/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20318699]

>Pretend God exists because...uh...just do it, ok?

[Anonymous No.20318715]

>>20318699
Yes. It's good for your art and for your life.

[Anonymous No.20318764]

>>20318699
I think he knew god doesn't exist, but humanity need somthing to latch onto so he started to redpill us. MAYBE..

[Anonymous No.20318785]

>>20318699
>is unconcerned with proving the existence of God, but believes in him nonetheless
take the knight of faith pill

[Anonymous No.20318804]

>>20318699
>don’t believe in God because, uh, just don’t ok?

[Anonymous No.20318834]

If you actually were a person who believed in science, who wanted to actually put your money where your mouth is, choose to believe in God for a month as an experiment.

I did that when I was an atheist, and I never went back.

[Anonymous No.20318850]

>>20318834
>choose to believe
that's not how it works

[Anonymous No.20318876]

>>20318850

That is literally how it works. You can always chose what to believe.

Unless, you're just admitting that you think you're an NPC, and are simply incapable of choice.

[Anonymous No.20318882]

>>20318764
No one knows that god doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous No.20318903]

>>20318850
That's exactly how it works. Anything else is just pretending to know. Belief is honest, which is the only thing that sets itself apart from pretend knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20318932]

>>20318876
>>20318903
Delusion helps create purpose but it doesn't reveal the truth of reality nor is it useful everywhere. Think of the radical Muslim who wholly believes in Islam and is willing to kill himself for his god.

[Anonymous No.20318937]

>>20318876
That's called a being a cynical retard. You don't actually believe in it you just pretend to cause you want some sort of higher satisfaction

[Anonymous No.20318938]

>>20318932

What does that have to do with whether you chose what you believe or not?

Don't deflect. Address the core question.

[Anonymous No.20318942]

>>20318937

No. I didn't say "Pretend to believe", I said "Actually believe."

You know the difference between the two, right?

[Anonymous No.20318943]

>>20318938
>What does that have to do with whether you chose what you believe or not?
Because what you're doing is essentially delusion. You're creating a reality that doesn't exist. It's a useful tool sometimes but ultimately it's not a good enough belief in life.
>Don't deflect. Address the core question.
You choose what to believe or not, the question is whether that belief is valid.

[Anonymous No.20318947]

>>20318876
>>20318903
you can't just "choose" to believe, if you actually think this way you're delusional, even actual believers struggle with their faith, it could take one a lifetime to fully commit to his faith.
yet according to you faggots you suddenly became believers overnight because you chose to? this place is filled with larpers

[Anonymous No.20318948]

>>20318932
>Delusion
That word is already implying you know what isn't delusion. The point is you don't, you only believe in what you think is not delusion.

[Anonymous No.20318955]

>>20318943
>the question is whether that belief is valid.
Which is itself a belief. Are you starting to get it?

[Anonymous No.20318958]

>>20318947
According to Aristotle, choice presupposes deliberation, so yes, one does not just suddenly "choose to believe" without significant deliberation beforehand. That is irrelevant to what is being argued about.

[Anonymous No.20318959]

>>20318943
>creating a reality that doesn't exist
Than it's not reality, anon. The Münchhausen trilemma holds.

[Anonymous No.20318961]

>>20318948
>>20318955
>>20318959
You're implying that reality is subjective and it doesn't matter what is real or not because everything is based on faith. I base my beliefs off of my current experiences. I do understand the whole platonic cave problem, but I'm not going to believe in something that doesn't make sense in my current understanding/schematic of reality.

[Anonymous No.20318963]

>>20318961
If you don't understand basic allegory, why do you think you're arguing effectively?

[Anonymous No.20318967]

>>20318834
I also did that except I did go back. My life was awful when I followed Christianity. You have to deal with the fact that 1. the first human in the sense that we are, as in born to a mother, Cain, murdered his own brother 2. God arbitrarily brings suffering on people (no explanation for why he accepted Abel’s blessings and not Cain’s, no explanation for Job either) and then expects you to still act as if everything is great (Jesus is the biggest example) 3. God created a weak race prone to sin and then cursed them when they fell to temptation 4. the source of human sin in Christianity is self knowledge, which is necessary for philosophy and other cool pursuits 5. God prescribes forgiveness but practices none himself, for he condemns many people to hell for their sins or unbelief and hell, being never-ending torment, coming after all things, can have no utility in correcting one’s behaviour for the future 6. basically says listening to women is what caused the fall, Adam listened to Eve and ate the apple, and in Paul’s letters he uses this as a reason why women shouldn’t speak in church and are forbidden to teach over men 7. it encourages you to focus on your redemption and getting into heaven more-so than achieving worldly goals which saps motivation, and 8. it tells you to turn the other cheek and love your enemies which is a childish and naive attempt at creating world peace because, while the logic is that an eye for an eye simply multiplies suffering through revenge while forgiveness ends the cycle of hate, what really happens is when you forgive someone they continue taking advantage of you and pushing you further so it would have been better to stand your ground and push back.

[Anonymous No.20318969]

>>20318963
You think you're out of the cave and holy/wise but in reality you're still in it with the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.20318978]

>>20318947

You chose to believe. Then you question the validity of that choice. Then you chose whether to believe or not again.

This is extremely basic stuff that everyone with a slightly interesting life experiences. People question the validity of their choices and commitments all the time - "Am I doing the right thing by studying this course? Should I change?"

Come on, man. You're not so much of an NPC that you simply do not have a frame of reference for this type of thing, right?

[Anonymous No.20318983]

>>20318834
the thing is everything to do with science is literally beneath the scope of understanding god. think of it like a simple subcategory, we are everything within god's realm, and then we understand everything within our realm, as a hierarchy god is at the top and we can't reach that, and nor can we understand what is above us, but only below us in the hierarchy

[Anonymous No.20318991]

>>20318943

>You choose what to believe or not, the question is whether that belief is valid.

Look at the first response to my post. >>20318850

The topic was whether or not you chose to believe. But, if you want to move it to whether the belief is valid, then I'll just restate it:

If you have an experimental frame of mind, where you want to carry out experiments based on different premises, why are your beliefs not also a valid grounds for experimentation? Everyone has foundational beliefs that they chose not to discard, which they personally cannot prove, but assert as true for one reason or another.

The experiment is, add "Belief in God" as one of them for a month, and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.20318992]

>>20318699
I read Crime and Punishment once and it already had this effect on me. How does he do it?

[Anonymous No.20318994]

>>20318967
>it tells you to turn the other cheek and love your enemies which is a childish and naive attempt at creating world peace
Christianity is not aiming at world peace... It's aimed at perfecting the soul so you can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The world by its nature will never be at peace, and the sinners will always reap the fruits they sow.

[Anonymous No.20319001]

>>20318967

There's a lot to unpack in what you've said, but the Christianity you rejected is not the Christianity I believe in either. I'm an Orthodox Christian. For example, we don't believe that God created a weak race "prone to sin" - we believe that God created man with free will, and with his free will the first man chose to sin, *which then* makes his descendants prone to sin. That sin is an inherited infection.

