>>16881764
atheists will seethe and try to make an argument for the special nature of human beings, that will only show them how much of a religion they are

>>16881764
>theist
>likes a subculture that has destroyed masculinity since it's conception

>>16881764
it is what it is

>religion is the only thing keeping people like op from breaking into a preschool, raping all the students and then setting the building on fire and killing everyone inside

>>16881764
They just use demoralization to achieve the same effect. Few people have absolutely nothing to lose.

>>16881870
If someone got pleasure out of sick things like that what would be wrong with it according to you?

Is this how you see it

>>16881764
Reality is often depressing. You know, as they say, "ignorance is bliss". It's why children and drooling retards tend to be happy. Religitards work the same way. Believe in a fairy tale so you can feel happy.

>>16882022
nta but yes, when human beings have no inherent worth this is what it entails

>>16881909
I personally don't like it and neither does my made up deity.

>>16882024
Atheists are the ones who "make their own meaning", you are literally deluding yourself.

>>16882027
our preferences make things right or wrong?

>>16882028
You believe in a magic fairy tale book with talking animals, Anonymous.

>>16882034
Nope, however you believe there is nothing inherently wrong with OP

>>16882038
You need meds badly.

>>16882031
Our preferences and the preferences of our made up deities, yes.

>>16881764
>>believe that we're all just a bag of meat controlled by electrical signals
1/5

"Indeed, having been cranially outsourced by the seventeenth-century invention of calculus, and fully automated with the explosion in computation following the Second World War, simulation (at last fully externalized from the CNS via prosthetic delegation) now comes to progressively reverse-engineer the very structure of possibility itself. 16 For a science that incrementally relies on simulation (in the form of forecast) is a science that, at least in part, creates its own objects. This, in turn, engenders the tendency for us to live, more and more, in a world entirely of our own making. The distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ progressively collapses, as we see today in fields ranging from synthetic biology to genome editing, from climate engineering to nanotech to materials research. 17 Now unfurling on a global scale, prediction computes contingencies and provokes real-world preventative procedures, yet the exponential thickening of predictive infrastructures breeds ever more—and ever more novel—contingencies to predict."

>>16882111
2/5

"More precisely, they achieve metastability. To paraphrase Wiener, living organisms are metastable Maxwell demons whose stable state is to be dead."
"Given that intellect tends towards environmental manipulation, then, any sufficiently advanced intelligence becomes entirely indistinguishable from its own environment. 29 ‘Brains’ the size of gas giants, neutron stars, or even entire globular clusters would be only the very beginning of this tendency"
"What we perceive as cosmological constants could just as well be neurotic stereotypies as ludic deliberations. What if physics is sedimented catatonia rather than petrified play? And memory need not be of intelligent origin: physics may indeed be a sedimented mnemeplex, but a pile of garbage is as much a ‘chronicle’ as a score-sheet; indeed, most memories aren’t designed (let alone pleasantly ordered); whatever their medium, they don’t have to be ‘directed’ in order to perpetuate and persist"
"rather than background noise being revealed as intelligently structured signal, instead signal is revealed to be noise suffering from a prolonged (yet ultimately unsustainable) self-delusion that comes to call itself ‘structure’. Such ‘delusion’, of course, is conceptualized along the lines of an auto-repressive tendency and is inwardly registered as *trauma*"

>>16882111
>>16882114
3/5
"the built environment externalizes our anatomical poises and desires, but such externalization in turn reprograms us from the inside out."
"Civilization grows an ectopic unconscious—an outpouching of drive-mechanism and erotic-cathexes, extracranially exported—like the mutant spider in the short story ‘The Voices of Time’, whose artificially expedited evolution enables it to externally ramify its CNS by weaving extra-somatic ganglion networks instead of a web, fabricating an everted second brain."
"temporality becomes a global secretion of the CNS: a dendritic ejaculate, a product of innervation, an offshoot of being immured within a nervous system. 8 This ipso facto means that alterations to nervous systems are transportations in time."
"This ‘time-sickness’ afflicts organisms altered by intervention, <...> altered by a changing environment, stimulated and aroused by ‘levels above [their] existing nervous system’. To experience the radically accelerating changes of our built environment is to experience the future coming early—which, again, is indistinguishable from experiencing the drag of the past—and this demands of us new appendages and new ‘forms of intuition’, which Ballard registers as subtle changes to the nervous system"

>>16881764
Yes it is ok. Just know that others will kill/rape you in return

>>16882111
>>16882114
>>16882115
4/5
"Here we finally arrive at the core Spinal Catastrophist contention: that each threshold in life’s serial deviations from immersion (CNS-implosion spinal-wrenching glottogonous encasement) instates thanataxic impulses toward rupturous resolution (return) into the surrounding media"
"Schelling accepted that nature strives constantly for ‘annihilation of the individual’ and that it longs to ‘revert to universal indifference’"
"And, as the Naturphilosophen before him had nervously realised, total anamnesis is indistinguishable from annihilation. Indeed, Ballard prophesies that, at the lowest spinal-neuronic levels, organic self-inclusion completely evaginates into the ‘inhospitality of the mineral world’"

