Grew up Roman Catholic, didn't quite pick up the dogma. Over the last 3 years I have shifted away from the faith that I already didn't quite pick up. At first I thought of myself as "agnostic" or "lapsed" yet only very recently came to realize I've been living my life in practice as an atheist>Didn't attend mass>Didn't pray>Didn't read bible Also realizing that you can be an atheist and not be 100% definitive about the existence of God. I don't know for sure if God exists or not yet I don't believe in God, it didn't seem to work with me through any of the activities.How do I cope with this major change in life? (Especially since my family is religious)What can replace religion?(Because you have to admit it has a strong emotional appeal)I highly doubt i'll return to the faith especially since I lacked faith from the beginning.Plus I found my life was more miserable when I was under religion. So please don't try & change me.
>>34448133Some religious people try and say that Atheists/Nonbelievers are le miserable, how true is this?
>>34448140Because atheism is the rejection of the non-material, not just the rejection of a particular religious tradition. It means that a person refuses to acknowledge the virtues as objective realities. An atheist doesn't believe in justice, goodness or compassion as abiding entities in their own right, because if they did they would be acknowledging that something immaterial/spiritual exists prior to and superior to humanity, which is theism by definition.The definition of and etymological origin of the word "worship" simply means "to place first", or "to prioritize". Everyone worships something, because everyone must prioritize something. If the only independent reality that you understood and believed in was Justice, then you would worship Justice, making you a kind of theist. But if you reject and do not believe any independent realities, then the only thing you could possibly worship is yourself, which is an irrational, self-centered and miserable way to live.
>>34448133>>34448140>Grew up Roman Catholic, didn't quite pick up the dogma. Over the last 3 years I have shifted away from the faith that I already didn't quite pick up. You weren't really religious from the beginning.>At first I thought of myself as "agnostic" or "lapsed" yet only very recently came to realize I've been living my life in practice as an atheist You have no idea how common this is, they use those terms as a shield to protect from social disapproval.>Also realizing that you can be an atheist and not be 100% definitive about the existence of God. I don't know for sure if God exists or not yet I don't believe in God, it didn't seem to work with me through any of the activities. You're what's called a "weak atheist" anon.>How do I cope with this major change in life? Accept that this is a common process in life for many people. You're not alone>What can replace religion? Go to >>>/his/>How true is this? It's false
>>34448133>What can replace religion?(Because you have to admit it has a strong emotional appeal)I’ve found the practice of yoga and the chakras have been a really good model for my spirituality. book related
>>34448176>An atheist doesn't believe in justice, goodness or compassion Bullshit>But if you reject and do not believe any independent realities, then the only thing you could possibly worship is yourself, which is an irrational, self-centered and miserable way to live. I don't consider myself self-centered.
>>34448186I don't believe in eastern spirituality, sorry. Yoga is religious.
>>34448194How can you believe that justice, goodness and compassion exist objectively without also believing that those things exist independently and prior to matter? And if they exist independently and prior to matter, that makes them real entities, or gods, that dictate and necessitate human behavior to adhere to a model. That's theism.>I don't consider myself self-centeredThere are two possibilities, then. Either you're wrong about being an atheist, or you're wrong about being selfless. If you believe that good morals are objective, and model your behavior after this eternal ideal as well as you can, then that would simply make you a 'theist' in the traditional Platonic sense, with no particular organized religion. The debate between theism and atheism predates Christianity, and atheists were always hedonists.
>>34448205I can already tell your full of shit since your using "always">atheists were always hedonists
>>34448208There were only a small handful of atheists among the pre-Socratics, and they were all hedonists. I can say "always" because the sample size is small enough for me to have personally studied each and every one of them. I suppose you could argue that there may have been pre-Socratics who were atheists and non-hedonists that nobody in history knew about, but that's a rather large and disingenuous leap of faith on your part.Also, your behavior here is taking a turn towards hostility and defensiveness, for seemingly absolutely no reason. If you were sincerely atheistic, you would have no attachment to the label "atheist". Instead, you're treating the word as if it is your new religion, to the point where you're willing to attack somebody whose only intention is to help you.
>>34448210You were the one relying on generalizations & saying that atheists don't believe in justice,goodness.
>>34448216Those weren't generalizations. I'm using academic definitions, and the explanation for those definitions is in my posts. At no point was I calling you a person who doesn't believe in justice or goodness, I was saying that you may not fit the definition of atheist because an atheist must by definition reject the independent existence of justice and goodness as real immaterial entities. If a person believes that justice exists objectively for all time, immutably, in the same way that 2+2=4 for all time, then that person cannot be an atheist because to that person justice is a deity.I should also clarify and say that when I say that all atheists were hedonists, I don't mean that all atheists were whoremongers and gluttons. Hedonism is a school of Greek philosophy, and most hedonists were very self controlled because they understood that moderation was the key to a pleasurable life. But they still refused to acknowledge the independent existence of the virtues, which is why they were atheists and not theists, whereas the Stoics, Platonists, Aristotelians and Pythagoreans were all theists.
>>34448220The Epicureans ("hedonists") were accused of atheism, but as far as I know, there's no evidence that they were from their own writings. Epicurus himself says we must imagine the gods happy
>>34448242Epicurus wrote that the gods were beings that existed in the world, antecedent to matter. That's where the line exists between theism and atheism. If something exists prior to matter, then it's an informing principle. If something exists after matter, then it can't be informing, thus it can't be a deity. To Epicurus, the gods were simply animals that lived easygoing, happy but ultimately purposeless lives. That's why he has always been rightly called an atheist. He used the word "gods", but what he described was incapable of being a deity.
>>34448184>You weren't really religious from the beginning.Yeah, that's what I noticed too. So many people call themselves Christian because their parents force them to go to church but faith can't be forced.
>>34448133Come on over to antitheism, we're like atheists, except we aren't wishywashy dipshits who pretend god could exist. We just laugh at people who believe any sort of god nonsense and dismiss everything they say on literally every topic. I don't got time for delusions.
>>34448133If you're still into those topics, become an /x/cel like i am. Going from christian to atheist can be destabilzing, but ultimately it's going to be good for you. You have freed yourself from the prison you kept yourself in.
>>34448140Not true at all. There are just a new set of problems for them. If you were going to a church as a christian, consider keeping that habit even as a non-believer.
>>34448176100% False. You'd call the people who invented western philosophy atheists in the same breath. Worship is a different matter.Worship is tradition within a community, or how the current man relates to forces outside his world. Clowns like you keep trying to import globalhomo almighty world order nonsense.>If you believe that good morals are objective, and model your behavior after this eternal ideal as well as you canOur human sense of justice, fairness, goodness isn't something from God. We live in this life, developed morals for this life and question them as we live. The ideal exists outside. There's no such thing as a correct answer for the world. >>34448210>I can say "always" because the sample size is small enough for me to have personally studied each and every one of them. How much shit is this guy full of?>Also realizing that you can be an atheist and not be 100% definitive about the existence of God. I don't know for sure if God exists or not yet I don't believe in God, it didn't seem to work with me through any of the activities.Basically how everyone in the world feels unless they grew up with their brain wired to follow a ritual.
