/lit/ - Literature

Have you heard of Plato? Not on the noobtube unfortunately.

>>18276324
>bog lord
Where? No one in this picture is even slightly bogged. This is cultural appropriation and it is disgusting.

>>18276360
I mean modern day pagans

>>18276442
>I mean modern day pagans
They don't exist, it's just LARPing

dyer got fat lol

>>18276324
Buddhists and Hindus are pagans

It's not really possible to have rich tradition in the modern world. Just look at what you posted. It's the exact opposite of what would be considered a wealth of divine experience or intellectualism. A Christian arguing from the point of technical rationalism is as secularized as anyone else.
And you are also begging the question. If you sincerely want to understand paganism you cannot insist that its theology exist on the ground of Christianity.
The first thing you would have to recognise is that religious ceremony is not as significant in paganism; or at least that it is not so ornate, titanic. The difference is similar to that of the aesthetics of the late jewel crowns and the diadem. One today will assume a greater wealth in the wearer of the jewel crown, but this is already to see things from the perspective of material gravity rather than a hidden essence. The greatest men in history all wore diadems, not the excessive crowns of the late monarchies.

This is in the same way that one looks to the excesses of the body and power in the modern age rather than subtle beauty or divine calm. One may consider the ease with which the early Greeks satisfied themselves with the mountains, streams, and chasms of the world - getting drunk off of wandering in nature's creative power. By contrast, we see with the crude law of aesthetics in building churches the beginning of an iron law of Kantian poles. Two territories are needed for the church, and in between an interim, or no man's land. This is because the iron must not be sensed or heard at the building location. A strong ritual, certainly, but one which comes at the sacrifice of great regions to the desert of time, and an opposite pole to the house of worship.
This is finalised with the Munich Cathedral, built only through a deal with the Devil, who even earns a place in its aesthetics. One sees grotesque aspects of this in the Sagrada Familia, or the current Vatican constructions. Christianity has given itself completely to underworld forces.

>>18278039
Another way to put it is that Babel qualities are already written into the form of Christian ceremony, as we see not only in the aesthetic considerations but the very formation of theology which sacrifices faith to knowledge. This becomes most clear in the endless division through ecclesiology. One sees in it the very logic which forms scientific theology, the churches begin to divide like atoms. The ground of faith given over completely to conflicts of interpretation.
Where one cannot hold onto the inner light secularization is inevitable. It is Christianity's strength but also its greatest weakness, as it forces an eternal conception of history rather than the infinite. And man cannot live of the eternal, that is forever the dominion of demons, the cursed, monsters, and giants.

>>18276360
>plato
you mean the arch traitor of paganism?

>>18278039
>Sagrada Familia
Pretty gnarly dude

They are dense
Simple as

>>18276324
>Are there any actual pagan groups with solid and rich intellectual traditions as well as structured corporate worship
if you take your personal intellectualism over a living or reviving tradition then you are not a pagan. there are such pagans and they're all total shit because it has nothing to do with cultural revival and preservation and everything to do with destroying it for a meme aesthetic + that is most likely ripped from liberal christian values but pretends otherwise and is a little edgy.

from i've seen, the essential aim dedicated pagans have is to preserve, revive, and develop their respective folk traditions and values. this takes a lot of research and committent so far beyond simple intellectualism with some coating.

as far as greek/roman intellectualised pagan goes, the path is ironically through christianity. by removing near east elements and rearranging it. as well as halting the tendency for modern christianity to be purely trite intellectualism and institution followership rather than a real, involved tradition.

>>18276324
Jay Dyer is a heretic and should be shunned.

>>18278552
Jay Dyer will be canonized as a saint by the Catholic church.

>>18276324
>youtube is literature
>god did it is a coherent worldview
As for books, a lot of what gets written is basically hit piece stuff since people who are overly public about their religious beliefs are, unsurpisingly, highly political and partisan, and the people who care to report on them are often mutually hostile.

Hi Jay

Alain de Benoist

>Why can’t pagans ever construct coherent world views?
>also, my worldview that insists that 1 = 3 doesn’t suffer from any kind of incoherence

>>18276324
Jay Dyer chose a retard to argue with on purpose, norse pagans are mostly morons, hellenis platonist tend to be much more intelligent on average

>>18276324
Why does the pagan have a flag of Pennsylvania when the state was first advertised as a safe haven for the most extreme Christian sects?

>>18278552
What heresy does he teach?

>>18276324
I wonder if Shinto has some good literature.

>>18276324
>Jay Dyer
very cringe

>>18278039
>>18278147
High quality posts.

>>18278039
>A Christian arguing from the point of technical rationalism is as secularized as anyone else.
What do you mean by this

>>18276442
There's a large Platonic community today. There's also plenty of Stoics.

>>18280564
He means that Jay Dyer's dispensationalist evangelicalism is functionally indistinguishable from materialist atheism. Yahweh is absent everywhere except a very, very, VERY few areas wherein he is needed to justify certain ends (that is, gay marriage is bad, Yahweh must exist to explain why it's bad). To put it another way, an Ancient Greek Pagan, a modern Dodekatheist, and a practitioner of Shinto all agree that some kind of supra-human entity is necessary for a forest to grow properly (WHY that is is merely technicality). Jay Dyer would disagree, the growth of a forest can be explained perfectly fine with just simply physics and chemistry. Ancient and modern pagans would both agree that the Gods are constantly giving mankind signs, symbols, portents, and knowledge through dreams, divination, and all sorts of things. Jay Dyer would disagree, the only contact that Yahweh has ever had with reality is the Bible and excluding the Bible, a world without Yahweh is identical to a world with Yahweh. An ancient and modern pagan would agree that society cannot exist without religion. Jay Dyer disagrees, you can have societies without religion, they function perfectly fine, and indeed religion only plays an incredibly minor role in society, it's just that a society without religion is slightly less desirable than a society with religion. Interestingly, a pre-Modern Christian would agree with the ancient and modern pagans in every way, they'd just argue about who is doing what.

Jay Dyer, in this sense, is not religious. He's just defending a specific form of atheism in order to keep people from leaving a specific political dialectic. His job is to make you believe stupid shit in order to stop you from leaving this dialectic, either by making you give money to Joel Osteen or by driving you further into materialist atheism in disgust. But he absolutely does not want you venerated St. George, worshiping Zeus, or dancing so the Green Man can beat Jack Frost this year.

>>18280605
>There's a large Platonic community today. There's also plenty of Stoics.
No anon, 4 people plus their cats do not constitute a large community.

People who call themselves "stoic" today are just like the "skeptics": a mentally-stunted manchild who thinks they are so-much-so superior to their peers and has a strong desire to be different

>>18280634
Why have an opinion on something that you've never bothered to look into? It doesn't make anyone think highly of you, you are anonymous afterall, nor does it convince anyone, as all it takes is someone performing a simple google search to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

>>18280661
Woah, did I touch a nerve or something?
You seem mad

>>18278039
>A Christian arguing from the point of technical rationalism is as secularized as anyone else.
I’m not sure how you got that.

>>18278039
>The first thing you would have to recognise is that religious ceremony is not as significant in paganism; or at least that it is not so ornate, titanic.
Filtered. You don’t know you’re talking about and have probably watched too much Vikings on Netflix. Seriously though, this is not accurate and you shouldn’t talk about such things if you don’t know them to be true.

>>18280634
>nobody reads plato today
plato is required reading in every philosophy program in the country, anon. theres a thriving schizo neoplatonist community on twitter, youtube, and even here. there have been platonic and neoplatonic circles for decades. you are just butthurt that anon pointed out that jay dyer is a Stop The Steal supporting grifter and nothing more.

>>18280693
>nobody reads plato today
Okay intelectual, tell me where in my post did I imply no one read Plato

>>18280634
Sorting by viewcount, the youtube video with the single most views when searching for "Neoplatonism" has 63k views, and the video with the single most views when searching for "Platonism" has 1.1M views.

I couldn't find Dyer's video with whoever the fuck "The Bog Lord" is, but I can find the one he did with StyxHexenHammer666, which only has 4.3k views. So, yes, I'd say there's far more people interested in Platonism than your gay little e-celeb bloodsports.

>>18278039
This is great. What books discuss this?

>>18280736
Why the fuck are you talking about YouTube views you fucking schizo, answer my question on where did I said in my post thay Plato is not read anymore

>>18279635
Alain de Benoist is a Nietzchean LARPer. For someone like me who actually believes in God and the fact that this world is suffused with personality, he is quite off-putting. Atheists cannot be pagan.

1 6 chan’s /fascist/ has a lot of pagans who despise atheist LARPers and spend their time talking about fairies, gods and other stuff

>>18280765
I'm the guy who posted the youtube video counts, not the guy talking about Plato in universities or the dude who did the post about Dyer being an atheist. You said so here >>18280634.

>>18280605
>He means that Jay Dyer's dispensationalist evangelicalism
I thought he was Orthodox, did he switch back?

>>18280776
>Alain de Benoist is a
straight up satanist, not kidding

>>18280804
He LARPs as Orthodox, but his theology and actual manner of engaging with religion are bog-standard American evangelicalism.

>>18276324
>Any decent books on paganism

>The Ancient City, published in 1864, is the most famous book of the French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges. Taking inspiration from René Descartes, and based on texts of ancient historians and poets, the author investigates the origins of the most archaic institutions of Greek and Roman society.

>>18278184
>plato the guy who basically systematized the entire pagan metaphysical tradition was somehow the arch traitor of paganism
christcucks i swear...

>>18280824
Lol how? Is it because he takes an overly intellectual approach and he’s not a mystic?

>>18280824
He came from Calvinism, and yeah you're right since he debates like a Calvinist.

>>18280824
The word you’re looking for is “Orthodox”.

>>18280861
In a sense. He hasn't really "converted" to anything, Orthodoxy is just an aesthetic he takes up (alongside vaporwave). Again, fundamentally, his theology and manner of engaging with religion are exactly the same as they've always been, he just plays dressup on the internet. Ironically, he's part of an effort to spread Americanism to Russia and ex-Eastern Bloc countries through this.

The anon in >>18280605 said it best by pointing out his role in Finklethink, though. If he were Orthodox, he wouldn't be doing "debates" (whatever the fuck that means). His entire conception of religion is rooted in the defense of a specific wing of a political dialectic. That's why he's not Orthodox: because he is, again, just an Evangelical playing dressup.

