No.1648745
Hello comrade. Let us take a moment to agree that the immortal science of Marxism-Darwinism-Mayerism with Simping characteristics is the one true atheism and denounce the revisionist Hitchenism for the catholic revisionism it is!
No.1648748
>>1648611atheism in itself doesnt necessarily entail socialism so its better to argue for socialism on its own merit
No.1648756
>>1648611No it doesn't do much for scientific socialism but it's a funny thing to do
No.1648789
Are agnostics allowed? Im more so an agnostic animist but for sure not an actually religious person
No.1649088
>>1648611>Can btfo online reactionary religious ghouls epic style be a net positive for scientific socialism?Religious spooks arent the primary contradiction. Religoion exists because people live in shit, it is a purely superstructural form of ideology that is fully and wholly malliable and is always changed to fit the goals of the ruling classes.
Communists who are religious are mentally disabled but attacking them on it doesnt yield us anything.
No.1649093
>>1648789agnostic atheism is the truth. We shouldn't make positive supernatural claims, nor should we pretend to have negative knowledge (i.e. "know" that something "isn't"). We can only know what
is and what
is is material.
No.1649103
>>1649093The seperation of agnositcism is an american invention because people are too afraid to be ostracized for telling their family you think they are retarded for still believing in Santa. There is no difference between atheism and agnosticism. Gnostic atheists do not exist, only edgy christians who want to piss off their community by claiming to be it, while still actually believing in a higher power that they thus have to hard deny.
No.1649106
>>1649103>The seperation of agnositcism is an american inventionIt really isn't. Engels called agnosticism "shame faced materialism" in the 1800s and denounced it.
>There is no difference between atheism and agnosticism. There is a difference between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism explained in the chart. The difference is the level of cocksure certainty you have, i.e. your unwillingness to change your mind if new information is presented to you.
No.1649107
>>1649106>There is a difference between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism explained in the chart. The difference is the level of cocksure certainty you have, i.e. your unwillingness to change your mind if new information is presented to you.There exist no gnostic atheists.
No.1649108
>>1649093>100% certain there is no God or GodsWhat would "god" even be? A powerful alien wizard? Some kind of energy being? Because I'm 100% certain that some bearded faggot in the sky doesn't exist as described by Abrahamic scripture. Just any being more powerful than me that could harm me? If so, I'd worship elephants or tidal waves or the wind (which is why paganism is far more reasonable than monotheism, if you're going to make shit up you might as well make it up about the natural world)
An abstract entity that's important to my lifestyle? Egyptians gave a personality to the Nile because it furnished them with fertile agricultural land. I might as well worship a character called Electricity-chan I drew in MS Paint.
If some alien wizard revealed itself, that still doesn't explain why I should worship it or share its moral code, Abrahamites are just servile cucks who live in literal fear of a supernatural being they can't prove exists and hope to appease it through submission like animals. They think it will beat them up if they don't believe in its precepts. Sounds fucking retarded. Even were there to be a being that created the entire universe I'd only follow it if I agreed with its motivations.
No.1649163
>>1649088>Religoion exists because people live in shitNo religion exist as a tool of the ruling class. I get it people have deep emotional ties to religion. Being religious doesn't make you a bad person. But denying the religion, especially the Abrahamic ones. Hasn't been anything but cornerstone in ever tyrants tool kit to justify oppression. From from corrupt priest ruling over their tribes, to modern day mega churches sucking millions and harming children. The religious can't just decouple religion from its on going institutions of lies and greed. Pretending that churches and cults to this day exploit and hurt people. There's not even good new religions coming out. Fucking half of Hollywood worships some drunk science fiction writer sex pest. It's not healthy to dive into such extreme fantasy. Yeah there's a lot of unknowns about our reality but I can promise you that throwing salt over your shoulder isn't protecting you against supernatural forces.
No.1649179
>>1649163The religious institution are tools of the ruling classes, but they wouldn't be efficient without people's need to cope with their condition.
Condition partly brought by the shitty system the ruling class uphold.
Dialectics i guess.
No.1649341
>>1648789Yes!
This is a big tent atheist thread
No.1649382
>>1649093agnosticism is stupid because you then become gnostic about agnosticism
No.1649396
>be non-theist
>there is no evidence of deities in this world
>so, practically, there are no deities in this world
>like how there isn't a blue dragon outside your window
>theist asserts that you are worshiping the lack of their god, or having faith that they're wrong, or are somehow obsessed with this thing that you dont think exists
>just like the way you are worshiping the lack of a dragon outside your window, you know?
Almost every time.
No.1649397
>>1649382How about no. That's a silly claim.
No.1649398
>>1649367Would an anarchist community be more popular fronting as an atheist church?
No.1649401
>>1649352No contradiction: You can be certain that reality contradicts the Abrahamic description of their god, and therefore they don't exist, without asserting that there are no gods.
In fact, that's exactly what they did.
No.1649405
>>1649396This is how it is. Claims made by historically important religious groups should not be treated any more special than any other claim. The claim "God isn't real" can be argued for in exactly the same way that "Santa isn't real" can. Sure it's possible that Santa could be real and I'm just mistaken, but I have no reason to believe that Santa does exist. It's the same with fairies, reincarnation, Zeus, ghosts, or anything else of the sort. Notice that no one pulls this bullshit about not believing in the old pagan gods. Only the new ones have a special epistemic status, because people have cultural attachments to them.
No.1649504
>>1649093>muh centrismThe real answer is theological noncognitivism. "God" doesn't mean anything, every description is just an ad-hoc excuse made to justify whatever somebody wanted to do or support. "God" is merely a vague excuse for the inexcusable.
No.1649861
>>1649398Maybe?
Atheist churches like to do charity so members might be open to mutual aid programs.
No.1649892
>>1649093>he is not such a radical atheist that he believes nature itself must be limitedNGMI
>>1649396so we are going to pretend that militant atheists do not focus on certain religions far more than others. if pascal's wager reveals that the form of religion is still practice, could it not be said that the atheist's religion then the negation of christianity?
No.1649896
>>1649892>so we are going to pretend that militant atheists do not focus on certain religions far more than others.maybe because they mostly live in the west? idiot.
No.1649897
>>1649861>>1649398Sure, I think atheist churches, conceptually, would be a great entry gateway into materialist (anti-idealist) attitudes towards aid. The concept of an 'atheist church', to my naive ears, sounds like a way of saying 'we want to have a community or do activism but without religion', functionally and conceptually similar.
No.1649923
>>1649892>>1649896>maybe because they mostly live in the west? idiot.I used to work with a Saudi athiest. Dude would go on long rants about Islam. Most athiest are more opposed and knowledgeable about the religion they grew up in. That's one thing I've hated about the western left is atheist are a persecuted minority across the world. A lot of the western left wants to act as is of athiesm is exclusive to white neckbeards. I think it has a lot to do to the backlash of a post 9/11 world and tying religion particularly Islam to ethnicity. Which is extremely racist idea among the lib left that think athiesm doesn't happen for among brown people.
>>1649897I think athiest church would have the same problems as any other church. We need neutral community centers imo.
No.1649928
>>1649923>We need neutral community centers imo.I agree, but I think an atheist church is an excellent opportunity to channel people explicitly looking for that.
I'll actually cross out 'atheist' and replace it with 'secular'.
No.1649931
>>1649892>so we are going to pretend that militant atheists do not focus on certain religions far more than othersNo, I'm not pretending that in my country, militant atheists do not primarily combat Islam. Of course they must. I'm pointing out that it is arbitrary which deity it is combating, because none are any more real than the others.
If people were proselytizing, legislating and decapitating in the name of the blue dragon, we would be compelled to oppose that similarly. The only thing that makes Islam more significant is the power its worshipers hold in contemporary society.