>>34448391>You'd call the people who invented western philosophy atheists in the same breathNo, as I already explained, Western philosophy is built on theism. Platonic ideals such as Wisdom, Truth and Justice exist independently of and prior to matter, as they must in order to have an unchanging nature. That makes them deities, or properties of a deity.>Our human sense of justice, fairness, goodness isn't something from GodJustice, fairness and goodness, in order to be objective, can't come from humans, they have to come from an informing principle that exists independently of humans, such as logic. If your argument is that those things are subjective and not objective, then you would necessarily be a moral relativist, which means you would not believe in justice as an independently existing principle, you would only believe in it as something conditional and subject to change, which is the same as saying you don't believe in it at all.>How much shit is this guy full of?None. This is my vocation, I know that I'm talking about. You can reject it if you want, but you're going to end up looking as silly as somebody who claims to be a vegetarian while eating a hamburger.
>>34448413Platonists are nerds and should be bullied more.
>>34448306I've heard of anti-theism, not sure yet thank you for offering.>>34448333What is so special about /x/?>>34448338Like what problems?>>34448413>Logic Logic isn't the only force that influences us, what about emotions, intuition?
>>34448133>Plus I found my life was more miserable when I was under religion. So please don't try & change me.It is fine you are an atheist but this is faulty reasoning. This is like watching a horror movie and assuming all movies are in the horror genre, or falling off a skateboard and deciding all objects with wheels must be avoided.
>>34448255Is that from an Epicurist or testimonia?
>>34448133Don't worry about labels.Try to be a good person.
>>34448445>Logic isn't the only force that influences us, what about emotions, intuition?Logic and passions are contraries. Passion is the absence of logic, and logic is the absence of passion. The defining characteristic of justice is impartiality, thus you cannot be just and angered at the same time, because anger is a form of partiality. The same goes for the other passions. Each one is an obstruction that gets in the way of objectivity. It's worth noting here that love is not a passion, because its defining characteristic is impartiality, or unselfishness. If you were to deal with everyone logically at all times, you would also be dealing with them lovingly or compassionately at all times. You would act strictly for their benefit, or for the sake of doing the most good.Intuition and conscience would be considered memories, or fragments of knowledge of the good, owing to the fact that the good is causative and originative. That may leave you wondering "what about intuition that isn't true?", but if it isn't true then it's simply a delusion or a figment of the imagination, thus not from the good.>>34448468It's from Epicurus himself. He explicitly rejected the notion that gods were causative. To him, they were not principles that informed the world, but existed within the world. They were creatures, not creators. But a deity must be a creator, by definition. His only real interest in mentioning the gods was to avoid being accused of impiety.
>>34448499logic is just a tool to follow passions with;without passions to give it purpose or context, logic dissolves into nothingness
>>34448452>This is like watching a horror movie and assuming all movies are in the horror genreHe never really even engaged with his own religion, so it's even more absurd than that. It's more like he watched a movie with a blindfold on, then decided that all movies were boring.
>>34448133I would not call you an atheist necessarily. More like agnostic or unaffiliated. I call myself an atheist because I strongly believe god doesn't exist, and that the fairytales that religious people tell each other are ridiculous.As for how you can replace it - the main draw of religion from what I can tell is the sense of community. I would recommend finding a place to volunteer regularly.
>>34448506No, logic leads to truth, and truth is valuable for its own sake and can serve as a viable end. Every endeavor that lacks truth fails, and truth adds value to anyone who possesses it.Passions are what dissolve into nothingness, because they aren't founded on anything other than personal whim. They can appear one day, and disappear the next. There's no certainty, satisfaction or fulfillment in them. And when they're left unbridled, they always lead to ruin and misery. A man who's passionate about food and fails to moderate himself becomes an obese glutton. A man who's passionate about martial conquest but fails to moderate himself becomes a violent maniac. Moderation is simply the application of reason, which is a testament to the fact that reason is where all goodness, gentleness and peace derives from, and passion is where all insanity, excess and suffering comes from.
>>34448499I would argue that logic & passions can intertwine>>34448530You would be a strong atheist, I think im an agnostic atheist or weak atheist.>the main draw of religion from what I can tell is the sense of community. I would recommend finding a place to volunteer regularly. Agree
>>34448536What about empirical evidence?
>>34448499But we barely have anything from Epicurus himself except for the epistle and some fragments, so he couldn't have "explicitly" rejected anything of that sort
>>34448574>>34448499Also,>But a deity must be a creator, by definition.Just doesn't hold according to the Greek religion. Zeus himself didn't even create anything, he usurped it from his father and merely rules an universe he did not create. That's more of an abrahamic thing
>>34448551>I would argue that logic & passions can intertwineThey do, because a man can control himself while being angry underneath the surface, when he knows that an outburst would be counter-productive. That's an example of a man experiencing passion while moderating himself with reason. But they're still contrary principles, because reason is what bridles passion and passion is what overcomes and destroys reason. Think of it this way: If passions were inherently good, then they would be good in any quantity and without qualification. But that's clearly not the case. Too much anger is a bad thing, too must lust is clearly destructive, too much gluttony, jealousy and greed are all obviously miserable states to exist in that bring a person to ruin. On the other hand, there's no such thing as too much truth or excessive knowledge. Even in a situation where somebody misuses their knowledge it isn't knowledge that's at fault, because if that person possessed knowledge of the consequences of their actions then they wouldn't have misused it. More knowledge is the cure for "too much knowledge", meaning there can never be too much. The same goes for justice, wisdom and all other end products of logic.
>>34448564It's always submissive to reason. Empirical evidence, without the bridle of reason to ensure that it obeys logic, wouldn't know the difference between fact and fiction. Going purely off of sense data, you could see and hear Clint Eastwood shoot a man to death on your television. Without reason holding the reigns, the only conclusion you can come to is that Clint Eastwood is a murderer. It's logic that comes in and reminds you that what you just witnessed was a movie, and not reality. The same goes for dreams as well, logic is what reminds you that what you experienced was merely a dream. Sense data alone cannot bring you closer to truth without the light of reason guiding the way.
>>34448536ah you're a buddhist, I seeor a hinduist
>>34448574We have enough for him to have rejected the gods as causative beings. I can go look for it, if you'd like.>>34448580>Just doesn't hold according to the Greek religionIt does. Being a creator does not necessarily mean being the sole Creator, it simply means being an informing principle, or a link in the chain of creation. Zeus created a number of gods, and those gods in turn represent ideal principles such as War and Wisdom, and those ideals in turn descend into our world and become war and wisdom in the lowercase, everday sense. In order to exist in our world, they must descend from a higher causative principle. Also, it's worth noting that Zeus was commonly referred to as the first creator or highest principle, especially in Platonic and Stoic circles. Mythology took a backseat to theology, where the philosophers were concerned.