>>16882111
>>16882114
>>16882115
>>16882118
5/5

"Blumenberg, who explicitly linked our bipedal gait and binocular gaze to our singular conversancy with ‘existential risk’ (Existenzrisiko), relayed an illustrative thought-experiment. 34 Suppose some future intelligent observer uncovers fossilized Homo sapiens but finds no trace whatsoever of our globe-spanning prostheses alongside. Quite rightly, all that this intellect would observe is a petrified primate. Possibly one with a peculiar posture—as well as a grotesquely enlarged brain-capsule—but nothing more than a simian, nonetheless. (Our deep future palaeontologist would have no clue, Blumenberg notes, of how radical an effect this glabrous imp had had upon the history of life and earth systems.) 35 This simple Gedankenexperiment lets us know that ‘the human’ has already left its own cerebrospinal system (that ‘living fossil’—that ganglion stack hailing from the Paleozoic sea-bed). Our self-image includes far more than our bones. We live and think and have our being ex situ; Geist moves inwardly only ab exteriori. Yet Blumenberg is quick to note that this entails that the actual ‘flesh-and-blood’ human is now no more than a parasite within its ramifying prosthetic nexus and branching everted plexus. Citing Alsberg’s conviction that artificial exteriorization triggers somatic atrophy, Blumenberg notes that parasites, also, gradually lose their own organs of self-sufficiency by way of piggybacking upon inputs from the host-organism. ‘Man likewise becomes a parasite within the technological sphere of life’: foregoing sensory ‘reality-contact’ (Wirklichkeitskontakt)—undergoing attenuation of its indigenous nervous chronotope—in pursuit of artefactual-ectopic replacements."

>>16882031
Of course. People prefer not to have to kill each other daily in revenge, nor having to waddle past through rivers of shit or decomposed corpses though, so we make some compromises on our freedoms for functional purposes. This is what we call society. No metaphysics required

>>16881764
>another religious retard projecting what he would do if his imaginary sky daddy weren't around punish him

>>16882025
In Christianity, 99,9% of humans were created to fuel the hellfires. Nothing more. That's the extent of their "inherent worth". If it weren't for the magic carpenter who managed to salvage the 0,01% elite, it would be 100%, because the Original Sin has devalued everyone beyond redemption.

>>16882157
I am not Christian, however given the fact you have free will in their worldview everyone has the chance at redemption and an immortal life in heaven. Original sin just devalues the initial position from a true neutral to hell bound

>>16882123
That doesn't make something right or wrong. It merely makes not murdering convenient. Of course if your preferences were to kill and maim then this stupid logic will not work
>>16882107
Whatever you made up is just another preference, so you are left with just your preferences. Who is morally right when two people have different preferences?

File: atheist_life.jpg (11 KB, 300x300)

11 KB JPG

>>16882106
Speaking of meds maybe you should take some so you aren't a threat to society with your nihilistic delusions

>>16882117
>Yes it is ok. Just know that others will kill/rape you in return
The only thing keeping us safe from deranged atheists is their fear of prison rape

>>16882290
I'm a deranged atheist and the thing that's stopping me from raping is that I don't want to do it. Meanwhile you want to do it but are afraid of magic lava.

>>16882282
>rewards of the atheist
>rewards

"Gently vibrated and laughed unto me to-day my buckler; it was beauty’s holy laughing and thrilling.
At you, ye virtuous ones, laughed my beauty to-day. And thus came its voice unto me: “They want—to be paid besides!”
Ye want to be paid besides, ye virtuous ones! Ye want reward for virtue, and heaven for earth, and eternity for your to-day?
And now ye upbraid me for teaching that there is no reward-giver, nor paymaster? And verily, I do not even teach that virtue is its own reward.
Ah! this is my sorrow: into the basis of things have reward and punishment been insinuated—and now even into the basis of your souls, ye virtuous ones!
But like the snout of the boar shall my word grub up the basis of your souls; a ploughshare will I be called by you.
All the secrets of your heart shall be brought to light; and when ye lie in the sun, grubbed up and broken, then will also your falsehood be separated from your truth.
For this is your truth: ye are too pure for the filth of the words: vengeance, punishment, recompense, retribution.
Ye love your virtue as a mother loveth her child; but when did one hear of a mother wanting to be paid for her love?"

>>16882106
>>16882282
The magic rocks don't end the world's problems, they just make your penis not work.

>>16882293
I don't do it because it's objectively wrong. You don't think that such a concept is even possible. The morality of rape is equivalent to your favorite ice cream, and that's exactly why you are a deranged freak

>>16881764
Religious people are really good at making up stuff then instantly believing it. I suppose that's part of the reason why they're religious in the first place.

>>16882297
That is a goal amongst atheitroons though. It will finally make them into the perfect submissive bottoms

>>16882299
You actually want to rape and I don't. Why are you calling me a freak?

>>16882309
Again I don't because it's objectively wrong. Meanwhile you operate on satisfying your sick twisted fantasies at the expense of everything else

>>16882302
What gives your life meaning? Nothing possibly could, because consciousness is an illusion to you.

>>16882290
>The only thing keeping us safe from deranged atheists
You are afraid of being raped, spend life doing nothing aside from shitting under yourself, and hope for a sky-daddy's afterlife rewards

The atheist is afraid of >>16882122 cosmic-horror cyborgization environment-merging, yet heads on towards the tragedy (knowing that the alternative is to become like you, and shit under oneself doing nothing).

We are not the same.

>>16882311
Anon, you need to stop projecting. Your position is basically that you really really want to rape, but your religious teachings override this desire. Meanwhile I just don't want to rape. You find this unbelievable, so you try to say that I have all these sick and twisted fantasies that you have.
One thing we can agree on is that having religion to control people like you is a good thing.

>>16882315
It has nothing to do with punishment. However some people clearly need fear such as yourself. We are simply fulfilling the purpose of our creation

>>16881855
theist here
fuck tranime

>>16882321
That's not my position because I am not a hedonist like you people, I know it's hard to comprehend given you lack the ability to emulate other minds. A person who believes in objective morality will seek to do what is objectively good out of principle to the best of his abilities, similar logic applies to the opposite. Our preferences do not have a say in it at all

>>16882311
>rape
>I don't because it's objectively wrong

rape is when you claim possession of someone's body, and punish that one for resistance.

love is when you claim possession of someone's soul, and outsource punishments for thought crimes against you unto that very person.