>pascal's wagerPascal's gamble falls apart when you realise it's not a binary choice between Christianity and non-Christianity, the agnostic paradigm enables one to recognise there are other possible gods who threaten to torture you in the afterlife. And their demands contradict each others. It's not a viable strategy to satisfy only one to avoid potential punishment unless you have already disregarded the others and assumed Christianity as the one possible religion.
>[…]the atheist's religion then the negation of christianityThis is what supremacy ideology does to perspective.
The negation of Christianity is non-Christianity. Shintoism negates Christianity. The Dreaming negates Christianity. Judaism negates Christianity. Roman gods negate Christianity. Hinduism negates Christianity. Zoroastrianism negates Christianity. The list goes on, and none of those are atheist or agnostic.
at least, in typical practice - if we want to be technical, there are Christians like nontheist Quakers, and I've met self-identifying Christians in the West who don't believe a god can exist. Religion is wack, yo.An atheist, necessarily, negates all of those religions. So, if an individual atheist even has a religion (many do, many don't), then that religion or lack thereof
must necessarily negate all of those religions and hundreds more. There is nothing special about Christianity except that it is normalised where you live. An atheist negates it as much as they negate Falun Gong.
No.1649955
>>1649928Maybe, my fear, especially in America. Is that an athiest church would fall into the same trap of trying to wring as much money as they can from their congregation and use their positions of authority to exploit people. My ideal would be giant community centers were religious groups have to reserve a room for services. They can't ask for money and they have to share the space with other religions. This also makes it easier to monitor potential cults or zealots.
No.1650235
I think I might become Zoroastrian. Shit makes sense, and it's surprisingly very much in line what I have thought all my life.
No.1650253
>>1649897> we want to have a community or do activism but without religionThat really is what it is.
I also think alienated people already operating on the margins in terms of ideology in the west might be more open to something considered fringe like communism or anarchism. Atheists are still spooked by humanism but that’s still way easier to deal with than a person that believes Communism is inherently satanic. Providing an alternative community of likeminded people also takes away a valuable weapon from reactionaries. Not saying all churches are inherently reactionary, but in the west, there is a reason huge think tanks are being pumped full of money to influence the minds of people in pews. Secular institutions have their reactionaries but I’d argue the influence of capital isn’t comparable to the amount of resources poured into religious orgs.
No.1650262
>>1649955> My ideal would be giant community centers were religious groups have to reserve a room for servicesA lot of time atheists already have to rent out rooms. One advantage that religious groups in the west have is that they are not taxed which allows them to have greater access to financial capital. A lot of atheist orgs have trouble achieving tax exempt status which makes it difficult to purchase venues.
No.1650263
>>1650262Also it's a bit more difficult to get atheists to tithe I'm sure lol
No.1650958
>>1650235I’ve heard good things about zoroastrians.
No.1651398
>>1650235It is pretty based of them to admitt that evil exists, because God isn't allmighty. None of the pseudo philosophical bs abrahamic religions try to cope with. This also leads to them having a strong emphasis on actually doing good deeds, since you need to help god, instead of just waiting for him to save you.
But there aren't many communities that would let you convert and how would you even beginn to organise a proper Zoroastrian burial outside of Iran or India?
No.1651409
>>1651398>But there aren't many communities that would let you convert I'm coming from no religion, so it isn't a conversion, more of an adoption.
>and how would you even beginn to organise a proper Zoroastrian burial outside of Iran or India?Who cares? I'll be dead. Zoroastrians serve up the dead to vultures because burial is.impractical where they are, plus there's the whole circle of life thing. Ever since I was a child, I wanted to be buried naked, in a forest or under some trees, so the worms and the insects and the fungi could all eat my dead flesh. Eventually it will go to the birds.
Does one necessarily have to be eaten by birds in the Zoroastrian tradition?
No.1651440
>>1651409>Eventually it will go to the birdsfair point
IIRC Zoroastrians do it because feeding an animal with your body is the last good deed anyone can do. Cremation is also a huge taboo because they view fire as the holiest of all elements and it should not be polluted with death.
No.1651454
>>1651440>IIRC Zoroastrians do it because feeding an animal with your body is the last good deed anyone can doMakes sense. So my idea of a forest where we just dump naked, untreated bodies into the ground is in line with Zotoastrianism.
>Cremation is also a huge taboo I fucking hate cremation, and never want to be cremated. You're ruining perfectly good food and polluting the atmosphere.
Looks like I've been Zoroastrian my whole life and didn't even know it.
No.1655463
>>1650262>tax exemptionDon't look up US anarchist communes (FEC)
No.1660885
>>1655463I’m guessing the same applies?
No.1660947
i am only going to write this to elaborate on the idle thought i had at the time. i dont really care anymore
>>1649896>>1649923none of this detracts from what i said. in actual practice, militant atheism is not some transcendent perspective but a negation of the actual religious conditions of a time. different atheists live in different conditions, and so the content of their militancy is different. if we are speaking practically, you are obsessed with abrahamic religion. it is the main content of your criticism. you take that then generalize to all ideas of deities, in the process rendering all other religions and spiritualities ultimately an afterthought. then in retrospect you act as though it was about all spirituality in general, and you are simply above all of it. maybe in form you are, but even then rarely absolutely. i think adrian johnston is one of the few true militant atheists. someone who wants to excise all thinking of divinity even latent traces of it in our understandings of the world itself. it is a much more general project than just focusing on christianity and talking about how bad it is all day
>>1649931>Pascal's gamble falls apart […]you do not understand my meaning. the truth of pascal's wager lies in the practical solution which pascal suggests viz. one should at least engage in the religious practices of christianity. in the course of this, we see the understanding of religion converted from mere faith to that of an ideology-producing set of practices. i think this was something realized by althusser
No.1660950
>>1660947>one should at least engage in the religious practices of christianity*one should at least engage in the religious practices of christianity (even if one does not necessarily believe)
No.1660995
>>1660947> not some transcendent perspective but a negation of the actual religious conditions of a timeNta, but negation can be a transcendental tbh, especially when you’ve lived under religiosity for so long. The religious like to think they own the transcendental but it’s a freewheeling beast. Even within religion you have the apophatic method that uses negation.
No.1661293
Thoughts on Zizeks Atheist Chtistianity?
No.1661941
>>1651454>I fucking hate cremation, and never want to be cremated. I'm going to insist on burial because I believe it gives me a minuscule fraction of a chance of being reanimated with sufficiently advanced tech, whereas cremation seems like a closed door on that possibility.
No.1662129
>>1661941how will you be reasonably revived if you're just bones brah
No.1662134
>>1662129just don't put "Rest in Peace" on their tombstone, done.
No.1662265
>>1661293>Thoughts on Zizek .. ?none
No.1662725
>>1649410yes, a reasonable claim for something that we cannot truly prove either way
No.1662741
I am somewhat curious as to leftypol's thoughts on Spinoza and pantheism
No.1664078
>>1662741Depends.
I think there are versions of pantheism compatible with atheism, but I also don’t really see the point.
No.1664081
>>1664078Answering the problem of consciousness without reference to some separate Other deity, creation, and rationality of universal laws.
No.1664144
>>1664081Didn’t Spinoza relate it to the complexity of the body?
No.1664945
>>1661293Retarded like everything else his fat mouth spits out.
You can't be a communist and be religious.
No.1664958
>>1661293He is just describing historical materialism and the transition of christianity to atheism by the humanist tradition
The point is that the death of god is already present in christianity's inception
No.1664970
>>1664081We see in animals an empirical consciousness the same as us
In fact, in some videos we clearly see self-awareness via the mirror test
Birds are particularly successful - and spookily enough these are animals most likely to mourn others and hold ceremonies, same as elephants.