A God making the first man inherently prone to sin and then judging it for sinning, you rightly identify as psychotic. I always rejected every Christianity that presented that as one of their core beliefs.

[Anonymous No.20319010]

>>20318991
>The topic was whether or not you chose to believe. But, if you want to move it to whether the belief is valid, then I'll just restate it:
What's your problem? I think that beliefs are chosen. I stated my position, and you seem to be in agreement? Why do you thnk I'm avoiding the topic?
>Everyone has foundational beliefs that they chose not to discard, which they personally cannot prove, but assert as true for one reason or another.
This is the whole crux of the problem. We cannot prove our qualia is correct or even real, but I act like it is because this is the only method of knowledge I have found ever since I was born. Science apparently shows that there are patters to this qualia and they are repeatable. This is why I don't believe in the Abrahamic god, because there is no way to prove his existence. However, I believe there might be something like an encompassing "essence" that cannot be proven. But there's no point in thinking about that, because we'll never touch it.

Thus I conclude my arguments.

[Anonymous No.20319014]

>>20319010

Those were assertions, not arguments.

>Science apparently shows that there are patters to this qualia and they are repeatable.

Gave you consistently thought through this idea to any depth at all? Do you want to actually explore why science cannot, by itself without any other assumptions, actually show that there are repeatable patterns to qualia?

[Anonymous No.20319015]

>>20319010
>This is why I don't believe in the Abrahamic god, because there is no way to prove his existence
*Using qualia

[Anonymous No.20319019]

>>20318994
>Christianity is not aiming at world peace... It's aimed at perfecting the soul so you can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
That’s exactly why it’s a retarded doctrine to follow. You’re wasting your life trying to gain entry to heaven which, in all probability, doesn’t exist, instead of focusing on the world we know does exist and using your time here to improve it for your children and further descendants.

[Anonymous No.20319020]

>>20319014
>Those were assertions, not arguments.
You want to have arguments without using qualia. You are trying to do something that ia impossible. You're trying to argue through platonics and I cannot do that because it cannot be sensed.
>>20319014
>Do you want to actually explore why science cannot, by itself without any other assumptions, actually show that there are repeatable patterns to qualia?
What is "science by itself?" This is essentially what I said previously, you want proof without using our sense of existence. It is impossible.

[Anonymous No.20319021]

>>20318992
which part of it had that effect on you

[Anonymous No.20319026]

>>20319001
If he had free will and chose sin then he was prone to sin. God should’ve known that, according to scripture he knows every hair on our head and everything we will do or whatever.

Also, it’s hilarious how EVERY SINGLE TIME I criticise Christianity I have a reply saying “that’s only protestants, I’m catholic!” and “that’s only catholics, I’m orthodox!” trying to shift all of the negative aspects of Christianity onto a specific denomination that is not their own.

My criticisms come from the Bible, my understanding of it when I read it, and therefore, as far as I know, it applies to all denominations which, I assume, believe in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.20319031]

>>20318834
How often did you pray during this month?

[Anonymous No.20319032]

>>20318983
I should add, we already know what God looks like

[Anonymous No.20319035]

>>20319021
I related to Raskolnikov as a a meaningless self-important midwit who thinks a lot and accomplishes nothing, and I was touched by how he was able to find a higher purpose. I'm not religious but I've started to put a lot more thought into what I believe would be a higher purpose worth living for, and I think it's changed me for the better

[Anonymous No.20319055]

>>20319019
>That’s exactly why it’s a retarded doctrine to follow
Only because you're interested in political and social dogmas, not meaningful ones. Christianity is not about trying to achieve the impossible, it is saving the only person who is important to you and uniting them with God.
>You’re wasting your life trying to gain entry to heaven which
So you never believed in Christianity at all then. Why even bother making that post if you just reject all of its core beliefs from the bat? It looks like you're just here to push your belief in what's real or not.

[Anonymous No.20319065]

>>20319020

>You want to have arguments without using qualia.

Look man, if you just straight up have no idea how to have a conversation, and just want to assert things, and put words in my mouth, you can do that by yourself on a blog.

[Anonymous No.20319069]

>>20319026

Not all denominations have the same interpretation of the bible. You do know that you can interpret the same thing in different ways to reach different conclusions, right?

Why would you assume that you, an atheist, believes in the same interpretation of the bible as a group of Orthodox believers?

[Anonymous No.20319071]

>>20319065
Typical christcuck. You want belief without basing it off of consciousness. If you don't want to argue, I don't care.

[Anonymous No.20319079]

>>20319031

Most mornings and evenings, and I've been increasing the duration of them over time. I went to the pascha services at my local church, and did many of the readings.

[Anonymous No.20319082]

>>20319071

>You want belief without basing it off of consciousness

See? You keep putting words in my mouth, and you're arguing against positions that I don't hold.

[Anonymous No.20319086]

>>20318699
How is this at all related to having read anything Dostoevsky ever wrote?

[Anonymous No.20319091]

>>20319082
>See? You keep putting words in my mouth, and you're arguing against positions that I don't hold
Those are my interpetations of your earlier posts and by continuously not stating anything of substance I can only guess what you aim to achieve in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.20319092]

>>20318942
Implying you can choose what to believe is stupid. There's only one truth and that's the one that fits better with our experiences and emotions. You can't just go around saying.: today I'll believe in this, tomorrow I wont. That's an actual NPC way of thinking

[Anonymous No.20319093]

>>20319035
for me it's Sonya's unconditional forgiveness that really moved my soul, it really reminds me that I'm not too far gone, I have no former prostitute gf but I guess she was supposed to be an allegory for God's forgiving nature.

[Anonymous No.20319099]

>>20319092
>There's only one truth and that's the one that fits better with our experiences and emotions
Correct, which is that God exists.

[Anonymous No.20319105]

>>20319092

>You can't just go around saying.: today I'll believe in this, tomorrow I wont. That's an actual NPC way of thinking

It's schizophrenic way of thinking, not NPC way of thinking. Schizos are crazy, but they're definitely not NPCs.

>There's only one truth and that's the one that fits better with our experiences and emotions

So every person shares exactly the same experiences and emotions? If not, then there would be as many truths as there are people - and any claims at there being "one truth" are refuted by that.

[Anonymous No.20319112]

>>20319001
>*which then* makes his descendants prone to sin. That sin is an inherited infection.
But why? That's unfair that we should be prone to sin just because of Adam and Eve's choice. Why didn't God make two more human beings and have them be our ancestors instead of Adam and Eve so that we wouldn't have inherited the proclivity to sin?

[Anonymous No.20319137]

>>20319112

You're right, it's not fair for your descendants to suffer the consequences of your actions. Whose fault is that? Yours, not God's.

God created Adam and Eve to be the first of humankind, and for all of humanity to descend from them. They knew this, and sinned anyway.

