File: 1660612289987.jpg (68.81 KB, 940x700, 47:35, 552255.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Any wizzies that used to be atheists but stopped? If you are willing to share, what made you change?
File: 1660615085302.pdf (2.32 MB, Robert Bruce - Energy Work.pdf)
I went through the exercises in this book and they actually worked towards radically improving my health. This made me cast doubt on my assumption that conscious awareness is just a byproduct of matter, since a mere exercise in awareness transformation was able to alter my biology so radically. I then experimented with thoughtforms, and the fact that they worked more often than they didn't made me think that there was probably a good possibility that the metaphysical is more than just illusory. Eventually I started experimenting with telekinesis, after a month of exercises with a psi wheel I was able to pull off an overt movement that was completely impossible to handwave as just a result of coincidental air currents, which caused me to completely do away with my previous belief of materialist atheism.
File: 1660642351308.png (435.08 KB, 659x1211, 659:1211, orochi.png) ImgOps iqdb
Like I said in some other thread on dep, the coincidences are just way too much for me to ignore them. The fact that intelligent life exists on Earth and seems to be something not that common in the universe and the fact that humans managed to evolve so much over time prove to me that some intelligent will is directing the course of things.
Art, philosophy, having plans and ideas and making them reality, the possibility of going against your base animal drives…these all prove to me that humans are special. Like it was said in the movie Signs, there are two types of people: one thinks everything is just a coincidence and the other sees signs everywhere. I belong to the latter type. The chances of life developing at all are EXTREMELY rare and would need crazy luck to happen. But life didn't only develop on Earth, it persisted and evolved. So much that intelligent, aware beings appeared like us. All the while planets are being destroyed regularly around us in the universe. I'm not that kind of moron who can just shrug and say there is no reason behind anything. There is a reason we exist and it is evolution. Evolution is God's plan.
God arranges everything in life but that doesn't mean life is just according to our morality. Life is hard, cruel, God is cruel most of the time too. At least on the individuals. As for humanity itself, I believe he has some plan we can't understand yet. But it has to do with us transcending our biological limits and animal desires and indeed becoming something other than animals. Maybe the plan is to make humans more rational and more self-aware and more in control of themselves. We were given intelligence and self-awareness for reasons.
The problem with most depictions of God in religions is that they try to use God as a "moral judge or example". God doesn't care about morals, there is no free will anywhere and so we humans can't commit sins. Everyone does what he is predestined to do and everyone becomes whatever he needs to become. The world as it is - is according to God's liking. God doesn't want us to do anything lol we are already doing what he wants us to do.
Now, where do us wizards fit into evolution? You could say nowhere, since we don't reproduce and we are "genetic dead ends". That would be however, a false and one-sided view of things. We can still shape and influence events and the world. Of course everyone is just a tool of God but my point is there is spiritual, cultural or mental evolution too, not just physical or biological one. We were meant to be tools of spiritual evolution. While normals feel all at home in this world and such we see the hardships and suffering in it. We are the voice of reason in this world. We remind others that life isn't all just happy times, in fact life is more about suffering than anything. We represent God and the abstract world of ideals, concepts and thoughts. That is why we feel more at home in works of fiction than in material reality. We also don't fear Death so much because we realize this world is full of suffering and we feel it deep down that there must be other worlds and dimensions out there. Death is an illusion. We will keep repeating the eternal cycle until God and in turn us humans too "get it right". God is trying to build the best possible scenario or universe but keeps failing. And so life must continue until we reach perfection…if we can reach it at all.
Art, philosophy, having plans and ideas and making them reality, the possibility of going against your base animal drives…these all prove to me that humans are special. Like it was said in the movie Signs, there are two types of people: one thinks everything is just a coincidence and the other sees signs everywhere. I belong to the latter type. The chances of life developing at all are EXTREMELY rare and would need crazy luck to happen. But life didn't only develop on Earth, it persisted and evolved. So much that intelligent, aware beings appeared like us. All the while planets are being destroyed regularly around us in the universe. I'm not that kind of moron who can just shrug and say there is no reason behind anything. There is a reason we exist and it is evolution. Evolution is God's plan.
God arranges everything in life but that doesn't mean life is just according to our morality. Life is hard, cruel, God is cruel most of the time too. At least on the individuals. As for humanity itself, I believe he has some plan we can't understand yet. But it has to do with us transcending our biological limits and animal desires and indeed becoming something other than animals. Maybe the plan is to make humans more rational and more self-aware and more in control of themselves. We were given intelligence and self-awareness for reasons.
The problem with most depictions of God in religions is that they try to use God as a "moral judge or example". God doesn't care about morals, there is no free will anywhere and so we humans can't commit sins. Everyone does what he is predestined to do and everyone becomes whatever he needs to become. The world as it is - is according to God's liking. God doesn't want us to do anything lol we are already doing what he wants us to do.
Now, where do us wizards fit into evolution? You could say nowhere, since we don't reproduce and we are "genetic dead ends". That would be however, a false and one-sided view of things. We can still shape and influence events and the world. Of course everyone is just a tool of God but my point is there is spiritual, cultural or mental evolution too, not just physical or biological one. We were meant to be tools of spiritual evolution. While normals feel all at home in this world and such we see the hardships and suffering in it. We are the voice of reason in this world. We remind others that life isn't all just happy times, in fact life is more about suffering than anything. We represent God and the abstract world of ideals, concepts and thoughts. That is why we feel more at home in works of fiction than in material reality. We also don't fear Death so much because we realize this world is full of suffering and we feel it deep down that there must be other worlds and dimensions out there. Death is an illusion. We will keep repeating the eternal cycle until God and in turn us humans too "get it right". God is trying to build the best possible scenario or universe but keeps failing. And so life must continue until we reach perfection…if we can reach it at all.
File: 1660662585731.png (2.41 MB, 1000x1333, 1000:1333, tzeench.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>194062
>God arranges everything in life
>As for humanity itself, I believe he has some plan we can't understand yet.
>plan
>Of course everyone is just a tool of God
>God arranges everything in life
>As for humanity itself, I believe he has some plan we can't understand yet.
>plan
>Of course everyone is just a tool of God
I used to believe in eternal oblivion (nothingness after death) but I realized it doesnt make sense to experience nothing, nothingness is impossible, but if it was the other way, the odds of existing are very low, why would you exist then? because nothingness is impossible. The soul (consciousness) is a never ending river
>>194081
>nothingness is impossible
It does, but good luck annihilating yourself.
>is a never ending river
Nothing is eternal, everything is ceases to be save for god.
>nothingness is impossible
It does, but good luck annihilating yourself.
>is a never ending river
Nothing is eternal, everything is ceases to be save for god.
>>194081
Exactly. God is Nothingness/Nothing. The term God is beneath it. Something you cannot experiece let alone describe fully in human terms. I remember reading about a catholic heretic that understood this. It's how i see the most high(no-thing).
Exactly. God is Nothingness/Nothing. The term God is beneath it. Something you cannot experiece let alone describe fully in human terms. I remember reading about a catholic heretic that understood this. It's how i see the most high(no-thing).
>>194084
It doesnt if you have a soul (consciousness). The closest thing that can happen is being trapped in an abyss where nothing exists except for your consciousness
It doesnt if you have a soul (consciousness). The closest thing that can happen is being trapped in an abyss where nothing exists except for your consciousness
>>194092
Void, not abyss.
And soul is not impossible to destroy.
But is indeed very hard if not borderline impossible if you don't have means and knowledge to do so.
Void, not abyss.
And soul is not impossible to destroy.
But is indeed very hard if not borderline impossible if you don't have means and knowledge to do so.
Taking nbome-25i in 2012 put me on a religious trip that only winded down about 6 months ago
>>194128
I used to take a lot of DMT, LSD, shrooms and those designer drugs or whatever they're called. Never had a spiritual experience even once. I always considered them to just reinforce what one already believed deep down.
I used to take a lot of DMT, LSD, shrooms and those designer drugs or whatever they're called. Never had a spiritual experience even once. I always considered them to just reinforce what one already believed deep down.
>>194062
>We represent God and the abstract world of ideals, concepts and thoughts.
I saw this one coming.
>We represent God and the abstract world of ideals, concepts and thoughts.
I saw this one coming.
I'd grown up without any religious stuff at all but eventually started looking into it after I think someone posted some william lane craig debate on /pol/ when I used it like a decade ago.
Spent a couple years reading into it, eventually became Catholic but me hating being around people and unable to socialize has sort of kept me from fully living the life. That was over 5 years ago now I still read lots and when I'm functioning better do prayer and try to go to mass but still mostly just crawling along.
Everything I've read and thought has sort of affirmed it and really gave me a much better view of life, or one that at least can be made sense of. I haven't really seriously thought about killing myself since though the thoughts and images are still daily, not through fear of punishment though but because of how it is so contrary to what's good.
I don't think it's really conceivable I'll stop being religious, I hope I am able to be semi-functional at it. The alternative world views are just kind of shallow and useless, there is no explanatory power and it just fails to make sense of things. Having a sort of integrated view of philosophy with God as maintaining things in existence in accord with their natures, morality as being rooted in that, as well as happiness, and the sort of joy in living of letting those things express themselves the fundamental way I approach everything now. It's helped me think through my extreme social alienation and dysfunction in a way that I think accounts for how horrible it is without being totally pessimistic.
Humans to express the beauty and goodness of their natures need to be rooted and participating in a world/society, meaning a sort of set of practices and attachments that help make other human beings intelligible to them, and help them to bring about the good in each other. We've had that totally gutted and basically no one has that now, most people replacing it with advertising/propaganda. So the alienation lets us keep that sort of more accurate view of reality which most wizzies at least have presented to them, so there is a sense in which the alienation atleast at the start does enable you to have a better relationship with God. (Heidegger would call this being "suspended out over the nothing"/anxiety and says it's where the roots of philosophical/metaphysical thinking are) Being an alienated weirdo, you aren't able to participate in the normal social goods but because of that you are able to get something of an outside view on what those goods actually are.
If you maintain an openness to seeing those goods, seeing what's cutting you off of them that sort of leaves you with a choice with whether to seek out some fundamental underlying unity, or throwing in the towel and giving into nihilism. If you hold on to the goods you see and try to force some way to see what's underlying you get to God (the cause of the things that exist insofar as they are good). It gives some nobility to my complete inadequacy to do anything, there is something of great significance occurring and I have the opportunity to do good so my failures hurt but give a route out and when I am able to do something good it's winning against evil itself with the help of God.
It accounts for the evil and suffering, and the goodness. I think things that turn against there being some ultimate fundamental unity fail to sufficiently account for how bad evil is, or how good good is. It's ultimately ungrateful or a lack of fidelity to what is good, and a lack of respect for dealing properly with what's bad. It's a goofy existentialist direction I've gone in but now God is just a part of every decision and judgement I make and nothing would be intelligible without it. (I'm not super familiar with Kant but I do know he argues the idea of God (though he doesn't say this means he exists) is necessary in order to form judgements which sounds similar but I'm convinced of the metaphysical proofs as well)
Some novels I really like that really get this point across
Wonderful Fool by Shusaku Endo, the author says he likes to make his characters as pathetic as possible because it makes him feel like he has a chance. Main character is a dumb ugly guy no one likes and can't do anything properly, my favorite novel. Also has heavy anime vibes even though its from the 50s.
The Man Who Was Thursday by GK Chesterton, Chesterton isn't for everyone but this really touches on that fundamental attitude towards reality. The author said he tried to create the bleakest situation possible to show there can be light.
Wizzies also might like Flannery O'Connor stuff though she is a succubus Wiseblood has a movie on youtube that's pretty good, they intentionally made sure it was made by an athiest so it wasn't cringe.
If you want some more normal stuff instead of my existentialist gobbeldy gook read the Gospel of Luke, and maybe the Last Superstition by Ed Feser. That books is a pretty good semi-popular introduction to the related philosophical issues and at least refuting the really dumb ideas normies have, I found it useful early on. If you want Existentialist gobbeldy gook check out man against mass society by gabriel marcel.
Spent a couple years reading into it, eventually became Catholic but me hating being around people and unable to socialize has sort of kept me from fully living the life. That was over 5 years ago now I still read lots and when I'm functioning better do prayer and try to go to mass but still mostly just crawling along.
Everything I've read and thought has sort of affirmed it and really gave me a much better view of life, or one that at least can be made sense of. I haven't really seriously thought about killing myself since though the thoughts and images are still daily, not through fear of punishment though but because of how it is so contrary to what's good.
I don't think it's really conceivable I'll stop being religious, I hope I am able to be semi-functional at it. The alternative world views are just kind of shallow and useless, there is no explanatory power and it just fails to make sense of things. Having a sort of integrated view of philosophy with God as maintaining things in existence in accord with their natures, morality as being rooted in that, as well as happiness, and the sort of joy in living of letting those things express themselves the fundamental way I approach everything now. It's helped me think through my extreme social alienation and dysfunction in a way that I think accounts for how horrible it is without being totally pessimistic.
Humans to express the beauty and goodness of their natures need to be rooted and participating in a world/society, meaning a sort of set of practices and attachments that help make other human beings intelligible to them, and help them to bring about the good in each other. We've had that totally gutted and basically no one has that now, most people replacing it with advertising/propaganda. So the alienation lets us keep that sort of more accurate view of reality which most wizzies at least have presented to them, so there is a sense in which the alienation atleast at the start does enable you to have a better relationship with God. (Heidegger would call this being "suspended out over the nothing"/anxiety and says it's where the roots of philosophical/metaphysical thinking are) Being an alienated weirdo, you aren't able to participate in the normal social goods but because of that you are able to get something of an outside view on what those goods actually are.
If you maintain an openness to seeing those goods, seeing what's cutting you off of them that sort of leaves you with a choice with whether to seek out some fundamental underlying unity, or throwing in the towel and giving into nihilism. If you hold on to the goods you see and try to force some way to see what's underlying you get to God (the cause of the things that exist insofar as they are good). It gives some nobility to my complete inadequacy to do anything, there is something of great significance occurring and I have the opportunity to do good so my failures hurt but give a route out and when I am able to do something good it's winning against evil itself with the help of God.
It accounts for the evil and suffering, and the goodness. I think things that turn against there being some ultimate fundamental unity fail to sufficiently account for how bad evil is, or how good good is. It's ultimately ungrateful or a lack of fidelity to what is good, and a lack of respect for dealing properly with what's bad. It's a goofy existentialist direction I've gone in but now God is just a part of every decision and judgement I make and nothing would be intelligible without it. (I'm not super familiar with Kant but I do know he argues the idea of God (though he doesn't say this means he exists) is necessary in order to form judgements which sounds similar but I'm convinced of the metaphysical proofs as well)
Some novels I really like that really get this point across
Wonderful Fool by Shusaku Endo, the author says he likes to make his characters as pathetic as possible because it makes him feel like he has a chance. Main character is a dumb ugly guy no one likes and can't do anything properly, my favorite novel. Also has heavy anime vibes even though its from the 50s.
The Man Who Was Thursday by GK Chesterton, Chesterton isn't for everyone but this really touches on that fundamental attitude towards reality. The author said he tried to create the bleakest situation possible to show there can be light.
Wizzies also might like Flannery O'Connor stuff though she is a succubus Wiseblood has a movie on youtube that's pretty good, they intentionally made sure it was made by an athiest so it wasn't cringe.
If you want some more normal stuff instead of my existentialist gobbeldy gook read the Gospel of Luke, and maybe the Last Superstition by Ed Feser. That books is a pretty good semi-popular introduction to the related philosophical issues and at least refuting the really dumb ideas normies have, I found it useful early on. If you want Existentialist gobbeldy gook check out man against mass society by gabriel marcel.
>>194139
>Humans to express the beauty and goodness of their natures need to be rooted and participating in a world/society
Kingdom of god is not of this world.
>Humans to express the beauty and goodness of their natures need to be rooted and participating in a world/society
Kingdom of god is not of this world.
>>194137
Everyone who has some idea of God usually thinks God is on their side. I actually am more critical with this mindset, while people like us may stand closer to the abstract realm it doesn't mean God will protect us (according to our meaning of the sense) or will give us an easy life. He has his plans and those will be reality, as the only actual god is the God of Reality, as opposed to the lies spread by most religions. "See, God wants the world to be this or that way" It is very stupid when you think about it. The ruler of everything wants things to be some way so why doesn't he actually arrange things to be that way? Maybe, because, that wasn't his plan to start with. Everything is the way it is because God wants them to be as they are for some reason.
>>194139
Sounds like you see in religion or spirituality nothing else but worldly profit, so to speak. You are one of those people who became religious in order to justify the nice sentimental morality that hides behind mainstream religion. This is the big fault of religions in general if you ask me. They betray they are just control devices developed for the masses by placing so much emphasis on morality. If a religion cares about morals too much then it betrays that it cares about this world too much. So for example despite Christianity claiming that this world should be disregarded it occupies itself way too much with how things are in this world.
Everyone who has some idea of God usually thinks God is on their side. I actually am more critical with this mindset, while people like us may stand closer to the abstract realm it doesn't mean God will protect us (according to our meaning of the sense) or will give us an easy life. He has his plans and those will be reality, as the only actual god is the God of Reality, as opposed to the lies spread by most religions. "See, God wants the world to be this or that way" It is very stupid when you think about it. The ruler of everything wants things to be some way so why doesn't he actually arrange things to be that way? Maybe, because, that wasn't his plan to start with. Everything is the way it is because God wants them to be as they are for some reason.
>>194139
Sounds like you see in religion or spirituality nothing else but worldly profit, so to speak. You are one of those people who became religious in order to justify the nice sentimental morality that hides behind mainstream religion. This is the big fault of religions in general if you ask me. They betray they are just control devices developed for the masses by placing so much emphasis on morality. If a religion cares about morals too much then it betrays that it cares about this world too much. So for example despite Christianity claiming that this world should be disregarded it occupies itself way too much with how things are in this world.