>>18280688
Just look at the difference between Hesiod's work and the Bible, or the diadem, which could be like a simple piece of ribbon, compared to the great jewel crowns. Or with the omphalos in a mountain cave compared to the cathedrals which take on a Tower of Babel appearance. The difference is undeniable, and in the case of the omphalos the entire relation to time and space is different.
And in any case, the arguments agree with Goethe, Hölderlin, Jünger, Pindar, Plato, etc. So I'm in good company.
Nice cope though.

>>18280847
>Plato
>pagan
Anon really? Plato was if not a strict monotheist, an avowed henotheist.

>>18280894
>If he were Orthodox, he wouldn't be doing "debates" (whatever the fuck that means).
Do you mean internet debates (which are mostly meant for entertainment IMO) or are you against any form of dialectic/reasoning when it comes to matters of spirituality and religion?

>>18280931
Internet debates. The American conception of religion is rooted in this idea of religion as entertainment. If he were actually Orthodox, he wouldn't be doing debates with people like "The Bog Lord" or "Styxhexenhammer666" because his conception of religion would find that useless. He's doing these precisely because he is an entertainer, though.

To say nothing of the fact that "Eastern Orthodoxy" is essentially just an ethnic racket to siphon money back to The Old Country, but that's something that's been changing with increasing Americanism in The Old Country and stuff like the American Orthodox Church.

>>18280940
Tbh I’ve always seen internet apologetics as a way to soothe the interlocutors’ own doubts about their respective faiths, or lure in weak minded victims.

>>18280930
Cringe.

>>18280905
It’s statement “religious ceremony is not as significant in paganism...” is simply factually incorrect and almost the complete opposite is true. I don’t really know what else to tell you other than the scholarship indicates otherwise and you are mistaken. You can easily find documented evidence of tremendous emphasis on ritualistic ceremony in the Roman religion and elsewhere. It’s a bit crazy that I even have to make this reply.

>>18276324
>coherent world view
>literally believe in giants and talking snakes
The absolute state of gay Dyer and his parroting groupies

>>18281019
>scholarship
Very cringe.

The worst part about these conversations is people just assert things. It doesn’t matter if they have any evidence or they’re actually informed or not. It’s impression and opinion disguised as objective fact and you can’t have a discussion like that let alone a debate. There is no point.

>>18280930
>plato was a strict monotheist
I bet you're the sort of person that thinks Aristotle also wasn't a pagan.

I'd advice you to start reading the actual philosophers themselves instead of the dumb "history of philosophy" books that you're probably getting all this nonsense from.

>>18281028
And what do you think Pagans believed? The fact that this is even considered “debate” is absurd.

>>18280996
Nice argument. I add that Plotinus rejected the lesser “gods” as polytheists believed as well. You are the one coping.

>>18281040
I’m not even that anon but you’re being a semantic retard to be honest.

>>18281040
Do you know what henotheism is? Plato writes Ho Theos, singular, the One is the AKRON and PROTON, Plato states how there is nothing above the Good.
As for Aristotle, you probably never read the metaphysica and thinks that because they wrote gods they were polytheists; that is, you have no idea what henotheism is and thus misses both Plato and Aristotle’s most important points in their ontology.

>>18281052
cope

Plato and Socrates of his dialogues were both devout polytheists and there is absolutely nothing you people can do about that.

>>18280634
>No anon, 4 people plus their cats do not constitute a large community.
I don't know if you are aware.
But paganism is not a large community.

>>18281019
>no difference between a 30-page book and a 1000-page book
>a piece of ribbon or laurel is the same as a 30 pound crown
>my random materialist scholar's research is just as good as Hölderlin or Pindar
Stop being retarded please.

>>18281065
Good job. You've figured out that polytheist religions believed in a monarchia and knew about first principles too.

Powerful stuff!

>>18281040
>>18281065
Oh also, forgot to comment about the Timaeus. The Demiurge, Nous/Logos, literally creates lesser gods to help him with the rest of creation. Does this sound similar to you? Do you wonder why the Septuagint translators rendered angels and gods synonymously?

>>18281083
> books and ribbons are ceremonies

>>18280974
>Tbh I’ve always seen internet apologetics as a way to soothe the interlocutors’ own doubts about their respective faiths

Very much, it is no different than what Destiny, or any manner of political pundit streamer does. You are a proxy for people who can not articulate their own beliefs because their own beliefs are largely inherited or instinctual in some way and they don't really care to learn or investigate what they believe in any depth, they just want to see it "win".

>>18281092
>Do you wonder why the Septuagint translators rendered angels and gods synonymously?
Not really. The Christian subverts. The Christian destroys. The Christian perverts.

>>18281068
So devout that they planted the seeds of monotheism...

You know, you’ll sound smarter if you’re actually willing to allow obviously not incorrect concessions to your opponent so they can make their point rather than argue over stupid semantics.

>>18281106
>they planted the seeds of monotheism
>they wuz proto-christians!

>>18281085
Read about mesopotamian polytheism, canaanite, other indigenous forms of polytheism. All of these posited either no rank among gods, changing hierarchies, gods dethroning other gods, which even occur in greek polytheism. The principle of creation in Ancient greek polytheism has nothing to do with the monarch god, that was one and later is another and keeps being dethroned because all of this recalls the cycle of anthropological events. You have no idea about what polytheism is, nor henotheism and thus platonism. Read books.

>>18281102
>Septuagint
>christians
Thank you for showing to everyone how much of a retard you are.

>>18281114
Correct.

Itt:
Poltard Christians invade lit and shit up the place.

>>18281116
Would you please point me to any of these philosophical treatises that goes into what you would say is *squints* authentic polytheism as opposed to henotheism.

Thank you.

>>18281094
It's a metaphor, fucking idiot.

>>18281075
>india, china, and japan are not "large"
huh?

>>18281096
Exactly. It’s always funny to go to the comment sections of debates and see both sides claim that their guy steamrolled the other. Oftentimes it’s hard to work out who the winner was, given that both debaters are knowledgeable on the topic.

>>18281172
I think he means neopagans like Varg or Richard Spencer

>>18281106
>hurf durf plato and aristotle were actually good muslims who did salat 5 times a day towards mecca
lmfao

>>18281210
then he needs to be more specific. he is trying to do that thing where "neopagans" are simultaneously atheists but also monotheistic satanists and polytheists who are doing exactly what ancient greco-roman and germanic polytheists did and what all current and ancient non-european polytheists did and do but also simultaneously not. richard spencer and varg are both fucking atheists. its just a more retarded way of saying "non-christians" because he is too much of a coward to call himself a christian, because he isnt one. he is just a larper. if you want to bitch about varg just say varg dont pretend that he has some relation to people who dont agree with him.

>>18281172
China is atheist. Shintoism isnt taken very seriously in Japan afaia.
India has a massive history of thought about Hinduism. If that answers the question go for it.
I was referring to the west anyway.

>>18281219
Funnily enough Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Homer, and Thucydides are portrayed in icons in some Orthodox churches, as they are apparently seen as forerunners of Christ.

>>18281143
You first need to know what polytheism is. Check Augustine’s City of God, Girard, Thorkild Jacobsen’s Treasures of Darkness, read the primary texts.

>>18281235
>he is trying to do that thing where "neopagans" are simultaneously atheists but also monotheistic satanists and polytheists who are doing exactly what ancient greco-roman and germanic polytheists did and what all current and ancient non-european polytheists did and do but also simultaneously not.
You don't know how stupid this appears to me.

You wanted answers from neopagans? But you count atheists and Satanists and Hindus?
What you mean to say is non-jew or goyim at that point. Or is it gentiles for your sect?

No one tries to be an atheist a Satanist and like the old pagans at the same time. Strawman.

>>18281296
The Early Church Fathers considered them to have “the seeds of Logos” and basically thought of them as pagans but also proto-Christians. There are apologetics written about them.

>>18281164
Yeah. That’s also the issue.

>>18280847
>>18281040
Im not a christian, and im not even saying he was explicitly monotheist, but there is a basic epistemological difference between pre socratic paganism, and post socratic thought, with the individuation of the indivigual from society, which is a major departure from the collective nature of pagan phenomenology.

The advent of moral self conciousness as raised by the socratic ideal was revolutionary in its critique of the implicitcy of paganism in its communal identification rather than personal one.

The ontological shift in plato and socratese is a revolutionary DEPARTURE from the ontology of paganism as the polis structure. Im not looking to argue, but it seems obvious to me that the socratic-platonic mindset is a very fundamental shift from the pre socratic one.

If you object to this, then fine, but its a rather widely agreed upon shift in basic ontology. if you wabt to make a case for pre and post socratic paganism i might understand. I would also like to here if you have a counterpoint instead of shitflinging.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CTGbDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA749&dq=Hegel+on+Socrates+and+the+Historical+Advent+of+Moral+Self-Consciousness&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTsYKsz9jwAhXHiuAKHbvjA54Q6AEwAHoECAYQAw

>>18281284
In my personal experience, Shintoism is most definitely taken seriously in Japan. If you were to ask Japanese people they would no doubt say they don’t believe anything but if you actually observe the way they behave it and their justification, it is totally aligned with Shintoism or Buddhism. There’s a lot of Christian influence as well whether they realize that or not, I think.

>>18280905
>>18278039
To be more specific, one may look at the difference between the oracle and the confession, repentance, and good works. The synoptic and mysterious character of the oracle is of a certain truth or test, but one is in the end left to decide on his own how to respond to numinous signs. With the Christian relation to truth there is a greater weight and test of morality, but also a dissolution, a weakening in the very form. Truth is not apprehended in the simplicity of word and being, with the oracle as both numinous sign and medium, faith and law must be compelled, imbued with a gravity which is not of the numinous alone.
As Augustine said, 'the Christian reveals what the pagan has apprehended.'

One may also look to the earliest 'rituals' of paganism, which betray our sense of ceremony or ritual. The battles over armour during war, or the funeral games. these are events in which man becomes a higher being, is swept away by the elements as in death, acts as a guide through the metamorphosis of the world, or himself becomes the center of theomorphosis.
In this the numinous signs are greater, and the ceremonious secondary to the violence and intoxication of the highest laws. The division between worlds and time is at its weakest, as they say with the Dioscuri, Persephone, and the coming of spring.