[Anonymous No.20319140]

>>20319055
>So you never believed in Christianity at all then.
No, I did at the time. What I wrote just now expresses my current beliefs which do not align with Christianity.
>you said you don’t believe in Christianity so you never believed in it!
Lmao. Also, yeah, I do believe social and political dogmas are more important than imaginary dogmas about getting into a made up afterlife because they actually impact life on earth which concretely exists.

[Anonymous No.20319146]

>>20319069
The difference in interpretation is they believe it’s the divine inspired word of God and their confirmation bias prompts mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion that they’re simply words scribbled on scrolls by schizophrenic Jews who lived thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous No.20319149]

>>20319137
>You're right, it's not fair for your descendants to suffer the consequences of your actions. Whose fault is that? Yours, not God's.
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.
>You’re right, it’s not fair to suffer the consequences for something you had no part in, and it’s your fault that it’s not fair.
Not only is this logically incoherent but it is more pessimistic than any atheistic point of view.

[Anonymous No.20319150]

>>20319137
>Whose fault is that? Yours, not God's
It's ultimately God's fault, because he gave Adam and Eve the capability to reproduce and thus spread their proclivity to sin. As I already mentioned, if God so wished, he could have made two more human beings and have them be our ancestors instead of Adam and Eve. Why didn't God do this?
>God created Adam and Eve to be the first of humankind
And because of his omnipotence, he already knew what choice Adam and Eve would make, yet he still made them be our ancestors. This whole situation is ultimately God's fault, he could have fixed this situation, and have made a human race without a proclivity to sin, but he didn't.

[Anonymous No.20319153]

>>20319150
*omniscience

[Anonymous No.20319165]

>>20319153
“ITS ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING THE WAY I CREATED YOU AND DOING WHAT I KNEW YOU WOULD DO! I’M SO MAD AT YOU FOR THIS I’M GOING TO HAVE YOU BURN IN SULPHUROUS FLAMES FOR ETERNITY!!

[Anonymous No.20319189]

>>20318699
Why would I need to pretend?

[Anonymous No.20319192]

>>20319189
How do you know God exists?

[Anonymous No.20319193]

"Imagine: A life of utter subjugation and servitude. All for him who is the Shepherd. And we, a flock of worthless, miserable beings. Less than sheep. Less than alive, only existing at the mercy of superior force. An irony, is it not, that a shepherd’s duty is to protect the herd until the day of slaughter?"
- The Devil's Apocrypha - John DeVito

I'd say if there is a guuuud, It'd be like in that book.

[Anonymous No.20319195]

>>20319192
I have been informed.

[Anonymous No.20319198]

How to believe that God created the world in six days, and that man comes from clay?

[Anonymous No.20319203]

>>20319198
By learning how hermeneutics works.

[Anonymous No.20319206]

>>20319195
By who?

[Anonymous No.20319211]

>>20319206
I have been asked not to reveal it.

[Anonymous No.20319212]

>>20319198
by believing that God created the world through the scientific processes but that ancient Jews couldn't understand the totality of those processes when Genesis was written

[Anonymous No.20319214]

>>20319212
>scientific prprprpr
Ngma

[Anonymous No.20319218]

>>20319198

accepting God's empirical testimony for how he made the world, instead of random guesses made by people who were not there

[Anonymous No.20319220]

>>20319211
Well that's unfair. Isn't your job as a Christian to spread your faith?

[Anonymous No.20319221]

>>20318699
The René Descartes school of theistic proof.

[Anonymous No.20319225]

>>20319203
That could be a metaphor, and could be not.

[Anonymous No.20319240]

>>20319212
If one can understand 6 he is able to understand thousands of days. And if we are going to especulate that it was a metaphor, I could especulate as well that the 6 days were just to justificate the jewish sabbath.

[Anonymous No.20319241]

>>20319220
No, and you are assuming I am a Christian—I am not. God guides whomsoever He will; who am I then, but a mere phantom? Still, I would happily help someone if I saw potential in them, but that doesn't happen very often, and even when it does, it mostly results in disappointment.

[Anonymous No.20319244]

>>20318699
Reprobate

[Anonymous No.20319251]

>>20319241
The God you believe in isn't benevolent, apparently he is fine with most people languishing in ignorance of him.

[Anonymous No.20319254]

>>20319251
But the God I serve is apparent everywhere. Open your eyes! His Light is blinding.

[Anonymous No.20319266]

>>20319149

>You’re right, it’s not fair to suffer the consequences for something you had no part in, and it’s your fault that it’s not fair.

Was never said. What was said, is that it's unfair for your descendants to suffer the bad consequences of your actions - and that fault is yours, not your descendants.

If you suffer on behalf of someone else's bad choice, it's not fair for you to suffer, and it's the fault of the person who did it.

>This is the most retarded thing I have ever read

Accepting the fact that other people suffer the consequences for your bad actions is the most retarded thing you've ever read?

[Anonymous No.20319270]

>>20319240

>If you can understand the plain claim the bible makes about God making the earth in six days, and the fact that the sabbath is followed because God rested on the seventh, then you can accept a completely atheist re-interpretation that makes both of these ideas false

What crack are you smoking? There isn't even a line of reasoning here.

[Anonymous No.20319279]

>>20319266
>and that fault is yours, not your descendants.
See>>20319150
It's God's fault for giving Adam and Eve the capability to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.20319288]

>>20319270
What i'm saying is that these are all especulations. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.20319297]

>>20319288

They're not speculations. They're direct testimony from God, and his Saints.

[Anonymous No.20319300]

>>20319279

So you're the type of person, that if you bought a knife and stabbed yourself with it, would blame the maker of the knife, instead of yourself for misusing the knife?

[Anonymous No.20319317]

>>20319266
>Was never said. What was said, is that it's unfair for your descendants to suffer the bad consequences of your actions - and that fault is yours, not your descendants.
God literally designed the universe and so the dynamic of inheriting your ancestors sins was part of his design and therefore this is God’s fault. Don’t forget it’s God that says to Adam and Eve that all man and womankind will suffer for their actions - it was God who decided this punishment, Adam and Eve couldn’t have predicted Yahweh to be such a dramatic little bitch.

[Anonymous No.20319343]

>>20319317

>God literally designed the universe and so the dynamic of inheriting your ancestors sins was part of his design and therefore this is God’s fault

>>20319300

[Anonymous No.20319360]

>>20318967
>I also did that except I did go back. My life was awful when I followed Christianity

Why are none of the atheists on this board aware of the fact that you don't have to be a Christian to believe in a god?

[Anonymous No.20319366]

>>20319092
Then simply modify your experiences and emotions, why do thinkers have to spell this out for npcs.

[Anonymous No.20319370]

>>20319360
Are you retarded? Throughout this thread we have been specifically talking about the Christian God because that’s the one Dostoyevsky referred to, not because we don’t know there are other Gods you can believe in.

