No.288170[Last 50 Posts]
I am a former atheist. I decided to convert to the protestant faith and abandon all nihilism and pessimism in favor of salvation in the hands of Christ. now I pray daily and read the bible my goal is to achieve salvation through Jesus christ It might have started as a response to a general sense of nihilism, but talking to a priest didn't help move me anywhere in that regard. It might have started as a cry in a moment of despair, but when I did that, there was no response. It might have started as an acceptance of philosophical arguments, but while I find some of them viable, I don't think they're compelling enough to move me from one category to another. It might have started as an outpouring of welcoming from religious people, but I'd always received that welcoming.
Maybe I decided that religion (in its broadest sense) is intrinsic to humanity, and in order to have a human existence that made any sense, I'd have to give this religion thing another shake. Maybe I decided that, even if we are cosmic orphans, it is the role of the orphan to long and cry out. Maybe somewhere in the depths of my humanity, somewhere immeasurable and small but more there than anything else, my cries received a response and I have never been as happy and content as I am right now in my life faith is comfy
Anybody here has any similar experience with faith and religion?
I don't see the appeal, but that's probably because I'm not a pessimist. I personally really like the concept that life has no real meaning. It's comforting to me. Also, I find lots of comfort in knowing after I die, I just won't exist. It makes my life more meaningful than if you have another life beyond. If you decided religion in inherent to humanity, why not some other religion like shamanism, spiritualism, or Zoroastrianism? Why Christianity? Why the religion that believes in a hell?
what kind of protestant ?
You had one job, my wizza.
Amen may God bless your day.
I just don't get why masturbating is a sin, e.g., to my waifu.
You can't "take the christpill as a cope" - christianity is built on faith, if you lack faith you aren't a true christian.
I was raised catholic but I never believed in it. Tried but I am too honest and intelligent for this or other religions. If God exists, then he isn't worthy of praise or love. While the world could be much worse than it is, it could be tons of times better too. God has no excuse for anything, as he is by definiton capable of anything.
Polytheism is probably the most logical kind of theism, that and pantheism. But the need for some kind of theism already shows bad taste. It implies you are looking for reasons and looking for a higher power to help you or to give you more authority before others.
Discard any kind of theism and go full atheist and materialist. It doesn't mean you have to give up hope or that you should be a depressed doomer pessimist fag. For me, it was communism which resonated the best with my personality, it is basically the ideology for ex-christians who still want a world where people are kind and nice to each other, without following stupid laws, rituals, traditions and without believing in fairy tales.>>288241
Silly boy, it is a sin because you should be out there making babies with a succ you married, that is the only kind of sexuality that is acceptable to the normalfags of christianity. Christians want to take away every nice thing from this world, because otherwise why would you desire their Heaven if you enjoyed this life? Heaven is for those who hate this life and world, for those who are nothing but cannon fodder and good workers of the system, heaven is the ultimate retirement, you know, that thing that you are told will be your reward to motivate you into being a slave but actually you will never get that thing, because it is a lie? That is heaven and after-life. It is the carrot on the stick, pushed up to 11.
Short ver: masturbation is a sin because you enjoy it and because you can enjoy it alone. Plus it isn't useful to the system. Christian warlocks hate anything that isn't useful to someone.
For the second part of your post, you are somewhat correct, but mostly wrong. Masturbation is a sin for several reasons. I’ll bring up two. First, sex is to be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple without any kind of contraception because life is a gift. Masturbation makes it not so special and important.
Second, how would your life change if you did not masturbate? You’d be forced to improve yourself if you wanted a shot at having sexual relief.
It may be too late for some of us, but celibacy in itself is a virtuous act.
I like what you said despite that I respectfully disagree. I had several phases before but. nothing worked for me as well as the Christian faith. now I can live life more comfortably than ever knowing that no matter what happens I can achieve salvation in the next life and I have a moral code in my life.
Call me whatever you like but. I am happier now.
if you don't masturbate you will become taller. So says the LORD!
becasue jesus HATES manlets becasu they are abomination worse than trannies.
>>288254>sex is to be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple without any kind of contraception>Masturbation makes it not so special and important.
wtf this is some serious normalfaggotry right there.
There's some wizardly things I admire about Christianity, but in other respects it's turbo-normalfaggotry.
Anyway, good for you guys, but I'm gonna go fap to my loli waifu and there's nothing you can do about it.
Why God made blacks hyper sexual and hypermasculine if he hates sex? why the hell did God made some men much stronger than other men in the first place? did you know that male penguins get raped by other penguins when they fail to mate? why would God make such a Liberal and leftist nature?
Remember nearly every ancient culture around the world saw masturbation as a bad thing, as giving away your life force. Chi, Prana, Vrill, they all had different names for it but it all means the same thing.
I don’t have all the answers anon, although consent is not a thing in the animal kingdom. Nearly every occurrence of sex in the animal kingdom is by force. That should answer both your questions.
How could anyone who reads old testament, its wicked and brutal morality and insane anti-science lies like adam, eve and other creationist nonsense and still could believe these things beyond my understanding.Last year I did read bible completely although I liked new testament, I did hated every part of old testament its just story of evil jews doing insane, evil and cruel things.
Cultural evolution gives a simple reason for that. If you create a culture that says masturbation is evil, but sex is not, then your culture will have a larger birthrate and will therefore have an evolutionary advantage. In other words, it is part of "the system's trick."
For real though, reading the old testament killed my interest in religion completely.
>>288254>sex is to be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple without any kind of contraception because life is a gift
Says who? Nature has homosexuality in it and animals which masturbate too. And life is a gift, you sure about that? I mean people born with terrible diseases and conditions or people who go vegetable wouldn't think life is necessarily a gift. Life isn't good or bad, some lives are good, some lives are bad. There is no universality here. This is all some pretty narrow-minded thinking you got there.
>Second, how would your life change if you did not masturbate? You’d be forced to improve yourself if you wanted a shot at having sexual relief.
You mean we would be forced to become normalfags, got it. Yeah, that is what I am saying too, you religion normalfags hate masturbation it allows one to be his own master, without depending on others for sexual pleasure. Religion is for slaves.
>celibacy in itself is a virtuous act
No, it isn't. Not being a normalfag is a virtous act, meaning it is okay to masturbate and we should encourage it even more. Masturbation and porn are the wizard's best friends.>>288256
How can you be happy when you know you are just "coping"? Like I said, if you have no faith you aren't a christian. Faith, hope, love - these are the 3 basic virtues of christianity.
If you want peace that much you should look into stoicism. It offers you peace of mind, without all the unnecessary lies Christianity has. And you can live according to a moral code without religion too.
I had religious phases too and if you know deep down that it isn't true then you will seek out other things, eventually. You may have peace now, but it is a plastic and fake peace, depending entirely on the speculation of what could happen to you after death. Come back to us, come back to earth, wizard. Look for a meaning in this world, not outside it.>>288281
Yeah, ancient culture was normalfag-centric very much. Procreation? No problem! Masturbation? You will go to hell! Pathetic how some feel the need even today to follow ancient primitive dogma like this.>>288284>>288289
Old Testament has its merits, at least it is a realistic work, not counting God and angels and miracles. You get an accurate picture about how ancient cultures worked. While the New Testament feels like it was written by some romantic 19th century writer, with its idealized and childish world and characters. The effect of the NT is even more absurd when you consider the warrior-like and amoral OT, which it claims it is built upon.
OT is written for men.
NT is for succubi and children.
OT is for the jews what Homer's work is for the greeks. Manly or boyish adventures, men fighting or tricking each other, with no real things separating the villains from the heroes of the stories, aside from the fact that the heroes happen to be fighting for the "good" cause.
Depends on the person and depends on the kind of eternal life we would live. Pessimistic or optimistic are subjective buzzwords most of the time, one person's optimism is another's pessimism.
so then it has no higher place than making a religion out of the Jedi
Indeed, his plan to maximize suffering.
If god real why bad thing happen?
Of course life is a gift. Of course being celibate is a virtuous act. Masturbation and porn are not your best friends, they’re your enemies. I could get into why porn is so bad for you without even using a religious argument but I’m pretty sure you’d just say oh well gonna do it anyway, right?
OT is a realistic work including acts of god. Scientists just recently found sodom and Gomorrah from the OT and just like the Bible says, it was somehow completely destroyed in an instant.
>>288343>I could get into why porn is so bad for you without even using a religious argument but I’m pretty sure you’d just say oh well gonna do it anyway, right?
I don't need convincing that 3D porn is bad. I have felt it every single time I've fapped to it; a sense of sadness, melancholy, and all around shittiness. But fapping to 2D hentai always makes me feel happier, more calm and at peace. So I think that the idea that fapping to hentai is harmful, is simply wrong. Obviously I wouldn't keep doing it if it made me feel shitty.
Fapping to my waifu makes me briefly feel the touch of an otherworldly realm transcending base matter. Why would the demiurge wish to keep me away from that if not because he's keeping me imprisoned here?
>>288344>Suffering is a burning fire that purifies your immortal soul
Or it can turn you into a bitter pessimistic person filled with mental illness or a serial killer.
I like a lot of the wisdom found in religious text, but I've never had faith in God. Given the state of the world I hope there is a supreme savior that will cleanse the world of evil, but I can't lie to myself and say that I'm a believer in any particular religion. One thing I don't understand is why God would make his existence so questionable and rely on a faith based system. Just let your presence be known and get it over with.>>288345
I think the idea that porn is so bad is way overblown. When you compare the downsides of sex and relationships to the downsides of porn its like comparing heroin addiction to smoking weed. Unwanted pregnancies, child support, stds, divorce, jealousy, cucking, heartbreak, rape, etc. I get that sex has much greater upside, but it also has much greater downsides.
Yup, I agree but there's also diffrence between 'taking christpill as a cope' and actual believe that 'Christ died for our sins'.
Time is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again. You are reborn, but into the same life that you've always been born into.
Who cares about facts and logic as long he is happy.
If he was truly happy, he wouldn't need to delude himself into believing such retarded shit.
>>288256>Call me whatever you like but. I am happier now.>>288360>Who cares about facts and logic as long he is happy.
I didn't know it was about finding happiness in this life
I thought this fallen world was a vale of tears
(Documentary) 100 Proofs the Israelites were WHITEhttps://truthvids.net
(Sermon) Christian Identity: White people are Israelhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/RQdKgJnvdYns/
(Sermon) Jesus was not a Jew, Jews are not of Israelhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/pTT4HDHuwRog/
Collection of quality Christian Identity materials, doctrine, podcastshttps://christogenea.org
The Biggest Identity Theft in Historyhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/71UsXXUzCUl3/
Dual seedline: The Parable of the Wheat and the Tareshttps://invidio.us/watch?v=vn4lh0BZQ5E
What Race Was Adam?https://archive.vn/G0s3m
The Tribe of Dan - Robert Sepher (Video)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mNiSgDvJoc
Rosette DeLa Croix's Chritian Identity FAQhttp://rosettedelacroix.com/?p=23394
The Ghost of Ian Smith - Bible Basics (Lot's of Videos and Links)https://www.bitchute.com/playlist/GkzyUFlroYWF/
National Socialism is that form of government but it will remain a distant dream without the awakening to IDENTITY.https://siegekultur.biz/christian-identity/
Refutation of We Wuz Kangzhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/IgYgxgGjwYdT/
William Fincks Christogeneahttps://christogenea.org/podcasts
Brother Herbert Age of Laodiceahttps://www.ageoflaodicea.com/
Brother Herbert Audio Word Studieshttps://www.ageoflaodicea.com/word-study-audios/
Brother Herbert Presentshttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/brother-hebert-presents/
I wrote a 430 page book with 785 sources that irrefutably and conclusively proves that 9/11 was an inside job, the Bible is supernaturally authored, and the jews of today are not the Biblical Israelites, white people are.
Given that Biblical prophecy places us currently in the end times, this is all conducted by the Synagogue of Satan, prophesied to exist in Revelation. This cabal acts as an international criminal syndicate, loosely based around freemasonry and luciferianism. They facilitated 9/11 as a complex money laundering operation, in order to conceal a massive amount of real-wealth that was looted from the world through planned and intentionally created World Wars, and used in the form of fraudulent security bonds to collapse the USSR. I prove that Lusitania and Pearl Harbor were conspiracies and false flags similar to 9/11.
The Bible was written by supernatural divine intervention, and I prove it through several ways, such as historically fulfilled prophecy, Equidistant Letter Spacing codes placed within the text, and knowledge present that is thousands of years ahead of its time, only possible through divine intervention.
Pdf can be downloaded here:https://www.docdroid.net/WQOr7zT/the-more-rational-worldview-pdf
Or here https://www.scribd.com/document/552680928/The-More-Rational-Worldview-Coincidence-or-Conspiracy
Why is it that religion always has to prey on the vulnerable?
>>288343>If god real why bad thing happen?
Unironically, yes? Why? Religious people always struggle to answer this question. Because religion is about rationalizing this universe, which doesn't have any rationality or purpose in it.
>Of course life is a gift. Of course being celibate is a virtuous act.
Saying "of course" before a sentence doesn't make it true.
When it comes to life, again whose life are we discussing? The poor 3rd worlder who has to live in shit and work like a slave for his entire life in order to barely survive or someone who can do something meaningful with his life?
Masturbation and porn are the lesser of two evils, they are much better than going out and marrying some whore and having a family. If you deny this, you don't belong here.
>OT is a realistic work including acts of god. Scientists just recently found sodom and Gomorrah from the OT and just like the Bible says, it was somehow completely destroyed in an instant.