And before this an even higher relation to the gods, in the Golden-souled who live with gods, titans, and giants in abundance - before any sign of ritual or sacrifice. This is also the preheroic world, the world in which Orion is cut out from the world to fill the gap left by Uranus on his defeat, or Marsyas flayed to become the highest representation of nature's music and law, a demigod as figure of the whole species.
Or the great war of the centaurs over the smell of wine. Greek religion at its highest held to the prehistoric sense of divine laws, before ceremony or ritual which are a weakening.

>>18281360
>Christian influence
Protestant work ethic maybe? Or were they always workaholics

>>18279692
>1 = 3
How hard is the trinity to get? I could understand this at 5

>>18280760
A lot of it is just my own theology from studying the myths, but there are similarities in Hölderlin, Pindar, Goethe, Jünger, Plato, etc.

>>18281284
>China is atheist
This is incorrect.
>Shintoism isnt taken very seriously in Japan afaia.
This is incorrect.

>>18281360
When Japs say they "aren't religious" they mean "aren't Abrahamic", as they understand fully well that when Westerners talk about "religion" they mean "Abrahamism". Most Westerners just don't perceive of anything that doesn't demand doctrinal exclusivity as being "religion".

>>18281382
Then explain it.

>>18280336
It doesn't, by design.

>>18280336
Motoori Norinaga.

>>18276324
its 2021.

>HOW DOES YOUR WORLDVIEW ACCOUNT FOR ETHICS EPISTEMOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS
Who cares about having a coherent worldview anymore

>>18281479
Based post modernist

>>18281479
cringe redditor

>>18281494
Wasn’t Neetch like that as well?

>>18281304
>You first need to know what polytheism is
That is what I asked for, you responded by giving me a recommendation to read *squints* Augustine and a modern scholar trying to reconstruct Sumerian religiosity. You can't imply a contradiction if you can't even determine what is supposedly being contradicted.

As always I suspect this all comes from the christian's inability to understand the difference between the poet and the philosopher, and what their roles they had.

You'll excuse me if I continue to take the Greek philosophical schools to have been polytheist, just like the Greeks understod them to be. And yes, henotheism is a modern retard term.

>>18280826
based coulanges poster

The debate on whether Plato/Aristotle were monotheists/polytheists/henotheists is a dumb debate. These positions according to a pagan are just various ways to describe and understand a world filled with Gods.

The real distinction is between all those and the monotheist exclusivity of the Abrahamic faiths where their dogmas are precisely and solely the truth of reality, apparent and real, and everything that goes against these articulated articles of faith is either demonic or wholly non-existent gibberish.

Even if Plato was a monotheist he was still closer in belief and praxis to the average non-philosophical Greek polytheist that thought statues could come alive than he was to all the basedboy Christian church fathers.
>pagan? monotheist/henotheist/polytheist
>Abrahamic? God of Israel monotheist
Simple as.

>>18279837
He constantly complains about not being able to do debates because he can't find anybody. Where are these 'intelligent' pagans???

>>18282119
>thought statues could come alive
Kek

>>18282128
Jay isn’t that bright either he just tries to force everything into his ‘presuppositional apologetic’

>>18280905
>Cathedrals which take on a tower of babel appearance
That's like equating the Temple of Solomon with the Tower of Babel; is it mere height, or is it the intention that went behind it? (Never mind theories asserting that the Tower of Babel was designed to be a rocket ship).

Odd, however; I've always heard the Bible referred to as a simplistic and subtle piece of work, never a towering, grand thing. Perhaps it has in it some of both, Procrustean generalizations aside.

>>18281083
Is Hesiod all that the pagan view hinges on? The Bible is not one book, but rather a compilation of books, some chronicling (alleged, although I believe it) historical events, laws, populations, and random psalms/proverbs.

Which 30-page work of Hesiod are you even alluding to? The broader the scope, the more the pages; and this is as if the Romans and Greeks did not construct and hew statues in abundance. The more men perfect their techniques, the higher they build; the "Luciferian, Babylonian" aspiration is not necessarily attached to such a thing. You characterize Christianity as "cathedralic" and "monumental," where I could as easily exemplify it through wooden churches (e.g., in Romania), which would not be an appropriation of a pagan thing but rather a continuation, or redemption of it (if even that, and not just adopting an unaffiliated style that any can use).

>>18282119
Where does Plato posit any sort of this Iamblichean theurgy? Why do you ignore the blatant emphasis of Plato in many dialogues about the usefulness of myths as means to impart true knowledge? Look at Plato’s protology and tell me how that is not purely rational. Plato knew the greek religion to contain truths (and so does Christians) but he knew that the form was a means. Aristotle likewise, his secularism is very explicit, whenever he cites the word “gods” he does so in a demonstrative way, analogous to his colateral citations of pre-socratics and other minor philosophers.
Do as I told another anon, read Girard and Augustine and you will understand what polytheism is and what most religions mean with their myths and stories, institutions and rites.

>>18281019
Yes this is true. Paganism is generally more interested in the actual ritual aspect rather than the beliefs of the practitioner, for example the Greeks had no problems at all raising a Pyrrhonist, Epicurean, or Neoplatonic philosopher to the position of temple priest.

Whereas of course in Christianity it is the opposite way, actual correct belief is the most important, and we see this in the never ending Christian squabbles over what is orthodoxy.

Pagans tend to be interested in experiential spirituality, spending time praying, interacting with spirits, casting spells and whatnot. Abstract debates over metaphysics and shit don't really matter for practically-minded spiritual people

>>18281966
Why do you ignore my telling you to read Girard and the Primary texts? I picked Thorkild J.’s book precisely because this idea of yours of a fixed monarchism to be not the case in mesopotamian religion which will influence a lot Greek religion and the poets, Homer, Hesiod. What does the changing of the monarch from one generation to the other? How much did orphism have to reinterpret the sacred/poetic texts and reach a primacy of Dionysius, Zagreus?

Do you understand what the poet really was? Have you read Vico? Why Plato himself also links the poet with the priest (not the philosopher at all)?

The most staggering thing is to know how Christ reveal what non-christian religions are, showing how the ignorance and knowledge runs hand in hand among pagans (this is the very feature of the scapegoat mechanisms, basis of pagan religions).

>>18282128
Why would anyone with a double digit IQ want to "debate" some disingenuous faggot? He's Ben Shapiro tier.

>>18282119
It's further complicated by the fact that 99% of people have no idea what Aristotle believed. I personally blame those retards at cripchan's /christ/ for confusing Aquinas, Aristotle, and John Philopodorus as being one guy despite all three having radically different ideas and then making a bunch of very bad infographics and spamming them everywhere as "e-evangelism". Describing Aristotle as a "monotheist" is just a completely worthless description, by that measure every Greek was a monotheist because they all knew Zeus was the big cheese.

>>18282246
Never ending squabbles, but the basic Christian life still remains the same. We can see it practiced in villages and monasteries everywhere, despite the "endless squabbles" going on (usually over matters unrelated to one's spiritual life). What is so difficult to apply in simple injunctions such as these: to restrain those passions which unman you and lead you to unreasonable, prodigal, and evil things? To be humble, yet worthy of boast; to fear nothing, to treat others as you'd treat your very self. If even these are things that must be "debated" and "endlessly quibbled about," I've signed my resignation.

Of course, you must still believe in Christ- to orient yourself properly. Ritual without belief is an empty repetition, no wonder it can be uttered by men of different origins. It is dissolute and obviously thin-blooded.

It seems that in the absence of incisive insights, you can only force these dichotomies into nature, divisions that do not exist and can not exist among men, spawned by your few interactions and readings regarding Christians.

Beliefs, rituals, etcetera; all of these things reflect on the person. Where they do not, they are unimportant, and God forgives them. Every ritual involves some element of belief, and every belief some element of ritual, howsoever it may be called.

>>18282230
>Why do you ignore the blatant emphasis of Plato in many dialogues about the usefulness of myths as means to impart true knowledge?
Trust me I don't ignore the blatant emphasis of Plato's using myths. With what I am arguing for that would lead me to quite the opposite conclusion. But I know Plato to have been a pagan so him philosophizing on pagan myth is some of the greatest parts of his dialogues.
>read Girard and Augustine and you will understand what polytheism is and what most religions mean
No thanks. I will continue reading Plato and the rest of the Greek tradition.

If you want to say rationalism and exegesis contradicts religion then I have some terrible news for you regarding the last 2000 years of Christian theological and philosophical history.

These abstract debates are only a necessity due to the massivity of Christianity; there will be incessant heresies and detractors, each trying to bring down this rare animal.

In truth, there is a contingent of Christians interested in this, and a contingent that is not, and rather practices Christianity in peace (e.g., monks and non-apologetical/philosophically-minded Christians).

>>18282274
>(this is the very feature of the scapegoat mechanisms, basis of pagan religions)
Not really. At all, in fact. Indo-European religions are centered around relationships with the Gods, there's nothing to scapegoat. The scapegoat is a Jewish mechanism to solve legal scenarios wherein a person who needs to be punished cannot be found.

>>18282128
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPVTo8uy-eE
Perhaps not a pagan but he is an Advaitin/Schopenhauerian, and I think it illustrates what happens when Jay Dyer debates someone who isn't defending a specific Christian denomination and Jay can't use his presuppositional tropes.

>>18282289
Because he isn't actually Ben Shapiro tier and has an argument that an intelligent pagan should be able to refute. Except they can't so they don't try it.

>>18282326
Literally every major world religion is forced to defend itself from critique both internal and external. Nothing about this is unique to Christianity.

>>18282337
>stop the steal Q shit
No, he is literally Ben Shapiro tier. As >>18282330 pointed out, he's just an e-celeb grifter. He can't actually argue his position from fundamentals because he isn't trying to. He's just trying to make money.

>>18282308
I’m not saying rationalism is dissonant or opposite to religion at all. It is the very contrary: Reason comes from the Sacred and the Sacred from Reason. This is literally husserlian phenomenology into which I know you don’t care about since you don’t even care about polytheism and Plato’s doctrines.

