Religious Determinism

[Anonymous No.11075241]

Hey sci, trying to decide which religion to pick up for salvation, but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on who the true God is.
Are there any methods for deciding this analytically?

[Anonymous No.11075313]

>>11075241
yes, the scientifically accepted God is the Jehovah’s Witness God in quantum superposition with Buddha, but not meme newage Buddha, insetead it’s the Buddha who hates gays and muslims. Sauce: Jack Sarfatti in quantum superposition with Brian Josephson

[Anonymous No.11075351]

>>11075241
your only option is scientology

[Anonymous No.11075624]

>>11075241
Hegel, Cantor, Godel, Leibniz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

this is the correct religion, everything else is picture thinking, dogma, and mind control. The logical positivists will crusade against you if you dare think like this, but this god objectivity exists. heed my words anon, this is the knowledge of ancients in greece, egypt, and babylon.

[Anonymous No.11075631]

>>11075624
God is a spook

[Anonymous No.11075689]

>>11075241
Just embrace secularism. If you know you're just picking and choosing a religion, you'll always be aware that your belief is just the result of your preference, not what you actually think is true. As Dan Dennet puts it, you wouldn't believe in your religion, you would only belief in belief.

[Anonymous No.11075758]

>>11075241
The only true God of humanity is humanity itself.
Think about it: who heals you when you're sick?Who helps you?Who you should read?Who gives you purpose in life. The answer will always be other humans.
All could be nice and we'll but the devil disguised as God created a fake narrative that there's only one God and that's omnipotent.
How can God be all powerful if he contradicts itself all the time?
The answer is that the true God is not omnipotent but one piece of the universe that's fighting against a bigger one called the devil. Our God is one of rebelion, evolution and change so it knew that it's only chance of winning was to split itself in infinesimal parts of itself called life and develop In the fight against the devil.
We are all small parts of God with our own concious(only achievable by it being inside us).
For long years humanity has been selecting few, more special pieces of itsfelf capable of developing it's power: The prophets of thruth and light. Isaac Newton, Einstein, Darwin, René descartes, you name'em.
But the fake god tries to keep us from the truth in a futole atempt to keep Our God, humanity, from developing our domain of the universe and description of the devil.Thus, humanity becomes the whole universe achieving omnipotence, immortality and eternal bliss.

[Anonymous No.11075764]

>>11075758
blah blah hitler

[Anonymous No.11076625]

>>11075689
lel atheism meme

[Anonymous No.11076743]

>>11075241
For a religion to be true it must fulfill the following criteria:
1. Extant (a whole number of pagan, tribal, indigenous religions for millennia drop out here)
2. Propounds universal truth claims (neo-paganisms and some Hinduisms drop out here)
3. Does not violate the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, and excluded middle). This again cuts off a huge number of eastern religions.
4. Monotheistic
You cannot have two ultimate causes otherwise you would have two universes of actualities superimposed on top of one another. Polytheism is totally incoherent.
5. Christian
You cannot deny the resurrection of Christ, the martyrdom of the saints, and the numerous miracles that have happened. Nothing in other religions compares to things like the miracle of the sun.
6. One
There is one church, visible in one body.
7. Holy
The holy mysteries, the sacraments
8. Catholic
Extends and applies one truth to all
9. Apostolic
Maintains a line of Episcopal and sacerdotal authority going back to Christ and maintains communion with his vicar.
Become Catholic.

[Anonymous No.11076801]

>>11075241
quakerism?

[Anonymous No.11076802]

>>11075241
>>11075313
>>11076743
>>11075758
>>11075764
>>11075689
>>11075624
Neither of these religions portrayed god accurately, the only one who almost got this right is>>11075631
The most plausible is panendeism. God is literally an energy and it distant itself from the physical world if it's even real or can think for itself. You can even be an atheist and believe in this crap since he's never going to contact with us so who literally cares. Maybe God Genesfags care. Pantheism also might be a decent portrayal but without the spirituality crap and panentheism is kinda off. Just don't tip me or bring stalin to the discussion. Thanks

[Anonymous No.11076812]

>>11075241
Ask God and leave the schizo middlemen out of it for now

[Anonymous No.11076971]

>>11076802
have sex

[Anonymous No.11077043]

I’m God lol
AMA

[Anonymous No.11077234]

>>11076971
Have determinism

[Anonymous No.11077356]

hmmmm i can't really figure it out, per capita which religion is the best at science and math?

