File: 1598153907749.gif (3.73 MB, 320x240, 4:3, EFF892CC-F9D6-4C82-931D-51….gif) ImgOps iqdb
Don’t know where to post this so it’s going here
I don’t fucking understand religion. I don’t get how the overwhelming majority of human beings on this planet have been duped, or deluded, or what have you into believing these farcical things. It baffles me. How did religion become the dominant way of thinking? Was it all just stories that people took too seriously? Why is it the default? Why do people believe in it? Is it just from being raised into it or do they need it physiologically?
How do people reconcile with the existence of religions other than their own? Do they think their god/s just go around lying to other people? Are there multiple gods but only their’s is the real one? I was not raised religious so it all seems like some grand joke that I’m not in on. Am I the one who’s wrong or am I just looking at this the wrong way? Someone explain why almost every human on this earth believes in some invisible and all powerful being/s based just on the word of others. How do people keep up the delusion? I truly can’t believe it that people take so much stock in the words of their local priest or shaman. Even here religion is everywhere. And religion in particular is such a strange worldview to me because it’s all so specific for being something completely made up. How can someone believe it?
I don’t fucking understand religion. I don’t get how the overwhelming majority of human beings on this planet have been duped, or deluded, or what have you into believing these farcical things. It baffles me. How did religion become the dominant way of thinking? Was it all just stories that people took too seriously? Why is it the default? Why do people believe in it? Is it just from being raised into it or do they need it physiologically?
How do people reconcile with the existence of religions other than their own? Do they think their god/s just go around lying to other people? Are there multiple gods but only their’s is the real one? I was not raised religious so it all seems like some grand joke that I’m not in on. Am I the one who’s wrong or am I just looking at this the wrong way? Someone explain why almost every human on this earth believes in some invisible and all powerful being/s based just on the word of others. How do people keep up the delusion? I truly can’t believe it that people take so much stock in the words of their local priest or shaman. Even here religion is everywhere. And religion in particular is such a strange worldview to me because it’s all so specific for being something completely made up. How can someone believe it?
The same reason so many people blindly believe the words of scientists or politicians or other secular authority figures. The human as a social unit is designed to adopt consensus belief. Most people are happy to be members of a hive. It's easier than developing your own worldview.
If you're really interested in the pursuit of Truth OP you should look into mysticism and ego-deconstructing meditation. Believe only what you have experienced and draw your own conclusions.
If you're really interested in the pursuit of Truth OP you should look into mysticism and ego-deconstructing meditation. Believe only what you have experienced and draw your own conclusions.
>>172180
>How did religion become the dominant way of thinking?
Religious people breed, fedorafags don't
>How did religion become the dominant way of thinking?
Religious people breed, fedorafags don't
>>172180
religion is mostly a cultural thing that people dont think about much. like do you actively think about why you celebrate holidays, or why you should? most people dont. they do it because others do it.
this "doing it because others do it" is culture itself, it affects animals beyond humans.
religion is mostly a cultural thing that people dont think about much. like do you actively think about why you celebrate holidays, or why you should? most people dont. they do it because others do it.
this "doing it because others do it" is culture itself, it affects animals beyond humans.
You have to remember how young human civilization really is. The oldest cities of men are barely 10k years old, agriculture about the same age. Writing is barely 5k. We're not even out of the nest yet. People now like to mock religion but they forget it was for most of our thinking history what allowed us to have some grasp of the world, to organize societies into functioning bodies, to create concepts that would later develop into different ideas. It is a big part of the progress you see it today. It's easy to see its flaws, not so easy to see its merits.
If you really want to understand religion you have to study history. What you see now as stupidity, will appear to you as stepping stones to the progress you admire, a tool for survival and intellectual curiosity. It's a bundle of things, all very interesting. But then again that actually takes effort and understanding, it takes stepping out of your comfort and see things from a distance. It's a lot easier to just make fun of things you don't understand though. It's why you see it often everywhere, about everything.
If you really want to understand religion you have to study history. What you see now as stupidity, will appear to you as stepping stones to the progress you admire, a tool for survival and intellectual curiosity. It's a bundle of things, all very interesting. But then again that actually takes effort and understanding, it takes stepping out of your comfort and see things from a distance. It's a lot easier to just make fun of things you don't understand though. It's why you see it often everywhere, about everything.
>>172186
The problem is some modern people still put those "stepping stones" on their heads
The problem is some modern people still put those "stepping stones" on their heads
I just tried to imagine myself years ago when I was like OP asking such questions. It's been a long way. I can't even bother to come up with an answer. Mainly because I know that it doesn't make a difference and that we can't know anyway. Have fun figuring this out OP.
Memes.
If you're born into a culture where eating cow flesh is normal but eating dog flesh isn't, you're likely to continue to eat cow flesh and possibly not even consider it as an issue until confronted with something else. So in most cases people are born into a religious culture where they take things for granted. So speak to young people who were born into religious families and they'll explain the process. If their families are actively Christian, they will be told the various stories from the Bible, and as a child you're learning what the parameters of reality are, so at that point hearing somebody talking about talking snakes or virgin births isn't so radically different from somebody talking about the Earth's core or the sun being a star - you sort of accept it for the most part because of a sort of internal consistency and the authority of those teaching it. Even so, children do question things and push the envelope, and so many eventually escape the clutches of religion, but in part this is also a matter of what alternatives are available to them. Christianity and Islam also in most cases teach a doctrine of "Hell", so there is not only the passive threat of being excluded socially and culturally from your religious community, but even a supernatural threat of suffering. I've personally spoken to a few people who were really damaged by the lie of Hell.
This replication of religious memes through exploiting children's ignorance is probably the main way they're transmitted, and you have to wonder (though we may never really know) whether the emphasis on things like 'family', 'sexual morality', 'parental authority' etc taught by religions like Island and Christianity may have been factors in the 'selection' of those religions. You can see even today how many many people who want to 'belong' to a community, or who want a wife or husband are attracted to religious cultures, even when those people often openly admit they don't actually believe the religious teachings - so there are probably aspects of religions that are 'selected' based on people's preferences, based somewhat on "human nature" or basic human psychology. I mean a lot of people are genuine believers, but then you also have a large number of religious people who use it simply because they feel it's helpful to them.
Personally I have my own religious beliefs and I believe that most people are attracted to the idea of a God and life having a meaning on an authentic basis, that it makes more sense to believe in God and\or a meaning to everything than not to, and religious have 'ready-made' answers, so some small number of people who'd otherwise call themselves 'theistic' or 'spiritual' end up getting caught up in religion. One thing you may be missing is that on Wizchan most of us are literate, have at least moderate intelligence, know a fair bit about the world and science and critical thinking, so you're probably lacking in awareness of how some people who don't or didn't have those things might see the world. One simple example of this is the talking snake I mentioned. I don't believe there was ever a talking snake, but how much of a jump is it to believe in a talking snake? It certainly goes against my knowledge of biology, taxonomy, etc. but how much of reality have I really experienced? Is it enough to make universalist claims like "no talking snakes are possible"? If there was some sort of God who was ACTIVE in creation, then in theory that God would surely be capable of creating such a snake, then covering up all evidence, and even all evidence of the likelihood of such talking snakes existing. I'm pushing the envelope a little here, but my point is I've talked to people who weren't completely stupid who did believe in such things. Even very bright people can believe in things that seem ridiculous when examined, but it doesn't necessarily make them gullible or stupid.
If you're born into a culture where eating cow flesh is normal but eating dog flesh isn't, you're likely to continue to eat cow flesh and possibly not even consider it as an issue until confronted with something else. So in most cases people are born into a religious culture where they take things for granted. So speak to young people who were born into religious families and they'll explain the process. If their families are actively Christian, they will be told the various stories from the Bible, and as a child you're learning what the parameters of reality are, so at that point hearing somebody talking about talking snakes or virgin births isn't so radically different from somebody talking about the Earth's core or the sun being a star - you sort of accept it for the most part because of a sort of internal consistency and the authority of those teaching it. Even so, children do question things and push the envelope, and so many eventually escape the clutches of religion, but in part this is also a matter of what alternatives are available to them. Christianity and Islam also in most cases teach a doctrine of "Hell", so there is not only the passive threat of being excluded socially and culturally from your religious community, but even a supernatural threat of suffering. I've personally spoken to a few people who were really damaged by the lie of Hell.
This replication of religious memes through exploiting children's ignorance is probably the main way they're transmitted, and you have to wonder (though we may never really know) whether the emphasis on things like 'family', 'sexual morality', 'parental authority' etc taught by religions like Island and Christianity may have been factors in the 'selection' of those religions. You can see even today how many many people who want to 'belong' to a community, or who want a wife or husband are attracted to religious cultures, even when those people often openly admit they don't actually believe the religious teachings - so there are probably aspects of religions that are 'selected' based on people's preferences, based somewhat on "human nature" or basic human psychology. I mean a lot of people are genuine believers, but then you also have a large number of religious people who use it simply because they feel it's helpful to them.
Personally I have my own religious beliefs and I believe that most people are attracted to the idea of a God and life having a meaning on an authentic basis, that it makes more sense to believe in God and\or a meaning to everything than not to, and religious have 'ready-made' answers, so some small number of people who'd otherwise call themselves 'theistic' or 'spiritual' end up getting caught up in religion. One thing you may be missing is that on Wizchan most of us are literate, have at least moderate intelligence, know a fair bit about the world and science and critical thinking, so you're probably lacking in awareness of how some people who don't or didn't have those things might see the world. One simple example of this is the talking snake I mentioned. I don't believe there was ever a talking snake, but how much of a jump is it to believe in a talking snake? It certainly goes against my knowledge of biology, taxonomy, etc. but how much of reality have I really experienced? Is it enough to make universalist claims like "no talking snakes are possible"? If there was some sort of God who was ACTIVE in creation, then in theory that God would surely be capable of creating such a snake, then covering up all evidence, and even all evidence of the likelihood of such talking snakes existing. I'm pushing the envelope a little here, but my point is I've talked to people who weren't completely stupid who did believe in such things. Even very bright people can believe in things that seem ridiculous when examined, but it doesn't necessarily make them gullible or stupid.