>Plato philosophizing on pagan myths
That is what he does sometimes as means (and he even says how they can be misleading) and above all restricted to his Writings. Read anything on his agrapha dogmata and you will see how it is completely different. Purely rational (not implying anything bad, Platonic protology is the closest thing to the Trinity, the downside is that it depends on interpretations which varied a lot among platonists themselves).

>>18282329
Try reading Girard, friend. Jews moved away from that, literally.

>>18282246
>this is true
It isn't. There is an important difference between festival and ritual, and the pre-religious character we catch a glimpse of in the myth.
You are both drawing conclusions from the Greek period of decline, which is the wrong way to approach myth and divine laws.

>>18281019
>Roman religion
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>18282378
Not him but decline is a fundamental and inherent stage of paganism. You can see this in their own myths. Chaos always initiating new cycles, substitution of gods, etc.

>>18282330
That perennialist debate was a train wreck. The other guy literally didn’t want to put forth a clear, coherent exposition of his worldview, and Jay just spouted off about reading every book ever.

>>18282338
Yes but literally Christianity is a larger religion so it literally attracts more detractors, something already mentioned in my post. Either way, the "pagan" approach to religion is not actually a thing unique to paganism, either; it is common among all religions. There is the philosophical component, and the practical component; some fall too much into the former, and have an unfulfilling spiritual life, the others fall too much into the latter, and are led astray.

>>18282400
What if he meant the various religion traditions, cults, and syncretisms tolerated by the Roman empire, including the worship of the Caesar? Would that also be inaccurate?

>>18281479
Literally
>presuppose my worldview is right
>therefore I’m right
This is why he can hold to insane positions like Young earth creationism and historicity of the Bible; because he only has to prove that other world views are ‘incoherent’ and not defend his own positions. You could ask him about evolution and he’d critique a biologist’s ‘presuppositions’

>>18276324
>Are there any actual pagan groups with solid and rich intellectual traditions as well as structured corporate worship?
Odinists and some of the new right related cults in France(nouvelle droite liked Dumezil a lot).

>>18282625
The recent movement of whites returning to paganism is quite interesting

>>18282373
Start with Archaic Roman Religion.

>>18282553
This is a common tactic among Christian Apologists, actually. Ken Ham and William Lane Craig both talk about doing this, for example. You are never, under any circumstances, supposed to ever actually try to build your positions from first principles. Again, as other anons have said, this makes you engage in an actual dialogue, which an Apologist doesn't want: they want to put on a show, and as such can only ever jump from already constructed position to already constructed position.

>>18282409
Your argument doesn't make sense. That the terrors of decline, metamorphisis, and the end of the world were written into the myth does not justify a weakening of the laws and numinous signs. To fall into hubris is not to be loyal to the myth simply because it was foreseen. It is, rather, a complete misunderstanding, or falling away from the morphological strength. Resigning oneself to fatalism and a katechon-like relation to a single age.
Certainly one has to adapt to changing circumstances, and any religion can make mistakes, but these mistakes do not become the axis of the religion simply because we misread them in this way.
It is in this sense that the hardening and intensification of ritual is a weakening, a fall away from divine and natural law towards the positive. The compulsion to build transitional territories takes on greater force where they no longer rise from the elements. Paradoxically, this can occur where one becomes too close to the gods.

This is a difference between Pindar and Homer. Pindar saw great divine power in our distance from the gods whereas Homer saw their proximity. This may have been something of a warning, but in any case we are left with hubristic images of their character. At times they may even appear pathetic - although this could be read as being one with Pindar in that the gods approach mortality through the great violence of the primeval laws.

And again, what significance can ritual have where the gods are dead? Like truth, or the approach of the Muses one may be threatened with false judgement, a coarse lie. Thus ritual must always be approached with care. Where it takes on the highest forces it may turn into a curse. As with Tantalus.

>>18282678
That type of thinking would drive me insane desu. It’s basically just closing your ears and saying ‘lalalalaaa’

>>18282678
Ironic your condemnation of christians when you are the one avoiding what I am presenting to you. What you said about scapegoat mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with what it really means: pharmakon/expiatory victims. Read Girard and learn about what your own religion is.

>>18282128
>Where are these 'intelligent' pagans
here's an example

>>18282172
It's important to keep in mind the original argument. Here we started with the significance of Christianity in terms of coherence and ritual or organisational strength. My arguments are intended to highlight essential distinctions, not to give a complete catalogue of surface differences, which would be impossible in such a short space.

I am not entirely sure of your meaning with the Temple of Solomon. In any case the Temple is a Jewish construction. Although there is something of the Tower of Babel in it, as there is with the destruction of Canaan.
The rituals of Christian architecture may also be compared with the Greek, the pouring of blood or burying of kings in the foundation. There could even be an oath to never rebuild if a temple was destroyed.
This speaks to the autochthonous character of the Greek constructions, and the exact opposite in Christianity. There is a gigantic character to this at times, but it is tied to the blood and soil. Again in Christianity there is the exact opposite relation, war through conversion and the building of houses of worship from ruins.

The great catastrophe of this is seen in the current crisis, the total abandonment of the west by Christian power and its settling in foreign territories, particularly Africa and the South. This is also in the opposite direction of the pagan gods, who retreat into the north, to the cold and purifying regions - yet remain as great advisors to those willing to travel.

>>18282682
Oh no, don’t get me wrong. I don’t deny the numinous in pagan religions. I mean, if it were not for this numinous consciousness there would be nothing, no myth, no institution, no religion, no community, nothing at all. It is thanks to the numinous that there is a reduction and stability, which is the sense of the Sacred.
It is also not a matter of mistake, I would and could not put this way. It is a partial revelation. That which reveals also blinds. Knowledge and ignorance must be together. This is very clear with the primordial event of pagan religions: the twofold aspect of the victim: malefactor and benefactor. Both responsible for the chaos and spread of violence (ignorance) but also responsible for the order, peace and resolution, which expresses the very formation of the community with the unification of violence against this victim (knowledge).

That is a very interesting point about Pindar and Homer. Violence and the gods (Sacred) being together and immanent, with Pindar its being at distance, transcendent, showing the difference of the character of the sacred in both poets.

>>18282756
Literally who?

>>18282128
The one with Mark Brahmin was hilarious lol he said that the story in genesis about the sheep and the sticks is some ancient race mixing propaganda, and he thinks pointing out fallacies is playing word games

>>18282773
>nooooo you have to be an e-celeb, grifting retard to debate me

>>18282776
mark brahmin is not a pagan, he's an atheist jews trying to subvert paganism, not even kidding, he claims every pagan god as jewish and pretends to be an anti-semite.

>>18282756
This pagan guy is quite dumb. I exchanged a few messages with him and he has no idea of platonism. Twitter pagans are the cringiest and dumbest people I have witnessed on internet.

>>18282734
See >>18282678

Your problem is you want to come up with meaningless abstractions to confirm your biases rather than just looking at what other religions say about what they believe. This is pointless and idiotic.

>>18282787
Hmm well guess he’s a self hating jew

people actually care about the diarrheans?

>muh immortality of consciousness
>muh acausal blackmail

>>18282678
All first principles rest on faith

>>18276360
Plato was a monotheist (though he wasn’t a Christian, which is something christcucks claim because they poorly traced most of his theology to cope with their own inferiority), the man he learned from was literally put to death for not being typically pagan enough.

>>18282925
that's why nietzsche says the true greeks ended at socrates, anything post-socrates is already degenerate in his reading of history

>>18282765
I'm a different person but I'd like to point how Christian Cathedrals were constructed by and implemented many alchemical and hermetic architecture, mixtures and symbolism, recalling a lot of the symbolique of the old egyptians. This was the case also in other spheres such as painting.

>>18282975
not really dude i went through a two semester art history survey and the professor in the first semester spent way too much time on religious architecture specifically cathedrals but a lot of mosques too, there really isn't some secret pagan stuff hidden in catholic churches at least not that academic scholars recognize

>>18282823
>see
I saw that and you just cited a book which has nothing to do with I was talking about. You are pretty lost in the conversation you can barely understand what I say, because as I pointed out: you can barely understand platonism and paganism.

I recommended different books for you, I am literally explaining the meat of some of them and you have the gall to say I come up with meaningless abstractions that confirm my biases. I know who you are and you proceed always in the same way. You really a sad case. Irredeemable.

>>18282925
Plato wasn't a monotheist. That meme was debunked by Jay himself.

>>18282986
Pic related and Fulcanelli.

>>18283007
one thing for sure is that Plato was not a polytheist.

>>18283025
Looks interesting, what is pic rel about?

>>18283030
Wrong. Both Socrates and Plato were devout polytheists.

>>18276324
Video link?

>>18283064
this thread refuted this gullible idea, read it, there are many posts explaining why Plato was not a polytheist.

>>18283083
If you think Plato wasn't a polytheist then that just means that you do not know what constitutes a polytheist.

>>18283041
He goes at length about egyptian religion, specially cosmology and astrology and how these were fundamental to the understanding of the religion itself. He presents the idea of the egyptian polytheistic gods as ''forms'', very much like Plato's. He constantly points some parallels with Christianity too. This was my only reading on egyptian religion, it may be a bit biased sometimes, dating the civilization as much more ancient than what is generally agreed (he says that by the time of Menes the religion was already established for a long period and estimates it to date back to ~20/30.000 BC - it is interesting that he cites Diodorus Siculus giving a similar date). You can take things with a grain of salt but I'm sure you will still get a lot from it.

>>18283119
Sounds fascinating, thank you I will pick it up

>>18283112
Saying that the Good is One? Does this constitutes polytheism? That poets, Homer (literally a greek theologian), lies about Divinity? That God's Intelligence create lesser gods to help with creation, that is, that gods are created?

>>18276324
You need to look into Asia, African or South-American paganism for more coherence. Neo-pagans in west usually are retarded.

Refute presuppositional apologetics
>Pro-tip: you can’t

>>18283230
It is entirely based on the logical fallacy of petitio principii aka begging the question

Taoists are monotheists, hindus are monotheists(vedanta being the school of the brahmins, no one cares about the polytheistic shudras), etc. Polytheism is a degeneration of monotheism, tell me an important sage that was a polytheist?Literally no one, only peasants and plebs who lost the meaning of the One. Oh, and the neo-pagan larpers ofc... And as a reminder for confused pseuds, believing in Gods doesn't make you a polytheist as long as you see them as a manifestation/creation of the ONE.