Oh, I don't doubt that usually it is spot on and is accurate. I trust the Bible more than some contrarian scientist nowadays who wants to explain to us "well, this actually happened this way not that way…" etc I mean I can accept that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by meteorites for example, but that it was the act of some vengeful desert God who wanted to punish some people for being sexually degenerate? Nah, that is just pure fantasy.>>288345
Your waifu was created to imitate 3D, I'm sorry. I'm not against waifuism, I like 2D better than 3D too. But this is some retarded backwards view of things, don't you think? To think that 2D is somehow the represantation of another world or realm. 2D represents the 3D world, but the best parts of 3D only. By enjoying 2D succubi we are being very "worldly" and materialistic, not that it is a bad thing. We don't transcend anything, it is the opposite, by enjoying 2D we enjoy everything the world has to offer.>>288379>>288361>>288365
Religion is all about giving peace to people when they are alive, religious people don't realize they are being led to behave in certain ways for a reason. It is all about being happy with shit, thinking it is part of God's plan and that rich people deserve all their wealth because God ordered it as such. Religious agenda ALWAYS has material purposes, creating a peaceful society of slaves who only know how to work and reproduce and obey their masters. It is about preventing you from being your own master and preventing you from doing anything against the hierarchy. All kind of "idealism" is about extreme materialism at its core. When Christianity was at its prime, then existed the most materialistic society actually, with landowners and nobles owning most of the wealth and possessions. When most people are content with shit, then the leaders can do whatever they want and be assured, their ambitions are always worldly and materialist.
>>288394>If god real why bad thing happen?
I don't know why Christafgs always dodge this question when their fucking Bible clearly answers it, basically, what is good for men is not the same as what is good for God, second, God knows people better than they know themselves he knows how you are going to react to certain things you have no idea, knows your past and despite free will existing, he already knows the future and is in control of every move, therefore, everything is part of his plan, and since he is God, then is "GOOD"
The elder at my old church explained it a bit better. Our suffering is the result of the original decision to disobey God and guide ourselves, which God allowed because of our free will. Instead of forcing obedience, God left man to their own devices, free to follow his lead or do as we please, but this freedom comes at the price of evil being just as permitted as good. In a way this life allows man to experience absence of God and self-rule, an idea introduced to us by Satan. Good or evil, no man is exempt or shielded from the consequences of the original sin, at best we have the bible to give us guidance through the chaos, and some would argue that God intervenes at certain times, but overall we are on our own to navigate a world that has been corrupted. And no matter how righteous you may be, that can't stop people from using their free will to rape your butt hole while slashing your throat.
Now I'm not religious myself, but following that logic it seems like rebellion was an inevitable result of giving us free will, but not giving us free will would have made our creation pointless to an all powerful God, it would be like playing with action figures.
God lets suffering happen, therefore God is evil.
My issue is more with the idea of inherited sin. It seems very unfair that billions of people have to suffer because of a dumb bitch and a weak simp who ate a fruit.
God is evil for punishing billions of people for the act of 2 people.
God is outright evil.
one of the advantages of living in a house with religious people is that when they are gone i can punch and spit on religious icons, an outlet for my indescribable hatred for the demiurge
That was god's choice then. I am not built in a way that allows me to praise a god that creates a universe like that and humans like that
>>288417>That was god's choice then. I am not built in a way that allows me to praise a god that creates a universe like that and humans like that
That's right, Romans 9 is clear that some people are vessels of wrath that were made only to be destroyed. God rose Pharaoh up just to destroy him and his kingdom.
Free will was introduced by catholics only because it allowed them to blame the individual for everything bad. But you would think free will would mean then that good things are the result of men's will too? No, of course not, they come from God. Everything good is from God, everything bad is from humans, that is what this madness is all about. This is a very clever little trick.
God knows everything, therefore he knew that giving free will to people would result in a world of sin and suffering. He made us, gave us free will, knowing beforehand that we would sin, suffer and because of this we would need a hero, a cosmic savior! So if we accept free will and religion, then that means God is even more of a villain than otherwise. He created us on purpose to be imperfect, then blames us because we are immoral and don't follow his laws, then sends his son to "save us" (from himself?? or from ourself [again, he created us!]). He knows everything, he has knowledge of how a person will use his free will in the future too. This is all very disturbing and screwed up to anyone who can think logically.
God can do anything. He could have created us to have free will and to choose the good always at the same time. It may seem like a contradiction but God is above everything, he could do it.
Conclusion, yet again: you can't have a creator god who is omnipotent and omniscient and good at the same time. Christians and people who follow monotheistic religions in general are too greedy, they want everything: they want the only and strongest God on their side and yet they want a god that is good and merciful too.
But in general, why does this contradiction exist in the first place? It is because ALL monotheism comes from polytheism. That includes Judaism too, which had multiple gods and goddesses, just like their neighboring pagan nations had. Judaism has its origins in paganism too, that is why all this schizophrenic or DID-like behaviors on the part of the "one God". YHWH was part of a pantheon of gods in the Middle East. However, Abraham decided he would rather stick with one god only and since then we have monotheism. It was part of a plan to separate jews from others, to make them special. Monotheism was the result of the whole superior race deal and exclusivism.>>288413
When I was younger I used to masturbate with a crucifix up in my asshole. I also licked and kissed a statue of the Virgin Mary, rubbed my dick against it numerous times. And when I cummed I sacrificed my cum to the devil and swallowed it. One time I also shredded to pieces a Bible with my teeth.
Nowadays I only laugh about it, well what can I say? I was young and angry at religion very much. I don't do cringe shit like this anymore, that was back when I was a "satanist". Nowadays I am a comfy atheist who doesn't really care about the whole thing.
>>288429>you can't have a creator god who is omnipotent and omniscient and good at the same time
This is exactly why the trinity was invented as a concept. How can your God be unconditionally merciful and yet still uphold moral justice with an iron fist? The answer unsurprisingly is a type of metaphysical pluralism for the persona of God.
But what is good?
Is the concept of good bound to the unfolding of perceived/actualized time? If so perhaps one way God could be considered "all good" would be if good was infinite and the opposite "bad" was finite. With this formula no matter what the starting conditions good would always end up being all that remains in "the end".
One last thing i've been meaning to try and articulate for awhile is the idea that if everything is God then it's impossible for him to truly commit evil, since all of reality along with humanity would just be a masochistic internal exercise ultimately.
This post is pretty all over the place so I guess let me know if clarification is needed.
>>288430>This is exactly why the trinity was invented as a concept. How can your God be unconditionally merciful and yet still uphold moral justice with an iron fist? The answer unsurprisingly is a type of metaphysical pluralism for the persona of God.
Indeed but the problem is deeper than this. All 3 persons of the trinity are said to be GOOD, but if so where does "evil" come from? With monotheism it is impossible to justify why evil or sin exists at all. Evil and sin imply there is an opposing force. Of course that would be the devil but according to monotheism he is only a creature of God too and we come again to the "free will" stupidity.
To make God absolutely moral and good, we need to have an enemy, an actual enemy, meaning another god - dualism at least or polytheism.
>>288433>To make God absolutely moral and good, we need to have an enemy
What do you think the enemies of god are?
I think God's enemy is his own omnipotence (manifesting as a type of metaphysical boredom)
God doesn't exist, but for discussion's sake let's say he does. If you want to say god is good, then of course his rival needs to be evil. So the devil like in Christianity, but only stronger and as an entity that wasn't created but exists along with the good god since the start of time. Angra Mainyu is the name of the evil god in Zoroastrianism, which had a lasting influence on Christianity.
While Judaism is strictly monotheistic you can't say the same about Jesus's teaching for 100%. If you go just by the New Testament the devil gets a much bigger role than Satan ever had in the Old Testament. To clear things up, Satan is a creation of God in Judaism, he is testing people whether they are faithful servants of the Lord or not, he does what God allows him to do. However, the actual Devil in the New Testament appears as opposing God in every way, which is a dualistic trait.
God's biggest enemy is Lucifer, who is another god altogether, not to be confused with Satan from OT. He represents freedom, wisdom, strength while "God" represents ignorance or "innocence" and slavery, bondage.
Well there is two main differences first one is much older, and the newer comic was not made whit the intention to convince people to believe anything on it to be real.
But I could make the same picture with a biology textbook and it wouldn’t make your liver any less real. Not saying I believe in god.
I would argue the bible has close to no "proof" aka discussion on why we know God exists because none of the gnostic texts made it into the cannon.
the gnostics invented the bible before the catholics, and the biblical canon was just a reaction to the gnotic 1st bible
How would history look if the Gnostics and their contributions hadn't been suppressed?
>Most humans are garbage, filth of the lowest order.
"…not me, though."
>Their so-called morals and ethics are anything but.
"…not me, though."
>They will not survive themselves.
>They are too stupid and clueless.
"…all of them except for me, that is."
Gnosticism doesn't explain anything, it pushes the problem one level further, that is all. Now it isn't "God" who is the cause of all suffering but the demiurge. The demiurge who came into existence because of "God" in the first place, and this demiurge created things because he stole some of "God"'s light…So anyway, it doesn't justify anything, gnosticism tries REALLY hard to come up with some rational explanation to why we suffer or why "evil" exists but it is the same bullshit, in different package. I would say it is even more annoying than traditional religions in a way, because it is a smug ideology that relies on brainfart arguments and autistic mythology to justify suffering and why evil exists and its followers are pretentious fags who like to play around as "enlightened" persons.>>288470
Livers exist, God doesn't though.>>288487
There is no universal gnostic teaching out there, "gnosticism" refers to a whole bunch of different religions and sects. Some gnostics thought very differently from other gnostics.
I don't think anything would have changed significantly, considering gnosticism is just another hoax, just like traditional religions are.
can atheists disprove an Evil God?
What virtues do you posess that make you feel superior to others?
Is it the way of thinking or it comes from taking action?
Do you know anybody who could agree on your greatness?
1. First something needs to be proven, not the opposite.
2. Our world could be so much worse than it is or was through history, that alone is enough to dismiss the idea of an evil god too.
Since you've admitted to preferring 2D > 3D, it should be evident to you that 2D isn't merely a less realistic imitation of 3D, or even "3D: The Good Parts". I don't know how you can look at 2D and see an imitation of 3D. This is one of the reasons that makes anime, manga, etc., and artwork in that style, good, that it doesn't try to imitate 3D. It's clearly its very own completely different thing.
Now, despite all the suffering and bitter disappointments I've experienced in the 3D world, I'm extremely grateful for having had the privilege of enjoying 2D works of art such as anime, manga, visual novels, hentai, etc., and would not have it any other way. They alone are enough to justify all the horrors of the world. To me, however, it's not just about enjoying 2D in 3D, all you think there is, but also about transcending the demiurge's prison called 3D through waifuism.
Our point of departure is that you seem to be a materialist or physicalist who only sees the physical manifestation of waifus, ideal beings transcending matter and physicality, which manifest in 3D as what we call 2D. If you're familiar with how computers work, you should know that they're structures of logic gates. Logic gates are non-material conceptual constructs that may be implemented physically in 3D in many different ways, with transistors being only one, as well as even proteins and cells. With any of those you may then physically actualize in 3D a computer, something that is neither physical nor material, but a logical structure. The existence of waifus is analogous to that.
You may burn a picture of my waifu, but that won't burn my waifu herself. You may erase all copies of Fate/stay night from every drive and storage unit, and that won't even touch her existence in the slightest. Anime, manga, visual novels, doujinshi, illustrations, are merely how an otherworldy being's emanations actualize in 3D. That there even are such emanations, all of which constitute aspects of a single ideal being called "Illya", and none of which, or even the sum total of which, constitute her being in itself, is proof of her otherworldy, transcendent existence.>>288409>>288430
I always find amusing the kind of arguments and systems, Ptolemaic-like in complexity, theists contrive in their world-class feats of mental gymnastics to accommodate the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being, with the actual existence of the 3D world. To be is to be finite, limited, and temporal, to be in a process of creation and destruction. The only thing that is infinite, illimitable, and eternal is that which is no thing, but rather, the field in which all creation and destruction of things actualize, and without which there can be no things, no creation, and no destruction, i.e., consciousness itself. Not my finite consciousness or yours, but the universal consciousness in which finite consciousnesses like the Umwelten (Jakob von Uexküll) of organisms localize according to the eternal natural psychological laws of the universal consciousness.
The creator of the 3D world may be very powerful and evil, but he's neither all-powerful nor all-evil, and certainly not very knowing. In fact, I wonder if he's even capable of cognizing phenomena of such a high level of abstraction as that of people and their suffering. The 3D world seems more like the manifestation of the primitive, insatiable instinct of a malicious being, than a contrived master plan for the absolute maximization of suffering. An infinite, illimitable, and eternal being would have no need for any plan or goal, and being infinite, illimitable, and eternal, there would be no other being other than himself, as well as no movement or change in himself. Only finite, limited, temporal beings may have goals with plans to achieve them.>>288429
You need to be at least 18 to post here.
Take notice kids, this is why idealism should be banned everywhere, no matter what kind. It makes you into a drooling retard schizophrenic nutcase, who can't distinguish between reality and ideas.
You must be blind if you don't see how 2D entertainment is based on 3D people and events. Literally every part of 2D is inspired by the 3D real world. Your waifu doesn't exist the way you think she does, independently. No, she was created by some sexually thirsty otaku in Shibuya who took the inspiration for her from real succubi and from other 2D succs (who too are based on 3D succubi). In order for her to "exist" at at all, it was necessary to draw her and characterize her, which were all done by actual existing flesh and blood men. They had to think of what she should wear, how she should speak, what she should like, etc. Then they had to find a voice actress, a real succubus again, to voice her in games or anime. I could go on and on to prove how wrong you are. If you destroyed all copies of FSN then only the memory of her would remain in your empty head, my friend. She doesn't exist like you or we do. She was created by humans, for humans to enjoy her.
And the whole thing you mentioned in your previous post is stupid, plain and simple. I mean that by masturbating to your waifu you "transcend worlds" Don't make me laugh, please. You don't do anything of the sort. What you are doing is a very materialist thing, you enjoy sexually satisfying yourself. If you would follow through your ideology to its logical conclusion then you wouldn't even masturbate, as that is a very material thing to do. There is a reason that idealism and asceticism/self-denying go hand-in-hand. Same for materialism and hedonism. You sound like some post-modern "religious" person who thinks that you can be enlightened/you can come closer to God through sex and pleasure. You are looking for reasons only to justify why you are special compared to others who masturbate to "filthy" 3D or have sex, while you yourself give in to your urges all the same. You are enjoying life and acknowledging that life can be fun while masturbating to your waifu. Don't pretend that you are transcending the "demiurge's prison" while you are at home here on Earth very much.