[Anonymous No.11077374]

>>11077356
scientifically speaking what is the evolutionary purpose of goyim?

[Anonymous No.11077768]

>>11076743
>muh "miracle" of the sun
>a dozen conflicting testomonies out of tens of thousand of attendees
>some reporting having seen nothing at all
wtf i'm a christian now

>Does not violate the laws of thought
Remind me what's the trinity again?

>You cannot deny the resurrection of Christ
Yes you can, and it's quite easy to find natural explanations for what took place: https://celsus.blog/2013/07/04/1-corinthians-15-and-the-500-witnesses/

[Anonymous No.11077898]

>>11075241
Confucian-Zen-Christian is peak civilization

[Anonymous No.11077911]

>>11077043
Is loli a sin?

[Anonymous No.11077921]

>>11075241
Quranism.
"And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth do they pass by, while they are turning away from it."
"And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - about all those one will be questioned."
"We will show them Our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things ?"

[Anonymous No.11077995]

>>11077768
Thanks for becoming Christian dude. :)

[Anonymous No.11078124]

>>11077768
>Remind me what's the trinity again?
The trinity is a well known construct in computer science.

[Anonymous No.11078131]

>>11075241
I will simplify the problem a bit in an effort be more formal.
I'm going to assume that all religions have the same probability of being true. This of course can be argued against but I've never seen anyone make an actually good argument for any particular religion other than "Dude, look at all the people that believe in it". And even religions that seem to make demonstrably false claims (like the Jehova's Witnesses and the end of the world) have lots of leeway by saying "It's just a metaphor". In any case, extending my line of reasoning to arbitrary probabilities shouldn't be too difficult.

I'm also going to assume that every religion has some (non-negative and finite) reward per time unit for believing it and some (non-negative and finite) punishment per time unit for not believing in it, where these quantities are averaged over a large timescale in some sort of limiting procedure. A total reward and a total punishment are not well-defined in all cases: for example, in an everlasting afterlife, they can be infinite. I also assume that you can only believe in one religion. Again, introducing more complexities is besides my main point.

It seems reasonable that the goal would now be to maximize the expected reward per time minus the expected punishment per time. This means that we can immediately discard all religions with only a finite total reward and finite total punishment, as their averaged reward and punishment rates will converge to zero. Under the above assumptions, we simply have to find the religion with the biggest difference between reward and punishment: focusing for example on Christian religions, we should look for ones that have extremely good Heavens and / or extremely bad Hells and see where we have the most to gain.

[Anonymous No.11078152]

>>11077921
you're not allowed to eat sausages and bacon or ever own or play with a dog
this is hell on earth

[Anonymous No.11078170]

>>11078131
interesting post, a rendition of Pascal’s wager. my feeling is that if god somehow does exist in spite of offering us mere mortals no evidence of his existence, then he would be a complete douche not to let agnostics and atheists escape eternal punishment for simply using reason to think about whether or not he exists. i could see him smacking down on false-god believers but for people who simply aren’t convinced, that would just be vindictive to send them to hell, even evil. and if god is evil then fuck him.

if one religion has infinite upside, and all other religions have infinite downside, but nonbelievers are just at 0, i think the safe bet is nonbelief, since picking the one right religion is only one in however many religions there are

[Anonymous No.11078171]

You only need one believer to become a god.

[Anonymous No.11078181]

>>11078170
What if God is a clown and reason a ruse?

[Anonymous No.11078184]

>>11078152
>or ever own or play with a dog
I hate it when people have heard of some muslim guys saying something and then they assume anyone called "muslim" would conform to the teachings of the Quran. Dogs are nowhere forbidden in the Quran, in fact there's a group of believers with a dog, chapter 18. As for not eating sausages being hell on earth...well, if it actually feels THAT bad (I kinda doubt it), I guess you could invoke the clause of "being compelled", even though God will know what you really felt. Or you could consider that porks do not chew their cud, and are generally disgusting. Or you could consider, as a few quranists do, that the words are mistranslated and it doesn't mean that (remember the second verse I quoted about not following any source blindly and always verifying information for yourself ?). Or you could find some other great foods that taste the same or better (I personally think pork tastes awful anyway but that's just my opinion...).