>>18280824
If you look into America orthosphere in Youtube, they're all still very evangelical. Most of them also were drug users and degenerates who played with fire and got burned before they converted/repented. While I won't doubt their faith or convictions, they are also usually selling you stuff. It all just seems like religious TV channels, except they're orthodox and in the internet now.

>>18283263
Is it true when they say all world views are circular at the meta level? Isn’t there some type of trilemma which can only be solved by infinite regress, axioms, or circularity?

>>18276324
>Are there any actual pagan groups with solid and rich intellectual traditions
I knew of a few that were focused on Anglo-Saxon and Frankish heathenry rather than Norse.
The fact is that people that are smart enough to understand authors like Vilhelm Grønbech generally don't care about LARPing. And those that do end up converting to Christianity afterwards.

Look into Theodish Belief if you want to see what solid neo-paganism could have looked like.

>>18283386
Do neopagans actually believe in Odin or whatever or are they just trying to cultivate a ‘noble lie’ that caters to their political/cultural goals?

>>18283399
Yes. The ones that don't tend to siphon off after awhile.

>>18283316
These sorts of testimonies of faith are a really big thing in Evangelicalism. I was a sinner, I was wicked and evil, but then I found Jesus and now I'm amazing and YOU TOO can be just like me. You see it bleed off in a lot of American things. It's in Q (the molemen are real dude, I worked for the CIA before I realized the demonrats were pedophiles), and it's even in a lot of Left wing stuff (both "former racists" who obviously were never actually racist and in "former bourgeoise" who are doing the whole FUCK YOU DAD thing). I think this is why Seraphim Rose is so big among E-Orthodox despite being a joke among actual Orthodox (ironically, precisely because he was a faggot and a drug user). It solves the problem of Evangelicalism being this very, very young religious strain (what we know of as "Evangelicalism" begins in the fucking 70s) and the anxiety that comes from being aware of that by cloaking it in this old aesthetic that, as far as an American is concerned, really is only an aesthetic. Any actual theology just comes down to anti-Catholicism, which is already present in Evangelicalism anyways.

>>18283307
>Taoists are monotheists, hindus are monotheists
At a certain point you people should just admit you do not think there ever was any polytheists, and that it is just a Christian boogeyman to scare theologians with.

>>18283140
>Saying that the Good is One? Does this constitutes polytheism?
Yes. Polytheists have never had a problem with a first principle and monarchia.
>That God's Intelligence create lesser gods to help with creation, that is, that gods are created?
Yes. Polytheists have never had a problem with describing eternal generation with poetic language such as creation or procreation.

>>18283499
>Polytheists have never had a problem with a first principle and monarchia.
All gods being derived from One? In any case, what is the monarch? What is the Principle and Ruler and Creator? Why in greek (as in some other kinds of) polytheism the monarch changes and is substituted? Saturn? Zeus? Zagreus?

What is the difference from polytheism and henotheism?

>>18283466
>Seraphim Rose is so big among E-Orthodox despite being a joke among actual Orthodox (ironically, precisely because he was a faggot and a drug user)
Kek source? I knew he was influenced by eastern mysticism or whatever but I didn’t know he was a party animal

>>18283599
>All gods being derived from One?
Sure why not.
>What is the Principle and Ruler and Creator?
Ask Hindus and they will give you various answers.
>Why in greek (as in some other kinds of) polytheism the monarch changes and is substituted? Saturn? Zeus? Zagreus?
Because they were different cults and traditions.
>What is the difference from polytheism and henotheism?
Polytheism is a catch-all term for various religious systems that have a pantheon of gods. Henotheism, monism, non-dualism, dualism, or whatever else are various philosophical and metaphysical schools of thought that may exist under such a religious system.

>>18283736
You told me polytheists affirm a single Principle that is Monarch. How can there be various asnwers from a polytheistic religion? Saturn as the Monarch due to a different religion than that of Zeus as the Monarch? If you assert that this was the same religion I'll ask you to explain a bit more, but if you really say that polytheism means different cults and different traditions making the religion never defined, then I will explain to you why this is the case.

>>18276324
Read 'Against the Galileans' by Julian the Apostate.

>>18283626
It's in one of his books that used to be shilled on here all the time during the Election. He was a homosexual prostitute for drugs, did coke, psychedelics, etc. His conversion to Christianity occurred when he went out into the desert and snorted coke, shot heroin, took meth, and then ate some shrooms in a cave because hippy-dippy bullshit and a bad understanding of Indian philosophy, and then while intoxicated met Jesus. I think it's Nihilism: The Root of blah blah blah.

My comment about him not being taken seriously is just from seeing various Eastern Europeans have him mentioned to them (purely on the internet, of course) and just sort of rolling their eyes or saying something like "well, Seraphim Rose is a bit eccentric..." in a clearly dismissive tone. Looking at his wikipedia article he apparently caught a lot of flack for the whole Aerial Tollhouse thing.

>>18284055
Hmm well the drugs must have lead him to a genuine experience, because it seems like he actually changed his life towards the end.

>>18282465
>Yes but literally Christianity is a larger religion so it literally attracts more detractors, something already mentioned in my post.
But that isn't unique, a "rare animal", it isn't a difference of kind in anyway. And Christianity is only marginally bigger than Islam, if you want to be quantitative about it but their apologetics are just as rooted in The Greeks to provide a logical framework as Christianity is.

>>18283007
>By jay

>>18284170
Well, it doesn't have to be some kind of worldshattering experience or something, just simply being high enough to realize where he was at in life might have done wonders. I'm not knocking him for it, good for him for getting himself out of that lifestyle.

>>18284349
The sinner —-> saint trope is quite common in Christianity; Augustine, Mary Magdalene, Paul, Mary of Egypt etc

>>18276324
its larping for the most part modern pagan are retards who aren't well read and just make shit up

>>18278039
This is the best criticism I have seen.

>>18283769
you are a retard

>>18280257
Jay Dyer's denial of natural theology and his postmillenialism are the first heresies that come to mind.

>>18280336
My understanding of Shinto is that it's closer to pantheism than polytheism but I could be wrong.

>>18285983
Well Jay is an ex-Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy, and he sees natural theology as a purely Roman Catholic aberration. I’m not sure if that’s part of his usual fervent anti-papist sentiment ie ‘ADS and Filioque cause atheism’ or if the Orthodox actually see natural theology as heresy. Then again it could be an outgrowth of his apologetic method that eschews foundationalism and evidentialism in favour of the weird presuppositionalism that he inherited from Calvinism.

>>18277554
Buddhists don’t even believe in god there just non materialist atheists

>>18285888
You don’t need to dodge the discussion. I concede your own definition of polytheism: that it is a tradition always in change, for the gods themselves changes. But even if you don’t want to know why this is the case, know that this impermanence of gods is quite telling.

>>18286788
You are all being retarded
>monotheism = 1 god
>polytheism > 1 god
Btw having more than one first principle/uncaused cause/monarchia is impossible

>>18286802
monotheism = what I like
polytheism = what I dislike

>>18278039
How is arguing from the point of view of technical rationalism? The conclusion of his argument is that we can only know anything through faith in God.

>>18286314
They believe in gods, they just don't believe in a creator god.

>>18286802
Not for some dualists. In any case you say only one god is the monarch, why would this change?

>>18286910
That’s weird

>>18286788
I'm another poster. I wasn't arguing with you.
I haven't even fallen for mono vs poly meme dichotomy.

>>18286314
real buddhism was a school of hinduism, the modern abomination is made-up nonsense and a pure LARP

>>18282673
it's like watching a drowning man thrash around, trying to grab onto something, anything to save his life
white nationalist neopaganism is just a knee-jerk reaction to anti-white ideology and wimpy, heretical, modern "Christianity"

>>18282253
>interacting with spirits
Ah yes, interacting with unknown spiritual entities whom you know nothing about. What could possibly go wrong?

>>18287028
I agree that the dichotomy is a meme. But polytheists affirm a monarch which because their tradition and gods change they cannot know it, the very source of their religions

>>18282160
Why are you presupposing that questioning presuppositions is somehow wrong?

>>18287204
> just a knee-jerk reaction to anti-white ideology and wimpy, heretical, modern "Christianity"
The word you are looking for is "new age"

>>18287229
It’s a cop out meant to avoid him having to justify his own position. You could challenge his views on YEC or biblical inerrancy and he’d just ‘question your presuppositions’. He basically holds his position to be unfalsifiable

>>18287280
Is it really a cop out? Or is it just something you're incapable of answering? You sound very bitter.

Jay's epistemology is utter charlatanism, merely a device to fool himself and his followers into gulping down jewish mythology. Imagine the level of intellectual bankruptcy you need to be to glorify circular reasoning as the only logical form of reasoning.

>>18287204
What makes modern christerism heretical? If anything it is closer to the slave morality roots of the original subjugated provincials in the Roman empire who longed for a permanent comsic reversal of society and the punishment of vitality; while the robust medieval religion you are probably idolizing wherein noblemen and their second sons ruled the state and church is the heretical deviation.

>>18287309
There are three options
>circular reasoning
>axioms
>infinite regress
Choose one

>>18287335
This kills the logician

>>18287309
>something something jews
>everyone please clap and tell me I'm based
So which debate are you butthurt about? This one? Or the one where Mark Brahmin got completely humiliated?
>>18287315
>slave morality roots
Guess how I know that you conflate all forms of Christianity with Joel Osteen-style evangelicalism?

>>18287335
>There are three options
Yes, if you are an internalist, which is why you are never going to get a satisfactory account of knowledge if you start with sense data, mental representations and the like.

>>18287280
>when you deny evolution because your system is internally consistent without it and you attack other people for holding to it because you can show that their presuppositions are not consistent 15 steps away from the actual particular issue of evolution

>>18287351
>Guess how I know that you conflate all forms of Christianity with Joel Osteen-style evangelicalism?
Literally indistinguishable from the stripped-down moralizing millenarianism of the NT. Again please demonstrate these contemporary manifestations are the heresy in violation of the divinely written canon you are supposed to uphold rather than whatever baroque caesaropapist euro-varna medievalism you prefer.