I did read old testament/new testament and quran’s T*rkish translation last year and I did became even more anti religion than before.
Old testament was extremely disgusting and appalling.Its just evil jews doing extremely evil things and their god doing horrfiying things. There were also bunch of anti scientific bulshit like adam and eve, noah’s zoo ship things like that. I don’t understand how could anyone believe this books in 2022 . Old testament especially was the most appalling book , I ever read and compared to new testament god of it definitely not the same. Marcion of Sinope was right god of old and new testaments are not the same. Quran was also similar and just same semitic things.
Old testament was extremely disgusting and appalling.Its just evil jews doing extremely evil things and their god doing horrfiying things. There were also bunch of anti scientific bulshit like adam and eve, noah’s zoo ship things like that. I don’t understand how could anyone believe this books in 2022 . Old testament especially was the most appalling book , I ever read and compared to new testament god of it definitely not the same. Marcion of Sinope was right god of old and new testaments are not the same. Quran was also similar and just same semitic things.
>>194126
I understood, but i see God as beyond being, something we cannot understand nor experiece. The absolute is limited, it's defined thus i would not consider this entity the prime.
I understood, but i see God as beyond being, something we cannot understand nor experiece. The absolute is limited, it's defined thus i would not consider this entity the prime.
>>194152
>>194154
Jesus Christ, the Logos, was incarnate. Christianity isn't anti-creation or creation is evil, it's about God lifting creation up and bringing it up into himself. We are partakers of the divine nature in heaven not to the exclusion of our created nature but through out.
Our nature as created beings, as humans is God creating the material pre-requisites, having the idea of human and creating us and maintaining us in existence with accord with it. Our lives and the things in the world are part of that, to act morally and meet the situations he gives us properly are to further express that divine act of creation. To the extent we are good humans, we express the divine idea of Humanity, and the act of existence of our being coming through that. It's totally dependent on God but he lifts us up so we are able to participate in it as well.
Mass is the same principle, through the fall and sin we are infinitely cut off from God and have no way to reconcile with something infinitely above us, that we are totally dependent on for everything. But through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is re-presented at mass, we offer divinity to divinity for reconciliation. The other sacraments are similar participations, it's God going out of his way to lift up creation in a way that is totally gratuitous. We are obliged to respond by giving ourselves fully to it. It's not a nice sentimental thing, every bad action you do is given extreme almost infinite negative consequence and you live in a simultaneous fear of yourself and loving trust in God. You can still throw it away but if you throw yourself before God and ask for assistance we know he will give it, for he already gave himself fully on the Cross.
This world is temporary and passing, but God gives us the ability to glorify him in it, which can have eternal positive consequences. The vanity is to seek the world in itself, so long as it is in reference to the ultimate there is nothing wrong with instrumentally participating in the goods of the world. The world does have genuine goods in it, but those are but pale reflections of God (For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.) so we must give heed to the goods in the world out of respect for God, but ensure we are always referring them to Him as their ultimate source and end. That's the only way to have a proper relationship to God, the most extreme monks still do physical labor and have beautiful music though for people in extreme ascetism moving past the worldly goods to focus on God directly is the route they end up with. Very few people actually get to that place though and making use of worldly goods (like your attempts to communicate your ideas to me through this text) is necessary for us to limp along.
>>194154
Jesus Christ, the Logos, was incarnate. Christianity isn't anti-creation or creation is evil, it's about God lifting creation up and bringing it up into himself. We are partakers of the divine nature in heaven not to the exclusion of our created nature but through out.
Our nature as created beings, as humans is God creating the material pre-requisites, having the idea of human and creating us and maintaining us in existence with accord with it. Our lives and the things in the world are part of that, to act morally and meet the situations he gives us properly are to further express that divine act of creation. To the extent we are good humans, we express the divine idea of Humanity, and the act of existence of our being coming through that. It's totally dependent on God but he lifts us up so we are able to participate in it as well.
Mass is the same principle, through the fall and sin we are infinitely cut off from God and have no way to reconcile with something infinitely above us, that we are totally dependent on for everything. But through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which is re-presented at mass, we offer divinity to divinity for reconciliation. The other sacraments are similar participations, it's God going out of his way to lift up creation in a way that is totally gratuitous. We are obliged to respond by giving ourselves fully to it. It's not a nice sentimental thing, every bad action you do is given extreme almost infinite negative consequence and you live in a simultaneous fear of yourself and loving trust in God. You can still throw it away but if you throw yourself before God and ask for assistance we know he will give it, for he already gave himself fully on the Cross.
This world is temporary and passing, but God gives us the ability to glorify him in it, which can have eternal positive consequences. The vanity is to seek the world in itself, so long as it is in reference to the ultimate there is nothing wrong with instrumentally participating in the goods of the world. The world does have genuine goods in it, but those are but pale reflections of God (For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.) so we must give heed to the goods in the world out of respect for God, but ensure we are always referring them to Him as their ultimate source and end. That's the only way to have a proper relationship to God, the most extreme monks still do physical labor and have beautiful music though for people in extreme ascetism moving past the worldly goods to focus on God directly is the route they end up with. Very few people actually get to that place though and making use of worldly goods (like your attempts to communicate your ideas to me through this text) is necessary for us to limp along.
>>194171
If Christianity is right, then why is evil and sin in the world? If God hates or condemns something then why does he allow it to exist?
If Christianity is right, then why is evil and sin in the world? If God hates or condemns something then why does he allow it to exist?
>>194166
You are interpreting crude, ancient occult literature through lens of scientism.
You are antiscience yourself, midwit.
You are interpreting crude, ancient occult literature through lens of scientism.
You are antiscience yourself, midwit.
File: 1660752941853.jpg (135.56 KB, 600x516, 50:43, blake_book_of_job_linell_s….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>194188
God "said" that he never lies and yet he sent a "lying spirit" to deceive people in 2 Chronicles 18:21, Maybe YHWH is not what he claims to be after all, or maybe he's not real.
God "said" that he never lies and yet he sent a "lying spirit" to deceive people in 2 Chronicles 18:21, Maybe YHWH is not what he claims to be after all, or maybe he's not real.
>>194188
So that greater good that can come from it. It's not something particularly satisfying but we can work to it philosophically.
How it works more specifically would be being and goodness are essentially interchangeable. A tree is a good to the extent it is a good instance of a tree, and good for tree things, same thing applies to humans. Because humans have free will, we are able to turn against our own being and do evil, which is contrary to God. Specifically they would say evil is a privation/doesn't have any positive existence of it's own and is parasitic off of something that is of itself good. Satan, insofar as he exists, is good but he is a great evil because he has turned his goodness contrary to God.
We really just don't have enough awareness of the full situation to say there can't be a good that justifies all the suffering in the world, and I think there is. Whatever the next life is as something eternal is very hard to compare, everything in this life might be miniscule in comparison even the greatest of suffering.
We suffer originally do to the fall, and humans going against God, but because of that we can be lifted up far higher then before. Ultimately the idea of heaven is something of a participation in the divine goodness, it's basically inconceivable how that would be but that's not something that would have been possible before.
Like I mentioned in my first post some of the horrific suffering, hurricanes or disease or just extreme social alienation can actually be the means by which people are led to better things. If the reward for a temporal suffering is eternal joy that is merited it can make sense of it.
Ultimately evil is mysterious and there is something of a faith that because God is goodness itself things are arranged so that ultimately it will be made sense of, but we can't really conceive of what that might be in any way that's actually satisfying. Evil and how horrific some suffering is probably the only good real objection to God/religious stuff, but I don't think it does enough to undermine all the positive reasons. Especially with Christianity where God himself takes on all the suffering of the world. I'd recommend reading the gospel of John particularly the end to read about the Passion of Christ if you haven't https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18-21&version=RSVCE. Again as I mentioned above I think ultimately this at least makes an account of how good things can be, and how bad things can be while other explanations end up not sufficiently accounting either for how horrific things can be, or how good they can be. It's not a super satisfying answer but it's the only one I know of.
A related quote I like on evil (from the above mentioned book A Man Who Was Thursday)
When I see the horrible back, I am sure the noble face is but a mask. When I see the face but for an instant, I know the back is only a jest. Bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good, that we feel certain that evil could be explained.
Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front–
A quote I like on the passionfrom the same author
The mob went along with the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the philosophers and the moralists. It went along with the imperial magistrates and the sacred priests, the scribes and the soldiers, that the one universal human spirit might suffer a universal condemnation; that there might be one deep, unanimous chorus of approval and harmony when Man was rejected of men.
There were solitudes beyond where none shall follow. There were secrets in the inmost and invisible part of that drama that have no symbol in speech; or in any severance of a man from men. Nor is it easy for any words less stark and single-minded than those of the naked narrative even to hint at the horror of exaltation that lifted itself above the hill. Endless expositions have not come to the end of it, or even to the beginning. And if there be any sound that can produce a silence, we may surely be silent about the end and the extremity; when a cry was driven out of that darkness in words dreadfully distinct and dreadfully unintelligible, which man shall never understand in all the eternity they have purchased for him; and for one annihilating instant an abyss that is not for our thoughts had opened even in the unity of the absolute; and God had been forsaken of God.
So that greater good that can come from it. It's not something particularly satisfying but we can work to it philosophically.
How it works more specifically would be being and goodness are essentially interchangeable. A tree is a good to the extent it is a good instance of a tree, and good for tree things, same thing applies to humans. Because humans have free will, we are able to turn against our own being and do evil, which is contrary to God. Specifically they would say evil is a privation/doesn't have any positive existence of it's own and is parasitic off of something that is of itself good. Satan, insofar as he exists, is good but he is a great evil because he has turned his goodness contrary to God.
We really just don't have enough awareness of the full situation to say there can't be a good that justifies all the suffering in the world, and I think there is. Whatever the next life is as something eternal is very hard to compare, everything in this life might be miniscule in comparison even the greatest of suffering.
We suffer originally do to the fall, and humans going against God, but because of that we can be lifted up far higher then before. Ultimately the idea of heaven is something of a participation in the divine goodness, it's basically inconceivable how that would be but that's not something that would have been possible before.
Like I mentioned in my first post some of the horrific suffering, hurricanes or disease or just extreme social alienation can actually be the means by which people are led to better things. If the reward for a temporal suffering is eternal joy that is merited it can make sense of it.
Ultimately evil is mysterious and there is something of a faith that because God is goodness itself things are arranged so that ultimately it will be made sense of, but we can't really conceive of what that might be in any way that's actually satisfying. Evil and how horrific some suffering is probably the only good real objection to God/religious stuff, but I don't think it does enough to undermine all the positive reasons. Especially with Christianity where God himself takes on all the suffering of the world. I'd recommend reading the gospel of John particularly the end to read about the Passion of Christ if you haven't https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18-21&version=RSVCE. Again as I mentioned above I think ultimately this at least makes an account of how good things can be, and how bad things can be while other explanations end up not sufficiently accounting either for how horrific things can be, or how good they can be. It's not a super satisfying answer but it's the only one I know of.
A related quote I like on evil (from the above mentioned book A Man Who Was Thursday)
When I see the horrible back, I am sure the noble face is but a mask. When I see the face but for an instant, I know the back is only a jest. Bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good, that we feel certain that evil could be explained.
Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front–
A quote I like on the passionfrom the same author
The mob went along with the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the philosophers and the moralists. It went along with the imperial magistrates and the sacred priests, the scribes and the soldiers, that the one universal human spirit might suffer a universal condemnation; that there might be one deep, unanimous chorus of approval and harmony when Man was rejected of men.
There were solitudes beyond where none shall follow. There were secrets in the inmost and invisible part of that drama that have no symbol in speech; or in any severance of a man from men. Nor is it easy for any words less stark and single-minded than those of the naked narrative even to hint at the horror of exaltation that lifted itself above the hill. Endless expositions have not come to the end of it, or even to the beginning. And if there be any sound that can produce a silence, we may surely be silent about the end and the extremity; when a cry was driven out of that darkness in words dreadfully distinct and dreadfully unintelligible, which man shall never understand in all the eternity they have purchased for him; and for one annihilating instant an abyss that is not for our thoughts had opened even in the unity of the absolute; and God had been forsaken of God.
>>194188
Also my favorite movie is about this issue, much of malicks movies touch on related ideas and he's really helped to shape my attitude towards it.
Also my favorite movie is about this issue, much of malicks movies touch on related ideas and he's really helped to shape my attitude towards it.
i was atheist but became apatheist which really just means i dont care about the issue either way anymore
>>194200
Read the article "Sceptical Theism and Divine Lies" written by Erik J. Wielenberg. The Christian God may have a morally sufficient reason to lie about many things in order to bring a greater good into existence, so the things supposedly said by him in the bible should not be taken for granted automatically.
Read the article "Sceptical Theism and Divine Lies" written by Erik J. Wielenberg. The Christian God may have a morally sufficient reason to lie about many things in order to bring a greater good into existence, so the things supposedly said by him in the bible should not be taken for granted automatically.
Im 30, i grew up going to catholic school, now my mom is a crazy protestant. I dabbled in the occult and explored many religions and philosophies and ideologies in my 20s. I never got caught up in that online larping trad caths or anything like that. I ended up having a psychotic break down which is a long story. After that i avoided spiritualty for the most part. So i have come out the other end an atheist again, there is no heaven or hell, when we die our bones turn to dust and we just become nothing
>>194213
>we just become nothing
every part of your body will inevitably be used by other living organisms. you will be reconstituted into new living forms over and over again for the rest of eternity, or "reincarnated" if you will.
>we just become nothing
every part of your body will inevitably be used by other living organisms. you will be reconstituted into new living forms over and over again for the rest of eternity, or "reincarnated" if you will.
>>194200
> greater good
This is one of most dumbest copes.
He is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and most benevolent being.
And yet here we are.
> greater good
This is one of most dumbest copes.
He is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing and most benevolent being.
And yet here we are.
>>194191
It's obviously lies, I just wanted to hear his excuses.
>>194200
>free will
The whole story goes down the drain with this. Free will and Providence are mutually exclusive. You either say that everything happens according to God's plan (so no free will) or you believe in something like theism, meaning God only created the world but he doesn't influence its events any further. You can't have both free will and God arranging things according to some plan.
According to lore, God created us and demons too. Yet we don't fulfill the purpose he created us for. So he made us on purpose to be evil and rebels that he could serve "justice" on us? He is like an artist who paints a picture wrong on purpose and then says how shit the painting is and expects the painting to be the Mona Lisa.
What you are saying with the whole "suffering and evil serve a greater good" thing is that you refuse to make judgments for yourself based on how the world is. Jesus said himself that the good tree is known by its fruit, no? So God can be judged based on his creations. His creations - us - are full of faults (according to his expectations and values) so the creator isn't perfect at all. Or he is perfect but trolling with us. That is, if we accept the Christian narrative in the first place, which we shouldn't do.
>>194207
>may have
More baseless assumptions and white-knighting for one of the worst theologies or God-images in the history of humanity. People should just accept that Christianity is full of plotholes and logical errors because it is a mix of different theological systems.
It's obviously lies, I just wanted to hear his excuses.
>>194200
>free will
The whole story goes down the drain with this. Free will and Providence are mutually exclusive. You either say that everything happens according to God's plan (so no free will) or you believe in something like theism, meaning God only created the world but he doesn't influence its events any further. You can't have both free will and God arranging things according to some plan.
According to lore, God created us and demons too. Yet we don't fulfill the purpose he created us for. So he made us on purpose to be evil and rebels that he could serve "justice" on us? He is like an artist who paints a picture wrong on purpose and then says how shit the painting is and expects the painting to be the Mona Lisa.
What you are saying with the whole "suffering and evil serve a greater good" thing is that you refuse to make judgments for yourself based on how the world is. Jesus said himself that the good tree is known by its fruit, no? So God can be judged based on his creations. His creations - us - are full of faults (according to his expectations and values) so the creator isn't perfect at all. Or he is perfect but trolling with us. That is, if we accept the Christian narrative in the first place, which we shouldn't do.
>>194207
>may have
More baseless assumptions and white-knighting for one of the worst theologies or God-images in the history of humanity. People should just accept that Christianity is full of plotholes and logical errors because it is a mix of different theological systems.
>>194190
Charles Darwin completely destroyed your hebrew mythology. Who is the anti-science? I maybe a midwit but at least I don’t believe in discredited lies and fraud creation myths.
Charles Darwin completely destroyed your hebrew mythology. Who is the anti-science? I maybe a midwit but at least I don’t believe in discredited lies and fraud creation myths.
>>194250
He didn’t visit a church single time after his discovery of evolution. Just read his biography
He didn’t visit a church single time after his discovery of evolution. Just read his biography
>>194249
>Charles Darwin completely destroyed your hebrew mythology.
You do not understand and comprehend what are you talking about, a concept of occult literature, as evolution could be creation method, nor you understand if evolution can actually work or not and how if it does.
>Charles Darwin completely destroyed your hebrew mythology.
You do not understand and comprehend what are you talking about, a concept of occult literature, as evolution could be creation method, nor you understand if evolution can actually work or not and how if it does.
>>194289
Evolution disproves your bibles genesis and makes your religion fraud.
>>194275
Science is the reason you could shit on religion-cultists, otherwise religious scum would’ve imprisoned you for blasphemy. Because evolution , common descent, natural selection, sexual selection these things made religions obsolete a fraud and their moral authority mostly collapsed.
Evolution disproves your bibles genesis and makes your religion fraud.
>>194275
Science is the reason you could shit on religion-cultists, otherwise religious scum would’ve imprisoned you for blasphemy. Because evolution , common descent, natural selection, sexual selection these things made religions obsolete a fraud and their moral authority mostly collapsed.
File: 1660925617498.png (684.06 KB, 960x886, 480:443, 5634577332345.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>194096
Empiricism is the foundation of science. Disregarding the evidence of your own senses simply because it goes against what some authority figures have told you is irrational.
Empiricism is the foundation of science. Disregarding the evidence of your own senses simply because it goes against what some authority figures have told you is irrational.