You can like 2D without being delusional, I don't understand people like you honestly. Or rather I understand you, you want to pretend you are enlightened and whatnot. Grow up, seriously.
>>288496>can atheists disprove an Evil God?
i believe so
1. if the conclusion of an argument is true then it's also good, as in: the truthfulness of the argument also has moral force. the corollary of this is that falsehood is not only incorrect, but it's also morally wrong to present what's false as truth
2. if god is evil, and all the creations of god are evil, then our conclusions about the world are also ontologically rooted in evil and therefore false
we couldn't trust our own reasoning in the case of an evil creator
I take "schizophrenic nutcase" as a compliment. To be considered otherwise by the ideologies and philosophies of contemporary decadent culture like materialism would make me suspect I might've gone down a wrong line of thought.
>No, she was created by some sexually thirsty otaku in Shibuya who took the inspiration for her from real succubi and from other 2D succs (who too are based on 3D succubi). In order for her to "exist" at at all, it was necessary to draw her and characterize her, which were all done by actual existing flesh and blood men. They had to think of what she should wear, how she should speak, what she should like, etc. Then they had to find a voice actress, a real succubus again, to voice her in games or anime … She was created by humans, for humans to enjoy her.
I thought I made myself clear that all those are merely ways that she actualizes in 3D. Yes, I do mean to say that sudden bouts of inspiration in some Shibuya otaku's head, devising how she should speak, finding a seiyuu to play her and the seiyuu serendipitously sounding very different than the otakus planned but making them change their minds for it, etc., and every other planned detail and accident that lead to her character design, are all manifestations in 3D of her transcendent being. The ancients understood this much better, like how the Greeks would hear the muses dictating to them in their head what would become their famous lyrical works, as opposed to the Shibuya otaku who sees it as his very own idea that he himself came up with out of nothing (Socrates's daimon as well, etc.).
>You are enjoying life and acknowledging that life can be fun while masturbating to your waifu.
I sang much greater praises than merely "acknowledging that life can be fun". I literally said that enjoying the 2D works that actualize in 3D is enough to justify all the horrors of the demiurge's prison. That should speak as much for their ethereal, otherworldy beauty if a mere 3D manifestation of it is that beautiful and capable of healing and strengthening a weak, pathetic human like me.
>I don't understand people like you honestly.
I believe your honesty. The issue is that you think everything in terms of an artificial model called materialism, which is so deeply and pervasively ingrained in your mind that you probably don't even think of it as a model, just "common sense". Usually common sense is just a bunch of prejudices absorbed from our culture and education that have become so deeply internalized that by the time we become adults that don't even recognize them as such. I've come to notice that usually when I can't understand how someone can have ideas or views that seem so utterly moronic and stupid to me, it's because I don't have their prejudices or have ones that I can't even recognize.
My advice is to ditch everything you think you know and start from zero, doubting absolutely everything until you arrive at a ground of absolute certainty. I may come to even doubt my very own existence. Whether there is such a thing as a self is certainly something I need to think through. But if I keenly observe the existence of the present moment without being confused by any kind of abstract artificial concept I will recognize that the present itself is not something temporal and in movement like all the objects that actualize in it. I call it consciousness. You may call it whatever you want so long as you heed not reify it into a thing, because it isn't one, rather, it is that without which there can be no things. "Consciousness" is only a word and a concept, but what it refers to is neither a word nor a concept.
If you do that then new ways of thinking, conceptualizing and metaphysicalizing you'll open up to you beyond plain, old, crude, boring, materialism — ways that will make materialists call you a "schizophrenic nutcase". Or you can just die in the limiting belief that what we refer as matter is the ultimate beginning and end of all existence. But you shouldn't, not just because it's false, it's also boring.
>You sound like some post-modern "religious" person who thinks that you can be enlightened/you can come closer to God through sex and pleasure.
I literally argued that God is a metaphysical impossibility, and I also see all things "postmodern" as decadent and shallow. But perhaps you could consider my devotion to my waifu as "religious".
>idealism should be banned everywhere
To be honest, I wouldn't even be in favor of banning any kind of ontological or metaphysical perspective in wizchan, beyond crab and normalfag thinking. I see this higher-level sort of thinking as independent of normalfaggotry and wizardry. A wizard may be the most ardent physicalist and even go as far as believe that consciousness does not exist, and a normalfag may be the most extreme kind of idealist and … — you get the idea.
>>288609>I thought I made myself clear that all those are merely ways that she actualizes in 3D.
Yes, and it is stupid, like I told you. You have zero proof for anything you stated besides pretentious metaphysics and wordplays. She doesn't exist. You got your order of things completely backwards. Thoughts or ideas only exist as long as there are flesh&blood humans who think about them. You can't tell the difference between imaginary things/fantasy/concepts and real existing things.
>I take "schizophrenic nutcase" as a compliment. To be considered otherwise by the ideologies and philosophies of contemporary decadent culture like materialism would make me suspect I might've gone down a wrong line of thought.
Thus spoke the contrarian.
Sometimes a schizophrenic nutcase is just what he is, a schizophrenic nutcase and nothing more. Getting labeled crazy isn't always a compliment. You are in the wrong here and you try to justify it by empty contrarianism.
>is enough to justify all the horrors of the demiurge's prison
Surely then you don't need to sound so pretentious and call reality the "demiurge's prison", stop pretending that you suffer or you are inconvenienced in any way. You are enjoying life and don't mind it, so again why do you call it a prison?
So let's make something clear.
1. Like I said before, just because something is contrarian that doesn't make it true or justify it. You choosing idealism over materialism only to be different from others is nothing but wanting to be a special snowflake. That is, if materialism was really the mainstream ideology you claim it is, which is not.
2. If anything is mainstream, then it is idealism. Most of the human population always followed some idealistic system of thought and they still do today. Religion is the most common example of idealism but even aside from religions the majority of people always believe(d) in supernatural things in way or another. So you don't believe in angels and demons and gods but waifus? Whatever, it is all the same. You claim something exists that is outside perception, something exists that isn't matter, yeah it is all the same idealism. You take a concept or idea invented by humans and raise it above you and this world, as if it came from nowhere. And pretend that you are enlightened for liking this "pure" thing.
I started from zero and arrived at materialism, I am absolutely certain for 100% it is true and solid. I was raised in a religious home so for me idealism was the default. But I managed to see through this deceptive monster and reached the truth on my own. I would advise you do the same and well, take your own advice. You aren't original at all or special like you would like to be, most of philosophy and human thought centered around this mental illness called idealism. And in a way you even continue theology itself. So congrats. You replaced "God" with "consciousness" or waifus. All the while you have 0, no evidence whatsoever to justify your philosophy.
>plain, old, crude, boring, materialism
Aside from "plain, old, crude" which are false obviously like I said above, you come with the reason of it being "boring". So if you find something to be "boring" then it isn't true, Oh-hoh! I thought metaphysics and philosophy was supposed to be about truth and wisdom, well guess I was wrong, it is supposed to be exciting!
Grow up. You don't need to delude yourself with lies and fantasy and you certainly don't need to live in your own little dreamworld. You can enjoy 2D and waifus without going full retard. What you are doing is nothing but literal escapism, escaping from truth and reality into your head, classic defense mechanism of the weak.
Rereading again your posts after having written the rest of this one, I feel that I've mostly wasted the time it took me write it. They are almost completely devoid of any actual points or arguments for materialism or against idealism. Your post is mostly emotional, full of psychologizing away what I've put forward as "weak, schizo, escapist, running away from The Truth, contrarian, wanting to be a special snowflake", without actually addressing any point I've made. Materialism is definitely a very emotional thing to you, as opposed to a perspective I've arrived at through reasoning and careful observation. But I do encourage you to mercilessly critique point by point my reasoning, by which I mean an actual rational critique, not the emotional labeling and pseudo-psychologizing you've only made so far. I've also like to see a point by point reasoning on the premises and observations that lead you to materialism (more on that later).
>Thoughts or ideas only exist as long as there are flesh&blood humans who think about them.
You have not followed my advice, though I would've been extremely surprised if you had. You continue to think in terms of the conceptual model of materialism without realizing that it's merely a conceptual model constructed to understand the empirical behavior of the objects actualizing in consciousness. There is no fundamental ontological distinction between what you refer as "thought and ideas" and "flesh and blood", only an empirical one (i.e., they behave and interact differently). So you're fallaciously elevating a useful empirical distinction into an ontological one. Both what you call "thoughts and ideas" as well as "flesh and blood" exist together in the same field and interact with each other in it (I'm not some kind of mind-body dualist). Everything you call "flesh and blood" are merely more empirical objects that actualize in consciousness. All we call matter is merely empirical content in consciousness that has no reality outside it. The same applies as well to the conceptual model of materialism qua
conceptual model, it is also just an empirical object with its own behavior actualizing in consciousness.
(By object I mean a something
— e.g., my cat, Hitler, the city of Saint Petersburg, the character Illyasviel von Einzbern — that actualizes in consciousness as an object in itself. However, only some aspects of it actualize at any one moment, never the totality because there is always more aspects of it to actualize. For example, if I were to perceive the totality of my cat's aspects right now, new situations can always take place where different aspects of my cat show up that didn't appear before because they may only actualize in interaction with this other situation, etc. Now, I've never met Hitler, nor visited Saint Petersburg, and yet I've interacted with these objects through the manifestation of aspects of them, which by themselves give reality to the object itself by having it actualize in a consciousness as an object itself. Hopefully, that wasn't too convoluted, I do admit I'm not great at explaining.)
The meaning of empirical science is the study of the behavior of the objects that actualize in consciousness. It would be fruitful to study the cognitive process through which the conceptual model of materialism is constructed from a fallacious line of reasoning upon general observations (and some more specific ones) of the behavior of the objects seen as "material". Still, I think I get the gist behind the reasoning. I was a very hardcore materialist at some point when I used to be into philosophy. As a general epistemological heuristic, I think I notice the following three levels (again, this is only a heuristic to reason more clearly about the issue, and not an actual epistemological theory):
1. The most fundamental level is the observation of the a-temporality of consciousness and the a-temporal temporality of all objects that actualize in it. This is a truth for which there is no need for argument, reasoning, theorization, or empirical evidence. It is something that can be observed at any one moment, though often it is obscured to a mind inhabiting thinking purely through conceptual systems like materialism/physicalism/dualism, which are really more like castles in the air that one constructs then gets lost in and loses sight of the ever-present sky within which they are. Take away all those castles in the air and you may perhaps see consciousness itself, which is always there and can't
ever not be there. You may lose all your senses, your body, every thought, feeling, belief, memory, and so on until there's nothing left, and consciousness would still remain, in which new objects would soon actualize, just as a dream soon forms in the relative quietness of what scientists refer to as the NREM phase of sleep. You don't need reasoning or evidence for this because it is that which is prior to all evidence and reasoning and without which it there can be no reasoning or evidence of any kind.
3. All evidence and some reasoning are for the third level, which is the mere empirical study of the behavior of the objects that actualize in consciousness. All the empirical sciences are here, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, anthropology, etc. These fields are created by humans for historical, institutional, and pragmatic reasons, but really, all these phenomena actualize and interact within the same field. They're also not like the boundaries between different countries, where there's the country of physics somewhere, then chemistry sharing a border with it, then sociology somewhat more farther away, etc. Those are all contingent and artificial ways to understand "the universe".
2. (Yes, I'm deliberately introducing them in a different order so it makes more sense.) The second level is ontological reasoning about the deeper nature of the objects that are empirically observed. Among the greatest of physicists there have been both idealists like Niels Bohr, Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc. (Niels Bohr went as far as to say that the universe was inside the mind of the scientist) as well as materialists. Two physicists may be in complete agreement about their observations of the behavior of the phenomena they study, but be in complete disagreement about the very nature of such phenomena, i.e., one may be an idealist and the other a materialist; conversely, they could be in total disagreement about their observations and interpretations of the behavior of their phenomena of study, and be in complete agreement about materialism or idealism being absolutely correct. You can't give evidence for or against materialism or any other metaphysical system because they're not about explaining or predicting the behavior of any kind of empirical object, but about a deeper, more conceptual understanding on the nature of such objects.
Idealists who all have achieved the insight of the 1st level, may then explore different perspectives that are opened by it. For example, one may come to adopt solipsism, thinking that only
one's own diminute, finite consciousness is the end be all of existence and there's nothing beyond it, with the people in it being no different than NPCs; another may be a different kind of solipsist who believes in a single finite consciousness that experiences one by one the lives of every organism and then loops back to repeat it once again for all eternity (like Ayana in Subahibi); yet another may think his consciousness loops eternally from this specific human life's birth until its death (like that annoying black-and-white diagram we've all seen); yet another may believe in an illimitable primordial, universal consciousness that dissociates or localizes finite, limited consciousness like those of organisms, waifus, mythological creatures, etc. I frankly believe something like this last one. I could keep going for a long time listing more and more possible perspectives. All these perspectives are mostly in the 2nd level of reasoning about general 3rd level observations, as is materialism.
(As an example I'll point out in this next paragraph the different levels according to this heuristic.)