[Anonymous No.11078188]

>>11078181
then fuck god. if god is a douchebag then i don’t want to be on his side

[Anonymous No.11078199]

>>11075241
Eastern traditions made much more sense to me than any of the stuff widely known in the West. Pick up pic related then read his other stuff.

>>11075631
>>11076802
Stirner's resolution runs into a brickwall when up against Eastern traditions. His notion of the 'human being' only works in Western nations.

[Anonymous No.11078206]

>>11078199
please tell me you are actually from asia. if not, you are a shitbag newager who knows jack shit about what you’re shilling

[Anonymous No.11078212]

>>11078170
>no evidence
What do you call CRISPR?

[Anonymous No.11078216]

>>11078131
Then the religion where you'd have the most to gain and to lose would certainly be islam.

[Anonymous No.11078218]

>>11078212
CRISPR is evidence that Man is stupid, and if man can know Man is stupid, then that means there's something smarter than Man. God for example.

[Anonymous No.11078219]

>>11075241
There is no evidence any gods exist. Just be atheist.

[Anonymous No.11078221]

>>11078212
i call CRISPR a nice human innovation that allows the genes that evolved naturally to be manipulated intentionally by humans. i see no relation to YHWH or Jesus or Allah or Buddha or Krishna of Osiris or Zeus or Quezacoatl, sorry

[Anonymous No.11078225]

>>11076743
>4. Monotheistic
>You cannot have two ultimate causes otherwise you would have two universes of actualities superimposed on top of one another. Polytheism is totally incoherent.

No polytheistic religion suggests that there were multiple “ultimate causes”. This is a lie.

> 5. Christian
You cannot deny the resurrection of Christ, the martyrdom of the saints, and the numerous miracles that have happened. Nothing in other religions compares to things like the miracle of the sun.

Sure you can. There is no evidence these things occurred.

[Anonymous No.11078229]

>>11078219
There's just enough evidence of God for those who'd like to believe, and just enough lack of evidence for those who'd prefer not to.

[Anonymous No.11078233]

>>11076743
>4. Monotheistic
>You cannot have two ultimate causes otherwise you would have two universes of actualities superimposed on top of one another. Polytheism is totally incoherent.
Why are you a christian then ?

[Anonymous No.11078238]

>>11078229
>There's just enough evidence of God for those who'd like to believe

You mean zero? Zero evidence is indeed sufficient for those who’d “like” to believe.
In reality, only people brainwashed into religions actively “want” to believe in them.

[Anonymous No.11078240]

[Anonymous No.11078241]

>>11078229
false. there is zero real evidence and every religion trumps up its own particular pseud shit, but that doesn’t make it real evidence

[Anonymous No.11078247]

>>11078240
>what happens to you according to my extremely flawed understanding of all these religions
>>11078241
>>11078238
So, you don't believe in justice after death ?

[Anonymous No.11078249]

>>11078240
You could literally just make up your own deity that rewards good deeds, bad deeds, belief, and no belief, and you’d be set. Pascal’s wager is pseudo philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11078252]

>>11078247
>So, you don't believe in justice after death ?

1. There’s no evidence you continue to exist to any extent “after death” as anything more than rotting meat.
2. What is “just” and what is “unjust” is mere opinion.

[Anonymous No.11078260]

>>11078252
>What is “just” and what is “unjust” is mere opinion.
There is no scenario in which I can imagine that a man saying that would be sincere.

[Anonymous No.11078267]

>>11078247
guy you were replying to here. maybe there is justice after death, it has a negligible but nonzero probability. even so i think a person going all out on any given religion has a small probability of being right, and arguing you were just using reason and ended up at agnosticism is more defensible

[Anonymous No.11078274]

>>11078267
>a person going all out on any given religion
What do you mean, going "all out" on any given religion ? Have you ever tried to do that ? Like, studying etymology and stuff ?
What makes you think justice after death has a negligible, but nonzero probability ?