[Anonymous No.20319371]

>>20319300
Poor analogy. Choosing to disobey God was Adam's and Eve's fault. Inheriting the proclivity to sin is God's fault through giving Adam and Eve the capability to reproduce. But building on your analogy, if I give a person a knife knowing that he plans to stab himself with it, am I blameless?

[Anonymous No.20319378]

>>20319343
Only applies to Adam and Eve blaming God and not himself. I literally have nothing to do with any of them. It’s all irrelevant any way because Gensis is the Jewish creation myth. They should feel guilty for existing. Not Europeans, though. Jews wrote that they were born through Eve in sin. Europeans wrote that they were born free through Freya. Obviously, even in ancient times Jews were self loathing parasites and Europeans were life-affirming übermensch.
>inb4 Europe was Christian
Adopting that Jewish anti-human life-denying slave-morality religion was the worst thing we ever did. In this case, yeah it literally was kind of my ancestors fault, lol!

[Anonymous No.20319402]

>>20319370
The anon I was replying to says he stopped being an atheist to see what it was like. Why should I give credit to his attempt, if he only tried being Christian, as if there was no other option? Or was he preemptively preparing himself for this thread?

[Anonymous No.20319856]

>Pretending that God exists when he doesn't
Cringe
>Pretending that God doesn't exist when he does
Based

[Anonymous No.20319862]

>>Pretend God exists because...uh...just do it, ok?

[Anonymous No.20319922]

>>20318967
>My life was awful when I followed Christianity
>God prescribes forgiveness but practices none himself, for he condemns many people to hell for their sins or unbelief and hell, being never-ending torment, coming after all things, can have no utility in correcting one’s behaviour for the future
There's no Hell. It's a misreading from what was trendy among neoPlatonists at the time. Hell is non-existence. Paul and Revelation are wrong.

[Anonymous No.20319928]

>>20318699
I mean the obvious point here is that you would pretend you exist and if you exist then God exists.

[Anonymous No.20319961]

>>20318876
That's retarded. If you can just arbitrarily choose to believe or not believe something, then the whole thing is farcical.

[Anonymous No.20320035]

>>20319922
>Paul and Revelation are wrong.
Then what's right?

[Anonymous No.20320053]

>>20318882
i do

[Anonymous No.20320074]

>>20318699
Because if you don't you will be punished
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJDAAva3CUE

That's the bare minimum

[Anonymous No.20320077]

>>20318804
It's the rational thing to do.

[Anonymous No.20320087]

>>20319961
But then, everything is farcical, so nothing is farcical.

[Anonymous No.20320089]

>>20320077
>uh, just don't ok. It's "rational"

[Anonymous No.20320132]

>>20319254
Bullshit. My god would never allow such an imposter to taint his creation.

[Anonymous No.20320159]

>>20320077
Not really.
How do you answer where consciousness originates from? Even if we're biological machines, what makes a nigger so much more conscious and feeling than an ape, in spite of being verifiably stupider? That's just the first of many unanswerable questions that prop once you do realize the nature of reality. What even explains the very humane disposition to see the interconnectedness of it all, to see patterns and to create art and immediately attribute these to a, or many, deities?
The first rational thing is to say "fuck, I don't know" instead of declare something as purely untrue. The next is to acknowledge this predisposition to the divine, and understand that intuition has led our species even past evolutionary explanations as if of an invisible hand it were. And I'm not talking about the easily exploited somatic impulses.
Then comes acceptance. "Yeah, maybe..."
Anything else would be intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.20320168]

Replace the word "god" with the word "life" and it all makes much more sense. Rather than thinking of god as this someone who has plans and does things it's better to assume that any texts that involve god are just general empirical statements about life. Do X and you will probably have a happier life. Don't do Y because while tempting will just make you unhappy in the long run. If you aren't happy your kids probably won't be either...
I guess this is like every other community. It starts out reasonable then it becomes popular, people join who don't get the point and ruin it.

[Anonymous No.20320174]

>>20320159
>How do you answer where consciousness originates from?
Yahweh doesn't solve this problem.

>The next is to acknowledge this predisposition to the divine
Why? This presupposition comes out of nowhere lol

[Anonymous No.20320180]

>>20320174
>Yahweh doesn't solve this problem.
Ex nihilo
>Why? This presupposition comes out of nowhere lol
It's in virtually every human society and always arises in puberty with what is known as "existential angst." It's a universal fact of the human condition.

[Anonymous No.20320185]

>>20318785
Unfathomably based.

[Anonymous No.20320214]

>>20320035
Christ's lessons

[Anonymous No.20320220]

>>20320180
>Ex nihilo
This is generally a theistic point, you don't need the god of the Israelites in order to make it so. The primary cause/principle of the ancient Greeks makes more sense with it.

>It's in virtually every human society and always arises in puberty with what is known as "existential angst." It's a universal fact of the human condition.
Sure, but the concept of the divine would be perennial in this case, and not the particular Abrahamic god.

[Anonymous No.20320229]

>>20320159
>How do you answer where consciousness originates from?
It just is. No need for god.
>what makes a nigger so much more conscious and feeling
Literally their brain. Chimps are better in number memorization and ordering than whites too. We gave up some of our high throughput brain parts for more complex reasoning and social behavior.
>What even explains the very humane disposition to see the interconnectedness of it all,
That's what organisms have to do in order to survive. Find the signal in the noise, connect the dots, and find the food (and later on more complex things that relate to other needs). Not only is there an inherent need for continued pattern matching we can also attribute making up coherent stories from bits of your life to a specific brain region. It's called the default mode network and it's overactive in maladaptive daydreamers. There's even this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
Attributing the belief in supernatural entities to the existence of such is a rather bold move.
Since the brain is compartmentalized most brain regions don't even have an innate concept of reason. They're just maps of correlations that relate to needs, fears and so on that somehow resulted in a higher chance of survival. Monotheism wasn't the norm either. Many cultures had a god for all sorts of things and coincidentally they appear to be personifications of concepts of life.

[Anonymous No.20320234]

>>20318699
>pretend that literally anything you believe is absolute truth because... its just good for you ok.

[Anonymous No.20320258]

>>20320180
>It's a universal fact of the human condition.
It's a universal fact of mammals not just humans.
I grew up on the farm and every single animal doesn't matter if dog, cat, chicken, cow, horse,... goes through the same transformation. When they're young they're generally playful, curious, and nice to each other but when they enter sexual maturity they get outright boring and cunty to each other. We all share this fate.

[Anonymous No.20320292]

>>20320214
What makes his teachings especially true?