I think if we are realistic, evolution treats all creatures equally to circumstances, and so we are not "more" evolved than others
Tom wolffe in his polemical book "kingdom of speech" makes the correct point that human exceptionalism cones directly from our symbolic communication - and so we are carried by language rather than the other way round
I would say that human intelligence is purely due to symbolic relations, which is the principle difference between us and other animals.
Other animals are not fit for speech, so this is their weakness.
Actually there is one. Birds can speak, and they are probably the most intelligent animal besides us.
Speech and the apposable thumb got us this far.
No.1664971
>>1664970Something else to know, the human species has not evolved in over 100k years
So we are the same as them, but we can communicate better
The brain and body is just a platform for the semiotic symbiote. Spooky stuff.
No.1668792
>>1668786What the fuck is this shit
No.1668825
>>1660947>if we are speaking practically, you are obsessed with abrahamic religionThat's as stupid as me claiming you're obsessed with militant atheists, or with pony cum-jars.
>>1660950>*one should at least engage in the religious practices of christianity (even if one does not necessarily believe)That's how you get sent to hell. Taking the lord in vain, you know?
No.1668846
>>1648611I do think we have to be serious about the reactionary power of religion.
However, being atheist isn't enough.
For example r/atheism (I know, I know) is absolutely libbed up if not fascist-leaning when it comes to anything involving a Muslim country. You get permabanned for supporting Palestine over Israel there, even though Israel is run by religious fundamentalists and its very existence is based on religious grounds.
Without historical materialism and anti-imperialism, atheism can also become reactionary. Because you have no understanding of cause and effect, you start to think members of X religion are just naturally stupid and (worst case) are less-than-human.
Just look at how awful the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" were when it came to the war in Afghanistan/Iraq. Hitchens became Dick Cheney tier.
No.1668854
>>1664081There is no problem of consciousness. Or at least there hasn't been for the past century or so.
Consciousness is very clearly derived from the brain.
If your brain is damaged, your consciousness is damaged.
There is no need for a soul in that equation, if anything it makes it needlessly convoluted. Where is the soul involved when it comes to dementia? Or a lobotomy? Even something as simple as mood changes from hunger, lack of sleep, sexual arousal, etc show the total redundancy of the "soul" concept.
Yes people can't handle that their consciousness will eventually disappear. It seems unfathomable, even to me. But that doesn't mean it's eternal - that is the ultimate cope.
No.1669091
>>1661941Once your brain loses electrical activity that's kind of it for any sense of "you" that's relevant to your consciousness that's experiencing this life. If anything, I wouldn't trust any entity that would want to reanimate me or create copies using my brain as a template.
Best thing is to obliterate your brain with high-temperature cremation or a 12-gauge shotgun blast so the demonic AI overlords don't create a million copies of you and perform cock and ball torture on them for transgressing against their will. (this is what giganerd Eliezer Yudkowky actually believes will happen)
No.1669490
>>1668792Idek but it was too bizarre not to share.
No.1672281
>>1669091> If anything, I wouldn't trust any entity that would want to reanimate me or create copies using my brain as a template.Kind of brings up the question of if it’s even you afterwards.
No.1672308
>>1668854> Yes people can't handle that their consciousness will eventually disappear. It seems unfathomable, even to meWhat I kind of hate about religion is that it exploits peoples fears of death. But I’ve always felt like the absence of consciousness can’t be much worse than how it was before I was born. That might be why I’m a little more immune.
No.1685616
>>1684802Because deep down they know it has to die but want to play nice. They’ll make excuses like “the spiritual kernel will still exist!” but we all know that religion as we know it today is a damaged ship waiting to be scuttled once a new vessel can be found to help form deep communal bonds.
No.1694163
>>1648611Antitheism is the only logical conclusion to atheism.
God only exists from the perspective of hauntology - as a concept that acts as a spectre to keep people docile.Opposition to it and to mysticism is liberatory.
No.1694206
>>1649896Actually the vast majority of the world's atheists, militant or otherwise, live in Southeast Asia, and it's been that way for thousands of years. To say that atheism is primarily a western phenomenon is to be extremely eurocentric.
No.1694208
>>1661293>>1661296>>1661683>"to be a christian, you must be an atheist">"to believe in materialism, you must believe that only ideas exist">"the most despotic totalitarianism is when people are free to do what they want">"to be truly happy, you must be miserable">"only people who support capitalism are the true communists"Zizek is a smart guy, but he loses a lot of his mystique when you realize 99% of his whole schtick is just taking a banal statement and asserting that the opposite is true.
No.1696758
>>1668846>For example r/atheism (I know, I know) is absolutely libbed up if not fascist-leaning when it comes to anything involving a Muslim country. You get permabanned for supporting Palestine over Israel there, even though Israel is run by religious fundamentalists and its very existence is based on religious grounds. Without historical materialism and anti-imperialism, atheism can also become reactionary.Sorta. I agree about r/atheism but Israel is more complicated because pretty much all of Israel's founders were secular and made secular arguments in the main for it. It's true today that right-wing religious Zionism is the core of the Israeli right, but what I think happened is that what were essentially secular concepts became re-theologized later, which also happened in different countries around the same time. You can maybe look at the Iranian Revolution that way.
The way these secular Zionists thought, the Bible was their national story, but the religious part basically wasn't relevant. What they said is that the Bible was a mythological telling of the ancient Judeans, whom they're descended from, "and this is where we started and so our nation goes back to here, which is our homeland." And they'd go around comparing what they found in archeological sites to what was in the text to see if it matched up. But they didn't necessarily believe this was religious at least in the way that religious Zionists do about "let's build a Third Temple" and so on where you make anime real.
It was a lot like other national movements. Nationalism dates to the French Revolution and national communities needed myths to describe who they were and where they came from, and found them by reworking their histories or buying a used myth off the shelf. And that's what Israel did.
No.1696852
>>1696758The thing is that religion can still be religion even without supernatural claims. A significant portion of the biblical "national story" is clearly fictional even ignoring the acts of God. It's not simply the belief in the supernatural that makes religion irrational and reactionary, but the tribalism, delusions, and belief in a collective superiority/exclusivity. Religion is not the only source of those beliefs by any means but it's one of the most common. Nationalism being the other as you said, and they often go hand-in-hand.
They might have called themselves secular but I wouldn't.
We also can't forget that a significant portion of Israel's international support comes from Christian Zionists who are a literal death cult. They believe the existence of Israel will bring about the rapture. Find a plot summary of the Left Behind series, that's what they legitimately believe.
No.1698155
>>1696749Weirdly OK with this
No.1709303
>>1696758> but what I think happened is that what were essentially secular concepts became re-theologized later, which also happened in different countries around the same timeI think nationalism if it’s seeped in idealism almost always descends into magical thinking clownery. You can kind of see the same thing happen with Nazis. Yes, they would give their pseudo scientific and historical justifications but that all quickly became window dressing.
No.1709339
Is agnostic atheism cowardice or just the correct perspective?
No.1709385
>>1709339I think it's correct but other people think it privileges positivism too much and relies too heavily on the distinction between "knowing" and "believing." I see people drop the Engels quote about agnostics being inconsistent materialist but back when Engels wrote that he was referring specifically to agnosticism over whether mind or matter is fundamental to reality, the question of materialism, not the question of God.
No.1709852
>>1709339Idk about “correct”, but it seems like the most honest position.
No.1709869
>>1709385> think it privileges positivism too muchWhy?
You can come to the same conclusion without being a positivist.
No.1710247
>>1709923It sounds like an intuitive impulse rather than anything concretely thought out. There is something that feels very monkey paw about having that wish granted.
No.1713003
>>1694208he's doing umm umm umm DIALECTICS
No.1716719
>>1716679
>Why cant people just say they are afraid of death so need to believe in fairy tales?
