/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21631585]

when did philosophy became so entrenched with atheists?

[Anonymous No.21631599]

>>21631585
>arguments for god are all bollocks
>blind faith is hard

[Anonymous No.21631615]

>>21631585
atheism is a psyop by british intelligence

[Anonymous No.21631624]

>>21631585
Because newtonian physics killed the belief in free will, so people need philosophy to prove they are free and that God exists, see Kant.

[Anonymous No.21631632]

>>21631585
It always was. You think Aristotel or Socrates actually believed the Olympian gods were real? The philosophers and anybody who was smart could realise religion was a cope and necessary cultural myth that drove people to fight and create and reach beyond themselves. The underlying will is real. Religion is only a metaphorical representation of it. It's not necessarily good or bad but just an aesthetic expresion. Modern "western" materialistic reductionism born from the enlightenment makes it seem like everybody is an atheist now but gods and principles guiding reality only changed their forms as we try to make sense of the world with knowledge we currently posses.

[Anonymous No.21631664]

>>21631585
fuck off retarded christnigger

[Anonymous No.21631686]

>“I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been.”
>The Will to Power (1901)
Atheists have always sought ways to cope with philosophy, and they always will.

[Anonymous No.21632131]

>>21631585
unironically, its probably Darwins theory of evolution and the progress in science. Schopenhauer was very familiar with biological theories of his time, so was Nietzsche. I mean, how can you possibly argue for God's existance after Darwin without some weird intellectual tricks?

[Anonymous No.21632136]

>>21632131
I don’t see the contradiction.

[Anonymous No.21632142]

>>21632136
unless we are not speaking about the God of christianity, because if scientifically supported theory contradicts the God's word, doesnt that mean the holy book - the main evidence for the existence of God - is a sham? But I dont really like the atheism vs religion discussion, because it reeks of poor taste, so I'll end here

[Anonymous No.21632144]

People blindly accepted atheist rationalism because they could no longer feel the imminence of god in the world everyday.

[Anonymous No.21632241]

>>21631632
They both believed in a soul and realms like Hades.

[Anonymous No.21632255]

>>21632131
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_b9tWrFpj4

[Anonymous No.21632256]

Rational and intelligent people tend to be drawn to atheism

[Anonymous No.21632273]

>>21632256
Cope

[Anonymous No.21632307]

>>21632256
No

[Anonymous No.21632314]

>>21632273
>cope
most people in the higher ends of academia are athiests. these are not dumb or irrational people.

[Anonymous No.21632320]

>>21632241
They believed in a soul that reduces to a cause of motion, but not Hades, at least not the way people want to take it. The immortal part of the soul doesn't carry along anything like an identity or personality, hence talk about punishments and rewards is rhetorical.

[Anonymous No.21632321]

>>21631599
>>arguments for god are all bollocks
Not really. It's mostly a choice, which also applies to skepticism.

[Anonymous No.21632328]

>>21632321
>which also applies to skepticism.
no

[Anonymous No.21632335]

>>21631686
This is the correct take though and perfectly in line with the existence of a creator god who is as good as he is evil. The christians' problem was that they didn't violently kill the heretics hard enough nor engage in temporal power. And now they pay the consequences for their inaction.

[Anonymous No.21632337]

>>21632328
Sure it does, skepticism is also a choice.

[Anonymous No.21632347]

>>21631585
Since the start.
Holy fuck. Stop to think before you post, goddamn it.

[Anonymous No.21632351]

>>21632335
This, only downies pretend that war is not a justifiable continuation of debate. Even Heraclitus knew this
>>21632347
Retard moment

[Anonymous No.21632354]

>>21632314
>these are not dumb or irrational people.
They're politicians that know how to conform and parrot. All atheists are products of serious psychological issues amplified by mass media.

[Anonymous No.21632364]

>>21632354
>They're politicians
Sure but that can be said of past philosophers too. Not as many though.
It's more right to say that they are just conformists who work to rationalize their given belief system after the fact, for status mostly.

[Anonymous No.21632376]

>>21632354
And nobody is ever truly an atheist. They all subscribe to some belief system, god or not. It isn't any less justifiable to believe in things like human rights and teleology instead of god. In the end, all ideological systems (or ethical systems) seek their own preservation and the expansion of their power.

[Anonymous No.21632478]

>>21632354
>psychological issue

[Anonymous No.21632496]

I'd rather say it's sophistry being paraded as philosophy

[Anonymous No.21632510]

>>21631585
The Enlightenment, and even then many were things like deists

[Anonymous No.21632796]

>>21632131
Idk faggot, your mind is so inundated with the atheist golem world view that you don’t even understand the basic history of the Christian one

[Anonymous No.21632813]

>>21631585

Jews made it so by buying the philosophy chairs in the 19th century and removing the neo scholastics

[Anonymous No.21632996]

Atheism is a religious belief. Agnostucism its the true non-religious stance.

[Anonymous No.21633001]

>>21631624
Unironically, and I'm shocked to write this, I think this anon just solved it in the sense that Newtonian physics killed the idea of free will.

[Anonymous No.21633010]

>>21631686
>man, life is kinda rough
>"so what? I wish it was 1,000 rougher! Doesn't even bother me lol git gud!"
God, Nietzsche was such an intellectual toilet.

[Anonymous No.21633075]

>>21631585
I have never believed in god, and nothing has ever convinced me to start.

[Anonymous No.21633078]

>>21632376
cringe

[Anonymous No.21633131]

>>21631632
the will is a cope as well. i hope you realize this. once the bubble has popped, life onwards is all just one big death denying cope.

[Anonymous No.21633135]

>>21631686
>evil is le good!!!
what a snivelling brat of a philosopher. cant believe people to this day hail him as one of the greatest

[Anonymous No.21633248]

>>21633010
git gud retard.
Not saying these are viable futures but which space future appeals more to you?
A) Bad ass space cowboys struggling to survive using their ingenuity to deal with heroically difficult challenges.
B) Hedonistic spoiled faggots eating spacegrapes or whatever while roaming around aimlessly on space yachts looking for the next thing to entertain them momentarily.
You actually prefer A but you're a lazy coward and a shit gamer so you'll always choose B.

