Pro-tip, never, ever, tell anyone you're about to kill yourself. It won't go your way, you'll most likely get hauled to some asylum.
Good advice. As sacrosanct as confession is, you're going to put a priest or """priest""" in a tough spot if you say something like that. The church (or in many cases """church""") is pretty pozzed these days.
Technically any fellow in Christ can hear your confession, so just stick to the sane stuff you might normally not be able to admit to people you know. And, to your original question, faith is a journey, so you might as well find out where it takes you.
the moments in which i believe that some magical entity dictates my life are the moments in which i am most suicidal and on the verge of losing my mind, when i accept that there is no such being my anger is released
I had a revelatory experience using psychedelics in my late teens, I consider this my baptism in hedonistic nihilism.
I'm reading the bible now, but I'm not sure what will make me a Christian. >>195806
I think all people with faulty minds should look into the consequences of being truthful, especially to priests, social workers and head shrinkers. Search "mandatory reporter"
>>195810>I think all people with faulty minds should look into the consequences of being truthful, especially to priests, social workers and head shrinkers. Search "mandatory reporter">>195810>I think all people with faulty minds should look into the consequences of being truthful, especially to priests, social workers and head shrinkers. Search "mandatory reporter"
Aye. I've learned that the hard way. Never tell the whole truth. Hell, not even half.
Or rather there are some specific no-go zones, you can tell whatever you want outside that zone: immediate harm to myself or others.
Yeah that's how she goes. Don't even joke about those two topics.
You don't have to believe me and you don't have to believe this guy, but when people show up at your door with battle suits and seizure medications in their front pocket then you start to understand that you don't even have to say anything about harm or self-harm for somebody to call the crew on you.
If you have real problems, they'll help you out. If you don't then keep that between you and somebody you trust.
I realized that it doesnt matter that much, whether i die or i live everything will remain the same, im going to just go with the flow for the sake of it and at the same time lean towards a path
No , I don’t believe in any religion since 16 and I’m 29 now. I did read bible and quran last year again since I was 18 and I did became even more strongly convinced atheist. I cannot comprehend how people could believe anti-scientific bullshit in this year. I did NOT enter SINGLE time a mosque , church or any other religious building my entire life. My parents are non-practicing muslims but I never believed anything ever and not gonna believe ever.
My brief experience with JWs is that the way they behave as a group doesn't seem quite entirely "Christian" to me. To me it seems like a certain way of taking an attempt at orthodoxy to a strange destination that seems somewhat at odds with the intent. So I wouldn't blame you if you wound up at a similar sort of impossible crossroads within that doctrine, although I'm not versed in it well enough to provide a useful analysis.
However, I thought it was interesting that JWs had their own color triangle in Hitler's Fun Camps. I happened to be killing time with a Mormon (of all kinds of people) one afternoon and we got to chatting about jews and the holocaust and what more likely really happened during all that mess. And almost under his breath he's like>well yeah JWs were seen as like crypto-jews, which they are
I had to laugh. I can't mock honesty, regardless of its truth content.
Don't do it>>195852>the contradictions became boundless.
Underage tier mindset.
i didn't go to a JW church, didn't give them my address or money or anything. just consumed their media independently. their ideas make the most sense of any denomination, i won't go into detail.
but yes they're a very very dangerous money obsessed cult that will gladly pillage grandmas in hospice. I listened to some of their bible study videos and you could identify that the members were brainwashed golems through their voice alone. their voice no longer had a soul. They talk to each other using preschool TV voices. "Very good, Tim. Thank you for sharing that with us."
whatever, fuck them. They have all the right ideas but the worst church known to man.
If you don't mind me asking, what is it about their ideas that make the most sense to you? I'm not looking to start an argument or a big debate about which sect is best. I'm just curious what stands out about it to you vs. whatever else you might have considered.
every other denomination says "im god's bdsm slave bitch and i pray to him to thank him for killing both of my parents, im sure he did it for a good reason and its just made me love god even more".
jehovah's witnesses don't blame god for terrible things happening to them. they talk about god as if he's a member of the family. God is oddly very underpowered and weakened in JW lore. They think he'll only reassume his full power on the day of the rapture, which he will then immediately use his power to kill all non-christians and satan.
that among other things is why jehovah's witnesses are the only branch of christianity i have any respect for anymore.
i'd die of cringe if i walked into a normal church at this point, the bdsm slave bitch stuff is absolutely sickening to me.
another thing to me is that they believe animals have souls and go to heaven, while no other christians do. Their beliefs would and should actually point them towards veganism. I think the only reason they don't teach strict veganism is because it would hurt their membership and pockets.
same guy again >>195862
i just remembered an important one i want to add.
JW's make the bible their entire identity and religion is something they practice all day every day. They're encouraged to be late to work or school if it's in the way of bible study, and put all other responsibilities to the wayside of God.
they don't treat christianity like a once a week cuck hobby and they aren't embarrassed to bring it up to their friends and coworkers. cuck christians that are religious once a week for one hour are sickening.
they blame satan for the bad things happening to them, not god. diseases and such are a creation of satan.
Huh. I grew up roman catholic and basically just spent all my bored time in church trying to prove it wrong, but jesus is just smarter than I am or something. I couldn't do more than edge around a few claims here and there, and the bible is all written and mistranslated and edited along the way by a variety of people who aren't jesus.
I was never given to understand that god was an evil rapist but rather just a final judge. But what you say aligns with the sort of harsh behavior I've observed from JWs. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
Also, I don't particularly remember anything about whether or not animals have souls. I think that probably a person who gets off on harmin an animal lacks a soul, regardless of where animals go when they die.
I was once acquainted with one Alfred Adask, who uh sold collodial silver on the side or whatever it was, and he found that a substantial number of states had the exact same wording in their drugs laws>man or other animals
And his argument, which he won in court, was that this violates his 1st amendment rights because he believes that man is not an animal based of freedom of religion. That's a terrible technicality to gain your life of freedom for crimes that never happened, but it is an important lesson in how corrupt and downright evil the government can be when their power is challenged.
churches dont talk about it because it makes people asshurt to find out their heckin pupper wont go to heaven. theyll either not discuss it at all, or if theyre a progressive church that accepts gays theyll just say "yes" with no further elaboration. anything goes and they bend the rules on lots of stuff
Bend what rules? I think the distinction I brought up was between man and animal, not progressive chrches and sex with animals.
Obviously sex with an animal is not going to result in procreation. This is simple biology and I don't understand why anybody would bring it to the table.
I believe in polytheism and as I grow older the more I find ancient greek and pagan religions in general to be true in some way. I don't believe that a single, omnipotent entity is behind every event in this universe, this universe and existence in general is too complex to be attributed to one single will and his plans. I believe everything that exists in this world is an avatar of a higher energy or concept, these concepts are the gods. I have my divine counterpart and so have you and the tree in my garden and my dogs too and everything. As a concept everything exists separately and by itself in its own world.
This universe, this material realm is what happens when those concepts cross/meet with each other. Chaos happens. Imperfection happens. Suffering happens. Illnesses and Death happen. We have to endure this realm and then we go back to where we came from, to our own god/source/higher self and then we can be whole again.