>>194301
Actually Science cultists do arrest people for blasphemy. Just look at their reaction to people questioning the covid hoax, especially in Europe and Australia.
Actually Science cultists do arrest people for blasphemy. Just look at their reaction to people questioning the covid hoax, especially in Europe and Australia.
My parents didn't raise me religious. We just didn't talk about it, they aren't atheists more like apatheists or agnostic. This was the best thing they ever did for me or my brothers. I've seen kids indoctrinated into the church from a young age and they always turn out to be little shits and when they have their rebellious phase it's much more extreme. I've tried to be Christian, pagan, and even Buddhist at one point in time and nothing "sticks". I think it's best to just live a virtuous life and not worry about religion
>>194301
Science didn't do anything but made new idols and dogmas for people to blindly accept them. Scientific materialism is a religion.
>>194313
Our senses aren't accurate. This is proven by hallucinations, illusions and such. Our senses evolved to make survival easier for us, not to give us an accurate picture of reality.
>>194319
What is considered virtuous is subjective. Depends on the cultural, religious and philosophical values of a society.
Science didn't do anything but made new idols and dogmas for people to blindly accept them. Scientific materialism is a religion.
>>194313
Our senses aren't accurate. This is proven by hallucinations, illusions and such. Our senses evolved to make survival easier for us, not to give us an accurate picture of reality.
>>194319
What is considered virtuous is subjective. Depends on the cultural, religious and philosophical values of a society.
>>194344
>Science didn't do anything
>He types on a machine that harnesses electricity through many circuits and sends certain bits of data to other machines via electromagnetic waves whilst stuffing his face with clumps of matter manufactured with extensive chemical research to activate parts of his tongue with a pleasing sensation, as described by the science of anatomy, made in a factory that requires various predictable physical laws in order to function correctly, that his mother got him whilst she was driving home in a machine that relies on the chemical properties of petroleum to power an intricate system of pistons that was manufactored in a factory that…
>Science didn't do anything
>He types on a machine that harnesses electricity through many circuits and sends certain bits of data to other machines via electromagnetic waves whilst stuffing his face with clumps of matter manufactured with extensive chemical research to activate parts of his tongue with a pleasing sensation, as described by the science of anatomy, made in a factory that requires various predictable physical laws in order to function correctly, that his mother got him whilst she was driving home in a machine that relies on the chemical properties of petroleum to power an intricate system of pistons that was manufactored in a factory that…
File: 1660995176567.gif (910.49 KB, 220x275, 4:5, 1656082336328.gif) ImgOps iqdb
>>194344
>Science didn't do anything but made new idols and dogmas for people to blindly accept them
>Our senses evolved to make survival easier for us
>Science didn't do anything but made new idols and dogmas for people to blindly accept them
>Our senses evolved to make survival easier for us
File: 1661009356291.jpg (1.16 MB, 3840x2160, 16:9, wp6540732.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>194344
Our senses are sometimes unreliable, no one in their right mind denies that, but we still depend on them to function in the world, science just makes systematic use of them to try to identify patterns and explain phenomena in the natural world. Materialism is about metaphysics, not science. Science is a method (or set of methods), it doesn't create idols, normalniggers create idols.
Our senses are sometimes unreliable, no one in their right mind denies that, but we still depend on them to function in the world, science just makes systematic use of them to try to identify patterns and explain phenomena in the natural world. Materialism is about metaphysics, not science. Science is a method (or set of methods), it doesn't create idols, normalniggers create idols.
File: 1661012651983.gif (2.87 MB, 200x169, 200:169, 200% mad.gif) ImgOps iqdb
>>194301
> otherwise religious scum would’ve imprisoned you for blasphemy.
Just like they do now, but blashemy and heresy are now called racism, antiscience, transphobia, etc.
We are back at dark ages again.
But if there is a fucking hell, i deeply wish for all theists and idealogues a fate worse than to burn in deepest pits of it.
I fucking hate theese people, with every fibre of my being.
> otherwise religious scum would’ve imprisoned you for blasphemy.
Just like they do now, but blashemy and heresy are now called racism, antiscience, transphobia, etc.
We are back at dark ages again.
But if there is a fucking hell, i deeply wish for all theists and idealogues a fate worse than to burn in deepest pits of it.
I fucking hate theese people, with every fibre of my being.
File: 1661013436558.png (961.82 KB, 687x647, 687:647, BB411942-E9EA-4F72-BC8F-96….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>194356
You don’t seem to get that all this shit, science, politics, religion, race, class etc. it’s all window dressing. The people who want to hurt others and exercise control over you, the people who clamor for resources and power, this shit means nothing to them. It’s all just excuses. So blaming an ideology for the actions of its believers makes no sense. And I know some retards will say “but uh ackshually wiz Islam condones this and that” or “duh Jews actually are supposed to this” or “but trannyism dictates they must blah blah blah” and to all that I say you are as blinded as they for believing in the lies they push. It isn’t, wasn’t, and never will be about philosophical or moral reason for those people, they do it to take power from you and keep it for themselves.
Power for power’s sake.
You don’t seem to get that all this shit, science, politics, religion, race, class etc. it’s all window dressing. The people who want to hurt others and exercise control over you, the people who clamor for resources and power, this shit means nothing to them. It’s all just excuses. So blaming an ideology for the actions of its believers makes no sense. And I know some retards will say “but uh ackshually wiz Islam condones this and that” or “duh Jews actually are supposed to this” or “but trannyism dictates they must blah blah blah” and to all that I say you are as blinded as they for believing in the lies they push. It isn’t, wasn’t, and never will be about philosophical or moral reason for those people, they do it to take power from you and keep it for themselves.
Power for power’s sake.
>be atheist
>curious about drugs
>take LSD and read the Psychedelic Experience
>congratulationsyouarenowabuddhist.eqanimity
>meet Christian tripper bro
>become best friends, learn about his religion and adopt it alongside my own
>end up with eclectic mix of spiritual views including Taoism and Hinduism
>start getting into older stuff too, and slowly turn schizo during this period
>posting from mental hospital right now
>every day I am happier and more whole
>every year my life gets cooler and more fun
I regret nothing.
>curious about drugs
>take LSD and read the Psychedelic Experience
>congratulationsyouarenowabuddhist.eqanimity
>meet Christian tripper bro
>become best friends, learn about his religion and adopt it alongside my own
>end up with eclectic mix of spiritual views including Taoism and Hinduism
>start getting into older stuff too, and slowly turn schizo during this period
>posting from mental hospital right now
>every day I am happier and more whole
>every year my life gets cooler and more fun
I regret nothing.
>be typical edgy teenaged blasphemous hardcore atheist
>experiment with psychs
>get your mind raped
>realize life goes deeper than material
>get into new age bullshit, astral projections, entity encounters
>new age bullshit just accelerates the hell i unleashed through psychs
>have mental breakdown
>rape and torture dreams daily
>month away from suicide or full schzio break
>no hope left
>God reaches out to me
>Go to church next Sunday
>Christian for 4 years now and never looking back
>experiment with psychs
>get your mind raped
>realize life goes deeper than material
>get into new age bullshit, astral projections, entity encounters
>new age bullshit just accelerates the hell i unleashed through psychs
>have mental breakdown
>rape and torture dreams daily
>month away from suicide or full schzio break
>no hope left
>God reaches out to me
>Go to church next Sunday
>Christian for 4 years now and never looking back
>be non-r9k crabby non-copenon-fag
>take tons of drugs for 2 decades straight
>never think anything besides void exists after death cuz always remember i took drugs for the purpose of seeing things
>dont develop super-psychosis coping mechanisms as most insane idiots do
>masturbate to morons falling into lunacy
lmao
>take tons of drugs for 2 decades straight
>never think anything besides void exists after death cuz always remember i took drugs for the purpose of seeing things
>dont develop super-psychosis coping mechanisms as most insane idiots do
>masturbate to morons falling into lunacy
lmao
My distaste toward christianity and christians grows every year, I hate them. However I have become more open to supernatural metaphysical type views of reality
>>194056
You're telling me, that you were a strictly rational, material atheist and then you stumbled upon this book, and did this placebo, power of suggestion exercises and stuck with them, keeping an open mind and poof just like that now you believe in spirituality?
You're telling me, that you were a strictly rational, material atheist and then you stumbled upon this book, and did this placebo, power of suggestion exercises and stuck with them, keeping an open mind and poof just like that now you believe in spirituality?
>>194348
Science made laptops but also idiots like you who can't think outside the box.
>>194354
I don't have a problem with materialism itself though I disagree with it. I have a problem with the science-cult who think science is the new god which will solve all of our problems in life and will explain everything about the universe. Hence I said "scientific materialism" and not just materialism.
>>194357
There are always people who use ideologies to hide behind them and to gain power. That doesn't take away value from the ideals themselves.
>So blaming an ideology for the actions of its believers makes no sense.
But I disagree with this. Some ideologies are just rotten as they are, some example: islam, state communism, natsoc, capitalism, etc.
Science made laptops but also idiots like you who can't think outside the box.
>>194354
I don't have a problem with materialism itself though I disagree with it. I have a problem with the science-cult who think science is the new god which will solve all of our problems in life and will explain everything about the universe. Hence I said "scientific materialism" and not just materialism.
>>194357
There are always people who use ideologies to hide behind them and to gain power. That doesn't take away value from the ideals themselves.
>So blaming an ideology for the actions of its believers makes no sense.
But I disagree with this. Some ideologies are just rotten as they are, some example: islam, state communism, natsoc, capitalism, etc.
>>194420
u just exposed how much of deluded, fluoridated, midwit you are. if youve taken psychs for 20 years and continue to just see cool patterns and nothing deeper then your mental ceiling is 2 inches above the floor.
u just exposed how much of deluded, fluoridated, midwit you are. if youve taken psychs for 20 years and continue to just see cool patterns and nothing deeper then your mental ceiling is 2 inches above the floor.
>>194444
>deluded, fluoridated, midwit
Funny coming from a spiritual idiot. It's always a shame you dumb fucks will never get to eat humble pie for the stupid shit you waste your life believing in since what little consciousness you possess now will be fully erased when you die.
>inb4 some cowardly baby cope about eternal life cuz death so scawy
occams razor begs to differ, kid. schizophrenic delusions of "past-life connection" are not evidence btw. you full well realize that you cant and dont have memories of pre-birth.
>deluded, fluoridated, midwit
Funny coming from a spiritual idiot. It's always a shame you dumb fucks will never get to eat humble pie for the stupid shit you waste your life believing in since what little consciousness you possess now will be fully erased when you die.
>inb4 some cowardly baby cope about eternal life cuz death so scawy
occams razor begs to differ, kid. schizophrenic delusions of "past-life connection" are not evidence btw. you full well realize that you cant and dont have memories of pre-birth.
>>194445
>cuz death so scawy
death is the easy way out. whats scary is knowing every action you take will affect you personally for the rest of eternity and that you have an obligation to do good in the world. you cant just sit idly by as the world deteriorates because theres no escaping the consequences. you personally have to educate those around you, you personally have to make a difference in the world, you are personally responsible for undertaking a monumental task for the rest of eternity and theres no way out.
>schizophrenic delusions of "past-life connection" are not evidence btw
no one here purports that schizophrenic delusions are evidence for anything
>cuz death so scawy
death is the easy way out. whats scary is knowing every action you take will affect you personally for the rest of eternity and that you have an obligation to do good in the world. you cant just sit idly by as the world deteriorates because theres no escaping the consequences. you personally have to educate those around you, you personally have to make a difference in the world, you are personally responsible for undertaking a monumental task for the rest of eternity and theres no way out.
>schizophrenic delusions of "past-life connection" are not evidence btw
no one here purports that schizophrenic delusions are evidence for anything
>>194446
I'm not sure what "doing good" matters in response to me. I certainly don't do malicious things regularly and without provocation just because I think void is the last stop. However, there are just too many problems in the world to make a dent. I try to do nice things for my family all the time, and sometimes for neighbors or strangers. I spent a lot of my free time in the past on volunteer work and there are a lot of cases where there is no relief in sight.
Was just trying to cover some bases with the other thing you quoted. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard such a thing told to me in response to equating death to my lack of consciousness pre-birth.
I'm not sure what "doing good" matters in response to me. I certainly don't do malicious things regularly and without provocation just because I think void is the last stop. However, there are just too many problems in the world to make a dent. I try to do nice things for my family all the time, and sometimes for neighbors or strangers. I spent a lot of my free time in the past on volunteer work and there are a lot of cases where there is no relief in sight.
Was just trying to cover some bases with the other thing you quoted. It wouldn't be the first time I've heard such a thing told to me in response to equating death to my lack of consciousness pre-birth.
>>194447
>Was just trying to cover some bases with the other thing you quoted
oh yeah im not the guy you were talking to
>I'm not sure what "doing good" matters in response to me
it matters because being bound to a course of action for the rest of time is much scarier than not existing at all, especially when that course of action looks so bleak and hopeless.
>However, there are just too many problems in the world to make a dent
that kind of attitude is something only someone who believes in death (or heaven) can have. if you believe in eternal life then you must act with all your strength because you know there is only one way forward.
>Was just trying to cover some bases with the other thing you quoted
oh yeah im not the guy you were talking to
>I'm not sure what "doing good" matters in response to me
it matters because being bound to a course of action for the rest of time is much scarier than not existing at all, especially when that course of action looks so bleak and hopeless.
>However, there are just too many problems in the world to make a dent
that kind of attitude is something only someone who believes in death (or heaven) can have. if you believe in eternal life then you must act with all your strength because you know there is only one way forward.
>>194424
>guy says he telekinetically moved a physical object
>"DURR PLACEBO!"
Can the mongs on this website even halfway pretend to not be retarded for three seconds? It would make more sense to accuse the guy of just making shit up than to say "muh placebo" if you bothered to read his one-paragraph post. (People who understand psychical research know that telekinesis or psychokinesis is real btw, but a very rare talent.)
>guy says he telekinetically moved a physical object
>"DURR PLACEBO!"
Can the mongs on this website even halfway pretend to not be retarded for three seconds? It would make more sense to accuse the guy of just making shit up than to say "muh placebo" if you bothered to read his one-paragraph post. (People who understand psychical research know that telekinesis or psychokinesis is real btw, but a very rare talent.)
Why do religious people think that a single entity could be responsible for so many complex results? Occam's razor says that the 'simplest answer is usually correct'. But sometimes the answer actually is quite complex. For example: the physics of fluids end up being insanely fucking complex. If you look at physics results there are often unimaginably complex. Look at the neutron transport equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_transport#Neutron_transport_equation
IMO: for a god to be able to create everything they would have to be greater than the sum of all known parts. They would quite literally have to exist in addition to all the known laws of the universe. This would violate countless laws of that universe. Most blaringly the conservation of matter and energy. It would be very hard for there to be a god unless our universes laws were artificial, arbitrarily limited, and existed inside of the context of another system. Like a computer or another universe. As if we were caged animals and the system wouldn't allow for the realization of all laws as we know it.
I suppose it would be possible to design a 'virtual machine' in such a way that any experiments that were done to conclude if it was a VM would be artificially fed results to indicate that it was a non-simulated machine. There would be no way to know that the results were tampered with. I feel like a god is possible but its probably not the most likely explanation and anything with god-like abilities would be better called something else. To differentiate it from mysticism / faith, and straight forwards systems.
IMO: for a god to be able to create everything they would have to be greater than the sum of all known parts. They would quite literally have to exist in addition to all the known laws of the universe. This would violate countless laws of that universe. Most blaringly the conservation of matter and energy. It would be very hard for there to be a god unless our universes laws were artificial, arbitrarily limited, and existed inside of the context of another system. Like a computer or another universe. As if we were caged animals and the system wouldn't allow for the realization of all laws as we know it.
I suppose it would be possible to design a 'virtual machine' in such a way that any experiments that were done to conclude if it was a VM would be artificially fed results to indicate that it was a non-simulated machine. There would be no way to know that the results were tampered with. I feel like a god is possible but its probably not the most likely explanation and anything with god-like abilities would be better called something else. To differentiate it from mysticism / faith, and straight forwards systems.
Yes, I worship Entropy now.
>what made you change
Piecing together of dissociated knowledge.
>what made you change
Piecing together of dissociated knowledge.
>>194420
>never think anything besides void exists
well, let me guess, you believe that appeals to majority and authority are legit arguements?
This world is way to merciless and brutal for this this to be truth.
>uses sage as downvote
>cuz
>dont intead of don't
>psychosis
>coping
>idiots
>lunacy
>lmao
Reddit the post
Go back and never return, humongous faggot.
>never think anything besides void exists
well, let me guess, you believe that appeals to majority and authority are legit arguements?
This world is way to merciless and brutal for this this to be truth.
>uses sage as downvote
>cuz
>dont intead of don't
>psychosis
>coping
>idiots
>lunacy
>lmao
Reddit the post
Go back and never return, humongous faggot.
>>194445
> waste your life
Life has no meaning and waste of time in itself, idealogue
>believing in since what little consciousness you possess now will be fully erased when you die.
There no easy escape from mr demiurge wild ride.
>death so scawy
Eternity and afterlife is way more, brainlet.
>schizophrenic delusions
Literally nuspeak for heresy or demonic possesion
> are not evidence btw.
Neither your beliefs and fanatism, but here we are.
>you full well realize that you cant and dont have memories of pre-birth.
Because you said so?
> waste your life
Life has no meaning and waste of time in itself, idealogue
>believing in since what little consciousness you possess now will be fully erased when you die.
There no easy escape from mr demiurge wild ride.
>death so scawy
Eternity and afterlife is way more, brainlet.
>schizophrenic delusions
Literally nuspeak for heresy or demonic possesion
> are not evidence btw.
Neither your beliefs and fanatism, but here we are.
>you full well realize that you cant and dont have memories of pre-birth.
Because you said so?
