/lit/ - Literature

>>14657166
You'll never be "as powerful as the almighy God" either. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

>>14657166
God is conceptualized as the creator of the universe and the arbiter of natural law, the fount of everything good and so on. Not considering yourself inferior to such an entity is just delusional. Even if you don't believe in God you are still inferior to the laws of nature and stuff.

>>14657166
>he didn't think about it logically
try again OP

>>14657166
Your mother has faith in my cock

>>14657166
God fucks the demons of your life in the ass, that is good.
The angels of your life get to circlejerk around His big fat cock, that also is good.

>>14657176
>you are still inferior to the laws of nature and stuff

well maybe you think you're inferior to a rock. whatever

>>14657231
Im talking about gravity, electromagnetism, etc. There are rules to reality you are subservient to.

>>14657231
>lives in the 3rd dimension
>thinks he's hot shit
top kek

>>14657241
Well depends on the perception doesen't it? Are we subservient to those forces or are we a part of them?

>>14657166
Some of use are not cuck though. For atheistfags they have a god that cucks them into oblivion called "mortality" and this "little universe" that you will be smashed into nothingness by. Meanwhile me and god have mutual infinite pleasure in both the finite and infinite.

>>14657294
Are you retarded?

>>14657241
>>14657300
>getting cucked by nature

Electromagnetic pulse just entered my room and ordered me to submit to him.

>>14657331
can you run faster than the speed of light?

>>14657331
>fuck you gravity, you’re not the boss of me
>I’ll jump out my window and fly away if I want to

>>14657345
>>14657241
>>14657300
>>14657335
dumb faggots. my body is subservient to the laws of nature. my body is something i have, it is not what i am. my spirit is free

>>14657331
Can you please stop submitting to the rules of English grammar. Cucking yourself to a language really hurts your position.

>>14657363
Your spirit is also subservient to the rules of nature

>>14657363
Can you mentally represent contradictory notions, i.e. a 4-sided triangle?

>>14657363
>fuck you gravity, my GHOST will jump out the window and fly away
wow you’re right that’s way less retarded

>>14657363
And somehow you think your spirit is more powerful than God? Why would you even claim such retarded nonsense?

>>14657386
It kind of is. Astral projection is real.

>>14657363
based gnostic, fuck the demiurge

>>14657394
>>>/x/

>>14657394
even supposing it is, in your astral world your spirit isn't all powerful is it? There are some rules there I assume and other spirits that constrain what you can do?

>>14657166
no one cares about your retarded opinion tho.

>>14657399
It is real, no question, but whether we're experiencing this in our minds thanks to activating the so-called pinneal gland only or if our spirit-self actually leaves our body, that's the million dollar question.

>>14657166
Ironically you're just exposing your own narcissistic insecurities by assuming religious people are at some kind of fault for this.

>>14657371
Using a language is not the same as being cucked by it. Authority is strictly a human mind invention. Nature doesen't really care about it.

>>14657405
Oh yea, sorry, I'm not OP, I just got in the discussion. Yes, spirits are constrained to laws as well and are definitely not more powerful than God.

>>14657363
You perceive objects as tools because perception is bound within the context of a goal such that your system can evaluate what sense data to ignore and how to categorize that which is relevant. Your spirit is free insofar as it can act within a limited set of parameters. The truth is you're only free to choose what god you'd like to serve, but you're probably ignorant of that so you wouldn't have any idea what god you're serving.

when did this board become filled with so many christian larpers?

>>14657384
mentality isn’t spirit

>>14657467
>everyone who believes in a deity is Christian

>>14657442
But service gives way to "what you behold you become" and so viewing infinite beauty and love i become her twin lover and beloved.

>>14657424
I would argue the superlative cuckoldry is infact the very act of subscription of any kind. If Authority is strictly a human mind invention then literally everything is experienced through it and is thusly circumspect to it for all intents and purposes.

If engaging with of Capital G God we should engage with the concept itself, which for most is defined by the idea of that which is omnipotent and omniscient, an infinite being.

Now, if this is the case God is the theoretical absolute of the nominal existence. And the paradox here is that everything includes the idea of nothing. And if the human existence rests within the system of everything, it is literally impossible not to be Cucked by the ideal of God.

>>14657166
>The atheist is a blatant childish narcissist
Wow, what a surprise.

>>14657516
Mutual divine love is not cuckdom. That is like saying a good relationship cucks you. Cucks get cucked because one of the parties cucks the other.

>>14657516
>Ontological argument
>I think therefore God exists

>>14657516
>And the paradox here is that everything includes the idea of nothing
What? How does "nothing" exists?