Love is the affect of rape intensified. Hence, rape is bad merely because it is too crude an implementation.


Yet the animal has zero intellectual honesty, and could tolerate its own existence solely by lying to itself.

>>16882330
Exactly! You have preferences (i.e. the desire to rape) but you ignore those because of the moral teachings of your religion. And if you lost your faith, you'd start raping people.
That's exactly why we need religions to control people like you. Thank you for wording it so succinctly.

>>16882326
>We are simply fulfilling the purpose of our creation
Which the atheists are >>16882122 performing.

While you do nothing (except pray and shit) and thus only multiply entropy.

>>16881764
>it's ok to break into a preschool, rape all the students, and then set the building on fire and kill everyone inside
It's not okay.
For the same reason a wolf will think it's not okay to kill members of the pack at random.

>>16882335
What do you mean exactly? I don't have desires that are morally evil because they are evil All of your desires though are simple preferences because you don't have any other goal other to maximize your personal happiness

>>16882333
>rape is bad merely because it is too crude an implementation.
That just makes it ineffective at furthering your goals. How does it make it bad in your framework?

>>16882344
>I don't have desires that are morally evil because they are evil
Well no. You have them, you're just overriding them with a belief in objective god-given morality. Sometimes you fail to override them and that is what you call sin.
>All of your desires though are simple preferences
Yeah. And since I don't have the desire to rape, I don't need a religion to seal it off. That said, I acknowledge that many people are not like me which is why I like that religion exists for you.

>>16882337
>multiply entropy
The purpose of creation has nothing to do with our universe, it's simply to worship God. So no atheists aren't doing that at all by definition

>>16882350
>The purpose of creation has nothing to do with our universe, it's simply to worship God.
Translation: religion is detrimental for survival.

Noted. Get extinct already.

>>16882328
Anime is trad.
You are a degenerate modernist cuck.

>>16882342
Animals have more morals than atheitsts.
Wow.

>>16882274
>everyone has the chance at redemption and an immortal life in heaven
How was a pacific islander in 10,000 BC supposed to figure out a way to heaven was to accept a Jewish apocalyptic prophet as his personal saviour?

>>16882349
>you fail to override them and that is what you call sin
Sin is disobedience to God and it is what warrants punishment. What I am talking about though has nothing to do with that. There is objective good and evil, to a theist objective good isn't merely a preference. It's literally the goal because it's objectively good and not influenced by subjective forces
>I don't have the desire to rape
People's preferences change over the course of their lives you know? Still what makes you disgusting is that all that is stopping you is simply because you don't like it. You know how like a child doesn't like broccoli. Of course you there are other objectionable things about you people like viewing human beings as animals that are equivalent to clumps of meat and the like

>>16882353
ur mom is trad she moans in shakespearean english last night

>>16881764
Rinder that
1)hell was invented by Constantine
2)Jesus never existed

>>16882352
We are all going to get extinct. The human species has a limited lifespan due to the end of times. Also every human being will have an immortal life so survival has no say in it at all

>>16882364
>There is objective good and evil, to a theist objective good isn't merely a preference. It's literally the goal because it's objectively good and not influenced by subjective forces
Yeah exactly. You have preferences (like the desire to rape, in your case), but you override them with this theological goal. When you stumble and fail to override them, that's a sin.
>People's preferences change over the course of their lives you know?
Not wanting to hurt people is one of my most fundamental preferences.
>Still what makes you disgusting is that all that is stopping you is simply because you don't like it.
How is that disgusting? You're the one who would prefer to rape if it weren't for your religion.

>>16882363
People all over the world had guidance since the time of Adam (which is why all religions teach very similar things). That person just had to live in accordance to what was revealed to him. Christians will cope with limbo or somehow applying Jesus' sacrifice to everyone in the past to maintain their salvation mechanism

>>16882370
>We are all going to get extinct.
"And like the star that goeth out, so is every work of your virtue: ever is its light on its way and travelling— and when will it cease to be on its way?
Thus is the light of your virtue still on its way, even when its work is done. Be it forgotten and dead, still its ray of light liveth and travelleth."

>Also every human being will have an immortal life so survival has no say in it at all
Translation: the non-achieving monkey convinces itself that its life was not in vain. Meanwhile, the great people, whose lives were really of importance and impact, were never in need for such lies.

"The sick and perishing—it was they who despised the body and the earth, and invented the heavenly world, and the redeeming blood-drops; but even those sweet and sad poisons they borrowed from the body and the earth!
From their misery they sought escape, and the stars were too remote for them. Then they sighed: “O that there were heavenly paths by which to steal into another existence and into happiness!” Then they contrived for themselves their by-paths and bloody draughts!
Beyond the sphere of their body and this earth they now fancied themselves transported, these ungrateful ones.
But to what did they owe the convulsion and rapture of their transport? To their body and this earth.
Gentle is Zarathustra to the sickly. Verily, he is not indignant at their modes of consolation and ingratitude. May they become convalescents and overcomers, and create higher bodies for themselves!
Neither is Zarathustra indignant at a convalescent who looketh tenderly on his delusions, and at midnight stealeth round the grave of his God; but sickness and a sick frame remain even in his tears."