[Anonymous No.20320301]

>>20320174
>Yahweh doesn't solve this problem.
Not Yahweh, no. He's just another symbol of the many that do hint towards the biggest issues I talk of.
Do understand Dosto still operated within his own cultural boundaries, though there is some truth to the gospel he preaches (just as there's truth in everything).
>>20320229
>We gave up some of our high throughput brain parts for more complex reasoning and social behavior
Complex reasoning towards the abstract I can see affecting the very way we think, but most expressions of deities are firmly removed from our basic social drives. For as much as I'd like to wave away the chance of consciousness as just another evolutionary trait, there is a part of this thought process that climbs above and beyond any evolutionary needs.
>That's what organisms have to do in order to survive.
There's more to consciousness than immediate pattern recognition.
Yours is a good post, but it still fails to answer the question at the center of it: why conscience decides to express this way. This consciousness is what takes all the modular parts of your brain and makes them work in concert to rationalize and fulfill your needs (hell, it even displays modular aspects itself, going far beyond the immediate ego). It's also the one telling you God does exist in the interconnected patterns of every single part of nature and expresses or speaks itself through something as illogical as art itself. At that point you listen to music, look and realize it can't all be just chance. You even said it it yourself, this manifests as an evolutionary disadvantage sometimes.
Not that I pretend to hold the answers.

[Anonymous No.20320443]

>>20320301
>consciousness as just another evolutionary trait
There's an important distinction here. I was referring to consciousness as a passive witness. It seems to me that objective reality is causally closed but it does not explain the witness. This one has to exist on its own. I also wouldn't look for god in human behavior. It's all too vague, evolutionary hypotheses work too well, neuroscience explains too much,...and I'm not even sure what I'm looking for. What properties of god can be inferred if you start with the assertion that the existence of something higher can be concluded from humans' innate tendency to acknowledge some sort of creator. I could be the leftover of extraterrestrials that shaped our evolutionary path for all we know. I stand by my opinion that the god belief is merely a personification of humans' awe of life tho.
>This consciousness is what takes all the modular parts of your brain and makes them work in concert to rationalize and fulfill your needs
Yeah, and lots of people try to get rid of it through meditation to get closer to the sensory elements of life and away from your old established headcanon about things. (Me included).
>You even said it it yourself, this manifests as an evolutionary disadvantage sometimes.
Evolution isn't a well-crafted process. It's a mostly random process that terminates unsuccessful paths after a while. It's not asking "is this optimal?", it's asking "is this good enough?". Besides that, working strategies are not always obvious.
Back to the witness for a moment. If it is merely a passive witness how can a causally closed reality acknowledge its existence?

[Anonymous No.20320447]

>if god doesn't exist that would be sad
>therefore god exist
BRAVO

[Anonymous No.20320466]

>>20318764
I prefer to latch onto science, reason, and rationality, not imaginary sky daddies that hate minorities.

[Anonymous No.20320476]

>Believing in God as a literal cope

[Anonymous No.20320484]

>>20320476
Everything in life is cope.

[Anonymous No.20320490]

>Pretend God exists because...uh...just do it, ok?

[Anonymous No.20320509]

>>20320077
Why is it rational? The term "rational" has been bastardized by Reddit Atheists who don't know what it means. To be rational, something must simply have a stream of logic that can be deemed reasonable. Both faith in God and the choice not to believe are capable of being rational choices, just as both are capable of being irrational choices.

[Anonymous No.20320514]

>>20320466
Don't worry anon, you don't need God to tell you to hate minorities. We all know you can do that on your own.

[Anonymous No.20320557]

>>20320443
It's all too vague, sure, but I do think this is why artistic expression exists. It explains without saying, which is why I revert back to music, painting and even at times literature in an attempt to provide examples of a thought that I lack the wit to put into words.
>Yeah, and lots of people try to get rid of it through meditation to get closer to the sensory elements of life and away from your old established headcanon about things
One thing I've found with meditation is that you can change your sensory experience, but not what is at the core of it. Deep down, away from both rationale and sensory experience, is still 'you'. It's more than just this expression of self as we understand it through psychology and neuroscience.
I would agree that evolution is a random and hardly curated process if there still wasn't a pattern to it. A pattern just displaying adaptability to certain environments and needs, sure, but there's still sense given to it. It's not purely random. The universe operates through certain, seemingly arbitrary rules and while it's in our nature to deconstruct it the very fact those exist, in itself, is highly fucking questionable. Being itself is a miracle.

Also, I think you're getting something wrong here. You're aware of it. It's not really a 'passive' witness, is it?

[Anonymous No.20320648]

>>20318967
>4. the source of human sin in Christianity is self knowledge, which is necessary for philosophy and other cool pursuits
I don't understand this one; where is self-knowledge condemned in the Bible or the Fathers? Everything I've read makes the opposite claim, that self-knowledge is necessary for progress in the spiritual life. The only example I can think of to support what you said would be a few passages from St. John Climacus where he says that God often prevents us from seeing our spiritual progress so we don't fall into pride.

I struggle with what you said in 2, 3, and 5. I cannot believe in a world without suffering, because suffering is the necessary condition of struggling and overcoming, which are what ultimately give life meaning. I view these things, struggle, overcoming, victory, resisting temptation, heroism, nobility, perseverance, etc., as inherently valuable, just like the hedonist views pleasure as inherently valuable. But then again, am I to tell that to a mother who's just lost her children to starvation, that her children had to die in order to give some meaning and flavor to the world? Some suffering just seems senseless to me. Say that that woman overcame her struggle and found happiness again, and her children all went to heaven, then there would be some sense in that suffering. But say that she just became depressed, killed herself, and all her children went to hell, because she was a pagan and didn't baptize them, what was the point of that? Why would God allow that (or I might more accurately say "do" instead of "allow" in the case of sending her children to hell)? You can't say that that doesn't happen, because it most certainly does. But then again, say God doesn't allow any "senseless" suffering into the world, and only that which leads to the greater good, would there be any value in it? I mean to say, would there be any value in victory and overcoming if failure didn't exist? Would there be any value in resisting temptation if all temptations were resisted? What would heroism and nobility matter if everyone was a noble hero? You get the idea.
I have so much more to say and I could've said what I did say better, but I'm running out of time and energy. These are just some thoughts; make of them what you will.

[Anonymous No.20320674]

>>20319214
>Ngma
Are you talking about the National Grants Management Association?

[Anonymous No.20320687]

>>20318715
Not good for other people’s art, though.

[Anonymous No.20320767]

>>20318834
>choose to believe in
average believer

[Anonymous No.20320919]

>>20318699
>Morality cannot objectively exist without God
>The only objective ethic that can replace religious morality is amoral pragmatism
>Amoral pragmatism ultimately reduces all action to a "means", such that nothing is done for its own sake
>This is not only undesirably psychopathic but renders one's consciousness a less powerful entity compared to the one that is motivated by belief
>if power is the atheistic measure of truth then God wins
easy

[Anonymous No.20320927]

>>20320919
>Morality cannot objectively exist without God
lmao

[Anonymous No.20320933]

>>20320919
>Morality cannot objectively exist without God
I can't make up my own morality because it would be subjective to me. If God makes up his own morality it's subjective to him. If there is no possibility of objective morality without God there is no possibility of objective morality with God by the same argument.

[Anonymous No.20320978]

>>20320933
>If God makes up his own morality it's subjective to him. If there is no possibility of objective morality without God there is no possibility of objective morality with God by the same argument.
This argument is besides the point because my argument is grounded in psychological fact. Abstract questions about God's nature are not going to stop the fact of power.