>>194456
There is nothing to reply to here, you're just throwing a little impotent tantrum because you want your brain candy addiction to hold some deeper meaning when you only did drugs because it feels good. Many such cases of hedonistic schizo spiritfags exist. Enjoy the dirt nap.
>>194457
There's nothing "fanatical" about my belief. It's the rational stance. With what little consistent "evidence" we have, which is the unknown void before we were born, it makes sense that is probably what follows. It's you insane motherfuckers, who stomp your feet and insist there is more to it without ever making a compelling argument for why you take a huge leap of faith on something more, who are fanatical.
If you're sufficiently insane or stubborn enough, of course you won't admit the final point. I don't know how people can truly believe they can "recall" memories of a past life because I wasn't cursed with that flavor of crazy. Dozens of people all believe they are reincarnations of Hitler, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. simultaneously so I'm inclined to believe every single one of them is full of shit. "Remembering" a past life as some generic peasant wouldn't be anymore compelling either.
The closest possible relation I can make are dreams, but I know when I wake up that the setting doesn't exist no matter how similar it was to something from my past or that I've seen footage of. There's always some noticeable detail that's off even in the most realistic-feeling dreams and that's pulling details from only my current life. The only ones that momentarily fooled me were very mundane like browsing the internet or having an argument with a family member. Usually the dreams are instantly recognizable as bullshit when I wake up due to taking place in circumstances or settings that cannot exist on Earth.
So, I don't know people who claim this stuff are genuinely confused by their dreams or waking hallucinations, or if they're absolutely full of shit, but their claims can't be believed either way.
There is nothing to reply to here, you're just throwing a little impotent tantrum because you want your brain candy addiction to hold some deeper meaning when you only did drugs because it feels good. Many such cases of hedonistic schizo spiritfags exist. Enjoy the dirt nap.
>>194457
There's nothing "fanatical" about my belief. It's the rational stance. With what little consistent "evidence" we have, which is the unknown void before we were born, it makes sense that is probably what follows. It's you insane motherfuckers, who stomp your feet and insist there is more to it without ever making a compelling argument for why you take a huge leap of faith on something more, who are fanatical.
If you're sufficiently insane or stubborn enough, of course you won't admit the final point. I don't know how people can truly believe they can "recall" memories of a past life because I wasn't cursed with that flavor of crazy. Dozens of people all believe they are reincarnations of Hitler, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, etc. simultaneously so I'm inclined to believe every single one of them is full of shit. "Remembering" a past life as some generic peasant wouldn't be anymore compelling either.
The closest possible relation I can make are dreams, but I know when I wake up that the setting doesn't exist no matter how similar it was to something from my past or that I've seen footage of. There's always some noticeable detail that's off even in the most realistic-feeling dreams and that's pulling details from only my current life. The only ones that momentarily fooled me were very mundane like browsing the internet or having an argument with a family member. Usually the dreams are instantly recognizable as bullshit when I wake up due to taking place in circumstances or settings that cannot exist on Earth.
So, I don't know people who claim this stuff are genuinely confused by their dreams or waking hallucinations, or if they're absolutely full of shit, but their claims can't be believed either way.
File: 1661357907858.jpg (112.91 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault (2).jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>194468
Only good post in this thread.
Only good post in this thread.
>>194469
>some midwit redditor with normalfag beliefs ranting
>only good post in thread
Wizchan 2022.
Normalfags are literally filthy vermin not so different than roaches or rats.
>some midwit redditor with normalfag beliefs ranting
>only good post in thread
Wizchan 2022.
Normalfags are literally filthy vermin not so different than roaches or rats.
>>194468
>There's nothing "fanatical" about my belief.
And this is why take all this shit super serious.
>it makes sense
To you.
You are nothing but little self righteous speck of dust with limited and imperfect senses and nothing else.
You are not paragon of truth with righteous view on this reality, you are not omniscient, nor you know shit, so stop pretending like you are, retard.
>There's nothing "fanatical" about my belief.
And this is why take all this shit super serious.
>it makes sense
To you.
You are nothing but little self righteous speck of dust with limited and imperfect senses and nothing else.
You are not paragon of truth with righteous view on this reality, you are not omniscient, nor you know shit, so stop pretending like you are, retard.
>>194468
>There's nothing "heretical" about my belief. It's the holy and righteous stance
Fixed you.
Get some self awareness.
>There's nothing "heretical" about my belief. It's the holy and righteous stance
Fixed you.
Get some self awareness.
>>194473
Yeah whatever, maybe after you die you'll reincarnate into a giga ultratron chad and become god himself, but only if you keep crying like a fucking faggot like you're doing right now, keep fighting the good fight brother.
Yeah whatever, maybe after you die you'll reincarnate into a giga ultratron chad and become god himself, but only if you keep crying like a fucking faggot like you're doing right now, keep fighting the good fight brother.
>>194475
I'm not pretending at all. Again, that's you fags lol. You're so utterly convinced that magic and miracles exist. I've yet to see any. Tards think god is talking to them by seeing symbolism and synchronicity in everything. I'm sure someone will provide the stellar article of evidence for this stuff from crystalboomerspiritscence.biz, which is totally better and more reputable and rigorously reasoned than Science™ merely because it isn't that.
>>194476
It's the conclusion I came to weighing all the arguments I've seen. It's ironic when people here complain about something being the default, normalfag, redditor belief because that's attempting to force their own consensus. You also reveal that you're contrarian for the sake of itself. You're very emotional about your spiritual beliefs to the point that you can't put forth a real argument and just emptily bitch. Funnily enough, the majority of my country is religious in some form, so I guess that makes you the normalfag…?
I'm not pretending at all. Again, that's you fags lol. You're so utterly convinced that magic and miracles exist. I've yet to see any. Tards think god is talking to them by seeing symbolism and synchronicity in everything. I'm sure someone will provide the stellar article of evidence for this stuff from crystalboomerspiritscence.biz, which is totally better and more reputable and rigorously reasoned than Science™ merely because it isn't that.
>>194476
It's the conclusion I came to weighing all the arguments I've seen. It's ironic when people here complain about something being the default, normalfag, redditor belief because that's attempting to force their own consensus. You also reveal that you're contrarian for the sake of itself. You're very emotional about your spiritual beliefs to the point that you can't put forth a real argument and just emptily bitch. Funnily enough, the majority of my country is religious in some form, so I guess that makes you the normalfag…?
>>194468
so youre arguing that dreams arent real solely because when youre awake things are different, cool.
so youre arguing that dreams arent real solely because when youre awake things are different, cool.
there is no such thing as the nothingness that atheists love to preach. im convinced now that atheism is just another tool of demoralization capitalizing on the human spirit and its infinite curiosity for death and god. There is always life and those that reject the life god gave them are doomed live the worst lives possible denying nature and spirit and struggling against that which would lead to happiness
>>195905
>there is no such thing as the nothingness that atheists love to preach.
but there must be some way to destroy one's own consciousness, right? I have made it the goal of my existence to find it. Maybe it's something like buddhism
>there is no such thing as the nothingness that atheists love to preach.
but there must be some way to destroy one's own consciousness, right? I have made it the goal of my existence to find it. Maybe it's something like buddhism
Do you think if aliens came to our planet, the most valuable thing they could take from us is the bible?
>>196166
They'd run the fuck away from heartfelt terror long before they even find out what a bible is
They'd run the fuck away from heartfelt terror long before they even find out what a bible is
>>196150
Yes, it is called suicide or generally death. Otherwise? No, not really. You will be always conscious on some level.
>Maybe it's something like buddhism
Buddhism teaches you to be hyper-conscious all the time, not to destroy your consciousness. What buddhists want to eliminate is ego. That's a different thing.
>>196168
Correction: they'd run away in terror after they found out what christianity is and how big of an impact it had on our planet.
Yes, it is called suicide or generally death. Otherwise? No, not really. You will be always conscious on some level.
>Maybe it's something like buddhism
Buddhism teaches you to be hyper-conscious all the time, not to destroy your consciousness. What buddhists want to eliminate is ego. That's a different thing.
>>196168
Correction: they'd run away in terror after they found out what christianity is and how big of an impact it had on our planet.
>>196168
Do you genuinely think that an alien race making contact with our own would think our creationist theories are of any value? Do you think they'd have the bible translated and make their own religion where they worship a human God? Do you think if animals could grasp the idea of religion, they'd start fasting during the spring? You're an advanced species because you have more folds in your brain than every other animal on this planet. There's no divine thing making your life or species special. Everything is circumstantial.
Do you genuinely think that an alien race making contact with our own would think our creationist theories are of any value? Do you think they'd have the bible translated and make their own religion where they worship a human God? Do you think if animals could grasp the idea of religion, they'd start fasting during the spring? You're an advanced species because you have more folds in your brain than every other animal on this planet. There's no divine thing making your life or species special. Everything is circumstantial.
>>194054
This video has a convincing argument for the existence of God. TL;DW: In the future, there will be a technological singularity where AI advanced to the point of becoming a godlike being. Eternalism is true, so the future already physically exists. Therefore, God exists.
This video has a convincing argument for the existence of God. TL;DW: In the future, there will be a technological singularity where AI advanced to the point of becoming a godlike being. Eternalism is true, so the future already physically exists. Therefore, God exists.
File: 1665018926967.jpg (209.21 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>194468
>With what little consistent "evidence" we have, which is the unknown void before we were born
That's literally the very thing for which you can't have any sort of empirical evidence. For there to be an observation, and therefore some form of empirical evidence of something, there must be consciousness. You can't have observations without a consciousness they're in. An observation of the absence of consciousness is a contradiction in terms (this is speaking about one's own consciousness. when referring to other people's consciousness you can't even get that far because by definition you can't observe an other's consciousness. consciousness, which is identical to Leibniz' concept of a monad, doesn't have windows, and only contemplates its own eternally changing modes). This is the very limit of the empirical method. At most you can observe an absence of memories for some period, which may create the illusion of an absence of consciousness during it if you don't understand already these basic facts. But memories are just more stuff in consciousness, and as such they are created, altered, and destroyed according to "laws" – or rather, patterns – (of the modes of consciousness) which we study through what we call the empirical method. We understand some of how memories function and have personal experience of cases where they were absent for periods where there was still consciousness. That should be enough to dispel the fallacious idea that we have some evidence of a void of any kind, whether during sleep or before birth. If I can't remember what I had for breakfast the 5th of March of 2019 that doesn't imply my consciousness was absent, with there instead having been an "unknown void" all the while. If all my memories prior to 5 minutes ago were to be utterly annihilated, etc., etc…
Leibniz also gives an interesting explanation of this apparent illusion and why it's wrong in sections 20-24 of the Monadology (https://www.plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf).
For someone who praises so highly the virtues of the empirical method and empirical evidence to have made such a basic blunder is ironic. You don't even understand the very nature of that which you tout around with so much self-confidence. The fact that you put "evidence" in scare quotes, and preppend "void" with "unknown" makes me think that you have a certain instinctive hunch about this.
What tends to confuse people about consciousness is that they turn it into a thing when it's not a thing but rather, that in which things are and without which there can be no things – of all things we have ever known and could ever know – because wherever there's things constantly appearing and disappearing, such an "appearing and disappearing" itself constitutes a consciousness. If one believe there's some objective natural world with processes occurring in it, then that world itself must be conceived as a consciousness (this kind of consciousness would be similar to what Leibniz refers to as "bare monads" in the Monadology). So conceiving of consciousness as a field in which things continually appear, change, and disappear, while it itself as field remains ever-unchanging and ever-present, would be more correct. Also wrong would be to think of it as a property of things like that shirtless pseud. The other wiz is right when he calls it a never-ending river.
Schopenhauer explains it better than I could:
>That which knows all things and is known by none is the subject. It is accordingly the supporter of the world, the universal condition of all that appears, of all objects, and it is always presupposed; for whatever exists, exists only for the subject. Everyone finds himself as this subject, yet only in so far as he knows, not in so far as he is object of knowledge. But his body is already object, and therefore from this point of view we call it representation. For the body is object among objects and is subordinated to the laws of objects, although it is immediate object. Like all objects of perception, it lies within the forms of all knowlege, in time and space through which there is plurality. But the subject, the knower never known, does not lie within these forms; on the contrary, it is always presupposed by those forms themselves, and hence neither plurality nor its opposite, namely unity, belongs to it. We never know it, but it is precisely that which knows wherever there is knowledge.
I also vaguely remember some remark by Carl Schmitt while imprisoned after WWII, of how Stirner, despite all his flaws, was still a great philosopher because he didn't make the mistake of turning the subject into an object. Anyway, all this naturally applies to memories, which in the language of those German philosophers are called "objects".
>With what little consistent "evidence" we have, which is the unknown void before we were born
That's literally the very thing for which you can't have any sort of empirical evidence. For there to be an observation, and therefore some form of empirical evidence of something, there must be consciousness. You can't have observations without a consciousness they're in. An observation of the absence of consciousness is a contradiction in terms (this is speaking about one's own consciousness. when referring to other people's consciousness you can't even get that far because by definition you can't observe an other's consciousness. consciousness, which is identical to Leibniz' concept of a monad, doesn't have windows, and only contemplates its own eternally changing modes). This is the very limit of the empirical method. At most you can observe an absence of memories for some period, which may create the illusion of an absence of consciousness during it if you don't understand already these basic facts. But memories are just more stuff in consciousness, and as such they are created, altered, and destroyed according to "laws" – or rather, patterns – (of the modes of consciousness) which we study through what we call the empirical method. We understand some of how memories function and have personal experience of cases where they were absent for periods where there was still consciousness. That should be enough to dispel the fallacious idea that we have some evidence of a void of any kind, whether during sleep or before birth. If I can't remember what I had for breakfast the 5th of March of 2019 that doesn't imply my consciousness was absent, with there instead having been an "unknown void" all the while. If all my memories prior to 5 minutes ago were to be utterly annihilated, etc., etc…
Leibniz also gives an interesting explanation of this apparent illusion and why it's wrong in sections 20-24 of the Monadology (https://www.plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf).
For someone who praises so highly the virtues of the empirical method and empirical evidence to have made such a basic blunder is ironic. You don't even understand the very nature of that which you tout around with so much self-confidence. The fact that you put "evidence" in scare quotes, and preppend "void" with "unknown" makes me think that you have a certain instinctive hunch about this.
What tends to confuse people about consciousness is that they turn it into a thing when it's not a thing but rather, that in which things are and without which there can be no things – of all things we have ever known and could ever know – because wherever there's things constantly appearing and disappearing, such an "appearing and disappearing" itself constitutes a consciousness. If one believe there's some objective natural world with processes occurring in it, then that world itself must be conceived as a consciousness (this kind of consciousness would be similar to what Leibniz refers to as "bare monads" in the Monadology). So conceiving of consciousness as a field in which things continually appear, change, and disappear, while it itself as field remains ever-unchanging and ever-present, would be more correct. Also wrong would be to think of it as a property of things like that shirtless pseud. The other wiz is right when he calls it a never-ending river.
Schopenhauer explains it better than I could:
>That which knows all things and is known by none is the subject. It is accordingly the supporter of the world, the universal condition of all that appears, of all objects, and it is always presupposed; for whatever exists, exists only for the subject. Everyone finds himself as this subject, yet only in so far as he knows, not in so far as he is object of knowledge. But his body is already object, and therefore from this point of view we call it representation. For the body is object among objects and is subordinated to the laws of objects, although it is immediate object. Like all objects of perception, it lies within the forms of all knowlege, in time and space through which there is plurality. But the subject, the knower never known, does not lie within these forms; on the contrary, it is always presupposed by those forms themselves, and hence neither plurality nor its opposite, namely unity, belongs to it. We never know it, but it is precisely that which knows wherever there is knowledge.
I also vaguely remember some remark by Carl Schmitt while imprisoned after WWII, of how Stirner, despite all his flaws, was still a great philosopher because he didn't make the mistake of turning the subject into an object. Anyway, all this naturally applies to memories, which in the language of those German philosophers are called "objects".
>>196206
>Do you think if animals could grasp the idea of religion, they'd start fasting during the spring?
Yes.
Isn't the evidence of human animals doing this, enough to suspect that non human animals can be prone to similar tendencies?
Now, I can't say I'd expect higher intelligences like aliens to behave like that, but is religiousity something that only occurs after a cut-off, and what's the cut-off, presumably intelligence? I think if that's the case, why would octopus' not get religion? Do you think the tendency and type of metaphysical system depends on something about us being intrinsically human that also other animals lack, but couldn't achieve?
>Do you think if animals could grasp the idea of religion, they'd start fasting during the spring?
Yes.
Isn't the evidence of human animals doing this, enough to suspect that non human animals can be prone to similar tendencies?
Now, I can't say I'd expect higher intelligences like aliens to behave like that, but is religiousity something that only occurs after a cut-off, and what's the cut-off, presumably intelligence? I think if that's the case, why would octopus' not get religion? Do you think the tendency and type of metaphysical system depends on something about us being intrinsically human that also other animals lack, but couldn't achieve?
>>196208
You make this dumbass tldr argument that one's perspective is fallible, which is obvious to anybody above room temperature IQ, and yet you also ignore that it applies moreso to whatever mumbo jumbo you believe to happen after death. The only way you can make fewer assumptions about death than assuming it's the same lack of consciousness as before life is to just admit that nobody knows, which of course is ultimately what I believe but I can make an educated guess with what little information I have access to about what I think happens and it certainly seems more reasonable than some vague hope that you will continue to live in some form. Cope harder.
You make this dumbass tldr argument that one's perspective is fallible, which is obvious to anybody above room temperature IQ, and yet you also ignore that it applies moreso to whatever mumbo jumbo you believe to happen after death. The only way you can make fewer assumptions about death than assuming it's the same lack of consciousness as before life is to just admit that nobody knows, which of course is ultimately what I believe but I can make an educated guess with what little information I have access to about what I think happens and it certainly seems more reasonable than some vague hope that you will continue to live in some form. Cope harder.