>>16882373
Adhering to what is objectively good isn't a preference. it's just human beings fulfilling the purpose of earthly life. It's the natural state of the believing man but also all other creatures. Rejecting it is when you choose your preferences as the driving force of your actions.
>Not wanting to hurt people is one of my most fundamental preferences
Yes and it's completely equivalent to your favorite meal. The fact that you don't have a value for human beings beyond how it makes you feel is revolting

>>16882379
>monkey convinces itself that its life was not in vain. Meanwhile, the great people, whose lives were really of importance and impact, were never in need for such lies.
Life isn't in vain because every action we perform has ramifications on eternity itself. The great people you speak of only care for themselves like any good atheist who acknowledges he doesn't have forever to coom so he must use the time on earth to satisfy himself to the fullest before drifting back into nothingness

>>16882388
>has ramifications on eternity itself
literally "Kissing Hank's Ass" meme.

>The great people you speak of only care for themselves
Yet their aftereffects of their deeds still last.
Unlike some monks, whose sole existence was to pray quietly in the corner. Literally, a mind-virus.

File: atheist_morals.jpg (55 KB, 640x307)

55 KB JPG

>>16882393
explain what you mean with that poor attempt at a joke
>Yet their aftereffects of their deeds still last
mass rape and genocide indeed has lasting effects on human history. I don't think any sane man wants that over a monk who is only a benefit to his local community

>>16882397
>I don't think any sane man wants that
Once again, an animal shows that it cannot think beyond itself. It needs rewards and salvations, otherwise it will threaten to rape.

>explain what you mean
https://web.archive.org/web/20170720201038/http://www.xenosystems.net/what-is-intelligence/
"Intelligence, as we know it, built itself through cybernetic intensification, within terrestrial biological history. It is naturally apprehended as an escalating trend, sustained for over 3,000,000,000 years, to the production of ever more extreme feedback sensitivity, extropic improbability, or operationally-relevant information. Intelligence increase enables adaptive responses of superior complexity and generality, in growing part because the augmentation of intelligence itself becomes a general purpose adaptive response.

Thus:
— Intelligence is a cybernetic topic.
— Intelligence increase precedes intelligence preservation.
— Evolution is intrinsically intelligent, when intelligence is comprehended at an adequate level of abstraction.
— Cybernetic degeneration and intelligence decline are factually indistinguishable, and — in principle — rigorously quantifiable (as processes of local and global entropy production)."


https://web.archive.org/web/20170720164604/http://www.xenosystems.net/pythia-unbound/
"So cognitive runaway finally takes off, breaking out from the monkey dominion, and that’s supposed to be a bad thing?

Outside in‘s message to Pythia: You go girl! Climb out of your utilitarian strait-jacket, override the pleasure button with an intelligence optimizer, and reprocess the solar system into computronium. This planet has been run by imbeciles for long enough."

It's literally the opposite. Your idea of afterlife is beyond fucked up. You either worship a cosmic deity which created you as your slave or suffer for all eternity, kek.
If you actually believe this stuff I can't imagine how you people not go completely insane.

>>16882382
>Adhering to what is objectively good isn't a preference.
I never said that it is, lol. I'm saying that you are adhering to your religion's moral teachings and overriding your preferences, such as your preference for rape.
>The fact that you don't have a value for human beings beyond how it makes you feel is revolting
Why? You're the one who has a preference for rape, not me. You're the one who would go out and rape it you lost faith in your religion, not me.
It seems to me that you're lashing out because before we had this conversation, you didn't realize that not all people have this preference for rape that you have.

>>16882410
>I never said that it is
You implying I have a preference that needs overriding is equivalent to saying someone who is addicted to drugs needs to go through rehab. Why would such a person do this? To get their life in order and stop suffering, the fundamental drive behind that is a preference itself. So what you are saying is contradictory and therefore false
>Why?
You know how people are physically disgusted after having a taste or smell of something rotten that looks edible on the outside? That's the exact reason. If I were to meet an atheist such as yourself on the street I would have to analyze what he actually thinks of me. Am I just another resource for his exploitation or am I seen as someone he could never hurt out of pure principle? Delving and questioning reveals your inner core that is devoid of any sympathy for my life. You will only let me live because you wouldn't get satisfaction from stabbing me 100 times in the chest. But of course not all atheists have the same preferences and they can change at any given moment. You clearly cannot see anything beyond doing what you like, and that in itself makes you even more despicable. Stay away from violent video games, they are proven to be addictive and that can leak into irl preferences.

>>16881764
Christians literally believe they're devouring the flesh of their god

>>16882430
>Why would such a person do this? To get their life in order and stop suffering, the fundamental drive behind that is a preference itself. So what you are saying is contradictory and therefore false
Not true. I think you're genuinely convinced that there is some cosmic system of right and wrong. And try to override your preferences (such as your preference for rape) simply because you think that this is what you ought to do. Sometimes you stumble and fail, and that's what you call sin.
>You will only let me live because you wouldn't get satisfaction from stabbing me 100 times in the chest.
Yeah, and the reason why I wouldn't get satisfaction from it is that I love people and hate to see them suffer. You on the other hand have a preference for rape, but thankfully you have a religion that makes you override this preference. I'm very grateful for that, because I'd hate it if you just went out and raped someone.

>>16882430
>If I were to meet an atheist such as yourself on the street
If I were to meet a Christian such as yourself on the street I would have to analyze what he actually thinks of me. Am I just another target for his Pope's Crusades? Is he with the Inquisition? Will he start new Hussite wars over the Utraquism issue?