Monotheism is the normalfag version of spiritualism basically where everyone is said to have his origin in the One, True God and so everyone has to follow his moral laws and orders. But I think people here of all places can feel that we humans don't have much in common. That is why the idea of monotheism is so ridiculous, God created normals AND people like us too? Lol No, I don't think everyone was created by the same god at all.
someone posted this here a while ago and i liked it so much i happened to save it. >>195869
i meant that they'll just tell people "yes animals have souls" when questioned at a progressive church/any church just to stop people from questioning it further and to keep their donations coming in. i didnt mean they promote zoophilia lol.
I believe, both human as a self and people as a community need sprituality. Irrational believes. I have recently reading Mircea Eliade. His takes on religious believes are great. I am an atheist since I was 14. I don't believe there are mystic or supernatural beings. But I believe the believes for these is a core part of human mind. When you exclude traditional religions new age ones flooded
There's a somebody in my extended family who I guess had trouble coming out as a lesbian. I don't think anybody really cared, but then she figured her role in life was to become a priestess in the UU church in order to justify bumping uglies with some other succubus. The wedding ceremony was the weirdest like witch voodoo complete with a big fat nigger banging on drums and worshiping a fake tree.
Okay whatever. I don't really care if you want somehow bless your homosexual relationship. But like that's pretty weird and maybe you could not ask me to clap and sing instead of just saying like oh hai glad things are going well haven't seen you in a while oh okay hey welcome to the family I'll go get some drinks or turn over these hotdogs on the grill etc.
I'm religious. I worship Entropy. It's omnipotent and omnipresent, it dictates our lives. The beginning and the End. The fifth force.
Gonna have to spend the rest of my life looking for bugs in the universe so i can somehow glitch myself into becoming a god
First, you disprove what you claim yourself. You are an atheist and don't believe in these things yet you say that humans need to believe in spiritual stuff for some reason. Make up your mind where you stand.
Second, while New Age movements are certainly cringe, so are organized religions too. In fact I would say New Age is better in the sense that there is no fixed dogma you need to believe in, you are encouraged to explore different things yourself.
I'm certain nothing did more harm to the spiritual pursuit of humanity than the rule of organized religions.
>>195898>there is no fixed dogma
Actually, there is no dogma at all. You just go there and pay a bunch of sociopathic morons so that they'll graciously permit you to believe in whatever the fuck it is you want, which for the vast majority of people happens to be more or less something retardedly narrowminded and personal like "my dog will go to heaven". This is because people don't go to New Age churches so that they can believe in something, they do so for the purpose of making themselves feel good. They don't have any actual knowledge on anything spiritual, and in fact they don't possess any interest in it either, so they never end up developing actual beliefs, just stuff like "God will make the dogowner whose dog shat on my lawn burn in hell". This line of thought requires absolutely 0 knowledge, it doesn't conflict with any form of belief, and it makes them feel good by making them think that they'll get revenge for something that happened to them.
New Age religions have had absolutely zero positive impact to spiritualism, ever. They suck up depressed fools by utilizing sociopathic "Priests" specifically trained in social interaction and some sort of incredibly vague central doctrine, they encourage people to believe what makes you feel good), and that's exactly what everybody does. The believers feel some sort of satisfaction in their baseless assumption that what they feel is true, and then the church swoops in and demands gibs. All I've talked about so far applied specifically to the "chill" New Age religions, I don't even want to rant about the one's that are full-on cults and demand not just money and servility from their members but also bizarre shit like blood and whatnot.
>>195898>First, you disprove what you claim yourself. You are an atheist and don't believe in these things yet you say that humans need to believe in spiritual stuff for some reason. Make up your mind where you stand.
I state a *general* tendency of humans. Like norm of the society. Also, trying to avoid contradictions at all costs is not good. There should be contradictions of thought for me to build new paradigms. I am an atheist but it's because of some material reasons. Not for it's an ultimate truth. There may be hypotheses on why I am a disbeliever. Individuals are not important.
>Second, while New Age movements are certainly cringe, so are organized religions too. In fact I would say New Age is better in the sense that there is no fixed dogma you need to believe in, you are encouraged to explore different things yourself.
That's not my point one is good, the other is bad. I mean the society and people *need to* have some irrational believes.
>I'm certain nothing did more harm to the spiritual pursuit of humanity than the rule of organized religions.
I consider it in a historical perspective. Organized religions were a must for centralised kingdoms. Even the mythology of religions correspond with kingdoms. Were kingdoms bad? For now, I think so. For now, I think civilization was bad. Leaving hunter-gatherer life was bad. That's a contradiction for me? As I stated, no matter, so be it
You reminded me of traditional, organized and "proper" religions by this description of yours about New Age, ironically. Christian churches do exactly this too and probably all religions did through history. Religion is useless and harmful in my opinion. When I said "New Age" in my previous post I didn't refer to any cult or organized "church", I used "New Age" to mean non-judeo/christian spiritualism. You can be New Age even if you research spiritualism on your own, I think.
Anyway, you think Christianity is doing anything different than this?>They suck up depressed fools by utilizing sociopathic "Priests" specifically trained in social interaction and some sort of incredibly vague central doctrine, they encourage people to believe what makes you feel good), and that's exactly what everybody does. The believers feel some sort of satisfaction in their baseless assumption that what they feel is true, and then the church swoops in and demands gibs
As I said, you perfectly described mainstream religions too all over the world. Religions, churches and cults were never interested in spiritualism but only in their own material gains that they achieved through mass manipulation and hypocrite behavior.>>195924
You just hate making clear decisions, don' you? Contradictions aren't necessary or good things, they are to be avoided if you possible. One either believes in spiritualism or doesn't. There is no middle way, agnosticism and taking the middle ground and such are for the indecisive. I would encourage you to choose one and stick with it. People nowadays are too afraid or reluctant to choose sides.
Kings and kingdoms are the past. Monarchy is an outdated ideal. We should look forward to more modern and yet spiritual (not religious!) societies.
Personally, by "New Age" I was referring to all the new religions that have popped up in the last 150 or so years, I'll continue to do so in this post as well because I can't remember another name for them.
I wasn't trying to argue that churches of proper religions were good or anything, I merely wanted to express just how fucking retarded, and how much worse, the "New Age churches" are.
Christianity went to shit when the priests in far-away regions realized that they could claim to forgive sins in god's stead in exchange for money and get away with it, since the common man was not allowed to read the bible, and by now all christian churches are just a bunch of dipshits sitting on all that the people created before them and getting paid for it. But! Christianity and other proper religions, unlike New Age ones, have incredibly complex lore that was developed over hundreds or thousands of years, which explains the natural world, how one should live their lives, and the heart of man itself. These religions and the ideas developed in them can serve as anything, you can read about the lore, other people's takes on it, and develop your own ideas on the world around you, whereas the New Age churches have absolutely nothing to offer whatsoever, they are just shitty rehashes of the real religions, they don't even have any proper lore, or the thousands of years of great men arguing over eachother, that real religions have, and thus are nothing but a complete waste.
New Age is about stealing concepts from all over the place, I mean from myths and religions that don't have any connections to the abrahamic lore and religions. So like pagan religions of all kinds, eastern religions like hinduism, jainism, buddhism, tao or from different kinds of esoteric or occult traditions. Many of these traditions are much older than christianity itself so New Age can be a deceiving name.
I hold the opinion that abrahamic religions are inherently low quality compared to other religions and spiritual pursuits. Mainly because they don't or didn't allow free thought at all, everyone who dared to bring new colors into them got branded as heretics and got stoned/burned/etc. The most interesting branch of Christianity was gnosticism and the church made sure to kill off gnostics and to get rid of gnostic teachings. Shame. Honestly, if you ask me, it is for the better that the West got de-christianized.