[Anonymous No.21633299]

>>21631615
You do know atheism is centuries old right.

[Anonymous No.21634255]

>>21632314
>>21632314
literally anyone who was worth anything held a belief in god or a higher being. cope.

[Anonymous No.21634256]

>>21633299
so is british intelligence

[Anonymous No.21634311]

>>21634256
You do have a point. Empiricism and other ills of modernity were started by the British.

[Anonymous No.21634327]

>>21633135
Completely fucking filtered. He means "evil" in the sense of what slave moralizers consider evil. He is saying he hopes more a more virile and robust future comes, and not one dominated by sickly escapist christers.

[Anonymous No.21634328]

>>21634256
Br*tish intelligence is an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.21634333]

>>21634311
>ills of modernity
You are an ill of modernity. You parents should have never met in that bar and had children they did not really want.

[Anonymous No.21634954]

>>21634327
This sounds paradoxical. If Nietzsche considers Christian morality as "slave". And Christian morality has predominated in a certain way for about two thousand years. Doesn't that mean that the master's morality got better and now the slave is the master?
>Hehe the Christians are weak, but they won!
He sounds like a bitch.

[Anonymous No.21634964]

>>21631686
>quoting The Will to Power
Why do so many plebs on /lit/ do this? That's not Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.21635050]

>>21633248
I would read B

[Anonymous No.21635054]

>>21634954
>I never read Nietzsche
We know

[Anonymous No.21635093]

>>21635054
At no time did I say that I read him. But what does Nietzsche have to say about that? Why is Christianity moral is slave if its the winner? And how the morality that Nietzsche seems to defend so much is the master if can only echo in the voice of the weak losers

[Anonymous No.21635111]

>>21632321
>It's mostly a choice
I never understood this claim. How do you "choose" to believe in god? It's like choosing to prefer red to blue or choosing to enjoying the taste of olives.

[Anonymous No.21635130]

>>21635111
I guess you fell in love with the concept of "identity". Choosing is an almost opposite concept. The man chooses, the slave wants.

[Anonymous No.21635132]

>>21631585
Atheism is a cope. There is no one who
A) Had a normal upbringing
B) Had very little bad happen in their life
C) Has chad genetics
and can call themselves an Atheist. Every Atheist has failed to have one of those 3 things happen and are miserable as a result.
>Muh A-list celebrity
Likely molested or casting couch'd.
Most "Atheists" can't shut the fuck up about a God that they say doesn't exist because they hate the non existent God so much, and they need to piss off religious people because "that'll show the church for being mean to me or get back at the priest who touched me or nuns who hit me." It's literally the inability to cope and grow up. The inability to put aside personal hangups.

[Anonymous No.21635135]

>>21635130
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.21635196]

>>21635135
The idea is that identity is constantly changing. Identity does not appear to be innate. It's like that guy (I don't remember his name) who lost all his memory, forgot how to drive, how to play the piano and totally changed his behavior and "likes". That's why I believe that everything should be reduced to choices and less to "choices" of a character you created.
In other words, you can change your "character" and with it your decisions. Thus, elections dominate identity and not the other way around
I know it may sound schizo but (the young) Jim Carrey explains it coherently and much better. Jordan Peterson also talked about something similar once.

[Anonymous No.21635279]

>>21631632
Anon... Aristotle was monotheist.
>>21631585
Science, philosophy and history has opened eyes of some smart men. Christ larpers can cope asmuch as they want, they are not genuine in their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.21635352]

>>21634954
>>21635093
>Christianity is actually the other specific terminology Nietzsche uses in contrast to Christianity because I haven't read Nietzsche
Why even give your opinion? Blessed are the stupid I suppose

[Anonymous No.21635388]

>>21635196
Identity changing does not mean that you choose how it changes. You can make active choices in certain aspects, of course, but belief in god is not a choice.

[Anonymous No.21635424]

>>21634954
Lad the master and slave morality image is a metaphor. The morality is not literally a slave or a master, it is the morality that a slave or a master would have.
A slave, who cannot have the power or wealth that the master has, would eventually develop a morality where he says "power and wealth are actually bad!" He does still want to have power and wealth, but tells himself it is bad - so his morality is in conflict with who he is as a person.
A master does not have this conflict in morals. He likes the things that he wants, and since he is able to have these things he is not forced into coming up with subversive morals.

According to Nietzsche, Christians have the morality of a slave - they do want to endulge in earthly desires, they do want to enjoy the world - as every living being would - but they have come up with this morality where "this world" is actually bad and the "world beyond" is the good world.

[Anonymous No.21635457]

>>21633010
Butthurt christcunt lmao

[Anonymous No.21635487]

>>21635424
>He does still want to have power and wealth, but tells himself it is bad - so his morality is in conflict with who he is as a person.
>A master does not have this conflict in morals. He likes the things that he wants, and since he is able to have these things he is not forced into coming up with subversive morals.
Diogenesbros... it's over

[Anonymous No.21635534]

>>21634954
Christfucks will make a million retard posts like this instead of just reading Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.21635556]

>>21635534
I refuse to read the ideas of a tranny who died like a bitch.

[Anonymous No.21635563]

>>21635556
Who could have predicted this response?????

[Anonymous No.21635596]

>>21631599
>>arguments for god are all bollocks
False, because NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die, and that life is like a video game or a simulation and you actually chose to come here. And the book in pic related is known to convince even hardened skeptics that there is an afterlife. And NDErs talk about God running the afterlife. Therefore God exists.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.
>b-b-but NDEs are dreams/hallucinations/DMT/lies/etc!!!!!1!
All refuted already in the literature on NDEs you likely have not read. Both NDErs and NDE researchers have dealt with these counter-arguments you or anyone thinks of in the first five minutes of reflecting on NDEs extensively and adequately already. How uncharitable and naïve must anyone be to think that that would not be the case?

[Anonymous No.21635667]

>>21635556
That's no way to refer to Christ

[Anonymous No.21635684]

>>21635596
>NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die
So why haven't you isekai'd yourself yet?

[Anonymous No.21635702]

>>21635388
>Identity changing does not mean that you choose how it changes
I choose to think that you are a faggot.
It also doesn't mean you can't choose how you deliberately change your identity.