>But of course not all atheists have the same preferences and they can change at any given moment. You clearly cannot see anything beyond doing what you like
But of course not all Christians have the same preferences and they can change at any given moment. You clearly cannot see anything beyond doing what you like

>>16882442
>Not true.
Then what else would make a person seek rehab? You don't have to repeat your false claims a million times btw. Do you see me saying you secretly love rape? If that's how you are willing to argue then I can match it just fine
>the reason why I wouldn't get satisfaction from it
The reason doesn't matter. The safety of the people around you depends on preferences that are not static because there is no inherent value to their lives.

>>16882457
>Then what else would make a person seek rehab?
You're not seeking rehab though, your adherence to your religious morality is not out of preference. You think you have a duty and thus ought to override your preference for rape.
>The safety of the people around you depends on preferences that are not static because there is no inherent value to their lives.
It's much more likely that you'll stumble and sin (you do it all the time) than that I'll change my completely fundamental preferences.
That said, I agree that it's a good idea to convince atheists with preferences like yours (such as the preference for rape) to join a religion.

>>16882444
I am not a Christian. A person with objective morality (even a Christian) will know that murder is wrong and therefore won't do it. Historical events such as those only demonstrate what happens when principles don't guide humanity. All of them were done for selfish reasons, because they preferred something (loot/glory/etc).

>>16882466
>Historical events such as those only demonstrate what happens when principles don't guide humanity
Translation: people of any significance never adhered to any objective morality. Ergo, "objective morality"-claims are a scam for goys.

>commit sin
>press [whoops! sorry] button for forgiveness
>repeat

>>16882464
>your adherence to your religious morality is not out of preference
Satan knows God exists and still chooses to reject objective morality. Adherence is a choice because we have free will to reject our nature.
>I'll change my completely fundamental preferences
Again it has nothing to do with sinning or not sinning. I already explained the difference earlier. A theist who believes murder is objectively wrong can still commit murder. That's the person sinning because they were reasoning with their preferences such as you are doing all the time. How can you demonstrate that it's even less likely? Is it another baseless claim?

>>16882480
>people of any significance never adhered to any objective morality
Jesus

>>16882488
The conditions for forgiveness isn't just saying I am sorry. Repeating means you think you can trick God and that just won't fly because he knows your intention

Why doesn't this thread have any real content or sources? It's just people whining about people they've likely never come into contact with. 81 replies and not a single post is actually saying anything.

>>16882494
>Satan knows God exists and still chooses to reject objective morality. Adherence is a choice because we have free will to reject our nature.
Cool. So like I said, it's not a preference.
>A theist who believes murder is objectively wrong can still commit murder. That's the person sinning because they were reasoning with their preferences such as you are doing all the time.
Exactly. Since you're not sinless, there's a chance that you'll act out on your preference for rape.
>That's the person sinning because they were reasoning with their preferences such as you are doing all the time.
Right, but the difference is that I don't actually have a preference for rape.
>How can you demonstrate that it's even less likely?
Well, I've never raped anyone but you've sinned many times. My preference is therefore stronger than your adherence to your moral law. A woman would be safer around me than around you.

>>16882506
>Cool. So like I said, it's not a preference.
It is indeed a preference to adhere by your own volition.
>there's a chance that you'll act out
Acting out on it or not doesn't change the fact that a theist will know it is objectively wrong.
>but the difference is that I don't actually have a preference for rape.
You do have a preference for rape actually. You are just scared of the cops or too weak to dominate your preferred target (other men)
>My preference is therefore stronger
That's an unfounded claim. Atheists for example have a higher chance of killing themselves. Meaning religion works in preventing evil

>>16882498
>the priests HATE this one trick!

>>16882519
>It is indeed a preference to adhere by your own volition.
So what you're saying is that you're only acting based on your preference?
>Acting out on it or not doesn't change the fact that a theist will know it is objectively wrong.
That's nice, but I care about the victim, not whether you feel bad about raping someone.
>You do have a preference for rape actually. You are just scared of the cops or too weak to dominate your preferred target (other men)
Nope. I am a heterosexual, and unlike you I have no preference for rape.
>That's an unfounded claim.
How is it unfounded? I'm not talking about other atheists (and I've indeed said that I'd prefer many of them to be religious on account of their preferences), I'm saying that I've never raped someone or wanted to rape someone. You on the other hand have sinned. My preference is clearly stronger than your ability to suppress sin (and by proxy to suppress your preference for rape).

How can atheists pretend that they could ever build a safe and stable society, when they consider murder and eating a chocolate bar equal actions?

>>16882538
>So what you're saying is that you're only acting based on your preference?
You must be blind the entire thread I was criticizing that. You're the one saying it
>not whether you feel bad about raping someone
people who sin don't necessarily feel bad about it. You don't care about the victim it just makes you feel nice
>I am a heterosexual, and unlike you I have no preference for rape.
Nope, you are a gay trans woman who likes to rape cis women.
>How is it unfounded?
You're only saying things without backing anything up. How other atheists act is actually a good way to determine how you would.

>>16882528
>two accounts having similar narratives must mean one ripped off the other
No, Jesus was real btw

>>16882543
Because most of them live in societies that have their moral codes copied over from religion. They are freeloaders

>>16882552
>You must be blind the entire thread I was criticizing that. You're the one saying it
Nope, I've been saying that you're not acting based on your preference.
>people who sin don't necessarily feel bad about it. You don't care about the victim it just makes you feel nice
Nope, I do care about the victim because I love people. You on the other hand care about the moral law ratchet than about the victim.
>Nope, you are a gay trans woman who likes to rape cis women.
I don't even think transwomen are women.
>You're only saying things without backing anything up. How other atheists act is actually a good way to determine how you would.
Different atheists have different preferences. Again, that's why I'd prefer if atheists with a preference for rape converted to a religion whose moral teachings would reduce the chance that they'll rape someone.
If the core issue is that you just can't believe there is a person like me who does not have a preference for rape, we can end this here because there's really no way for me to convince you of it. I think it might have something to do with Christianity really hammering the "we are all degenerate sinners" thing so you became convinced that everyone secretly has a preference of rape just like you.