>>34448593No, just a rationalist. Logic leads to the same conclusion no matter where you are on the globe, which is why the Greeks and the Indians both came to the same conclusions regarding the passions. The Chinese also agreed, as did the oldest examples of Egyptian theology.
>>34448133I'm in the same boat. I have not attended mass in nearly a decade and call myself an atheist but I don't necessarily believe there is no God. It's just that I do not follow Catholicism any more. I still keep a moral code based on some of Jesus' teachings and the 10 Commandments. I keep only the parts that make me a better person or the world a better place. I don't pray but when I behave in a way that matches my code, I feel a warm love for the world. I feel at peace.
>>34448499>It's from Epicurus himself.Ah yes, taking delusions from over 2000 years ago and using them today.Lightning was magic to them, and lead laden drinking vessels just made things taste sweeter... but don't let that stop you from taking them seriously.You know you can just go to your local mental health center and get the 2026 version of crazy shit people say, right?
>>34448616>rationalistI see, so instead of gods, you worship rhetorics, kinda lame imo
>>34448642I think you may have a reading disability, because I'm rejecting Epicurus's atheism, not condoning him. Also, no one in the ancient world thought that lightning was magic. Mythology never intended to explain the natural world, it was always a way of representing metaphysical principle. A man like Pythagoras was no doubt better educated than the majority of the people alive today, as your post well proves.
>>34448651I worship or obey principles. If adhering to principles is lame to you, then yes I'm extremely lame and I intend to go on getting even lamer. A life without principles is worthless to the point of not even qualifying as life.
>>34448200and I don’t believe in abrahamic religion that only exists to justify greed and exploitation
>>34448663you worship tautologies, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tautology you might as well worship a wooden idol
>>34448682Wisdom and Justice and Compassion are tautologies for Goodness, but that in no way robs Goodness of its value. It's actually a testament to its value, because by nature all principles would need to be one in order to possess meaning. If Justice were contrary to Wisdom, then neither could exist. They have to be in agreement, because the law of non-contradiction necessitates that all Truths are in agreement with one another. I'm not sure how you're equating the simple act of being a good person to a wooden idol, but it's pretty obvious you aren't posting with any amount of sincerity whatsoever.
>>34448709So it's true because you say so, ok tautologist
>>34448612>Mythology took a backseat to theology, where the philosophers were concerned.That is true, but it was also not the traditional view of the godsI'm not really convinced that the average pagan didn't consider any immortal being as a god, creator or principle or not. After all they regarded dead, deified heroes like Herakles and Achielles as gods.The Epicurean position would also be unusual for denying that the gods play a role in the lives of men, but calling him an atheist was likely just slander. I'm not convinced that it was even possible to be an atheist before the 19th century.
>>34448723It's true because logic leads to that conclusion. The same logic that leads to every other true conclusion, such as 2+2 adding up to 4. If I were appealing to myself I would be a moral relativist, which I think is what you probably are.
>>344487312+2 can add up to 11 (in base 3) thoughwhat now?
>>34448727What the average pagan thought isn't relevant to what true paganism thought, for the same reason that what the average Catholic thinks isn't relevant if I want to understand Catholic theology. If you want to understand something, you have to avoid common misconceptions by returning to its origins and addressing only its authoritative figures. The average Catholic today has no notion of important theological points, like whether evil is a power or a privation.>deified heroes like Herakles and Achielles as gods.That strongly supports what I'm saying, because those are examples of deification through participation. It's only by participating in Courage that Hercules can become a deity. Their identities merge and the one overlaps the other, because when no element of cowardice exists in Hercules he actually becomes Courage. He returns to his origin or cause through greater and greater levels of participation in that principle, which is what paganism was all about. Paganism's self-deification is where the idea of attaining Sonship comes from, in Christian terms.>calling him an atheist was likely just slanderNo, it's just an accurate metaphysical descriptor. If gods don't play a role in the lives of men, then they aren't causative. If they aren't causative, then they aren't gods. They would be indistinguishable from any other long lived animal.>not convinced that it was even possible to be an atheist before the 19th centuryThat only holds true if you use a very surface level definition of atheism. If a theist is simply nothing more than "somebody who uses the word god to describe things", then yes it would have been difficult for Epicurus to be an atheist because if he refused to acknowledge gods at all he would have been accused of impiety. But if you use a meaningful and philosophically coherent definition of atheism, such as "explicitly rejects the self-existence of non-material principles", then it's clear that Epicurus must have been an atheist.
>>34448754That's not a contradiction, that supports my point. What you just did is the same as if I said "It's impossible to disobey the laws of physics" and you were to say "but what if I flew an airplane". Airplanes don't disobey the laws of physics, they operate under those laws and confirm them. Using mathematical laws confirms mathematical law, it doesn't reject it.
>>34448762But pagan religion is not at all like Christianity. They had a much looser orthodoxy and no "canonical" theology. You could believe in whatever you like and join parallel cults as long as you didn't cause trouble or tried denying the reality of the "official" cult>Hercules he actually becomes Courage.Herakles is not "courage". He's merely a theos aner, a divine man, like many others. Of course they only deified brave warriors or certain types of holy men like Apolonius, but they were not regarded as "first principles">If gods don't play a role in the lives of men, then they aren't causative.I don't agree with that either. The gods being indifferent to cult and sacrifice and to the plights of men is not the same thing as the gods not being causative. You can regard Poseidon as the ruler of the sea and the source of earthquakes while also thinking that burning sacrifial offerings for good sailing to him is futile, because he doesn't care. That seems more likely to have been his position.> "explicitly rejects the self-existence of non-material principles"Are you saying that Epicurus was an ancient materialist? Do you have the passage where he claims such a thing?
>>34448140>Some religious people try and say that Atheists/Nonbelievers are le miserable, how true is this?It's true in the United States, but not in more secular countries like, say, Norway. The reason is that in highly religious countries there are a lot of social structures associated with the Church and for which there isn't really a non-religious alternative; but in more rational countries, there are secular equivalents.
>>34448764what's this absolute Truth you worship?