[Anonymous No.21635721]

Sneedsche was wrong about everything. Schopy wasn't wrong about everything so that makes him better than Sneedsche.

[Anonymous No.21635731]

>>21635667
This shit refutes itself, because there are, have been and will be people with power and wealth who are Christians

[Anonymous No.21635760]

18th century

[Anonymous No.21635814]

>>21635111
>How do you "choose" to believe in god?
the same way you choose to believe euclid's fifth postulate

[Anonymous No.21635840]

If you think that Nietzsche was an atheist then you don't understand Nietzsche. A lot of his criticisms of the Christian worldview also apply to the atheist worldview. Christianity and atheism have more in common than they have different.

[Anonymous No.21635856]

>>21631632
Aristotel and Socrates explicitly went ahead to debunk the Olympian gods and go with monotheism. At least bait better next time you pathetic shit.

[Anonymous No.21635982]

>>21635856
A "monotheism" where gods interested in human providence and conduct are replaced with a cause sounds a lot like the queen protesting too much.

[Anonymous No.21635991]

>>21631599
Atheism is blind faith though

[Anonymous No.21636044]

>>21635991
How is disagreeing with blind faith itself an act of blind faith? Are you a tactical buddhist when defending theism? We just can't make a ruling on this or not-this?

[Anonymous No.21636061]

>>21636044
nta but your appeal to the law of excluded middle is an act of blind faith

[Anonymous No.21636108]

>>21635840
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/od9h64/nietzsche_was_not_an_atheist/

[Anonymous No.21636138]

""Relative truth" is primarily represented, for our age, by the knowledge of science, which begins in observation, proceeds by logic, and progresses in orderly fashion from the known to the unknown. It is always discursive, contingent, qualified, always expressed in "relation" to something else, never standing alone, never categorical, never -absolute."
The unreflective scientific specialist sees no need for any other kind of knowledge; occupied with the demands of his specialty, he has, perhaps, neither time nor inclination for "abstract" questions that inquire, for example, into the basic presuppositions of that specialty. If he is pressed, or if his mind spontaneously turns to such questions, the most obvious explanation is usually sufficient to satisfy his curiosity: all truth is empirical, all truth is relative.
Either statement, of course, is a self-contradiction. The first statement is itself not empirical at all, but metaphysical; the second is itself an absolute statement. The question of absolute truth is raised first of all, for the critical observer, by such self- contradictions; and the first logical conclusion to which he must be led is this:, if there is any truth at all, it cannot be merely "relative." The first principles of modern science, as of any system of knowledge, are themselves unchangeable and absolute; if they were not there would be no knowledge at all, not even the most "reflective" knowledge, for there would be no criteria by which to classify anything as knowledge or truth.
This axiom has a corollary: the absolute cannot be attained by means of the relative. That is to say, the first principles of any system of knowledge cannot be arrived at through the means of that knowledge itself, but must be given in advance; they are the object, not of scientific demonstration, but of faith."

- Fr. Seraphim Rose, Nihilism: The Root Of The Revolution

[Anonymous No.21636157]

>>21636061
The smokescreen of theology grows thicker! Is there anything there or not?

[Anonymous No.21636195]

>>21635991
What lead you to believe that?

[Anonymous No.21636207]

Probably after the renaissance

[Anonymous No.21636227]

>>21636138
So scientists have "faith" in just-so first principles? Wow I can't believe they were Orthodox all along! Holy based

[Anonymous No.21636231]

>>21636195
Having faith that there is no god or having faith that you don't know if there is a god, i.e., making an affirmative statement that you don't know if there is a god presupposes that you know that you don't know, which presupposes knowledge of the self, and presupposes k knowledge in a general sense

[Anonymous No.21636247]

>>21636108
i read this and i am not convinced. nietzsche was not an atheist. he perceived reality too spiritually for him to be one, he perceived it in a way that almost all atheists today do not. nietzsche perceived that there were underlying forces and wills in things. he disagreed with the darwinian notion that all desires and wills are nothing more than products of evolution. he criticized scientists for seeing reality too mechanically.

its mostly just semantics i suppose. but i say he was not an atheist, because virtually all atheists today see reality in a certain way that nietzsche would disagree with, they perceive reality and matter as far "deader" than nietzsche did.

[Anonymous No.21636251]

>>21636157
>theology
no, logic. the law of excluded middle is an axiom, which is literally something which can't be proven but must be taken in faith. more importantly, not all systems of logic even accept it as valid.

[Anonymous No.21636267]

>>21636231
>having faith that you don't know if there is a god
That's not atheism

[Anonymous No.21636282]

>>21636044
>>21636195
Nta, but reasoning it out a little, while it's true that acceptance of religious beliefs is often enough just repeating the opinions one is reared to accept, and while it's true that the rejection of such beliefs can be a result of reasoning, the belief or acceptance of atheism per se can only be truly grounded in having wisdom or knowledge of the Whole. Lack that, and it's the replacement of opinions with other opinions.

>>21636247
Having a "spiritual" approach doesn't necessitate being a theist. If your only principles for defining what's divine are "it has to be eternal and unchanging", then scientists, to the extent they might believe there are a small number of unchanging principles of physics are theists. But note that this differs from believing that there's providence, value and effects in and from praying and worship, and belief in rewards or punishments for earthly conduct.

But consider Nietzsche's own assertion of what he takes to be true in On the Use and Abuse of History, assertions he doesn't contradict later:

>If by contrast the doctrine of the sovereign becoming, of the fluidity of all
ideas, types, and styles, of the lack of all cardinal differences between man and
animal (doctrines which I consider true but deadly)

[Anonymous No.21636287]

>>21636267
Yeah well both require faith

[Anonymous No.21636403]

>>21636287
>>21636251
Is the new trendy way of defending theism to define atheism as a form of faith? Not all faith is created equal. People have faith in both the reliable and the fantastical. And moreoever if you're going to deploy a tactical buddhism (or skepticism) against atheism there's no reason it shouldn't expand into a tetralemma (which would cover the excluded middle) and make all such judgments effectively contingent or non-absolute, that is to say relative. Using relativism to save theism is a bizarre sacrifice to make and is obviously in bad faith, especially if you are pretending to be Christian.