I do recognize the existence of such a thing as "matter" as a very specific kind of empirical object in consciousness with very general laws of behavior (reasoning in the perspective of the 1st level I just described). An example of "non-material" empirical objects and environments are dreams. When dreaming you explore different environments that appear before you, with their own kind of inhabitants and tools (this is an observation in the 3rd level). The key insight is that the places and beings one encounters in dreams are just as real as the places and beings one encounters in the "material" world of the demiurge (seeing the same previous observation but now from the 1st level). When in a dream, however, things are a lot more fickle and voluble, changing constantly to our thoughts and emotions, while "awake" they're almost completely — though, not entirely — solid and resistant to our thoughts and emotions (these are two observations in the 3rd level; the addition of scare quotes in the word "awake" comes from interpreting the word in the 1st level). This is because when awake we're exploring and interacting in the demiurge's dream (this is reasoning in the 2nd level about the 3rd level observations we just made). But our consciousness isn't inside
the demiurge's (absurd when seen from the 1st level), but rather perceiving the demiurge's first-person POV mental states from the third-person POV, within my own consciousness, just as my own first-person POV mental states manifest in an MRI scan from the third-person POV (this is all very abstract 2nd level reasoning using 3rd level observations) So the material world is just as if I'd trapped other consciousnesses in my own dream to perceive from the perspective of characters in that dream; like this imaginative wiz suggested here https://wizchan.org/wiz/res/189482.html#189487
>idealism vs materialism
So you see that it's not really about idealism vs materialism to me. I'm not some of Berkelyan, Kantian, or Husserlian, etc., because they're all about conceptual systems, for which I lost interest many years ago. I'm more about experiencing and exploring consciousness. I'm still okay with being referred to as an idealist, but this brand of idealism (which is 100% not original to me at all, you can find it everywhere once you notice it; songs, movies, video games, ancient religions, short stories, etc.) it's not exactly a philosophy, more like a meta-philosophy, a perspective that is prior to the activity of philosophy, which itself is the construction of conceptual apparatuses.
It should then be more evident what I meant by referring to materialism as "plain, old, crude, boring". It's not that it is automatically wrong to me because of those things, it's wrong for other reasons. But its an extremely limiting perspective that chains your view down to diminute fraction of all that could be explored in consciousness. Like the people who refuse to watch any new anime and rewatch the same five ones for the 20th time, or the people who just keep listening to the same three albums for decades on end refusing to check out anything else.
>I started from zero and arrived at materialism, I am absolutely certain for 100% it is true and solid.
You didn't even go to the "zero", which is what I referred to as the first epistemological level. You were always caught up in other concepts in the 2nd level that obscured the unchanging, ever-presence of consciousness. The point is to let go of the gripe of all concepts so as to, at least for one moment, reside in the pure observation of the present moment. Then you'll see things clearly as they are, without the distorting interpretations of metaphysical systems like materialism or even idealism. No metaphysical system is strictly speaking correct, as they're all more like tools we construct, and the fact that you confuse your lens with reality itself only speaks further on your lack of capacity for nuanced and subtle reasoning.
>>288635>I started from zero and arrived at materialism
so without even believing that your senses are accurate, you arrived at the conclusion that material is real, strange. at this point its debatable whether your reasoning skills can even be trusted, at that point how can you have any knowledge at all?
>>288638>There is no fundamental ontological distinction between what you refer as "thought and ideas" and "flesh and blood", only an empirical one (i.e., they behave and interact differently). So you're fallaciously elevating a useful empirical distinction into an ontological one. Both what you call "thoughts and ideas" as well as "flesh and blood" exist together in the same field and interact with each other in it (I'm not some kind of mind-body dualist). Everything you call "flesh and blood" are merely more empirical objects that actualize in consciousness. All we call matter is merely empirical content in consciousness that has no reality outside it. The same applies as well to the conceptual model of materialism qua conceptual model, it is also just an empirical object with its own behavior actualizing in consciousness.
this is broadly correct, but let's examine the relationship between the human subject and observed object more closely
the totality of the object can never be in the subject, because the object has mutually dependent relations with all reality (more accurately, the object is entirely enmeshed in reality and only appears to us, who are similarly enmeshed, as an object by biological and social convention). between the human subject and observed object there can only be an intermediary relationship of aesthetics, perception, artful deception, knowledge, abstract models, and so on, in which only a fraction of the object is grasped. we can substitute this fractional view between ourselves by language and art, and to that extent it is as real as anything else
but let's not mistake this affective relationship between subject and object as being a reality in and of itself. this is the primary fallacy of idealism and psychism. in our distrust of idealism we made another intermediary world of materialism and scientific positivism, which in turn is another form of idealism disguised as anti-idealism–but this is not a vindication of idealism. even if engaging in idealism was necessary for the human animal this wouldn't be a vindication, in the same way the necessity of a spider spinning a web doesn't vindicate the web, and consciousness is just as fleeting and shadowy as the spider's web in nature. there is no such necessity of knowledge in nature, only humans grant their subjectivity such centrality as though their minds precede the world
the reason physics oscillates between atomic and field models of the world is from being engaged in this fallacious dialectic of idealism, laboring under ideas like cause and effect or time and space, so where does that leave the world? the world is certainly neither material or immaterial, ideal or nominal, while contradicting neither: but difference, will, or action entirely unmediated. this means you're waifu a shit and we are no different than grape-kun when he fell in love with hululu. if grape-kun could talk he would have his own penguin philosophy that put penguin-mind first
No, it doesn't. I really don't care about mathematics or metaphysics for that matter, the plain simple truth is that you can only think about these things because you exist materially and have a brain that is material too. The logical conclusion of anti-materialism or idealism is usually something like suicide to ascend to another plane or asceticism (which is suicide in a different way). I can't take idealists seriously, ever. You guys can only make your ideology come to life through long walls of pointless texts and rambling. When you are finished sending your wisdom and sharing the ultimate truth with us you go back to fulfill your very much material needs and to engage in the material world. You are a bunch roleplayer hypocrites.>>288638>>288639
To be honest, I am a very patient person and almost always read everything or every response I get but I skipped most of your posts this time. Because they smelled way too much like metaphysics and theology, which I can't stand. They bored me to death. You typed all this out and your waifu still doesn't exist. It's quite amazing, the length you people go to, just to prove that some anime character you like to fap to is real. You argue against me and you try to label me as "emotional" when it is exactly you who is being butthurt because I refuse to go along with your insanity and schizophrenia.
This really isn't such a complex matter as you or your friends would like to think it is. Some things exist, others don't. Your waifu is an imaginary character, she doesn't exist like we do. Without the staff to create her she wouldn't exist. Just like God is worthless concept without his followers who carry out "his will". Your waifu is an idea, you are a real being, how hard can this be to understand? Children as old as 5 or 6 can understand basic things like this.
You can spin words this way and that, make sentences that sound rational or whatever to you, at the end of the day you are only lying to yourself. Your waifu isn't real and you know it too, that is why you try with so much vehemence to prove that she exists, you know she doesn't.
Your philosophy, like that of all idealists or anti-materialists has absolutely no relation to real life whatsoever. It may sound good in text or to you but it bears no resemblance to reality. You retreated into your own little metaphysical castle and ignore reality. Saddest or funniest part is, you - like all other types of idealists - think you are some enlightened being, pff, don't make me laugh. Take your meds and go masturbate to Illya.
Truly, idealism and metaphysics are the cancer of philosophy and human thought. Pointless ramblings with no connection to actual life.>>288640
I know my senses are accurate, if you think human perception is wrong then there is no point in thinking or philosophy at all. Of course, idealists have to question the senses themselves, otherwise their shit ideology couldn't even stand. You need to question reality itself because idealism is pretty much a lie, something that is the opposite of reality.
>>288655>I know my senses are accurate, if you think human perception is wrong then there is no point in thinking or philosophy at all
sense data is plainly inaccurate. the purpose of sense data isn't to perceive reality, but to orientate the organism to exploit its environment. if you are a microbe you are equipped with the sensory apparatus to do that, and if you're an owl you have a different set of apparatus. the microbe and owl both agree they are the center of the world and perceive reality accurately, but they can't both be right
there's no standard for human perception. it not only differs between peoples and cultures, but will continue to change over the course of evolution
Try harder. Again, you draw all your conclusions based on your perceptions. So you shouldn't even be able to form simple arguments like these because you can't trust your senses, according to you.
Your ideology is self-defeating.
Deism alongside a pagan interpretation of nature is all that can make sense. The axiom that that which created this sphere of existence is the driving force behind all growth, and the seed/point-of-origin where iterative evolutionary steps began, defines a basis and rational simplicity that anyone can grasp, allowing for derivation and synthesis - logically, spiritually and ethically.
That you are a part of this existence, residing in your human skin, is to feel the embrace of this process, much as any other body or being has done and ever will. With respect to living things, plants and fungi embody this in the purest form, single-cell organisms residing on a more complex echelon that rapidly increases with size. The path is singular - the result of progression, correction and improvement, and thus to stray from this path in any abstract sense -or in actu- is to run contrary to every other thing. Doing so is ultimately meaningless, for all the meaning in all other things washes past you, unaware of your miniscule stand against it. Therefore, on a fundamental level, our only ultimate purpose can be to shape that flow in some minute, but meaningful way. Our human minds give us a special ability to shape this at a level of extreme detail imperceptible to the force as a whole, which is quite a special task and responsibility.
the presumption that perceptions are at the service of a conclusion-drawing intellect is just that, you could equally say both are at the service of life. the guy with the rationalist ideology here is your good self
>>288664>Deism alongside a pagan interpretation of nature is all that can make sense. The axiom that that which created this sphere of existence is the driving force behind all growth, and the seed/point-of-origin where iterative evolutionary steps began, defines a basis and rational simplicity that anyone can grasp, allowing for derivation and synthesis - logically, spiritually and ethically.>Doing so is ultimately meaningless, for all the meaning in all other things washes past you, unaware of your miniscule stand against it. Therefore, on a fundamental level, our only ultimate purpose can be to shape that flow in some minute, but meaningful way. Our human minds give us a special ability to shape this at a level of extreme detail imperceptible to the force as a whole, which is quite a special task and responsibility.
The absurdity of a race of creatures flickering into existence to impart meaning (after they discover it) onto colossal cosmic forces is quite pitiful. Do you not despair for them? Mankind could destroy the entire solar system and it would be an entirely insignificant event
You're right that what's vital is what "stands against" and "shapes" these forces, because what's alive is what vents its strength. The plant is animate and the rock inanimate, as the plant crushes the rock in its grip. The places where life is still we say are dead (the sloth is "barely alive"), and places like volcanoes are alive to us: where molten rock "acts on" other rock. Surely the volcano is a god that must be satiated?
So we see in the philosopher the ultimate living tyrant, where they put the human mind (the mind of god, a divine mind, the philosopher's mind) at the origin of the universe. This is truly taking a stand, against everything! Has there ever been a greater lie and inversion, but also a greater human act, than this?
The philosopher drips more poison into your ear and tells you it's imperative to adopt this position, else all human reason, meaning, and ethics crumble. Maybe he's right, but what was this realm before other than his domain? This guy lives a vital intellectual life (and often not much else), and it just so happens everything that's conducive to his life is an imperative not only for him, but for you as well, for all men, for all time…
>>288651>let's examine the relationship between the human subject and observed object more closely
Virtually all you say in this paragraph is correct, there's just one tiny but crucial misunderstanding in regards to what I mean by the word "consciousness" that changes everything (more on this later).
Let's start with this concept. Everything we call the subject — whether human or penguin — is constituted as fleeting empirical content in consciousness. The subject is just another object in consciousness interacting and shaping other objects and being in turn shaped by them, so when you say,>"between the human subject and observed object there can only be an intermediary relationship of aesthetics, perception, artful deception, knowledge, abstract models, and so on, in which only a fraction of the object is grasped",
you're being keenly and insightfully observant. However, there's no reason to elevate the object referred to as the "human subject" above all the other objects and refer to it as the passive (e.g., "raw perception") and active constituent (e.g., giving form to the "raw data" of "perception" through the mechanisms you listed) of all other empirical objects. You might as well arbitrarily pick any other object, crown it "the subject", and analyze the form of all other empirical objects in terms of that one; and then someone else will come along and make the same (correct) observation as made you in regards to that "subject". It just so happens that the object picked in this case (or rather, assumed, since I never mentioned it) happens to be the "human mind".
>but let's not mistake this affective relationship between subject and object as being a reality in and of itself.
Once again, everything you say in this paragraph is virtually correct, but here the misunderstanding I mentioned before is laid bare in the following phrase,>"consciousness is just as fleeting and shadowy as the spider's web in nature".
The conceptual difficulty, which I pointed out in Part 2 of my previous post, is that "consciousness" is only a label, a word, a concept, but what I'm point to with it is neither a word nor a concept. You may define "consciousness" in various different ways and use it to refer to any class of empirical phenomena. If it's used to refer to phenomena such as emotions, thoughts, sensations, etc., then you're correct. But here I'm using it to refer to the ever-present field within which all empirical phenomena and objects actualize, and not to any particular of these objects that actualize in it (the word "field" is still somewhat of a metaphor; you might alternatively conceive of it as the immaterial material which takes the shape of all empirical objects, and out of which all empirical objects are "made of"; language can only take us so far when dealing with this, I'll expand more on the inevitable limitations of language if you ask me to). To illustrate this, I'll use your example of grape-kun and myself, whom I'll refer to as waifufag-kun.
In waifufag-kun's consciousness are a differentiated multiplicity of empirical objects and phenomena in a process of actualization — among these is also constituted everything that one may refer to as a "human mind" or "human subject", so a key insight here is that the so called "subject" is immanent to consciousness, and not transcendent or external to it. That is also true of grape-kun's consciousness. But the empirical content — as well the patterns of its structuration — in waifufag-kun's consciousness is that which would be called "human mind". Waifufag-kun is completely incapable of grasping the kind of empirical content — and again, the patterns of its structuration — actualizing in grape-kun's consciousness, for if he could then his mind at that moment would suddenly be a "penguin mind". So it is that what you reference as "human philosophy" and "penguin philosophy" are the kind of conceptual models that would actualize as empirical content in their respective minds. However, it would still remain true that in both waifufag-kun's and grape-kun's consciousnesses, there is an ever-present field in which ever-fleeting empirical content actualizes. Hope that clears that tiny misunderstanding on the word "consciousness".
>the world is certainly neither material or immaterial, ideal or nominal, while contradicting neither: but difference, will, or action entirely unmediated.