Because admitting this amounts to giving up religion. The second you can admit this to yourself is the second you are no longer convinced of religion. And when it comes to someone like Stephen Meyer, it is not in his economic interests to admit this. He makes a great deal off of his grift, even if he is secretly a nonbeliever (as I suspect many religious leaders are)
No.1716743
>>1648611Atheism is based but doesn’t say anything about politics. There are communist atheists, far-right atheists, and everything in between.
No.1716745
>>1694208"but vhat if ze opposhite ish true?" is basically his catchphrase lol
>>1713003Uh yeah that's what it is. He's doing Hegelian/Lacanian autism.
No.1716746
>>1716743Good work, tankanon. Atheism is the low hanging fruit of liberalism
No.1716751
>>1716745he isnt doing dialectics. it is called reductio
No.1717704
>>1648611Honestly, the worst thing for atheism are "casual" theists who think any critique of religion and its harms to the world is targeting them. Fucking hate Sunday Christians or Mosque Muslims pretending religion is this big important thing we must protect at all cost, meanwhile clerks are raping kids and stealing money 24/7.
No.1717706
The majority of people in the world are religious. You're only hurting recruitment by trying to "btfo" religious people. it is alright as long as you are doing it to reactionaries in particular but not religious people in general. it is praxis to spread our beliefs to even the religious people
No.1717712
>>1717706I only plan on using my powers on reactoids and people who disrespect me.
No.1717720
>>1717706>it is alright as long as you are doing it to reactionaries in particular but not religious people in generalYou say that, but the biggest reactionaries are clerics who, naturally, spread propaganda to their general-population congregation.
No.1717805
>>1672281That's my problem with transhumatards who believe you can "upload" your counsciousness in a robot or transfer it to another being. If it ever was possible, it would be a matter of copying and pasting more than anything.
These people often are atheist, but they still have this idea that body and mind are seperate, that your being/spirit/consciousness (in other words, your self) is seperate from your physical form. No, the two cannot be seperated, you are your body, you are an expression of your flesh, and you cannot be seperated from your flesh. A copy of your self isn't yourself.
No.1719300
>>1712970Yeah that's a good refutation.
I was thinking about Pascal wager some time ago and I was considering that couldn't it be equally likely for the wager working in reverse? That by believing in the one true diety, you would end up being subject to their eternal wrath because you wrongly assumed they were benevolent. Is that logical or is it a silly proposal?
No.1719301
>>1717706Religion is inherently reactionary.
No.1719461
>>1716743I would disagree
Atheism introduces us into modern politics like fascism and communism that see redemption in the secular
No.1719463
>>1717706>we need to spread our godless beliefs in materialism to religious peopleI agree. Issue is, one cancels out the other.
No.1719465
>>1719300No
Pascals wager is perfectly rational, but only if you presume hell is waiting for unbelievers. Its an easy choice, but it requires that suspension of judgement.
No.1719468
>>1716719I do think meyer and others are "believers", but its a "rational" belief for them - they fancy themselves philosophers rather than blindly faithful sheep. Its a clerical elitism. Ofc the pastor just replaces the priest for protestants, where in both, the speaker only has illumination to the sacred texts.
There are counter-tendencies too ofc like the quakers and their loathesome children, like the universalists.
No.1719475
>>1719300The concept of hell doesn't require you to believe in it. You wouldn't stand to lose anything by taking Pascal's wager in that sense. That's supposed to be the appeal of it, that there's nothing to lose and everything to gain. What's kind of funny/baffling about the whole argument is that it doesn't occur to anybody that it's all obviously made up, and clearly designed in a way to motivate you to become Christian. The hell narrative is basically a "hack" of our intuition for calculating risk and reward. We have a natural bias to avoid doing things that carry a very detrimental risk, no matter how unlikely that risk may be. It's the same reason people are deathly afraid of flying or things like that. Pascal is just explaining the obvious in an attempt to refute doubters while also not getting how the obviousness makes it clear how fake it is.
No.1719846
>>1649108Abrahamists don't describe their god as a bearded man in the sky tho
They claim he is infinite in all his attributes and is beyond knowable, not dissimilar from neoplatonism
No.1719851
>commies be like: religion is just superstitious nonsense
>also commies: why yes I do believe world revolution will bring about communism and eternal prosperity on earth
No.1719874
>>1719851Astrologically, marxism comes at the end of the age of pisces (the age of Christ) and enters us into the age of aquarius (the age of Man) which in its first milennium is ruled over by uranus, which is the 1000 years of prosperity, or the "new milennium" of christian prophecy. Hitler tried to invoke this by declaring the schema for his "thousand year reich", which failed because the age of aquarius begins in the year 2160 (the year world communism will be established). Marxism is just the secular fulfilment of christianity which by its completion will be its dissolution - thats the dialectic.
Capital is the great beast which empowers the anti-christ (america) who are establishing the third temple in israel. This will be the battle ground of armageddon and afterwards we will have salvation.
No.1719898
>>1719846Biblically he is literally an old man in the sky
Its only due to neoplatonic (catholic) theology that the scripture is replaced with a rational substitute which obviously fails since plato's "one" or aristotle's prime-mover is NOT the same personal entity found in the bible
No.1719955
>>1719898That's definitely not what I was taught during my Quranic classes. I can quote verses that straight up say god is beyond human knowledge.
I've never read the Bible but most Jews I've met certainly don't believe in the old man in the sky meme except for a tiny literalist minority
No.1719961
>>1719898Then your argument makes no fucking sense since mainstream religion doesn't describe him as such
No.1719963
>>1719955I once met some salamis who quoted the Quran, they told me they believed that alla had a body, arms, hands etc… but they were beyond human comprehension, but he definitely had body parts.
No.1719968
>>1719963>salafistsAgain. They're a miniscule group of religious revivalists who uphold a literalist interpretation of the Quran. They're like the Amish of Muslims
This isn't the dominant line of thought. Even amongst islamists like said qutb held pantheistic views about god.
No.1719971
>>1719961Theologists twist the bible is my basic point. Im not being theological, just basically hermeneutical.
>>1719955If god is "beyond" comprehension then all theology is false
No.1720035
>>1719971God itself is beyond human knowledge. Not his message
No.1720300
Crass self-satisfied atheism is of little value to the revolutionary cause as blind dogmatism. The wellsprings of religious sentiment ought to be understood and incorporated into the praxis. It's probably the only hope of reinvigorating leftist revolutionism tbqh fam
No.1720312
>>1719898>Biblically he is literally an old man in the skywhat part of the bible is this?
No.1720354
>>1720300<In an effort to build a social marketing of propaganda for the masses, it promotes generalizations sanctifying the “oppressed people” and “workers” who, obviously, for them are “not accountable” for their responsibilities and silences, uses covertly socially palatable national references, such as “the Greek people”, “our country” and promises “social salvation” with the coming of post-revolutionary society, preaching in the assemblies of the need for centralized structures…Funny how on-point anarcho-individualists always end up being when it comes to socialists. All you do is compromizing. Always. Compromizing 24/7.
No.1720921
>>1720300> The wellsprings of religious sentiment ought to be understood and incorporated into the praxis.Pseud babble.
No.1720930
>>1720035god is always beyond comprehension except when people comprehend he exists for some reason.
No.1720937
>>1719851Communism is the secular inversion of Christianity. Christianity is concerned with the wages of sin. Communism is concerned with the sin of wages.