[Anonymous No.21636406]

>>21636403
Relativism is already refuted here. >>21636138
Also you don't seem to understand the point. The point is that the presuppositions in your own worldview are unjustified.

[Anonymous No.21636423]

>>21636403
>faith in the reliable
This is begging the question by the way.

[Anonymous No.21636428]

>>21636406
>the presuppositions in your own worldview are unjustified.
But yours aren't? And that doesn't refute "relativism" it's just a hippie with a blasted butthole complaining those darn science people think they don't have arbitrary beliefs when they do. But what he omits is that these beliefs are less arbitrary than his. Gravity and motion are much more reliable assumptions than some volcano demon

[Anonymous No.21636443]

>>21636428
>But yours aren't?
Yes, they are not.
>less arbitrary than his
Again, begging the question.

[Anonymous No.21636453]

>>21636428
>Gravity and motion are much more reliable assumptions
Do you understand that making this kind of statement is not a valid justification when it is precisely this that we are calling into question in the first place?

[Anonymous No.21636454]

>>21636443
>complains about question begging
>believes god exists because god has to exist

[Anonymous No.21636459]

>>21636453
Where is all this tactical skepticism supposed to get you? I can just say the same about your beliefs, that they are vague and ill-investigated and necessarily relative to the person articulating them.

[Anonymous No.21636464]

>>21636459
>Where is all this tactical skepticism supposed to get you?
You still are not getting the point. Do you understand how a presuppositional critique works? I am saying that in YOUR OWN WORLDVIEW (not mine), you can't justify any of your claims.

[Anonymous No.21636472]

>>21636454
Any claim to knowledge necessarily presupposes God.

[Anonymous No.21636482]

>>21636464
>you can't justify any of your claims.
You can't justify yours, so I reject them. Simple as.
>>21636472
>god exists because god has to exist
yawn

[Anonymous No.21636483]

>>21636428
>Gravity and motion are much more reliable assumptions
Unless you're an Eleatic, no one denies motion; what it is precisely and whether it's ultimately caused or not are a different matter. And gravity isn't a more "reliable assumption"; that's why Newton wrote a long book having to demonstrate its plausibility, instead of assuming it and going "eh, good enough".

[Anonymous No.21636493]

>>21636483
If I throw a rock it will fall to the ground. We are so certain of this we don't even bother qualifying that "based on experience and a projection of that knowledge upon future events we may assume this outcome as highly likely" because it is as far as anyone non-schizo is concerned, a "fact." We very obviously cannot apply this standard to the baseless dogmatisms spouted about "God." You are being dishonest

[Anonymous No.21636518]

>>21636493
Principle of induction is unjustifiable in the atheist paradigm. Even WVO quine took issue with your argument.

[Anonymous No.21636532]

>>21636518
I don't know who your acronym is. I just know whatever claims you are making about "God" are stinky nihilism because there is no such independent transcendental entity that perches outside of reality.

[Anonymous No.21636536]

>>21636493
On such grounds ("we just feel certain of it by ordinary experience without recourse to theory"), those who deny heliocentrism are entitled to their opinions, since, after all, it's more self-evident that it looks like the sun, moon, planets, and stars move around us while we remain still. Presumably, you would (rightly) find that silly, but that points to the importance of the accounts we give of causes, and whether those accounts are grounded firmly. Once you object to something like geocentrism on the grounds of theory, the question arises again whether the principles grounding that are divine or not, and whether we proprly know enough to assert "yes" or "no". Your appeal to the bare factum of a stone reliably falling is fine enough, but this doesn't defend either science or philosophy, and leaves enough wiggle room for superstitious accounts of things that we experience (i.e., a stick in water would now bend in certain circumstances even if it feels straight to touch because our eyes encounter it doing so sometimes).

[Anonymous No.21636549]

>>21636536
>leaves enough wiggle room for superstitious accounts of things that we experience
yes because I am based and relative-pilled while you are stuck in the nihilistic paradigm (inclusive of most theisms and most atheisms) of checking under rocks for God

[Anonymous No.21636600]

>>21636549
Lol you aren't that relative-pilled, otherwise the question of god would be a matter of indifference instead of spending time arguing over it on a Thai rice-farming forum

[Anonymous No.21636641]

>>21636600
I have opinions I prefer to your opinions. If you want your astral dad to hug you forever and keep the firmament over your head that's fine but don't expect to convince me it has any merit for me as a belief around which to orient my worldview

[Anonymous No.21636668]

>>21636641
Lol, first off, for all practical purposes of how I live my life, I'm an atheist myself, but with the qualification that as far as what I know, I'm an inquiring agnostic.

But second off, your resort to relative opinions doesn't entitle you to protection from anyone else's, if they're stronger and more willful than your own. A Christian who truly believes they're required to evangelize or keep you out of political power if you seem to be in the way of evangelizing, will do so, and your relativism won't stop it. That's not een to get into how a truly believing Muslim will deal with you. You'll suffer what you must at the hands of others, and your relativism won't provide any grounds for arguing against it; why should they listen after all, since your relative opinions, in conflict with theirs, are wrong and disastrous, and relativism is at bottom just willfulness and arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.21636681]

>>21631585

[Anonymous No.21636711]

>>21636668
>my interest in theology/philosophy is for political/culture war purposes
Yes I know how it goes here, and therefore we should become Muslims as cover for adopting Sufism as the final form of antinomian liberty... such is the demographic destiny of the intellectual world! Atheism will not "save" us—and from what? Were I compelled to attest as a matter of life and property to a creed whose adherents would punish me for the wrong answer, it would indeed be best to lie so I could continue to believe. Even Islam poisons itself with a drop of relativism, the principle of taqiyya. One can be relative to questions which are not of ultimate importance to himself. That is the true relativity.

[Anonymous No.21636721]

>>21631585
If god existed then wouldn’t all of philosophy be subsumed under the rubric of theology anyway? What’s the point of philosophy if every philosophical question can be solved with the answer “because God made it so”?