>>14657954
Does nothing not exist? Thats the paradox. Something defined by the abscess of something is still something.

>>14657612
I’m talking in the purely theoretical absolute sense of good. The elements of its manifestation differ by interpretation.

>>14658012
>Does nothing not exist?
It seems to be the case, by definition.
>Something defined by the abscess of something is still something
But no such absence can be found in nature. At best we have an abstract concept of it (which is, imo, derived from our concept of difference), but I still have to be convinced of the existence of its object, which seems, by definition, to be non-existent.
What's your take on it?

>>14658043
I am Kantian in my understanding. There may be a true “nothing” outside of the human experience, that is, more than an antithesis to a thesis (an antithesis is by definition still a thesis, just as nothing in human conception is still a thing as we imagine everything in terms of space a priori), but that would be in the domain of the nominal world which we as phenomenal interpreters cannot hope to determine. We can only have intuition( ie abstract concept) of it. But again, if we take the abstract concept of God (not particularly religion, but again an infinite being) he would also encompass the same abstract concept of nothingness. However, this is just about the ends of human extrapolation.

>>14657415
>>>/x/
>>>/out/

>>14657442
>The truth is you're only free to choose what god you'd like to serve
If you believe you can serve ANY god why is it do you choose a god that would tell you to obey your earthly masters. Or that if you act within your own interest it will lead to being tortured eternal fire. Or that the that the meek shall inherit the earth.

Why would you choose a god that celebrates weakness and subservience?

>>14658311
pleb

>>14657442
>The truth is you're only free to choose what god you'd like to serve
If you believe you can serve ANY god why is it do you choose a god that would tell you to obey your earthly masters. Or that if you act within your own interest it will lead to being tortured in eternal fire. Or that the that the meek shall inherit the earth.

Why would you choose a god that celebrates weakness and subservience?

>>14659337
Truth isn't chosen, it's revealed. I'm not a devout christian but I do ultimately believe that if people who act in a manner that's oriented to serve self-interest are wise they'll inevitably 'treat people they way they want to be treated' because it's the best strategy. If you want something and you can't get it within the parameters of that principle you don't deserve it and you will probably either fail or regretfully sacrifice something you didn't realize you couldn't live without.

>>14659375
>you will probably either fail or regretfully sacrifice something you didn't realize you couldn't live without.
you will probably either fail or regretfully sacrifice something you didn't realize you couldn't live without if you decide to make it your highest value (instead of that principle).****

>>14659375
>they'll inevitably 'treat people they way they want to be treated' because it's the best strategy.
This is only the best strategy for the weak, those who do not impose their will on anything they do, and just blankly go by life with no resistance to the decisions of others, who are actively planning it out for you...

>>14659375
>If you want something and you can't get it within the parameters of that principle you don't deserve it and you will probably either fail or regretfully sacrifice something you didn't realize you couldn't live without.
This is just a rationalization of your cowardice after the fact of not being able to impose your will on a situation. Instead of admitting your weakness, you instead resentfully determined that people who did not follow your own meekness "don't deserve it" (aka you don't want them to have it because it hurts emotionally to keep on being reminded of your weakness).

God is a fuck. Perception is my ass.

>>14659401
>>14659413
>This is just a rationalization of your cowardice after the fact of not being able to impose your will on a situation.
If you're so socially incompetent that you can't "impose your will" on a situation without being autistic you're the one that's weak you fucking dumbass. That's why I said "if they wish to act towards self interest and are wise.

What you're saying is basically analogous to an incel making fun of someone who can't get laid for just not raping a bitch

>>14659424
Underrated post, actually.

>>14659413
>Instead of admitting your weakness, you instead resentfully determined that people who did not follow your own meekness "don't deserve it" (aka you don't want them to have it because it hurts emotionally to keep on being reminded of your weakness).
Not sure what you think that passage means but ok.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cct98wRv3SY

>>14657176
>God is conceptualized as the creator of the universe and the arbiter of natural law, the fount of everything good and so on. Not considering yourself inferior to such an entity is just delusional.
That implies the creator of the universe exists, which is obviously nonsensical because it would imply something outside of everything, even though nothing could be outside of everything.
>Even if you don't believe in God you are still inferior to the laws of nature and stuff.
That implies that laws of nature exist.