[Anonymous No.20320991]

>>20320978
>my argument is grounded in psychological fact
Psychological fact that objective morality must come from god? wtf

[Anonymous No.20321004]

>>20320991
Yes, and that atheistic morality creates a chasm between the religious and pragmatic parts of the brain/mind that cannot be reconciled without belief.

[Anonymous No.20321020]

>>20321004
And it's a psychological fact that I feel certain actions are objectively right or wrong without believing in God.

[Anonymous No.20321048]

>>20321020
>And it's a psychological fact that I feel certain actions are objectively right or wrong without believing in God.
That is technically true but logic actually matters as it is the structure of knowledge so just because you believe your morals are objective does not mean you actually operate on an objective moral system. Abstract problems are psychological realities and claiming to believe in objective morals without God necessarily creates a cognitive dissonance regardless of whether you're conscious of it.

[Anonymous No.20321076]

>>20321048
> logic actually matters as it is the structure of knowledge so just because you believe your morals are objective does not mean you actually operate on an objective moral system.
>claiming to believe in objective morals without God necessarily creates a cognitive dissonance regardless of whether you're conscious of it.
And from here >>20320933 we know that claiming objective morality for God is also illogical and so must create cognitive dissonance whether you're aware of it or not.

[Anonymous No.20321115]

>>20321076
>And from here >>20320933 we know that claiming objective morality for God is also illogical and so must create cognitive dissonance whether you're aware of it or not.
>If God makes up his own morality it's subjective to him. If there is no possibility of objective morality without God there is no possibility of objective morality with God by the same argument.
Just because you can't make sense of why the word of God isn't arbitrary does not mean humanity can survive without faith.

[Anonymous No.20321123]

>>20321115
>Just because you can't make sense of why the word of God isn't arbitrary does not mean humanity can survive without faith.
And just because you can't make sense of why That I believe certain things are objectively right or wrong doesn't mean I need to believe in God. I can't justify why I believe that but you can't justify why you believe what God tells you to do is objectively moral. The exact same argument says that my objective morals and God's objective morals are arbitrary in the same exact way since they are each subjective to us.

[Anonymous No.20321153]

>>20321123
>>20321123
>And just because you can't make sense of why That I believe certain things are objectively right or wrong doesn't mean I need to believe in God.
You need to believe in God to believe that morality in this life and universe is objective. You can ask whatever questions you want about where God's morals come from but that has no bearing on this reality.
>I can't justify why I believe that but you can't justify why you believe what God tells you to do is objectively moral.
I don't attempt to justify the will of God. Its objectively moral because objective morality implies that morality is a property of the universe independent of any individual. You're raising questions about the nature of God, not of the fact that objective morality has to come from God. Without God reality cannot even exist because everything becomes an equally incorrect interpretation. You can piss and shit over the fact that you don't respect the authority of a divine being outside of the universe but that doesn't make any difference in this reality.

[Anonymous No.20321168]

>>20321153
>Its objectively moral because objective morality implies that morality is a property of the universe independent of any individual.
Is God an individual? The inability of God to provide objective morality has been recognized since before Christianity even existed. In Plato's Euthyphro Socrates asks if something is pious because it is loved by the God's or is it loved by the God's because it is pious. If something is moral because God says it is that is not objective morality and if God says something is moral because he knows objective morality that means objective morality doesn't come from God.

[Anonymous No.20321267]

>>20321168
Your qualms regarding the nature of God do not challenge the psychological significance of God and belief.
>Plato's Euthyphro
Plato was talking about polytheism. The problem with God knowing objective morality only matters when there are multiple Gods in dispute. Monotheism permits that one God can both know piety and be the source of it.

[Anonymous No.20321280]

>>20321267
>Plato was talking about polytheism.
The argument is easily adapted to monotheism and I even gave it here
>If something is moral because God says it is that is not objective morality and if God says something is moral because he knows objective morality that means objective morality doesn't come from God.
>Monotheism permits that one God can both know piety and be the source of it.
And it's illogical for it to say that in the same way it's illogical for me to say I can be a source of objective morality.

[Anonymous No.20321292]

>>20321280
>And it's illogical for it to say that in the same way it's illogical for me to say I can be a source of objective morality.
Is this a joke or do you have some way of justifying equating your own will to the will of God? You sound like a resentful child trying to argue that adults don't have authority.

[Anonymous No.20321304]

>>20321292
>Is this a joke or do you have some way of justifying equating your own will to the will of God?
Only the definition of objective and subjective. God saying to do something is subjective by definition. Objective morality can not come from God in the same way it can't come from me.

[Anonymous No.20321322]

I really love the butthurt Dosto generates in faggots

[Anonymous No.20321356]

>>20320077
>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.20321375]

>>20321304
>God saying to do something is subjective by definition.
Your understanding of subjectivity is contained within this reality. God's "opinion", unlike yours, is a property of reality. If you want to compare God's will to yours you are actually disputing how reality should have been created. If you want to argue that God's will is arbitrary despite the fact that it is reality then you can go ahead and entertain yourself but the rest of my argument still stands. Religious belief is more powerful than atheism and that will become self-evident once atheism becomes increasingly unattractive to women as it already is.

[Anonymous No.20321380]

>>20321372
>Your understanding of subjectivity is contained within this reality.
So you're using a different definition of subjective than normal? In that case my new definition of subjectivity doesn't apply to me only everyone else. Therefore what I say is objective.

[Anonymous No.20321396]

>>20321380
>So you're using a different definition of subjective than normal?
No I'm actually using subjectivity as it is traditionally defined. Without God objectivity does not even exist. Your treating God's will as though its just the opinion of the tallest person in the room or something.

[Anonymous No.20321403]

>>20321396
>No I'm actually using subjectivity as it is traditionally defined
Give me this traditional definition of subjective that would apply to me but not to God.

>Your treating God's will as though its just the opinion of the tallest person in the room or something.
Because in the sense of subjectivity God's will and my will are exactly as subjective as each other's

[Anonymous No.20321420]

>>20321403
sub·jec·tive
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

God's will is reality as far as you're concerned. God exists prior to and outside of reality, human beings cannot know what may or may not influence God's will but that doesn't matter because we exist here, not there. Like I said, you can piss, shit, rebel if you want to, but nothing changes the fact that our entire existence is contained within this reality and God's will is that which reality is predicated on.

[Anonymous No.20321432]

>>20321420
>sub·jec·tive
>1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
>God's WILL is reality as far as you're concerned
You've just admitted God's will is subjective. The rest of your rant has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Objective morality can not come from God's subjective will.

[Anonymous No.20321470]

>>20321432
>You've just admitted God's will is subjective. The rest of your rant has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Objective morality can not come from God's subjective will.
This is why I said you sound like a resentful child. You're disputing God's right to authority, not whether his authority has any bearing on reality.