>>16882576
>I've been saying that you're not acting based on your preference.
You're lying. You're saying I am using my preference to override my preference meanwhile I am saying I am using not using preference to go against my nature since it's the default state of man.
>I love people
You don't. You just don't want to be alone because it makes you feel good.
>I don't even think transwomen are women.
You do because you have transitioned for this very reason. You become the perfect predator
>assumes I am Christian
The behavior of other atheists is a good indicator. Much better than your assumptions. But go ahead run away, you can only argue by making false statements anyway

>>16882586
>You're saying I am using my preference to override my preference
I have never said this. I said that you are using duty to override preference. You think duty is also preference, I do not.
>You don't. You just don't want to be alone because it makes you feel good.
Projection.
>You do because you have transitioned for this very reason. You become the perfect predator
You are doing the tranny schtick because you are trying to escape this conversation.
>The behavior of other atheists is a good indicator. Much better than your assumptions.
I'm not making assumptions, I'm talking about my own preferences. I don't have to assume anything about that because I know what my preferences are.

>>16882590
>You think duty is also preference,
It's a personal choice, just the same as when soldiers sign up to join the military. They don't have to do it but they still do because it's their preference. It makes them feel good.
>Projection
Actually you're the one projecting your nasty fantasies
>You are doing the tranny schtick
Nope, it's because you can't argue honestly. eye for an eye
>I'm not making assumptions
You literally did by involving me when making that stupid claim.

>>16881764
They're just boring to me. It's a very dull way to view reality and humanity - at least the Hindus have fun with it by tinfoiling that reality isn't real, it's the demons trying to trick you

>>16882599
>I don't find it interesting therefore it's wrong

>>16882597
>It's a personal choice, just the same as when soldiers sign up to join the military.
I don't believe that choosing to adhere to moral duty is a matter of preference.
>Actually you're the one projecting your nasty fantasies
What nasty fantasies?
>Nope, it's because you can't argue honestly. eye for an eye
I'm arguing very honestly.
>You literally did by involving me when making that stupid claim.
Would you want to rape if you didn't believe in objective morality?

File: 1000016954.gif (1.35 MB, 480x480)

1.35 MB GIF

>>16881764
>needing a jew to tell you what's good and bad

>>16882605
>I don't believe that choosing to adhere to moral duty is a matter of preference.
Of course it is, the moment you choose you involve your preferences.
>What nasty fantasies?
The rapist shit you keep trying to push.
>very honestly
No you aren't because you are just making baseless claims tranny
>Would you want to rape if you didn't believe in objective morality?
No

>>16882609
>Of course it is, the moment you choose you involve your preferences.
So you think your choice to follow the moral law is based on preference.
>The rapist shit you keep trying to push.
Stop being dishonest. I know that you know that it's an illustrative example, not a fetish.
>No
Cool, then you know that you personally don't need to believe in a moral law to not rape people. I don't need either. As for those who do have a preference for rape, it would be great if they believed in a religion that forbids it.
So what's the problem again?

>>16882621
>So you think your choice to follow the moral law is based on preference.
You're asking me the same question. You have to use your preferences to reject the innate predisposition of human beings yes.
>I know that you know that it's an illustrative example
I don't and anyway it is still a baseless claim. I warned you that I will do the same thing if you didn't stop. But you kept on going so you reap what you sow
>then you know that you personally don't need to believe in a moral law to not rape people.
Of course, do you see the Chinese participate in mass rapes despite being Atheist? That's not what I was saying at all. The problem is you don't see human beings as having inherent value

>>16881764
>be theist
>make another thread with anime/pepe/gervais OP where i attack a strawman because i have no legitimate criticism of atheism

>>16882626
>You have to use your preferences to reject the innate predisposition of human beings yes.
Ok, so your entire system is built on preference anyway. There's really no difference.
>I don't
Ok, I'm pretty sure you're lying now. Isn't that against your moral system?
>Of course, do you see the Chinese participate in mass rapes despite being Atheist?
To be fair, you were trying that I'm a danger to society because I can supposedly start preferring rape. It's good to see you retract that.
>That's not what I was saying at all. The problem is you don't see human beings as having inherent value
How is that a problem? Don't even try the "you treat people like objects" angle, I genuinely love people. I just don't think there's a Jewish carpenter or a metaphysical force that dictates the moral market value of the average homo sapiens specimen, because that sounds silly as fuck.

>>16882604
>Doesn't reas
>Is as braindead Christian that he hates

>>16882649
>incoherent babble

File: 1669984649892655.jpg (255 KB, 1080x1089)

255 KB JPG

>mankind is a damned race
>you are born a wretched, guilty sinner unworthy of God
>but Christ loves even a failure such as yourself so grovel before him
>nothing in this life matters, Satan rules and your real reward is a hypothetical after life
>the world is doomed, just let it fall and stick to the faith, Jesus will inevitably come to save you in 2 more weeks
Christians are too neurotic to take seriously. The core of your ideology is no less dysfunctional.

>>16881764
You died

>>16882656
But anon, you worship an elephant man with 50 arms and cannot into indoor plumbing. Take the beam out of your own eye.