If you or anyone else wants spiritualism there are tons of better alternatives for it: gnosticism, eastern religions, satanism, paganism, pretty much anything is better than abrahamic religions. Avoid Judaism, Christianity, Islam at all costs.
>>195938>so New Age can be a deceiving name
that's a good point
na im atheist bro. i believe when we die life is over. no afterlife.
but if we escaped from the void once why couldn't it happen again?
death is only the beginning for a wizard and after death we're finally free of the nasty body, so we can work out some really great spells
don't despair, wizard
kind of a hilarious idea, but what if you believe that experience is generate from inside of your body
I’m agnostic whatever happens happens, it’s outside of my control anyway so who cares
well acktually them with forcing them to addresss new age as syncretism or else rudely interrupt them as they get it wrong
Don't kill yourself anon. Please consider reaching out for mental support from family members, friends , therapists, aqquaintances. There is something to hold on to. Please don't do it
Fuck of normshit. I don’t want any scum like you in wizchan
I am just trying to give some help.
would be giving him potential reasons to hang on.>>196676
Wizards who wish other wizards to discover a life worth living are always welcome.
lol they're all basically liars who do it for the money, even if they mean well. You'd know that if were one or actually cared.
Just try to live on your on and find how much you like it. This is how normal people figure out what works for them, and if they'd rather ask some kind of friend or whatever for "help" living the life they'd rather live.
Wasn't until recently but now I see what this really was. Spoiler: all the gods of mankind are just variants of Satan, and exist as a metaphor for the cult of power at the center of every state. When you really dig into history you see how fucked we always were and that it was always a lie.
If you're going to go, just go. Most religions will not encourage you to off yourself and they really don't care about your suffering.
I would encourage you not to kill yourself. It really isn't worth it, unless you are fearful of being tortured or put through something much worse than death. Life is actually good. It's the people who are shitty, and most of the shittiness is in particular people who have been enabled. I wish I didn't have to avoid people this much but it's a lot better than listening to shittiness from people who simply refuse to allow anything good to exist and keep the cycle going. That said, most people are in the same boat and have some sense of not shitting up the world too much, and that's the only thing keeping some decency in this world. The leaders of civilization have done their best to make the world as miserable as possible. If people had good things, they wouldn't accept ridiculous exploitation or give the sadistic amusement, and if you tell those sadists that they can't have that any more, they shriek like retards.
>>197028>Most religions will not encourage you to off yourself and they really don't care
Religions aren't people. They don't have agency and free will. They are not capable of caring or not caring about what you do with your life. You might as well be saying that a religion can choose its own pronouns and self-identify as having agency.
This is not a wizardly basis upon which to make the decision about whether you want to be here or not. That's an internal struggle, and might or might not have to do with a magical relationship. The rest is all just a matter of philosophical norms and axioms.
You know what he meant. Religions are anti-suicide and you can't argue this. Their whole purpose is to create good slaves for society and the slave that kills himself isn't a good slave.>>197028
I agree mostly except for the part>That said, most people are in the same boat and have some sense of not shitting up the world too much, and that's the only thing keeping some decency in this world. The leaders of civilization have done their best to make the world as miserable as possible.
That's a narrow view. It's not just the leaders of the world who are capable of destructive behavior. Ordinary people, the mob of people are just as capable of bringing about their own destruction. There is no such thing as most people actually, since the majority always follows some leader. The mob doesn't have a will of its own. That's what makes it so dangerous.
Here is the obligatory part to remind people that Hitler was elected democratically…So who was responsible for WWII and the war crimes of the axis powers? Hitler or the german people? To me it sure seems like Germany was collectively guilty, at least the majority who voted for Hitler and supported him.
Religion is supposed to be a guide for living life. A religion that advocates suicide would be like a tour guide who recommends you just leave.
>>197043>guide for living life
That's a nice way of saying that it is a tool to create obedient sheep.
And if religions are really concerned with living life now on Earth that begets more questions, considering how the majority of religions say that you shouldn't cling to this life above all.
So ,uh, dude, you are supposed to love God and try to get into Heaven above all/or you should focus on reaching inner peace and leave behind this temporary world of illusions BUT well uh, oh, here are some rules for you and it's like really important how you behave in this life even though this life is uhh, not what you should be concerned with!!
The inner contradiction of religions (which are really just idealism in various forms.)
It's certainly true there are a lot of shitty people in the crowd who do it to themselves. If you're familiar with public opinion in the 20th century though, just about everything we are told to believe has been created by a propagandist who is of the political elite or paid by them. Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann is a basic reading requirement to even start getting what this is, and when you go down the rabbit hole of influencers you see just how much our everyday behavior was shaped by experts who do not want us to survive. Organic ideas from the mob don't get very far without being co-opted or herded, such that ideas inimical to the ruling system are destroyed and anyone thinking for themselves will be punished. It's why they are quick to attack people for saying basic truths that once upon a time everyone would say freely. It's why they make a point of forcing kids to utter blatant lies that are the exact opposite of what actually happens.
The Hitler myth was there specifically to absolve the Germans and the Nazi Party of guilt. Everything in the post-war history was about whitewashing the involvement of many people in the Nazi regime. The Nazis were funded by a faction of American and British capitalists with so much money, and during the 1930s the Nazis and Hitler were darlings of the intellectual class. Hitler was just a screaming idiot who enabled that. There's nothing special about him. He was Kraut Obama except stupider and surrounded by even more incompetent people, and dumb enough to believe the shit he says, whereas Obama knew what this was. He was a prototype for the ceremonial cult of personality leader that was the ideal distraction for current-day regimes.
>"The Mohammedan religion would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
- Adolf Hitler
>According to Speer, Hitler wished that the Umayyad Caliphate had won the Battle of Tours against the Franks in 732. This particular battle is credited with stopping the influx of Islam further into Europe and saving Christianity in Europe.
>"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."
- Adolf Hitler
>According to Speer, Hitler was convinced that had Islam taken root in central Europe at this time, the Germanic people would have become the “heirs of that religion” with Islam being “perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament”. Hitler said that while the Arabs, on account of their “racial inferiority”, would have been unable to handle the harsh climate and conditions of the region, and that instead the Islamized Germans would have “stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire”. A “religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and in subjugating all nations to that faith”.
>As per the book “Islam and Nazi Germany’s War” written by David Motadel, Muslims fought for both the Allies and the Axis in World War II. However, only the Nazis and the Islamists had a “spiritual romance” sharing mutual hatred of the Jews, the Bolsheviks, and liberal democracy.
Too bad the actual religion and all it's adherents are fucking retarded.
>>195803>Are you spiritual
Militant atheist that is "spiritual". Despite being an atheist, I'm heavily immersed in philosophy and I actively preach what I research.
Yes, both nazism and islam are turbo-normal ideologies, we know that but thanks.
I don't like Christianity that much but compared to those two it is a much better alternative. I give thanks to God that Europe used to be christian and not muslim and that fascism was only a short nightmare in its history.
Modern Christianity is such a joke.
What's the problem with this? Everyone is God's child. Why should we hate homosexuals or trannies?>>197181
Christianity is one of the few religions that finally decided to move with the times. That's what makes it superior to other religions like Islam which still stick to 7th century morals and attitudes.
spirituality/religion only gives me paranoia. I've tried it, it did not feel right. Atheism is better.