>>18287351
>slave morality roots
Literally all forms of Christianity fit Nietzsche’s view of slave morality. Christianity’s main values are:
>obedience
>humility
>celibacy
>poverty
>charity
>non-violence
>loving your enemy
>realising the futility of this world
You can point to some Serbian Orthodox saint who was a knight or a soldier but that would be the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, in the first 3 centuries of Christianity, all Christians supported pacifism as they were oppressed by the Romans, in contrast to the Jews who revolted and defended themselves.

>>18287372
Exactly

>>18287378
>Again please demonstrate these contemporary manifestations are the heresy in violation of the divinely written canon you are supposed to uphold rather than whatever baroque caesaropapist euro-varna medievalism you prefer.
>"dude just explain your entire theology, ecclesiology, and Church history in the form of 4chan posts! 1... 2... 3... go"
lol have you tried researching it for yourself? I already know you're just going to waste my time by being as obtuse as possible. I'm not going to waste my time by typing a college paper's worth of 4chan posts, just for some Nietzschean pseud.

tldr - go read a book

>>18287395
>You can point to some Serbian Orthodox saint who was a knight or a soldier but that would be the exception and not the rule
Thank you that is exactly my point. And the churches had to make saints of the occassional robust or healthy aristocratic person, those they could not suppress they had to reconcile.

>>18287395
I don't care about Nietzsche's view on anything. He was a relativist whose philosophy boils down to,
>dude just make up your own truth, ethics, etc
If you take Nietzsche seriously at all you're a moron.

>>18287345
>>18287335
>>18285551

>>18287410
Orthodoxy is obviously an extreme divergence from the original Christianity that Protestantism revives by discarding all traces of august Roman imperialism. Again you have failed to demonstrate that Joel Olsteen is a heretic and are instead now turning to a Turkish suburb for help.

>>18287410
Not a Christian but I have read that book. I wouldn't recommend it, very dull and not very enlightening. I would recommend people to read pic related instead, if they want to understand Orthodoxy.

>>18287420
Nietzsche isn’t important; it’s that you were trying to imply Orthodoxy is somehow more ‘based’ than Joel Osteen style evangelicalism, when they both stem from the same source. If you want to be a Christian it’s up to you, but no amount of warrior saints or gigantic Russian orthodox military cathedrals will change what it is at its core.

>>18287435
>obviously
Why is it obvious?
>extreme divergence from the original Christianity
So what do you consider original Christianity to be...
>that Protestantism revives
Oh no, this is so sad.
>by discarding all traces of august Roman imperialism
"MUH EMPROAR CAWN-STAN-TIYINE WAS A DEMONIC PAGAN IDOLATROUS DEVIL WORSHIPER WHO *insert unfounded schizo conspiracy theory here*"

Protestantism is a joke for multiple reasons, but let's focus on the big one: sola scriptura. Pic related.
>>18287438
I haven't read "Byzantine Theology" but I've heard it's good.
>>18287460
Yes yes I know, you think you're smart because you're reductive. Everyone please clap for the Nietzschean and tell him he's a smart boy so his ego will be satisfied and we can focus on more important things.

>>18287494
>you're reductive
Please explain how

>>18287494
Sola scriptura is literally the teaching of Jesus Christ, the Word of God... etc. If that is not sufficient to be a Christian, what other element are you introdu— oh right the trappings of the Roman empire since once the inmates have taken over the compound you need wardens and clubs and physical representations of strength and power to convey that the scripture is authoritative to those who are unable to read it. And apparently that's what you actually like about the religion since you are so hostile to the idea of relying on the revelatory canon for supreme authority. You are medieval and heretical. Joel Olsteen is closer to Jesus, even his megachurch setting appeals to the tastes of early Christianity to be as vast and flat as possible. Sorry it's true I'll let you work that out for yourself as heresy is a very grave matter indeed. My understanding courtesy of the learned Tertullian that is your eternal roasting may however please the faithful, so rest assured your vanity, while an error, still serves a purpose as an aesthetic parable.

>>18287052
>made-up nonsense
>implying Hinduism isn’t

>>18282625
>>18282673
Outside of maybe Eastern Europe every Neopagan organization is a joke that has gone nowhere. Look at the Odinic Rite or the Asatru Folk Assembly. A couple dozen weird fat old boomers playing dress up like 12th century Icelanders.

There's no energy behind these movements, no families or communities being built, no truly devout followers, it's just people trying to latch onto something based solely upon aesthetics in a declining post-modern world. There's no metaphysical belief behind any of this, there's no 'reason' for people to try and reconstruct early medieval Norse Paganism or the Hellenic cults or whatever, because nobody actually genuinely believes that shit. Least of all the actual Pagans themselves because they unanimously syncretized/converted to Christianity which they recognized as actual truth.

>>18287214
A lot can go wrong and a lot can go right. The same goes for praying to God, and that's why Christians can be as evil as anyone else. They often worship demons impersonating God or Jesus.

>>18287800
Read the thread.

>>18284055
Another point about Seraphim Rose is how deeply into Creationism he got, and how much he wanted to pull the Russian Orthodox Church into that debate, which in the Orthodox world just doesn't exist.

>>18287914
I don't take any Christian seriously unless he is a creationist. I'm not a christian, but I read that massive tome he wrote and it seems only with the most massive talmudic levels of hermeneutics could one state that the bible and the church fathers were not unanimous in their agreement of what is called a creationist "young" earth age. Note, calling something "Protestant" is not a refutation.

>>18287800
Yeah, because posting pretty pictures of cathedrals on twitter and talking about how great it must be to go to get a sermon on how evolution is nihilism at a Traditionalistism Crusader Orthodox Latin Mass in the Hagia Sopiha must be is authentic, but reading Homer is "LARP".

>>18287965
>I don't take any Christian seriously unless he doesn't know anything about biology.
Strange requirement you put there.

>>18287986
Your theology not mine.

>>18287914
>in the Orthodox world just doesn't exist
Really? I saw some Russian Orthodox priests call evolution a heresy

>>18288034
From all I've seen the default Orthodox position is that yes, God made all of mankind according to specifications, but the actual mechanism is unknown and not really important. What is absent in the Orthodox world is this debate about evolution (implying no God's involvement) vs a very rigid very specific kind of idea about what humanity being "created" means (meaning it was done instantaneously in one sitting without and build up). This obviously allows for the "yes, it was evolution, God guides evolution" line.

It's sort of similar to how the pro-life vs pro-choice debate doesn't exist in China despite their abortion rate being stupidly high because the actual circumstances to have that debate don't exist in China.

This thread opened my eyes to the fact that this whole trad orthodox thing on the internet is actually just a psyop by American Evangelicals to spread their methods using the aesthetics of other sects of Christianity that appeal to incels. Devilishly clever, much like how they used the Gamergate psyop to make gamers into Trumpers.

>>18288092
The vast majority of converts to Orthodoxy come out of Protestantism thanks to a popular based YouTube theologian

>>18276324
Dyer steals content from the real intellectual orthodox Dr matthew raphael johnson

>>18288154
Are there any other decent orthodox you tubers?

>>18276324
>collapse into moral relativism

there can exist partly moral relativism and partly objectivism

it's not black and white

>>18282975
Yes, it is never so simple and my intent wasn't to capture the whole of Christianity in a single image. Elsewhere I have discussed the positive aspects, that the simplicity of the early churches was part of a shifting nomos a return to the inner light rather than the violence of law.and
If this is true then the churches were much like the Roman sacellums springing up within the last reaches of nature. Goethe refers to impossibility of building wide and gargantuan, and the necessity of building upwards into the light. Here one might see building to the heavens as a limit, or test of faith - to build in the shadow of Babel while strengthening the peace of law.

Even allowing the devil's footprint to be placed at the center of the cathedral can be a test of faith, that one continues to stand in the light even where the devil wages war in the house of worship. It may even act like a petrification symbol, or apotropaic, like the Gorgon pediment for the Greeks.

This also speaks to a strength in the Protestant faith which would serve as a good defense against Catholic accusations of decline.

>>18288513
Errr how

>>18286125
>Then again it could be an outgrowth of his apologetic method that eschews foundationalism and evidentialism in favour of the weird presuppositionalism that he inherited from Calvinism.
It’s this. He has some insane eisegesis going on when he reads the church fathers because of this (bad) apologetic.

>>18289983
>Bad eisegesis
>Still destroys every papist or prot shill in debates
Nice try anon

>>18282160
>Jay isnt bright
>Still BTFOs all of your idols
Cute

>>18282289
>Why would anyone with a double digit IQ want to "debate" some disingenuous faggot? He's Ben Shapiro tier.
t. Buttblasted papist
He's.Ben Shapiro tier yet kills all your apologists to the point EMJ runs from him

>>18282330
Don't have be dishonest, Jay assraped this guy in the debate to the point he admitted he lost in his other video on it

>>18282343
>As >>18282330 # pointed out, he's just an e-celeb grifter. He can't actually argue his position from fundamentals because he isn't trying to. He's just trying to make money.
He argues his position from fundementals and that's why he wins
>He's a grifter
He may as well be yet that's not a matter of this discussion. Pathetic attempt at ad-homs.

>That perennialist debate was a train wreck
Not really, Jay won pretty clearly. Arvoll or whatever his name couldn't give a consistent worldview

>>18282553
Pathetic attempt at trolling

>>18282781
No you retard, he holds his discord open for randos to debate him every other week. He's not gonna do an exclusive stream to debate literal WHOs

>>18282841
t. Butthurt papist/atheist
I'm sorry you guys have no actual apologists and even EMJ is scared to debate Jay :'(

>>18283466
>Anti Catholicism
And the papist faggot reveals himself. Look, if your pedo cult was so great you'd imagine there'd be a SINGLE papist guy to beat Jay in a debate. Even E Michael "race doesn't exist" Jones is scared shitless of Jay and had to invent excuses not to debate him. You people are a joke

People cant be convinced of a religion where the followers would not die for it. Modern people struggle to not think selfishly and transactionally with religion.
Muzzies may chimp out violently about muhammed drawings or insults towards their prophet but they do put skin in the game regardless. And in a primitive way it works, find one frenchman willing to insult muhammed with flyers showing insulting muhammed drawings in front of a muslim dominated area

>>18290085
>Uses an apologetic that has literally never been used in Eastern Orthodoxy ever
>claims that the church father taught it even though he just imported it from Calvinism
>Not eisegesis>>18290085

>>18290085
>>18290111
>>18290206
It’s funny that your anti-gay since your sucking Jay Dyer off so fucking hard.