[Anonymous No.21636735]

>>21631585
>when did philosophy became so entrenched with atheists?
when God died

[Anonymous No.21636781]

>>21631585
*enriched
18th century

[Anonymous No.21636790]

>>21631585
>so entrenched with atheists
>posts Schopenhauer
Because smart people actually read Kant, and became so horrified with his happy sperg defence of morality and god, that they could not perceive it as anything but a solid argument *against* existence.

Either you become a voluntary voluptuary of defeat, martyring down everything human in you for the sake of reason/morality that ought not ever compromise with empirical reality (so that angels would mercifully allow you to finally masturbate in afterlife, or whatever)
Or you say "fuck it", and start seeking alternatives to replace that self-mutilating cosmic horror morality. Though, you can also just larp and merely pretend to be a christcuck.

[Anonymous No.21636935]

>>21636711
There isn't any need for hiding one's atheism so much anymore, in Western countries anyway. That pandora's box is already open. But atheism does imply knowledge of the Whole, and runs into trouble when the science it prefers increasingly relies on a Popperian uncertainty about whether it can come to final conclusions, and that's not even getting into atheist morality being in large part borrowings of Christian morality.

[Anonymous No.21636936]

>>21631585
When protestants took over

[Anonymous No.21636952]

>>21636935
>atheist morality being in large part borrowings of Christian morality.
false

[Anonymous No.21636980]

>>21636952
Lol trivially true. Read any book by the New Atheists making moral arguments against religion (or hell, as far back as Russell), and it's all a pick and choose of New Testament morality huffily juxtaposed against the Old Testament, for no good reason at all.

[Anonymous No.21636993]

>>21636980
Bertrand Russell was a charlatan. Also the Christian view is that the Old and New Testaments are connected and you can't just choose one and not the other. That's called Marcionism and it is explicitly condemned as heresy.

[Anonymous No.21637005]

>>21636935
>>21636952
No he's right, western atheism in general is heavily reliant on its relationship with Christianity to inform whatever morality it presents or moral evaluations it makes. Of course one can be an atheist without embalming god and his values (c.p. Nietzsche), but otherwise this type of person—who practices Christianity without affirming the theology and attacks the parent religion on that basis—is little different from a Christian heretic. His heresy happens to be called "atheism."

[Anonymous No.21637009]

>>21635132
You only think that because you live in some southern US state. Half of Europe are atheists and literally noone cares.

[Anonymous No.21637077]

>>21636935
>But atheism does imply knowledge of the Whole, and runs into trouble when the science it prefers increasingly relies on a Popperian uncertainty
Solvable.
The problem with god is a problem of intentionality-detection-vs-mechanical-causes conflation. One assumes an allegedly perfect intelligent Watchmaker and ascribes to that Watchmaker some intentions, desires, plans.
The whole argument runs into trouble when science shows that your cognition is pure shit. Heuristics to and fro, suboptimal decision-making, cognitive biases, etc. If one ascribes that pile of junk to the allegedly perfect Watchmaker, then one claims that that thing is *not* perfect (and therefore not god). Otherwise, one would ascribe lack of cognition to the allegedly perfect Watchmaker, rendering it indiscriminate from a mere Big Bang (then that thing is but a thing).

Whatever "the Whole" in all that uncertainty is, your standard theistic assumptions are definitely not on the list. Which renders all your ethical and ritual prescriptions nil.

[Anonymous No.21637095]

>>21637077
>The problem with god is a problem of intentionality-detection-vs-mechanical-causes conflation. One assumes an allegedly perfect intelligent Watchmaker and ascribes to that Watchmaker some intentions, desires, plans.
wrong wrong wrong
>science shows you that your cognition is pure shit
You trust your cognition to tell you that your cognition is unreliable.

[Anonymous No.21637115]

>>21637095
>You trust your cognition to tell you that your cognition is unreliable.
And you are trying to disprove eliminativism with a *tu quoque* logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.21637122]

>atheist doesn't understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive again
>atheist acts smug and intellectually superior while unknowingly refuting himself
every time

[Anonymous No.21637133]

>>21637115
>*tu quoque* logical fallacy.
No.
You are admitting that on your own grounds we have no reason to trust our brains, which refutes your very own assertions of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21637141]

>>21637122
>atheist doesn't understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive again
theist doesn't understand how every "ought" spawns from natural selection filtering.

[Anonymous No.21637147]

>>21637141
>ought
no such thing in your paradigm

[Anonymous No.21637153]

>>21637141
So you claim. But that is what is what is in question.

[Anonymous No.21637158]

>>21637077
I'm not going to deny that it's an ingenious and creative approach, but it's not a solution insofar as the question of the existence of a god or god is merely sidestepped; the divine is addressed by that argument as unlikely or improbable, but not impossible, which as such isn't definitive enough. That's before getting into how one might know *through* an elaborated science, math, and logic, that our capacity for knowing is flawed, i.e., if it's by means of theory that we learn that we don't know very well, what of the status of the theoretical argument necessary to demonstrate that?

[Anonymous No.21637162]

>>21637158
>the question of the existence of a god or god
*gods that second time

[Anonymous No.21637164]

>>21637158
>the divine is addressed by that argument as unlikely or improbable
Not at all.
His whole argument presupposes all kinds of metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that he cannot justify.

[Anonymous No.21637174]

>>21637164
That's literally my point

[Anonymous No.21637176]

>>21637133
>we have no reason to trust our brains, which refutes your very own assertions of knowledge.
Wanna see a magic trick?

1. It is true, that there is no such thing as truth
2. "It is true" == "operation complete, 0 critical errors detected"
3. "that there is no such thing as truth" == "no object X found"

You think your mind is a monolithic thing, but it's not.


>You are admitting that on your own grounds
I am admitting, that if (ceteris paribus) inductive inferences noncontradictorily caught in our particular connectionist net (that we call knowledge) are correct, then your definition of god is refuted.

You on the other hand are trying to pitch some scripture on no grounds but "just trussst meee, dude". Ignoring all the history of theological arguments who at least *tried* to be consistent.

[Anonymous No.21637188]

>>21637147
>no such thing in your paradigm

No such thing as "ought", indeed. But there is such thing as "ought-talk", that compels certain meatblobs to perform certain behaviors.
Because you certainly do not need to explain Maori Gift Economy via the spirit of Hau. You explain it via "These clowns claim that X when they perform Y"

[Anonymous No.21637190]

>>21637176
This is such a stupid argument that yoy are making. Do you not understand that if the mind is merely a collection of matter then you have no grounds to make any claim to knowledge at all?
A rock is matter. Why do you assume that your brain can make knowledge claims but a rock can't?

[Anonymous No.21637206]

>>21636138
What Rose is unwittingly laying the ground for here is not epistemological certainty, but total epistemological nihilism. I am frequently disappointed when I see people attempt to use his arguments in defense of theism because to be frank they are among the weakest. If followed to their logical conclusion, without bias, they should lead to radical skepticism.

He admits right there in that excerpt that you can't actually reach the truth with knowledge. You literally can't know anything. Rose claims that his particular religious sect offers the correct set of presuppositions and infallible "truths" necessary to overcome this, but why should we believe him? What is the value of replacing one set of unverifiable presuppositions with another set of unverifiable presuppositions?

He claims that his specific sect contains a divinely-revealed truth that surpasses all other schools of knowledge. Every other religious group and ideology makes the same claims. The only way to figure out which one is the "true" truth would be to compare and contrast them against some kind of external standard; but Rose has already made it clear that that's impossible because you can't use thought to reach the truth. Therefore, if you're measuring any set of truth claims put forth by any group that claims to have it, you necessarily have to pick some set of presuppositions to hold to and then judge the rest of the truth claims by (all of them will fail compared to yours of course because you've already decided on what the truth is by presupposing it). But how can you decide which "truth" to presuppose when you have no external method of verifying which one is correct? Effectively, randomly picking. You pick whatever you feel like, a.k.a, relativism - ironically what Rose has been trying to avoid the entire time. (We will leave out the added trouble of Rose's worldview containing demons that can invade your mind, deceive your senses, and control your environment, but this only adds to the epistemological confusion a la Descartes.)

Everyone presupposes that their viewpoint is objectively correct and automatically dismisses all others by the very nature of that presupposition. No one actually has external assurance that they picked the right "truth" because there's just as much of a chance that the other guy chose the right viewpoint as you did. Conclusion: NOTHING can actually be known or externally validated because the foundation of all knowledge is totally unverifiable and inaccessible to human minds. All reason is useless because none of it can be authenticated with certainty. Atheism, theism, and agnosticism are all equally useless because we are ontologically incapable of confirming their alignment with ultimate reality - whatever that is.

Pyrrho wins again.

[Anonymous No.21637215]

>>21637206
>You literally can't know anything.
How do you know?
Oh wait a minute! Epistemoligical nihilism is also self-refuting just like materialism!

[Anonymous No.21637220]

>>21637190
>that if the mind is merely a collection of matter then you have no grounds to make any claim to knowledge at all?

Imagine a chatbot. It is smart, and claims it is sentient.
You know it's a chatbot. You laugh and respond, "No you are not. You are just scripted to contextually apply some learned phrases"
The chatbot replies, "And how did *you* learn your language when you were a kid? Was it not by fitting the context as well?"

With that in mind, prove that *you* are not a chatbot. Your claims that you just know it, are invalid.

[Anonymous No.21637228]

>>21637206
That isn't his whole argument. That was merely a passage that I posted that explains how scientism is incoherent.
If you want to know why specifically the Triune Chrisrian God is the truth there are arguments which prove that as well, namely the Transcendental Argument for God and overcoming the dialectics of unity and multiplicity. It is not arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.21637229]

>>21635111
You cannot choose what you believe, but basic experience should show you that knowledge is a vector of belief. You can choose what you know and you already know the difference between good and evil. Search the scriptures and be of good character.

[Anonymous No.21637237]

>>21637229
*vector for

[Anonymous No.21637246]

>>21637190
>to make any claim to knowledge
You do not know what "know" means. You just use the word in the proper context.

[Anonymous No.21637253]

Atheism is sophistry.

[Anonymous No.21637267]

>There is no truth.
>We can't know anything.
>Truth is relative.
>All knowledge is empirical.
Any worldview that contains any of these statements is automatically wrong.

[Anonymous No.21637324]

>>21637267
three outta four ain't bad

[Anonymous No.21637346]

>>21637228
You can apply the same critique to chrislarping unless you are being dishonest. You wouldn't argue for Christianity in bad faith because you hate atheists, would you?

[Anonymous No.21637351]

>>21637267
>>There is no truth.
If truth is ABSENCE of errors and truth exists, does it mean that absence exists? Does non-existence exist?

>>We can't know anything.
All swans are white, until a black one suddenly pecks you in the ass. No claims are absolute.

>Truth is relative
Duhem-Quine thesis. Your theories are a package deal only.

>>All knowledge is empirical
Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.21637357]

Monotheism is just one step away from atheism, it kills the magic of an animistic world and turns it into the mechanical creation of an engineer.

Abrahamism causes atheism. It is very reddit.

[Anonymous No.21637362]

>>21631585
When people stop listening to Socrates.

[Anonymous No.21637367]

>>21631585

At the very moment its practitioners came closer to truth.

[Anonymous No.21637368]

>>21636403
>Is the new trendy way of defending theism
no, but ascribing motives in this fashion is a sign of paranoia
>Not all faith is created equal
see, if you'd phrased it as "not all faiths are of equal utility," you'd actually have a point
>Using relativism to save theism is a bizarre sacrifice to make
bizarre things happen when you make evaluations on the basis of paranoid delusions

[Anonymous No.21637400]

When will christfags and redditors realize that Nietzsche is not some face of atheism and scientism?
When will they stop being filtered by Protagoras?

[Anonymous No.21637409]

>>21637346
No you can't.

[Anonymous No.21637416]

>>21637351
>>>All knowledge is empirical
>Yes it is.
Show me the empirical data which shows that all knowledge is empirical.
You can't because it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.21637419]

>>21636138
>>21637228
What did seraphim and his boyfriend get up to again? Oh nooononono

[Anonymous No.21637420]

>>21637351
>No claims are absolute.
This claim is absolute.