What’s the point of a religion “moving with the times”? Religions are entirely founded on the idea of tradition. Yeah you can alter tradition but when you alter it so much that it can be anything you want, what makes it different from believing anything else?
Also you might as well start using an avatar fag-kun, you’re the only person going on about feminism and LGBT all the time.
not spiritual or religious in any sense. and im not suicidal or depressed or anything else. what i see and touch is all that is worth caring about, i dont hallucinate about ghosts and spirits or gods like a crazy person
It's against their scriptures. What's the point if they're not going to follow it? I'm not religious by any means but homosexuality and transgenderism shouldn't be promoted. I don't wish harm on them.
Islam is not as bad as you make to be it is pretty simply at core it involves submitting oneself to god however it has been used many time.
I don't think viewing religions as simply a form of tradition is a correct idea. And to be honest, Christianity itself was born out of progressive Judaism. Buddhism was born out of Hinduism. Etc. Times change and always require new thoughts and attitudes that address the problems of the age.
The core belief in Christianity is that you should love others and practice mercy. You can fit into this narrative tolerance of sexual minorities too. Would Jesus hate gays if he walked the earth now? I don't think so, considering he ate and socialized with prostitutes and the biggest sinners of his culture.>>197196>It's against their scriptures.
Jesus never talked about gays, though, as far as I can remember. I think only Paul mentioned them a couple of times or Peter.
But there are many things in the scriptures people don't keep anymore. We don't keep the sabbath, we don't stone people to death for adultery or stealing or cursing God's name…We can't deny Christianity went through an evolution of its own too, just like Judaism did because Christianity started out as a heretic sect of it.>>197197
I don't want to undergo circumcision, I don't to give up eating pork and drinking alcohol, I don't want to stop listening to metal music, I don't want to be whipped because I didn't go to the mosque on Friday and I don't want to be executed because I made a joke about Muhammad or Allah.
Christianity has already gone through tons of schisms and reformations, and there's three major denominations around the world and thousands more smaller ones. But those schisms and reformations all happened because they couldn't agree on what the scriptures really "meant". Scripture has always been important.>I don't want to undergo circumcision, I don't to give up eating pork and drinking alcohol, I don't want to stop listening to metal music, I don't want to be whipped because I didn't go to the mosque on Friday and I don't want to be executed because I made a joke about Muhammad or Allah.
And why do you think Islam makes you do this but christianity doesn't have to obey the sabbath or shit anymore? It's the same thing. People drink and listen to metal in dubai. It's just places like Qatar that will still hang you. Much like being gay in an orthodox part of russia will get you lynched even though they are christians that should "love others".
>>197225>But those schisms and reformations all happened because they couldn't agree on what the scriptures really "meant". Scripture has always been important.
I didn't say it wasn't important. But you have to understand christian scripture is complex and contains many contradictions (probably true to all religions on some level). So different parts of scripture were more popular in certain times and ages while others were disregarded. And like I said, there is barely any talk about homosexuality in the New Testament. Jesus never mentioned gays and homosexuality.
I disagree about what you say on Islam and Christianity. Islam isn't close to modernization or secularization at all. Dubai is an exception because it is based on tourism and business with foreigners so of course they will be more liberal about things. But the vast of majority of the muslim world is still on the level of "if you disagree with me you have to die" 7th century thinking. Islam could only be secularized and modernized if it was adopted by western culture but I don't think it's worth the effort and it could turn out to be a disaster too.
I don't think people would lynch you because of their faith or in the name of Jesus Christ but rather because it is a country that is very much indoctrinated into (far)right values. It is a country led along the lines of fascist principles and its culture is just well…slavs, what can you say about them? They only understand violence and destruction, they are the "blacks" of white culture.
what is a "god"?
how do all the jewish spinoff "religions" know there's one god instead of many?
obviously even if they bothered to establish what a god is and how they know it's real (which they don't even try to do) they could never know that there is only one
those kike religions are just a psychological attack to take over the world, to make subhumans believe there is only one way, the way of jewish authority represented by a fake god
a rational person might define a god as a pattern or common force that creates order in the physical world, it's just an ideal, a placeholder to help explain things.
the "one god" of judaism just inserts jewish authority as the "placeholder" for all questions, this continues in consumerism/capitalism/communism as the state. all "science" and every other institution derives authority from the state in these updated forms of jewish monotheism
>>197224>I don't want to undergo circumcision
It's not mandatory for Sunni Muslims, fathers can choose to not have it done on their sons, but is mandatory for Shiites (Iran).
>Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik consider circumcision to be recommended but not obligatory. This means that if done, its doer is rewarded by God, and if not done, there is no punishment or reward.>www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516177/
But I do agree people should only be able to have it done when they're adults who can consent and make the decision themselves and are ideally informed about increased risk of ED and other medical issues. Non-consensual circumcision on infants/children is the one tradition among Muslims I'm no fan of.
>I don't to give up eating pork
Pork isn't special, I can live without it.
>I don't want to stop listening to metal music
Are you that weirdo who got his balls removed?
>I don't want to be whipped because I didn't go to the mosque on Friday
It's not mandatory, Islam allows you to pray on your own. Although if you live with Muslim family members or are working in a Muslim country on Friday you might be pressured if there's a mosque nearby.
>I don't want to be executed because I made a joke about Muhammad or Allah.
A society without rules and authority descends into instability and chaos. This occurs sometimes very gradually (e.g. a thousand years for the Roman Empire), sometimes very quickly. Without rules that are enforced, people become jaded, self-destructive and destructive to others when they notice others committing abhorrent selfish acts without facing any consequences for it and they gradually start doing the same, with more joining in at the rate of a bacterial growth. That's the folly of "liberal democracy" and "human rights" (ie. naive excuses to allow people to be selfish destructive assholes who ruin society for everyone else). Humans are evil by default, so you need rules to deter them from bad behavior. This is where Sharia comes into play.
God is the unconditional source of all conditional reality like ours with the "big bang" being a superpriority for any actualization.
God is the I am
God is the unmoved mover
God is the flame imperishable
God is the divine spark
I can't tell you what God wants exactly but I do think it's important to try and wrap your head around the concept of a "non-human intelligence" existing in higher or lower dimensions. Religions are almost always run by psychos who mainly want to control people's perception of God's will.
Humanity is the mechanism for the action of failure.
All religions are lies and their scriptures are full off bullshit and insanity. We humans are just intelligent apes and not much different from other mammals. Charles Darwin and evolution killed all of abrahamic religions and their lies with proving humans are evolved and not created as in their books claim. Evolution , natural selection , sexual selection are the truth and animals (including humans) are result of these evolutionary pressures.
Yes, and that makes religions as a result of the evolution of the human brain so facinating.
so basically>I am a desperate person and I took a lot of drugs and now my head is full of all this shit and I want your head to be full of shit too!
>>197260>Charles Darwin and evolution killed all of abrahamic religions
No you didn't, we just kicked your pasty white satanic gynocratic liberal-DEMONcratic asses out of Afghanistan. You literally couldn't defeat a bunch of goat herders armed with Kalashnikovs despite having the most powerful advanced military in the world lmao.>We humans are just intelligent apes and not much different from other mammals
No it's you infidels who are not much different from animals. Sharia brings civilization and stability.