>>34448772>They had a much looser orthodoxy and no "canonical" theologyNo, but they still derived that theology from metaphysics, and metaphysics are derived from reason. When something doesn't follow reason, it's quickly rejected as nonsense in the same way that the Gnostics were.>they were not regarded as "first principles"No, not first principles. There can only be one first principle, and the first principle necessarily contains all sequent principles. What they participated in were merely the sequent principles, and by participating they unified with, or became one with them.>I don't agree with that either.That's not something that can be disagreed with. If A causes B, then A by definition is playing a role in B's existence. Even if A never touches B ever again, B owes its existence to A. A gun cannot "not play a role" in the direction that its bullet travels. Epicurus rejected all causation, which is the same as rejecting that that bullet came from that gun in the first place.>You can regard Poseidon as the ruler of the sea and the source of earthquakes while also thinking that burning sacrifial offerings for good sailing to him is futile, because he doesn't care. That seems more likely to have been his position.No, that explicitly was not his position. That was the position of the Platonists and the Stoics and the Cynics. They didn't believe in trying to get the gods to behave in your favor, they insisted that you must instead change your behavior to match the gods, because the gods are unchanging and impersonal. If that was Epicurus's position, then he would have simply been a Stoic or a member of one of the other schools.>Are you saying that Epicurus was an ancient materialist?Yes, that's essentially what hedonism is. It teaches that there's no higher aim in life than personal joy, and no principles which a person must model themselves after. I have this off hand, but I can look for others.
>>34448783It's what's true, as opposed to what's false. It just means that I prioritize seeking out the truth in earnest and without bias or self-deception. Everyone instinctively knows that that's how life ought to be lived, but very few actually do it.
>>34448133>Also realizing that you can be an atheist and not be 100% definitive about the existence of God."Atheism" is a much abused word. It means the absence of belief in a god, not belief in the absence of a god.>How do I cope with this major change in life? (Especially since my family is religious)Just don't bring it up.>What can replace religion?(Because you have to admit it has a strong emotional appeal)I admit nothing of the kind. You'll find the universe starts to make a great deal more sense once you let go of the idea that there's supposed to be someone in charge of it. No religion actually makes any sort of logical sense at all when you come right down to it. Religions themselves admit this: that's why they put so much emphasis on having "faith" - which essentially means believing in something there's no persuasive evidence for.Of course it's nice to think that Death isn't the end; but the inescapable conclusion of that belief is that the fleeting mortal phase of your life is essentially irrelevant in comparison with the infinite immortal part to come. It's only once you realise that this life is all you get that it actually becomes meaningful. A religious person can easily fall into the trap of spending so much time and energy on religion that they never actually *live*. An atheist understands that every single second of life is precious, grabs life by the throat, and truly lives every moment of it. There's also tremendous satisfaction to be got from assembling your own system of morality in a way that actually makes logical sense. Subscribing to a religion is an act of moral abdication: you don't have to decide what is right or what is wrong, because the Church makes the decision for you. As an atheist, you actually have to *think* about what is right or wrong instead of simply being told, and that can be fascinating, even exhilarating.
>>34448658>I'm rejecting Epicurus's atheism, not condoning him.Don't care in the least. The fact that an ancient Greek philosopher is part of this thread is embarrassing enough.
>>34448775The church can bring a good sense of local community which is important. I just wish it didn't have the baggage that came with it. Community events like farmers markets can be a decent alternative.>>34448176>An atheist doesn't...I find it sad, but very common, that the religious think this. I've talked with a guy that is Christian that cannot comprehend being nice to people without the fear of dietistic punishment. He self admitted that if god didn't exists, and that he would get away with it, he would just murder people. When I asked him why, he just said, well why not? I'm not sure if he was just being an edgy genx, or he really meant it.While I don't believe in a direct guiding being. I and many others have a empathetic moral system that we abide to. Mostly one of not taking actions that would be a detriment to others, while also realizing that what other people perceive the world differently.
>>34448871>I find it sad, but very common, that the religious think thisIt's not a religious belief, it's just a matter of definitions. In order for a person to be good, they must believe that goodness exists. If someone acknowledges that goodness exists and models their behavior off of it, then that person is a theist. Goodness is, to them, a deity or a "self-existent principle".>I've talked with a guy that is Christian that cannot comprehend being nice to people without the fear of dietistic punishmentThen that "Christian" was actually an atheist, or a materialist. In order for somebody to be a theist, they must follow principle for principle's sake. If it's ever done for the sake of a perceived reward then that isn't theism, it's materialism, or idolatry.>While I don't believe in a direct guiding beingBut you must believe in an objective and guiding principle, otherwise you could not be a man of principle. A deity is merely an abiding principle, one which exists independently of human opinion.
>>34448898>Then that "Christian" was actually an atheistThe no true Christian argument is always a funny one when seeing the religious referencing other religious people.>But you must believe in an objective and guiding principle.Other sentient beings do not want outside detrimental interference in their goals and livelihood. We live on a society where people can agree that it is generally the better outcome if we take actions that do not impede on eachother. Nothing deistic about that. Though I know many religious people that are zealous about saving others and doing that they can to convert others to their worldview that consider "the truth". I admit my worldview has some gaps because people can be stupid and self harming (opiates cone to mind). But I find more harm in enforcing dogma on things that an individual does to themselves.
>>34448176>le compassionate christcuck is incapable of comprehending the notion of being a good and moral person without the threat of eternal punishment in the afterlife hanging over your headI'm not going to stereotype and claim that ALL Christians are like this but man have I seen a lot that do unironically think that way.
>>34448942>The no true Christian argument is always a funny oneNo True Scotsman is only a fallacy when dealing with incidentals. When dealing with essentials, it cannot be a fallacy. Otherwise, "that man is not a medical doctor because he never went to medical school and knows nothing about medicine" would be a fallacy. Which it clearly is not.>We live on a society where people can agree that it is generally the better outcome if we take actions that do not impede on eachother.Right, which is dependent upon a principle. We can't agree to treat each other fairly if "fairness" does not exist. We can't agree to treat each other with compassion if "compassion" does not exist. In order for us to behave in such a way, we must acknowledge standards or principles that exist outside of and independently of ourselves. Those principles are, in every sense both traditionally and academically, deities. Acknowledging that there are informing realities that are superior to oneself and should be obeyed is an act of theism, or worship. You could only be an atheist if you were a moral relativist who denied in the objective existence of goodness and compassion, in which case you could not be a good person due to your lack of principles.>But I find more harm in enforcing dogma on things that an individual does to themselves.Dogma has nothing to do with theism vs. atheism, because dogma is a matter of organized religion specifically, which is an entirely separate subject to the question of whether or not a deity exists.
>>34448947That's not what my post says at all, and I'm not a Christian. My point is that you cannot obey a principle unless you believe that that principle exists, and if you've set up a principle as superior to yourself and do everything in your power to follow it, even to the detriment of your own personal pleasure, then that is theism by necessary definition.You really need to work on your reading comprehension if you didn't understand anything that I wrote and merely replaced it with your own imaginings.
>>34448898>In order for a person to be good, they must believe that goodness exists.No. This is a nonsense argument that Christians ALWAYS rely on to bash atheism. I don't hurt other people because I have a sense of empathy and can put myself in their shoes. I don't hurt other people because I feel like shit afterwards. I don't hurt other people because I logically realize that doing so causes the social contract to break down and society to become worse off. If anything the most moral cultures developed due to explicitly ignoring any kind of reliance on religious guiding principles because, for example, the Bible has quite a few that would be considered morally abhorrent to any person who hasn't been raised into a religious dogma. Humans developed moral principles independently of religion and before major religions even started defining morality. It's ingrained. You could claim that it's ingrained in our psyche because of God or whoever but then the burden of proof is on you not atheists.