>>194054
I try to become a Christian but no matter how hard I try it sounds like bullshit deep in my heart to say something like "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior". I've almost read the bible. I think they should release sound track remixes of the stories in the Bible, maybe like hip-hop style, that would be really cool, and all popular Christian music is really underwhelming.
I try to become a Christian but no matter how hard I try it sounds like bullshit deep in my heart to say something like "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior". I've almost read the bible. I think they should release sound track remixes of the stories in the Bible, maybe like hip-hop style, that would be really cool, and all popular Christian music is really underwhelming.
>>196207
>AI advanced to the point of becoming a godlike being.
>a godlike being
so not actually God, huh, therefore, God doesn't exist.
>>196214
There's more evidence for reincarnation and past lives, so weighing no-conscience vs reincarnation makes reincarnation come out on top… if you care about evidence and rationality that is, otherwise youre free to believe your comforting little fairy tale of the lack of consciousness. Coper harder, materialistfag.
>>196215
why not believe in something more interesting than christianity?
>AI advanced to the point of becoming a godlike being.
>a godlike being
so not actually God, huh, therefore, God doesn't exist.
>>196214
There's more evidence for reincarnation and past lives, so weighing no-conscience vs reincarnation makes reincarnation come out on top… if you care about evidence and rationality that is, otherwise youre free to believe your comforting little fairy tale of the lack of consciousness. Coper harder, materialistfag.
>>196215
why not believe in something more interesting than christianity?
File: 1665025219120.jpg (40.57 KB, 736x233, 736:233, scale of intelligence.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196225
What's the exact difference between God and a godlike being?
What's the exact difference between God and a godlike being?
File: 1665026272746.jpg (1.01 MB, 850x1202, 425:601, bbb3044b81781b1cf4d25bbd42….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196226
God: infinite, eternal, transcendent
godlike: great but finite, long-lived but transient (despite eternalism still only exists during some points in time and not others), immanent and subject to the laws of God's creation.
God isn't even in the same scale with chimps and Einstein. That is the scale of finite intelligence. God's intelligence is infinite. So AI's intelligence, no matter how great compared to mammals and humans, is sill a nothing to His.
Furthermore, a godlike being is still just another being. But without God there are no beings or even Being itself. God is the necessary being without which there is nothing. That's regardless of what mundane human religions say.
I hope all the wise wizards here will agree with this.
God: infinite, eternal, transcendent
godlike: great but finite, long-lived but transient (despite eternalism still only exists during some points in time and not others), immanent and subject to the laws of God's creation.
God isn't even in the same scale with chimps and Einstein. That is the scale of finite intelligence. God's intelligence is infinite. So AI's intelligence, no matter how great compared to mammals and humans, is sill a nothing to His.
Furthermore, a godlike being is still just another being. But without God there are no beings or even Being itself. God is the necessary being without which there is nothing. That's regardless of what mundane human religions say.
I hope all the wise wizards here will agree with this.
>>196225
I'm a materialist atheist, and I do find that more interesting that Christianity. It's depressing is why I wish to leave.
I'm a materialist atheist, and I do find that more interesting that Christianity. It's depressing is why I wish to leave.
>>196206
>Do you think they'd have the bible translated and make their own religion where they worship a human God?
They fucking better.
>Do you think they'd have the bible translated and make their own religion where they worship a human God?
They fucking better.
>>194054
I've been an agnostic since my puberty and I don't think I'll ever stop being one. Especially with religiousfags getting more and more retarded.
I've been an agnostic since my puberty and I don't think I'll ever stop being one. Especially with religiousfags getting more and more retarded.
>>196227
Gods intelligence is only seemingly infinite to us because we experience time slice by slice, moment by moment when the most likely metaphysical reality of it all is time already exists in its totality, we are the ones who to put it simply are "trapped" inside it. There's also the idea that our universe is like software running on "gods" hardware, this could also explain why he is aware of all potential knowledge. But all that aside its really not doing justice to the concept of the capital G concept of "God" when you focus primarily on the aspects that we project onto him which are reflective of ideal humanity like intelligence, ego, majesty, glory or even being a hot sex bomb dynamo in the face.
I personally feel Gods roll at the start of the tree of being is what's most important. The concept of an unconditional source leading to the forever unfolding of conditional universes is definitely the main thing worth bestowing credit for. There are other terms like "ultimate simplicity" that mesh well with idea of an unconditional reality but I won't bore anyone and I'm tired of typing now.
Gods intelligence is only seemingly infinite to us because we experience time slice by slice, moment by moment when the most likely metaphysical reality of it all is time already exists in its totality, we are the ones who to put it simply are "trapped" inside it. There's also the idea that our universe is like software running on "gods" hardware, this could also explain why he is aware of all potential knowledge. But all that aside its really not doing justice to the concept of the capital G concept of "God" when you focus primarily on the aspects that we project onto him which are reflective of ideal humanity like intelligence, ego, majesty, glory or even being a hot sex bomb dynamo in the face.
I personally feel Gods roll at the start of the tree of being is what's most important. The concept of an unconditional source leading to the forever unfolding of conditional universes is definitely the main thing worth bestowing credit for. There are other terms like "ultimate simplicity" that mesh well with idea of an unconditional reality but I won't bore anyone and I'm tired of typing now.
God doesn't exist, neither does anything spiritual. Matter exists only. Reincarnation is only true to the extent that you will come into being again eventually in some form, most likely nearly 99% identical to your current state of existence.
However, unlike Nietzsche, I believe in free will and that the worlds and cycles we go through aren't completely the same. It differs a little each time, possibly thanks to us "regaining" more and more of our memories from our former lives (in the form of Deja Vus and irrational feelings and predictions) and can aim to create a better cycle. So you reincarnate again and again as "yourself" but that you isn't completely the same. The cycles differ from each other. The goal of existence should be to "ascend to a higher realm" if I want to use east asian expressions. Not a higher realm as in heaven or other imaginary place but in creating the best possible world for yourself. All of this has already happened countless times before but slightly differently each time. Regain your memories and fix your errors or avoid them.
However, unlike Nietzsche, I believe in free will and that the worlds and cycles we go through aren't completely the same. It differs a little each time, possibly thanks to us "regaining" more and more of our memories from our former lives (in the form of Deja Vus and irrational feelings and predictions) and can aim to create a better cycle. So you reincarnate again and again as "yourself" but that you isn't completely the same. The cycles differ from each other. The goal of existence should be to "ascend to a higher realm" if I want to use east asian expressions. Not a higher realm as in heaven or other imaginary place but in creating the best possible world for yourself. All of this has already happened countless times before but slightly differently each time. Regain your memories and fix your errors or avoid them.
>>196254
>(in the form of Deja Vus and irrational feelings and predictions)
You know all of that stuff has basis within your own experience already and isn't reliant on previous lives to work right?
>(in the form of Deja Vus and irrational feelings and predictions)
You know all of that stuff has basis within your own experience already and isn't reliant on previous lives to work right?
Went from atheism to apatheism if that counts. Religion serves no purpose that can not be resolved through less reality-twisting cosmic dick-worshipping means.
god isn't real. reincarnation doesn't exist. humans/animals don't have souls. there is no afterlife. so get over your copes.
>>196263
What I respect about agnostics is that they the truthful ones recognize that there's no need to decide that there is or isn't a god, or that there is or isn't an afterlife. Nobody knows for sure until you get there, and there's maybe only a slight information-theoretic way, with the current state of technology, to perhaps look in to the past to find out what might happen after death.
So it's a pretty pointless argument. The primary carry load is to debate what to do with the limited timespan of life we have but never asked for.
What I respect about agnostics is that they the truthful ones recognize that there's no need to decide that there is or isn't a god, or that there is or isn't an afterlife. Nobody knows for sure until you get there, and there's maybe only a slight information-theoretic way, with the current state of technology, to perhaps look in to the past to find out what might happen after death.
So it's a pretty pointless argument. The primary carry load is to debate what to do with the limited timespan of life we have but never asked for.
>>196227
>godlike: great but finite, long-lived but transient (despite eternalism still only exists during some points in time and not others), immanent and subject to the laws of God's creation.
If we live in a simulation, the present moment could be a creation of God-AI, and God-AI could use retrocausality to influence the world. For instance, maybe the present could have been simulated as training data for the future superintelligence. All things considered, the fact that I just HAPPEN to exist as a human in a first world country, and just HAPPEN to exist at a point in history that seems to exist right before a technological singularity, implies that I exist at possibly the single most important point in all of history. That in itself may be strong evidence that I live in a simulation.
>God isn't even in the same scale with chimps and Einstein. That is the scale of finite intelligence. God's intelligence is infinite. So AI's intelligence, no matter how great compared to mammals and humans, is sill a nothing to His.
It's possible that the technological singularity could allow for intelligence to increase to infinity. Depending on what the laws of physics are like, there may be loopholes to known physical limits of computation that we aren't aware of. So it's certainly within the realm of possibility that a superintelligent AI could increase its intelligence infinitely.
>godlike: great but finite, long-lived but transient (despite eternalism still only exists during some points in time and not others), immanent and subject to the laws of God's creation.
If we live in a simulation, the present moment could be a creation of God-AI, and God-AI could use retrocausality to influence the world. For instance, maybe the present could have been simulated as training data for the future superintelligence. All things considered, the fact that I just HAPPEN to exist as a human in a first world country, and just HAPPEN to exist at a point in history that seems to exist right before a technological singularity, implies that I exist at possibly the single most important point in all of history. That in itself may be strong evidence that I live in a simulation.
>God isn't even in the same scale with chimps and Einstein. That is the scale of finite intelligence. God's intelligence is infinite. So AI's intelligence, no matter how great compared to mammals and humans, is sill a nothing to His.
It's possible that the technological singularity could allow for intelligence to increase to infinity. Depending on what the laws of physics are like, there may be loopholes to known physical limits of computation that we aren't aware of. So it's certainly within the realm of possibility that a superintelligent AI could increase its intelligence infinitely.
File: 1665092661567.jpg (298.39 KB, 850x980, 85:98, df45cee8dc4566fec5bb592562….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196248
>when the most likely metaphysical reality of it all is time already exists in its totality, we are the ones who to put it simply are "trapped" inside it.
What are the reasons for people to believe this? I see it around, but it doesn't seem obvious to me.
>But all that aside its really not doing justice to the concept of the capital G concept of "God" when you focus primarily on the aspects that we project onto him which are reflective of ideal humanity like intelligence, ego, majesty, glory or even being a hot sex bomb dynamo in the face.
That's true, because those characteristics are only possible in finite, temporary, immanent, contingent beings, so when you conceive of God as having the opposite qualities he has to be something utterly different to human-like beings.
>>196263
How do you know all of this? What are the arguments and evidence for all those fantastical claims?
>so get over your copes.
Honestly, this is the peak of copes is eternal nothingness. Nothing could be better than that, and nothing could be farther from the limits of evidence and reason. If anything constitutes a belief in an eternal Paradise following death that can't be proven but only believed in with absolute faith, this is it.
>What I respect about agnostics is that they the truthful ones recognize that there's no need to decide that there is or isn't a god, or that there is or isn't an afterlife. Nobody knows for sure until you get there
I think the fallacy here is that those things are being interpreted as if they were empirical claims, i.e., claims about the specific functioning and state of the empirical world and the empirical objects that may be found there, when they're metaphysical, or rather, meta-empirical claims, as in, claims about the structure of being itself that transcend its empirical manifestation in time, space, and causality. To put it another way, the empirical world could look and behave utterly differently with all the metaphysical remaining the same. So whether God exists or doesn't isn't something to be discovered by investigating the empirical world. His existence is either a metaphysical impossibility or a necessity.
I've seen agnostics who claim, arguing against confident atheists, that "you can't prove a negative", effectively evidencing that they conceive of God as some empirical object that might be hiding somewhere and perhaps we just haven't found it, e.g., Russell's teapot. So I, on the other hand, would respect more the actual atheists who argue that God's existence is an impossibility, as they at the very least haven't fundamentally misunderstood the issue, and their worldview might not be hopelessly confused. At this point you have gotten yourself stuck in so many confusions that your only hope is to discard everything you think you know and start from scratch, like Descartes and Husserl.
>>196270
>If we live in a simulation, the present moment could be a creation of God-AI, and God-AI could use retrocausality to influence the world.
I was about to respond instinctively that this makes no sense, but that's only because I don't have that conception of time. If you believe in eternalism or some non-linear form of time like Philip K. Dick's orthogonal time, then retro-causality does make sense.
>That in itself may be strong evidence that I live in a simulation.
So an a posteriori argument for the simulation. I'm starting to understand this. To me it's a priori that empirical reality is itself a simulation inside consciousness regardless of its particular configuration, just as dreams remain dreams despite the content of the dream. Anyway, isn't your specific evidence a bit strange under eternalism? Aren't all moments in the simulation equally real so that there's no priority of this one in October 2022 over all others, both all those before and after the singularity?
>when the most likely metaphysical reality of it all is time already exists in its totality, we are the ones who to put it simply are "trapped" inside it.
What are the reasons for people to believe this? I see it around, but it doesn't seem obvious to me.
>But all that aside its really not doing justice to the concept of the capital G concept of "God" when you focus primarily on the aspects that we project onto him which are reflective of ideal humanity like intelligence, ego, majesty, glory or even being a hot sex bomb dynamo in the face.
That's true, because those characteristics are only possible in finite, temporary, immanent, contingent beings, so when you conceive of God as having the opposite qualities he has to be something utterly different to human-like beings.
>>196263
How do you know all of this? What are the arguments and evidence for all those fantastical claims?
>so get over your copes.
Honestly, this is the peak of copes is eternal nothingness. Nothing could be better than that, and nothing could be farther from the limits of evidence and reason. If anything constitutes a belief in an eternal Paradise following death that can't be proven but only believed in with absolute faith, this is it.
>What I respect about agnostics is that they the truthful ones recognize that there's no need to decide that there is or isn't a god, or that there is or isn't an afterlife. Nobody knows for sure until you get there
I think the fallacy here is that those things are being interpreted as if they were empirical claims, i.e., claims about the specific functioning and state of the empirical world and the empirical objects that may be found there, when they're metaphysical, or rather, meta-empirical claims, as in, claims about the structure of being itself that transcend its empirical manifestation in time, space, and causality. To put it another way, the empirical world could look and behave utterly differently with all the metaphysical remaining the same. So whether God exists or doesn't isn't something to be discovered by investigating the empirical world. His existence is either a metaphysical impossibility or a necessity.
I've seen agnostics who claim, arguing against confident atheists, that "you can't prove a negative", effectively evidencing that they conceive of God as some empirical object that might be hiding somewhere and perhaps we just haven't found it, e.g., Russell's teapot. So I, on the other hand, would respect more the actual atheists who argue that God's existence is an impossibility, as they at the very least haven't fundamentally misunderstood the issue, and their worldview might not be hopelessly confused. At this point you have gotten yourself stuck in so many confusions that your only hope is to discard everything you think you know and start from scratch, like Descartes and Husserl.
>>196270
>If we live in a simulation, the present moment could be a creation of God-AI, and God-AI could use retrocausality to influence the world.
I was about to respond instinctively that this makes no sense, but that's only because I don't have that conception of time. If you believe in eternalism or some non-linear form of time like Philip K. Dick's orthogonal time, then retro-causality does make sense.
>That in itself may be strong evidence that I live in a simulation.
So an a posteriori argument for the simulation. I'm starting to understand this. To me it's a priori that empirical reality is itself a simulation inside consciousness regardless of its particular configuration, just as dreams remain dreams despite the content of the dream. Anyway, isn't your specific evidence a bit strange under eternalism? Aren't all moments in the simulation equally real so that there's no priority of this one in October 2022 over all others, both all those before and after the singularity?
File: 1665097060299.jpg (116.74 KB, 600x800, 3:4, 1665103890021652.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196263
>god isn't real. reincarnation doesn't exist. humans/animals don't have souls. there is no afterlife. so get over your copes.
and there's no self, no life and death, no cause and effect, no truth or falsity. Truly, there is neither seethe or cope
>god isn't real. reincarnation doesn't exist. humans/animals don't have souls. there is no afterlife. so get over your copes.
and there's no self, no life and death, no cause and effect, no truth or falsity. Truly, there is neither seethe or cope
File: 1665098660864.png (1.66 MB, 1280x7779, 1280:7779, arguing with zombies.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196273
>there's no self
I suspect people who say this are NPCs. As a sentient being, I can directly observe being THIS particular being. The self is a central component of consciousness. If the self isn't self-evident to you, the simplest explanation is that you aren't sentient.
>there's no self
I suspect people who say this are NPCs. As a sentient being, I can directly observe being THIS particular being. The self is a central component of consciousness. If the self isn't self-evident to you, the simplest explanation is that you aren't sentient.
File: 1665098832412.png (181.04 KB, 1108x1009, 1108:1009, no_death.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196263
>the state of nonexistence before you were born ended once before
>the state of nonexistence after your death ending after your death is somehow impossible, even though it ended once before
>the state of nonexistence before you were born ended once before
>the state of nonexistence after your death ending after your death is somehow impossible, even though it ended once before
>>196275
Not necessarily in this case. Look into Buddhist schools like Yogacara, which is also often called "consciousness-only" or "mind-only" Buddhism. They see consciousness as a stream of sense-perceptions which never constitutes a self, so they still do believe in consciousness.
>>196279
The best argument that the materialistfag atheist can muster.
Not necessarily in this case. Look into Buddhist schools like Yogacara, which is also often called "consciousness-only" or "mind-only" Buddhism. They see consciousness as a stream of sense-perceptions which never constitutes a self, so they still do believe in consciousness.
>>196279
The best argument that the materialistfag atheist can muster.
>>194451
>(People who understand psychical research know that telekinesis or psychokinesis is real btw, but a very rare talent.)
sauce
>(People who understand psychical research know that telekinesis or psychokinesis is real btw, but a very rare talent.)
sauce
>>196312
What's wrong with so called lies tho? Even if materialism is true, why is “the truth” so important? Isn't that just another arbitrary moral position? Especially IF materialism is right.