I don't actually think this; I just thought it sounded cool No.1720943
>>1719846YHWH started off as a storm/war God with a consort named Asherah and part of the Canaanite pantheon. The Israelites had him as their
national God. Then they put him at the head of the Canaanite pantheon and Yahwism (proto-Judaism) was born. Yahwism became increasingly henotheistic, demoting the other members of the Pantheon to roles lesser than gods. They became angels and demons, concepts borrowed from Zoroastrianism. The Platonic aspects of God were borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy which they encountered under the Hasmonean dynasty. By the end of the Babylonian captivity they had become monotheistic, but old testament scripture still contains traces of the polytheistic Yahwism. During the 2nd temple period there was 5 main sects of Judaism: Pharisees, Sauducees, Essenes, Zealots, and Early Christians. Early Christians took inspiration from both Gentile philosophy as well as Jewish philosophy. Only the Pharisees and Early Christians survived the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 CE. Sadducees and Essenes went extinct. Descendants of Pharisees founded Rabbinic Judaism while early Christians became less and less Jewish and more and more Neoplatonic in their theology, while still retaining their Israelite history and culture through the old testament.
No.1720944
>>1720035Remove the message part and you have Spinoza's god that most modern scientists subscribe to
No.1720949
>>1720944>most modern scientists subscribe to Spinozan PantheismProof?
No.1721242
>>1649093Bro… agnosticism is retarded. You are a future atheist, even if you don't know it yet. I know well the "phase" you are currently in and believe me, in 2 or 3 years you will be an atheist. The majority of agnostics are future atheists. One day you will definitely understand that god is totally imaginary, that he never existed and that his existence is even impossible.
No.1721245
>>1720312<Ezekiel 1:26-27>And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around.So God on his throne has the likeness of a man.
He is a man in the sky.
No.1721246
>>1720035>God itself is beyond human knowledge. Not his messageRetarded contradiction. And if he himself not "understandable" then he cannot be perfect (this is normal because perfection is impossible) so he cannot be god because god is supposed to be perfect. God doesn't exist, your sky-daddy doesn't exist. In fact it's even worse: your sky-daddy CAN'T exist.
And the so-called "messages" are just retarded lies invented by humans to control populations, end.
>>1720944>Spinoza's god that most modern scientists subscribe toOnly in your schizo imagination, not in reality. In reality the vast majority of scientists are atheists.
No.1721248
>>1721246>In reality the vast majority of scientists are atheists.Exactly. The myth of the religious scientist is hilarious. Its only usually biologists if there are any, but never physicists and never theoretical physicists, because reality is bigger than desert fairy tales.
No.1721255
>>1721242The very second you question religion is the moment you leave it. Thats why they used to burn heretics at the stake.
No.1721286
>>1648611Robespierre was right about religion, it is the cult of the supreme being that is right and true
No.1721300
>>1721286https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuhemerismRobespierre and the Lumières were right but they couldn't say it because of the Clergy: all religions are euhemerismistic. Christians and Muslim divinized Jesus and Muhammad, because the human mind can only imagine supreme beings as humans. Religious persons are polytheists in denial.
No.1721310
>>1721300The Lumières could not, but Robespierre absolutly was able to, he actively cracked down on the clergy that tried to overthrow him, it's why his cult of the supreme being is the conclusion of the ideals of the Lumière, Reason, Brotherhood, Liberty, are all concepts but so is Jesus and Muhammad, even if they were real people, we should simply replace these cults by the cults of virtueous elements like the Revolution.
No.1721321
>>1721246Perfection is a human concept tho. I never claimed god to be hold any human attribute. And I don't see where the contradiction lies.
Also you sound like a neckbeard
No.1721324
>>1721248What is newton? Liebniz? Euler?
Also can you stop with this reddit meme.
Le ebin science vs religion is midwit tier argumentation
No.1721326
>>1721246Why is there something rather than nothing?
No.1721364
>>1721326>existence implies there is a godNta but you don’t have any answers either
No.1721368
>>1721324I think it’s obvious that anon was talking about contemporary scientists. You have to go back more than 200 years to find a bunch that agree with you.
No.1721369
>>1721364God is the necessary being
No.1721372
>>1721369There is no reason to suppose anything is necessary whatsoever. Clearly you hit a wall either way.
No.1721373
>>1721369Yeah, that’s not a real answer.
It’s like a big place holder for the gaps in your knowledge.
No.1721375
God is a faggot
No.1721378
>>1721372>>1721373I'll copy paste my logic here from wikipedia:
Every contingent fact has an explanation.
There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
This explanation must involve a necessary being.
This necessary being is God
Simple as
No.1721379
>>1721375Sounds like you have daddy issues
No.1721381
>>1721372If everything is deterministic like most materialist believe then you are a contingent being. If you go back enough there has to be a necessary being. The only one that makes sense would be a god
No.1721384
>>1721381>if it explains everything, it is godI suppose if you wanna play word games.
It's just turning the logic of "there is a natural explanation for everything" (we are now at the point where this is common sense) on its head. It doesn't make it more likely.
No.1721386
>>1721368Georges Lemaitre then
No.1721389
>>1721378> copy and paste from wikipedialel but seriously, this is as an old af Aquinas argument. The most glaring obvious problem is that it assumes the explanation must have the attributes of a “being” that is “God”, never mind which one.
No.1721390
>>1721384god is the best answer to why there is something rather than nothing. You can cope all you want but most atheists hate the god argument for ideological reasons and deep resentment against religion. I'm indifferent to all of that. God or the monad or the unmoved mover is just logical to me
No.1721392
>>1721390Good for you. I can assure you I have no resentment against whatever metaphysics (which one). It's obvious they are not grounded in anything.
No.1721393
>>1721386I said a bunch, not one. I admit if you go back over 200 years ago you can find many Christian Scientists. They become more sparse as we move closer to the present.
No.1721394
>>1721057this is the greatest image I've ever seen. thank you
No.1721400
>>1721393Because less and less people are religious in the present
No.1721413
>>1721390>god is the best answer to why there is something rather than nothingNo it isnt.
The world is utterly determined by randomness and so is the cosmos. Reality is a freak accident.
Also, what created God?
<he's uncreatedSo is the cosmos
No.1721416
>>1721381Aristotle calls this the prime mover
But it is not a "god" in any meaningful sense, it just starts the chain of causality
No.1721417
>>1721400Be that as it may, you would expect that in one of the most religious first world countries like the U.S. that Scientists would reflect the demographics but they are generally still less likely to believe in God than the general public.
No.1721440
>>1721413The cosmos was initiated by the big bang tho so how can it be uncreated??
No.1721444
>>1721440Because what caused the big bang had a cause and so on ad infinitum.
No.1721445
>>1721393Because the dominant ideology in university environments is progressivism which is a secural rationalist one. It was the case a century ago.
Progressive liberalism is unironically just as spooked as religious ideology even more so since even religious people say it's just a belief while progressives believe capitalism is truly the way forward based on rationality
No.1721446
>>1721444You just explained the cosmological argument that I just posted…
No.1721447
>>1721446No, your point is that there is a "beginning" when i dont think there is one. Thats why i ask "what created god?" And what created the thing thst created god and so on.
Its turtles all the way down.
No.1721452
>>1721447But god is infinity itself according to abrahamism. You're just proving their point
No.1721455
>>1721452This is way more vedantic
No.1721456
>>1721452So god is the universe? God is everything?
No.1721462
>>1721445>Because the dominant ideology in university environments is progressivism which is a secural rationalist one.Kind of irrelevant to the point I was making, but sure. Liberalism is almost omnipresent regardless of religiosity in the states however.
> just as spooked as religious ideology even more so since even religious people say it's just a belief while progressives believe capitalism is truly the way forward based on rationalitySubjective.
Religious ideology can be cordoned off from any argumentation since it's about what god deems as moral and that is that.
No.1721465
>>1721456>>1721455Yes. This is what most esoteric sects within most religious groups have concluded. kabala sufism etc…
No.1721468
>>1721440>>1721413>uncreativeThis implies creative intent behind the bang.
No.1721470
>>1721465How is this different than anthropomorphizing the universe? It's like regressing to animism.
No.1721471
>>1721465That is a vulgar interpretation
God in every sect is a personal spirit
"Holy" means "set apart" like plato's "form of forms" described in parmenides. It is the no-thing which grounds all being and reached through the rational soul.