>>172180
Lets say we have a wall with a square hole in it, we can't see whats on the other side of the hole. You have two choises, either you put in the red box box to fill the void, or you use the blue one. In this case, blue is technology and science and red is religion.
Most of us belive in science and technology- even if you are religious. Only believing in technology and science can be see in a way as an empty and cold world, where nothing will bring joy to the world other than material itself. Using the red box to fill our void give people hope to oneself, the people and the world around us even in our darkest hour, thus whatever happends there will be a meaning to it? Science and technology is empty when it comes to hope. Religion are for people who feel they need something more to lean on to get thought their everyday life, since this world is more suffering than anything else. Thats why religion exist - to cease suffering and bring hope to the afterlife, the future and the present.
I dont belive in god, i dont believe in the afterlife, but i belive in the present of a thoughtless self.
Lets say we have a wall with a square hole in it, we can't see whats on the other side of the hole. You have two choises, either you put in the red box box to fill the void, or you use the blue one. In this case, blue is technology and science and red is religion.
Most of us belive in science and technology- even if you are religious. Only believing in technology and science can be see in a way as an empty and cold world, where nothing will bring joy to the world other than material itself. Using the red box to fill our void give people hope to oneself, the people and the world around us even in our darkest hour, thus whatever happends there will be a meaning to it? Science and technology is empty when it comes to hope. Religion are for people who feel they need something more to lean on to get thought their everyday life, since this world is more suffering than anything else. Thats why religion exist - to cease suffering and bring hope to the afterlife, the future and the present.
I dont belive in god, i dont believe in the afterlife, but i belive in the present of a thoughtless self.
Earth is billions of years old, our universe a few billion years older than that. There are billions if not trillions of galaxies, even more stars, and in all likelihood many planets hosting intelligent life. Humanity comes in during the last 200000 years and not until the last 10000 or so did we start to create civilizations. What we can only see and observe about 5% of the universe; it's mostly made up of dark energy and dark matter. I don't think any religion can explain all of that. We are so young compared to a universe that is so old. Our species and our planet are nothing special. And just when you couldn't feel any smaller, normal matter only make up a measly 5% of the matter in an already unfathomably big universe.
I don't know if there is is or isn't a god, but no religion accurately depicts us as small and unimportant as we actually are.
I don't know if there is is or isn't a god, but no religion accurately depicts us as small and unimportant as we actually are.
>>172244
how do you know we're small and unimportant? i think this intuition comes from imagining "the universe going on just fine without us" after we (and other intelligent life) go extinct, but say, for example, that time is infinite in both directions. so after we all die, huge amounts of time pass (which means nothing to us) and eventually the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy. by this point it's long since been the case that there are no conscious observers to experience the passage of time, and so an arbitrarily long interval will pass as if it were no time at all. we have forever, so very rare fluctuations to lower states of entropy will inevitably arise, and one of these extremely unlikely states will be an arbitrarily precise copy of the conditions of very very low entropy at our universe's "beginning"…
So the universe goes on without us until we show up on the side of the road again, picks us up for a 100 years, and then drops us off for our next slumber. If something like this is true, then we are a permanent fixture of the universe, and are thus more important than one would think, at least when compared to a metaphysical view of "I live once and am extinguished forever, and one bad life is bearable compared to such a life repeated forever". All the more important to figure out how to unfuck the world.
how do you know we're small and unimportant? i think this intuition comes from imagining "the universe going on just fine without us" after we (and other intelligent life) go extinct, but say, for example, that time is infinite in both directions. so after we all die, huge amounts of time pass (which means nothing to us) and eventually the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy. by this point it's long since been the case that there are no conscious observers to experience the passage of time, and so an arbitrarily long interval will pass as if it were no time at all. we have forever, so very rare fluctuations to lower states of entropy will inevitably arise, and one of these extremely unlikely states will be an arbitrarily precise copy of the conditions of very very low entropy at our universe's "beginning"…
So the universe goes on without us until we show up on the side of the road again, picks us up for a 100 years, and then drops us off for our next slumber. If something like this is true, then we are a permanent fixture of the universe, and are thus more important than one would think, at least when compared to a metaphysical view of "I live once and am extinguished forever, and one bad life is bearable compared to such a life repeated forever". All the more important to figure out how to unfuck the world.
>>172244
>no religion accurately depicts us as small and unimportant as we actually are
yes there is, its called scientism, and you seem to be a firm believer in it. scientism teaches complete absurdity and the absence of reason in the universe. all this stems from the belief of places that arent on earth, places you and 99.999% of people have never seen or been to first hand. the shamans of this religion wear long white coats and speak with total confidence, even though every previous generation has been wrong.
>no religion accurately depicts us as small and unimportant as we actually are
yes there is, its called scientism, and you seem to be a firm believer in it. scientism teaches complete absurdity and the absence of reason in the universe. all this stems from the belief of places that arent on earth, places you and 99.999% of people have never seen or been to first hand. the shamans of this religion wear long white coats and speak with total confidence, even though every previous generation has been wrong.
>>172180
Don't use gifs next time. They're distracting.
Our parents teach us a lot of wrong things that we have to correct later in life. Religion is one of them.
Robert Sapolsky, I love this guy. I enjoyed some of his interviews and lectures he did in Stanford University - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswWJuUv0qU
Here is my personal belief,
All religons were created between the 16th and 17th century by a group of intellectual people who have a broad vision on life to control people. They live secretly among us. They decide who lives and who dies. They have access to technologies we can't dream of. They always think hundreds of years ahead of us. I don't believe that governments have control over how this world circulates. They're just icons. Every circumstance has been planned for many years ago.
The stories about Jesus & Muhammad are all fake. They never existed. There were no wars.
Don't use gifs next time. They're distracting.
Our parents teach us a lot of wrong things that we have to correct later in life. Religion is one of them.
Robert Sapolsky, I love this guy. I enjoyed some of his interviews and lectures he did in Stanford University - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswWJuUv0qU
Here is my personal belief,
All religons were created between the 16th and 17th century by a group of intellectual people who have a broad vision on life to control people. They live secretly among us. They decide who lives and who dies. They have access to technologies we can't dream of. They always think hundreds of years ahead of us. I don't believe that governments have control over how this world circulates. They're just icons. Every circumstance has been planned for many years ago.
The stories about Jesus & Muhammad are all fake. They never existed. There were no wars.
Why do you believe in anything that you believe, if not by reading something written on a book, or trusting someone's words because you've been told he's an authority in whatever he's talking about?
>>172331
It’s not just a matter of belief though. If religions just said “god exists” then that’d be much easier to swallow. But they don’t, they add in all this wacky voodoo shit that makes no sense.
It’s not just a matter of belief though. If religions just said “god exists” then that’d be much easier to swallow. But they don’t, they add in all this wacky voodoo shit that makes no sense.
>>172336
The existence of God is the least important and the most intangible part of it all. It's just there to give authority to whatever rules or system being expressed. I think the sentence "if god didn't exist we would need to invent him" refers to this.
The existence of God is the least important and the most intangible part of it all. It's just there to give authority to whatever rules or system being expressed. I think the sentence "if god didn't exist we would need to invent him" refers to this.
>>172338
Do you strongly believe in some metaphysical proposition? Are you an atheist? If you have a strong belief in a metaphysical proposition, then just imagine it's exactly like that for theists, it's just the thing they believe is different.
I don't have any strong feelings towards anything in particular, not even in science or progress or anything really, so I don't understand belief at that level. If some neo-religion came along and demonstrated that science if wrong and had good enough of an argument I would then be inclined to use that to explain the world but would not be surprised if a 100 years later some neo-science came along and reasonably showed all that stuff is incorrect.
Do you strongly believe in some metaphysical proposition? Are you an atheist? If you have a strong belief in a metaphysical proposition, then just imagine it's exactly like that for theists, it's just the thing they believe is different.
I don't have any strong feelings towards anything in particular, not even in science or progress or anything really, so I don't understand belief at that level. If some neo-religion came along and demonstrated that science if wrong and had good enough of an argument I would then be inclined to use that to explain the world but would not be surprised if a 100 years later some neo-science came along and reasonably showed all that stuff is incorrect.
>>172340
I don’t know why you compare science and religion. That is a very apples and oranges type thing. No religion will ever come and “prove” science wrong because science always maintains that it can indeed be wrong. Religion is all about philosophy and about the human condition, science is just the surface level observation of the physical world. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I don’t know why you compare science and religion. That is a very apples and oranges type thing. No religion will ever come and “prove” science wrong because science always maintains that it can indeed be wrong. Religion is all about philosophy and about the human condition, science is just the surface level observation of the physical world. The two have nothing to do with each other.
>>172341
To remind you that you also have feelings of certainty. What you feel for the scientific method must be pretty close to what theists feel for God and now you understand perfectly why they fervently believe in it.
To remind you that you also have feelings of certainty. What you feel for the scientific method must be pretty close to what theists feel for God and now you understand perfectly why they fervently believe in it.
>>172342
It’s not certainty. Like I just said science is all about leaving room for uncertainty.
It’s not certainty. Like I just said science is all about leaving room for uncertainty.