>>197267>Sharia brings civilization and stability.
This is false t.lived under it for decades
that's like saying the gooks won in Vietnam lol. your third-world shitholes are successful experiments in genocide. if economic domination means you have to wipe out the entire population, then it's clearly unfeasible. not a fan of US foreign policy, but it's delusional to believe that you "won" with so many dead.
the russian great patriotic war is enough to discredit your argument.
you're conveniently forgetting that germany was fighting two wars at once, but ok retarded fag
this does not speak against me? I'm just saying russian casualities were far higher than the germans but what matters in the end is victory, by your logic isis were fighting alone against the coalition forces and managed to hold for 5 years. but we do not have any official data about the casuaities of the islamic state.
of course it does. russia didnt destroy germany singlehandedly and that isnt remotely close to my logic at all. western powers have zero reason to over-report casualties of shitskins. in fact, they are very likely under-reported so as to look less evil than they are.
>>197279>russia didnt destroy germany singleha
don't care, they won, they are the ones writing ww2 history today while germany apologizing each 8th of may
and they probably wouldnt have won had germany not been spread thin between multiple fronts. cant say it anymore plainly than that. you're pretty slow lol.
besides, lower german casualities were due to the fact that there was no one to kill anymore that isn't a civilian taret in the later years of war, they simply dis not have enough manpower and had to rely on forign recruits to fill the front, by the end of the war there were barely any helthy german men (18-30), this also applies while the allied pilot aces did not score as many kills as germans because there were simply no planes to shoot, this is not my theory it's what any ww2 historian claims.
the soviets were able to reinforce their units after losing 2 millions men in 1941 alone, while germany was doomed to lose when they lost 300k soldier at stalingrad, despite being a populous nation, it was aleady an aging one, that's why the national socialist ideology encouraged succubi to stay home and breed as many german kids as possible.
there is really no need to discuss with you if this >>197284
does not convince you, not to mentiom the minor axis nations manpower which far exceeded the atlantic wall garrison.
it was retarded to compare ww2 to afghanistan to begin with, again considering that there wasnt a single front. you can underestimate US all you want if it helps you sleep better, but you're coping lol. after each of these wars of aggression the US "loses," they start another one several years later. guess losing is a winning strategy!
no one is dumb enough to underestimate the us, at least their air force.
if you are unironically pro-usa please rope yourself.https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=niiiHjIQu8s
you have very poor reading comprehension. i have plainly expressed once and implied a couple more times that i am not pro-usa. i am pro-reality, however.
>>197284>lower german casualties because there werent any people left to kill
I've never read something quite as retarded as this before
it's true though
by 1944 the germans were fielding u-18 soldiers and most commanders did not bother holding a defence and rather just retreat instead out of pity.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmSMdBWnK1o
Not an argument retard, continue to believe insane lies.>>197267
Islamic shitholes are the proof of islam being false and lies. Afghanistan is shitole and gonna be shithole forever.
> Sharia brings civilization and stability
Hahaha what a big fat lie. If its true then why don’t you fuck off to afghanistan? I bet you’re not even in a country with sharia because you know its oppresive bullshits and retarded lies and most of the muslim countries are even becoming more secular. >>197271
Yet their state get obliterated
>>197246>Are you that weirdo who got his balls removed?
>A society without rules and authority descends into instability and chaos ETC
To start with, the Roman Empire didn't fall because it was "liberal" or anything, in fact emperors were controlling it by then, it wasn't a republic anymore or had anything to do with democracy.
Second, I don't argue that societies need rules and authority to some extent if they want to be able to function but to go full totalitarian state or authoritarianism isn't the answer. Slavs and germans are very eager to give up their personal freedom and to rely on some father figure who will lead them but we saw every time that the results were horrible. If you let the ruling caste to do whatever they want they only end up creating more chaos and instability in the end, a place where nobody wants to live because the Führer/King/Party decides everything on his/its whim. People flee from authoritarian states to democracies and not the other way around, there is a reason for this.
Society should work based on the principle that people keep each other in check. The leader(s) should watch out for the average people and we should check our leaders constantly to see if they truly do what is in the best interest of the nation. Giving up your rights in the hopes of protection (which is only a promise at best, but usually just a lie) is stupid. Authoritarian regimes operate the same way as those selfish people do you hate so much.>>197257
I think the closest we can define God is by saying his will is reality. Everything happens because God wants it to happen. God is life and existence.>>197260
Science is just another version of faith. You still put your faith into what other people say to you, you aren't different from religious people at all. In fact, we all live from faith. Everything we know is just faith when you get down to it.
>natural selection , sexual selection
Religions knew about this too, why do you think sexuality is usually depicted in negative ways in Christianity? For hundreds of years men thought succubi were the whores of Satan and that sexuality was one of the biggest sins. Gnosticism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, even some jewish and muslim texts agree that sexuality should be treated with caution. People always knew sexuality was something evil and wicked deep down. They attributed it to incubi and succubi and Satan, Darwin said it was biology. Was there really a big difference between the two views in these regards?
>>197319>Yet their state get obliterated
it has been only expanding
Not even trying to argue,what you said was pure psued drivel. You are a mentally stunted manbaby NPC.
>>197336> Religions knew about this too, why do you think sexuality is usually depicted in negative ways in Christianity? For hundreds of years men thought succubi were the whores of Satan and that sexuality was one of the biggest sins. Gnosticism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, even some jewish and muslim texts agree that sexuality should be treated with caution. People always knew sexuality was something evil and wicked deep down. They attributed it to incubi and succubi and Satan, Darwin said it was biology. Was there really a big difference between the two views in these regards?
Thats not what sexual selection means and no faith and science are completely different things although I will agree sometimes science could get corrupted by faith. Science relies on reason and empiricism and not unseen , unobserveble (nonexistent) bullshits like faith does. Humans are evolved not created as abrahamic faiths say and modern science completely disproves noahs ship , genesis or other abrahamic bulshit by evidence. All you butthurt fools who believe abrahamic lies reject evidence presented by science and embrace the disproven lies.
Did you actually research, check and verify all the theories and proofs that support evolution? Oh no? Then you only believe what people wrote and told you. Get off the high horse.>>197239
How can you call something a "god" when there are many of them? Polytheism is just nature-worship, it worships the different parts of nature and life.
A god by its definition is a single, omnipotent, all-knowing, absolute being. If we talk about god then only monotheism can stand on solid ground.
>this continues in consumerism/capitalism/communism as the state
Ehh…no. Those don't have anything to do with state worship. State worship is fascism or nazism actually. Consumerism isn't even a proper ideology, capitalism places "money" or "capital" as the source of authority and communism places the "community" as the highest authority.
>>197361>Science relies on reason and empiricism and not unseen , unobserveble (nonexistent) bullshits like faith does>Humans are evolved
so we have seen species develop things like arms and eyes and entirely new systems and features they didnt have before? no, that has only ever been a theory, and one that is much more unobservable than religion at that. it will take millions of years before the slightest proof of evolution could emerge, meanwhile if you want proof of religion all you have to do is wait out your natural lifespan (or kill yourself if youre impatient). but considering the fact that humanity will probably not be around for millions of years, i would consider the theory of evolution completely unfalsifiable.