Very insightful and I agree completely. In fact, I deliberately chose the words "differentiated multiplicity" in my previous paragraph as a reference to this sentence of yours. Though I appear to distinguish consciousness with its content, they're really one and the same. Once again, pesky language is forcing us to think realitity in terms like "the light shines", as if "the light" were something ("a noun") separate from its acting ("verb") of "shining". This "field" I call by the word "consciousness" cannot be separated from what actualizes in it, and one might also more properly — as well as more awkwardly — say "the field actualizes as the empirical content". What consciousness actualizes as at any one moment is always differentiated and in a process of actualization, i.e., in becoming, which someone might even refer to as a "pure becoming of consciousness".
What I most like about your post is that you're actually reasoning critically on observations — and also not taking those observations at face value — as opposed to >>288655
whose objections are merely those actualized by the conceptual model of materialism, when the validity of the very model itself is precisely the issue at hand. His perplexed bewilderment and are completely understandable and expected. When materialism is questioned, he merely repeats the conclusions of materialism to argue that materialism is correct, e.g.,>"the plain simple truth is that you can only think about these things because you exist materially and have a brain that is material too".
The very fact that he says,>"I really don't care about (…) metaphysics for that matter,"
without realizing that materialism is itself a metaphysics (and I even explicitly wrote against the construction of metaphysical systems in my post) just further proves the futility of arguing with someone incapable of even recognizing his theoretical, metaphysical lens as a theoretical lens, and not "plain simple truth", which is what every model says about in the absence of a self-awareness of the process of its own constitution.
What I'm more interested in materialism is in the point-by-point cognitive process of reasoning and observations through which the theoretical, conceptual model itself is constructed. But I won't find that in a simple-minded person without the minimum modicum of rational self-awareness.
>>288670>The absurdity of a race of creatures flickering into existence to impart meaning (after they discover it) onto colossal cosmic forces is quite pitiful.
What you call absurd and pitiful is a perspective that I can to some degree relate to, however at times there is an innocence to it which I find brings immense comfort.
If you'll excuse the following faggotry/blog:
I helped a butterfly out of the shed the other week who had a misadventure into a long discarded spider's web. Pulled him out on a bamboo stick and meticulously picked off every strand until he flew off. It was as if he was waiting until I got the last fibre off. When he did fly off he bumped right onto my forehead and then on his way.
That one brief moment of giving him my undivided thought and attention defines what it is to be on the right side of the flow, and I feel genuinely honoured to have had the moment - not for the fact I had the power to save that small creature's life, but rather the fact that I was contributing in a real, tangible way. He gets his freedom and a bird gets its dinner a few days later. Much better than rotting in a dark window frame for the sake of a few minutes of my time. I got something to think about out of it, certainly.
Now that I believe to have explained myself sufficiently to the satisfaction of any mind capable of keen observation and subtle reasoning — don't think, however, that I delude myself in thinking you belong to that category — I could go on to write the point-by-point reasoning that leads me to the conclusion that my waifu exists, but I've already derailed too much this thread originally about demiurge worshipping. So I'll summarize it in a single sentence in your sole style of reasoning, where any doubts about a proposition are resolved by stating an implication of the proposition as proof of the truth of that very proposition:My waifu exists, so please cry harder.
Before, I'd show pure contempt towards "schizo" waifufags just as you do, but now that that reasoning and observation have ascended me to be one of the so called "schizophrenic nutcases", that same contempt directed at me is like confetti celebrating my love for my waifu. So above all, do not stop showering me with the confetti called contempt.
You get all your information from your senses, if you think honestly that you can't rely on your perception then there is no point in discussion.>>288674>>288681>my waifu exists
Really? Can I meet her then? And I don't mean watching some anime or reading some manga, but actually meet her in real life. Can I touch her, talk with her? No? Owww. For someone who "exists" her existence sure seems to be limited!
Yeah to tell the truth, I don't have patience for "traditional" philosophy and its endless ramblings anymore. True wisdom lies in clear, short and simple statements. If you can't say what you want to say in a few sentences and without sounding like some pretentious wanna-be intellectual then don't even bother writing it.
All the metaphysical discussions of philosophy about time, space, causality, consciousness and the like were waste of time. I consider even the "free will vs determinism" topic to be a waste of breath and energy nowadays. Good philosophy should be useful, practical and something that can be applied in everyday life. These abstract discussions have no effect on our lives whatsoever, you might falsely think they are very serious topics but they aren't.
If you want an example of what I consider to be quality and good philosophical work then I mean things like Bakunin's God and the state or some of Nietzsche's writings or Montaigne. You don't need to sound like some asswipe university prof who wants to please his fellow circle-jerk "intellectual" pals to get your thoughts across.
True wisdom is easy to express and easy to understand and it is always related to real life matters. You sound like a sophist, someone who is interested in proving himself right always with nice sounding arguments instead of actually pursuing truth and wisdom.>>288698
If you think this is the worst possible world that could exist then use your imagination, like really. Our world isn't even close to being the worst possible world.
>>288705>You get all your information from your senses, if you think honestly that you can't rely on your perception then there is no point in discussion.
What I think these wizzies are getting at, and what you're missing in your so far evidenced incapacity for nuanced critical thinking, is that from the moment the question of whether you can trust your senses is posed a great many concepts and a whole theoretical model are already being presupposed. The concern here is that one would think they're "starting from zero", but they'd be completely unaware of just how far from "zero" they truly are. (Now, I actually don't believe it's possible to truly start from zero unless all of one's concepts and theoretical presuppositions were to be artificially wiped without altering one's own cognitive apparatus. It's more of a useful thought experiment, because we still get very far by striving to critically examine and mercilessly criticize every concept and presupposition we find in ourselves.)
To be honest, I had the hope to get the process of reasoning through which you said you arrived at materialism from zero so as to analyze it critically point by point. You said you were 100% certain it was true and solid, so I don't see why you wouldn't feel confident in posting it online.
>I don't have patience for "traditional" philosophy and its endless ramblings anymore.
I mean, me neither. That's one of the reasons why I dropped out of college. I was studying sociology, but nearly all sociological analysis and interpretation were so irremediably contaminated by philosophy and untenable metaphysics. It's a bit of a shame that you refuse to even critically look at what I say since I think you'd find we do share very similar attitudes to philosophy and metaphysics, and one of the points I'm making against materialism is that it's itself a metaphysical system.
>True wisdom lies in clear
direct perception on what is actually going on, unpolluted by artificial, arbitrary concepts and presupposed theoretical, metaphysical models that distort it?>short and simple statements.
The thing is that anything could be distilled into "short and simple statements" that make people go, e.g., "damn, you had me at 'Holy Ghost'. So true!" Language can have a very powerful distorting effect both at the highest and lowest level of abstract thinking. Language itself can modify the way we perceive by forcing models on to conceptualize experience. I used in one of my posts an example I got from Nietzsche, "the light shines" (see GoM I, 13). Language forces us to break everything up into made up categories of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., as if all those were in fact different things in reality, but they're really one and the same thing artificially divided in abstraction thought. Language forces on us a particular metaphysical conception that distorts our perception — as all metaphysics does.
>If you can't say what you want to say in a few sentences and without sounding like some pretentious wanna-be intellectual then don't even bother writing it.
Don't confuse, however, your own incapacity to understand a complex and subtle critical examination of your deepest metaphysical convictions and presuppositions as "pretension" and "charlatanry" on the other person, especially when that other is trying to get you to see for yourself how fallacious construction of metaphysical systems in themselves and direct you a fundamental pre-conceptual, pre-linguistic wisdom always present to you. Especially when I've gone to such an extent to seriously and in good-faith explain this to you, thinking that you cared for reason and observation.
I tried to discuss the issue in a very rational and critical manner because you seemed to be branding yourself as being a rational and lucid person, unlike the "schizo nutcase" who runs away from Reality and The Truth. But I've realized the ultimate futility in trying to have a good-faith discussion with someone who doesn't believe in rational thought and merely wants to be told that his metaphysical and philosophical views — so deeply ingrained that they are no longer perceived as such, but as "plain common-sense" — are the only tenable ones, and that he's "brave and strong" for having them, "daring to stare Reality and The Truth" face to face, and that the other person is merely a "schizophrenic nutcase" who's "weak, runs away from the truth, and merely wants to feel like an enlightened snowflake". The fact that you've never once engaged with a single one of my points and instead fallen back on psychological and sociological attacks on me is the only evidenced needed for your incapacity and disregard of critical reasoning.
The task of detangling oneself from metaphysics and philosophy is never easy, and in the absence of a critical capacity to examine and analyze concepts, one system (Christianity) is abandoned for another (materialism), now convinced that he's taken off the glasses that were a distorting a proper view of reality, when in fact, he's merely swapped them for another. And when others don't agree with his view, is because they're the one wearing the distorting lenses, otherwise they'd see "reality as it really is", i.e., what you yourself see. Deleuze expressed it succinctly in the following way, "a theory never lets itself be refuted until it has spread its principles and hidden its postulates" (i]Nietzsche and Philosophy[/i]). That's not something that ultimately I, or anyone else, can for you.
>time, space, causality, consciousness
I have literally not written a single word on the first three in my lengthy posts.
>I consider even the "free will vs determinism" topic to be a waste of breath anI consider even the "free will vs determinism" topic to be a waste of breath and energy nowadays.d energy nowadays.
I agree completely. It's a made up conceptual problem.
>Good philosophy should be useful, practical and something that can be applied in everyday life.
Ironically, this is the same kind of propaganda that was pushed on me in college. I don't believe you speak from personal experience when criticizing college and professors, otherwise you'd be getting unpleasant flashbacks like me just seeing these words on a screen. There were some really loud and obnoxious "practical philosophy for everyday life" factions, especially in the social sciences. If anything, they were more popular and widespread than the more dry and analytical philosophy ones.
>If you want an example of what I consider to be quality and good philosophical work then I mean things like Bakunin's God and the state or some of Nietzsche's writings or Montaigne.
I read Bakunin's God and the State as a teenager and found it very sound. I haven't revisited it since, so who knows if my perception would be different, other than the fact that I'm now completely indifferent to 3D political and social issues. As for Nietzsche — I used to worship his writings in college, then went through a "Deleuzean-Latourian" "speculative materialism" phase (dumb humanities stuff that there's no point in knowing and I even feel embarrassed typing here) that made me look at him as "having some great insights, but mostly off-track". I still treasure some of these great insights, especially psychological ones. But I no longer care for philosophy, and therefore not for Nietzsche. I never get around to read de Montaigne back then, so I'm sorry I can't comment on that.
>True wisdom is easy to express and easy to understand
In the absence of distorting artificial concepts and systems, as I've repeated already many times. If you had read my posts attentive you'd realize that was their original purpose in communicating to you, before realizing its futility from your further reponses. It is the simplest, most fundamental truth you can arrive at, for which you need no argument and evidence, because all argument and evidence is founded upon it. It is the only thing that one can be certain and one can always at any one moment find it, since it's always there.
However, to then express it in words and concepts is extremely difficult, since it's neither a word nor a concept, as I've explained ad nauseam
, and words and concepts have a distorting, obscuring effect. So the human being, while being the only animal known capable of bringing this fundamental truth to abstract consciousness, is also equally the only known capable of obscuring it to the point of being capable of claiming its falsehood, e.g., when some philosophers claim that consciousness doesn't exist or is an illusion ("you're just imagining shit up bro, consciousness doesn't really exist" lmao).
Still, I believe I can express it effectively to those who've had training some in philosophy (like >>288651
appears to) — whether from formal education or a personal interest in philosophy — using careful reasoning, as well as those whose minds are not polluted by philosophy, like my mom, without the use of any reasoning — just by directing perception to the present moment. (In fact, it used to be "ignorant people" like my mom who'd often express this intuition to me, but I'd always make fun of how extremely stupid that was and respond with arguments and ideas from Lucretius, Spinoza, Stirner, Nietzsche, Marx, Deleuze, etc. I really regret that and feel ashamed every time I remember it.) It's really those in the middle of the two extremes that it's most difficult, if not completely futile, to direct to this fundamental truth; those who have little experience with nuanced, abstract conceptual analysis but are still polluted by philosophical prejudices.
(Nice, looks like I managed to get through this whole reply without using the word "actualize" a single time.)
Dont discuss or argue with retards posting anime pictures, ever, theyre mostly pseudo intellectuals posting bullshit with anime succubus pictures to sound smug and intelligent.
Even the ones who post short and glib-sounding phrases of pseudo-aphoristic wisdom (gleaned off the back of a napkin from some Chinese takeout food)?
>>288705>For someone who "exists" her existence sure seems to be limited!
After all I've said, I still feel somewhat obliged to respond to this provocation.
>Can I meet her then? And I don't mean watching some anime or reading some manga, but actually meet her in real life. Can I touch her, talk with her? No? Owww.
I'm not surprised that you answer for me and consider adding "No? Owww" at the end of your objection as an instant refutation. But I am surprised that you'd think I'd answer no instead of triggering another one of my "schizo ramblings". If you want my detailed answer to your question, then give me your point-by-point reasoning "from zero" that you're "100% certain is true and solid" on why materialism is true.>>288721
Don't discuss or argue with people who don't believe in reasoning, ever. They're mostly pseudo-intellectuals posting bullshit pseudo-psychological and pseudo-sociological refutations of your arguments to sound smug and intelligent.
I'm sorry you feel threatened from the level of discussion worthy of having anime pics attached to it.
I agree with the other poster. You guys consistently come across as completely vacant-minded pseudo-intellectuals who need to constantly reminds others how insulated and self-righteous you are.
I don't know why weebposters do this, apparently they believe that rejecting western media (and rejecting real life relationships for the empty illusion of 2D relationships) combined with immersing themselves in shitty, repetitive japanese media makes them look like misunderstood geniuses that go beyond normal thinking patterns and reach new intellectual grounds or something.