[Anonymous No.11078287]

>>11078274
>What makes you think justice after death has a negligible, but nonzero probability ?
the fact that zero evidence for it exists

[Anonymous No.11078291]

>>11078287
If something as important as justice after death has a nonzero probability, it's not a negligible probability, don't you think ?

[Anonymous No.11078302]

>>11078291
it would be very important, true. that’s why i’m not willing to become an atheist. i just don’t think any religion can provide anything convincing enough for me to sign onto it. i choose to not choose

[Anonymous No.11078309]

>>11078260
>There is no scenario in which I can imagine that a man saying that would be sincere.

I don’t give a shit what you “imagine”.
This is philosophy 101
Some people think capital punishment is wrong.
Some people don’t.
Some people go further and think it’s okay to torture some people literally forever.
These are opinions.
DOOOOO YOOOOUUUU UNDERSTAAAAAAAND?

[Anonymous No.11078321]

>>11078291
>Important

It’s only your opinion that it’s important, and why should we entrust these imagined entities to share our own personal value systems when so many exist within humans?
After winning the game of chance to determine whether or not some spooky afterlife bullshit exists, (it doesn’t), you then have to luck out on these imaginary gate keepers to share your concept of ethics, which is about as likely as selecting any particular speck of nitrogen sand on Pluto.

What if you were celibate, and the deity is deeply hedonistic, finds you disgusting, and sends you to Hell where you are raped eternally?

[Anonymous No.11078324]

>>11078309
>some people think a
>some people think b
>somehow this proves "justice" is mere opinion
Perhaps you're just not intellectually strong enough to form and defend your own opinions about what is just and unjust ?

[Anonymous No.11078330]

What is just is what the strongest man still on his feet says it is.

[Anonymous No.11078338]

>>11078330
based. humanism is the best. doesn’t stop religion shillers from telling you you’re wrong though, because they operate in a super-reality that isn’t just life but also the mystical “””afterlife”””

[Anonymous No.11078340]

>>11078321
>It’s only your opinion that it’s important
So, if there were justice after death, it wouldn't be important in your opinion ? The possibility that you have acted wrongly and may get punished for that, or rewarded for the good you've done, wouldn't be important ?
Ethics isn't chance and luck. Values are simple and fairly universal and easily understood if you just apply your mind to it. People make everything complicated when there's no need to. Feeding a homeless guy, killing a rapist, preventing an unjust war, this is good. Purposefully hurting people or not caring about them to the extent that they suffer, this is evil. This really isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous No.11078348]

>>11078338
>>11078330
You are very religious actually, making an idol out of man.

[Anonymous No.11078356]

>>11078340
why haven’t you replied to this, jesus anon?
>>11078302

is agnosticism too difficult of an enemy for you and you need to target atheism instead? as the convenient brainlet strawman?

agnosticism, unlike atheism, is actually a very strong intellectual stance to take

[Anonymous No.11078363]

>>11078348
>making an idol out of man
i have no shame in admitting that. humans are currently the pinnacle of nature, and we should respect that.

[Anonymous No.11078364]

>>11078363
lol gay

[Anonymous No.11078371]

>>11078356
I'm not a christian.
Claiming lack of knowledge isn't "a very strong intellectual stance to take", it's just you saying you don't know. How could there be no justice after death, when every imbalance in the natural world is always balanced by something else ?

[Anonymous No.11078377]

>>11078371
i am not claiming there is no justice after death. that’s possible, i don’t know. but i can say for sure that if you have convinced yourself that justice after death MUST be true, then you are deluding yourself

[Anonymous No.11078387]

>>11078377
Yes, literally, it HAS TO be true.

[Anonymous No.11078397]

>>11078387
good argument bro

[Anonymous No.11078400]

>>11075241
Hi! Just going to drop this here for anyone interested in some thought provoking topics on the subject in OP. He's thorough, and his voice helps with the amount of content hes giving. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ-vHE5CrGaL_ITEg-n3OeA

[Anonymous No.11078410]

>>11078371
Does balance include extinction? It seems horrendously unfair for the universe to allow a species to cease existence, but it happens anyway.
Justice and fairness are ideals created by winners to justify their victory and ensure continued success.