>>172345
You have to be certain that the scientific method is better than religious views though. You just said so;
>No religion will ever come and “prove” science wrong
That sounds like certainty to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You have to be certain that the scientific method is better than religious views though. You just said so;
>No religion will ever come and “prove” science wrong
That sounds like certainty to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>172346
You don’t understand what I mean by that. Religion won’t prove it wrong not because it can’t or because science is correct, but because the two fundamentally do not operate on the same playing field. Science just describes what’s happening. We can physically see, for example, that things fall down to earth. And we know that everything does this, and so someone said “let’s call this gravity”. It wasn’t until centuries later that we started actually wondering why does that happen? Religion will never prove gravity wrong because gravity is just an observation of what happens. Religion is all about the why, science is the how. Science as was started entirely by theists of varying kinds, all just through observation. The only things science claims that needs to be taken on faith is that we are not special or unique, and that the rules do not change.
You don’t understand what I mean by that. Religion won’t prove it wrong not because it can’t or because science is correct, but because the two fundamentally do not operate on the same playing field. Science just describes what’s happening. We can physically see, for example, that things fall down to earth. And we know that everything does this, and so someone said “let’s call this gravity”. It wasn’t until centuries later that we started actually wondering why does that happen? Religion will never prove gravity wrong because gravity is just an observation of what happens. Religion is all about the why, science is the how. Science as was started entirely by theists of varying kinds, all just through observation. The only things science claims that needs to be taken on faith is that we are not special or unique, and that the rules do not change.
>>172347
I should have explained where I was going in the first place because perhaps we agree but we're going for different things here. You asked me >>172338
My answer is: Because people can attach a feeling of certainty to a proposition. Instead of just telling you that, I went out to try to show you have feeling of certainty towards propositions yourself, not towards anything in particular, but certainty about anything, like the certainty you're alive right now.
Then, once I had established we all have feelings of certainty, I assumed it would be easier to imagine that those feelings can be attached to faith. The thing derailed because I should have told you from the beginning I just want to prove the existence of feelings of certainty on everyone, not how those feelings get attached to religious faith, and I guess your actual question is how people get attached to religion and not why. The "why" to me is simple, it's because you can develop feelings of certainty over anything. I guess we can both agree that much?
I should have explained where I was going in the first place because perhaps we agree but we're going for different things here. You asked me >>172338
My answer is: Because people can attach a feeling of certainty to a proposition. Instead of just telling you that, I went out to try to show you have feeling of certainty towards propositions yourself, not towards anything in particular, but certainty about anything, like the certainty you're alive right now.
Then, once I had established we all have feelings of certainty, I assumed it would be easier to imagine that those feelings can be attached to faith. The thing derailed because I should have told you from the beginning I just want to prove the existence of feelings of certainty on everyone, not how those feelings get attached to religious faith, and I guess your actual question is how people get attached to religion and not why. The "why" to me is simple, it's because you can develop feelings of certainty over anything. I guess we can both agree that much?
>>172348
I think the crux of the issue is why do they form certainties over things that are incredibly uncertain? Coming from an outsider’s POV.
I think the crux of the issue is why do they form certainties over things that are incredibly uncertain? Coming from an outsider’s POV.
>>172349
Are you familiar with Hume's Treatise on Human Nature? To be honest I read the for dummies version of it but he explains really well how we need to attach certainty to uncertain things. I'm sure you heard the famous quote from him That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise. He goes on to explain that we will be inclined to infer that the sun will rise instead of the opposite because of habit, even if we have no logical basis to support it. We assume the sun will rise because it always has, basically He has a bunch of such examples of being certain of things out of habit alone. Now, what I'm going to say next bases itself on this premisse.
I believe we need to attach certainty to uncertain things. Obviously people need to strongly believe the sun will rise tomorrow, or there would be a panic. We need to believe on some stability to organize our lives and society. Some things are more uncertain than others and there are many ways to classify how certain or uncertain things are, but that's not the point here. My point is we all HAVE to attach certainty to uncertain things and we have ways to make the uncertain appear certain out of habit and necessity. I think God and religion played and continue to play a fundamental sociological and psychological role on humanity on its organizational level? If that makes sense.
In that sense, God and religion becomes very certain. It needs to be there for socities to organize themselves and achieve some sort of unity. If you read the history of religions, like Islam, you can see how the Arabs managed to organize a huge empire and religion was the binding of it all. Same in Europe with Christianity.
That's what I think at the moment. That people believe in very uncertain things because at some point it was imperative to survival and as we move on things keep clinging to us because of habit. I read recently that religion is having a major come back and people are becoming more religious, not less. I don't remember where I read it though. It's an interesting topic. I know you asked the question but I'm sure you have an explanation yourself, I would like to hear it, let's compare.
Are you familiar with Hume's Treatise on Human Nature? To be honest I read the for dummies version of it but he explains really well how we need to attach certainty to uncertain things. I'm sure you heard the famous quote from him That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise. He goes on to explain that we will be inclined to infer that the sun will rise instead of the opposite because of habit, even if we have no logical basis to support it. We assume the sun will rise because it always has, basically He has a bunch of such examples of being certain of things out of habit alone. Now, what I'm going to say next bases itself on this premisse.
I believe we need to attach certainty to uncertain things. Obviously people need to strongly believe the sun will rise tomorrow, or there would be a panic. We need to believe on some stability to organize our lives and society. Some things are more uncertain than others and there are many ways to classify how certain or uncertain things are, but that's not the point here. My point is we all HAVE to attach certainty to uncertain things and we have ways to make the uncertain appear certain out of habit and necessity. I think God and religion played and continue to play a fundamental sociological and psychological role on humanity on its organizational level? If that makes sense.
In that sense, God and religion becomes very certain. It needs to be there for socities to organize themselves and achieve some sort of unity. If you read the history of religions, like Islam, you can see how the Arabs managed to organize a huge empire and religion was the binding of it all. Same in Europe with Christianity.
That's what I think at the moment. That people believe in very uncertain things because at some point it was imperative to survival and as we move on things keep clinging to us because of habit. I read recently that religion is having a major come back and people are becoming more religious, not less. I don't remember where I read it though. It's an interesting topic. I know you asked the question but I'm sure you have an explanation yourself, I would like to hear it, let's compare.
>>172351
I can understand why people have a need for religion, and the need for regularity, I just fail to grasp the specifics. I do disagree with the point that it’s equally unreasonable to assume the sun will rise and that it won’t rise because it has before. The sun has never not risen, so it seems reasonable to assume it always will. But that seems more of just a poor example than a flaw in reasoning.
The part that’s hard to grasp for me with religion is all the strings attached. I can see why people would believe “God is looking out for me, there’s a plan, things don’t happen by accident” (I mean I personally can’t, I’m too cynical, but I can understand how someone could arrive at that mindset) it’s just all the small thing about organized religion that baffles me, and some larger things. Like why do people across cultures usually rely on some other holy man to speak to God/the spirits or what have you for them? Is it just a natural thing to assume hierarchies and let someone else do it? And what do people think about religions having founders? Shouldn’t a true religion be as timeless as the gods they worship? Shouldn’t the real gods/God speak to everyone, and thus we should all have the same religion?
I am OP, so these questions are redundant I know, but it’s just the sticking points that I don’t get about religion. I understand how one can have faith, but not when thoughts like these would niggle at me and erode it.
I can understand why people have a need for religion, and the need for regularity, I just fail to grasp the specifics. I do disagree with the point that it’s equally unreasonable to assume the sun will rise and that it won’t rise because it has before. The sun has never not risen, so it seems reasonable to assume it always will. But that seems more of just a poor example than a flaw in reasoning.
The part that’s hard to grasp for me with religion is all the strings attached. I can see why people would believe “God is looking out for me, there’s a plan, things don’t happen by accident” (I mean I personally can’t, I’m too cynical, but I can understand how someone could arrive at that mindset) it’s just all the small thing about organized religion that baffles me, and some larger things. Like why do people across cultures usually rely on some other holy man to speak to God/the spirits or what have you for them? Is it just a natural thing to assume hierarchies and let someone else do it? And what do people think about religions having founders? Shouldn’t a true religion be as timeless as the gods they worship? Shouldn’t the real gods/God speak to everyone, and thus we should all have the same religion?
I am OP, so these questions are redundant I know, but it’s just the sticking points that I don’t get about religion. I understand how one can have faith, but not when thoughts like these would niggle at me and erode it.
File: 1598628862022.jpg (30.88 KB, 534x960, 89:160, 85774487.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>172355
Faith is difficult to understand from the outside. How can it defend itself from evidence that looks so compeling to us, unfaithful? Yet it does and most people on earth has faith in religion, not that majority means anything. I imagine faith to be a sort of "mindset country club" where you only get to see what's inside if you are a member.
Check out some youtube videos of atheists turned christians. I remember lots of them having this intense religious experience that makes complete sense to them to the point of conversion. There's a conversation between Deckard and Iran in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? where Iran is using this device that gives her intense emotions, like happiness and depression because she can't experience them by herself. I think that device would be the only thing able to explain religious faith to people who doesn't have it. You would dial 666 and feel intense religious faith for 20 minutes and all would be perfectly clear.
Faith is difficult to understand from the outside. How can it defend itself from evidence that looks so compeling to us, unfaithful? Yet it does and most people on earth has faith in religion, not that majority means anything. I imagine faith to be a sort of "mindset country club" where you only get to see what's inside if you are a member.
Check out some youtube videos of atheists turned christians. I remember lots of them having this intense religious experience that makes complete sense to them to the point of conversion. There's a conversation between Deckard and Iran in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? where Iran is using this device that gives her intense emotions, like happiness and depression because she can't experience them by herself. I think that device would be the only thing able to explain religious faith to people who doesn't have it. You would dial 666 and feel intense religious faith for 20 minutes and all would be perfectly clear.