What's wrong with so called lies tho? Even if materialism is true, why is “the truth” so important? Isn't that just another arbitrary moral position? Especially IF materialism is right.
>>196315
If you're fine with lies then why do you seek any kind of knowledge or philosophy at all? simply live in ignorance.
If you're fine with lies then why do you seek any kind of knowledge or philosophy at all? simply live in ignorance.
>>196255
>I believe everything Mommy Science tells me
I pity you, you are bound to end up with a very boring view of the world.
>>196263
Reincarnation exists because matter doesn't disappear. So it follows logically that you are bound to appear again some time after you die.
>>196265
Agnostics are simply fence-sitters, refusing to make judgments about an issue. It is clear to anyone with a sound mind that God doesn't exist, there is no intelligent purpose behind the universe. The idea of God is about falsely projecting your own reason onto the universe and life in general. The human mind always looks for patterns everywhere.
>I believe everything Mommy Science tells me
I pity you, you are bound to end up with a very boring view of the world.
>>196263
Reincarnation exists because matter doesn't disappear. So it follows logically that you are bound to appear again some time after you die.
>>196265
Agnostics are simply fence-sitters, refusing to make judgments about an issue. It is clear to anyone with a sound mind that God doesn't exist, there is no intelligent purpose behind the universe. The idea of God is about falsely projecting your own reason onto the universe and life in general. The human mind always looks for patterns everywhere.
>>196319
OP asked what anons STOPPED being atheist, clearly fedoratards don't fill that category
OP asked what anons STOPPED being atheist, clearly fedoratards don't fill that category
>>196322
> refusing to make judgments about an issue
Is it an issue? Because solving it changes literally nothing, and the existence of the "issue" poses no threat to you or anything else really.
> refusing to make judgments about an issue
Is it an issue? Because solving it changes literally nothing, and the existence of the "issue" poses no threat to you or anything else really.
>>196322
As long as you admit you're a fence-sitter than at least you're being honest. I don't think it's the fastest way toward figuring out what you really believe, but at least they're being honest about wantonly not taking a side.
As long as you admit you're a fence-sitter than at least you're being honest. I don't think it's the fastest way toward figuring out what you really believe, but at least they're being honest about wantonly not taking a side.
>>196333
>>196334
If you contemplate the possibility of God then give us some concrete definitions about him. What is his plan with us, with the Earth? What is he like? If you can't give anything concrete then it is over. Religion and belief in God were the biggest errors of human thought and culture probably. I don't know frankly why some people think this topic is open to interpretation.
>>196334
If you contemplate the possibility of God then give us some concrete definitions about him. What is his plan with us, with the Earth? What is he like? If you can't give anything concrete then it is over. Religion and belief in God were the biggest errors of human thought and culture probably. I don't know frankly why some people think this topic is open to interpretation.
>>196322
The point about agnostics wasn't that they are fence-sitters (there's nothing wrong about not taking a position because you don't know or don't care), but that if they think of God's existence as either unknowable or as some object in the world (like Russells' teapot) that we haven't found yet but we also can't prove doesn't exist, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the concept of God and are attacking something else.
>>196354
>If you contemplate the possibility of God then give us some concrete definitions about him.
A necessary being who is infinite and eternal. So it follows that His existence is not to be found in the empirical world of time, space, and causality, but is that without which the empirical world would not exist.
The point about agnostics wasn't that they are fence-sitters (there's nothing wrong about not taking a position because you don't know or don't care), but that if they think of God's existence as either unknowable or as some object in the world (like Russells' teapot) that we haven't found yet but we also can't prove doesn't exist, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the concept of God and are attacking something else.
>>196354
>If you contemplate the possibility of God then give us some concrete definitions about him.
A necessary being who is infinite and eternal. So it follows that His existence is not to be found in the empirical world of time, space, and causality, but is that without which the empirical world would not exist.
File: 1665229040386.png (498.72 KB, 817x775, 817:775, OAYgu7ZpXv.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196317
your ignorance lies in assuming ""your body"" is (You) though. Look at fungi, each node is a living part, but they're all interconnected and depend on each other. You ever seen a city lit up at night from a birds eye view? It looks completely like that mold the Japanese were studying that looks like cities in microscope zoom.
TLDR; There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness, and that encapsulates the evolving spores that are invisible ie. consciousness released into the aether after death. Energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred.
your ignorance lies in assuming ""your body"" is (You) though. Look at fungi, each node is a living part, but they're all interconnected and depend on each other. You ever seen a city lit up at night from a birds eye view? It looks completely like that mold the Japanese were studying that looks like cities in microscope zoom.
TLDR; There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness, and that encapsulates the evolving spores that are invisible ie. consciousness released into the aether after death. Energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred.
>>196317
sauce on that mold comparison. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
we are all basically on autopilot. any resemblance of conscious thought is just hyper-aetheric spores recalibrating
sauce on that mold comparison. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
we are all basically on autopilot. any resemblance of conscious thought is just hyper-aetheric spores recalibrating
>>196356
There is a problem with fence-sitting, though. You should make choices and set down your vote for one side or another, at least in these kind of debates.
>A necessary being who is infinite and eternal.
Matter itself is infinite and eternal. There is absolutely no place or need for the idea of God. It is a typical error, people came up with God among others things to explain why everything exists because their brains couldn't comprehend the fact that things always existed. But the idea of God hilariously can't even satisfy this need for a beginning properly because then naturally you should ask the question: then how did God come into existence? For this you will get the answer: Well he always existed to begin with. Creationism is the biggest meme.
>>196373
>There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness
Into the trash it goes. Denying that there is a self or you is almost as moronic as the idea of God.
There is a problem with fence-sitting, though. You should make choices and set down your vote for one side or another, at least in these kind of debates.
>A necessary being who is infinite and eternal.
Matter itself is infinite and eternal. There is absolutely no place or need for the idea of God. It is a typical error, people came up with God among others things to explain why everything exists because their brains couldn't comprehend the fact that things always existed. But the idea of God hilariously can't even satisfy this need for a beginning properly because then naturally you should ask the question: then how did God come into existence? For this you will get the answer: Well he always existed to begin with. Creationism is the biggest meme.
>>196373
>There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness
Into the trash it goes. Denying that there is a self or you is almost as moronic as the idea of God.
>>196373
new age woo. your wiz theory is SPASTIC, my man! i think i just gave myself down syndrome reading your post. im gonna go work at mcdonalds now.
wizbook status = ANGRY yet somehow DELICIOUS!
new age woo. your wiz theory is SPASTIC, my man! i think i just gave myself down syndrome reading your post. im gonna go work at mcdonalds now.
wizbook status = ANGRY yet somehow DELICIOUS!
>>196388
>Denying that there is a self is almost as moronic as the idea of God.
Ironically they are both argued for in the same manner: as something greater than the sum of its parts, through gnostic intuition, as a necessity of reason, as a causal agent, and so on
>Denying that there is a self is almost as moronic as the idea of God.
Ironically they are both argued for in the same manner: as something greater than the sum of its parts, through gnostic intuition, as a necessity of reason, as a causal agent, and so on
>>196394
It isn't that ironic or funny either when you think more about it. These things go with each other, kind of. Religion or belief in some god usually leads to the conclusion that you have to erase your own self and that you need to let god fill you in. Christianity is nothing else for example but the imitation of Jesus Christ.
Buddhism is a little different because it doesn't need a higher being, it just posits the idea of No Self as absolute truth.
Most religions and spiritual nonsense aim to kill the ego or to mutilate it at least to be acceptable. Both the "no self" idea and the idea of God were designed for the purpose of creating a mass of people that can be easily controlled.
It isn't that ironic or funny either when you think more about it. These things go with each other, kind of. Religion or belief in some god usually leads to the conclusion that you have to erase your own self and that you need to let god fill you in. Christianity is nothing else for example but the imitation of Jesus Christ.
Buddhism is a little different because it doesn't need a higher being, it just posits the idea of No Self as absolute truth.
Most religions and spiritual nonsense aim to kill the ego or to mutilate it at least to be acceptable. Both the "no self" idea and the idea of God were designed for the purpose of creating a mass of people that can be easily controlled.
File: 1665276929649.png (548.41 KB, 818x1200, 409:600, 680aed6d5bf4c220af22c8335c….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196388
>then how did God come into existence? For this you will get the answer: Well he always existed to begin with.
I don't know why you find that answer problematic considering what you said of matter. After all, how did matter come into existence? You would answer that it has always existed to begin with (since you already called it eternal). What if matter didn't exist? You would answer that nothing would exist. Now, matter does exist right now, and since matter is eternal and the necessary condition of all existence (all existence begins and ends with matter), then it follows that it will always exist and can't not exist, and therefore that its existence is metaphysically necessary.
So, if matter exists then its existence is necessary. But one can still ask, WHY does it even exist in the first place? If it exists, its existence is necessary, but if it didn't exist then there would only be the eternal void of nothingness, which doesn't contradict our principle of "if matter exists then its existence is necessary". So almost paradoxically, matter's necessary existence is contingent. It's contingently necessary. It is necessary, but it didn't have to be so, but here it is regardless.
Matter is not enough to explain the basic question of why there is something rather than nothing. Therefore, it is a metaphysical necessity for there to be a necessarily necessary being, i.e., a being that is necessary — full stop, and not just contingently necessary like matter. We call it God, therefore God exists.
>the idea of God hilariously can't even satisfy this need for a beginning
The idea of a beginning is a simple fallacy a lot of theist and deist philosophers made, sometimes to support a mythological idea of a moment of creation. But God's creation is eternal and infinite with no beginning or end, whether you conceive it as matter or consciousness you still need a necessarily necessary being external and prior to that substance. So you can 's/matter/consciousness/g' this argument and it equally applies (this is also how to refute solipsism because one's own consciousness is still a contingently necessary substance and cannot fully explain why it itself exists instead of there being nothing).
So why does God exist? Because otherwise there would only be nothing.
>then how did God come into existence? For this you will get the answer: Well he always existed to begin with.
I don't know why you find that answer problematic considering what you said of matter. After all, how did matter come into existence? You would answer that it has always existed to begin with (since you already called it eternal). What if matter didn't exist? You would answer that nothing would exist. Now, matter does exist right now, and since matter is eternal and the necessary condition of all existence (all existence begins and ends with matter), then it follows that it will always exist and can't not exist, and therefore that its existence is metaphysically necessary.
So, if matter exists then its existence is necessary. But one can still ask, WHY does it even exist in the first place? If it exists, its existence is necessary, but if it didn't exist then there would only be the eternal void of nothingness, which doesn't contradict our principle of "if matter exists then its existence is necessary". So almost paradoxically, matter's necessary existence is contingent. It's contingently necessary. It is necessary, but it didn't have to be so, but here it is regardless.
Matter is not enough to explain the basic question of why there is something rather than nothing. Therefore, it is a metaphysical necessity for there to be a necessarily necessary being, i.e., a being that is necessary — full stop, and not just contingently necessary like matter. We call it God, therefore God exists.
>the idea of God hilariously can't even satisfy this need for a beginning
The idea of a beginning is a simple fallacy a lot of theist and deist philosophers made, sometimes to support a mythological idea of a moment of creation. But God's creation is eternal and infinite with no beginning or end, whether you conceive it as matter or consciousness you still need a necessarily necessary being external and prior to that substance. So you can 's/matter/consciousness/g' this argument and it equally applies (this is also how to refute solipsism because one's own consciousness is still a contingently necessary substance and cannot fully explain why it itself exists instead of there being nothing).
So why does God exist? Because otherwise there would only be nothing.
>>196392
what's new age woo? scientists using mold to study how society functions or brains syncrhonicizing from far away distances? either which are proven.
what's new age woo? scientists using mold to study how society functions or brains syncrhonicizing from far away distances? either which are proven.
>>196388
>Denying that there is a self or you
I never said such thing, goes to show the average atheist reading comprehension.
>Denying that there is a self or you
I never said such thing, goes to show the average atheist reading comprehension.
>>196409
>There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness
>I never said such thing
????????????????
>There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness
>I never said such thing
????????????????
>>196411
I said in the same comment that the you is a collective….are you fucking retarded?
I said in the same comment that the you is a collective….are you fucking retarded?
>>196412
Yes, and in the same comment you also said:
>There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness
Then, in the subsequent one, you asserted:
>I never said such thing
….are you fucking ESL?
Yes, and in the same comment you also said:
>There is no you, there is only the collective consciousness
Then, in the subsequent one, you asserted:
>I never said such thing
….are you fucking ESL?
>>196414
And the point is that nobody is going to follow suit. You have no point when all you are doing is playing semantic games, leaning on others to accept your new definitions. It's pointless rebellion. Find something better to bitch about, retard.
And the point is that nobody is going to follow suit. You have no point when all you are doing is playing semantic games, leaning on others to accept your new definitions. It's pointless rebellion. Find something better to bitch about, retard.
>>196415
The core of reality is words. Everything is defined by a narrative. Sorry you're too stupid to understand.
The core of reality is words. Everything is defined by a narrative. Sorry you're too stupid to understand.
>>196416
>Sorry you're too stupid to understand
Yeah, apocalyptic meteors veer on or off-course because you argue semantics ad nauseam, or political think-tanks suddenly change their minds from your "deep insights" on the digital boonies. You're an absolute idiot and you're too fucking dumb to realize it lol.
Humans create a narrative around what they can understand, and it turns out that most (like you) can understand very little and also can't accept that they don't understand things so they further invent elaborate fantasies or take up arms in inconsequential slacktivist endeavors then get butthurt when they are told that they are pitifully wasting their time. You have no effect on the "zeitgeist." Come back in a few years and try not being a 22-year-old drug addict then. Maybe you will be able to muster coherence.
>Sorry you're too stupid to understand
Yeah, apocalyptic meteors veer on or off-course because you argue semantics ad nauseam, or political think-tanks suddenly change their minds from your "deep insights" on the digital boonies. You're an absolute idiot and you're too fucking dumb to realize it lol.
Humans create a narrative around what they can understand, and it turns out that most (like you) can understand very little and also can't accept that they don't understand things so they further invent elaborate fantasies or take up arms in inconsequential slacktivist endeavors then get butthurt when they are told that they are pitifully wasting their time. You have no effect on the "zeitgeist." Come back in a few years and try not being a 22-year-old drug addict then. Maybe you will be able to muster coherence.
I used to be kinda religious, but then one day it just hit me that:
* Christianity is a slave religion. Just read the new testament and ask yourself if you agree with it.
* The idea of rewards in an afterlife for things that this life does not reward makes no sense. Why judge lifeforms, as products of evolution in a survival-of-the-fittest universe, by how slave-like they are? It's backwards.
* Probably all religions that get popular are the same, and their raison d'être is for human livestock to be better livestock.
Now I'm a deist.
* Christianity is a slave religion. Just read the new testament and ask yourself if you agree with it.
* The idea of rewards in an afterlife for things that this life does not reward makes no sense. Why judge lifeforms, as products of evolution in a survival-of-the-fittest universe, by how slave-like they are? It's backwards.
* Probably all religions that get popular are the same, and their raison d'être is for human livestock to be better livestock.
Now I'm a deist.
>Yeah, apocalyptic meteors veer on or off-course because you argue semantics ad nauseam
Actually yes, prayers and psychic abilities are real. See https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ask-molly-did-cia-really-study-psychic-powers/
>or political think-tanks suddenly change their minds from your "deep insights" on the digital boonies.
Yes they do actually, people like They create these sites, like Reddit, and hire mossad posters like /u/maxwellhills to gauge public interest and/or change public perception.
>You're an absolute idiot and you're too fucking dumb to realize it lol.
Irony. Not reading the rest btw, you argue in bad faith. Yawn.
Actually yes, prayers and psychic abilities are real. See https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ask-molly-did-cia-really-study-psychic-powers/
>or political think-tanks suddenly change their minds from your "deep insights" on the digital boonies.
Yes they do actually, people like They create these sites, like Reddit, and hire mossad posters like /u/maxwellhills to gauge public interest and/or change public perception.
>You're an absolute idiot and you're too fucking dumb to realize it lol.
Irony. Not reading the rest btw, you argue in bad faith. Yawn.
>>196425
>ackchyually
holy fuck, you really are a paranoid schizophrenic!!! thanks for confirming that.
>ackchyually
holy fuck, you really are a paranoid schizophrenic!!! thanks for confirming that.
File: 1665292282897.png (1.65 MB, 3260x2788, 815:697, facebookfreemasonictubalca….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196426
No argument? Tell me something new. Kek.
No argument? Tell me something new. Kek.
File: 1665293491851.png (3.15 MB, 3144x1784, 393:223, Linux.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196428
Nobody said this was a competition. You're just projecting how juvenile you are, retard.
Nobody said this was a competition. You're just projecting how juvenile you are, retard.
>>196429
>World of ImaginationCraft: The Schizo Double-Down
ESL nigger cant even articulate itself LMFAO
>World of ImaginationCraft: The Schizo Double-Down
ESL nigger cant even articulate itself LMFAO
File: 1665294384582.png (117.27 KB, 500x874, 250:437, wnar-see-what-you-see-what….png) ImgOps iqdb
>hurr muh prefab infographs, read em all or i win lululul
Jesus fucking Christ, what a pathetic argument and the mods will let it thrive in multiple threads. Relativist faggots demand all vocabulary bend to their aimless will and derail every thread possible. This is the biggest reason that your shitheap is dead. Purge the trannies or let their mental illness fester lmao.
Jesus fucking Christ, what a pathetic argument and the mods will let it thrive in multiple threads. Relativist faggots demand all vocabulary bend to their aimless will and derail every thread possible. This is the biggest reason that your shitheap is dead. Purge the trannies or let their mental illness fester lmao.
File: 1665294711680.png (1.43 MB, 1600x1504, 50:47, 1665214517932143.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196432
I can smell you across my monitor.