That's not an example of evolution but of arbitrarily messing with genes for shits and giggles
Vast majority of dog breeds of today did not existed few hundreds years ago and they’re result of human selection you retard. Natural selection is similar to that but by pressures of nature like climate, predation and other things also requires more time. Natural selection and sexual selection (difference between peacock and peahen) are observeble while your abrahamic shitty lies are disproven and utterly stupid. I cannot believe there are creationist religious morons in wizchan considering their numbers are dwindling really fast.
if genes can be messed with and we can map lineage trees by looking at genes change over time how does that not prove evolution to you
I hate humanity for doing this shit to animals
is there a picture more demiurgic than this?
>>197390>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse>The "ear" was actually an ear-shaped cartilage structure grown by seeding cow cartilage cells into biodegradable ear-shaped mold and then implanted under the skin of the mouse, with an external ear-shaped splint to maintain the desired shape
so youre trying to say that every animal is being genetically engineered by intelligent beings? that would certainly go against the idea that evolution is natural, so i dont know what youre trying to say.
All so much cope to pretend the Kraut race were anything other than drunken barbarians whose greatest accomplishment was killing each other in religious wars.
Also, Christianity as an imperial religion was way more successful than any of these gay-asses who think they're going to be totes more effective than the cult of Jesus. They fucking took over the globe and made everyone try and figure out Christianity even if it was a goofy doctrine that contradicted itself everywhere, that lied to its adherents about what it actually was.
Hitler wants to steal valor from the Muslims, who were actually competent and did shit. That's what Nazis do though - steal shit from others. It's all they are.
Literally Darwin's theory of evolution is importing Malthus' economic thought into the natural world. It should be noted that Darwin is only describing one mechanism for speciation. He didn't declare from on high that life evolved from muck - for a naturalist, that was an assumed position that life had some material origin. The question was how it happened, and what natural history actually was. Darwin never had any sound proof that man evolved from apes, or that dinosaurs existed, or most of the things we assume are "The Science". It should also be noted that creationism as a pseudo-scientific doctrine is a newfangled thing, that only existed as a fake counterpoint to Darwinian evolution. The main target of the ideological Darwinists was Lamarck's theory of evolution. It should be noted again that Darwin wasn't refuting Lamarck, and Lamarck's evolutionary theory was little more than a hunch and assumption he made because he needed something to fill in the blank of how life speciated. Calling Darwin an anti-Lamarckian is bad science and bad philosophy, and Darwin himself didn't like people doing that. Darwin of course was a hardcore imperialist and racist and so he believed in the moral philosophy that was promoted in his name, but the moral philosophy had nothing to do with science and relied on a bastardization of Darwin's own theory.
The simple truth of natural history is that scientists have no fucking idea what led to what, and can't even figure out how the spark of life started with any clear theory. This is made more problematic because the ruling ideas today claim that history is bunk, and make a habit of lying about basic biological reality to serve the philosophical thought that rules us politically. There arose a need to have a quasi-scientific explanation to justify the political system and claim it was natural, and a need to lie profusely about that history to justify a political system that was clearly designed to destroy people and was held by a tyrannical minority that did not want to be constrained by any law or practice.
The central myth that must be upheld, and the source of the controversy, is the genetic myth - the belief that "genes" are the true form of life, and life exists to serve genes. This is a completely bullshit belief that is political rather than scientific, and it is because this belief must be rescued that confusion enters all thought pertaining to biology or medicine. The models of biology that are fed to the public rely on a dogmatic faith in the supremacy of "genes", and later DNA which was repurposed as the "gene" and stripped of its actual meaning. The discovery of DNA should have led to an abandonment of the genetic myth, but instead led to a recapitulation of the worst forms of the myth. This myth is most political, based on Francis Galton's false argument of "nature vs. nurture", which is absurd if you think about it for five minutes. Living things are by the facts of what life is dynamic and in flux throughout their existence. The basic material - which is not entirely passed by hereditary means, since early environment and nutrition play a large role in development - only defines the initial boundaries for life's development.
You solve this problem by having a worthwhile understanding of heredity, instead of this eugenic myth that was always political rather than scientific. Eugenics was there so that a class centered around particular interests could seize the state and command every institution that it wanted to implement its program, and then claim every other institution so that nothing will ever oppose it. It is impossible to truly understand why the 20th century went the way it did without understanding the centrality of eugenics to the entire project, and how eugenics is the key shibboleth that keeps this empire together. Those who rule, or want to rule, are united by this faith in eugenics, which guides every program they have enacted and has been sold to the masses as an ethos they must accept - or else. It only sustains itself through repeated threats and terror.
Anyway, actual science does continue, so this question has been debated since Darwin. No one today is a "strict Darwinian". People like Dawkins are fucking hated by any actual biologist. He's a damn charlatan selling ideology. Most scientists are still trying to rescue Darwin's actual claims. I myself don't have any final answers or any authority allowing me to weigh in, but the actual questions is not these fake-ass questions that we're led to believe are the "debate". I have an advantage over the scientists. The scientists have to defend their institution and legitimacy, and so "I don't fucking know" is a wholly unacceptable answer for them. They have to insert something, even if their evidence is weak, to explain why the world is what it is. I can just keep criticizing and throwing bombs at obviously stupid arguments, and it makes no difference to me where man came from. I don't attach any moral significance to mankind due to its biological characteristics. Man is very clearly a political animal and a spiritual creature, and our meaningful definitions of "human" were always that rather than biologically determined. So has every other idea that we've held that actually makes society possible and worth living in. If you accept this biological reductionism, then there's no fucking point to any of this and arguing about who has the best genes is the most retarded argument mankind ever had.
I am aware that evolutionary theory is not the popular science version - I made reference to developments since Darwin. Darwin's theory was not immediately accepted everywhere, even in the British Academy; nor was Darwin's theory the version that would be promoted in popular science. Darwin was answering a limited question, not presenting a dogmatic history. The descent from apes was contentious from the start, due to lack of evidence and a lack of investigation up to that point. What exactly happened continues to be investigated, and then race-theorists needed to make it a political conflict. It became taboo to speak of the multiple-origin theory of mankind because it was associated with racism and ethnonationalism, which was usually what it was purposed for. When the weight of evidence suggested a crude theory was incorrect, and early man would have interbred with close relatives who weren't from the original stock, there were attempts to rescue theories that were constructed for political purposes rather than discovering what happened and what any of it means. A lot of it is just a way to recapitulate the redefinition of humanism philosophically. Humanism originally pointed to a particular view of the mind, soul, and political subject - that's what the term "humanitas" indicated, rather than a biological definition. It became politically and philosophically necessary to assert a biological basis for humanity alone, and then selectively decide who was and wasn't in the human family - without regard to the original concept which concerned education of citizens or adoption of customs. Eugenics as a political doctrine necessitated seeing the losers of eugenics as incapable of humanity and utterly devoid of any civic worth or participation. That's why the ideologues invent this idea of a philosophical zombie, and assert that people who are quite clearly functional and human are not real. It's literal doublethink, but that's what eugenics must do. It's an ultraviolent and insidious doctrine.
None of this is accidental or the result of ignorance. The scientists and philosophers know what is real and what is not. The point is to make us debate falsehoods, and then make us repeat them as if this is the real position. If ordinary people start to ask serious questions about this fake "debate", assholes jump in to make us argue against disingenuous points, so that we're dragged back into racist arguments and the political logic can continue unhindered. It's the same with biological reductionism and determinism generally. Arguments against reductionism are usually a muting of the actual critique of eugenics - that eugenics was premised on a blatant and deliberate political lie from the outset, so that a coup of those interests would violently destroy anyone opposed to them.