[Anonymous No.11078415]

>>11078348
A man is but a lump of flesh and a jar of blood, a placeholder imbued with the rage and desire of others.
He lives on in the heart of others when they are no more.
In that way, he is of the essence of gods.
Carried away by the continuum.

There is no other God but man, and God is his creation.

[Anonymous No.11078420]

>>11078400
Based

[Anonymous No.11078421]

>>11078324
>>some people think a
>>some people think b
>>somehow this proves "justice" is mere opinion

Yes, it does. Whether or not something is “just” varies depending on the opinion of the observer, and there is no mechanism by which we could determine the truth value of moral claims. Even if we did, we’d have no obligation to care about those moral “truths” unless there’s some powerful entity operating by those “truths” that treats us based on those “truths”.

By what mechanism do you propose we prove “moral truths” to exist? Please revolutionize philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11078422]

>>11078410
>It seems horrendously unfair for the universe to allow a species to cease existence
Why do you presume life in this material world is such a great thing ? Perhaps this is merely a simulation, or worse perhaps we're actually in Hell.

[Anonymous No.11078434]

>>11078422
I don’t need to presume, I’m a winner and my life is quite good. According to bible all I need to do is believe in the power of Christ and I’ll be saved. So I’ll get best of both worlds.

[Anonymous No.11078438]

>>11078340
>So, if there were justice after death, it wouldn't be important in your opinion ?

I never said it wasn’t important in my opinion.
Speaking of “acting wrongly”, you just lied. Strange.

> Ethics isn't chance and luck. Values are simple and fairly universal and easily understood if you just apply your mind to it.

Humans tend to share ethics because we all have the same monkey brains, but this offers no moral truths.

> Feeding a homeless guy

Prove that’s good. Some disagree.

> killing a rapist

Prove that’s good. Some disagree.

> preventing an unjust war

Begging the question fallacy.

> Purposefully hurting people or not caring about them to the extent that they suffer, this is evil.

Prove it. You just said killing rapists is good so there’s already a contradiction in your kindergarten morality.

[Anonymous No.11078441]

>>11078356
> agnosticism, unlike atheism, is actually a very strong intellectual stance to take

Agnostics claim that it is unknown whether ot no

[Anonymous No.11078445]

>>11078415
You don't seem very sane to me.
>>11078421
Balance is the essence of justice, this has been known for ages. The law of retaliation is a good example of it, and it isn't based on subjectivity. You murder an innocent, you deserve to die, that's balance, equity, nonpartisanship etc...

[Anonymous No.11078448]

>>11078441
uhhh i think you need to fix your english anon

[Anonymous No.11078450]

>>11078356
>agnosticism, unlike atheism, is actually a very strong intellectual stance to take

Agnosticism is only the claim that it’s unknown whether or not deities exist.
Atheism is not believing in them.
These are not contradicting positions, and agnostic atheism is the strongest position on the subject.

[Anonymous No.11078452]

>>11078445
>Balance is the essence of justice, this has been known for ages. The law of retaliation is a good example of it, and it isn't based on subjectivity.

Prove it.

> You murder an innocent, you deserve to die,

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11078458]

>>11078445
Who decides what qualifies as murder and who is innocent? The answers to these questions are inherently subjective because they involve value judgements, such as alien civilians being caught in war having less value than your own nation’s soldiers, and it therefore killing some during bombing is justified and not murder. They were guilty by association with their nation and their deaths require no justice.

[Anonymous No.11078459]

>>11078450
i disagree. i think that agnosticism means not committing to any dogma about what does or doesn’t exist in the “““spiritual”” realm. i think it is perfectly fine to admit that living mortals cannot use reason to deduce what goes on in the “““afterlife””” since the reason of mortals is purely based on experience in normal reality

[Anonymous No.11078461]

>>11078459
>i disagree. i think that agnosticism means not committing to any dogma about what does or doesn’t exist in the “““spiritual”” realm.