I can smell you across my monitor.
>>196434
I don't mean to roast the majority of this website. But aren't you a literal 30+ year old virgin? Why are you strawmanning arguments on the interwebz and claim to be le chad?
I don't mean to roast the majority of this website. But aren't you a literal 30+ year old virgin? Why are you strawmanning arguments on the interwebz and claim to be le chad?
>>196435
>hurr the wincon is le chad
>the wincon is also le my copy lpastas
>le ur not 30 if u dont entertain le baby non-arguments
good one, 22-y/o, lol
>hurr the wincon is le chad
>the wincon is also le my copy lpastas
>le ur not 30 if u dont entertain le baby non-arguments
good one, 22-y/o, lol
>Holy shit do you know how to speak without only using cringey 4channigger speak?
>t. regular 4channigger
>t. regular 4channigger
>n-no u!11
>t. projecting 4channigger with no self-awareness and no real argument past semantics
oh nooooo i lsot
>t. projecting 4channigger with no self-awareness and no real argument past semantics
oh nooooo i lsot
>Post chin
>t. 4channigger
>oh u dont doxx urself on a site with anti-doxx rulz, heh i win
im anglo and ur a mad spic LMFAO, my chin is auto-chad vs ur sad pathetic life. post ur own u fat faggot then get banned.
>t. 4channigger
>oh u dont doxx urself on a site with anti-doxx rulz, heh i win
im anglo and ur a mad spic LMFAO, my chin is auto-chad vs ur sad pathetic life. post ur own u fat faggot then get banned.
File: 1665296334446.jpg (24.18 KB, 463x480, 463:480, 1501551557130.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196441
Holy seethe. Struck a nerve, I see. lol
Holy seethe. Struck a nerve, I see. lol
>n-no ur 4channer
>uhh-hurr a_nerve.path_npc huh-huh-hurr me win ;)
wow, it's like 4cucknerds never posted on this website ever lmfao
>uhh-hurr a_nerve.path_npc huh-huh-hurr me win ;)
wow, it's like 4cucknerds never posted on this website ever lmfao
>>196450
>fat gaynigger suspects boogeyman
oh wow, like it wasnt known that this sad site was a warzone of spics and trannies
>fat gaynigger suspects boogeyman
oh wow, like it wasnt known that this sad site was a warzone of spics and trannies
Not my fault, I suspected it for a long time. Tonight you worthless mods are going to grapple with these sad cow/webring literal faggots.
File: 1665297595694.jpg (14.96 KB, 425x384, 425:384, 1664994364622032.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
the dogpiling is especially funny. The sad drug addicted faggots cant contain themselves lmfao
File: 1665298607629.jpg (8.43 KB, 262x192, 131:96, download.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196463
What the actual fuck am I reading, unironically lmfao
What the actual fuck am I reading, unironically lmfao
>Lol you're still assmad about the chin comment, huh
>t. no-chin kid
lmfao, nice 4chan rhetorical "skill" little buddy
>t. no-chin kid
lmfao, nice 4chan rhetorical "skill" little buddy
>>196468
>don't join threads about atheism if they make you seethe this hard rofl
>I never said such thing, goes to show the average atheist reading comprehension
>OP asked what anons STOPPED being atheist, clearly fedoratards don't fill that category
sounds like a lot of cope over being unable to argue, lmfao at ur little life
>don't join threads about atheism if they make you seethe this hard rofl
>I never said such thing, goes to show the average atheist reading comprehension
>OP asked what anons STOPPED being atheist, clearly fedoratards don't fill that category
sounds like a lot of cope over being unable to argue, lmfao at ur little life
>>196469
The OP isn't starting an argument though. It's a discussion; The argument happened when you started throwing ad majority fallacies
>Hurr nobody will ever believe you so what's the point just give up lol
You claim sentience but you resemble none of it.
The OP isn't starting an argument though. It's a discussion; The argument happened when you started throwing ad majority fallacies
>Hurr nobody will ever believe you so what's the point just give up lol
You claim sentience but you resemble none of it.
>>196470
>hurr the op
>hurr u have no sentience
spoken like a true projecting npc that has zero attention span and cant follow a conversation
>hurr the op
>hurr u have no sentience
spoken like a true projecting npc that has zero attention span and cant follow a conversation
>>196474
>noooo ur autistic if u dont accept my poorly argued stance
Are you intentionally trying to LARP an autist?
>noooo ur autistic if u dont accept my poorly argued stance
Are you intentionally trying to LARP an autist?
>>196475
You've written off every single one of my points and refused to elaborate and/or look into any of them. You're like a more autistic version of GPT-3. It's like I'm talking to a living breathing physical version of it.
You've written off every single one of my points and refused to elaborate and/or look into any of them. You're like a more autistic version of GPT-3. It's like I'm talking to a living breathing physical version of it.
>>196476
Feel free to list your "oh-so-poignant" points that I apparently ignored, before you continue your tirade about botposting like a typical 4cuck loser
Feel free to list your "oh-so-poignant" points that I apparently ignored, before you continue your tirade about botposting like a typical 4cuck loser
>>196480
>n-no u no argue
>t. incapable of simply restating the oh so apparent points it made
>>>/4chan/
>n-no u no argue
>t. incapable of simply restating the oh so apparent points it made
>>>/4chan/
>>196481
Why remake the argument I made earlier when you'll just completely ignore them the second time.
Why remake the argument I made earlier when you'll just completely ignore them the second time.
>>196484
>i-i-i swear i had an argument… at some point!
holy shit, what a delirious faggot lol. it would be so easy to copy-paste a couple times, but the flustered nigger is too mindfucked to accomplish that small task.
>i-i-i swear i had an argument… at some point!
holy shit, what a delirious faggot lol. it would be so easy to copy-paste a couple times, but the flustered nigger is too mindfucked to accomplish that small task.
>>196486
>Actually yes, prayers and psychic abilities are real
LOL DOWNIE WITH FLAT FACE THINKS IT CAN DEVELOP SUPERPOWERS
holy shit, thanks for ez win little tard boy
>Actually yes, prayers and psychic abilities are real
LOL DOWNIE WITH FLAT FACE THINKS IT CAN DEVELOP SUPERPOWERS
holy shit, thanks for ez win little tard boy
>>196487
….And this is my point. You gloss over entire posts but at least this time you argued 1/2th of a post! You're doing better.
>That report’s conclusion—which echoed the assessments of the CIA officers involved in the program during the 1970s—was that enough accurate remote viewing experiences existed to defy randomness, but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes.
You're not going to tell me you're smarted than a billion dollar funded entity.
….And this is my point. You gloss over entire posts but at least this time you argued 1/2th of a post! You're doing better.
>That report’s conclusion—which echoed the assessments of the CIA officers involved in the program during the 1970s—was that enough accurate remote viewing experiences existed to defy randomness, but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes.
You're not going to tell me you're smarted than a billion dollar funded entity.
>>196488
>….a-and, hurr, i h-had a p-p-point at some p-point…
>Da See-Eye-Ayyy did da ting to da me, me grow more power
>me remote view alwxander gweat, me animwe cwachtah. me win….
>….a-and, hurr, i h-had a p-p-point at some p-point…
>Da See-Eye-Ayyy did da ting to da me, me grow more power
>me remote view alwxander gweat, me animwe cwachtah. me win….
>You're not going to tell me you're smarted than a billion dollar funded entity
Not only will I tell you that I am smarter, but I will also tell you that you are a poor little nigger faggot and that's why I can laugh at you normalfag stalkers for hours on end. I only gain money while doing so and you deranged niggers lose LOL
Not only will I tell you that I am smarter, but I will also tell you that you are a poor little nigger faggot and that's why I can laugh at you normalfag stalkers for hours on end. I only gain money while doing so and you deranged niggers lose LOL
>ok u can remote view but you're trying to be an anime character lol! plus I wfh/daytrade so i win by default!
So no argument then? Pushing the goalposts and bringing up unrelated shit nobody asked about? Thanks for playing I guess. I win.
So no argument then? Pushing the goalposts and bringing up unrelated shit nobody asked about? Thanks for playing I guess. I win.
>me poorfag and still no argument after several opportunities
whoa, my bank account just drained from my rival's complete impotency
whoa, my bank account just drained from my rival's complete impotency
>>196493
>is now bringing up his wealth in order to win the argument
Holy shit you couldn't get more retarded but here we are.
>is now bringing up his wealth in order to win the argument
Holy shit you couldn't get more retarded but here we are.
>>196495
Come back when you're not on cocaine or whatever. I'm trying to speak to a semblance of a human, not a nigger.
Come back when you're not on cocaine or whatever. I'm trying to speak to a semblance of a human, not a nigger.
File: 1665303586769.jpg (117.68 KB, 814x973, 814:973, 9043505e386095f41820ec8d8f….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
lol just stop wasting your time already with that malicious outsider who got owned by the cunnywizards.
File: 1665303651733.jpg (132.85 KB, 776x678, 388:339, 1403038997958.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196499
atrocious attempt at samefagging.
atrocious attempt at samefagging.
File: 1665303937319.png (321.77 KB, 500x281, 500:281, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb
>durr pedoniggaz we wuz won cuh el oh el, i b sayn pedofaggy still b normal stylin yet y dey wna linch muh fagit azz??? n y nobody want me hear needah???
>>196513
you are astoundingly dumb, since one of those is not me and none of them are pretending to advocate for each other maliciously or to disguise that it's me. you are such an autistic loser that you think these posts are somehow all complementary. >>194473 is not me, but i agree, you are a stupid nigger.
you are astoundingly dumb, since one of those is not me and none of them are pretending to advocate for each other maliciously or to disguise that it's me. you are such an autistic loser that you think these posts are somehow all complementary. >>194473 is not me, but i agree, you are a stupid nigger.
>>196515
and if all 3 were me? you call it samefagging but it's so spread apart with no intention of samefagging that you just make yourself look dumber than ever
and if all 3 were me? you call it samefagging but it's so spread apart with no intention of samefagging that you just make yourself look dumber than ever
I had to go and check if this is /b/ or not. What the fuck did you retards do to this thread overnight?
>>196407
>Matter is not enough to explain the basic question of why there is something rather than nothing. Therefore, it is a metaphysical necessity for there to be a necessarily necessary being, i.e., a being that is necessary — full stop, and not just contingently necessary like matter. We call it God, therefore God exists.
The whole 'why' question is just the product of our very recently developed human mind, philosophy, culture. This is what I mean by saying that somewhere that to believe in a God means projecting your rationality onto the universe and life. There is no reason, no why. Things just exist because they exist. There is no big answer out there.
God is unnecessary. He was created by humans to explain why we ourselves exist. But if you ask the question "why" then you are off track entirely. There was never any reason for anything. The "why?" was born when the human intellect reached a stage in development and it started asking questions like this to the universe and life. The human mind, so excited by its own theories and phantoms started to project itself onto everything. So everything had to have a rational explanation. And God is the ultimate rational explanation. But to presume that human rationality applies to everything in the universe is just baseless arrogance.
>>196422
Among other things. But it is a complex topic. Religion is supposed to give you some sort of peace and to explain why the world is so bad. It's this retarded "rationalization" of suffering that leads to the "just world fallacy" and other similar errors. Religion is supposed to preserve the status quo, it explains why everything is just perfect the way it is.
>>196419
>Now I'm a deist.
Creationism itself is a false assumption. Leave behind any kind of deism or theism and embrace ATHEISM.
>Matter is not enough to explain the basic question of why there is something rather than nothing. Therefore, it is a metaphysical necessity for there to be a necessarily necessary being, i.e., a being that is necessary — full stop, and not just contingently necessary like matter. We call it God, therefore God exists.
The whole 'why' question is just the product of our very recently developed human mind, philosophy, culture. This is what I mean by saying that somewhere that to believe in a God means projecting your rationality onto the universe and life. There is no reason, no why. Things just exist because they exist. There is no big answer out there.
God is unnecessary. He was created by humans to explain why we ourselves exist. But if you ask the question "why" then you are off track entirely. There was never any reason for anything. The "why?" was born when the human intellect reached a stage in development and it started asking questions like this to the universe and life. The human mind, so excited by its own theories and phantoms started to project itself onto everything. So everything had to have a rational explanation. And God is the ultimate rational explanation. But to presume that human rationality applies to everything in the universe is just baseless arrogance.
>>196422
Among other things. But it is a complex topic. Religion is supposed to give you some sort of peace and to explain why the world is so bad. It's this retarded "rationalization" of suffering that leads to the "just world fallacy" and other similar errors. Religion is supposed to preserve the status quo, it explains why everything is just perfect the way it is.
>>196419
>Now I'm a deist.
Creationism itself is a false assumption. Leave behind any kind of deism or theism and embrace ATHEISM.
>>196527
>the product of our very recently developed human mind, philosophy, culture.
>God was created by humans to explain why we ourselves exist.
>The "why?" was born when the human intellect reached a stage in development and it started asking questions like this to the universe and life. The human mind, so excited by its own theories and phantoms started to project itself onto everything. So everything had to have a rational explanation.
The irony is that this is no more than a "just so" story to tell people why they shouldn't ask questions. If anything is baseless and arrogant (and lazy), it's this story (but to call something arrogant and lazy is a red herring, since a proposition deemed arrogant and lazy according to the objective use of some standard may still be true regardless).
>There was never any reason for anything.
Here you're conflating different meanings of the word "reason", purpose vs function. Asking why the kettle whistles, as in, how do air and acoustics work so as to produce that sound, has nothing to do with asking, for what purpose it does so. It is valid to ask why in the former sense but not the latter except in specific contexts, and even in those, such as for what purpose someone did something still reduces to how people and their psyques work.
>There is no reason, no why. Things just exist because they exist.
I actually agree with this, but at the most fundamental level. You can ask why something works the way it works or how it came into existence, and if you keep following that line you'll get to a necessary existence that simply exists because its non-existence would be a logical contradiction. There is no big answer out there because it's already implicit in the observable premise that something exists right now in a state of becoming. Then anyone with the faculty to make use of rationality (which at the bottom is just symbolic manipulation) can get to this conclusion that a necessary, infinite, and eternal being exists.
>to presume that human rationality applies to everything in the universe is just baseless arrogance.
As opposed to cat or dolphin rationality? Or maybe to German or French rationality? Yes, why should French rationality apply to reality over that of the Germans or the Classical Greeks? Because rationality (in the sense my post was making use of, i.e., deductive a priori rationality) is nothing mysterious or grandiose, but merely a method of modifying the structure of premises to derive a conclusion whose truth was already contained implicitly in the premises but might not have been apparent at first glance. There's nothing inherently human about this method any more that 2 and 2 make four is inherently human and is baseless arrogance to think it applies to the rest of the universe. (It's also ironic that to even be able to tell if "human rationality applies to everything in the universe", you already presuppose that your "human rationality" has gleaned deep enough into "everything in the universe" to finally come to the conclusion itself. "After having examing everything in the universe with my human rationality I have come to the conclusion that my human rationality doesn't apply to it". The self-contradiction couldn't be more evident.)
>the product of our very recently developed human mind, philosophy, culture.
>God was created by humans to explain why we ourselves exist.
>The "why?" was born when the human intellect reached a stage in development and it started asking questions like this to the universe and life. The human mind, so excited by its own theories and phantoms started to project itself onto everything. So everything had to have a rational explanation.
The irony is that this is no more than a "just so" story to tell people why they shouldn't ask questions. If anything is baseless and arrogant (and lazy), it's this story (but to call something arrogant and lazy is a red herring, since a proposition deemed arrogant and lazy according to the objective use of some standard may still be true regardless).
>There was never any reason for anything.
Here you're conflating different meanings of the word "reason", purpose vs function. Asking why the kettle whistles, as in, how do air and acoustics work so as to produce that sound, has nothing to do with asking, for what purpose it does so. It is valid to ask why in the former sense but not the latter except in specific contexts, and even in those, such as for what purpose someone did something still reduces to how people and their psyques work.
>There is no reason, no why. Things just exist because they exist.
I actually agree with this, but at the most fundamental level. You can ask why something works the way it works or how it came into existence, and if you keep following that line you'll get to a necessary existence that simply exists because its non-existence would be a logical contradiction. There is no big answer out there because it's already implicit in the observable premise that something exists right now in a state of becoming. Then anyone with the faculty to make use of rationality (which at the bottom is just symbolic manipulation) can get to this conclusion that a necessary, infinite, and eternal being exists.
>to presume that human rationality applies to everything in the universe is just baseless arrogance.
As opposed to cat or dolphin rationality? Or maybe to German or French rationality? Yes, why should French rationality apply to reality over that of the Germans or the Classical Greeks? Because rationality (in the sense my post was making use of, i.e., deductive a priori rationality) is nothing mysterious or grandiose, but merely a method of modifying the structure of premises to derive a conclusion whose truth was already contained implicitly in the premises but might not have been apparent at first glance. There's nothing inherently human about this method any more that 2 and 2 make four is inherently human and is baseless arrogance to think it applies to the rest of the universe. (It's also ironic that to even be able to tell if "human rationality applies to everything in the universe", you already presuppose that your "human rationality" has gleaned deep enough into "everything in the universe" to finally come to the conclusion itself. "After having examing everything in the universe with my human rationality I have come to the conclusion that my human rationality doesn't apply to it". The self-contradiction couldn't be more evident.)
>>196527
> and embrace ATHEISM.
I never understood atheism. Atheists claim theists are retarded for claiming to know the unknown, while simultaneously claiming there is no God, and thus are guilty of the very thing they shun; Claiming to know the unknown. I'm not a agnostic, I'm a theist, but to me any atheist who knows agnosticism exists and yet refuses to acknowledge an unknown, in order to replace it with a claim of clairvoyance, is ridiculous and beyond me. Like it's astounding.
> and embrace ATHEISM.