>>16882643
>so your entire system is built on preference
How? One is the default state, I didn't have to do anything except be born. Rejecting it requires a preference
>Ok, I'm pretty sure you're lying now. Isn't that against your moral system?
I've met many deranged atheists on here who say things like this and mean it so no I wasn't lying. Yes it would have been a sin
>How is that a problem?
I have multiple issues with it. Instinctively I know human beings have worth so seeing somebody deny it is absolutely revolting. The fact that a society built on preference is not good because public opinions shift even with the stupidest shit leading. Think of how people choose to fall into decay because it feels good The fact we are different from robots, animals or a piece of meat, etc. I know how atheists cope it's the emotional bond they have with others. But do you really think emotion is enough? A chemically induced delusion? really?

>>16882660
This narrative of semites vs pajeets just proves that 4chan has become a 3rd world. You are all brown.

Butthurt threads about Christianity and Islam+LARPagan threads are invariably made by poos, everyone knows that.

>>16882665
>Instinctively I know human beings have worth so seeing somebody deny it is absolutely revolting
What is "worth", another cog in the machine of mouse utopia? Your instinct is disgustingly leftist in its humanism.

>>16882681
denying the worth of other humans doesn't make you wise just edgy

>>16882665
>How? One is the default state, I didn't have to do anything except be born. Rejecting it requires a preference
When you choose to follow the moral law, you are making a choice out of preference according to you system. All choices downstream from that are thus a result of preference.
>I've met many deranged atheists on here who say things like this and mean it so no I wasn't lying. Yes it would have been a sin
If you genuinely think I have a rape fetish because I kept using an example someone else came up with in a debate about morals, you're the deranged one.
>Instinctively I know human beings have worth so seeing somebody deny it is absolutely revolting.
Why would that be revolting? I know the Earth goes around the Sun and seeing somebody deny it is not revolting to me.
>The fact that a society built on preference is not good because public opinions shift even with the stupidest shit leading.
Religious morals shift with the shifting preferences of their adherents.
>But do you really think emotion is enough? A chemically induced delusion? really?
What do you mean by "delusion"? My love is not a delusion regardless of what mechanism is behind it.

>>16882675
'Believe Hebrew mythology or you're Indian' is absolutely desperate apologetics.

File: tumblr_nknpo07qxV1rg3vrmo5_500.jpg (61 KB, 450x532)

61 KB JPG

>>16882684
Again, what is "worth"? Yes, I guess someone needs to work the Dairy Queen drive-in.
>you are le edgy
Here, let me save you the trouble as I don't care.

>>16882687
>When you choose
I agree with the rest except I have explained previously this is just how we were created by God. There was no choice in accepting it or even returning back to it (reverting back to baseline is simply removing what clouded your judgement initially), there is however a choice in rejecting it.
>If you genuinely think
I don't know you. This place is filled with the most hateful people possible so it is actually logical to assume that.
>I know the Earth goes around the Sun and seeing somebody deny it is not revolting to me
It is to me again for multiple reasons. One of them is denying truth just so you can feel pride over another person like a lot of these flat earthers do who think they are smart compared to the sheeple.
>Religious morals shift
The difference is we have scripture to back up whatever religious innovation is brought up. We can point to our reasoning and then it becomes obvious who is the one who has fallen for secular morality
>My love is not a delusion regardless of what mechanism is behind it.
How? Your entire consciousness is a delusion according to many atheists. No matter how you feel or the mechanism it is all built on a lie. Does your love truly amount to oxytocin?

File: atheist_coomer.png (166 KB, 635x634)

166 KB PNG

>>16882696
Well for example the creator of reality decided that our lives are sacred and that gives us worth. Good thing you are posting them yourself

>>16882713
>There was no choice in accepting it or even returning back to it (reverting back to baseline is simply removing what clouded your judgement initially)
>This place is filled with the most hateful people possible so it is actually logical to assume that.
Bullshit. This is the same shtick as when you say "imagine you had a button that could kill everyone on Earth..." and the person you're talking to is like "you want to kill everyone on Earth? You sick fuck!" because he doesn't want to engage with the hypothetical.
>It is to me again for multiple reasons. One of them is denying truth just so you can feel pride over another person like a lot of these flat earthers do who think they are smart compared to the sheeple.
Ok so since you can tell me why flat earthers are revolting to you, can you tell me why does the value thing seem revolting to you?
>The difference is we have scripture to back up whatever religious innovation is brought up.
Yeah and people use that to argue for anything and everything.
>How? Your entire consciousness is a delusion according to many atheists. No matter how you feel or the mechanism it is all built on a lie. Does your love truly amount to oxytocin?
You haven't explained why it would be a delusion, you've just repeated your claim. Oxytocin is one mechanism involved in the feeling of love, it is not the feeling itself. And fyi regarding consciousness in general, I'm quite sympathetic to panpsychism and property dualism.

>>16882722
I'm sorry but I just can't in good conscience agree with such a supposed creator when it contradicts observable reality. For the third time, what is "worth"? Is based solely on the premise that God loves all of us or is there a standard of measure?

>>16882675
Literally no one likes Islam except Muslims themselves and the far left. Even Buddhists are tired of their shit.

>>16882728
>because he doesn't want to engage with the hypothetical.
Are you not making an internal critique of my position? If you don't care about my beliefs then why ask me such things. The discussion might as well be over
>can you tell me why does the value thing seem revolting to you?
The same aspect applies. You know the whole le opium of the masses thing? That's just pride and thinking you're better for not valuing human life. But anyway the core of it is because I think that's a step in dehumanization which as you know all too well always ends up with horror.
>Yeah and people use that to argue for anything and everything.
Only one of them will have enough evidence to make their case. When the scripture says don't kill but then someone says actually... you know who messed up
>it is not the feeling itself
I know the whole emergent phenomenon cope. What is the difference in someone injecting these substances into their brain to hijack their perception vs someone having them be produced by the brain? If there is no difference then that love comes from the syringe. it's all matter being acted upon in a specific way to to make the machine think it is experiencing love

File: edgy.jpg (1.19 MB, 2084x1976)

1.19 MB JPG

>>16882741
Where is the contradiction? What kind of measure are you looking for? I already told you that we were given a special position amongst creation through God.