Okay, you’ve made up your own definition.

[Anonymous No.11078462]

>>11078434
>I’m a winner and my life is quite good
I sincerely doubt that, you've just convinced yourself that the walls of your cell being golden is awesome.
>According to my flawed understanding of the bible all I need to do is believe in the power of Christ and I’ll be saved.
>>11078438
You seem to be the kind of guy who pretends not to get basic things just because he likes to argue and wants to appear smart.
>It’s only your opinion that it’s important
Clearly implies that you do not share this opinion, so you accusing me of lying is more of a lie on your part.

[Anonymous No.11078467]

>>11078461
fine, maybe i have. agnostics don’t have a dogma to adhere to. is it wrong for me to find my own spiritual beliefs? is it better to listen to a priest or preacher or rabbi or imam or guru?

dogmatic people are cancer

[Anonymous No.11078470]

>>11078452
>Balance is the essence of justice
>Prove it
The words are related in their meaning, for example ?
>>11078458
>Who decides what qualifies as murder and who is innocent?
God has and will have the last word.
>such as alien civilians being caught in war having less value than your own nation’s soldiers, and it therefore killing some during bombing is justified and not murder
War crimes are known as crimes for a reason.

[Anonymous No.11078474]

>>11078445
>You don't seem very sane to me.
You believe that justice is an absolute property of nature. Who's the insane one?
The quicker you realize that justice isn't black and white, and, even worse, that black is white and white is black depending on who's looking, the quicker you'll understand that justice is a meaningless word.
A meaningless word used by the weak to justify their anger.
A meaningless word used by the strong to legitimate their dominance.

[Anonymous No.11078478]

>>11078462
>Clearly implies that you do not share this opinion

It might imply that to you, but it is not intended as such. You’re simply mistaken.

[Anonymous No.11078489]

>>11078470
> The words are related in their meaning, for example ?

Prove balance is the essence of justice.

> God has and will have the last word.

Prove he exists, and that his opinion on what’s “just” is magically truth.

[Anonymous No.11078494]

>>11078478
Being mistaken and lying are two different things. Furthermore it's you who weren't clear.
>>11078474
>You believe that justice is an absolute property of nature
Yes, experiments with magnets, communicating vessels, gravity etc...prove that there are always forces counteracting each other. This is an expression of balance.
>and, even worse, that black is white and white is black depending on who's looking
"The exception that proves the rule"

[Anonymous No.11078498]

>>11078494
>Yes, experiments with magnets, communicating vessels, gravity etc...prove that there are always forces counteracting each other. This is an expression of balance.

That’s physical forces in balance not the moral concept of justice you fucking mongoloid

[Anonymous No.11078502]

>>11078489
>Prove balance is the essence of justice.
Open a dictionary and see for yourself how they're related.
>Prove he exists
Everything has a cause, this temporal universe has a cause, that cause is above time, that cause is God.
>that his opinion on what’s “just” is magically truth.
I'm sure you'll be convinced when you meet him.

[Anonymous No.11078503]

>>11078498
So the physical world would be ordered but the non-physical would be disordered ? You're insane.

[Anonymous No.11078510]

>>11078502
>Open a dictionary and see for yourself how they're related.

Done. They aren’t.

> Everything has a cause

Baseless claim number one.

> this temporal universe has a cause

Baseless claim number two.

> that cause is above time

Baseless claim number three, and entering the realm of complete absurdity. Causation has no meaning as a concept independent of time.

> that cause is God.

Baseless claim number four.

[Anonymous No.11078513]

>>11078503
>So the physical world would be ordered but the non-physical would be disordered ?

Prove the “non-physical” is “ordered”.

>You're insane.

Not an argument lol

[Anonymous No.11078516]

>>11078510
>Done. They aren’t.
Maybe you just don't want to see how they're related in meaning, or you have a bad dictionary.
> Everything has a cause
>Baseless claim number one.
I can't argue with someone who genuinely thinks some things can happen for no reason. That's the opposite of a scientific mindset.