>>172180
it is fear anon
fear of death
fear of what comes after
religion is a cope for these fears
and a cope for if your life is shit
>I might be a complete loser at everything but at least I am a good human, I got o heaven when I die. The uber capitalists all go to hell
it is fear anon
fear of death
fear of what comes after
religion is a cope for these fears
and a cope for if your life is shit
>I might be a complete loser at everything but at least I am a good human, I got o heaven when I die. The uber capitalists all go to hell
>>172368
everything can be described as a cope, try to come up with more insightful ideas before posting
everything can be described as a cope, try to come up with more insightful ideas before posting
File: 1598676387266.png (260.81 KB, 374x767, 374:767, 37ea508c52df7df3e89d942b31….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>172180
It's really easy to control people that way and justify atrocious acts on those you deem not human or "civilized". Also do note most people are INDOCTRINATED since birth to be jewish, christian, catholic, muslim, hindu, etc.
See the attached image and replace nationalism with any religion I have stated. Each religion declares itself as the correct way to live (morally superior, civilized, beautiful and if you are not part of the cult, you are subject to dehumanization. You can be terrorized, genocided, manipulated, discriminated, raped, burglarized, harassed, beaten, because you are cattle (judaism), plain dehumanization (christianity/Catholicism) in the Americas), or until you submit (islam).
Wizardly Reminder - You cannot be a wizard if you believe in fairy tales that explicitly declare other humans who do not believe in your fairy tale as non-humans.
It's really easy to control people that way and justify atrocious acts on those you deem not human or "civilized". Also do note most people are INDOCTRINATED since birth to be jewish, christian, catholic, muslim, hindu, etc.
See the attached image and replace nationalism with any religion I have stated. Each religion declares itself as the correct way to live (morally superior, civilized, beautiful and if you are not part of the cult, you are subject to dehumanization. You can be terrorized, genocided, manipulated, discriminated, raped, burglarized, harassed, beaten, because you are cattle (judaism), plain dehumanization (christianity/Catholicism) in the Americas), or until you submit (islam).
Wizardly Reminder - You cannot be a wizard if you believe in fairy tales that explicitly declare other humans who do not believe in your fairy tale as non-humans.
>>172383
>fairy tales that explicitly declare other humans who do not believe in your fairy tale as non-humans
>Christianity
You clearly have not read New Testament…
>fairy tales that explicitly declare other humans who do not believe in your fairy tale as non-humans
>Christianity
You clearly have not read New Testament…
>>172383
>See the attached image
Disingenuous capitalist propaganda that seeks to get workers to accept scabs (mass immigration).
>See the attached image
Disingenuous capitalist propaganda that seeks to get workers to accept scabs (mass immigration).
File: 1598688926627.webm (4.5 MB, 640x360, 16:9, trivializingdeath.webm) ImgOps iqdb
No one actually knows shit. Most of what we call knowledge is semantic dickery. When you start confusing the dickery for the actuality, confusion arises. Sometimes ideas are regurgitated too much and the vomit pile becomes a retard mountain called religion or ideology. IMO secular ideology is worse than old-fashioned religion, because unlike religious, ideologues are more likely to not realize they rely on faith and word games, and will treat their 182989392th hand gloryhole brainfuck as if it were first-hand-true-and-honest-factual-axiomatic-indisputable-knowledge, resulting in magnified aggression towards the non-indoctrinated. Big head monkeys will find a justification to fling turds no matter what.
File: 1598699562279.webm (6.35 MB, 450x472, 225:236, Xz3ppju.webm) ImgOps iqdb
>>172180
How do you convince someone that death is the end? How do you convince someone that their entire existence is meaningless and still assume they'd have the willpower to live on? You don't. Hundreds of years ago we could believe without questioning, which gave people the drive to live, knowing they have purpose in life or hope in an afterlife.
Look at the Crusades, citizens not even fit for war were ready to march thousands of miles to slaughter people in the name of God. All for their sins to be cleansed and the guarantee to go into heaven.
People don't like to dwell on it, but we have no purpose. We live for a fraction of the universe's time, and then we cease to exist. It's depressing, so I don't blame people for looking for ways to cope with it.
Honestly, I wish I had something to believe in.
How do you convince someone that death is the end? How do you convince someone that their entire existence is meaningless and still assume they'd have the willpower to live on? You don't. Hundreds of years ago we could believe without questioning, which gave people the drive to live, knowing they have purpose in life or hope in an afterlife.
Look at the Crusades, citizens not even fit for war were ready to march thousands of miles to slaughter people in the name of God. All for their sins to be cleansed and the guarantee to go into heaven.
People don't like to dwell on it, but we have no purpose. We live for a fraction of the universe's time, and then we cease to exist. It's depressing, so I don't blame people for looking for ways to cope with it.
Honestly, I wish I had something to believe in.
>>172394
Religion of peace is marching people to their death. Execution style gunshot to the head then they push them into the water.
Religion of peace is marching people to their death. Execution style gunshot to the head then they push them into the water.
>>172395
Why is there so much blood, was it just from one person or a group?
Can you give a play-by play?
They were marching people into the water or across desert land?
Why is there so much blood, was it just from one person or a group?
Can you give a play-by play?
They were marching people into the water or across desert land?
>>172396
they are marching a line of men towards a platform above a river, which is already covered in blood.
Each guy is then led up to the edge, shot in the head and then pushed into the river.
Seems like a pretty pain free death tbh , compared to the usual beheadings.
they are marching a line of men towards a platform above a river, which is already covered in blood.
Each guy is then led up to the edge, shot in the head and then pushed into the river.
Seems like a pretty pain free death tbh , compared to the usual beheadings.
I think religion just might have been a way that primitive people explained the world. Nowadays, we have meticulous and intricate systems of understanding the world like mathematics/biology/chemistry/engineering/etc. I think secularism is fine to have as a religion. I think it's also fine that people are arrogant in their scientific discipline, they have actual reasoning to back their arguments. Like a fucing mudhead jew would use circular logic to explain life when a biologist can literally explain life.
>>172403
I don't think this. People were not stupid. They made star charts and could identify patterns in nature. They could reason out that certain things were good for illness and others were not. They simply didn't have our technology, but I don't think they just made it all up to explain what they could not.
I don't think this. People were not stupid. They made star charts and could identify patterns in nature. They could reason out that certain things were good for illness and others were not. They simply didn't have our technology, but I don't think they just made it all up to explain what they could not.
>>172406
Yet these people thought that a supernatural being created existence as we know it. When scientists don't have an explanation for an event, they don't pretend one into existence.
Yet these people thought that a supernatural being created existence as we know it. When scientists don't have an explanation for an event, they don't pretend one into existence.
File: 1598757194059.jpg (92.58 KB, 720x524, 180:131, 238749978234978234.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>172409
>cosmogony? nah, that's bullshit. when priests don't have an explanation for an even, they don't pretend one into existence
>cosmogony? nah, that's bullshit. when priests don't have an explanation for an even, they don't pretend one into existence
>>172422
I understand what you're trying to say, but understand that religion like christianity, and a science like biology are radically different. Christianity is ultimate faith to the unquestionable creator, so detailed in its unquestionable holy scriptures, written by its unquestionable "prophets" of God (which were probably just some old desert hillbillies). Where science consists of the pragmatic empirical analysis/evidence by a community of highly educated, skeptical people who then produce 'theories' and humbly enough, even if a scientist has absolute certainty in this theory, it will remain a theory until it is disproven by someone else who is real. Again, scientists don't make shit up. It appears your dogma brain needed a bit of an attitude adjustment, here ya go.
I understand what you're trying to say, but understand that religion like christianity, and a science like biology are radically different. Christianity is ultimate faith to the unquestionable creator, so detailed in its unquestionable holy scriptures, written by its unquestionable "prophets" of God (which were probably just some old desert hillbillies). Where science consists of the pragmatic empirical analysis/evidence by a community of highly educated, skeptical people who then produce 'theories' and humbly enough, even if a scientist has absolute certainty in this theory, it will remain a theory until it is disproven by someone else who is real. Again, scientists don't make shit up. It appears your dogma brain needed a bit of an attitude adjustment, here ya go.
File: 1598763721354.jpg (1.14 MB, 3000x2351, 3000:2351, 1592831196339.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>172423
>concepts concepts concepts
So your scientific worldview mind can't support relational categories and language analysis? Seems pretty shitty for me I'd rather join a cult or something at this point. Oh wait thats what science™ is.
>concepts concepts concepts
So your scientific worldview mind can't support relational categories and language analysis? Seems pretty shitty for me I'd rather join a cult or something at this point. Oh wait thats what science™ is.
>>172423
>by a community of highly educated, skeptical people
you must feel really safe in your opinion knowing that people espousing it are so respectable
>by a community of highly educated, skeptical people
you must feel really safe in your opinion knowing that people espousing it are so respectable
File: 1599269334310.png (227.04 KB, 767x917, 767:917, IMG_0298.PNG) ImgOps iqdb
>>172180
as a muslim-wiz i see a simple answer at the beginning of Quran -Pic related-
as a muslim-wiz i see a simple answer at the beginning of Quran -Pic related-
>>172543
Nothing against you, wiz. You're probably a good person but the Quran fucks itself up so many times.
>This book is perfect
Introduces abrogation aka erasing the contradictions
>Muhammad "if I'm a false prophet may Allah sever my aorta
Muhammad as he's dying "my aorta feels like it's being cut"
>Allah is the master over all things
Muhammad gets Allah to change praying 50 times per day to 5
Not to mention other funny bs in it and the hadiths. Like Muhammad's social anxiety, his many suicide attempts, surahs of allah's perfect book being lost because a sheep ate them, muhammad killing people because they called him black, etc.
Nothing against you, wiz. You're probably a good person but the Quran fucks itself up so many times.