God in no religion is "the universe". Even spinoza understood his "substance" as more than just atoms and forces.
No.1721473
>>1721468It implies *causality*; a "cause", not intent.
No.1721476
>>1721473"Uncreated" implies something was previously created. Idk, maybe you meant a different word synonymous with causality.
No.1721481
>>1721465Practically the abrahamists say something way different. I don't think there is any deluding people on that.
But in that case the Vedas already had this figured out in 1500 BC.
>Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?>Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?>Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.>Who then knows whence it has arisen?
>Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;>Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;>The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing>He indeed knows, if not, no one knows No.1721484
>>1721476Uncreated simply means something was not created as opposed to being created
No.1721485
>>1721481Lao Tzu also says the tao (the way) is older than god
No.1721493
>>1721471Pantheism has appeared in every religious movement tho.
No.1721495
>>1721246>In reality the vast majority of scientists are atheists.Proof?
not the same anon and I believe neither the claim that most scientists are atheists nor the claim that most scientists are Spinozan pantheists. I suspect most scientists might be irreligious, but I have no evidence for that and would appreciate evidence No.1721500
>>1721452>But god is infinity itself according to abrahamismThis is not true. Also "Abrahamism" is not a religion but a collection of religions with shared origins, that happen to have many sects and a vast varied interpretations of the nature of God. "Abrahamic" is a contentious category in secular religious studies, not a religion in and of itself.
No.1721502
>>1721416Not the same anon. You're right that Aristotle's prime mover argument was not made in relation to a monotheistic God nor even Yahweh The God of Abraham specifically, but there is a long established history of Islamic and Christian theologians using Aristotle's prime mover argument that began in the early medieval period, first with the Muslims, and then later with the Christians.
No.1721504
>>1721493Largely as heresies. Its only today when you cant get burned at the stake where you have the space to question dogma or have original ideas.
But on pantheism specifically, what relevance does it hold to anyone? I never understod its alure besides a shallow sophism of "oneness" or whatever. Its contrived.
But all pantheists are one step away from atheism anyway.
No.1721505
>>1721417> they are generally still less likely to believe in God than the general public.This is a much more convincing argument and how it should always be presented.
No.1721508
>>1721505Why do you think those who study reality most closely are least likely to believe in god?
No.1721509
>>1721504That other anon is wrong. There is no evidence that "Pantheism has appeared in every religious movement." You should be attacking that statement head on rather than conceding that the statement is true "largely as heresies." No. Not even as heresies. Most religious movements do not have a pantheistic strain. Pantheism does appear in many places but to say that it appears in "every" religious movement is an enormous overstatement.
No.1721512
>>1721504Maybe pantheism is a misnomer. I meant panentheism. Which is the idea that the universe is included within god
No.1721514
>>1721508I'm not arguing with you from a religious standpoint, as I'm not religious. I'm suggesting that you shouldn't overstate your case and instead you should present the most correct version of what you're trying to say from the get-go. In this case the best way to point out the secular trend in science is to say, from the very beginning, "they are generally still less likely to believe in God than the general public."
No.1721516
>>1721509It kind of did tho
Muslims have come up with the unity of existence thanks to ibn arabi
There's also Maimonides with Jews
And christians have Jakob Boehme which is the one that I can think of at the top of my head
No.1721519
>>1721512Again these are just intellectual contrivances. Concepts. Distractions.
No.1721520
>>1721512Most religions do not have a panentheistic strain either. You are overstating your case. Most religions are monotheistic or polytheistic. There are plenty of pantheistic and panentheistic religious movements but to claim them as omnipresent within religion in general is an overstatement of the highest degree.
No.1721521
>>1721509It says in the new testament that "all is one in christ". Pantheism by whatever name is not a new idea.
No.1721522
>>1721516Categorizing those examples as pantheism is a leap, I think. There is certainly a family resemblance in theology, but it's not the true article. The existing dogma of the established religion these strains appear in contradict classifying it as pantheism.
No.1721524
>>1721520I claimed it was overrepresented amongst esoteric movements within religion. Because they tend to spend more time thinking about the nature of god and a good chunk of them have studied theological strains since the Hellenistic age.
No.1721525
>>1721521I'm an Atheist but I have a soft spot for Pantheism, and I like to see it in history, but simply saying "all is one in Christ" is not the same as Pantheism. Because in Christian theology when they say "all is one in Christ" they mean all are saved through christ. The unity is in the salvation, not the literal Godhood itself extending to the entire universe in the pantheistic sense of the word. This is a stretch of the imagination. You are looking for a pantheistic theology when there is only a faint resemblance.
No.1721529
>>1721524>I claimed it was overrepresented amongst esoteric movements within religion.this is much different than saying
>>1721493>Pantheism has appeared in every religious movement tho.which is what I was originally disagreeing with at the top of the conversation. not sure if you're the same anon who said that.
No.1721530
>>1721529You're right my bad
But in any case, why can't a panentheistic god exist under your definition?
No.1721533
>>1721525Why have a soft spot for pantheism?
Oneness is an illusion of reason. We say that this is our body, but our body is made up of different systems. Nervous systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems and so on. There are brain cells on our heart and in our stomach. Our body grows like all flesh, like cancer, seeking replication of its DNA. Difference is so alarming that we actually share 50% DNA with bananas. On a quantitative basis we are half-related. Bananas are half-human - yet they are not. You see how science in this way comes into conflict with reason and so on.
I prefer to see reality as fractured in this way. But maybe its just an aesthetic judgement.
No.1721558
>>1721530>But in any case, why can't a panentheistic god exist under your definition?I would say that I have no evidence for it existing, not that it "can't" exist. I wouldn't rule it out as an impossibility, I would simply say that I've never encountered evidence for one that convinces me.
>Why have a soft spot for pantheism?I see it a more secular theism, the same way I see deism.
No.1721795
how did a cat get in here?
No.1722248
>>1721558We don't have tangible evidence
But from a metaphysics perspective it makes no sense for something to exist rather than nothing unless there is a necessary cause.
Science physics whatever simply can't answer it either. You can disbelieve in religion i think it's perfectly normal but it's insane to believe that atheism is more rational than belief in a higher being
No.1722273
>>1721369>>1721369Existence can't come from a "prime mover" because causality breaks down at the scale of a singularity.
See, time isn't a force separate from the universe, but a property of it. If you change the shape of space, you change the flow of time - this is proven by special relativity. So if you reduce space to a single point, time will not work. That means no cause and effect, so no prime mover.
So how do we get something from nothing? Well, in practice the two are more or less the same thing; "something" is just an excited state of "nothing," rather than a presence and an absence. I imagine existence is an emergent property of nothing, much like how entropy is an emergent property of the universe in its current state.
TL;DR - The universe is weird and probably handling its own shit
No.1722327
>>1722273Unfortunately none of this is proven. We don't know what preceded the big bang anyway
No.1722329
>>1722273>So how do we get something from nothing? Well, in practice the two are more or less the same thing; "something" is just an excited state of "nothing," rather than a presence and an absence.You're misinterpreting vacuum with actual nothing.
Empty space in the context of our universe isn't really nothing that's true and there's phenomena like quantum fluctuations that might produce particles. But that's not the same thing as the metaphysical notion of nothingness
No.1722572
>>1722248Even if you fall on the side of “something”, you jump to the conclusion that it must be god. Makes no sense at all rationally.
No.1722690
>>1722327>Unfortunately none of this is provenGeneral and special relativity say otherwise. Unless quantum gravity throws those theories out the window, it's safe to assume that the universe was a singularity at its earliest stage, and that the singularity should (or rather, shouldn't) have behaved in certain ways.
>>>1722329>You're misinterpreting vacuum with actual nothingI understand what metaphysical nothingness means, but I'm saying that it doesn't really have a practical application for describing the universe. There's no reason to believe the universe didn't exist at some point if it's older than causality, which the singularity suggests.