I never understood atheism. Atheists claim theists are retarded for claiming to know the unknown, while simultaneously claiming there is no God, and thus are guilty of the very thing they shun; Claiming to know the unknown. I'm not a agnostic, I'm a theist, but to me any atheist who knows agnosticism exists and yet refuses to acknowledge an unknown, in order to replace it with a claim of clairvoyance, is ridiculous and beyond me. Like it's astounding.
>>196563
There is a spectrum to it all and even the so-called leaders of atheism like Richard Dawkins don't claim that they know the answers to the biggest questions.
I identify as an atheist more than agnostic because I see no better proof for any stance beside atheism. I'm sure there are a lot of r/science atheists since there was an attempt of a social push a decade or so ago with Atheism+, but i could easily assume that conscious atheists (even the social justard ones) dont give a shit and dont claim to definitively know the answer to big questions.
There is a spectrum to it all and even the so-called leaders of atheism like Richard Dawkins don't claim that they know the answers to the biggest questions.
I identify as an atheist more than agnostic because I see no better proof for any stance beside atheism. I'm sure there are a lot of r/science atheists since there was an attempt of a social push a decade or so ago with Atheism+, but i could easily assume that conscious atheists (even the social justard ones) dont give a shit and dont claim to definitively know the answer to big questions.
>>196564
>I identify as an atheist more than agnostic because I see no better proof for any stance beside atheism.
So what brings you to this conclusion besides say agnosticism?
>I identify as an atheist more than agnostic because I see no better proof for any stance beside atheism.
So what brings you to this conclusion besides say agnosticism?
>>196551
You don't get it. If the material world explains everything perfectly then there is no need to look for gods. Believing in God is the laziest approach one can take towards things, that is why it is so popular even nowadays. You can just say that everything happens for a reason :) and be done with it. Atheism isn't a "just so" argument, it is the plain truth.
I asked already some people here to explain to us then if they believe in God or if they are agnostics the plan or the essence of this God. You don't say a single word about him in concrete terms, only that "he needs to exist because everything exists" (most retarded argument ever?)
The kettle whistles because it does. It doesn't whistle because YHWH or Allah made it whistle. You can write down more of your witty examples but God is always just an extra, a bonus. He isn't necessary for anything, he is something that gets imagined to the universe to make sense of it.
>Then anyone with the faculty to make use of rationality (which at the bottom is just symbolic manipulation) can get to this conclusion that a necessary, infinite, and eternal being exists.
Maybe put down your theology and metaphysical books for once. They are making your brain into pumpkin juice. This is a classic example of what I meant by overvaluing your rationality. You twist arguments around so much that eventually you end up with something that doesn't exist…Geez, how surprising!
Rationality is a product of humanity. That's what I mean. Humans are over-conscious compared to other animals and so are likely to fall into their own intellectual anus eventually through indulging their rationality.
>"After having examing everything in the universe with my human rationality I have come to the conclusion that my human rationality doesn't apply to it". The self-contradiction couldn't be more evident.
Who claimed to have examined everything? You don't need to examine every single bit of the universe to realize that there is no intelligent will behind it. Any honest man will come to the conclusion that theism is a dirty meme invented for the sake of giving people hollow optimism, hope and to distract their thoughts from what actually exists, this material world.
>>196563
Theists aren't retarded for claiming to know the unknown, they are retarded because they believe in obviously false things. The topic of God isn't something that rests in the region of "unknown". You can examine various cults, religions, traditions and can understand why there were created, why people introduced the concept of God into human thought. God justifies every shit in this world, everything happens for a mystical "reason" and so you should just endure everything with a grin on your face and accept your place in the social hierarchy.
People fall into the mistake of demanding proof from atheists. "Prove that God doesn't exist 100%" That's not how things work. If you state something exists then you are the one who needs to give proof first. Religionfags and theists didn't provide a single good evidence for the existence of God and the supernatural.
Agnosticism is just a cope for theists who halfway lost their faith and like children who can't decide they just shrug and demand both. Agnostics want to believe but they don't want to be ridiculed either. It's a comfortable lukewarm position for the average joe who doesn't have any concrete opinions at all
You don't get it. If the material world explains everything perfectly then there is no need to look for gods. Believing in God is the laziest approach one can take towards things, that is why it is so popular even nowadays. You can just say that everything happens for a reason :) and be done with it. Atheism isn't a "just so" argument, it is the plain truth.
I asked already some people here to explain to us then if they believe in God or if they are agnostics the plan or the essence of this God. You don't say a single word about him in concrete terms, only that "he needs to exist because everything exists" (most retarded argument ever?)
The kettle whistles because it does. It doesn't whistle because YHWH or Allah made it whistle. You can write down more of your witty examples but God is always just an extra, a bonus. He isn't necessary for anything, he is something that gets imagined to the universe to make sense of it.
>Then anyone with the faculty to make use of rationality (which at the bottom is just symbolic manipulation) can get to this conclusion that a necessary, infinite, and eternal being exists.
Maybe put down your theology and metaphysical books for once. They are making your brain into pumpkin juice. This is a classic example of what I meant by overvaluing your rationality. You twist arguments around so much that eventually you end up with something that doesn't exist…Geez, how surprising!
Rationality is a product of humanity. That's what I mean. Humans are over-conscious compared to other animals and so are likely to fall into their own intellectual anus eventually through indulging their rationality.
>"After having examing everything in the universe with my human rationality I have come to the conclusion that my human rationality doesn't apply to it". The self-contradiction couldn't be more evident.
Who claimed to have examined everything? You don't need to examine every single bit of the universe to realize that there is no intelligent will behind it. Any honest man will come to the conclusion that theism is a dirty meme invented for the sake of giving people hollow optimism, hope and to distract their thoughts from what actually exists, this material world.
>>196563
Theists aren't retarded for claiming to know the unknown, they are retarded because they believe in obviously false things. The topic of God isn't something that rests in the region of "unknown". You can examine various cults, religions, traditions and can understand why there were created, why people introduced the concept of God into human thought. God justifies every shit in this world, everything happens for a mystical "reason" and so you should just endure everything with a grin on your face and accept your place in the social hierarchy.
People fall into the mistake of demanding proof from atheists. "Prove that God doesn't exist 100%" That's not how things work. If you state something exists then you are the one who needs to give proof first. Religionfags and theists didn't provide a single good evidence for the existence of God and the supernatural.
Agnosticism is just a cope for theists who halfway lost their faith and like children who can't decide they just shrug and demand both. Agnostics want to believe but they don't want to be ridiculed either. It's a comfortable lukewarm position for the average joe who doesn't have any concrete opinions at all
File: 1665423422712.png (488.8 KB, 731x734, 731:734, 1664971083623481.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>196551
>Then anyone with the faculty to make use of rationality (which at the bottom is just symbolic manipulation) can get to this conclusion that a necessary, infinite, and eternal being exists.
>Because rationality (in the sense my post was making use of, i.e., deductive a priori rationality) is nothing mysterious or grandiose, but merely a method of modifying the structure of premises to derive a conclusion whose truth was already contained implicitly in the premises but might not have been apparent at first glance. There's nothing inherently human about this method any more that 2 and 2 make four is inherently human and is baseless arrogance to think it applies to the rest of the universe.
The issue with this is there are multiple logics, and all such formal systems were proven incomplete by Godel. The seeming inviolability of logical and mathematical reasoning, such that it appears realer than the real world (necessary, eternal, infinite, as you say) suggests it is entirely human. If the temptation is to say "well, these systems produce results in physics and engineering" then that would be a pragmatic argument and not a rationalist one
>(It's also ironic that to even be able to tell if "human rationality applies to everything in the universe", you already presuppose that your "human rationality" has gleaned deep enough into "everything in the universe" to finally come to the conclusion itself. "After having examing everything in the universe with my human rationality I have come to the conclusion that my human rationality doesn't apply to it". The self-contradiction couldn't be more evident.)
Generally to avoid contradictions like "refuting rationalism from within the paradigm of rationalism" we approach these kind of questions at the level of paradigms themselves. You might say "there is no such rationalist paradigm, as human rationality is a faculty" but that would be a tautology, and if you further said "tautologies presuppose rational arguments are possible" then we would be back at the paradigmatic level
>Then anyone with the faculty to make use of rationality (which at the bottom is just symbolic manipulation) can get to this conclusion that a necessary, infinite, and eternal being exists.
>Because rationality (in the sense my post was making use of, i.e., deductive a priori rationality) is nothing mysterious or grandiose, but merely a method of modifying the structure of premises to derive a conclusion whose truth was already contained implicitly in the premises but might not have been apparent at first glance. There's nothing inherently human about this method any more that 2 and 2 make four is inherently human and is baseless arrogance to think it applies to the rest of the universe.
The issue with this is there are multiple logics, and all such formal systems were proven incomplete by Godel. The seeming inviolability of logical and mathematical reasoning, such that it appears realer than the real world (necessary, eternal, infinite, as you say) suggests it is entirely human. If the temptation is to say "well, these systems produce results in physics and engineering" then that would be a pragmatic argument and not a rationalist one
>(It's also ironic that to even be able to tell if "human rationality applies to everything in the universe", you already presuppose that your "human rationality" has gleaned deep enough into "everything in the universe" to finally come to the conclusion itself. "After having examing everything in the universe with my human rationality I have come to the conclusion that my human rationality doesn't apply to it". The self-contradiction couldn't be more evident.)
Generally to avoid contradictions like "refuting rationalism from within the paradigm of rationalism" we approach these kind of questions at the level of paradigms themselves. You might say "there is no such rationalist paradigm, as human rationality is a faculty" but that would be a tautology, and if you further said "tautologies presuppose rational arguments are possible" then we would be back at the paradigmatic level
>>196576
If the material world explains everything please explain why the micro material and the macro material world use totally different rules. Why we can observe things impossible in our understanding of the universe.
Humans aren't even rational.
If the material world explains everything please explain why the micro material and the macro material world use totally different rules. Why we can observe things impossible in our understanding of the universe.
Humans aren't even rational.
>>196586
Clearly there are no laws or rules, that's an idea inherited from theology (and really, idealism). You could imagine creating laws that accurately described and predicted the movement of a ball, but it would be an inversion to say those laws govern the ball. Naturally, the same inversion occurred in atomic thinking
Clearly there are no laws or rules, that's an idea inherited from theology (and really, idealism). You could imagine creating laws that accurately described and predicted the movement of a ball, but it would be an inversion to say those laws govern the ball. Naturally, the same inversion occurred in atomic thinking
File: 1665434641717.jpg (2.29 MB, 2834x5102, 1417:2551, simmap.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>196271
>Anyway, isn't your specific evidence a bit strange under eternalism? Aren't all moments in the simulation equally real so that there's no priority of this one in October 2022 over all others, both all those before and after the singularity?
Not necessarily. If this reality is a simulation, some parts of the simulation might be simulated with higher resolution than others. Hence the NPC meme. NPCs could be interpreted as people who are simulated, as opposed to "real people" like myself. NPC minds would be far simpler and less detailed than the mind of a non-NPC. They wouldn't have subjective experience/qualia, and their minds would be limited to whatever is needed to fulfill their role in the simulation.
In the context of the Fermi Paradox, one explanation is that most of the universe isn't simulated in very high resolution. Most of the computation in the universe happens on Earth, and alien civilizations don't exist simply because the universe doesn't generate them. There are even signs of "lazy programming" in this universe, like the fact that all galaxies rotate at the same speed.
In the context of history, it's possible that most of history is just an illusion. It would be computationally cheaper to generate the illusion of history, rather than simulate all of history in a high level of detail. In the present world, people, places, and things that I will never interact with might not actually be "real" in the same way that the reality I interact with is. Only generating things I will interact with is more computationally efficient. I've never been to Antarctica, so Antarctica might not be "real" in the same way that the United States is. But if I ever travel to Antarctica, the simulation would start generating Antarctica. Languages I don't know might not be complete semantic structures. Is Yakut really a language spoken by indigenous Siberians? I can't be sure that it actually is. But if I started learning Yakut, the simulation might start generating it, as opposed to it being "already there" beforehand.
>Anyway, isn't your specific evidence a bit strange under eternalism? Aren't all moments in the simulation equally real so that there's no priority of this one in October 2022 over all others, both all those before and after the singularity?
Not necessarily. If this reality is a simulation, some parts of the simulation might be simulated with higher resolution than others. Hence the NPC meme. NPCs could be interpreted as people who are simulated, as opposed to "real people" like myself. NPC minds would be far simpler and less detailed than the mind of a non-NPC. They wouldn't have subjective experience/qualia, and their minds would be limited to whatever is needed to fulfill their role in the simulation.
In the context of the Fermi Paradox, one explanation is that most of the universe isn't simulated in very high resolution. Most of the computation in the universe happens on Earth, and alien civilizations don't exist simply because the universe doesn't generate them. There are even signs of "lazy programming" in this universe, like the fact that all galaxies rotate at the same speed.
In the context of history, it's possible that most of history is just an illusion. It would be computationally cheaper to generate the illusion of history, rather than simulate all of history in a high level of detail. In the present world, people, places, and things that I will never interact with might not actually be "real" in the same way that the reality I interact with is. Only generating things I will interact with is more computationally efficient. I've never been to Antarctica, so Antarctica might not be "real" in the same way that the United States is. But if I ever travel to Antarctica, the simulation would start generating Antarctica. Languages I don't know might not be complete semantic structures. Is Yakut really a language spoken by indigenous Siberians? I can't be sure that it actually is. But if I started learning Yakut, the simulation might start generating it, as opposed to it being "already there" beforehand.
>>194054
I'd actually like to get into something spiritual. I think I've basically been atheist by default my whole life. I tried Islam but then someone brought up a specific criticism of Islam and I basically had to admit they were completely right.
I'd actually like to get into something spiritual. I think I've basically been atheist by default my whole life. I tried Islam but then someone brought up a specific criticism of Islam and I basically had to admit they were completely right.
I became an atheist at 18, lasted 11 years being a hardcore atheist who didn't want to hear anything about religion, ufos or any other "nonsense". Then after reading about quantum physics I realized that this world is just an illusion. I started to read about religions from all over the world, I even got into hardcore occult stuff for a while. Then I did a 180 and went back to the Bible, I could finally understand most of what Jesus tried to say in the New Testament, a lot of it is occult stuff that would go right over most people heads unless they have some sort of occult knowledge.
>>196762
The first sip of science making you an atheist but God being at the bottom of the cup, huh
The first sip of science making you an atheist but God being at the bottom of the cup, huh
>>196762
>I could finally understand most of what Jesus tried to say in the New Testament, a lot of it is occult stuff that would go right over most people heads unless they have some sort of occult knowledge.
I care little for quantum shit or anything that isn't directly material and in the now, but I would like to hear examples of this and occultic things Jesus apparently said that you read.
>I could finally understand most of what Jesus tried to say in the New Testament, a lot of it is occult stuff that would go right over most people heads unless they have some sort of occult knowledge.
I care little for quantum shit or anything that isn't directly material and in the now, but I would like to hear examples of this and occultic things Jesus apparently said that you read.
>>196762
>>196869
QM is pretty weird. It's true that systems only exist as wave states of potential probabilities at some point down the line; But where exactly these waves collapse into actualized realities is a really ambiguous question that nobody has the answer to. I dunno if i'd call reality 'illusionary' because of this, but it's still pretty strange.
>>196869
QM is pretty weird. It's true that systems only exist as wave states of potential probabilities at some point down the line; But where exactly these waves collapse into actualized realities is a really ambiguous question that nobody has the answer to. I dunno if i'd call reality 'illusionary' because of this, but it's still pretty strange.
>>196873
>systems only exist as wave states of potential probabilities at some point down the line; But where exactly these waves collapse into actualized realities is a really ambiguous question
I don't fucking GET IT
>systems only exist as wave states of potential probabilities at some point down the line; But where exactly these waves collapse into actualized realities is a really ambiguous question
I don't fucking GET IT
>>196888
Most people don't. I have the kind of nerd background with high dimensional modelling and wave resonance to get his point. Basically you don't need to understand it if you're not enough of a nerd and don't have a reason to become a nerd expert.
It just means that some wizards have enough magical power to cast spells that take time to evolve, or to be seers who are good at being able to predict how certain things are going to play out later one with a combination of intuition and abstract theory. You don't really need to know exactly when the earth is going to get pegged with a really big rock or a sun fart, or if your electrons are going to quantum tunnel into your butthole and if that means you're gay.
Most people don't. I have the kind of nerd background with high dimensional modelling and wave resonance to get his point. Basically you don't need to understand it if you're not enough of a nerd and don't have a reason to become a nerd expert.
It just means that some wizards have enough magical power to cast spells that take time to evolve, or to be seers who are good at being able to predict how certain things are going to play out later one with a combination of intuition and abstract theory. You don't really need to know exactly when the earth is going to get pegged with a really big rock or a sun fart, or if your electrons are going to quantum tunnel into your butthole and if that means you're gay.
>>196373
So because mushrooms are just the "fruit" to spread seeds from a single organism that actually lives underground, there must be a collective consciousness?
Analogies like that can be useful for explaining things but only if it's true.
If you included a link to the article (or even better, the study they're talking about) in that image you included, that might have some real information. Because nothing else in your post really said anything about whether or not that claim about a collective consciousness is true.
So because mushrooms are just the "fruit" to spread seeds from a single organism that actually lives underground, there must be a collective consciousness?
Analogies like that can be useful for explaining things but only if it's true.
If you included a link to the article (or even better, the study they're talking about) in that image you included, that might have some real information. Because nothing else in your post really said anything about whether or not that claim about a collective consciousness is true.
>>194451
>(People who understand psychical research know that telekinesis or psychokinesis is real btw, but a very rare talent.)
If the people who are able to do it are telling people about it, are ALL of them completely uninterested in all the money they could get from proving that it's real?
>(People who understand psychical research know that telekinesis or psychokinesis is real btw, but a very rare talent.)
If the people who are able to do it are telling people about it, are ALL of them completely uninterested in all the money they could get from proving that it's real?
[Last 50 Posts]