Yet they only parrot the same shit other pseudointellectuals have posted before.
why dont you like anime?
i m not reading any of that shit but all you can accuse him or them of is avatarfagging. that level of hostility is uncalled for, if you hate the discussion in this thread just ignore it, it's not like they're spamming the whole board or anything
That "schizo nutcase" remark clearly struck a nerve.
You don't need to apologize for anything, this isn't a circlejerk chan or at least I would like to believe it isn't. You said what you wanted and I said my piece too.
Yeah, I'm not especially a well-read person when it comes to philosophy but I have my own views I stick to. Maybe I appear as dogmatic but I don't mind. Materialism is a self-evident truth to me that needs no long explanations and not because of "common sense" (what does that even mean?). Because I hold quite a few uncommon opinions that would make most people want to crucify me or stone me. I don't think you should base your worlview on wanting to appear unique or strange because I got the impression you enjoy playing the special snowflake and being contrarian. That is fine but for a personal worldview these aren't solid things to build on. You may confuse or make normals fear you because of your strange views but ultimately these aren't enough. If you really believe these things, then good for you, do whatever you want. I don't particularly care. I just thought I would give you a few good advices because otherwise you may yet end up in the loony bin, seriously. It is one thing to enjoy 2D and another completely to think 2D exists in a higher realm. But like I said whatever, your business.
I'm not interested in science or know much about it, same for math or metaphysics, to me they seem to deal with things that aren't relevant to my interests. I'm more interested in humans and how they behave and why they think what they think or why they do what they do. I realize I come off as anti-intellectual but I don't mind that either, I'm disillusioned about rationality and the scientific approach itself too. When it comes to philosophy I'm extremely selective about what I read nowadays. For example I find Schopenhauer to be unreadable in nearly all cases while I don't mind reading Plato for example. It's simply that I don't care about what Schope says 90% of the time, being obsessed with sense-perception and will and whatever.
Also, you don't need to hide your waifuism, nothing wrong with it.
Weeb posters are so weird, it's as if they believe they're living in the 90s or early 2000s and anime is some underground hobby only available to a select few.
The misunderstood genius trope and pseudo-intellectual rants are spot on, they reek of mental illness not the fun kind and smug superiority complexes. They're just awful to be around, online and the few times I've had the misfortune of meeting one of these guys IRL.
mom said to get off wizchan you have school tomorrow
Want to make it clear I am a new poster here. Seems I am arriving very late to the game. I spend the better part of two hours reading everything here because I found your posts to be so interesting. Reading the rest of the thread was basically supplemental to me reading your posts; I basically just read them because I wanted all the proper context for your posts. At first I thought you were a troll, engaging it some very elaborate larping. For me, I couldn't help perceiving a certain level of disconnect between the clarity, purity, and sincerity of your reason in your posts and your initial claims about your beliefs regarding your waifu. Many of your late posts are entirely in keeping with my personal beliefs and perspectives, but you are able to articulate them in a capacity that is beyond me personally. Whether or not you are or aren't trolling, you obviously have some education in this field and have devoted a considerable amount of thought to it.
Your profession of faith in your waifu's existence and your dismissal of the existence of Christ seems to present a fallacy though, which is what generated my initial suspicion of you being a troll.>>288559
It seemed to me that the reasoning you apply (in this post) to validating your waifu can just as easily be applied to validating the existence of Jesus. It struck me as inherently illogical that you would make the claims you do about your waifu but then dismiss Christianity. I mean, this seems to suggest a kind of bias which clashes completely with with the rational, thoughtful, and objective person you seem to be in almost every other point you put forward in regard to all other aspects of this threads discussion.
Would you mind explaining this to me? Even if you are a troll (I suspect you aren't, but its hard for me to tell) I think your answer will be very engaging. I can't tell if I have uncovered a flaw in the beliefs you claim to have or if i have simply failed to properly digest all the content put forward in your posts. Both seem very real possibilities to me at the moment.
Anyway, thank you for your posts in general. I found them edifying and charmingly objective.
I got extremely caught up in the somewhat off topic content in this thread, but i also do care about OP's intended line of discussion for this thread.>>288170
I was raised roman catholic and believed it very fervently. That fervor degraded in my teenage years and more or less completely fell apart at about 21. I realized I had transitioned from catholic to atheist without really realizing it. I've spend the better part of the last decade as a nihilist and absurdist. In the absence of god, there are still tremendous beliefs, context, and meaning you can attach to human existence, but it is all ultimately subjective (in my experience). Subjective meaning in the absence of objective meaning holds little value for someone who prizes logic. It seems to me that nihilism is the only real end result for someone who values truth and logic. And if you are a nihilist there is no logical reason not to kill yourself.
But like all human beings, I have a primitive programing to survive and procreate, which has pushed me to cling to life in spite of its seeming meaninglessness. Some people can accept living life without having to rationalize it, but I can't.
I realize the absurdity of using religion as a cope. But what do we have besides our copes? For a while now I have been contemplating returning to the catholic church. I don't think I can ever truly believe in God or an afterlife, but I think the framework of faith the church offers will help me to live life with a greater level of comfort and purpose. Guess we will see. I also realize that my style of participation in catholisizm would catagorize me as someone who isn't actually a real catholic. But I think that's okay, whether it does or doesn't change.
Pic attached to my post is unrelated to anything I just said, but demonstrates a stance I take in regard to some of the other discussion happening. Really should have attached it to my first post and not this one…
Yes, I'm not a troll. My waifuism is sincere and I believe my views to be coherent. You have to keep in mind, though, that the latter posts are concerned with more "lower level" thinking, as in, thinking not too far conceptually abstracted from the fundamental facts of consciousness itself, and not so much with more higher level derivations of reasoning based on observation, as the earlier ones about waifus. You could build all kinds of internally consistent, all-encompassing worldviews on top of that foundation, which is what makes it fun and freeing. And, hopefully my final word here on waifuism, I've yet to give a more complete reasoning for the existence of waifus, as opposed to the more disparate "just so" arguments I gave in the earlier posts, which presuppose quite a lot that is unsaid.
>your dismissal of the existence of Christ
I don't think I ever explicitly did. I only argued against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, usually referred to as "God", as an impossibility. I believe much theology to be confused and contradictory because of its attachment to these two concepts of omnipotence and omniscience. It's clear the biblical God, while being very powerful, does not evidence those absolute traits, and if he did, there would be no Bible. I don't how much I believe in the Biblical God, but I still do definitely believe in a God-like being not too different from it, though his existence is the opposite of comforting to me. Beyond that, I haven't given much thought to the figure of Christ, tbh.>>288812
I was also raised Catholic and have had my whole schooling in Catholic private schools, including college. But I never cared much for it and fell out of it more explicitly by around the age of 12 (6th grade).
I'm okay with people "taking the Christpill" for comfort. Though I may have called it "demiurge worshipping", I'm just joking and don't actually look down on wizards who have decided to take the Christpill. But you could also take the 2dpill…
I suspected you were not a troll, but my inability to connect your lines of logic generated a certain level of skepticism on my part. Error on my part, not yours.
>I don't think I ever explicitly did. I only argued against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, usually referred to as "God", as an impossibility.
When writing my post I probably should have referred to whole "diemiurge" thing rather than more narrowly mentioning Christ. Anyway, it just seemed to me that your system for validating your waifu could be very easily adapted to validating god, even a "traditional" one.
>I believe much theology to be confused and contradictory because of its attachment to these two concepts of omnipotence and omniscience. It's clear the biblical God, while being very powerful, does not evidence those absolute traits, and if he did, there would be no Bible.
I wont pretend there aren't a shitload of plot holes in the bible. There are. Nor will I deny the ignorant and blatantly contradictory beliefs may people have about this faith which can be shockingly shortsighted. But I think if you really wanted to, you could poke a bunch of similar holes in the way you rationalize the existence of your waifu. I won't pretend to know if Jesus or your waifu exist, what I don't understand is why you have so much faith in your waifu but argue so fervently that "an all-powerful, all-knowing being, usually referred to as "God", is an impossibility." One doesn't seem that much more implausible than the other to me.
>I'm okay with people "taking the Christpill" for comfort. Though I may have called it "demiurge worshipping", I'm just joking and don't actually look down on wizards who have decided to take the Christpill. But you could also take the 2dpill…
Haha I don't think that the "christ pill" and the "2dpill" have to be mutually exclusive!
The absolute retard just changed one religion (Christianity) for another even more retarded (waifuism).
At least Christianity has an interesting story, waifuism is just the cult of consooom, loving 2D characters is retarded as fuck and extremely unwizardly, and on top of that most 2D characters are created by succubi so you're just simping by proxy.
Holy shit I hate weebfags and waifufags so much, literally Reddit tier posters.
I don't mind the concept of loving 2D characters, but I can't really relate to people who obsess over shitty one dimensional characters with the personality of wallpaper. If it's one of the few characters out there that actually has a lot of depth though i'd sort of understand
not that i'm disparaging them or anything just saying i can't relate to them
>>288814>I won't pretend to know if Jesus or your waifu exist, what I don't understand is why you have so much faith in your waifu but argue so fervently that "an all-powerful, all-knowing being, usually referred to as "God", is an impossibility." One doesn't seem that much more implausible than the other to me.
Waifus and specific beings like Jesus and the Biblical God on the one side, and God in the metaphysical sense ("the God of the philosophers") on the other, are beings of a completely different and insurmountably kind. So it could be the case that the Biblical God does exist exactly as described in the Biblical stories, which would be an empirical issue. But "God" in a more metaphysical sense would still first depend on definition. If someone were to define "God" as consciousness itself, or as "the universal, primordial consciousness that localizes into the finite, limited consciousnesses of beings we call humans, cats, Jesus, waifus, etc.", then it would be self-evident that it exists (in the former case), or plausible but still a matter of debate (in the latter case — and I actually believe this one, which is something non-self-evident to be derived through reasoning from experience).
My rough (non-empirical) argument against the existence of the classical metaphysical God would be something like this:
Definition 1. First I'll define that something could exist as that it could actualize in consciousness, not necessarily "in its totality", but at least aspects of it that imply an object in itself. Think of, e.g., climate change, which a trendy "hip" philosopher I don't care to name referred to as a "hyper-object". You can't ever perceive "climate change" in its totality as an object, but it remains an object itself because it is a something
with capacities of its own irreducible to its composing parts, even if these capacities may only actualize through its parts, which is how all affection ever happens (think of how you must only use certain particular muscles in a certain particular way to do any one movement, and yet, such a movement would not be possible without these muscles acting as parts of the totality of the muscular system as an object in itself; if you wished you could continue down a chain of affections here down to the atomic level just to explain a simple movement of your own body.)
Definition 2. And I'll use the classical definition of the metaphysical God as an unlimited, infinite, indivisible, eternal being.
P1. The current contents of consciousness at this specific moment are a differentiated multiplicity of limited, finite, divisible empirical objects. This is self-evident and the only proof required is setting your attention on the present moment. (Hopefully the specific words I'm using don't sound too pretentious. I hope that it's more evident why I chose them in following bits.)
P2. These empirical objects are in a state of becoming, i.e., they're always in change and movement, and never at any one moment staying still. This is also self-evident. (Or perhaps if the "never at any one moment staying still" seems to requiere proof for you, just wait a bit.)
P3. There was never a moment when the contents of consciousness were in a state of equilibrium, i.e., when they were not multiple or differentiated. Proof: If the current contents of consciousness were to be ever have been in a state of equilibrium, then it would've never transitioned to a state of non-equilibrium, as they currently are, since that would imply that it wasn't a state of equilibrium (argument stolen from Nietzsche).
P4. There will never be a moment when the contents of consciousness reach a state of equilibrium. Proof: If given enough time everything tended toward a state of equilibrium, then it would've already been reached (P3), but it hasn't (P1), so it can't ever be reached (argument stolen from Nietzsche). (This should also make evident the "never at any one moment staying still" bit from P2, since if anything could ever stay still just for one moment, it will never move again, but it hasn't from P1, so it can't.)
P5. The contents of consciousness, as described in P1, must always
be a differentiated multiplicity of limited, finite, divisible empirical objects.
Conclusion. Therefore, the metaphysical God, or any other hypothetical being not having the properties of being limited, finite, divisible, and in a state becoming, can never actualized in consciousness, and thus, doesn't exist.
>Anyway, it just seemed to me that your system for validating your waifu could be very easily adapted to validating god, even a "traditional" one.
Well, I do believe in a traditional God-like being, in a way. The very fact that the stories of the Bible could even be imagined, i.e., actualized in consciousness, means that they are at least "possible". But whether they did
happen in the so called "material world" according to its natural laws (which I view as the demiurge's dream) is an empirical matter, and it doesn't seem that there's good evidence for that. But Christianity is hardly a literal interpretation of the Bible's stories.
>>288815>Holy shit I hate weebfags and waifufags so much
Hating waifufaggotry is okay, and weebfags are honestly more of a normalfag phenomenon. But if you get so bothered by the mere presence of anime images attached to posts that you consider it "weebfaggotry", then I have no fucking idea how you've been in imageboards like wizchan for so long in the first place, of which jp media has always been an important aspect.
>>288824> if you get so bothered by the mere presence of anime images attached to posts that you consider it "weebfaggotry", then I have no fucking idea how you've been in imageboards like wizchan for so long in the first place
every conversation on here will devolve into retard walltext masturbation because nobody addresses the real issue out of fear for being reprimanded. look, anime is fucking awesome. i have watched so many awesome anime in the past like a true reclusive otaku. but let me tell you that i fucking despise all of you superficial assholes that attach animegirl pictures to your textual masturbations.
It's not the anime pictures, but the smug, attitude that most weebfag posters have, watching anime DOES NOT make you some kind of enlightened individual sent to spread your wisdom.
>>288827> but the smug, attitude that most weebfag posters have,
Says the pleb complaining about people posting anime in a literally Japanese inspired website.
it is most unbecoming to not accept the place granted you with good grace
what i say was first said in heaven, and the order of this court was divinely ordained
The slave who freed himself doesn't like freedom and needs a master, even if he doesn't exist.
Seriously, what's wrong with you people? Why can't you enjoy that you are your own master and that you are the only one who can decide what is good and evil?