No.1722788
>>1722690Ok well let me rephrase that, why did the singularity come into being ?
No.1722810
>>1722572Spinoza and Einstein believed god is the sum of all physical laws.
If that is the case then he must also be sentient since sentience is a physical phenomenon.
We are his manifestation or his creation worship itself in some weird way. Hard to explain but panentheism is weird concept as weird as visualizing infinity
No.1722814
>>1722800
man, he's so right, there's only a single o of difference.
No.1722815
>>1722812But that's not what theoretical physicists even believe. Most subscribe to a variation of m-theory and believe there is some multiverse withing some quantum foam. Hawking's and michio kaku if I recall correctly
No.1722816
>>1722815And that universes are popping in existence randomly
No.1722831
>>1722815M-theory is a variation of string theory, which itself is incomplete and very, very hard to falsify. I'm not opposed to a multiverse, mind you, but until string theory can be fleshed out and put under serious testing I'm going to operate on the assumption that ours is the only universe.
We also probably shouldn't call whatever the universe sits in (if it "sits" in anything to begin with) "quantum foam" since that's a term already used to describe a property of the universe (a.k.a. empty vacuums producing virtual particles).
No.1722890
>>1722810> If that is the case then he must also be sentientNot seeing how one follows the other
No.1722891
>>1722810>>1722890Also going to need a quote on Einstein saying that
No.1722893
>>1722800
Wtf is this benzos addict even trying to say? He’s just rambling now.
No.1723069
>>1722891It was Carl Sagan who said that
>Some people think God is a light-skinned male with a long beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others, for example Einstein, considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. No.1723077
>>1723046That guy is his in Rick and Morty phase. I went through something similar and Hellenistic philosophy and christian mysticism got me back.
I still can reason myself into believing in an afterlife. I just trust NDE accounts
No.1723083
>>1722831>I'm going to operate on the assumption that ours is the only universe.So you operate on that based on, dare I say it, a leap of faith ?
No.1723090
>>1723077What philosophy "got you back"? And to where?
The greeks werent christians so i hope its not "back" in the pews.
No.1723092
>>1723083Its a bigger leap of faith to assume a multiverse
No.1723096
>>1723090To believing in god.
Mainly plotinus, Spinoza and Jakob Boehme and some Sufi mystics like ibn arabi
No.1723097
>>1723096What does believing in god mean practically?
Do you pray? Do you spread his gospel?
No.1723099
>>1723092Yes but either way I prefer to follow the ideology that is based and trad rather than the one telling me that grooming children into becoming eunuchs is good and that women being sluts is feminism kek
No.1723102
>>1723097It means praying but not out of the hope of self actualization but to induce ego death.
When it comes to the social aspects it involves community work and preaching against the evil of materialist philosophy like liberalism or communism
No.1723103
>>1723099And what ideology is that?
No.1723105
>>1723102What does ego death look like?
>preaching against the evil of materialist philosophy like liberalism or communismWhats the alternative?
No.1723106
>>1723104Which religion? Or are you a traditionalist?
No.1723110
>>1723106>>1723105Islam
I'm not a traditionalist And there is no alternative. Progress is an illusion. There is no paradise you can escape to. Pain and suffering are woven into the fabric of our reality. I used to believe socialism can lead to a brighter future after Bernie lost I realized its hopeless. I started reading on Nietzsche and the Greeks and I found it fascinating how they even during tragedy they managed to remain optimistic and life affirming. Belief in a higher power is essential for maintaining a coherent society. Creation myths are the building blocks of civilization
No.1723112
>>1723105I don't know I've never achieved ego death.
I've read accounts of what it's like.
For some it's like mainlining the secrets of the universe
No.1723113
>>1723110In other words, there's nowhere to go but inwards.
The kingdom of heaven is within you
No.1723119
>>1723110Have you tried going for a walk in the park or making friends
Pain, suffering, satisfaction, and happiness aren't cosmic forces woven into the fabric of reality, they're chemical reactions responding to stimuli. And like all chemical reactions, you have to regulate them to keep yourself healthy.
Religion is not necessarily the answer to this. Humans are healthiest when making friends and performing fulfilling labor. If a religion helps you meet people or produce something you're proud of, then that's good, but it's not the end-all be-all of happiness and stability.
No.1723123
>>1723110>>1723113I agree morally since i also consider myself a nietzschean, but nietzsche himself was an atheist, albeit a pagan atheist.
I do agree that myths are necessary for society, even secular myths and secular religions - like liberalism and communism.
But this is also just pragmatism and isnt really getting at the truth of things. I feel like youre smart enough to know there probably isnt a "god" in the way the masses think, but there is "something"; that vitality which brings us joy and meaning.
I dont disagree, but think about nietzsches own physiological writings - he says the priests are so miserable because they have bile in their stomachs due to fasting. You bring up plotinus, but i believe it was him who said that he wishes he could have no body. That he saw oppression in his flesh.
Nietzsche detested this attitude and saw it as a genetic failure of the brahmins - those jealous usurpers of the adamic race.
So our soul is tied to the body, just as aristotle understood it. We are our body, and so our body is our temple as Christ says.
However if we look at something like "the golden sentences of pythagoras" it says we should abandon our body, again.
So its to say that the perfection of life is in giving attention to our "lower self", to our flesh. We are what we eat and so on.
So i see much spiritual mystery as being the investigation into health. For example it was said that a buddhist monk possessed by demons should eat raw meat to cure him.
Think of dietary laws like halal and kosher - it literally takes the "life" out of the meat. It turns it into mush.
What prevails in the least of paganism in christianity is the lack of dietary laws - and why? Because christ as the logos defied the pharisees. God became an outlaw from himself; the law was broken.
So to be free we must rebel against god - yet this is in different degrees. We can be disgusting satanic slobs, or we can aim to be more. More than the Law permits.
Alas, this is only for us few elect, no? Us platonic guardians and gatekeepers who spread the noble lie, yet keep the truth for ourselves?
No.1723125
>>1723119>>1723119I'm gonna sound like a schizo but i unironically believe the universe is created with two dualistic forces in conflict. Kinda like taoism.
That confrontation is expressed biologically and violently through natural selection. Since it is violent by nature that entails suffering. Therefore it is unavoidable
No.1723129
>>1723123I never claimed to be a nietszchean. Either way he spoke favorably of Islam but that's not why I reverted.
I think Islam offers the best image of what I consider to be god. It denies every conception of god prior to it like the trinity. It's weirdly atheistic in it's approach unless you're a salafist maybe.
i also visited multiple Muslim countries and I found them quite harmonious, the complete opposite of what the west has painted. The happiest most peaceful people I've met were afghans which was insane to me since their country has been in a state of war for decades
No.1723131
>>1723123>That he saw oppression in his flesh.I kind of agree with you since in Islam that would be considered heretical. The Flesh is a gift from god.
No.1723133
>>1723129Well i would say islam is closer to judaism than christianity (both being semitic religions) because both give emphasis to the law and ethnos, while christianity is about exceptions to the law (like forgiven sinners) and egalitarianism (in the acceptance of gentiles into israel).
Judaism and islam both create internal strength by creating outsiders while christianity causes much harm like colonialism through its pathological oppenness.
Islam and judaism are both national and political while christianity is global. This is also why europeans who are liberal by nature adopted this schema as the official roman religion.
No.1723136
>>1723133Yes but Judaism is pretty schizo. So many practices revolve around deceiving god. Like that chicken bashing thing. And the Talmud is rife with stories about rabbis tricking god and what not
No.1723144
>>1723136all religion is schizo shit
No.1723147
>>1723136Most religious people try to “trick” god or come up with excuses to ignore religious rules. Judaism is just older so it has a longer documented history of all this trickery.