>>18287369
How does externalism solve the Münchhausen trilemma?

Jay Dyer's beliefs inevitably lead to Protestantism, and then to atheism. Spending all that energy deboonking pagan beliefs will eventually cause you to drift away from all the pagan traditions kept around from the Roman Empire. Then you get to the point of deboonking your own religion and becoming atheist like the west did.
If instead you spend that energy praying and meditating and getting closer to God, you will understand the truth in all religions, the perennial philosophy.

>>18290774
this is the truth but you can only utter it from the outside looking in. you can't just say this and BE religious at the same time.

>>18290774
>Jay Dyer's beliefs inevitably lead to Protestantism, and then to atheism. Spending all that energy deboonking pagan beliefs will eventually cause you to drift away from all the pagan traditions kept around from the Roman Empire.
This is painfully retarded.
>you will understand the truth in all religions, the perennial philosophy
Ah ok, that explains it. "DUDE just smash all the religions together and pretend you know how to judge which parts of which religions are true or not"
Perennialism is retarded.

>>18290396
You're butthurt because you have no defense against the presuppositional argument.
>WAAAAH CALVINISTS USE IT
So what? It's just a form of argument, not theology. Cry more.

>>18287372
>>18287406
>casuality doesn't apply to logic because... ummm... because... I don't have to be consistent, because... I, uh... I JUST DON'T OK!?

>>18290407
Nah I'm just patrolling you pedo papists. You don't have to like Jay to see his arguments hold true

>>18290206
maybe if you spent this much energy going to church instead of defending an e-celeb you're in a parasocial relationship with church attendance wouldnt be in complete freefall.

>>18291134
I'm not defending an e-celeb, but you are projecting. I don't care about Jay Dyer, but his criticism of papists is decent. Which makes papists like yourself seethe. I am simply laying down some truth on a seething bitch. You can keep seething at Dyer for owning all of your apologists, or you can look into the stuff he says

>>18290407
Jay Dyer pounds you losers like a drum every time you go at him. That's why you're reduced to hiding from him, taking catty little pot-shots on twitter, attacking him on a personal level, slandering him behind his back on websites like 4chan, etc.
You're trying to create a social stigma around Jay Dyer so people will be dissuaded from talking about him and affirming his arguments.

To put it more simply: You're a sore loser.

>>18291340
Nobody wants to debate him because he doesn't believe in reason or logic. He already presupposes that he's right and everyone else is wrong. He's basically a child or a woman, and the debates are pointless. It's like a continuation of the "internet bloodsports" from a few years ago, most of the people who are into it are just angry incel types.

>>18291353
>Nobody wants to debate him because he doesn't believe in reason or logic.
Yes he does, he's just better at it than you are.
>He already presupposes that he's right and everyone else is wrong.
WHOA DUDE REALLY????
You're telling me he goes into debates thinking his position is right? That's crazy! Next you'll tell me Jay thinks he has a moral obligation to refute falsehoods and tell the truth.
What do you think the word "debate" means, by the way?
>He's basically a child or a woman, and the debates are pointless.
They're pointless for you because your position is wrong, and Jay will beat you in the debate.
That's why you're hiding out on 4chan, slandering and crying, instead of confronting him. You know, sort of like a child or a woman.
>It's like a continuation of the "internet bloodsports" from a few years ago
Most bloodsports were low IQ gossipy shit-flinging, but there is something to be said for an atmosphere where people aren't expected to behave "properly" the whole time. It means the loser can't get butthurt and try to tone police their opponent because the audience will rip them to shreds if they start crying about muh fee-fees in the middle of the debate.

You're a sore loser and coward, simple as.

>>18291499
/Lit/ is full of brainlets and emotional children. I personally dislike a lot of things about Dyer but his arguments are rock solid and he beats everyone he debates, even higher profile guys like Dillahunty. All of this criticism of Jay is unsubstantiated and meme tier

>>18291513
>/Lit/ is full of brainlets and emotional children
It's a problem with the whole world really. Most people are relativists and don't even realize it. Their worldviews are grounded in obvious logical fallacies - appeals to emotion, appeals to authority (believe the experts!), stuff like that.
/lit/ is just a microcosm of a much larger problem.

>>18291726
>believe the church fathers!

>>18290383
Many Christians are dying for their faith though, in places like Egypt or Nigeria. Too bad American evangelicals are too busy sucking off Israel to care.

>>18290085
Didn’t destroy Ybarra though

>>18290956
Alex Malpass refuted it. Also the Orthodox position is fideism anyway.

>>18291499
>>He already presupposes that he's right and everyone else is wrong.
>WHOA DUDE REALLY????
>You're telling me he goes into debates thinking his position is right? That's crazy!
No one wants to talk to people who don’t even believe they could be wrong. It’s just as big a waste of time to debate him as it is to debate Darth Dawkins.

>>18291750
Yes, believe the Church Fathers. God is a necessary prerequisite for truth, ethics, metaphysics, etc. Only the Orthodox conception of God is suitable, the others are incoherent, typically due to modalism.
>>18291999
>Alex Malpass
The atheist who has no coherent basis for truth, ethics or metaphysics? That Alex Malpass?
>Also the Orthodox position is fideism anyway.
No it isn't.

>>18292005
>No one wants to talk to people who don’t even believe they could be wrong.
Jay's opponents are incapable of proving him wrong, that's the point. You're just butthurt because your guys keep losing over and over again.

>>18292009
that's pure sophistry. you're not interested in the actual dialogue of the debate as you are in the "win". Dyer's problem is that he always "wins" because he keeps "proving them wrong" by mere assertions. There's a reason why no creditable philosopher or theologian will engage in a youtube debate with the guy, it's all sophistry.

Dyer was completely btfo by drake shelton. All of e-orthodox swagger conpletely evaporates when confronted by the flat earth judaizer.

>>18292006
>The atheist who has no coherent basis for truth, ethics or metaphysics? That Alex Malpass?
False. And even if you point out problems in his philosophy that still wouldn’t change the fact the refuted the TAG. Saying that a criticism is false because it comes from an incorrect worldview is the genetic fallacy. All of the questions presuppositionalista like to ask are all bad faith bait questions.

>>18292050
Kek that guy is mentally ill. But yeah Malpass has refuted TAG. Just because you can’t justify something it doesn’t mean you can’t use. I can use an iPhone even though I don’t know how it works.
https://youtu.be/-4PipfxAVAQ

>>18292057
True. The peripatetic axiom is circular, and even if it somehow wasn't, transcendental categories are immaterial. There is no such thing as a physically observable "truth molecule" or an "ethics molecule"
Materialism is immediately self-refuting.
>Saying that a criticism is false because it comes from an incorrect worldview is the genetic fallacy.
OK, let's hear the criticism. Summarize it for me.
>>18292027
>There's a reason why no creditable philosopher or theologian will engage in a youtube debate with the guy, it's all sophistry.
Dr Feingold
Alex Malpass
Matt Dillahunty
You're a butthurt loser who can't get over the fact that Jay Dyer crushed all of your e-idols.
>>18292050
And I'm sure you'll tell us how he was btfo'd any second now.

>>18292130
>Just because you can’t justify something it doesn’t mean you can’t use.
Oh really? We don't have to justify our claims?
Well in that case, God is real just because I say so. It's self-evident.
See how ridiculous that is?
>I can use an iPhone even though I don’t know how it works.
Are you seriously equating a physical action to abstract philosophical categories?

>>18292131
>You're a butthurt loser who can't get over the fact that Jay Dyer crushed all of your e-idols.

I've never heard of any of these people before. Philosophy isn't like a game of football, buddy.

>>18292155
Tone-policing and claiming that I see philosophy as a game of football is not a substantive argument. You want to play armchair internet psychologist? OK, now it's my turn:
>you eat your own feces because... uhh, like... I just think do...
Now refute my completely baseless and irrelevant accusation.
See how retarded that is? This is what you've been doing. I don't care what you think about Jay Dyer on a personal level, or what you think about me on a personal level.
I'm interested in the substance. Jay's detractors are clearly not interested in substance (or they're just too stupid to keep up with the arguments). That's why they, why YOU, constantly talk shit and play tone policeman.

The biggest problem with the TAG is the enormous burden of proof it demands it's adherent meet. You have to demonstrate that every single none-Christian worldview is false. The "impossibility of the contrary" may theoretically be possible to prove but it's practically impossible.

>>18292212
>burden of proof
I can use TAG to attack your very standard of proof. And yes, all non-Christian worldviews are incoherent. Jay goes into great deal throughout his videos and essays addressing various non-Christian worldviews.
>Roman Catholicism
>Protestantism
>Evangelicalism
>Paganism
>Perennialism
>Materialism/atheism
I'm not going to copy+paste gigantic essays and video transcripts onto 4chan for obvious reasons. But Jay has made the arguments. They're published on his social media channels and his website, Jay's Analysis.

All worldviews are theory-laden. They all rest upon presuppositions. There is nothing wrong with questioning those presuppositions, in fact, it is absolutely critical that you do! Otherwise you'll fall for self-refuting, contradictory nonsense over and over again.

>>18292229
>I can use TAG
That wasn't right, I meant to say the presuppositional form of argument
TAG is specifically an argument for God based on presup, I meant to reference presup generally

>tfw we are seeing the end of Christianity in our lifetime just as once people saw paganism replaced by christianity

>>18291513
>even higher profile guys like Dillahunty.

Nah, that debate went nowhere because they both hit linguistic bed rock, the horizon where faith takes over from discourse. Of course both sides claim that /theirguy/ won, but as someone with no horse in the race I watched that debate and they pretty much hit an impasse in the first 10 minutes and spent the next hour circling back around to it.

>>18292229
Christianity is also incoherent, since it includes multiple sects that disagree with each other
>but orthodoxy is the only real one because... it just is okay!!!

>>18292252
We're seeing the end of gay western "Christianity"
Orthodoxy will supplant it
Islam/neo-paganism will gain ground temporarily but they will be pozzed by the same secularism that destroyed western heretical "Christianity"
most neo-paganism is already pozzed, the wignat viking larpers are a small minority with virtually zero organization in real life
>>18292267
Jay wrecked Dillahunty with presup and Dillahunty failed to understand, because he's mentally trapped within empiricism. Dillahunty cannot conceive of any other way of proving something aside from rote empiricism.