>This book is perfect
Introduces abrogation aka erasing the contradictions
>Muhammad "if I'm a false prophet may Allah sever my aorta
Muhammad as he's dying "my aorta feels like it's being cut"
>Allah is the master over all things
Muhammad gets Allah to change praying 50 times per day to 5
Not to mention other funny bs in it and the hadiths. Like Muhammad's social anxiety, his many suicide attempts, surahs of allah's perfect book being lost because a sheep ate them, muhammad killing people because they called him black, etc.
>>172180
Humans aren't wired for the truth, but for adopting an optimal worldview for reproduction/prosperity. You can think of modern religion like a result of natural selection, but for useful worldviews.
True critical thinking, especially being able to see through other people's shoes, is reserved for maybe the top 40% most intelligent people. The 60% have no reason to question a functioning system (religion); it's all just magic to them. The 40% are split between people like you that are fundamentally incompatible with religion and people (usually raised in a religion) that "understand" the game, but mindfuck themselves into believing in their religion. They do this because they understand how useful it is and know that they can't come up with a better worldview independently.
Humans aren't wired for the truth, but for adopting an optimal worldview for reproduction/prosperity. You can think of modern religion like a result of natural selection, but for useful worldviews.
True critical thinking, especially being able to see through other people's shoes, is reserved for maybe the top 40% most intelligent people. The 60% have no reason to question a functioning system (religion); it's all just magic to them. The 40% are split between people like you that are fundamentally incompatible with religion and people (usually raised in a religion) that "understand" the game, but mindfuck themselves into believing in their religion. They do this because they understand how useful it is and know that they can't come up with a better worldview independently.
>>172545
Muslims are indoctrinated since birth to believe that their religion has all the answer to the world, and I don't mean figuratively. They believe that their book contains scientific discoveries years before they were known. They believe that it predict historical occurrence and the future. If there is no answer to a question in their book, they'll find some tangentially related passages and try to make it fit. Just look up famous Muslim "debaters" like that Zakir Naik guy or whoever. Popular Muslim rhetoric is garbage.
Muslims are indoctrinated since birth to believe that their religion has all the answer to the world, and I don't mean figuratively. They believe that their book contains scientific discoveries years before they were known. They believe that it predict historical occurrence and the future. If there is no answer to a question in their book, they'll find some tangentially related passages and try to make it fit. Just look up famous Muslim "debaters" like that Zakir Naik guy or whoever. Popular Muslim rhetoric is garbage.
File: 1599290422701.webm (3.95 MB, 640x480, 4:3, 17 F minutes.webm) ImgOps iqdb
>>172180
>I don’t get how the overwhelming majority of human beings on this planet have been duped, or deluded.
- Most of the time it is not deception for us as believers (it includes all religions and beliefs) and we have something that draws us for that(faith).
- In the Islamic religion, our tendencies to religion include what was previously mentioned with greater certainty, as 172548 said <<
- As for me, I will try to approximate the matter with this: I am told you are deceived and there is no god and nothing is correct mentioned in your book,
but what if I die and find what is mentioned in my religion is correct then. imagine the remorse that will be when u find out is the beginning of something else.
>Was it all just stories that people took too seriously?
on islamic stories(on qurann) it have many Objectives one of them it
(so that mankind might have no argument against allah after the messengers)
>Why is it the default?
people have this kind of recognition or sense for beleiving
it does not accept cancellation and exchange, but it accepts the change and is subject to influence.
(He it is who ceated you, but of you is a disbeliver and of you is a believer)
>Why do people believe in it?
(Then as for those who believed and did good works, to them he will pay their wages if full, adding to them from His bounty.
And as for those who were scornful and arrogant, them He will punish with a painful doom.
And they will not find for them selves, against Allah, any friend or helper)173:4
>Is it just from being raised into it or do they need it physiologically?
nop some people raised on muslim family but thay are out of the religion staff
>How do people reconcile with the existence of religions other than their own?
If there was no transgression from any party, then debate or dialogue will be good for each party
PS: extremism/fanaticism staff MEDIA alrady bump it enough so no need for extra explaination what could those few do
> Do they think their god/s just go around lying to other people?
nop
>Are there multiple gods but only their’s is the real one?
there is only one, there rest for us (muslim) are just made of thought/mayth/ect
on qurann god gives many proofs
>Am I the one who’s wrong or am I just looking at this the wrong way?
read first line of the answer >Why is it the default?
>Someone explain why almost every human on this earth believes in some invisible and all powerful being/s based just on the word of others.
> it’s all so specific for being something completely made up. How can someone believe it?
just ask yourselfe why we have been created
are we just coincidentally created to find our selvse on the middel of perfact system just to spend some time for nothing?
>How do people keep up the delusion?
is not illusion…
you will discernment ones u open ur mind&heart to see
>I don’t get how the overwhelming majority of human beings on this planet have been duped, or deluded.
- Most of the time it is not deception for us as believers (it includes all religions and beliefs) and we have something that draws us for that(faith).
- In the Islamic religion, our tendencies to religion include what was previously mentioned with greater certainty, as 172548 said <<
- As for me, I will try to approximate the matter with this: I am told you are deceived and there is no god and nothing is correct mentioned in your book,
but what if I die and find what is mentioned in my religion is correct then. imagine the remorse that will be when u find out is the beginning of something else.
>Was it all just stories that people took too seriously?
on islamic stories(on qurann) it have many Objectives one of them it
(so that mankind might have no argument against allah after the messengers)
>Why is it the default?
people have this kind of recognition or sense for beleiving
it does not accept cancellation and exchange, but it accepts the change and is subject to influence.
(He it is who ceated you, but of you is a disbeliver and of you is a believer)
>Why do people believe in it?
(Then as for those who believed and did good works, to them he will pay their wages if full, adding to them from His bounty.
And as for those who were scornful and arrogant, them He will punish with a painful doom.
And they will not find for them selves, against Allah, any friend or helper)173:4
>Is it just from being raised into it or do they need it physiologically?
nop some people raised on muslim family but thay are out of the religion staff
>How do people reconcile with the existence of religions other than their own?
If there was no transgression from any party, then debate or dialogue will be good for each party
PS: extremism/fanaticism staff MEDIA alrady bump it enough so no need for extra explaination what could those few do
> Do they think their god/s just go around lying to other people?
nop
>Are there multiple gods but only their’s is the real one?
there is only one, there rest for us (muslim) are just made of thought/mayth/ect
on qurann god gives many proofs
>Am I the one who’s wrong or am I just looking at this the wrong way?
read first line of the answer >Why is it the default?
>Someone explain why almost every human on this earth believes in some invisible and all powerful being/s based just on the word of others.
> it’s all so specific for being something completely made up. How can someone believe it?
just ask yourselfe why we have been created
are we just coincidentally created to find our selvse on the middel of perfact system just to spend some time for nothing?
>How do people keep up the delusion?
is not illusion…
you will discernment ones u open ur mind&heart to see
>>172546
Not to mention other funny
>Social anxiety
damn!
>Suicide attempts
thats kek
>…Sheep ate them…
Quran is frequent transfer by conservation so even if u get rid off all copies is still been saved
M KILLS BECAUSE THEY CALLED HIM BLACK?!
Common even 6 years kid could do better than this
(Mohammad (S) was white by the way)
Not to mention other funny
>Social anxiety
damn!
>Suicide attempts
thats kek
>…Sheep ate them…
Quran is frequent transfer by conservation so even if u get rid off all copies is still been saved
M KILLS BECAUSE THEY CALLED HIM BLACK?!
Common even 6 years kid could do better than this
(Mohammad (S) was white by the way)
I think you have a narrow-minded conception of what people think of as "god". It's actually a pretty practical idea - an ideal to strive towards for a purpose.
I find it easier to understand in a polytheistic context - take the Hellenic pantheon, for example. In it, there's all sorts of gods: "Virgin goddess of the hunt, wilderness, animals and young succubi" Artemis, "God of war, bloodshed, and violence" Ares, "Goddess of grain, agriculture, harvest, growth, and nourishment" Demeter, "God of boundaries, travel, communication, trade, language, thieves and writing" Hermes, and so on.
Each of those gods embodies pretty wide-reaching conceptions of a "perfect X" - a perfect trader is conceived as someone who would also know many languages, be great at writing, at communicating, and also adept at the inevitable underside of the trade - thievery. Similar to this, a perfect thief would also have to know the value of the goods he targets, know the boundaries (i.e. ethical boundaries, the law, literal borders) he crosses, know the communicative skills required to deceive his prey, and so on.
These conceptions of gods act as an image of a "perfect X" that one could imagine acting upon the world, reacting to the world, and how the world and other beings (mortals), imperfect by comparison by definition, would fare in their place. This allows you to have a basis for understanding the way the world works and forming your own behaviors and conceptions about it. It also gives you a reference point to compare yourself against - "What would I have to be like in order to be good at X? What would a perfected form of X do in this situation? What traits do I lack that perfect X has?".
The various thought experiments and stories concerning these are the myths of the religion/culture, and the overarching lessons of it all are sometimes codified in something like the christianity's 10 commandments. Those are, in essence, the simple version of the behaviors you have to exhibit to act more like the "perfect X", aka God, of christianity.
With all that said, that purpose of religion is supplemented heavily by fiction that's not overtly religious, which does serve the same purposes.
Religious institutions are, of course, a completely different and largely unrelated beast. Ostensibly they exist in order to help people get closer to God, but in reality they quickly devolved into power-hoarding temporal structures. Such is life.
Take this with a grain of salt, of course, because it's just my own understanding and might be false in some basic aspects of it. It's probably true that the majority of "religious" people think of it all completely differently.