No.1723149
>>1723147Muslim upper middle class girls being massive sluts then going to the doctor to remake their virginity just before marriage is hilarious, truely a mix between tricking god and a clash of societal values
No.1723151
>>1723149In that case they're not trying to trick god but their future beta male spouse
No.1723152
>>1723136There are also sunnis and shias in islam who interpret or reject hadiths in certain ways. Theology is the way that we get what we want out of religion.
No.1723159
>>1721390>god is the best answer to why there is something rather than nothingExtremely retarded take, just pushes the question of existence one step further away.
Now you can just ask why is there a god instead of nothing?
The true answer is that "nothingness" is a made up concept that was never actually real to begin with
No.1723162
>>1723159>Now you can just ask why is there a god instead of nothing?Because there is something that implies there is a necessary cause
No.1723163
>>1723159All concepts are made up
No.1723169
>>1723162Then what's the cause of god? And the cause of that cause? Don't you see it just spirals infinitely?
Alternatively, if god can exist without a cause, why can't the universe?
No.1723172
>>1723163Existence is real, us making up a concept to describe that, doesn't negate that fact
Nothingness is inferred as a vital antithesis of the "something" that is our universe, but it can obviously never be observed or studied, because it is the complete absence of things. In my opinion, it is purely a thought experiment and the universe in some form has always existed, its absence is merely a figment of our overactive imagination.
No.1723181
>>1723172I was just taking issue with the expression "made up concept" as it's redundant.
I find non-existence and subsequent existence as "unbelievable" as eternity. So to me it's a wash.
We don't even know if our universe it infinite or not so we have to be necessarily agnostic here.
No.1723191
>>1723181fair enough, don't let me stop you from being pedantic lol
Idk seems to me like your equivocating those three terms, as if they're all equally real and believable, even though we are undeniably experiencing one of them right at this moment and the other two are mostly theoretical
>We don't even know if our universe it infinite Ehh we pretty much assume it is, but I ain't no physicist either, so Ill give it to ya that we gotta be a bit agnostic bout that
No.1723212
>>1723191Nothing will ever stop me from being pedantic.
Well, apparently we are experiencing existence. Doesn't really say anything outside the fact of that ordinary existence.
No.1723224
In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move
No.1723343
>>1723212>apparently lmao ok buddy
>Doesn't really say anythingIt says existence, the something, is real. Or at least as real as it gets. Unlike nothingness which is purely theoretical
No.1723353
>>1723343But infinity is just as theoretical as nothingness.
No.1723363
>>1723353I wouldn't it's "just as" theoretical, but I get ur point
No.1723557
>>1723046It makes sense if you are 13 years old and indoctrinated at a young age, but idg how you don’t get over being disappointed as a much older adult. There is a piece of the puzzle missing.
No.1728345
Bit strange that some people can be more emotionally triggered by the question of god then they are against imperialism.
No.1729025
>>1729017Err, no. A 2,000 year old religion cannot be seen as the main reasoning for something which started in the 15/1600s, despite that religious figures were also some of the first peasant revolters.
But sure, you can continue to have an unhealthy rage about changing things that doesn't actually progress society in any meaningful way
No.1729034
>>1729032The same way vague promises toward the working class are used for imperialistic of fascist movements. That doesn't mean an anti-working class stance must be made.
No.1729037
>>1729036Then it is not religion. It is weaponised religion.
No.1729041
>>1729039weaponised religion
No.1729045
>>1729043The power of the church, yes, and the states influence on the church, but not religion.
No.1729075
>>1729045if religion isn't weaponized it's not religion.
kill yourself religionfag.
No.1729079
>>1729065Because christianity is inherently anti-exploititive
>>1729075Again, explain why.
No.1729082
>>1729079History says otherwise.
I think I'll use that as the benchmark.
No.1729088
>>1729082No it doesn't. The way society has used religion is your arguement.
No.1730733
>>1729315Yup
Western leftists feel the need to appeal using the cross because they’re too weak to make their case without invoking idealist superstitions. They don’t even bother attempting to challenge the big money that flows into religion out of fear it will step on the toes of someone’s spooks.
No.1730803
>>1649093it's not possible to know in the abstract whether any deity exists, but it is possible to know whether the gods of specific religions exist because their holy texts make specific claims about actions those gods have performed in the material world
No.1731173
Bro why does failure creates monsters in leftists? ᴉuᴉlossnW, this bitchass
>>1723110 , …
No.1731620
>>1730914Nietzsche was anti Christianity more than anti religion. He wrote entire books on Greek paganism
No.1733117
>>1730733B-but muh LIBeration theology!!1!!
No.1733120
>>1722812>There literally isn't a "before" the singularity, it just was.No. The singularity is the event before which physics does not know what happened because predictive models break down. It does not mean time doesn't exist. A number of things could have happened before the singularity. Maybe the previous universe collapsed for example. Maybe the laws of physics aren't actually constant and only came into being at that moment and before the singularity there were different laws of physics.
No.1733124
>>1722800
brainlets are so hypnotized by these little poppy subtitle tiktoks and the pseudo-intellectual high priests who make them.
No.1733127
>>1733122
the singularity just refers to the universe being in a highly dense/hot state about 13 billion years ago and before then we don't really know much.
No.1733561
>>1733121
>Late nietzsche > early nietzsche
Dude's brain was leaking out of his ear and he was going batso from syphillis. I suppose that makes him more entertaining to read.
No.1733838
>>1733129
GIRUGAMESH!
No.1733905
>>1662265He's the politically incorrect Slovenian of the left wing, of course he's funny.
I believe many of his ideals within Socialism are novel, but I haven't read any of his books yet, only listened to about six hours of him lecturing on YouTube, along with those insane reels on insta.
Comparing him to Lenin is kind of fun, though I prefer Stalin's works.
No.1733932
>>1733906
>His books are not good
Thanks for letting me know, I had heard similar a few years back
>mass produces them to feed his pathology for rambling
Akin to Hιtler then, but kind of opposite, his books ramble but his speeches are relatively coherent, though the ideology was still the drivel fed to the populace by the military-industrial bourgeoisie.
No.1733939
>>1733934
With a result of it returning to worse than Wismar conditions. And inevitably (due to Germanic peoples land claims as far as the Volga region) harming severely the Soviet Union and leading to its eventual downfall.
Sadly it was predictable, with Frankfurt becoming the nation's degenerate global imperialist haven.
I like how Gottfried Feder was able to implement a national variant of the Labour Theory of Value, to limited success
No.1759637
>>1733934
Zizek is still 74, it's not too late to make him president of Slovenia
No.1793403
>tfw grew up Church of England
More wives, my liege?
No.1793405
I can respect a religious person, but anyone who puts serious thought into religion and stays there can safely be dismissed as insane.
No.1796327
>>1794074the average leftypoltard hasnt even read marx. you expect them to know eckhart? political atheism is retarded.
>>1796322>"atheist mentality"stop trying to ape an atheist mentality. as an ex-catholic you should realize how stupid that is. darwin is a fossil. if you want to understand evolutionary biology dont read him. marx and freud were atheists but most atheists aren't freudians or whatever. marx was an atheist but not like a huge major proponent of atheism. I guess read Moses and Monotheism I guess. if you want to understand the gutter atheist mentality just go to any atheist subreddit. theres nothing of intellectual value ther.e
No.1796339
>>1796327> marx was an atheist but not like a huge major proponent of atheism< The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.<Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.So obviously we should throw off the chain of religion
No.1796341
>>1796327> the average leftypoltard hasnt even read marx. you expect them to know eckhart?Eckhart isn’t even on the same level as Marx anyway.
No.1796349
>>1796322> "atheist mentality"I don’t really know what you mean by this.
There really isn’t one mentality all atheists share.
Unique IPs: 132