. Like I've already said before, regardless of what you decide constitutes your highest value, you have one, and that puts you into an ethical hierarchy, subordinate to the transcendental ethic that would most effectively move you towards the goal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:21:41 2019 No.14060832 >>14051181 Hope your god cope will do more good than bad.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:25:27 2019 No.14060854

>>14060808
That's because the state of your survival is one state of many you may be concerned about. You may decide that the state of your survival is all that matters, you're still subordinate to an ethic. Most people happen to value the state of their survival as well as the state of their longterm security, the state of their family and friends, the state of their community and the states that go beyond. The ethic that is oriented to optimally preserve every level of state simultaneously is the true God.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:36:10 2019 No.14060910 >>14060816 >regardless of what you decide constitutes your highest value, you have one, and that puts you into an ethical hierarchy you can say that ethical hierarchy falls under survival hierarchy, depending on personal opinion

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:37:39 2019 No.14060920 >>14060910 whats your point?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:39:44 2019 No.14060937 >>14060854 >You may decide that the state of your survival is all that matters, you're still subordinate to an ethic. Surviving isn't always ethical, it surpasses it, and uses it as a tool. Your ethics can cease to exist under survival.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:45:20 2019 No.14060984

>>14060937
Survival does not use ethics as a tool. Yes, it can be in one's self-interest to be moral so that they can engage in the social game and reap its benefits, but plenty of people die for what they deem more ethically valuable. Survival by definition is the preservation of a state; when you survive in the wilderness you preserve your physical and mental state. A devoutly religious person aims to preserve the state of "God's will", surrendering themselves to the higher morality. Their concerns are for survival, but the survival of "truth" supersedes that of themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:49:08 2019 No.14061004 File: 47 KB, 250x250, 1569519203582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14060984 >Survival does not use ethics as a tool.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 13:55:02 2019 No.14061044

>>14061004
Not in the way you originally meant it. You used the word survival with respect to the preservation of oneself, as if ethics are couched in self-interest, hence why ethics would cease to exist under "survival", or a high-pressure fight-or-flight scenario. I pointed out that this is false, as it is well known that devoutly religious people will perform self-sacrificial acts in the service of a higher value. Survival, if it is defined as the preservation of a state, uses ethics as a tool, however in this context I can't see how this argues against my point.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 14:09:51 2019 No.14061105

>>14061044
>Survival, if it is defined as the preservation of a state, uses ethics as a tool, however in this context I can't see how this argues against my point.
You can put down a tool. How can one be constantly subject to something that's not being used. As if drinking and eating is driven by ethics and not survival.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 14:12:19 2019 No.14061117 >>14061105 Your perceptions would not be capable of functioning if you were not constantly aim and goal oriented. You cannot "put it down".

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 26 14:18:30 2019 No.14061142 >>14061117 ethics is now aims and goals?

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 14:18:50 2019 No.14061143

>>14061044
You have to consider why they might possess those 'higher values' in the first place; it is likely because such behaviours provided collective advantages to survival/flourishing in our past, however abstract such values may appear at first glance. For example, consider the high levels of social trust in Northern Europe, or the saving-face culture in many East Asian countries... These behaviours are important aspects of how those societies function, even though they don't appear directly related to survival.

Additionally, the existence of extreme outliers (monks or whatever) doesn't invalidate the evolutionary provenance and function of morality. Evolution expects mutations, and the exceptions prove the rule.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 14:27:01 2019 No.14061177

>>14061142
What do you think it is? An ethic can be described as good or poor, and the only possible way of gauging that is by estimating how well the ethic is adapted to whatever outcome is desired from it (the goal). The word "sin" in the Bible derives from archery and it means "to miss the center of the target". When you misbehave, you deviate from the ethic you aim to pursue.
>>14061143
>You have to consider why they might possess those 'higher values' in the first place; it is likely because such behaviours provided collective advantages to survival/flourishing in our past, however abstract such values may appear at first glance.
I assume you mean however arbitrary, and if so I agree.

Anonymous Sat Oct 26 14:43:58 2019 No.14061261

>>14061177
>What do you think it is?
I think it's a subjective way of evaluating behavior, not creating it, the need for survival will oftentimes precede it. The fact that you want to rate everyone on an ethical scale and not a survival scale is your personal choice.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature