Dave#motherfuckers

[Anonymous No.756115]

Alright you pussies, let us get some things straight, shall we?

Existential angst is a luxury of the 21st century. Let's suspend you from eating any sort of food for 3 days and see if your life still has no meaning you pampered, barrel-scraping pieces of shit.

On a similar note, if you believe in God purely because it is a socially accepted concept or you need some sort of validation for your existence yet you've never communicated with God firsthand nor come across reasonable empirical evidence for his existence but are comfortable in your reality that because a large number of people believe it, it must be true, you can suck my dick because you will never be respected nor remembered a few hundred years from now in a world where critical thinking will be nurtured from a young age everywhere.

[Anonymous No.756119]

U MAD?

[Anonymous No.756121]

>>756119

he mad

[Anonymous No.756122]

>Existential angst is a luxury of the 21st century.

Then where'd the Epic of Gilgamesh come from, faggot?

[Anonymous No.756133]

>>756122

I'm talking about THIS century you cunt.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about lumps of carbon that are being churned by the earth worms nor their shitty works.

[Anonymous No.756135]

>>756122
lol, also Ecclesiastes

OP's text is indeed butthurt angsty stuff for 15 year olds. Also it seems to condone belief in god which is just silly

[Anonymous No.756139]

>>756133

none of what you posted has any relevance to what I posted

P.S. You are a faggot

[Anonymous No.756140]

a derp derp derp, hurff hurff hurff

[Anonymous No.756142]

RAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH

NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS
NIGGER SHIT IN SILVER BUCKETS

[Anonymous No.756144]

The easiest ways are
1) Follow the timeline to a point where evolution on different planet types has different effects. Not uniform enough for classification as uniform species, but enough for synonymization.

2)The races from (fantasy world of choice) banded together to escape The Earth That Was, and the rest of the timeline has remained the same.

Also, I haven't read the rules so I don't know how that would work out.

[Anonymous No.756145]

>>756139

Get the fuck out of my thread festering dickface.

[Anonymous No.756146]

Given that there is no true empirical evidence for anything other than our own existence. We can use the argument from analogy to infer that there are others similar to ourselves.

From there we can infer that they think like us. Therefore, if as you are implying, the majority of people believe in god, we must believe in god.

[Anonymous No.756147]

Not really, no. The Dark Eldar have no real desire to fight Necrons. But they loathe Chaos just as much as the Craftworlders do, and would happily spit in Slaanesh's eye if the Harlequins invited them along.

[Anonymous No.756148]

>>756115

i don't know guys. OP raises some relevant points.

[Anonymous No.756152]

You're an idiot and don't understand existential angst. You're railing against a concept Kierkegaard started but only was put into atheist context by Sartre, and then using his contempt for contemporary Christianity, which is in itself a contempt for people who don't understand the existential dilemma and why this is a need for true faith, in the next breath.

[Anonymous No.756153]

>>756146
So this means that you move from being a christian to a muslim as demographics change?

or that you should determine whether the earth is round or flat by taking a poll? i hope this isn't a serious argument people make.

[Anonymous No.756155]

>>756146

>Therefore, if as you are implying, the majority of people believe in god, we must believe in god

Now what means of reason did you use to conjure up that imbecilic bullshit?

[Anonymous No.756162]

>>756148
how does the animal need for survival, to quench a pain born from the biological need to eat, somehow mean that life has a purpose? if he wanted to say that people engaged in a daily struggle for survival often don't have the time or inclination to address existential matters, that would be one thing, and probably correct, but that isn't what he said. he somehow seems to think that "oh, you don't want to starve to death" somehow proves a point about existentialism.

actually it's a bunch of angsty butthurt stuff for middleclass children.

[Anonymous No.756158]

Obvious troll is obvious though.

[Anonymous No.756164]

>>756158
yeah but i got tired of the trolls in /sci/

[Anonymous No.756169]

>>756152

No, I'm not you faggit cunt. If you're going to try and assert that I'm wrong at least provide the argument instead of saying 'a similar concept was proven wrong' you fuck.

[Anonymous No.756181]

I've been forced to fast for 3 days before. Have you OP?

[Anonymous No.756182]

>>756162

Suck my dick you idiot. Have you never come across an implication in your life? You're a child.

[Anonymous No.756185]

ITT

[Anonymous No.756191]

>>756182

The you're arguing with a child and just told him to suck your dick. Doesn't speak much for your intelligence

[Anonymous No.756199]

>>756182
I'm not sure what Mr. Troll is saying here regarding "implication". Are you saying that your statement about starving "implied" the example I gave of people not caring about philosophy because they were looking for food? If so, then it seems like you're acknowledging that I expressed your own position better than you, as I stated it correctly while you merely clumsily "implied" it.

If that's not what you mean, then I don't know what you mean about "implication(s)".

[Anonymous No.756201]

shit poop butt yer a fagit get it, i'm angry

fag cunt fagit cunt my gimmick is being angry

[Anonymous No.756219]

>HERP DERP EXISTENTIALISM

>HERP DERP NO GOD

Hipster detected.

[Anonymous No.756229]

>>756199

No, you cunt, I didn't 'clumsily imply' it. I used brevity so that people may draw their own, personal implication from it.

The actual meaning that I applied to it is that huge cancerous faggots like you who have never experienced pain in their lives can meander about and sob over their purposelessness because you're in your womb of your parents comfort contributing nothing to the world.

We don't have much of a scientific base to conclude anything about our existence. Rather than being a festering lump of shit, you can go out there, feel the pain, grow and contribute to the world.

[Anonymous No.756240]

>>756219
anyone still calling people hipsters is a troll..fucking pleb, that word is from like fucking 2005

[Anonymous No.756252]

>trying to lecture people on being spoiled
>on 4chan
>lol raging hypocrite

[Anonymous No.756255]

Existentialism means life has no INHERENT meaning, so one has to make their own. Of one decides to use faith, than you can't really fault them. (unless they're crazy)

Op is a faget

[Anonymous No.756257]

>>756252

what if op is vagabond whos using 4chan from an internet cafe

[Croaker !!DDgOIlOdqYI No.756259]

love this internet tough guy and all his profanities

[Anonymous No.756261]

>>756257
then how would he know about four chan with rules one and two

[Xzeron454 !3bLOx3Cqd. No.756270]

>>756145

He's trying to sound inteligent by using words that are more than 6 letters long... How cute

[Anonymous No.756271]

>Let's suspend you from eating any sort of food for 3 days and see if your life still has no meaning you pampered, barrel-scraping pieces of shit.


Hah.

I like you.

[Anonymous No.756272]

>>756261

search fauxnews, 4chan has at least 3 pages of results

[Anonymous No.756280]

>>756169
I already provided the arguments. If you knew Kierkegaard, you'd know the argument. But you don't, because you're an idiot. Also Kierkegaard never was "proven wrong." And I'm not asserting that he was.
But since you're going to be a troll, and I'm in a "feed the hungry" type of mood, here goes:
Kierkegaard showed that subjectivity was the state of man's consciousness, and thus, his existence, working (somewhat, basically, to not turn this into a very long essay) from both Kant and Descartes. Descartes argued how our thoughts form our consciousness, Kant argued how our consciousness skews our perception of reality.
Kierkegaard said that because of this, we have a desire to know what is objectively there. (I'm starting to hate how bad I am at boiling this shit down.) We can never know, however. And since Christianity is in so many ways the path to salvation, it is necessary not to make it just "true" but "True to me." You can't simply accept it and keep on going about your business. Your business is not your business, it's the works and teachings of Jesus Christ. Without them, you are lost anyhow. And to have this Truth for you, you need to understand that your existence is the result of your subjectivity, that you do this not because you know, you have proof, you don't have proof, etc. but because you do believe it and know it to be of absolute and paramount importance in your life. Not anyone else's, not what they think, not how they feel, not even really how you "feel", but because your soul is at stake and you believe it to be.
Existential angst is not only a Christian concept, and it existed well before the 21st century. There are many examples of it within the Bible. If you don't recognize them, it's because:
You're an idiot. Go read more. Try some Kierkegaard. You'll like his shitty elitist bitterness.

[Anonymous No.756284]

How dare you post an image of Henry Rollins along with your narrow-minded attempt at trolling.

[Anonymous No.756286]

>>756280

[Anonymous No.756300]

>>756280

I'm sorry, you lost me at Christianity. Go back to the Dark Ages you twat. I have no time for antiquated theories.

[Anonymous No.756317]

>>756300
You're really bad at this aren't you? I don't think you understand the concept of debate. You've claimed something, and this gets ripped apart by your detractors.
You have a choice to defend yourself with reason, but you eschew this and opt for a bunch of meaningless bad words strung together to make you seem "hardcore".
I think you need to seriously exam your life and why you would come to an imageboard such as this to try to stir up trouble.

[Anonymous No.756320]

>>756300
My bad. You're an atheist. Wait, fucking what? What the hell are you even saying then? For an atheist, existential angst isn't even something debatable, the only thing that can be argued is its lesser or greater aspects/importance in our lives.

[Anonymous No.756323]

>>756317

>You've claimed something, and this gets ripped apart by your detractors.

I fail to see where this has happened and what I must defend myself against.

An argument that isn't outmoded, incoherent drivel is yet to be presented.

[Anonymous No.756327]

>>756320

What the hell are you even saying then?

>>756229

[Anonymous No.756330]

>>756323
Oh. Alright. So instead of confronting other people's opinions, you've decided that they aren't opinions at all.
Why don' you go ahead and try to disprove them instead of calling people fuckfaces. Just try. Humor me. Please.

[Anonymous No.756341]

>>756323
You can begin with something that makes the least bit of sense. A starving person who does not contemplate the finite nature of their life seems to me to be quite lacking in mental capabilities.
You have yet to give us anything at all besides two points. Existential angst is the result of modern luxury: nope, several ancient examples of despair, and that Christianity is purely a social construct: a social construct, true, but only in certain ways that you listed. There are many who hold it very personally dear, as Kierkegaard did, and decry the social constructs of it. Which means there are more ways than those certain ones you defined, therefore it is not only a social construct.
By the way your criticisms are decades old in the case of existentialism, and hundreds of years old on Christianity.

[Anonymous No.756342]

sage sage sage etc etc

[Anonymous No.756343]

>>756330

>I already provided the arguments. If you knew Kierkegaard, you'd know the argument. But you don't, because you're an idiot. Also Kierkegaard never was "proven wrong." And I'm not asserting that he was.
But since you're going to be a troll, and I'm in a "feed the hungry" type of mood, here goes:
Kierkegaard showed that subjectivity was the state of man's consciousness, and thus, his existence, working (somewhat, basically, to not turn this into a very long essay) from both Kant and Descartes. Descartes argued how our thoughts form our consciousness, Kant argued how our consciousness skews our perception of reality.
Kierkegaard said that because of this, we have a desire to know what is objectively there. (I'm starting to hate how bad I am at boiling this shit down.) We can never know, however.

Everything up until there was fine and I wholeheartedly agreed with.

Then came this barrage of utter bollocks:

>Christianity is in so many ways the path to salvation, it is necessary not to make it just "true" but "True to me." You can't simply accept it and keep on going about your business. Your business is not your business, it's the works and teachings of Jesus Christ.

So:

> On a similar note, if you believe in God purely because it is a socially accepted concept or you need some sort of validation for your existence yet you've never communicated with God firsthand nor come across reasonable empirical evidence for his existence but are comfortable in your reality that because a large number of people believe it, it must be true, you can suck my dick because you will never be respected nor remembered a few hundred years from now in a world where critical thinking will be nurtured from a young age everywhere.

[Anonymous No.756350]

>>756343
I'm not a Christian man. That's just what Kierkegaard had to say on subjectivity and Christianity. I don't agree with it either, because I'm an atheist. I completely misunderstood his trolling and thought he was trying to be some sort of Defender of True Faith or something.
Nope, he's not even that deep, he's just a butthurt atheist who can't make two connected points of debate.

[Anonymous No.756354]

>>756341

Not a starving person, you idiot, a person who is truly growing and a result experiencing some form of pain or risk, i.e. getting the fuck out of their comfort zones.

>By the way your criticisms are decades old in the case of existentialism, and hundreds of years old on Christianity.

Decades old, but still relevant as you've yet to disprove them.

>There are many who hold it very personally dear, as Kierkegaard did, and decry the social constructs of it. Which means there are more ways than those certain ones you defined, therefore it is not only a social construct.

How the fuck did you draw that conclusion? Are you saying Kierkegaard had God talk to him and knew of God before he came across the bible, a preacher or etc.?

[Anonymous No.756387]

>>756354
Ok. Here we go. Now you're actually debating.
Point number 1: For many people, this is their despair. They are finally forced to look at the results and situations of their life. They are no longer actors in a great play commanded by unseen directors (God, luck, horoscopes, society, other people in their lives, pick a card, any card); they are people who have made choices based on their subjective perceptions that have led to deprivation. In this state of pain and growth what they are experiencing is still in juxtaposition with the finite nature of life, with what their own choices mean, and why they choose them. It is very much an existential dilemma: Why am I here? specifically is simply a local idealization of the general Why am I here in existence?
To the second point:
You and I are talking past each other. You're proposing the "blank slate" point of atheism/agnosticism, that people are born without the concept of god, it is taught to them by others. However, the "blank slate" suffers from a problem: where did the idea come from, then? If everyone is born without the knowledge of God, and it's just society propagating the idea of God and nothing more, then how did this anomalous idea even come to be, much less become an ever-pervasive point of belief for billions of people throughout history?
Many, many groups of savages thought up God to explain things they couldn't explain. As an atheist, I'm with you there. My point is: someone will still think of it as long as there are inexplicable qualities about life, death, and the universe. Good luck with your "society will advance past this" idea. Any "blank slate" can come up with the idea again and again, over and over. Religion is a social construct, faith in a deity, however misguided you and I may think it, takes place in consciousness.

[Anonymous No.756429]

>>756387

I disagree with you on both points, however I have to go now.

Can you email me the Sartre work that puts an atheistic context on Kierkegaard, and then I'll a write up responses to both of your points when I get back, cheers.

[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.756447]

ITT
>HURR DURR HURR HURRR DERP
>>>statement refuting aboev\
> HURR DURR INTERNET TOUGH GUY HAS NO TIME OR INCLINATION TO LOOK INTO WHAT YOU SAID OR WHO YOU REFERENCED

>Existential angst is a luxury of the 21st century.
yeah dumb fuck it's called th heirarchy of needs
>a world where critical thinking will be nurtured from a young age everywhere.
i could easily call that a luxurytoo compared to the possibility of starving to death
i dont think even you know what your point is

[Anonymous No.756451]

>>756113

Is LkIKE TUrRTuLlESj DbO YOtU LIKE TjURTLES TtURTLES ARE GoREENt

[Anonymous No.756470]

>>756114

Iu LmIsKE TURTLEzSf DOp YOU LIKE TsUfRjTLES TsUfRTLEdSf AzREv GREcEN

[Anonymous No.756473]

>>756470
this is the cancer killing /x/

[Anonymous No.756481]

>>756115

wtf are you even talking about?

have you not read Hunger by Knut Hamsun?

[Anonymous No.756482]

>>756111

I LIKEb TURTLEiS DO YOU LbIKEb TrURTLESu ToURoTLEhS AzRE GRuEEN

[Anonymous No.756488]

>>756447
This. Go read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

[Anonymous No.756499]

>in a world where critical thinking will be nurtured from a young age everywhere.

Twilight is an amazing book.

[Anonymous No.756500]

>>756112

I LoIKEp TURTtLsEvSd DkOl YOU LIKE TUdRTkLES TpURTxLdEuSp AfRE GRxEuEvN

[Anonymous No.758632]

>>756115

Bravo OP!

[Anonymous No.758658]

>>756488
I love the Hierarchy of Needs.
I believe that the Sims 3 uses this as a model for how sims behave, and that could explain why the Sims 3 was so much better than its predecessors in that aspect.

[Anonymous No.758677]

>>756115
>On a similar note, if you believe in God purely because it is a socially accepted concept or you need some sort of validation for your existence yet you've never communicated with God firsthand nor come across reasonable empirical evidence for his existence but are comfortable in your reality that because a large number of people believe it, it must be true, you can suck my dick because you will never be respected nor remembered a few hundred years from now in a world where critical thinking will be nurtured from a young age everywhere.
What if I reason out my belief in God and I DO feel as though I need God to satisfy my physiological and self-actualizing needs? I don't, but I know people who do.