[Anonymous No.21637427]

>>21637215
You've framed this like a "gotcha", but it merely bolsters my point. I merely repeated what Rose claimed: knowledge can't be used to arrive at the foundations of knowledge, ergo, the baseline truth of things can't be reached by knowledge. But you're absolutely correct: even that can't be known for sure. It also can't be known for sure that the truth CAN be arrived at with knowledge.

>>21637228
I'm aware that that isn't the entirety of his argument, but by including that portion into it, he's already shot himself in the foot. I am familiar with the Transcendental Argument, and while it can indeed establish a reasonable basis for supposing a transcendent source of rationality, it is severely wanting in its far more audacious claim to prove the exclusive veracity of the Christian concept of God. The most it can logically give us is some kind of rational noumena underlying phenomena that we can't actually directly know anything about (as even Christian theologians have claimed with the doctrine that God's essence is unknowable).

The claim is made that the reality must be personal - but other systems also claim this. The claim is made that the reality must simultaneously be both a unity and a multiplicity, or transcend that duality altogether - but other systems also claim this. Many stipulations are made that come across as pointlessly arbitrary; how, exactly, knowledge is made more or less possible by us presupposing the transcendent reality to have certain traits is not at all clear. We are still making mere claims and statements about the reality as opposed to obtaining any intuitive knowledge of it.

The "one-and-many" argument is even more problematic; it claims that the existence of a world of multiplicity is not explicable by appealing to a higher unity, but instead that the transcendent reality must be a unity and a multiplicity at the same time. This is, in my view, really no more than a linguistic sleight of hand. If unity and multiplicity are in fact identical or conjoined at the highest level of reality, then ultimately there isn't actually any difference between the one or the many because the source of the world is actually both at the same time. The "problem of the one and many" is "solved" in a way - but only by completely eradicating the very categories of "one" and "many". One IS many, and many IS one: in the final analysis, the Christian God is in fact the same as the Eleatic God. The whole dichotomy is an illusion, where the appearances of the world are only apparent and stem purely from our minds.

Such monism is, obviously, the precise opposite of what Rose or Dyer attempt to get at, but it's where their arguments end up nonetheless. They are correct in their observation that atheism is a dead end, but they go so far in the other direction trying to assert the exclusive supremacy of their own religious sect that they undermine the very ground of their assertions until they are forced to resort to special pleading.

[Anonymous No.21637432]

>>21637420
Not the zinger you think it is. You're not actually getting anywhere by saying this. If I say that all claims are not absolute, I obviously don't care if you don't think that claim is absolute.

[Anonymous No.21637434]

>>21637419
He repented from homosexuality and condemned it as evil and demonic. He never tried to say that homosexuality is acceptable. When he became an Orthodox Christian he renounced such things.
You probably know this already but you are being disingenuous.
Paul in the Bible before he became a Christian was literally killing Christians.

[Anonymous No.21637436]

>>21637432
Yes it is. This is actually literally what is known as cope.

[Anonymous No.21637464]

>>21637434
I'm not talking about his "past" homosexuality, I'm talking about what his friend got up to in his little parish after he converted

[Anonymous No.21637483]

>>21637368
>paranoid delusions
such as being watched by a volcano demon constantly?

[Anonymous No.21637488]

>>21637436
You're not exactly going anywhere with your argument.

[Anonymous No.21637494]

>>21637409
If you have non-demonstrable axiomatic premises you literally cannot prove them. It's all feels, faith and/or sophistry. So you are just being dishonest again.

[Anonymous No.21637504]

>>21637400
That would require reading, which most posters are allergic to.

[Anonymous No.21637513]

>>21637357
you are correct. its bizarre how most of society today doesn't realize this.

[Anonymous No.21637538]

>>21637357
It's a slow burn but pretty much the case—if the one true god who is the basis for evaluation is totally outside of the world it makes no difference whether he is there at all.

[Anonymous No.21637699]

>>21637483
if being watched constantly makes you uneasy, sure. seeing theist Boogeymen everywhere is another example.

[Anonymous No.21637718]

>>21637357
>>21637513
>>21637538
Christianity is not deism. It is panentheistic. That is to say, God is both within and beyond the created world at the same time. His energies are present in all things. His essence is unknowable but we know Him through His energies.
Also, there are spirits throughout the world, both good and evil spirits, which are called angels and demons.
Also, we believe in essences of created objects. Everything has a nature. A tree has the essence of treeness and so on.
Whatever weird crypto-atheistic "Christian" you get your ideas from sounds very wrong.

[Anonymous No.21637719]

>>21637538
I don't think je is totally outside it though. It's more like you can see implications of him in his creation, or feel it as "grace" or whatever

[Anonymous No.21637732]

>>21637719
Here is an analogy.
There is the sun, and also there is the rays of light and heat from the sun, which enables plants to grow, for us to absorb vitamin D, and so on.

[Anonymous No.21637933]

>>21637357
I'm not sure that "monotheism" and "polytheism" have ever been useful categories for classifying religious ideas.

If one defines "polytheism" as the idea that there are multiple uncreated, independently-existing, personal, eternal realities which have no underlying unity, then there are essentially no religious systems that have ever believed that - at least not any that even remotely caught on.

In every system we typically think of as "polytheistic", there is one supreme transcendent unknowable principle or "high god" that gives rise to the rest of the pantheon either by creating them or by them serving as various manifestations of the One God in different aspects. Typically the supreme deity is considered totally above the pay grade of humans to even have any affairs with them and so we are relegated to dealing with appointed intermediaries.

A lot of "gods" in polytheistic pantheon haven't existed forever, aren't omniscient or omnipotent, and don't actually create anything. They're basically what we would call "angels", and aren't really like the God of theism that we're accustomed to in the west. They are conditioned, contingent, and finite beings within the cosmos. They aren't really "supernatural" as much as "preternatural".

A system defined as "monotheistic" usually doesn't actually deny that these intermediary entities exist, but it views them as not being proper to worship due to them only being creatures and is solely focused on devotion to the uncreated ultimate deity. YHWH has an entire court of divine entities present in His council in Abrahamic faiths, but it is made clear that He alone is the supreme reality and He alone is the true creator, who made every other being and sustains their existence.