I find it easier to understand in a polytheistic context - take the Hellenic pantheon, for example. In it, there's all sorts of gods: "Virgin goddess of the hunt, wilderness, animals and young succubi" Artemis, "God of war, bloodshed, and violence" Ares, "Goddess of grain, agriculture, harvest, growth, and nourishment" Demeter, "God of boundaries, travel, communication, trade, language, thieves and writing" Hermes, and so on.
Each of those gods embodies pretty wide-reaching conceptions of a "perfect X" - a perfect trader is conceived as someone who would also know many languages, be great at writing, at communicating, and also adept at the inevitable underside of the trade - thievery. Similar to this, a perfect thief would also have to know the value of the goods he targets, know the boundaries (i.e. ethical boundaries, the law, literal borders) he crosses, know the communicative skills required to deceive his prey, and so on.
These conceptions of gods act as an image of a "perfect X" that one could imagine acting upon the world, reacting to the world, and how the world and other beings (mortals), imperfect by comparison by definition, would fare in their place. This allows you to have a basis for understanding the way the world works and forming your own behaviors and conceptions about it. It also gives you a reference point to compare yourself against - "What would I have to be like in order to be good at X? What would a perfected form of X do in this situation? What traits do I lack that perfect X has?".
The various thought experiments and stories concerning these are the myths of the religion/culture, and the overarching lessons of it all are sometimes codified in something like the christianity's 10 commandments. Those are, in essence, the simple version of the behaviors you have to exhibit to act more like the "perfect X", aka God, of christianity.
With all that said, that purpose of religion is supplemented heavily by fiction that's not overtly religious, which does serve the same purposes.
Religious institutions are, of course, a completely different and largely unrelated beast. Ostensibly they exist in order to help people get closer to God, but in reality they quickly devolved into power-hoarding temporal structures. Such is life.
Take this with a grain of salt, of course, because it's just my own understanding and might be false in some basic aspects of it. It's probably true that the majority of "religious" people think of it all completely differently.
>>172546
Can you actually link to references, especially on the suicide attempts and the black part?
Can you actually link to references, especially on the suicide attempts and the black part?
File: 1599344175657.png (830.94 KB, 955x697, 955:697, ibnishaq.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>172569
>Sahih al-Bukhari 6982
But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (ﷺ) became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before.
>the black part
I mixed 2 things. One was Muhammad being white so saying he's black is lying, thus worthy of death. I mixed that with Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad where Muhammad kills 2 succubi for mocking him. There's so much material to read, it's hard to keep it all separate
>Sahih al-Bukhari 6982
But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (ﷺ) became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before.
>the black part
I mixed 2 things. One was Muhammad being white so saying he's black is lying, thus worthy of death. I mixed that with Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad where Muhammad kills 2 succubi for mocking him. There's so much material to read, it's hard to keep it all separate
>>172180
It feels like every active atheist you ever meet online has this same tone of "wow I literally CAN'T understand how every human society in the last 100,000 years could have suffered from identical freakishly unlucky epidemics of retarditis".
Are there really so many people out there so egotistical that their first thought, before "maybe I'm missing something here, I haven't thought about this that much" is "all of humanity ever must've just been stupid compared to me"?
It feels like every active atheist you ever meet online has this same tone of "wow I literally CAN'T understand how every human society in the last 100,000 years could have suffered from identical freakishly unlucky epidemics of retarditis".
Are there really so many people out there so egotistical that their first thought, before "maybe I'm missing something here, I haven't thought about this that much" is "all of humanity ever must've just been stupid compared to me"?
>>172581
That's the thing. I don't think humanity was just full of retards, hence why it's so baffling to me.
That's the thing. I don't think humanity was just full of retards, hence why it's so baffling to me.
>>172180
X*Y = 5
Go on, solve this equation, find the values of X and Y.
We can only observe and study matter and the things that interact with it. We can't know for certain what is beyond what we can actively observe or if there is anything at all. We don't have the data necessary, all we can do is make stuff up. Judging by your post you sound like an atheist. If you are one you are just as retarded as religious people. The only difference between you and them is that you give X and Y different values. Agnosticism is the only reasonable world view to have
X*Y = 5
Go on, solve this equation, find the values of X and Y.
We can only observe and study matter and the things that interact with it. We can't know for certain what is beyond what we can actively observe or if there is anything at all. We don't have the data necessary, all we can do is make stuff up. Judging by your post you sound like an atheist. If you are one you are just as retarded as religious people. The only difference between you and them is that you give X and Y different values. Agnosticism is the only reasonable world view to have
>>172595
You realize you make the same leap of faith as both sides? You propose we don't know what we can't know, which is redundant for your argument, then assumes God is beyond what we know now, which is no less or more of a leap of faith than assuming there is or isn't a God to begin with. Obviously some people believe we know enough to prove or disprove God.
You fell on the same loophole because any proposition made over a vaguely defined entity will push you to a leap of faith no matter the path you take. You believe to be choosing uncertainty but contained within the argument there's the certainty of God being beyond what we currently know. Ironically, that certainty is necessary for you to claim that uncertainty is the only reasonable choice to answer the question.
You realize you make the same leap of faith as both sides? You propose we don't know what we can't know, which is redundant for your argument, then assumes God is beyond what we know now, which is no less or more of a leap of faith than assuming there is or isn't a God to begin with. Obviously some people believe we know enough to prove or disprove God.
You fell on the same loophole because any proposition made over a vaguely defined entity will push you to a leap of faith no matter the path you take. You believe to be choosing uncertainty but contained within the argument there's the certainty of God being beyond what we currently know. Ironically, that certainty is necessary for you to claim that uncertainty is the only reasonable choice to answer the question.
>>172597
I've personally never seen anything that proves to me there is or isn't a god, so the only reasonable belief I can have on the topic is "I don't know". There are many things various religions claimed which have been proven false, like the earth being flat. Maybe one day humanity will have a perfect model of reality. Until then I think making up answers for the questions we don't have answers to is dumb.
I've personally never seen anything that proves to me there is or isn't a god, so the only reasonable belief I can have on the topic is "I don't know". There are many things various religions claimed which have been proven false, like the earth being flat. Maybe one day humanity will have a perfect model of reality. Until then I think making up answers for the questions we don't have answers to is dumb.
File: 1599482551006.gif (3.09 MB, 400x224, 25:14, 72E72F8E-1D8C-4369-B85A-DC….gif) ImgOps iqdb
I don’t understand why losers always hate religion the most.
How does it make our lives any worse? Sure it bans normals from having fun, but in our case we never had a chance to begin with.
How does it make our lives any worse? Sure it bans normals from having fun, but in our case we never had a chance to begin with.
>>172616
Religion is one of the best examples of irrational thinking and the stupidity of culture. It relates to how anyone who deviates from the norm is ostracised for being different, or having an individual point of view. It reveals tribal, herd behavior and the severe limitations of critical thought that many people have
Religion is one of the best examples of irrational thinking and the stupidity of culture. It relates to how anyone who deviates from the norm is ostracised for being different, or having an individual point of view. It reveals tribal, herd behavior and the severe limitations of critical thought that many people have
>>172616
Religion in theory functions in a way that provides an alternative value system that losers can opt in to.
In practice in modern society it becomes a rationality for the current social hierarchy and adapted to abuse outcasts. Everyone wants to pretend religious people are all thoughtful Thomists but the reality is many religious people just use God to claim authority and rage across the dinner table. Most of us for that reason, and society, are oblivious to the theological arguments for God and it cuts off the access to the avenue of religion as an escape for losers
Religion in theory functions in a way that provides an alternative value system that losers can opt in to.
In practice in modern society it becomes a rationality for the current social hierarchy and adapted to abuse outcasts. Everyone wants to pretend religious people are all thoughtful Thomists but the reality is many religious people just use God to claim authority and rage across the dinner table. Most of us for that reason, and society, are oblivious to the theological arguments for God and it cuts off the access to the avenue of religion as an escape for losers
>>172616
religion is the reason i can't buy liquor on sundays get the fuck out of here with that "no fun allowed" bullshit
religion is the reason i can't buy liquor on sundays get the fuck out of here with that "no fun allowed" bullshit
>>172616
Becoming an Enlightened Atheist is the easiest way to convince yourself you're a smart rational independent thinker without needing to be smart or creative or put the work into studying something hard.
Active religion-bashing atheism only really appeals to losers insecure about how smart they are. Actual smart people tend to be atheists in modern culture too of course, but they're passive atheists, out of apathy because they have better things to think about.
Becoming an Enlightened Atheist is the easiest way to convince yourself you're a smart rational independent thinker without needing to be smart or creative or put the work into studying something hard.
Active religion-bashing atheism only really appeals to losers insecure about how smart they are. Actual smart people tend to be atheists in modern culture too of course, but they're passive atheists, out of apathy because they have better things to think about.
To me to be valid a religion must make its adherents more moral. Now I know they can answer that the point is theology not ethics, to get into heaven. And that we are all sinners etc. But if you can't empirically prove that your sect is more moral than the general population its all worthless to me.
>>172616
Speak for yourself.
Religion is the definition of rejecting the truth and reality, hence any progress of humanity. Every religious cultist is happy to use science and technology when it suits them (medicine, computers, war) but reject science and technology when either their outdated manual or some cultist leader gets triggered.
If you're religious and call yourself a loser wizard, you're really just a salty failed normal.
Speak for yourself.
Religion is the definition of rejecting the truth and reality, hence any progress of humanity. Every religious cultist is happy to use science and technology when it suits them (medicine, computers, war) but reject science and technology when either their outdated manual or some cultist leader gets triggered.
If you're religious and call yourself a loser wizard, you're really just a salty failed normal.