>>34448980>You really need to work on your reading comprehension if you didn't understand anything that I wrote and merely replaced it with your own imaginings.You wrote exactly what I stated and merely rephrased with the usual weasel word salad to avoid having to specifically say it. And your logic does not hold up, see >>34448982.
>>34448982>I don't hurt other people because I have a sense of empathy and can put myself in their shoesThen you wouldn't be a principled man, you'd merely be an emotional man. The moment he becomes angry or properly incited, an emotional man begins harming other people to gratify himself. Empathy can't exist where there's anger and hatred. That's why principles are needed, to maintain control where passions threaten to override good behavior.>I don't hurt other people because I logically realize that doing so causes the social contract to break down and society to become worse offThat's a principle. By acknowledging that society becomes worse as a result of bad and harmful behavior, you're implicitly acknowledging that good and helpful behavior exists objectively. And if "goodness" exists objectively, and you model your behavior after it, then "goodness" has become your deity, or your guiding principle.>Humans developed moral principles independently of religion and before major religions even started defining moralityHumans developed good moral principles independently of organized religion, and religions were built on those good moral principles. They failed to maintain them, but that doesn't undermine the fact that good moral principles exist independently of the human mind, which is where the question of theism vs. atheism is concerned.
>>34448987No, I didn't. Please go back and re-read the post several times. I'm not a Christian nor am I a member of any organized religion.
>>34448969>You could only be an atheist if you were a moral relativist who denied in the objective existence of goodness and compassion, in which case you could not be a good person due to your lack of principles.I believe that the truth as many religious call it, is impossible to comprehend outside of omnipotence. So every strive towards it is always relativist. I do not believe anyone can come to a true conclusion on objective goodness.So I use what I know and have learned and define goodness as such. Which is primarily based on awareness and empathy of other sentient beings.>Dogma has nothing to do with theism vs. atheism.Innately no, in practice it does. Most non-religious don't have an issue with theism, but the dogma that seems to inevitably spur from it.
>>34448980>My point is that you cannot obey a principle unless you believe that that principle existsUtter bollocks. That's like saying you can't walk eastward if you don't understand the concept of "East". You can; you simply say "I'm going that way".
>>34449019>I believe that the truth as many religious call it, is impossible to comprehend outside of omnipotenceThere's no religion that teaches that truth can be comprehended, they only teach that it can be conceived of. The difference being that conception entails understanding parts of it, whereas comprehension entails understanding all of it.>So every strive towards it is always relativistThat's different from it itself being relative. If it itself exists independently of us, in an unchanging state, then it's objective and immutable. Our understandings of it are subjective and mutable, insofar as our understanding is incomplete. The goal is to understand as much as we can, gradually but surely. If truth itself were subjective or relative, then it couldn't exist and there would be no such thing as a true statement.>I do not believe anyone can come to a true conclusion on objective goodnessYou must believe that parts of goodness can be understood, otherwise you'd be claiming that nobody can be good at all. And if that were your claim, then you'd be admitting that you think nobody can be good with or without religion, which would contradict the initial premise that people can be good without religion.>Most non-religious don't have an issue with theism, but the dogma that seems to inevitably spur from it.Dogma also spurs from non-religion, as we can see in this thread. Look at the number of atheists here who are filled with vitriol at any mention of theism, even with no mention of religion. The unfortunate truth is that people have a very hard time looking past their prejudices, whether they're religious or not. The goal should always be to keep a clear, unbiased and unprejudiced mind, but without practice and dedication that goal is impossible to meet.
>>34449034>Utter bollocks. That's like saying you can't walk eastward if you don't understand the concept of "East". You can; you simply say "I'm going that way".That absolutely and perfectly proves my point. How do you intend to maintain your Eastward heading without any guidance? No belief in "East" means no belief in compasses, and no compass means you will inevitably drift. It's not possible, without some form of guidance, to walk in a straight line indefinitely without drifting, any outdoorsman will tell you that. Without a principle, you will drift away from good behavior and turn to selfish behavior the moment your passions overtake you.
>>34449059>then you'd be admitting that you think nobody can be good with or without religion.I believe in mutable and subjective goodness on the basis stated above about sentient being.Seems that you are arguing on semantics on the precise definition of an objective goodness that is a fallacy to understand or obtain. So no, I don't think that anyone can be your objectively good because that objective goodness is unobtainable. Human goodness can only be subjective. A subjectiveness in which we rely on eachother to build upon. Which I feel like the next quote states well.>The unfortunate truth is that people have a very hard time looking past their prejudices, whether they're religious or not. The goal should always be to keep a clear, unbiased and unprejudiced mind, but without practice and dedication that goal is impossible to meet.Quite the circumstance isn't it? A worthy cause.
>>34448176Entomology-fags always pull this sleight of hand and forego explaining why we should accept that the word plays the same role in language today as it did 500 years ago.
>>34448980acknowledging abstract concepts isn't the same thing as theism dude
>>34449203Acknowledging that those concepts are self-existent, not derived from a human mind, is the definition of theism.
>>34449173>Seems that you are arguing on semantics on the precise definition of an objective goodness that is a fallacy to understand or obtainNo, I'm drawing a line of definition between the goodness that we as individuals are capable of possessing versus goodness itself, which would be the wellspring from which we draw our goodness.>So no, I don't think that anyone can be your objectively good because that objective goodness is unobtainablePerfect goodness is unobtainable, yes, but in order for any amount of goodness whatsoever to be obtained by anybody, then goodness must exist as a quality or principle. If it helps, think of goodness as knowledge. It's true that there's no such thing as somebody who possesses all knowledge. But there is such a thing as people who possess some knowledge, and the amount of knowledge varies from person to person, and knowledge can be gained through experience and study. Which means that knowledge must exist as a principle, independent of us as individuals, in order for individuals to be able to partake in it. If knowledge did not exist, then even scraps of knowledge could not be possessed. And if even scraps of knowledge could not be possessed, then nobody could know anything. They couldn't even know that knowledge can't be possessed, which would render the position that "knowledge can't be possessed" an impossible one to hold. Our interpretations of knowledge, truth and goodness are subject to our own limitations as individuals. But goodness, knowledge and truth themselves, as principles, are not limited, nor subjective. They exist, and we strive towards them. If they did not exist, we could not strive towards them. People who reject their existence, do not strive towards them.
>>34449184I've written half a book in this thread explaining the very reason why you ought to use that definition. It's because it's the only one that leads to logical coherency and doesn't contradict itself.