Logic and rationality aren't the goals, they are just tools for you to achieve what you want. Why does nihilism have to be about all doom and gloom? As an ex-catholic I find the Church's teachings to be very anti-fun and anti-life, they take away everything nice and good from life. Instead of worshipping dry rationality, God or some waifu why can't you just live for yourself, like a healthy human does? You don't need to take any pill, be it Christpill or 2Dpill, these are just copes and you know it too so they won't satisfy you.>>288815
You are right mostly but Christianity doesn't have an interesting story at all, I would say the average anime is more fun and interesting than any religion and myth ever. Also there is nothing with waifuism as long as it doesn't devolve into full-on stupidity. And>most 2D characters are created by succubi
This is just plain wrong.
2D business has always been dominated by men. It was made by men for men in 90% of the cases.
No you're actually wrong, most people attending comiket are females, most character designers in games and visual novels are succubi, and of course your waifu is voiced by a 3D female.
Sorry to break the spell of 2D perfection for you.
Nice trolling but you are way too obvious. 5/10 this time.
Another waifufag bait designed by a succubus, not so hard to find.>>288836>Lele you're trolling!!
Why you don't prove me wrong then faggot? You said something plain wrong and it's me who's trolling? You can search for the character designers if you don't believe me.
even if it was 100% succubi they are only partaking in the 2-dimensional forms of waifu
be not mistaken: succubi are temporary, the 2d forms are eternal
waiting for those worms to finish eating your brain
i think socrates gave me AIDS
it's too late for me, leave athens while you still can
The Father of All Schizophrenics. Ironically, I'm sure he didn't even believe his own thought masturbations, only those who came after him took his teachings way too seriously. A master troll, truly.
These were the kind of feelings I was trying to incite with my deliberately smug attitude and picrels, though mostly directed towards materialistfag, which I ended up regretting after calming down and was one of the reasons why I apologized, and I even made the decision to keep my waifufaggotry out of wizchan. So you guys can shut up about it already. You already won.
God, and now the conversation has turned to anime sucks because it's made by succs. I might just end up taking the Christpill already.
>>288823>Waifus and specific beings like Jesus and the Biblical God on the one side, and God in the metaphysical sense ("the God of the philosophers") on the other, are beings of a completely different and insurmountably kind.
Alright, I think I am finally on the same page as you.
>Well, I do believe in a traditional God-like being, in a way. The very fact that the stories of the Bible could even be imagined, i.e., actualized in consciousness, means that they are at least "possible". But whether they did happen in the so called "material world" according to its natural laws (which I view as the demiurge's dream) is an empirical matter, and it doesn't seem that there's good evidence for that. But Christianity is hardly a literal interpretation of the Bible's stories.
Seems like the one element that we both struggle with is the ability to make the leap of faith.>>288815>The absolute retard just changed one religion (Christianity) for another even more retarded (waifuism).
Take a look at >>288823
and you will see that there has been no transition from Christianity to waifusim. Rather, he has laid out a logical framework that has the capacity to encompass both in a particular, limited, context.
>Holy shit I hate weebfags and waifufags so much, literally Reddit tier posters.
So I guess this makes you a 4chan /b/ level poster then? You're responses to posts are predicated on emotion and don't actually address the points that have been laid out by the posters your are criticizing. Instead of logically addressing the points people make that you disagree with, you devolve to petty insults. You're behavior seems very unwizardly to me. When you are rude all you do is alienate people and bias them against you. >>288825>I know that long posts are always just masturbation even though I don't read them. I can have a discussion without listening to the person I am talking to or actually responding to the things in their post. I am being productive.>>288831>Why does nihilism have to be about all doom and gloom?
Um… do you actually understand what nihilism is?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Read that first paragraph, then explain to me what I can do to live a fulfilling life if I hold this philosophy. If you have found a way to be a happy nihilist, I would be thrilled to hear it! I say this with complete sincerity.>>288850
I apologized, and I even made the decision to keep my waifufaggotry out of wizchan. So you guys can shut up about it already. You already won.
They won't care because they aren't interested in actually having a discussion with you, they just want to express their feelings. Your gesture doesn't mean anything because they aren't actually participating in the discussion you are trying to have with them. Considering this, you have no obligation to stop your waifufaggotry. Then again, maybe you are a more Christian (hehehe) person that me, and will show them kindness in spite of all this.
>God, and now the conversation has turned to anime sucks because it's made by succs. I might just end up taking the Christpill already.
I was thinking about digging into this, but I don't know if I really want to open this can of worms.
>>288670>The absurdity of a race of creatures flickering into existence to impart meaning (after they discover it) onto colossal cosmic forces is quite pitiful. Do you not despair for them?
There is nothing absurd about it. If there is to be any meaning imparted on anything it is necessary that it first must have existence. Since nothing can come into being out of nothing meaning must have eternal existence and be inherently part of the universe just like every other being.
>So we see in the philosopher the ultimate living tyrant, where they put the human mind (the mind of god, a divine mind, the philosopher's mind) at the origin of the universe.>The philosopher drips more poison into your ear and tells you it's imperative to adopt this position, else all human reason, meaning, and ethics crumble.
Whilst some of these positions have indeed been held by men who call themselves philosophers and such positions are quite obviously naive when looking at them through our enlightened modern perspective there is a fundamental truth that they are trying to express when taking such a viewpoint. All of these conceptions of the universe have one thing in common; that they are conceptions that are held in the mind of a human subject. Once you realise that one realises how easy it is to put this mind at the center of the universe, for it is the sun around which all of our cognitions revolve.
Socrates and his circlejerk friends cared more about being contrarian and proving Socrates' arguments as true and logical even if they were completely illogical, than they cared about truth and wisdom. Socrates was a failed philosopher of his time who out of envy and sour grapes labeled other, more successful philosophers than him as sophists. Platonism is in philosophy what abrahamic religions are in religions, positing the "objective truth" (which is their truth obviously) over any of their opponents.>>288864
Nihilism only means that there is no objective value to things, how is that a bad thing? If there was some objective meaning then you'd whine about it being too restrictive and all. Nihilism means you are free to make up your own values and to find your own meaning for things. You can argue that isn't "true meaning or values" but again, no need to be all doom and gloom. You can enjoy the absurdity of existence and derive joy from it.
You don't need a master or some "higher" principle or ideal you can serve. Be your own god. If anything, I was depressed when I was in my christian phase. Because I always stressed about the shitty laws, dogmas and norms I had to adhere to. It is super liberating, not having any authority above you.
All of you consider taking the Jehovah pill, I come from an atheist background as well. when I decided to try to be Christian I was still confused with all sects and churches until I started learning about Jehovah witness, no other sect made as much sense to me and appealed to me both of emotionally and rationally as much as JW.
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28.
“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3
To learn more or clear some misinformation's that you might havehttps://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/
>“We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant.”
It calls Jehovah the the lord and jesus his servant.
There is NO Trinity in this !
In The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Edwin Hatch quotes the foregoing passage and then says:
“In the original sphere of Christianity there does not appear to have been any great advance upon these simple conceptions. The doctrine upon which stress was laid was, that God is, that He is one, that He is almighty and everlasting, that He made the world, that His mercy is over all His works. There was no taste for metaphysical discussion.”
— The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 3, by Robert A. Kraft, 1965, page 166-7>Grace unto you, and peace, from almighty god through jesus christ, be multiplied.
>The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the lord christ, Jesus christ has done so from god. Christ therefore was sent forth by god, and the apostles by Christ.
>May god, who seeth all things, and who is the ruler of all spirits and the lord of all flesh. who chose our lord jesus christ and us though him to be a peculiar people grant to every soul that calleth upoon his glorious and holy name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long suffering. Clement makes a distinction between god, and jesus whom he sent.
God is spokn of as superior, since Christ is sent forth by god, and god chose christ.
Clement as well said.
>We will beg with earnest prayer and supplication that the creator of the universe will keep intact with precise number of his elect in the whole world, through his beloved child jesus christ…. We realize you GOD alone are the highest among the highest. and he refers to Jesus as the Child of God.
quoting this from The epistle of clement to the corinthians btw
“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.
“The doctrine of the trinity . . . is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God.
“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.
in Galatians 3:16, quoting Genesis 12:7, God explains that the Seed of Abraham is Christ,
God says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”
The passage goes on to explain that an inheritance was promised to Abraham’s Seed (Christ) apart from the Law. Later, the Mosaic Law was introduced, but it did not annul the promises made to Abraham or to Abraham’s Seed (Christ).
Just as Abraham believed God and his faith was counted as righteousness (Genesis 15:6), so are all JWs today who believe in God’s Son justified apart from the Law.
In this way, Abraham is the “father” of all who believe (Romans 4:11–17). “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29).
I have absolutely no idea why trinitarians keep quoting John 1:1 since it literally proved that Jesus isn't God !
The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that TWO separate persons are discussed in the verse
It is NOT POSSIBLE for the Word to be “WITH God” and at the same time BE God Almighty.
The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.”
but people DID see the Word (Jesus,) because John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.”>The Word was with God and the Word was God
That is where you are mistaken my friend. While many Bible translators render the verse to say that the word is God, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different.
In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.
For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451.)
Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.
Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.
I really love all of your posts.
1600 BC: Egyptians enslaved the Israelites, but God delivered them
600 BC: Babylon took the Jews captive from their homes but God freed them
60 AD: Nero burned Christians and threw them to the lions but God put an end to the persecution
1940 AD: Hitler swore to exterminate the Bible Students but thanks to God he failed and his empire is no more
2021 AD: Russia targets innocent JWs because of their peaceful worship and adherence to the Bible, but just like in the past, God will see to it that their deliverance is near !
“Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. Happy is the one . . . whose hope is in Jehovah his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, . . . the One keeping trueness to time indefinite.”—Psalms 146:3, 5,
The relatively sudden appearance and disappearance of dinosaurs contradicts the commonly accepted view of slow evolution.
While the radioactive dating method is innovative, it is still based on speculation and assumption. In contrast, the Bible account in the first chapter of Genesis simply states the general order of creation. It allows for possibly thousands of millions of years for the formation of the earth and many millenniums in six creative eras, or “days,” to prepare the earth for human habitation.
Some dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) may indeed have been created in the fifth era listed in Genesis, when the Bible says that God made “flying creatures” and “great sea monsters.” Perhaps other types of dinosaurs were created in the sixth epoch. The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time.—Genesis 1:20-24.
When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by Jehovah for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.
citing the bible as evidence for your research makes you appear like an actual retard you know
Churches are a satanic creation made to make people overlook Jehovah, they removed his name from the bible and went to even put him as a part of some vague trinity. a lot of their heretical stuff was taken from pagan religions and philosophy. it seems like that because that’s the way it happened. The churches wanted to fill their pews so they started adopting pagan practices that people were used to and believed in. You’re very perceptive to pick up on that!
Have you ever heard of William Tyndale?
If not you should Google him and read his Wiki page. It’s pretty interesting.
One of the churches plans back in the day was to try and keep the Bible in Latin so most people couldn’t read it for themselves. They would actually kill anyone they found trying to translate the Bible into common languages!
William Tyndale was the first one to actually complete both the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures to English! He had to flee different Countries to avoid capture and stuff. But very interesting. He eventually was caught and killed and then his body was burned at the stake. All because he translated the Bible into English
Oh, and he used Gods name Jehovah too! Pretty cool.
>>288884>Nihilism only means that there is no objective value to things, how is that a bad thing?
I suppose that it all depends on what you are personally capable of accepting. If all things lack any objective value then all things are inherently meaningless and all actions are inherently absurd. Yes, you can project your on subjective sense of order, meaning, purpose, etc onto the world around you, but if you have a drive to rationalize your existence, then nihilism is a pill that is pretty much unswallowable. It's nice you can live your life not minding that it is (from an objective standpoint) worthless and absurd. You can choose to "live irrationally," a life predicated on subjective meaning you know is not true meaning. But there are people like myself who need to have some line of logic to rationalize their existence. If you are a nihilist, you can break down any form of rationalization to its roots, which are always meaningless and absurd, which undercuts anything you have ever and will ever do with or in your life. I think it is only logical that subscribing to the nihilistic line of logic tends to lead to depression (for many though not or you).
>You can enjoy the absurdity of existence and derive joy from it.
This is the issue that it all boils down to. Though you may have this capacity, I don't; this is a matter of identity. Its great you are able to live a happy life while being a nihilist. I truly envy you. After a decade of though, introspection, and exploration, it has become clear to me that I do not have the capacity to do this.
>You don't need a master or some "higher" principle or ideal you can serve.
You are right, I don't need a master and I don't need to be a supplicant to be happy. And I wouldn't be taking on catholisism in the context of enslaving myself to anything/anyone. Rather, it would offer me a framework of greater purpose and value that would rationalize living my life.
>If anything, I was depressed when I was in my christian phase. Because I always stressed about the shitty laws, dogmas and norms I had to adhere to.
And if I were planning to involve myself in all the minutia of the dogma, laws, and norms then I would be just as unhappy as you were. I plan to be a cafeteria catholic and approach the faith on my own terms in a fashion I think is in keeping with the principles Jesus espoused, while enjoying the overall culture of the faith itself. If you want to debate the merits of being a cafeteria catholic and whether or not that is a life of true "faith" then that is a different discussion.
>It is super liberating, not having any authority above you.
Liberating in one context, a curse in another.
Rationality is overrated. If we inspect carefully all thought systems and philosophies, no matter how rational they may appear to us on the surface, we will find they are motivated by some emotional agenda or desire in their core. We aren't machines or abstract concepts, we are humans for a reason. I think your problem and many others similar to you is that you let rationality to suffocate you and try to build your whole worldview on being objective and rational, while people are always subjective and irrational. Nature itself is irrational, look at the origins of life itself. Sexuality, there is nothing rational in it. Yet it is where all life comes from.