Why anyone would WANT to be atheist? Religion is the greatest coping mechanism ever invented. So life might be an unfair hellish horror-zone, god will make it all better after death. So you were born a genetic failure or you fucked your own potential up assuming free will, its all ok you can still live a worthwhile live by following this God figure. What a wonderful world to live in. Only a retard would pick being intellectual over that kind of bliss. This is of course not even mentioning the other benefits like objective morality, meaning, purpose, etc all answered by religion.
I always tried to think that spiritual things exist, but never found any. What a boring awful horrific existence I have to live compared to the easy and fulfilling life of the religious folk.
I always tried to think that spiritual things exist, but never found any. What a boring awful horrific existence I have to live compared to the easy and fulfilling life of the religious folk.
>>172697
> Why anyone would WANT to be atheist?
The winners? You just basically said it yourself that religions are for losers.
Well it was and is largely a tool to rule the miserable masses and improvised as the rulers see fit.
> Why anyone would WANT to be atheist?
The winners? You just basically said it yourself that religions are for losers.
Well it was and is largely a tool to rule the miserable masses and improvised as the rulers see fit.
File: 1599763418815.gif (2.73 MB, 498x278, 249:139, EEA6AAD1-C167-4865-A459-9B….gif) ImgOps iqdb
>>172696
Speak for myself? Pretty sure everyone on this site is actually a loser, so idk what you mean
Science and truth is for coping nerds with lisps, never seen an average guy care about that bs, never mind a chad.
Human progress outside of tech is largely irrelevant in a loser’s life, so idk why you’d care about it.
Religion today is too tame to have an influence either way, yet male losers seem to hate it all the same.
Speak for myself? Pretty sure everyone on this site is actually a loser, so idk what you mean
Science and truth is for coping nerds with lisps, never seen an average guy care about that bs, never mind a chad.
Human progress outside of tech is largely irrelevant in a loser’s life, so idk why you’d care about it.
Religion today is too tame to have an influence either way, yet male losers seem to hate it all the same.
>>172701
Winners is regard to what exactly? Everything is a pointless waste of time until death. Even if I were to accept some poorly thought out idea of "achievement" as if such a thing exists, that would only apply to 0.01% of the population. Although really I think it might even be something like 0.00001% of the population. Of course as I said, that is implying "achievement" is how to """win""" at life.
Winners is regard to what exactly? Everything is a pointless waste of time until death. Even if I were to accept some poorly thought out idea of "achievement" as if such a thing exists, that would only apply to 0.01% of the population. Although really I think it might even be something like 0.00001% of the population. Of course as I said, that is implying "achievement" is how to """win""" at life.
>>172697
This, really. Wanting to be an atheist is retarded when you consider the alternative. I honestly don't know if there's a sane person who can look at our horrible reality and not be terrified.
This, really. Wanting to be an atheist is retarded when you consider the alternative. I honestly don't know if there's a sane person who can look at our horrible reality and not be terrified.
>>172180
I reached a point already showed inside the "wiz degree meme".
I investigated quite a lot. I possibly know more than you could (wish) to understand.
It's my blackpill
I reached a point already showed inside the "wiz degree meme".
I investigated quite a lot. I possibly know more than you could (wish) to understand.
It's my blackpill
>>172581
Well if you are doing an argument from popularity, I can tell you that the vast majority of philosopher and scientist are atheist
Well if you are doing an argument from popularity, I can tell you that the vast majority of philosopher and scientist are atheist
>>172697
being a religious zealot much like a political one requires to be able to be part of groupthink and social structure because it ultimate just is a method of social homogeneity and control and is a colectivistic endeavor, a communal one, being part of a religion is being part of a community and a larger group, something that denies the individual and an idea or cause that goes beyond yourself as entity.
For someone to be able to conform to such a group one would need not to be a wizard, just be a normgroid, let yourself become the ultimate npc and just follow that heard or the other, any herd. Wizards cant even if they want to and crave that kind of depersonalization into the mob, they just can't fit in one way or another
you can try and trry to get inmmerse into the roleplaying, ultimately you know what lies below the fantasy and cope, wizards get no such comforts nor that level of complacency.
being a religious zealot much like a political one requires to be able to be part of groupthink and social structure because it ultimate just is a method of social homogeneity and control and is a colectivistic endeavor, a communal one, being part of a religion is being part of a community and a larger group, something that denies the individual and an idea or cause that goes beyond yourself as entity.
For someone to be able to conform to such a group one would need not to be a wizard, just be a normgroid, let yourself become the ultimate npc and just follow that heard or the other, any herd. Wizards cant even if they want to and crave that kind of depersonalization into the mob, they just can't fit in one way or another
you can try and trry to get inmmerse into the roleplaying, ultimately you know what lies below the fantasy and cope, wizards get no such comforts nor that level of complacency.
People have an intuition that there is a God, and they believe in their intuition and in inspiration because of their experience of them. They believe because they experience grace, synchronicities and visions, and their intuition being correct in other instances. There is profound wisdom contained in religious texts, and their mythologies usually make sense on multiple levels (for example the Christian trinity having profound psychological significance) and can be used as a lens to interpret almost anything, which points to them being inspired. It's all kind of a circular catch-22, and it makes sense if you believe (because it's something experienced) but it looks baffling from the outside to someone who hasn't experienced it. I believe that's by design also, because we're stuck in this awful world where we've forgotten God as punishment for something we've done and it would be too easy to get out if one person could easily make another see the light once he's seen it himself.
What baffles me is the atheist position of outright denying the existence of God (instead of just being agnostic) and saying that nothing has any meaning. It's like a reactionary anti-faith instead of an intellectual position, it's more satanism than atheism. By their own supposed empirical standard there's no way to deduce whether God or objective meaning or purpose exist, and yet they proclaim that they don't. What could be the motivation for taking that stance, besides holding some childish grudge for religiosity or religious people? If God doesn't exist and nothing matters then your intellectual honesty and scientific standards don't amount to anything either, and you might as well try and make yourself believe so that you might feel better and have a motivation to treat other people better.
What baffles me is the atheist position of outright denying the existence of God (instead of just being agnostic) and saying that nothing has any meaning. It's like a reactionary anti-faith instead of an intellectual position, it's more satanism than atheism. By their own supposed empirical standard there's no way to deduce whether God or objective meaning or purpose exist, and yet they proclaim that they don't. What could be the motivation for taking that stance, besides holding some childish grudge for religiosity or religious people? If God doesn't exist and nothing matters then your intellectual honesty and scientific standards don't amount to anything either, and you might as well try and make yourself believe so that you might feel better and have a motivation to treat other people better.
>>172180
you believe some things are true and some things arent. you believe you can know which things are true and which things arent. i know that i can find the truth because god gave me a working brain. you know that you can find the truth because you said so
you believe some things are true and some things arent. you believe you can know which things are true and which things arent. i know that i can find the truth because god gave me a working brain. you know that you can find the truth because you said so
File: 1610520425651.gif (923.26 KB, 250x188, 125:94, stroke_rat.gif) ImgOps iqdb
what if i told you religion and science were compatible? you would doubt it, im sure. but there are more than a few scenarios where this is possible. you might have heard of the 'simulation argument' before? if not: its the idea that in the future we will run powerful simulations eventually seeking to study how whole societies develop. there are attempts at the moment to simulate every aspect of different organisms in computer algorithms (for example.) the simulation argument states that because of advanced civilizations running so many of these simulations the chances that the reality we're in now is at the 'base layer' is virtually nothing.
so, why do i bring up the simulation argument? well if reality is controlled by a computer program then there can be entities that can do just about anything. you can turn water into wine, heal the sick with your hands, and walk on water. the idea that crazy events are possible in computer simulations is explored so much in fiction we don't take it seriously. but it does provide a very simple, logically consistent way to justify religions and spirituality (as a thought experiment at least.)
the other thing to think about here is how magic and weird physics is. the stuff that seems to be possible in modern physics is weird af – and it only gets weirder the smaller you go. particles just popping in and out of existence. holes in space and time… holes that can shoot out matter. other holes that can swallow it. glimpses into the past from outside of gravity. other smaller universes? advanced tech is another way to justify religion (if you want to) since being able to alter space and time is basically god-like. the last possibility for a kind of 'rational religion' i can think of: is a combination of rules we aren't aware of. electrons in the brain carving out a path somewhere else… perfectly preserving that person. i haven't the faintest clue how it would work but the cliched answer is 'we dont know everything'
ofc this is only a thought experiment, ofc religion is bullshit. the bible is literal dog shit. lmfaoo FUCKING ASS OFF!! btw, i wouldnt dismiss certain spiritual practices that popup just because they are found in religion. like meditation, for example. that shit is legit and has tons of health benefits.
so, why do i bring up the simulation argument? well if reality is controlled by a computer program then there can be entities that can do just about anything. you can turn water into wine, heal the sick with your hands, and walk on water. the idea that crazy events are possible in computer simulations is explored so much in fiction we don't take it seriously. but it does provide a very simple, logically consistent way to justify religions and spirituality (as a thought experiment at least.)
the other thing to think about here is how magic and weird physics is. the stuff that seems to be possible in modern physics is weird af – and it only gets weirder the smaller you go. particles just popping in and out of existence. holes in space and time… holes that can shoot out matter. other holes that can swallow it. glimpses into the past from outside of gravity. other smaller universes? advanced tech is another way to justify religion (if you want to) since being able to alter space and time is basically god-like. the last possibility for a kind of 'rational religion' i can think of: is a combination of rules we aren't aware of. electrons in the brain carving out a path somewhere else… perfectly preserving that person. i haven't the faintest clue how it would work but the cliched answer is 'we dont know everything'
ofc this is only a thought experiment, ofc religion is bullshit. the bible is literal dog shit. lmfaoo FUCKING ASS OFF!! btw, i wouldnt dismiss certain spiritual practices that popup just because they are found in religion. like meditation, for example. that shit is legit and has tons of health benefits.