>>34449264This all boils down to that you believe goodness is an innate principle and quantifiable part ofvthe universe.Others beleive that it is subjective.I talked to a guy once who made the same argument that morality or goodness was the same as understanding physics. In that there was a best solution to it. The truth he always called it. He argued that there is a true path to being, I don't remember how he put it, being the best you can be, or the best path to god.I argue that best in that case is entirely subjective. That goodness is subjective. And that morality and goodness are a human concept to elicit collaboration within our species, the world, and our existence.I do take issue with the religious saying that the non-religious just innately can't be good people just because they don't believe in a higher being. It's shallow and dehumanizing.My neighbor helped me during a crisis? Selflessly aided me even out of sacrifice to his own? But alas, he is still not good for he doesn't believe in my worldview.
>>34449264certain kind of islamists believe that it is a good thing to lapidate a woman if she violates the quran's laws in certain ways1)are they evil?2)if they are, why is their definition of good wrong and yours right?
>>34448133Just because religion is bullshit doesn't mean the universe exploded from nothing and formed everything
>>34449390>you believe goodness is an innate principle and quantifiable part ofvthe universe.Yes, which is what all theists believe and all principled people must believe in order to have become principled.>Others beleive that it is subjective.Yes, which means they cannot be principled, because they base their behavior on their ever fluctuating passions, which are subject to bias, change and prejudice. A man who says that he aims to be good, yet doesn't believe in or understand goodness as a fixed principle, will abandon his pursuit of goodness as soon as it becomes difficult, painful or inconvenient.>morality and goodness are a human conceptIn that case you would be a moral relativist, and a true atheist.>religious saying that the non-religious just innately can't be good peopleIt's not innate, and it has nothing to do with religion vs. non-religion, it only has to do with theism vs. atheism. The reason why an atheist can't be good is because he doesn't believe in higher principles, and without higher principles to follow he cannot model his behavior after anything greater than his own appetites. You may say "but I can be empathetic and not like hurting people because it causes me discomfort", but empathy is an appetite, you're still putting your own comfort as the highest priority. And it's one that is subject to change the moment you become angry or inconvenienced. Empathy will not bring you to the point of selfless pacificism. Only principles can give you the strength to patiently endure, because only principles give you something to prioritize above and beyond your own self.>he doesn't believe in my worldview.You don't have to share my worldview. Theism is a very, very broad category. It only means that you have to understand that good behavior is objective, and not something that's subject to your own personal whims, fancies or appetites. If you obey your lower impulses while ignoring reason and principle, you cannot be good.
>>34448176>It means that a person refuses to acknowledge the virtues as objective realitiesIt doesn't appear we have any reliable way to access these objective realities, if we did we would only have One True Religion instead of thousands of disparate sects each with wildly different baked-in assumptions about those realities
>>34449424>1)are they evil?Yes.>2)if they are, why is their definition of good wrong and yours right?Because theirs is based on emotion, tradition or prejudice. All of which are fluctuating, subject to change, mutable and with no abiding nature. The good that I'm pointing to is not "mine", it simply exists in the same way that a mathematical fact exists. It doesn't belong to me, my mind cannot interfere with it and it inherits nothing from me. The tool we use in order to understand and come to valid conclusions about goodness is logic, or reason. Logic does not change according to culture or whim, nor do the conclusions which logic points to. When viewed objectively and logically, there's no reason to stone the woman because punishment without the hope of reform is fruitless. It introduces suffering for no possible gain. She only serves as a target for other people's aggressions, but if those people were reasonable, and thus sinless, they wouldn't have aggressions in the first place. Meaning they necessarily turn themselves into hypocrites with their behavior. The woman gave in to passion, and in turn they give in to theirs. Goodness is only possible when we put passions away and deal with our problems objectively, dispassionately and impartially.
>>34449531>simply exists in the same way that a mathematical fact existshow do you derive these Absolute Good commandments? where they come from? do you use equations to reveal them? what logical processes do you employ to synthesize them?
>>34449530>It doesn't appear we have any reliable way to access these objective realitiesWe do, it's called reason. You can't reject the validity of reason without collapsing your own position, because to do so would be to admit that you've determined that we don't have access to objective realities without the usage of reason. And if you did use reason to come to that conclusion, then you're admitting that reason can come to objective truths, which means it can come to other objective truths, namely truths about morality.>if we did we would only have One True Religion instead of thousands of disparate sectsNo, that doesn't follow. That would be like saying "if we had the means to understand mathematical equations accurately, then all schoolchildren would produce nothing but right answers on every test". The existence of objective truth does not remove the possibility for error. And further, not all disparities are a matter of error. Two entirely different cultures can have entirely different words for a certain animal, but it does not mean that the animal does not exist, or that we don't have the means of viewing the animal.
>>34449540>do you use equations to reveal them?In a sense, yes. Logical arguments are a kind of equation. The logical process involves obeying the rules of right reasoning, ensuring that your argument doesn't contain any fallacies, and making certain that you aren't basing any of your premises on assumptions or prejudices. You're not guaranteed to get it right the first time, it's a matter of trial and error. But as you correct yourself, you gradually approach the truth, in the same way that we gradually approach scientific, mathematical or geometric truths.
>>34449567Interesting, then in this case >>34449531, what passages did you precisely follow to determine that emotions, traditions and anyways subjectivity are all ontologically bad?
>>34449575Passions are contrary to reason because they're biased. They don't allow impartial investigation, they've made up their mind before the investigation has even begun, and they depend entirely on the partiality of the observer. Following passion with no regard for truth always leads to untruth.Following a tradition isn't reasonable because tradition is arbitrary. Even a tradition that was once founded upon reason can easily drift, guiding lessons can be forgotten, and it can become a superstitious shadow of its former self. Following tradition blindly is an example of the "appeal to an unqualified authority" fallacy.Anything that's subjective can't be trusted to lead to truth, because anything that's subjective by its very nature is always changing. That's what it means for something to be subjective, to be subject to change. Truth, on the other hand, is by its nature not subject to change. If it were, then nothing could be true. You could have valuable evidence for a murder trial one moment, and the next it could just phase out of existence. That's simply not how reality works. Reality is objective, which means truth is objective. In order to reach an understanding of truth of any kind, it's always necessary to build that endeavor on fixed principles, not on passions or prejudices.