I read somewhere, I don't know where exactly now, that if we are talking in nietzschean terms then there is simply no meaning to be found if you follow the path of Apollo, that is, the path of rationality. If you go down that route and look for an objective meaning to existence and for objective values then you will always arrive at a dead end sooner or later. However, "meaning" and more importantly joy and happiness can be found in the dionysian way, in the irrational path of life. I think this is spot-on.
Your cafeteria catholicism sounds like existential catholicism/christianity to me. In which case Kierkegaard is a must read for you (though I never read him myself).
Personally, I think it is just some lukewarm middle path what you or people like you want. Wanting a general direction for your life but refusing to accept other things associated with faith and religion. It is like agnosticism, which I find to be in bad taste. Either be an atheist or some religious man, going for the middle path leaves a sour taste in my mouth. But maybe that is just me. Anyway I see no value in that, picking out the parts you like from religion and disregarding the parts you dislike. I tried that myself in lots of forms and variations when I tried to invent my own kind of christianity until I realized that I never cared about faith that much to begin with and that I only tried to twist the Church's/Christ's teachings to fit my own desires.
Imo you would benefit much more from abandoning religions of all vareties and kinds. Maybe study catholicism as a secular man if you find it interesting and draw inspiration from it to build your own worldview and thought system? Without pretending you are a believer and one of Jesus' followers.
>>289065>Rationality is overrated. If we inspect carefully all thought systems and philosophies, no matter how rational they may appear to us on the surface, we will find they are motivated by some emotional agenda or desire in their core.
I think you might be misunderstanding me. I need something to rationalize my existence, but that doesn't mean I plan to live rationally. I think those two things are distinctive. I agree entirely that when you get down to it, pretty much any religion is irrational in one way or another (which is why I am reduced to cafeteria catholisism). But a philosophy doesn't have to be entirely rational for you to use it to rationalize your existence.
It seems to me that your own system of belief mirrors this. You know that the meaning and purpose you attach to life is subjective, and that to live by such subjective values and reasoning is irrational, however, it offers you a way to rationalize continuing to live your life.
In our own ways, we are both living irrationally and we both depend on a greater framework that allows us to do this. The difference is just the substance of the our frameworks.
>Imo you would benefit much more from abandoning religions of all vareties and kinds.
As I said, we are different people. Though we both see living life as an irrational enterprise that we are choosing to partake in anyway, we must rationalize living irrationally in different ways. You benefit from abandoning religious systems, and I am glad that works for you but it does not work for me. When I was a true believer I was extremely content, and these last ten years as a nihilist I have been miserable. It seems to me you aren't making allowances for our different identities.
Anyway, in general I think our overall approach to life is very similar, we just differ in the particulars.
Redpill me on the nuns? Particularly on the sisters of charity
all nuns are lesbos
>>289107>Redpill me on x
Still better than being number 555321 /pol/ epic redpiller dude or being a christian.
It's pretty much the same thing as being a Christian. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you'll find that the preached ethic is the same. Unreachable. Look elsewhere, and just stay away from anything that will develop into pathological guilt later on.
I feel so bad seeing people taking the Christpill. I've never met a single happy Christian.
Like 99% of commie groups I've been in have been filled with trannies and depressed people. >>289347
Aren't religious people statistically the most happiest people in the word?
>>289361>Aren't religious people statistically the most happiest people in the word?
They lie in polls because they are delusional and want to push their evil agenda
It's sinful not to be. If that doesn't work start seeing life as a transitory battleground in which you'll be rewarded when your body is rotting.
>>289362>They lie in polls because they are delusional and want to push their evil agenda
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you a seething commiefag making shit up?
He does seem to be seething but he sort of has a point. Christianity is a missionary religion and people, even in Wizchan, will go out of their way to get you to believe in Christianity cause it's a moral obligation.
In my case I have just never encountered a healthy Christian and there's many reasons for that to be the case.
Constant judgement and vigilance from some sociopathic entity unless you comply with non-achievable ethical standards is one.
Haha, no. People who think communism is just secular christianity don't understand these ideologies and the differences, very big differences they have.
This comparison is usually drawn by /pol/types or/and fascists, who want to label all their ideological enemies under one umbrella. If anything, I'd say Christianity and Communism are polar opposites of each other and mutually exclusive for good reasons.
Christianity is always pro-system and anti-revolution or counter-revolutionary. It teaches exactly the path of no resistance and superficial pacifism. That you should accept your place in society given to you by God and you shouldn't complain at all, you need to fulfill your moral duties, obey your superiors of all kinds, etc.
Communism on the other hand is the path of the warrior who isn't satisfied with being a slave and dares to question the system and authority. It is about revolution, wars and fights in order to achieve a world where you will be freer and have more rights. People often mistake Communism for a collectivist ideology but at its root it is an amoral, egoist ideology. The individual is encouraged to fight against all his oppressors. It is an ideology for only the strongest and bravest of men because the natural consequence of Communism is social darwinism. A world ruled by the strong and people who possess real power, not by all these weak, scared rich people who hide behind others constantly and need to manipulate the law and system in order to protect themselves and their wealth.
Indeed, many don't understand the true nature of Communism. The smell of gunpowder, gulags, mass executions by vigilantes, bloody revolutions and constant struggle, ah a world where it doesn't matter what family you were born into or what status you are, only what you can get with your own two hands through violence and force - this IS communism. And it makes me feel very excited to think about it. Even though it is a materialist system there is something unexplainable and mystic about Communism, something Esoteric and infinitely poetic about gutting rich people and smashing their heads with baseball bats.>>289361>Like 99% of commie groups I've been in have been filled with trannies and depressed people.
New post-modern leftists have barely anything that ties them to original communism. The New Left is the monster child of capitalism and liberalism, it is very much anti-revolutionary and pacifist. No wonder it attracts so many weak individuals.
Genuine Communism thinks along the lines of what Mao thought: every generation needs to fight its own revolution and wars, otherwise it will grow weak and soft. Communism is the manliest ideology ever. Shame hippies and such gave leftist ideologies a bad reputation in the west.
>Aren't religious people statistically the most happiest people in the word?
Statistics can't be trusted at all. And the happiness religious people have isn't the good kind of happiness, it is the empty peace Christ gives to his followers and people find on their way to nirvana, religious happiness is about killing your "self/ego" in some way, always. It's not different from the peace alcohol addicts or drug addicts feel when they are high or drunk.
take your meds you larper >>289366
I personally think all people are religious, if they don't follow a formal religion like Christianity, they start projecting their religiosity onto other things like >>289369
is doing to communism.
you gotta serve somebody
>>289369>Communism on the other hand is the path of the warrior who isn't satisfied with being a slave and dares to question the system and authority.
ahahahaha! good one man.
>>289370>take your meds
Oh yes, how can someone be unironically a communist in our capitalist liberal utopia?
I am unironically an esoteric communist. What will you do about it?>>289373
It is the truth. Right-wing ideologists never managed to come up with anything brave, new, creative and original. It is all just feminine shit about obey, obey, serve, serve! Serve who - you ask? The State, The Church, The King, The Aristocracy, The Capitalist Exploiters - serve your Master! Only cucks, homosexuals or wymen can be right-wingers.
Everything related to egoism and self-interest came from the left side of the political spectrum. Right-wing fanatics hate this life ultimately, that is why they always need some kind of organized religion to support their shit systems and to preserve the status quo. And this is why they are all little fags fantasizing about policemen or soldiers day and night, because they are closet homos who want a strong Führer to anally satisfy them.
>>289377>b-b-but marx said….!!
cool, practice matters more than theory which renders what you said untrue lol
So if deeds matter more for you than just observe communist and fascists/nazis, how they rose to power and etc. You will find that fascists were always bootlickers of some variation and they got power by preaching their herd morals to normals. While communists fought revolutions and wars bravely and seized power via brute force, which is the only just way of seizing power.
And it's not about Marx. Communism transcends people. It is the spirit of revolution and violence that counts. Marx was only the Light Bearer who showed us the way while right-wingers obsess over Hitler even today and masturbate to his pictures like he was god.
oh, you're trolling. carry on.
Oh so you don't even know basic history, all right. How Hitler and the nazis were officially elected for government by normals in the democratic fashion, while in Russia commies actually fought for power and won. Same in China.
Fascists bark loud but they are scared little boys with daddy complexes at the end of the day. Communism is about raw power and setting us free.
You're a pretty good troll, I can see how you could make people sperg out.
Anyways I'm glad wizzies don't have any say in politics, so they won't ever further their viewpoint cause there's really not an audience for us, so, yeah…
Anything about politics spoken here seems to be purely hypothetical except, maybe, for the suicidal wiz with "non-verbal autism" that's in a "position of power". Probably a county major into lolicon or something of the sort. If at all people will like him more due to that
I am not trolling. I developed the ideology of esoteric communism and want to spread it.
You can't escape politics because humans live in societies, that's the sad truth. Everything matters on some level. It's not about being popular but achieving your goals and not being a cuck to the system.
Isn't esoteric communism just organized religion though? Half-joking..or less than half joking. Got anything good written up on it? Would be nice to skim through it, at least
communism is religion
You gotta up your troll game, try stuff like "the future is BLACK" and "feminism is an integral part of wizardry".
My esoteric communism stresses the point for a need of constant revolution and war. Both in spiritual and physical meanings. Battle with yourself day after day, debate with others, challenge your views and others' again and again, inspect your thought system whether it is correct time after time. And fight anyone who poses the threat of oppression for you.
I don't think it is similar to organized religions at all. Because I advocate for everyone to find Enlightenment on their own. It's not a dogmatic system of thought where everything is set into stone.
Basically no form of government is right in any way. Especially if it was voted and elected in the democratic way. True rulership needs to come from force, might and tyranny. And if the government shows the slightest signs of weakness then it should be eliminated and overthrown. When I say government I simply mean that those should rule who got power through revolution and wars. Our leaders, if we have any at all, should be experienced warriors and strong individuals. Leaders shouldn't be defined by their wealth or connections but by their individual merit and strength.
I plan to write up a basic introduction to it sooner or later. Until then, this is the core of it.>>289385
If it is a religion then at least it is a successful religion, unlike fascism and natsoc-core literature which is full of all the boring clichés the Führer himself copied from others.
Communism is much more colorful and full of variety than right-wing ideologies.>>289386
Nobody mentioned blacks or females.
>>289387>Communism is much more colorful and full of variety than right-wing ideologies.
Dunno man, I see delusions of grandeur in both and then it's a boring pastiche.
>>289387>True rulership needs to come from force, might and tyranny.
You probably know more Marx than any given internet communist, I'll give you that.
Not going to lie, even if it is ridiculous but what opened my eyes to the value of violence and how it is just was the Shin Megami Tensei series. The Chaos paths and factions in those games present really good points when it comes to anarchy, freedom, violence, survival of the fittest, etc.
I always liked Communism but for a long time I was the pussy type commie you speak of, because I fell for neoliberal new-leftist pacifist garbage. Then I played SMT games and also read Stirner and Nietzsche and learned more about what Marx and other actual communists taught. And I became Enlightened in my own way.
There is no reason people should give up their right for violence to any state or government, unless they are forced to do so by the might of said rulership. Power is the basis of all laws, morals, norms and customs. If you are powerful you can do anything. And if you build a strictly anti-violence system then people will be forced to compete with each other on unjust terms, like in capitalism.
What is better? Sucking up to rich people to employ you and give you some money for wageslaving for them or robbing them and taking whatever you want through force?
Nat-Soc and right-wing ideologies are usually tied to "social darwinism" but that isn't true competetion or survival of the fittest. Because they rely on laws and regulations always and concentrating the right for violence into the hands of the few.>>289388
The left will always have this going for it, that it is about becoming your own master, while right-wing politics is about serving the few privileged people. Left is about primitivism while the right is about civilization. And we had to learn that civilization only benefits the circlejerk who rules at the end of the day.
Both left and right have their pitfalls into tribalism and collectivism so I'm glad you sorted your shit out to avoid most of that entirely and reap what satisfies and empowers the self.
To be fair though, just taking a look at the tribalistic left these days makes even the extremes of the far right look well adjusted.
>>289419>If you are powerful you can do anything.
It makes sense, but only on the surface. If you study history you'll realize that to be powerful you have to become part of a 'chain of wills' because nobody is powerful alone or become powerful by doing anything you want. In fact, you have to play a very strict game of power, doing all sorts of shit you don't want in order to climb the chain of wills, appeasing here, forcing there, scheming endlessly. And then when you're at the top, you still don't get to do what you want, you do what you have to do because even at the top you're not free from the chain of the collective wills of all the people you rule. It's almost like you don't get to decide what to do, but how it's going to be done.
I hope I'm not too vague here (probably am), but read about the lives of Roman emperors and kings, it becomes very clear how pernicious power is and how it's nothing at all to do with doing anything you want.
If you have power you can do anything so maybe those roman emperors weren't actually all that powerful at the end of the day? It doesn't matter if you are in a high position or not if you are too afraid to live out your desires and to shape the world into what you'd like it to be. To be really powerful you have to be brave and cruel, ready to fight anyone who opposes you.
That is exactly why I said our leaders need to be strong warriors and people who claimed power through violence, confrontation or war. If you hand people the staff of rulership then they will be weak emperors. The Roman Empire suffered from the same disease we suffer from nowadays: civilization.
If someone can't do what he wants then he is obviously not free. What I dream about is a society where you don't suck up to people in any form or way but take what you want by force.>>289423
Collectivism is always the safe solution that leads to corruption while individualism is harder but has better rewards in the end.
Meh, /pol/ and the liberal left seem pretty much the same to me, both argue on the grounds of slave cattle morality just in different ways. Both care about "justice" and other spooks like that a great deal. Both dream about some utopistic society where people will help each other and obey the CORRECT laws and morals, heh, which is ofc their laws and morals.
Caligula and Commodus disagree
It's too narrow and influenced by ancient middle eastern desert cults. Life is more universal than any single ideology or religion.
[Last 50 Posts]
Yet everyone is locked into his own subjective experience of life and subjective view of things. Life is just what life is like for you at the end of the day.