[Anonymous No.21638030]

>>21637699
>seeing theist Boogeymen everywhere
This is a thread about atheism and philosophy with loose reference to Nietzsche. Of course it has attracted posters who are arguing for theism, who else would be here? Why would this simple observation be equivalent to giving into paranoid desert people pilpul?
>>21637718
Extremely Online Orthodoxy is not representative of western theism and its popularity here is as much a form of reaction to it as atheism, and while the latter attracts more liberal nihilists the former seems to attract the more conservative nihilists.
>>21637719
A painting comes from a painter but does not establish its painter as the morning and the evening star. "Intelligent design" does not prove an author is even still alive. So is god dead or not—you haven't answered.
>>21637732
The sun is actually there, or at the very least its effects are felt. You are just copying its attributes and giving them to "God." This is the same problem as before—you've placed god outside the system so what is he needed for? We already have a sun we cannot look upon.
>>21637933
Assmann came up with a better distinction of religion and counter-religion but that got him in hot water and he had to moderate his view. It is not an unreasonable thesis that western theism has roots in an inversion of the Egyptian religion. And by the Hellenistic period (if not earlier) the Egyptians considered the people in Alexandria who celebrated Passover to be worshippers of the diabolic Seth-Typhon—why else would you be celebrating a story about how plagues killed the ancestors of your neighbors?

[Anonymous No.21638113]

>>21637718
>Christianity is not deism.
It directly lead to deism, just as it caused atheism.

[Anonymous No.21638141]

>>21637933
I'm sure you're right about the theological subtleties but that doesn't alter the fact that monotheism as we know it did in fact lead to widespread atheism.The idea that you can get disillusioned in a single deity from scripture and all that remains is materialism is pretty unique to this approach to religion.

[Anonymous No.21638144]

>>21638030
>Extremely Online Orthodoxy is not representative of western theism and its popularity here is as much a form of reaction to it as atheism, and while the latter attracts more liberal nihilists the former seems to attract the more conservative nihilists.
I'm not that guy but in my view any form of self-consistent Christian theism must ultimately be at least a kind of qualified panentheism; God as conceived of in any form of self-consistent Christianity (and indeed any kind of philosophical theism, really) is not a mere demiurge who constructs the universe out of some external material like an artifact but the actual source of existence itself that produces the world as a conditioned manifestation that participates in and effectively exists "within" God.

I would classify the theology of figures like Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, John Scotus Eriugena, Jacob Boehme, and many others to be effectively panentheist in their metaphysics. The entire concept of "creatio ex nihilo" (the idea that God did not use anything external to Himself to create and that in fact nothing external of or independent from God) more or less necessitates a kind of panentheism.

[Anonymous No.21638149]

>>21635596
Get a job bro

[Anonymous No.21638212]

>>21638144
>"creatio ex nihilo" (the idea that God did not use anything external to Himself to create and that in fact nothing external of or independent from God) more or less necessitates a kind of panentheism.
pan-anything is a heresy in Christianity which makes it more true than not

[Anonymous No.21638225]

>>21635684
Because committing suicide sends you to Hell

[Anonymous No.21638227]

>>21633299
so is British Intelligence and its psyops

[Anonymous No.21638239]

>>21638212
If panentheism is heresy, the New Testament writers and probably at least some of the Old Testament writers are also heretics.

[Anonymous No.21638246]

>>21638030
>who else would be here?
did it ever cross your mind that a philosophy thread might attract posters interested in philosophy?
>Why would this simple observation be equivalent to giving into paranoid desert people pilpul?
it's equivalent to paranoia insofar as reasoning from "some S are P" to "this S is necessarily P" isn't valid. factoring in the hostility you express towards theists, your behavior is consistent with persecutory delusion.

[Anonymous No.21638251]

>>21638030
>A painting comes from a painter but does not establish its painter as the morning and the evening star. "Intelligent design" does not prove an author is even still alive. So is god dead or not—you haven't answered.
I dont actually believe in God but in the Christian and Jewish versions God is clearly still alive and doing stuff. He intervenes on his creation with miracles and he speaks to us. And of course he came here as Jesus for Christians. This isnt just the clockwork universe he created and then left alone.

Intelligent design of universe to me means that there is something wrong with our understanding of physics. I personally see physics as like a fragmentary aspect of a metaphysical principle or set of principles which is inherently ordered and complex. The fine tuning of the laws of physics to allow extremely(indefinitely?) complex entities to be possible being some kind of "accident" seems absurd to me

[Anonymous No.21638255]

>>21638246
Woah we got ourselves a true relativist here. You show those atheists who's boss. God could exist as Christianity describes him—if we just believe enough
>>21638239
Christianity took centuries to standardize and even then we're talking like 80% agreement at best in a good geopolitical climate.

[Anonymous No.21638271]

>>21638255
would it really harm you more to have the humility to ask than it does to guess and be mistaken?

[Anonymous No.21638434]

>>21633001
No retard. It's just a variation on the 3 great insults to humanity:
>Copernicus: You aren't the centre of the universe
>Darwin: You're just an animal
>Freud: You aren't in control yourself

[Anonymous No.21638504]

>>21638212
panentheism is very different from pantheism, which is heresy

[Anonymous No.21638638]

>>21637538
>>21637357
nietzsche basically made this case which i why i find it weird he is often called an atheist. Sure I supposed he could be called atheist, in some sense, but Nietzsche felt that post-christian science and democracy was largely INHERITED from christianity. christian morals led to modern democratic morals.

[Anonymous No.21638656]

>>21638638
"our atheists are pious people" t. Stirner

[Anonymous No.21639033]

>>21636721
Because it is still interesting to try to figure out what god is or is not, and then try to reason how that relates to everyone and everything. I am agnostic but still took a great deal of information from aristotle's metaphysics

[Anonymous No.21639304]

>>21638434
Freud doesn't belong there. He is redundant. Newton could replace all of them anyway.

[Anonymous No.21639476]

>>21631686
Nietzsche died in 1900 and he didn't weite "He Will to Power" that was Schopenhauer.