>>34449620Very interesting, I have to say that I highly respect your devotion to truthseeking, even if I guess I count as an evil one here, since I don't want to relinquish my emotions
>>34449543>That would be like saying "if we had the means to understand mathematical equations accurately, then all schoolchildren would produce nothing but right answers on every test".Comparing the disparity of understanding between non-participants in mathematics to the disparity of understanding between THE HEADS OF EVERY SIGNIFICANT RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS SECT, each of whom are (hopefully) the eminent experts in their respective sects, is a hilariously asinine comparison. People who spend the time to study math or physics for years all come to the same conclusions about those fields. People who spend the same amount of years studying theology, in contrast, do not converge to the same understanding of the divine. In fact, if Christianity is anything to go by (it's the most popular religion after all), humanity's understanding of god becomes ever more fractious over time AMONG THE EMINENT EXPERTS.>first paragraph of pseud babblePlease take an undergraduate course in philosophy
>>34449628Thanks, I appreciate your honest inquiries.>even if I guess I count as an evil one here, since I don't want to relinquish my emotionsOne important thing to note, is that evil should be understood as a mere privation. Just like darkness it the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat, evil is the mere absence of good. Everyone, including myself, is evil insofar as we fall short of perfect goodness. Some fall farther away than others, and everyone has to learn at their own pace, but everyone can learn and progress towards goodness if they try. Some day in the future you may learn that your passions are causing you more pain and suffering than they're worth, and you might set down the same path I did when I came to that realization. And even if that day never comes, my own journey towards truth has taught me to regard everyone with love and compassion, no matter what kinds of errors they find themselves in. Everything that I've shared in this thread has been for the sake of love, not for the sake of condemning.
>>34449637>People who spend the same amount of years studying theology, in contrast, do not converge to the same understanding of the divineThey do. This is what I meant earlier about disparity not being the same as error. Buddhists may call it "Sunyata", Taoists call it "the Tao", Christians call it "God", Pythagoreans call it "The Monad" and Platonists call it "The Good", but they're all referring to the same metaphysical entity. All of these traditions understand the grounds of reality to be Love. They all recognize the same eternal principle, merely the names, depictions and metaphors are different.>Please take an undergraduate course in philosophyI'm a professor. As I said earlier, this is my vocation. I know my subject and I know it well.
>>34449502>and a true atheist.I am undecided on a cosmic deity or creator. Our science has so many holes in the creation of the universe. I've read convincing scientific arguments on creation going as far back to the coalescing of galaxies. But anything part that has so much speculation.I know I don't believe in the specifics of any organized human religion or that any creator would be innately loving or benevolent. I don't subscribe to the thought of an innate goal, plan, morality, or goodness to the universe.>>34449620Even our science, which tries to be objective, is still subjective. It's all theory and best guesses.It's the same for morality. People, at least good people, try to follow the best guess theory on that. The problems arise once power consolidates and that best guess is enforced on people that don't agree with that flavor of best guess.Id argue that the concept of innate objective goodness does more harm than good. As people will claim that theirs is the true objective goodness and that people who don't follow theirs are simply not good people, and are therefore bad.
>>34449696>Even our science, which tries to be objective, is still subjective. It's all theory and best guesses.It's not possible for it to all be theory and guesses, because there has to be something for those theories and guesses to be based upon in the first place. If it were purely guess work, then every proposition would be just as valid as every other proposition, and there would never be scientific consensus on anything, not even the freezing temperature of water. There must be fixed principles, or knowns truths, that those theories can be built off of. What you're describing is a world in which knowledge just flat out doesn't exist and nobody can know anything. But the reality is that while the body of our knowledge is incomplete, it's more complete than it used to be years ago. And as we move towards the future, it will gradually become closer to completion, because the body of our knowledge is merely the collection of verified truths that we know. If anything true can be known at all, then it's possible to move from lesser to greater bodies of knowledge.>Id argue that the concept of innate objective goodness does more harm than goodThe only alternative to goodness being objective is that it doesn't exist. Moral relativity is the rejection of morality as a whole. If something is subjective opinion, then it isn't true by definition, which means it doesn't exist. Either truth is objective, or there is no truth. Either goodness is objective, or there is no such thing as goodness. Acknowledging something as objective doesn't lead on its own to condemning or attacking those who don't understand it, otherwise there would be constant brawls over geometry and physics.
>>34449659Very inspiring. Thank you for your answers, I'll do what I can to be more good as well.
>>34448133That's me in the cornerThat's me in the spotlight, losing my religion
Daily reminder that God cares more about Satan and Jesus than conjoined twins who were never born normal
God telling you not jerk off to women : >:( the intention bro is wrong. You act in sinGod making sure that Jesus and Satan are fine but not conjoined twins or special Ed people : HEY NOW THEY GET HEAVEN AUTOMATICALLY UHHH LOOK I CAN CHANGE MY RULES LIKE DICK CUTTING AND THROWING A CHILD OFF A CLIFF
God making sure Satan and Jesus are perfect for battle : Yes as written God seeing conjoined twins and special Ed people and other the forgotten : UMMM I AM GOD THEY GET HEAVEN AUTOMATICALLY THINK ABOUT HOW IF I DIDNT MAKE THEM THEN YOU WOULD COMPLAIN AN-
Our God is pathetic because it made pathetic
>>34448133I went from born into religion, hated religion and became an atheist, to spiritual but not religious. You need to believe in a metaphysical worldview to have motivation to do anything but religion has long since been a corrupted tool for clergy to attain power and not something for the soul. I advise reading the Greek philosophers and you'll be able to justify your actions much better than most religious people today.
>>34448133I think abrahamic religions are probably a net good for the world but I don't like how the whole thing fetishizes suffering and abstinence. I don't think having a personal relationship with signs and a voice in my head is anything but lacan's surplus enjoyment. Heaven is your greatest place ever u will never reach in this life. And trying to hear God is just circling a guarantee of wholeness that will never come and you will chase shadows as you enter surplus enjoyment however the gap between you and heaven will sustain comfy desire. So... The whole thing is a mechanism but it's not a good one for me. It leads to severe mental illness and suffering if you are like me and your thoughts never stop I think most people on this site are like this, they have a huge inner world. I think the only way to actually traverse this in a concrete way is meditation. Meditation and "traversing the fantasy" meditation will dull the power your thoughts have on your actions so for sensitive people my nervous system won't be burnt out anymore and I can function. Buddha helped me the most lol. Fuck god fuck Jesus fuck all of those.
>>34448867cringe
>>34448133Just read the bible (ethiopian ie complete version), read the quran, read the bhagavad gita and upanishads, read the tao te ching, read upanishads, read the tipitaka, read the avesta. Secondarily you can read joseph campbell, iliad and odyssey, beowulf, native american, aboriginal, norse and greek myths. They're all good.
>>34449696>>34449795The real limiting factor of baconianism is that it must be measurable and testable and repeatable. It is a tool that is limited inherently so you can't worship it as an infalable god. It's just a good tool.
>>34451807>Buddha helped me the most lolI'm not a fan. I think the buddhist monks are parasitic and selfish relying on charity and doing nothing.
>>34452475>doing nothingThat's what winning is
>>34452487That's why so many winewives gravitate toward buddhism
>>34452488Still better than the type of woman who typically converts to christianity
>>34452489The problem I have with christianity is the lectures they give are always completely incoherent platitudes and the church bands suck. I enjoy the books though. Ground the theology philosophically and practically if you're going to lecture to a church about it.