[Anonymous No.20321486]

>>20321470
>You're disputing God's right to authority, not whether his authority has any bearing on reality.
I mean that's the whole point of you claiming objective morality can only come from God. I claim that objective morality comes from me. Without disputing that I have that authority argue that my objective morality doesn't apply to reality

[Anonymous No.20321494]

>>20321486
Objectivity itself comes from God

[Anonymous No.20321497]

>>20321470
Now if you want posit a moral axiom that doesn't come from God, that the creator gets to decide the morality of his creation, God can derive his claim to objective morality from that prior moral axiom. But then the obvious question is where does that moral axiom come from and why is it moral at all? This is related to the fundamental reliance on unprovable axioms in deductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.20321501]

>>20321494
Rofl. No objectivity comes from me. You're just being silly and flailing around at definitions you don't like. Objectivity can't come from a subjective person by definition.

[Anonymous No.20321507]

>>20321501
>Objectivity can't come from a subjective person by definition.
It can if the reality by which we experience subjectivity was created by a God who's will is identical to the systems of values which govern our experiences.

[Anonymous No.20321516]

>>20321497
>Now if you want posit a moral axiom that doesn't come from God, that the creator gets to decide the morality of his creation, God can derive his claim to objective morality from that prior moral axiom.
No dumbfuck the point is that you can't justify God's ways from within the system he created, hence Godel's incompleteness theorem.

[Anonymous No.20321518]

>>20321507
So objectivity can come from a subjective person? Then your original proposition here >>20320919
>Morality cannot objectively exist without God
is not true. Atheist's can have objective morality without God since there is nothing that prevents objective morality coming from subjective persons.

[Anonymous No.20321520]

>>20321518
>subjective person
What is a subjective person? Are you subjectively a person?

[Anonymous No.20321530]

>>20321516
Rofl so now you're bring Godel up in a stupidly distorted form. Well how is this then from Godel if you can't justify something you can't falsify it's negation either. The continuum hypothesis isn't true or false and neither is it's negation. So morality without God has the same truth value as morality from God

[Anonymous No.20321542]

>>20321520
>What is a subjective person? Are you subjectively a person?
It's a tautology like wet water or hot fire. I only used it to prevent stupidity like claiming a person is not subjective. The will of any person is subjective by definition

[Anonymous No.20321547]

>>20321530
>So morality without God has the same truth value as morality from God
Truth itself does not exist unless God exists. I would respect your position somewhat if you could at least admit to this.
>>20321542
>I only used it to prevent stupidity like claiming a person is not subjective.
So you're a subjective person? Does that mean when I stop believing in you you go away?

[Anonymous No.20321577]

>>20321547
>Truth itself does not exist unless God exists. I would respect your position somewhat if you could at least admit to this.
Haha this just shows how desperate you are. Truth doesn't exist if God exists. If you can't admit to that you're lost. You see how stupid your argument looks.

>So you're a subjective person? Does that mean when I stop believing in you you go away?
It's in the same post you replied to
>The will of any person is subjective by definition
Do you think someone's will can not be subjective? Then heck my will isn't subjective presto objective morality.

[Anonymous No.20321608]

>>20321577
If God does not exist there is no canonical interpretation of reality and every perspective is equally incorrect. This means that there is no objective standard of morality which renders power the only deciding factor in ethics period. My argument is that atheism, from its most morally earnest to its most violently psychopathic, is less powerful than religious faith and will be distinguished as such.

[Anonymous No.20321623]

>>20321608
>If God does not exist there is no canonical interpretation of reality and every perspective is equally incorrect
Canonical? This isn't a fucking franchise like Star Wars we're talking about it's reality. If you needed a canonical observer then by definition nothing could be objective since everything would depend on the subjective viewpoint of that observer. There could be no objective morality in your universe. Which again is what I claimed from the beginning objective morality can come from neither me, God, or anyone else.

[Anonymous No.20321631]

>>20321608
>My argument is that atheism, from its most morally earnest to its most violently psychopathic, is less powerful than religious faith and will be distinguished as such.
Last 500 years seems to argue otherwise. Do you really think there is going to be some mass revival and a return to Christianity?

[Anonymous No.20321650]

>>20318699
Better than being an atheist who is likely to lack a morale compass and good chances will kms

[Anonymous No.20321657]

>>20321623
>If you needed a canonical observer
You do.
>everything would depend on the subjective viewpoint of that observer.
It does
>nothing could be objective
Just because you refuse to accept that the intent of the creator defines the meaning of reality does not mean that there is no objectivity.
>>20321631
Yes, obviously. Like Nietzsche said, dialectics are the last resort. It will start as people with Christian faith become noticeably more likable than people without it. Youth trends are decided by female attention, female attention is attracted to power. Its all very Jungian.

[Anonymous No.20321666]

>>20321657
>Just because you refuse to accept that the intent of the creator defines the meaning of reality does not mean that there is no objectivity.
No it's not just me refusing to accept that it's the definition of objectivity that says otherwise. If the intent of a person can be objective then objective morality can come from atheists without God. If the intent of a person can't be objective then God's intents can't be objective morality. This is extremely simple and based on common well understood definitions of subjective and objective. If you use a different definition of objective you destroy your original argument.

[Anonymous No.20321672]

>>20321657
>Just because you refuse to accept that the intent of the creator defines the meaning of reality does not mean that there is no objectivity.
Oh and refer here >>20321497 for if you just want to say that is a moral axiom. It leads to it's own problems

[Anonymous No.20321677]

>>20321657
>Youth trends are decided by female attention, female attention is attracted to power. Its all very Jungian.
You think christcucks get laid more often?

[Anonymous No.20321691]

>>20318699
>Pretend God exists because...uh...just do it, ok?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.20321694]

>>20320466
being trans is perfectly normal and healthy btw you fucking bigots, it's not schizophrenia!

[Anonymous No.20321699]

>>20320919
Why do you care if it is objective if society functions as it has always done, and almost definitely in a less bloodthirsty violent way than in 19th century Russia. Morality is both a biological system in your brain that works to encourage mutually beneficial cooperation and rules emergent from society that enables cooperation between individuals and groups.

[Anonymous No.20321701]

>>20321694
As opposed to prayer and claiming that God speaks to you.

[Anonymous No.20321724]

>>20321701
At least sky daddy is the product of true and tested popular wisdom that accumulated itself over a very long time. The moment our society rejected this wisdom we plunged into this insanity where being a straight cis person is something you should be ashamed of.
Science is fucking worthless if it's just another dogma. "Scientists said this is the truth" is literally the same shit as sky daddy, except whatever scientists say can be changed overnight and you'll have to follow the program or be called a heretic.