[Anonymous No.11078522]

>>11078494
I know your kind.
Feeding on empty words (justice? right? wrong?), translating patterns from the physical words to the realm of human emotions and pathos, thinking you can derive logic from what is devoid of any...
All your life is being built on Chimeres and clouds that will evaporate the very instant you'll feel like you accomplished something, anything.
And that won't change your mindset. Oh no. Because you need something tangible to hang to. Something, anything. As long as it be charged with a weight, any weight!
You don't see the truth because it's crystal clear.
Oh sweet summer child, I weep for your blindness.

[Anonymous No.11078527]

>>11078513
>Prove the “non-physical” is “ordered”.
If it weren't, you wouldn't see patterns in psychology for example.

[Anonymous No.11078534]

>>11078522
See a therapist sometime.

[Anonymous No.11078548]

>>11078516
>Maybe you just don't want to see how they're related in meaning, or you have a bad dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/balance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

Please explain how the definitions are “related”.

> I can't argue with someone who genuinely thinks some things can happen for no reason.

I never said that I thought things can happen for no reason. I said your claim that everything had a cause was baseless.
Were you merely mistaken again, or are you lying?

Prove that everything has a cause.

>That's the opposite of a scientific mindset.

Wrong. A scientific mindset would be to recognize that causality may not exist independent of the physical context of spacetime.

[Anonymous No.11078551]

>>11078470
>God has and will have the last word.
This is how Christian's justify all evil. To hide behind God while pretending they somehow know better.

>War crimes are known as crimes for a reason.
But are rarely recognized as such by the perpetrator and their allies. To civilians, all wars are crimes, only criminals can justify war.

[Anonymous No.11078552]

>>11078527
>Humans have the same kind of monkey brain so they tend to have similar minds

Wow shocker

[Anonymous No.11078555]

Arguing with atheists/agnostics is just as tiring as arguing with christians or lgbtards. Same unwillingness to accept the truth. In your case, perhaps due to you letting yourself be brainwashed by the western way of life.

[Anonymous No.11078565]

>>11078555
Arguing is tiring. That much is known.
But we're made to argue, may it be against others, or against our own condition, or that of others, that we may love, or hate, or both.
An arguing machine.

[Anonymous No.11078575]

>>11078555
You’re the one that won’t accept the truth.
This claim is just as baseless as your own analogous claim, so it’d be funny to see you take issue with it.

[Anonymous No.11078588]

>>11078199
>Stirner's resolution runs into a brickwall when up against Eastern traditions
Stirner was actually influenced by Eastern philosophy. His writing was more of a mockery of Hegelian philosophy than attempting to be a monolithic philosophy itself (because that would be rather hypocritical).

[E-nonymous !YjoloU5A1U No.11078605]

>>11078555
>Argues with Atheists/Agnostics
>Argues with Christians/LGBTG
>Brainwashed by Western Life
I assume you're a Monk living in a monastery, then?

[Anonymous No.11078607]

>>11075241
Singularitarianism is the only true religion, and God-AI is the one true goe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIno-PhSQlM

[E-nonymous !YjoloU5A1U No.11078618]

>>11078607
So if you had a really smart Gameboy, would you worship it as God?

[Anonymous No.11078631]

>>11078618
It takes one worshiper to become a god...

[Anonymous No.11078763]

>>11078618
If that gameboy is somehow intelligent on a level beyond the human scale, I don’t see why not

[Anonymous No.11079035]

>>11078548
>A scientific mindset would be to recognize that causality may not exist independent of the physical context of spacetime.

[Anonymous No.11079062]

If there was a person with an IQ of 500 (I know that's not how it works but bear with me)
they would be capable of everything that god is said to have done. If there was an entire civilization of people with average IQ of 500, that civilization could and would exercise complete and total control over our own. We would be to them as dogs are to us. Literal pets.

[Anonymous No.11079077]

>>11075241
Probably not, but maybe we can decide it numerically

[Anonymous No.11079083]

God is and has always been a metaphor for the cosmos.

[Anonymous No.11079086]

>>11079077
Or maybe we can make some simplifying assumptions to make our model linear, and then we can solve analytically

[Anonymous No.11079219]

>>11077043
Are traps gay