>>34451807Christianity explicitly warns against excessive asceticism, rejects anything seen or heard as being divine and repeats over and over again that the Kingdom of Heaven is a place that you can enter into here and now in this life. None of the issues you raised hit the mark. It's always better to read the works of the saints before assuming you know something about a tradition. That goes for Buddhist saints as well as Christian saints.
>>34452492>and the church bands suckThank plato for that. Christianity is platonism. Plato hated music. He wanted music to be autistic.
>>34448133I personally prefer Panentheism.
>>34448176https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism>Atheism (from the Greek atheotnēs - meaning "ungodliness") is the denial of the validity of belief in the existence of gods.[2] Theos includes the Abrahamic YHWH(s), Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and every other deity from A to Z[3] (and 0-9, !, ", #, $ or any other character, obviously). For the definition of atheism, the terms "God" and "a god" are used interchangeably, as there is no difference between a monotheistic deity and a polytheistic pantheon of deities when it comes to complete disbelief in them.[2] (This also intends to ignore the privileged position which Yahweh has held in English grammar, like the assumption that the word "god" is effectively a name for him and should be capitalized like a proper noun.) Most atheists also do not believe in anything supernatural or paranormal (someone like this would be considered a naturalist or materialist).[2]Yep, it's much simpler than that
>>34448133bait threaduseless board faggot r9k boardhelp
>>34452628>someone like this would be considered a materialistso his post is 100% correct and you're agreeing with him
>>34452647Justice isn't paranormal, so it's okay
>>34452660but it is non-material. materialists do not believe in justice, materialists are always the first to say that justice is subjective.
>>34452676What do you mean "believe in justice"?
>>34452647https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism>Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.>—Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons EverythingAre you saying he was an atheist all along?
>>34452647Most atheists also do not believe in anything supernatural or paranormal, not all
>>34448133Losing your religion? Wait until you lose your will to live. Then you'll truly understand what rock bottom is and you'll see what most of us, me included, are going through. It's horrible. Like yeah fuck religion, but just know that you have to preserve your will to live and live well, not just live to eat.
>>34448176Wait, aren't you that guy from /atoga/ who cheated on his wife?
What can replace religion? Self determined purpose. I turned to religion after surviving something that threatened my existence. I became deeply interested and mindful of the flow of energy and the spiritual impact of actions in affecting outcomes.What is it you actually want? You want a purpose for doing and being? Figure it out for yourself. That's the only correct answer. I choose to diminish my own presence more and more and try to elevate God. That's my path now.
>>34448581>On the other hand, there's no such thing as too much truth or excessive knowledge.I'm calling bullshit on that one
>>34452817Mystery is essential to life's beauty, I guess.
>>34452817
>>34448133Good for you. Too many people define themselves by religion and it’s freaky and culty, but some people need that to understand things or to find comfort. When you’re stronger and more self sufficient and secure it’s not a necessity.Be religious l, be atheist, just be a decent person and respect the someone that has opposing beliefs and all is good
>>34448133Just don't be a zealot, bro. Both theists and atheists can become that, whether it's for gods or rationality. Be wary of your ideals and keep an open mind.
>>34448140>Some religious people try and say that Atheists/Nonbelievers are le miserable, how true is this?You're not going to get an honest answer from the atheist side of the fence on that one. Your question is loaded, they already know if they say "Yes, I am miserable" then it implicates atheism as a contributing factor. And they're not going to admit to that, never in a million years. What they will do instead is lapse into cognitive dissonance and pretend they're happy without meaning, happy without purpose, happy without objective morality, happy without acknowledgement of their own soul. And they'd be lying. No one can be happy with subjectivism, no one is happy without acknowledgement of their own soul, no one can sit there and say "All my hopes and dreams are just the byproducts of chemical interactions in my grey matter". It's bleak, it's miserable, and it cheapens every single aspiration of the atheist. If you ask them what the point is, they can only point to whims, impulses, and vague intellectual mythos that only they have contrived, and if you ask them if their own belief in their own ego's pursuits are fulfilling they will lie and say yes. They are men of matter, what old societies called hylics or sophists, they live only for flesh and when the flesh goes stale and the highs of hedonic pleasure burns dull, they have nothing left. Quite literally nothing too, that's the entire premise of their worldview, that there is nothing beyond the face value of reality.
>>34452910In other words, ignorance is bliss
>>34452910>ContinuedSo here is what the Atheist gets to enjoy:To replace God, they take his place. They instead point to self determination, self mastery, self 'love'. They will tell you you alone will have to set the standard, you alone can only ever love yourself, you alone can only ever find meaning. Inner meaning. Inner inner inner, self self self. They become the great "I Am". And they make themselves the measure of all things in their worldview.We could say it's a type of narcissism but it's not. It's more of a solipsistic thing. They live all alone inside their own heads, in their own brain chatter. And from that dense vantage point, they will try and try and try to love themselves but for every time they do, for every time they try to perfect themselves, they will fail. Just as all men do, even Theistic men. And when they fail, they have no one to pardon them, no one to forgive them, no one to absolve them.So does the atheist continue with self love when they fail? Do they consistently follow their "self determination/self meaning" thing? Fuck no. They lose straight into self hate or self anger or self loathing. After becoming their own God, they become their own devil and they torture themselves mentally with no end. It turns out self forgiveness isn't an atheists strong suit. And some admit to it, some don't, but you can always tell in there character. The atheist is a man who tried to be his own God. And he is a very shitty god to himself. And he will attack your God and hold that God tona standard that he himself cannot even live up to nor does he care to. That's atheism in a nutshell. So enjoy it OP
>>34452922No. Ignorance is suffering, that is why the atheist suffers. "Ignorance is bliss" is a cheap modernized bastardization of a proverb. A proverb which comes from the Bible:"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow"Ecclesiastes 1:18.The wiser you get, the more sorrow. And the atheist is not wise, not at all. They may think they are because they suffer, but they suffer for nothing. Those who know their own souls they suffer too, but they suffer for something. And when you suffer for something it becomes sorrow, passion, meaning. Atheists suffer for nothing and there suffering never adapts into anything meaningful and so they never gain any wisdom. Atheism is the rejection of wisdom outright, because the atheist does not believe in meaning. And with no meaning, no wisdom.
>>34452961Sorry but this type of stuff is cult behavior which is creepy and from a place of low intelligence that will accept the most ridiculous thing as fact. You lost the right to say someone else lacks intelligence. No disrespect, you do you, but remember your own bs, don’t judge others
>>34452961Dude could have just answered yesInstead he showed us the work
>>34452628it seems to me that this guy just calls all idealism theism, whereas theism is just one form of it>>34452739kek, if true
>>34453079It seems one can still be an idealist and a humanist while remaining an atheist like Pterry. Although I'm not into atheism personally.
>>34448867>Don't care in the least. The fact that an ancient Greek philosopher is part of this thread is embarrassing enough.Alright dumber, now, it's time to get your meds.