>>14659465
How did you formulate the presumption that the universe is everything that exists?
>>Even if you don't believe in God you are still inferior to the laws of nature and stuff.
>That implies that laws of nature exist.
epic

>>14659431
>If you're so socially incompetent
this imples that people acting differently from the norm are only doing so out of incompetence, which is certainly true in your pathetic case, but not in the case of those who are evolving it.
>that you can't "impose your will" on a situation without being autistic
This implies that not treating people the way they want to be treated is autistic, in which case I guess Alexander the Great is autistic, lol.
>That's why I said "if they wish to act towards self interest and are wise.
If they are acting towards self-interest then they are not treating people the way they want to be treated.
>What you're saying is basically analogous to an incel making fun of someone who can't get laid for just not raping a bitch
Here you imply I'm an incel instead of an entrepreneurial man to cool your own ressentiment bred from passivity and weakness, and also exposes even more noticeably that you hate using any type of force onceoever to get what you want. This is just sad.

>>14659486
By defining the abstract construct "universe" as "everything", just as it has been used for thousands of years all the way back to the presocratics.

>>14659528
>this imples that people acting differently from the norm are only doing so out of incompetence
No it literally does not. Just because you can't fathom the idea of someone acting in the world as an individual while still behaving in a socially reciprocal manner doesn't make it impossible, just something you could never relate to because you're a pathetic loser who can't swallow their arrogance.
>This implies that not treating people the way they want to be treated is autistic, in which case I guess Alexander the Great is autistic, lol.
Again, no it does not. You apparently have a shallow understanding of what it means to treat people the way you want to be treated. It doesn't mean being "nice" or some beta faggot cuck, it means treating people fairly, be it the easy way or the hard way. A manager can treat someone the way they want to be treated by firing them.
>If they are acting towards self-interest then they are not treating people the way they want to be treated.
So how would you like people to treat you then? Would you like a world of faggy yes-men, or people who just roll over to you so you can have what you want? Because it sounds like you think that people who follow that rule act in that way, which is strange because unless you're literally narcissistic I couldn't imagine having the desire to be treated that way by anybody.
>Here you imply I'm an incel instead of an entrepreneurial man to cool your own ressentiment bred from passivity and weakness, and also exposes even more noticeably that you hate using any type of force onceoever to get what you want. This is just sad.
No, you just aren't as intelligent as you think you are and don't understand as much as you think you do. I never implied that by "treating people the way you want to be treated" you act passive and never use force.

>>14659593
>>Here you imply I'm an incel instead of an entrepreneurial man to cool your own ressentiment bred from passivity and weakness, and also exposes even more noticeably that you hate using any type of force onceoever to get what you want. This is just sad.
>No, you just aren't as intelligent as you think you are and don't understand as much as you think you do. I never implied that by "treating people the way you want to be treated" you act passive and never use force.

Also, I never called you an incel, I merely pointed out that your philosophy is analogously identical to theirs, which is is, at least insofar as how you're presenting it. You clearly don't understand shit though so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't actually act out any of what you're saying even though you might think you do.

>>14657363
Sure your spirit is free. Even though when you forget to have a bit of sugar in the morning your fat ass will pitch a bitch fit over the slightest inconvenience, your spirit is free.

>>14659542
The universe is considered the totality of space and matter, not "all that exists".

>>14659593
>You apparently have a shallow understanding of what it means to treat people the way you want to be treated
great, but you didn't say that.You said, and I quote, to
>'treat people they way they want to be treated
Even if you go back on what you said and change it, this still implies that me and the person I am "treating" are equal, which is hilarious.

>>14659542
Also what you're saying is incoherent. If the universe has meant "everything" for "for thousands of years all the way back to the presocratics", clearly it once meant the realm of the gods too, and you just said this
>That implies the creator of the universe exists, which is obviously nonsensical because it would imply something outside of everything, even though nothing could be outside of everything.
So stop pretending you know what you're on about

>>14659645
space is inextricable from time. Since we are in space-time, there will never be a thing concievable or possible absent from space-time. If a thing did exist that was absent from space-time, we would not be able to interact with it, and, vice versa, it could not interact with us, which is the definition of non-existance.

>>14659666
The presocratics were atheists who didn't believe in gods. Thales and Heraclitus laughed at the idea, while the one determined "everything is water", and the other "everything is flux". You are clearly too uneducated to know this, though, and view ancient knowledge as tribeman religious hocus-pocus.

I am not the anon you were arguing with but
>>14659375
original claim
>I do ultimately believe that if people who act in a manner that's oriented to serve self-interest are wise they'll inevitably 'treat people they way they want to be treated' because it's the best strategy
rebuttal to criticism
>So how would you like people to treat you then?
> I couldn't imagine having the desire to be treated that way by anybody
Notice how your first post centers around "you" doing things to others while your rebuttal centers around others things being done to you.

I think this is clearly the problem with your argument. The original claim only works when you are both the lesser AND able to impose this ideology on your greater.

If one of these things are not true than your original claim is false.