[Anonymous No.20321748]

>>20321724
>Science is fucking worthless if it's just another dogma. "Scientists said this is the truth" is literally the same shit as sky daddy, except whatever scientists say can be changed overnight and you'll have to follow the program or be called a heretic.
The true philosophical stance that all people have underneath whatever they claim are their beliefs is pragmatism. Science makes guns and antibiotics. Prayer does nothing. People will follow what gives results or they die and the ones remaining follow the results. The Ghost Dance didn't stop bullets. And you're an idiot if you think the Sky Daddy can't change. Christianity is based on a radical change to a previous Sky Daddy

[Anonymous No.20321777]

>>20321748
>Science makes guns and antibiotics.
I understand what you say about pragmatism but science as a provider of ultimate truth is extremely dangerous. First of all, science is inherently amoral. Then yes, people are in fact pragmatic and they follow what gives them results, but they are also fucking lazy and stupid. Obviously in order to produce the new gay fucking smartphone you need to do shit following exact procedures, but take a look at the average scientific publication about the social sciences, gender and other sensitive political shit, all of which are indeed held as truth, and you'll see that there's very little scientific method in them. The gun-making science is science. The science that says "hey look being trans is not a mental illness anymore because... it just isn't OK?!" is not science. There's no scientific method to it. Can people tell the difference, or do they even care? No. They've just substituted God with science, and as it is this means that science is nothing but another dogma.
>And you're an idiot if you think the Sky Daddy can't change. Christianity is based on a radical change to a previous Sky Daddy
Changes to sky daddy are much harder to achieve though. The reason why this shit is scary is that you can simply say "new research came out today, here's the new updated truth!" and you can force people to follow whatever bullshit you want. And don't tell me that nothing creepy has been happening in the last couple decades.

[Anonymous No.20321908]

>>20320292
Because he's God

[Anonymous No.20322284]

>>20318699
the western mind tries and fails to grasp the eastern mindset

[Anonymous No.20322392]

>>20320466
>claims to latch onto reason and rationality
>minority lover
Truly, the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, atheists will never reach the truth

[Anonymous No.20322396]

>>20320077
I doubt it, Euler was not an atheist

If believing in God makes you an upstanding citizen, live a stress free life and one with purpose, I'd say it's the best alternative

[Anonymous No.20322415]

>>20321666
>If the intent of a person can be objective then objective morality can come from atheists without God.
There are no facts, only interpretations. Without God all interpretations are false. Objectivity loses its meaning when disconnected from God.
>>20321677
An entire generation of Zoomers influenced by Jordan Peterson and satanic rap music most definitely will, especially if they have the nobility to make fun of him or the awareness to call out his concealed atheism.
>>20321699
>Why do you care if it is objective if society functions as it has always done, and almost definitely in a less bloodthirsty violent way than in 19th century Russia. Morality is both a biological system in your brain that works to encourage mutually beneficial cooperation and rules emergent from society that enables cooperation between individuals and groups.
Because atheism renders pragmatism the only valid justification for any ethical decision and there will always be a chasm between the part of the brain that is moral for its own sake (the religious brain) and the part that is pragmatic (atheistic). This is why atheists score closer to psychopaths on personality tests than religious people.

[Anonymous No.20322438]

>>20321516
There is no point arguing with atheists mate, it's possible the one you're arguing with does not have a soul so you would be talking to an npc (the simplest test is the cosmological argument, which any retard with a soul should recognize as true in 5 seconds)

Atheists will either lead "amazing" lives (usual millionaire lifestyle) if they're enemies of HaShem (so that all their merits are paid in this life, so in the next they have nothing and their soul is destroyed), or will lead miserable lives and repent in time if HaShem loves them (and if they're lucky they reincarnate to try again)

Atheists will never know what it feels to live by faith, to see a miracle happening every week, to notice God talking to you every day, you should only pity them and be an example to other theists, so that they become good people too.

Atheists are not intellectually honest, they are not after the truth, if they were they would be agnostic, and after examining the plethora of evidence for the non material and for the divinity of Torah they would question a lot of things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrbJblAeVjc
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/

[Anonymous No.20322471]

>>20322438

>want thing to be true therefore the poor argument is true

The defect is not with the atheist. The defect is with the human species itself in that the large majority are predisposed to belief in metaphysical fictions (because it makes them feel good, provides "meaning"/belonging in a community in-group, has health benefits and so on). The tangible health benefits are commonly mistaken by the theist as points in favor of the truth/beauty/goodness of religion. The opposite is the case: reliance on delusion is only indicative of the fallibility of man, a structural problem of the species to be overcome, not accomodated.

[Anonymous No.20322722]

>>20318699
God doesn't "exist", God IS

[Anonymous No.20322729]

>>20318699
the only reason im not christian is because the whole thing was made up by jews

[Anonymous No.20322731]

Atheist is the worst Faith: it had the worst preachers

[Anonymous No.20322811]

>>20318834
i tried this. it didn't work for me. I like the idea of God. I was raised Catholic, and I still have a lot of respect for it and I love the art and the storytelling. And I can understand why it's good to believe, and I think there are a lot of good lessons and it's a good way to live, but deep down I really just can't believe it. It actually doesn't bother me though. Rather than beating myself up for not believing (like I used to), I just accept it and move on.
It must take a lot of discipline to just "choose" to believe. Maybe I just dont have that. I dont know

[Anonymous No.20322826]

>>20322731
Atheism is the only religion with a claim to supernatural revelation. People have come up with it at multiple times during history with no prior contact with each other's culture. Also the second oldest religion.

[Anonymous No.20322862]

>>20318834

How one can choose to believe in God (I’m not going to use a God that’s not from any religion, but a personal God) and keep this belief alive when faced with cruel facts such as the evolution of species and the problem of suffering (that there are many forms of life that are born only to suffer without doing nothing to deserve it: picture, for example, a baby bird that’s eaten alive by ants before he can do any harm to any creature, or picture even a baby human in the same horrible situation).

I’m not even trying to challenge the faith of anons here. What I’m saying is that I would like to believe in God, in some for of justice and in something like another existence after this existence, but I simply can’t see why these marvels should exist just because they would comfort me, and specially when most evidence is totally against it.

If someone could point me a reason I would try to do the belief experience for a month.

[Anonymous No.20322866]

>>20318947
Atheists who aren't stupid have to choose not to be solipsists

[Anonymous No.20322975]

>>20321748
>The true philosophical stance that all people have underneath whatever they claim are their beliefs is pragmatism.
A person who's ethics are completely motivated by pragmatism is a psychopath. Jordan Peterson's issue is that he's distilled the pragmatic truths of religious texts to the degree that he's reduced God to a formally articulated principle which effectively puts his God beneath him even though he calls it "the transcendental". He has to redefine the meaning of love to accommodate his radical individualism that demands complete self-interest in order to be consistent, effectively high-functioning solipsism. None of it works without faith in morality for its own sake and not as a means to generate power.

[Anonymous No.20322988]

>>20321748
>Prayer does nothing.
Total bullshit by the way, just because God isn't your personal fortune teller or wish-granter does not mean prayer is ineffective.

[Anonymous No.20323928]

>>20318699
Just finished the chapter in Devils where nikolay through tihon deep dives into some real deep shit from the past. God damn that was intense.

[Anonymous No.20323933]

>>20318850
Make it work.