This seems broadly descriptive to me, and denaturalizing a naturalized political agenda would unmask it and be among the most effective forms of critque as you say. Depending who you were talking to this might present problems, however, as they may simply ask the same question about the definition of "human" prior to biological capture. As, unless you take a realist view, humanist values are inseparable from the institutions that implement them
There was never anything natural about this eugenic mindset. It's always been artificial and starkly opposed to native sense about the world. There was a sense that some people are smarter than others and that this trait was hereditary, but there was never this insistence that a very small clique of people can be tested - and by tested I mean selected by the ruling clique which monopolizes the concept of who and what is "smart" - and they should have all of the political power, at the expense of anyone else and over anyone's objections. Natural aristocracies always have to prove themselves against the real conditions they face, or else they're no longer aristocracies. If eugenics has to invent ridiculous laws and resort to extreme violence to get people to accept being destroyed and all of the humiliations eugenics necessitates, the natural aristocracy isn't so natural. The eugenicists are obvious cravens and lizard-people who wouldn't be able to rule unless they violently suppressed their competition. This is why the first eugenic proposals were to eliminate every avenue one may have for social advancement or material or intellectual growth, unless they were selected by this eugenicist group that was utterly controlled by Francis Galton and his friends. Then they associate acceptance of the imperial dogma with intelligence, and any intelligent person - even someone who isn't too bright but manages to put together an intelligent thought about what is done - who does not accept the dogma uncritically is purged and attacked viciously by their supposed fellow "smarts".
Obviously any definition is in flux. I'm saying the human project is a failure, and the transformation to this biological definition was a sign of its failure. The idea for a time was that civilization could be imposed by humanistic values, whether they were Roman/ancient, inspired by Christianity, or liberal. It doesn't really work that way though. Much of the world doesn't agree with those imperial institutions, and wants their own institutions, or imagines global institutions which aren't trying to kill them. They were never really in vogue with the populace of the core countries, particularly the working classes who identified as men more than they identified as human. The working classes were conspicuously scrubbed from the conception of "human" in most cases. Even the Marxists didn't really consider the workers human in a full sense - only those that were politically conscious (i.e., following Marx's ideas or something compatible) were really seen as true workers. Marxists, like most socialists, didn't consider the lumpenproletariat anything more than a nuisance. (Which is really just a slur for the working class Marx didn't want, as many "lumpens" were in a revolving door between proper worker and criminal element, or they were beggars marginally attached to the capitalist system if they were able to find any sort of work and the first to be removed in any crisis.)
The problem with this is that all of our concepts of having any rights, or even being allowed to exist, are tied to this concept of being human. There isn't a world outside of humanity, as technology invades every space and there are no more hiding places. We've only survived this long because technology and the interests controlling it weren't able to invade everywhere, and weren't able to operate with impunity because there was political pushback and the resolve of people to resist this invasion remained. No other society has faced the prospect of having literally no escape from surveillance, while facing a mental assault unlike anything that was possible in the past. It is no longer just mass propaganda or large institutions, but chemical interventions and the knowledge accumulated to effectively brainwash large numbers of people and sniff out the mildest sign of dissent. This has been a project moving ahead throughout the neoliberal period - and you can hear from psychologists who work on torture programs the Bush government established, and they came out convinced that humanity was done. There really isn't a defense against something this big, short of a break in the interest that holds this machine.
Anti-eugenic schizos and their paragraphs of rumblings are lies. Eugenics do work as you could see from horse, dog and cattle being selected for specific purpose which what eugenics is. There is extreme form of eugenics in animal breeding and if it done for intelligence or any other purpose it will also work on humans.Todays biggest problem of civlization is dysgenics most of the western world experiencing iq shredder effect as intelligent people do not have children. (Because liberation of succubi)Todays retarded leftists believe everyone is equal in capabilities and all is needed education. This retarded lie and deny of inheritence of intelligence will kill western civilization as countries like Sweden is already experiencing average iq drop of population.
The problems with eugenics are thus.
1. Who should have the power in a eugenics program? The state? An individual? A council?
2. On what criterion should we evaluate someone's "fitness" to reproduce? Academic achievement? Social standing? Physical fitness? Even if you decide on one then how should we measure it? An IQ test? Grades? Red blood cell count? 200m dash time? Deadlift weight?
Eugenicists should declare what the ideal human is before we even start talking about how to make one.
For clarity by "naturalize" I didn't mean natural, but a process of naturalization that masks its political origins. Your expansion on that point is appreciated, however
While it's outside the remit of this thread it would be interesting to look at how systems of caste and orientalism (at least, how they were understood at the time) fed into this strand of thinking in the 19th century. I agree with what you wrote about surveillance capitalism, besides the note of pessimism at the end>>197539
This wiz isn't making that argument and accepts hereditary inheritance, which includes epigenetic and extrabiological factors. One of his main objections is this hereditary process didn't take place under the scientific lens of the time, as it was a politicized field in the service of power, which is perfectly reconcilable with a fascist reading of the history. There's honestly little to object to besides the hyperbolic presentation, which we can look past
I'm not opposed to spirituality in a general sense, but I can't ever bring myself to believe in any particular system, just feels like wishful thinking. I've just been brought up as an atheist and therefore just have it as a background assumption same way a christian would have christianity as one.
The most vehement supporters of eugenics and social darwinism are usually self-hating people. So funny. They just want to be gassed so much.
Darwin himself was the prophet of a new religion, the religion of evolution. Evolution and Science became the new religions of the modern society that was to be built upon materialism. The fact that most people take evolution and materialism for granted nowadays just proves the indoctrination was a success.
For evolution and on a larger scale, science itself to be taken seriously as the ultimate authority first it needs to be proven without a doubt that materialism is true and not idealism. But that will never happen. In fact evidence rather suggests that idealism is true in some version, especially with your body "cleaning" itself every 10 years or so meaning that your particles aren't the same now as they were 10 years ago. If so that poses a real threat against materialism itself. How are we conscious then? How do we have our memories? Science is full of self-contradictions.
Another critique of evolution could be the Missing Link. Like, come on. There are worlds between us and even the smartest monkeys. We can't be their immediate neighbors in the chain of evolution. So from what species humans evolved? No matter how I see it there are missing holes in the theory of evolution.
Point in case is, evolution isn't the "ultimate truth" in any way. It is another theory out there. You can choose what you like the most and that's it. Probably we will never know the "ultimate truth" about life or the universe and if we knew it then it would be a waste of time and resources to investigate it.
what if your species is gassed against your will like pigs in australia? picture this, a religious person preaching to baby chicks about being thrown in the fire or being ripped apart by demons
where are the pro lifers and pastors at the meat grinders? because people are the evil beings to prey animals, how can I possibly believe in that horseshit
Eugenics only makes sense as a governing system. You don't make eugenics out of individual choices and self-interest. The nature of it implies that eugenics dominates the whole society and everyone is subjected to it. It necessitates that there be a central body to declare what is eugenic, which takes the decision away from individuals. The entire thing is a political coup from the start, and when you look at what it accomplished and what it actually does, its focus was narrowly on political control rather than any concrete measurement of the people it is affecting. Galton's measurements for intelligence are so ridiculous and self-serving that it's a wonder anyone actually believed it, but the people who really believed in it weren't interested in intelligence or how people thought. They only wanted their coup and they were determined to get it.