>>14659650
>great, but you didn't say that.You said, and I quote, to
>'treat people they way they want to be treated
Are you seriously so fucking inept that you couldn't assume I obviously meant "you"? You're the one that asked
>If you believe you can serve ANY god why is it do you choose a god that would tell you to obey your earthly masters. Or that if you act within your own interest it will lead to being tortured in eternal fire. Or that the that the meek shall inherit the earth.
Meaning you clearly made the connection to christian morality. You're either accidentally revealing yourself as a complete retard or a smartassy faggot.
>this still implies that me and the person I am "treating" are equal, which is hilarious.
On what level are you and that person not equal?
>>14659696
Plenty of things are absent from space time. For example, the fact that we are able to perceive things happens as a consequence of an intercourse between oncoming sense data and how we categorically discriminate it. In order for the world to be perceived, the observer must be able to discriminate among the sensory data, otherwise you have a homogeneity of everything and nothing at once and you don't perceive anything. To discriminate, you need a hierarchical system of values (or goals) that orients you to ignore irrelevant things (things that have nothing to do with your values or goals) and notice relevant things (tools that assist you in the pursuit of those values or goals). This means that the hierarchical value system that discriminates the world is more permanent than the content of that hierarchy or the world it produces.
>>14659712
I never said the presocratics believed in gods you dumb fuck stop trying to insult me for saying things i never even implied

>>14659768
The golden rule of christianity is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is commonly paraphrased as "treat people the way you would want to be treated". I made a small typo in my first post and I suppose I didn't realize it was obvious.

>>14659801
> I suppose I didn't realize it was obvious.
wasn't obvious*, guess I make typos

>>14659768
which is actually one of my major criticisms of the ideology. It is good in that is helps those who are suffering but bad in that it keeps them in there suffering state. And that in addition to the impotence it applies to the strong. Thus such an ideology is only desirable to the weak who have given up any hope in being strong.

If I felt such a wretched way, I would prefer my opiate to be liquor or drugs, that will both make my suffering more bearable and sabotage my chances of being strong. At least then I am not sabotaging others chances of succeeding.

Though I do not believe in doing that either.

>>14659696
Time has always been measured, since Aristotle and through Kant and Hegel, by the now and space by the point. The point can co-exist with many points to form the line, and the line forms the plane. Multiple nows cannot co-exist, because for a new now to exist the other now must have been lost. If the now is lost, there is no measurement of time before the now or after.

>>14659849
I don't understand your criticism, sounds more like a misunderstanding.

>>14659801
Ok I replaced it then. I don't see how that changes anything
>>>14659375
original claim
>I do ultimately believe that if people who act in a manner that's oriented to serve self-interest are wise they'll inevitably 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' because it's the best strategy
rebuttal to criticism
>So how would you like people to treat you then?
> I couldn't imagine having the desire to be treated that way by anybody
Notice how your first post centers around "you" doing things to others while your rebuttal centers around others things being done to you.
I think this is clearly the problem with your argument. The original claim only works when you are both the lesser AND able to impose this ideology on your greater.
If one of these things are not true than your original claim is false.

>>14659868
I don't understand what you're trying to say or what a "lessor or greater" has to do with it. The anon criticized the rule by claiming that people who abide by it are passive cowards. By making this criticism, he has implied that he would desire other people to treat him that way, otherwise I don't see how he could conclude that by following it, people would act that way.
If people who follow that rule act like passive cowards, it means they want other people to treat them as passive cowards, which is why I made the distinction between anybody who follows it and a wise person who follows it.

>>14659849
>Thus such an ideology is only desirable to the weak who have given up any hope in being strong.
>>14659909
>I don't understand what you're trying to say or what a "lessor or greater" has to do with it.

I believe you. You simply unable to disconnect how a person would be treated from how the weaker of two powers would be treat.

>>14660069
>Thus such an ideology is only desirable to the weak who have given up any hope in being strong.
is a proposition I reject.
>You simply unable to disconnect how a person would be treated from how the weaker of two powers would be treat.
What do you mean weaker? If you're incapable of preventing yourself from being exploited that has nothing to do with whether or not you live by the principle.

>>14657363
Pneuma is from the Pleroma. You have no Spirit outside of the Monad.

>>14657166
>you are a cuck for not thinking you are the highest being
I hope you are posting Socrates as an example of a 'cuck' then.

>>14657166
>Why are religiousfags so reluctant to acknowledge their cuckoldry? If you hold faith in a being above you it means you're an inferior creature bound to live a shit life because you'll never be as powerful as the almighty God which puts it in your ass. To believe in God is to be a cuck.

>>14659330
seethe

>>14661596
Socrates was an incel