>>18292278
>Christianity is also incoherent, since it includes multiple sects that disagree with each other
lmao
you could apply this same logic to any other worldview
there are multiple schools of Islam, multiple schools of Hinduism and other forms of paganism, etc etc etc
Just because multiple sects claim to be Christian does not necessitate that all of them are wrong, or that there is no accessible means of determining which one of them is true.
>but orthodoxy is the only real one because... it just is okay!!!
Jay Dyer has dozens of videos critiquing other religions and elaborating on why Orthodoxy is the truth. He doesn't say, "Orthodoxy is true just because I say so!"
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>18292296
Be honest is this you jay?

>>18292229
>>18292235
>I can use presuppositional to attack your very standard of proof
It's not my standard of burden of proof. It's something presups claim they can demonstrate. You (and Jay) are claiming that you can demonstrate the "impossibility of the contrary". Most presups use the following syllogism
1. Either A or -A
2. Not -A
3. Therefore A
But that seems far fetched since even your post says that not only does Jay have a separate refutation for all none-Christian worldviews, it even identifies none-Christian worldviews as separate. This is why Bahnsen tried (and failed) to argue that all none-Christian worldviews are just variations of the same worldview
If we accept that there are multiple none-Christian worldview (which is a very difficult claim to contest) what we are left is
1. Either A or B (practically infinite number of other possible worldviews)
2. Not B
3. Therefore A
You can't perform a reduction ad absurdum on every none-Christian worldview therefore premise 2 can never be established. Otherwise you are going to have to defend the classification into 2 worldviews by showing one refutation that refutes everything besides Eastern Orthodoxy. That burden of proof just seems way too large for any one argument to fully address so it seems like you (and Jay) are shit out of luck.

>>18292279
>Jay wrecked Dillahunty with presup and Dillahunty failed to understand, because he's mentally trapped within empiricism. Dillahunty cannot conceive of any other way of proving something aside from rote empiricism.

Not at all. They reached the point where logic can't go because trying to conceive of something prior to logic with logic is impossible. From this point out all they have is assertions. Jay asserts a god that subsumes the laws of logic within itself, but he himself admits that this has to be taken on faith. Jay claims no gnosis of this same as Dillahunty, except Dillahunty says that his is comfortable not proffering an answer to an unanswerable.

The fact is if you don't take Jays position on faith, you don't have the religion anymore. This is fine, I am not against faith in god, but it is clear where the discourse terminated, but fanboys want to go beyond that because the 'win' is all that matters to them.

>>18292316
Well jay asserts that there is a limited number of starting points for each worldview and orthodoxy is based on the most coherent ones. So for him you can rule out many worldviews from the jump:
>solipsism
>naive empiricism
>materialism
>relativism
>radical skepticism
>logical positivism
>monism
>dualism
Etc
So the infinite number of world views have a finite number of starting points. Although I’m not quite sure how he would determine which ones are ‘coherent’ eg what would make a nonpersonal deity less coherent than a personal one.

>>18292310
No, but I'm sure you'll insist that I am Jay
>>18292316
>It's something presups claim they can demonstrate
"demonstrate"
this implies a standard of proof
the western atheist-materialist standard of proof is empiricism, the peripatetic axiom
the peripatetic axiom is circular
>your post says that not only does Jay have a separate refutation for all none-Christian worldviews
For the major ones, sure. But not literally every single one.
However, philosophy is not a wide open field - every time you make a claim you impose limitations. Every claim = another chance to contradict yourself. Philosophy is more like a series of hallways, all which (except one) lead you to a dead end (contradiction)
>That burden of proof just seems way too large for any one argument to fully address
Not anywhere near as large as you think.
For example: roman catholicism, protestantism, islam, and rabbinical judaism all affirm hellenic simplicity - God is an absolutely simple essence with no distinctions whatsoever, because they presuppose that distinction = division.
This is an example of a presupposition that is common across many different traditions. By attacking that one presupposition you attack multiple traditions simultaneously.
>>18292320
>They reached the point where logic can't go because trying to conceive of something prior to logic with logic is impossible.
So the impersonal, immaterial concept of logic is your axiom? Your ultimate reference point?
As an empiricist, it doesn't even make sense for Dillahunty to accept the laws of logic because they are abstract. They are not an empirically observable thing. You can empirically observe references to logic, but not the abstraction of logic itself.
Same with language and numbers. Letters, words, sentences, are merely references to the immaterial concept of language. Numbers are merely references to the immaterial concept of arithmetic.
If the symbols used to communicate those concepts were the concept itself, then the symbols would have to be used universally in order to access the concept.
Here's an example of why mathematical symbols, numbers, are not equivalent to the concept of numbers:
>3
>III
Two different symbols. Same concept.
Symbols are merely a reference. The concept, in and of itself, is immaterial and cannot be empirically observed.

>>18292381
Most atheists involved in these kinds of debates are Elimintivists, they don't believe in the abstractions you are mentioning actually exist as abstractions, and that all thought is fundamentally a material process, neurons firing would be the actual observation of a logical process.
This isn't my position, I am not an atheist, but for your gotcha to work it requires your opponent to first accept these premises that there is anything immaterial.

Neither Jay nor Dillahunty are foundationalists, in their debate they both argue from a place of coherentism, one immaterial, the other material. This is why the debate reach a stalemate so quickly, and resulted in them basically just asserting and reasserting their position for an hour, because neither of them really tried to cross that divide.
Dillahunty would say 'if it works it works', and then Jay would say 'but believing in god would explain why it works' then Dillahunty would say "there is no proof of god" then Jay would say "having a complete working theory, even if faith is involved, is better than nothing" then Dillahunty would say "I'm fine not knowing" and round and round it went.

Like that was the entire debate. I am pretty sure that the little exchange we have had, and you have had with others here, has actually covered more ground than their debate ever did.

>>18292381
How do you know that a worldview you have never heard of is incorrect?

>>18292510
>they don't believe in the abstractions you are mentioning actually exist as abstractions, and that all thought is fundamentally a material process, neurons firing would be the actual observation of a logical process
Empiricism requires direct sensory observation. Do these "Elimintivists" empirically observe their neurons firing? No, of course they don't.

In presupp, is there a neutral middle ground where you can judge opposing world views?

>>18292579
My understanding is no. That's why they always try to do an internal critique. Presuppositionalist Darth Dawkins is famous for his argument against agnosticism.

>>18292579
There is no such thing as philosophical neutrality. Every single worldview has presuppositions, every single worldview is theory-laden.
Most people don't ever think to question their presuppositions. For example, most atheists hold the peripatetic axiom
>Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses
to be a "brute fact" or "self evident".
The presup form of argumentation focuses on identifying and critiquing those presuppositions. And most people on the receiving end of presup are totally unprepared for it, and they walk away from the debate bitter, thinking it was "just a word game"
It's not a word game. If your worldview is incoherent, then it's incoherent. You can call presup a cop-out or a word game or whatever but that doesn't change the facts.

>>18292625
>Most people don't ever think to question their presuppositions.
>This coming form a literal presuppositionalist
KEK

>>18292636
What does a presuppositionalist presuppose lol

>>18292691
They literally presuppose their entire metaphysics. In fact they try and derive their epistemology from their metaphysics often conflating the two.

>>18292702
How else is someone meant to get to their metaphysics though

>>18292636
>>18292702
Great job completely missing the point, dumbass.
The point is not that all presuppositions are wrong, it's that your presuppositions need to be coherent.
>>18292702
Epistemology and metaphysics are bound up in one another, but acknowledging that overlap is not conflation. They're not the same.

>>18293167
>Epistemology and metaphysics are bound up
Not as much as presups want to believe. Your epistemology should lead to your metaphysics not the other way around.

>>18293167
It's not missing the point presups apply no critical thinking to their own positions and then demand that their opponents solve solipsism. Presup is just God of the gaps in epistemology.

>>18292963
kek

This has been fun we should have a presupp/apologetics thread soon

>>18290495
The way you pose the trilemma shows that you are thinking of epistemic justification in terms of states internal in the mind of the observer. This view goes naturally with representationalist theories of perception and the correspondence theory of truth: There is on the one hand the mind, with sense data, mental representations and the like, which are known directly, and on the other hand the external world, which is known indirectly, and the question is how we can know whether our mental representations match up to reality of not. And of course if we start from this philosophical framework this is impossible, because we would need independent direct access to things as they are in order to compare them with our representations. And the solution is to reject representationalism and adopt direct realism. We know things because we are empirically acquainted with them, and we have knowledge when we correctly perceive a state of affairs. And there is no question of trying to derive knowledge from peculiar mental entities like axioms and the like.

>>18285983
>>18286125

>Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Natural theology is alien, if not opposite, to the Gospels. In fact, the most sardonic remarks directly condemn it: per natural theology, the Father and Son comprise a kind of "epinoumenalism" whereby "God" is literally emergent from their partiality, indistinguishable from Phenomena and, as Materialism - also a Catholic idea - claims, the Mind itself both arising from similarly partial Phenomena. The man being harmed by the Father and healed by the Son is as Morally as it is Theologically bankrupt. It is, in fact, pure Phenomenology toward claiming God as participating in, equal to, less than the Phenomenal, in turn toward his aspects that do not lend themselves thereto being done away with altogether by being perfidiously claimed "ineffable". Perhaps the only rebuttal to Gnosticism is that it is not Gnostic enough, far from being ignorant of God, Yaldabaoth yearns God the most, to put him, above all, in the flesh prison. This being revealed indeed in this verse.

>>18292173
Bro they're unironic mouth breathing buffoons. Don't waste your time

>>18292131
Just listen to the shelton/dyer debate. jay was getting completely btfo then started his usual abuse once he couldn't corral the debate onto the ground he was comfortable with. He also had some of his obsequious discord followers there that were humiliated whenever they tried to interject. Then shelton followed up with a 10hr (lol) video going line by line refuting everything jay said. The debate was intra christian (well shelton is some sort of arian i think) polemic, but any neutral observer couldnt come away with thinking jay won that debate.