My theory with fanatism and prozelytism, is that the individual in the persistent quest for thriving, will often affiliate to some form of authority that they believe will be the dominant power. As a fitting example take the cultural revolutoon in China.
As for why religion, consider that in middle eastern countries, islam is the dominant power and the population then becomes strong militants to them. As for christianism, while it is waning in power, it is still a binding force for so many communities, so it is still the dominant "narrative" among it's members.
As for political parties this is of course obvious, it is easy to mistake this in religion for some kind of spirituality. But it is in fact a form of affiliation to an institution and thus an alignment to an authority. Always in hope that the person will be somehow rewarded (eg enjoy a priviledged position) for being a strong adherent to the narrative.
Works well for thw North Korean regime, as well as the PPC in Shenzhen.
As for why religion, consider that in middle eastern countries, islam is the dominant power and the population then becomes strong militants to them. As for christianism, while it is waning in power, it is still a binding force for so many communities, so it is still the dominant "narrative" among it's members.
As for political parties this is of course obvious, it is easy to mistake this in religion for some kind of spirituality. But it is in fact a form of affiliation to an institution and thus an alignment to an authority. Always in hope that the person will be somehow rewarded (eg enjoy a priviledged position) for being a strong adherent to the narrative.
Works well for thw North Korean regime, as well as the PPC in Shenzhen.
>>175773
>if reality is controlled by a computer program then there can be entities that can do just about anything. you can turn water into wine, heal the sick with your hands, and walk on water.
And yet no such "miracle" has ever happened. What gives?
I think the simulation argument is pretty fucking dumb btw. Even if we're in a simulation, the dudes running the simulation might be in a simulation themselves. Or we could actually be the first generation to run a simulation in the far future. Or humanity will never give a fuck about running such a simulation, which is very likely. We've got better things to do and human history is well-recorded, no reason to run an ancestor simulation (and human ethics would probably forbid running a simulation with this much suffering anyway). OR the entities running the simulation are not human at all, highly civilized aliens and beings we can't even begin to comprehend, and humans only exist in this simulation by virtue of millions of years of RNG.
It's a worthless exercise tbh. The simulation hypothesis is more of a fun thought experiment than actual science. It's inherently unverifiable.
>the other thing to think about here is how magic and weird physics is.
From our observations the universe is completely chatoic, which reduces the probability that there's a divine plan or purpose of sorts.
>'we dont know everything'
Not quite. We don't know anything.
>i wouldnt dismiss certain spiritual practices that popup just because they are found in religion. like meditation, for example. that shit is legit and has tons of health benefits.
Meditation does appear to have its uses but the whole spiritual and religious woo woo surroundung it is off-putting. I also dislike the commercialization of the practice for Western new-age audiences, selling meditation as a product that is supposed to be the go-to cure for every single mental health issue plaguing Western society. Stressed out at work? Just meditate! Psychological trauma? Meditate the pain away. Depression? Be the Buddha.
also didn't read your spoiler before replying lol so whatever also I recommend tripping on LSD at least once, just to see what's possible in the reality we live in
>>175778
>As for christianism, while it is waning in power
It's actually the fastest-growing religion in Africa for what it's worth.
>if reality is controlled by a computer program then there can be entities that can do just about anything. you can turn water into wine, heal the sick with your hands, and walk on water.
And yet no such "miracle" has ever happened. What gives?
I think the simulation argument is pretty fucking dumb btw. Even if we're in a simulation, the dudes running the simulation might be in a simulation themselves. Or we could actually be the first generation to run a simulation in the far future. Or humanity will never give a fuck about running such a simulation, which is very likely. We've got better things to do and human history is well-recorded, no reason to run an ancestor simulation (and human ethics would probably forbid running a simulation with this much suffering anyway). OR the entities running the simulation are not human at all, highly civilized aliens and beings we can't even begin to comprehend, and humans only exist in this simulation by virtue of millions of years of RNG.
It's a worthless exercise tbh. The simulation hypothesis is more of a fun thought experiment than actual science. It's inherently unverifiable.
>the other thing to think about here is how magic and weird physics is.
From our observations the universe is completely chatoic, which reduces the probability that there's a divine plan or purpose of sorts.
>'we dont know everything'
Not quite. We don't know anything.
>i wouldnt dismiss certain spiritual practices that popup just because they are found in religion. like meditation, for example. that shit is legit and has tons of health benefits.
Meditation does appear to have its uses but the whole spiritual and religious woo woo surroundung it is off-putting. I also dislike the commercialization of the practice for Western new-age audiences, selling meditation as a product that is supposed to be the go-to cure for every single mental health issue plaguing Western society. Stressed out at work? Just meditate! Psychological trauma? Meditate the pain away. Depression? Be the Buddha.
also didn't read your spoiler before replying lol so whatever also I recommend tripping on LSD at least once, just to see what's possible in the reality we live in
>>175778
>As for christianism, while it is waning in power
It's actually the fastest-growing religion in Africa for what it's worth.
>>175782
>From our observations the universe is completely chatoic
maybe if youre taking LSD, but ill tell you what i observe. i go outside and i see people, i see animals, i see the sun. some of the people are good and some of the people are bad. the animals, the sun, and everything natural behaves in a predictable manner. i come home and do the same things, and no day is too different from the others.
whatever chaos youre talking about, it isnt real.
>From our observations the universe is completely chatoic
maybe if youre taking LSD, but ill tell you what i observe. i go outside and i see people, i see animals, i see the sun. some of the people are good and some of the people are bad. the animals, the sun, and everything natural behaves in a predictable manner. i come home and do the same things, and no day is too different from the others.
whatever chaos youre talking about, it isnt real.
>>175788
The universe is a whole lot larger than Earth, where things may make sense at first glance.
The universe is a whole lot larger than Earth, where things may make sense at first glance.
>>172180
Normalfaggots never question their logic, they don't generally get introspective and then project, they get programmed by their ethics, the super-ergo in psychology being not of a choice one makes, and the project their sense of inner evil onto any sinner. This creates a militant society that witch hunts.
They need some social construct so that they can boot lick one another for the sake of an attack on any pagan empire. That's just how it works. Such sheep don't understand it themselves, they merely act, they fall in line. Agents of the system.
Normalfaggots never question their logic, they don't generally get introspective and then project, they get programmed by their ethics, the super-ergo in psychology being not of a choice one makes, and the project their sense of inner evil onto any sinner. This creates a militant society that witch hunts.
They need some social construct so that they can boot lick one another for the sake of an attack on any pagan empire. That's just how it works. Such sheep don't understand it themselves, they merely act, they fall in line. Agents of the system.
>>172721
>>172616
If you don't know then you're just another normalfaggot that can't think for himself. The answer is obvious as per my above post. We're not part of the (((system))) of which abrhamic religions inherently are just to ban fun for the sake of slavery to the higher ups. It is designed to make you hate yourself and be a slave not just in real life but a slave to the fear that keeps you from thinking freely. Like some sort of robot without a soul, yet you think you have the right to say everyone else goes to hell? Your neuroprogramming has designed you to go to a holy war with the less efficient pagan empire, it fell due to this and now you retardedly don't realize what happened. A game of tactics between differing types of kingdoms.
If not for religious types we could be immortal right now due to banned scientific research, scientific research pagan empires never would have banned such as stem cell research. Hate someone? Fight them to the death. That's banned by such christfaggot programming too in modern times. Unless of course he's a communist atheist in which case in recent memory the christian mind was okay with it. Like with bombing Japan. They didn't believe in god so it was excusable to exterminate them. They gave up so the government claims they had no more than two little nukes. They would have exterminated them all.
>>172616
If you don't know then you're just another normalfaggot that can't think for himself. The answer is obvious as per my above post. We're not part of the (((system))) of which abrhamic religions inherently are just to ban fun for the sake of slavery to the higher ups. It is designed to make you hate yourself and be a slave not just in real life but a slave to the fear that keeps you from thinking freely. Like some sort of robot without a soul, yet you think you have the right to say everyone else goes to hell? Your neuroprogramming has designed you to go to a holy war with the less efficient pagan empire, it fell due to this and now you retardedly don't realize what happened. A game of tactics between differing types of kingdoms.
If not for religious types we could be immortal right now due to banned scientific research, scientific research pagan empires never would have banned such as stem cell research. Hate someone? Fight them to the death. That's banned by such christfaggot programming too in modern times. Unless of course he's a communist atheist in which case in recent memory the christian mind was okay with it. Like with bombing Japan. They didn't believe in god so it was excusable to exterminate them. They gave up so the government claims they had no more than two little nukes. They would have exterminated them all.
>>172629
Obviously if you have no life you'll either change yourself or realize that the next logical step is to attack the system that you are incompatible with. A non-loser is too happy to bother for obvious reasons. Being insecure? Really? Technically true, but your word usage suggests that you love jewish mind games and are offended when they are criticized. Do you deny it? Because there's no logical reason to hate who you are, so insecure is not really the right word. If you are intelligent enough to delete your jewish programming and still end up with a shit life then the system was very flawed most likely, because you're not even that stupid.
Obviously if you have no life you'll either change yourself or realize that the next logical step is to attack the system that you are incompatible with. A non-loser is too happy to bother for obvious reasons. Being insecure? Really? Technically true, but your word usage suggests that you love jewish mind games and are offended when they are criticized. Do you deny it? Because there's no logical reason to hate who you are, so insecure is not really the right word. If you are intelligent enough to delete your jewish programming and still end up with a shit life then the system was very flawed most likely, because you're not even that stupid.
>>175796
>Because there's no logical reason to hate who you are, so insecure is not really the right word.
Pause.
>Because there's no logical reason to hate who you are, so insecure is not really the right word.
Pause.