The ideal human for eugenics is whatever Francis Galton wanted it to be, and his people would rule. It doesn't make sense if you were looking at what would actually modify people or a whole race biologically. If we wanted to selectively breed for hereditary intelligence, we wouldn't do it the way Galton wanted to. He's looking at the way dogs are bred, with the expectation that most of humanity would be reduced to livestock and he and his people alone would be the rightful stewards. Put another way, Galton looked at what the American South did with the slave system and asked how it could be replicated as a general rule. It's one reason the defeated slave power attached to eugenics right away (a slave power that was covertly and financially supported by the same British interests where the eugenicists incubated, just look at the shit the East India Company had been doing and know that the clique around the eugenicists came out of that group and its interests).
Anyway, if you had a mind to modify humankind by selective breeding, and decided certain people should not reproduce, I don't have any inherent problem with that. The problem is that eugenics by its nature was making very aggressive political statements, and was not content with simply controlling who bred with whom. It had to become a total moral philosophy which eliminated any other law - and when you look at the philosophical origins of eugenics, Herbert Spencer and all that, you realize that was the point, more than any scientific or biological project. I really don't think selective breeding would affect much, because we could do far more by actually teaching people and providing machines. Eugenics was premised on immediately declaring war on whomever Galton tagged as unfit, and pushing for their extermination, suffering, and slavery. It is obviously bad for most of the world, and all they have done has not produced any actual improvement in intelligence. It has instead created venal opportunists and an insane ruling class in ivory towers, destroying anything else humanity might have been. The best and the brightest aren't so bright - I've seen enough of these people and know what they really think, and they really are evil and sick and have no plan other than glorifying themselves at others' expense. They don't believe in producing anything but suffering, and selected only the most predatory traits in order to get humanity to accept their system. Eugenics can never fail in their mind; it can only be failed. When all of their pseudo-scientific theories are proven wrong over and over again, they resort to violence to assert that they actually win, killing any honest scientist or anyone who dares to call the bullshit what it was. Ultimately, most of us have no reason to accept this political coup, or even go along with it. It doesn't make anyone smarter or better. All it did was create misery for the past 150 years, probably ensuring that humanity is doomed to intercine war for many centuries to come. We never had to do any of this, and certainly didn't need to let the rot take over everything actually valuable and productive.
In a biological sense, it would be far more effective to engineer life outright - which, if the genetic theory actually worked, should be trivial. This doesn't answer the really important political question though. I don't see why political power needs to be hoarded by an elite clique that selects itself and deprives everyone else of anything at all. There's no reason most of humanity has to be completely expropriated so that those assholes can bray about how great they are, and the only reason they have been able to assert themselves is because they conspire and won't let anyone ever tell them no. The only way to stop their bullshit is to root them out and deprive them of any position where they can hurt a single person or animal ever again. That's the only thing that ever worked.
I don't accept hereditary inheritance in the sense Galton does. I accept that there is a significant hereditary factor - that's an easy assumption to make - but I don't believe IQ scores are a useful metric, and neither does anyone who actually studied the matter of intelligence or cognition. The military scientists who look at this shit don't use IQ, because they have actually useful metrics to look at and cut up enough brains to figure out how people really tick. Of course they'll use IQ because it's the political myth, but they know what these things are, and so does anyone if they actually care to measure you.
So much in human development is the result of their environment, and the opportunities available to them. You're not going to make everyone geniuses by giving them the right environment, but you can clearly do better than the system we have now, because the way we set up this society was designed to promote the myth of "smartness" by punishing the vast majority of people, dumbing down their education, poisoning them, threatening them with repeated violence throughout the whole society, and then propagandizing them with a vast story that this is the only way it can possibly be and suppressing anyone who starts to think differently.
Nothing I said is "hyperbolic". If anything I understate the horror of what eugenics did to this country. Merely saying what they have done should have been enough to Final Solution these assholes right here and now.
Hello wizzies, I am curious to what extent your religious or spiritual practices have improved your life?
Meditation and the mainstream Buddhist / therapy adjunct mindfulness did improve my life. I went from 9/10 dysfunctional mess to a 7.5/10 dysfunctional mess. I’m glad I did it, often forget that it changed me, but it didn’t fix my core mental illness. I experienced great moments of contentment and joy when my mind cooperated and trust the people who say they lead contentment based lives.
i am glad it is helping you. good wizzie.
can you talk more about your meditation technique or perhaps which one you do?
thanks and congrats on the self improvement
It completely cured my depression and gave me a purpose in life.
>The Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.
>Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.
>You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury.
>You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.
>You are a nation that exploits succubi like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use succubi to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of succubi.
>You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
>And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.
AIDS originated in Africa.
Incest is the most prevalent in Muslim countries.
Jews and Muslims are both vermin.
Hell yeah bro. White race for the win, am I right?
What kind of retard uploads shit like this? What kind of retard watches it and takes it seriously?
Sandnigger zoomers are some of the dumbest retards you will ever see, tate chose islam because most of his viewers are muslim subhumans. I always wonder why muslims can't just fuck off into the middle east already, why be here or all over europe when there's already established countries for these faggots.
Europe brought their own destruction.
They got invaded and some are still too retarded to even realize it, the only funny thing about this is how muslims immigrants start to attack leftist LGBT faggots which is just pure irony.
Just some weeks ago muslims beat up lesbians and stabbed a tranny at a fag parade in germany and theres a video where arabs chase gay guys through streets in europe with belts, a lot of stuff like this happens but leftist retards still lick their boots while always talking shit about christians which further shows how retarded these people are.
get fondled by the pastor or be chased by desert hominin, tough choice
Implying all christians are catholic
I really wonder that as well. Islamist retards are evil and destructive as much as progressives.
I believe I've been visited by both God and Christ while in a psychiatric hospital. It was the most intense experience of my life and no one has ever believed me thus far. Sometimes I think that my only reward in what comes after death will be to never see anyone from this world ever again.
I wrote messages to myself saying I was another patient and that I should do psychadelic drugs
I also had weird episodes talking with myself in the bathtub as if another person was inside of me, and had an entire ordeal the first night where some mind-demon was trying to drag me to hell
Did you tell the doctors about this? I didn't tell them what happened because I knew I would probably get committed for life. Fuck them.
not answering that. I wouldn't be committed in any case
I just want to add, the worst part is the meds they put me on initially most likely intensified my delusions. The withdrawal definitely did
The modern medical system is based on abating symptoms and trying to sort out whatever can be done to avoid the worst case scenarios like death. So it'll ideally keep you alive, but it might turn you into a cripple or zombie in exchange. It's good food for thought if you had a transcendent experience along the way.
Who really knows for sure? But those who seek tend to find something, even possibly it's just sometimes wanting to believe in imagination.
I was thrown in a ward with people much crazier than me for weeks without seeing a "doctor" and put on meds before even seeing one inexplicably halfway through. The doc didn't even tell me what my condition was before letting me out. Meds turned me into a zombie that slept all day and had headaches while still experiencing the same delusions.
It's almost impossible to think of a better way to fuck up someone in the early stages of psychosis
[Last 50 Posts]
i can easily think of a dozen ways in less than a minute or two of "better ways to fuck up someone in the early stages of psychosis". are you dumb, or just gay?