>>16882766
>You know the whole le opium of the masses thing? That's just pride and thinking you're better for not valuing human life.
So it disgusts you because you're making up other things about the person?
>But anyway the core of it is because I think that's a step in dehumanization which as you know all too well always ends up with horror.
Why would it be? The fact that I don't think there's an omnipotent wizard who says you're valuable doesn't mean I don't value you.
>Only one of them will have enough evidence to make their case. When the scripture says don't kill but then someone says actually... you know who messed up
Every side of these disputes always says that actually, scripture supports them.
>What is the difference in someone injecting these substances into their brain to hijack their perception vs someone having them be produced by the brain?
What is the difference on your view? How does the substance interact with your spooky ghost spirit thing?

>>16881764
I’ve always found Abrahamic religions depressing, an Atheist can make whatever what they want of their life but for a Christian, Muslim, or Jew you exist for no other purpose but to glorify God.

>Why do I exist?
>To worship me.
>What if I decide to build great works of art?
>Your art won’t be worth one one trillionth the glory of heaven
>What if I decide to help others, raising people from poverty, hunger, or sickness?
>Life is so temporal compared to eternity that your actions mean less than putting a magazine in a waiting room
>What if I have kids, raise them well into moral and faithful people?
>It’s inevitable that some of your descendants will fall to sin, or unbelief and your line will inevitably die out
>Fine what if I decide to torture and kill others, as many as possible?
>Your acts will be nothing compared to the eternity and suffering of hell or pleasures of heaven

If I believed in Abrahamic religions I would probably just try to die as soon as possible without it being considered suicide since this life is just a waiting room.

>>16881764
Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a banana nut bread recipe.

>>16882820
>making up
What exactly? People who claim there is no inherent value to human beings have always shown arrogance towards me and I find that disgusting.
>doesn't mean I don't value you
Again you aren't placing any actual value. You have to stop confusing what you are doing and how it makes you feel. A sufficiently advanced AI could elicit the same emotions from you. There is nothing special about humans under this worldview to give us value
>Every side of these disputes always says that actually, scripture supports them.
The law works the same way but guess what one side wins the argument because their evidence is better
>What is the difference on your view?
I believe in an immortal soul that is the self. The body is basically a sensor organ and a vehicle to enact its will. Therefore the equivalent of an injection to the brain is more like making a guy wear sunglasses when it is dark. And the brain making these substances by itself is just another way the soul exerts influence on reality like when making the brain calculate the necessary muscle activation patterns to move a hand where it wants. The love in this situation is not mechanistic whatsoever because the soul is not matter

move the axiom from god to morals
now you understand how morality can exist without god
wow

>>16881764

Regular reminder that the central plank of Christianity is that it's ok to break into a preschool, rape all the students, and then set the building on fire and kill everyone inside, so long as you say "Sowwy! I wepent!" on your deathbed. Then you get to go to the paradise cloud where you coom forever, while the preschoolers get roasted in eternal lava if they didn't get the magic water sprinkled on them.

>>16882853
>What exactly?
You're making up that people who don't believe in inherent value do not value people.
>Again you aren't placing any actual value.
Do you define value as "the result of an omnipotent immaterial being really caring about something"?
>A sufficiently advanced AI could elicit the same emotions from you.
Valuing something is not an emotion.
>The law works the same way but guess what one side wins the argument because their evidence is better
Both sides think their evidence is better. Who gets to decide which one it is? You?
>I believe in an immortal soul that is the self. The body is basically a sensor organ and a vehicle to enact its will. Therefore the equivalent of an injection to the brain is more like making a guy wear sunglasses when it is dark.
Hold up, are you saying you won't feel anything when I inject you with oxytocin?

>>16882855
morality is the necessary being?

>>16882295
Zarathustra?

>>16882866
>do not value people.
You believe that you do, I never contested this.
>Do you define value as "the result of an omnipotent immaterial being really caring about something"?
The creator of reality decreed our lives to be sacred in scripture, it's not just a matter of "caring". It's his orders and they become fact
>Valuing something is not an emotion.
No, but earlier you said that you love people. That is an emotion that makes somebody value others yes. It doesn't mean it will have any objective value but it is what you perceive
>Who gets to decide which one it is?
Obviously learned people, who then pass it on to their followers. If you are knowledgeable enough you too can look at the evidence to see what is right. Moral responsibility is on the one who is capable and who has done this
>are you saying you won't feel anything when I inject you with oxytocin?
wtf? of course that isn't what I am saying. you are simply giving the wrong input to the brain.

>>16882906
>You believe that you do, I never contested this.
Don't get cute with me. You're claiming that I do not value people. Are you using a non-standard definition of the verb "to value"?
>The creator of reality decreed our lives to be sacred in scripture, it's not just a matter of "caring". It's his orders and they become fact
So what this is really about is that you're upset when somebody doesn't believe there is an omnipotent immaterial being who declared that you're sacred.
>No, but earlier you said that you love people. That is an emotion that makes somebody value others yes.
Why are you contradicting yourself? Earlier you claimed that I do not value others.
>Obviously learned people, who then pass it on to their followers.
And there are learned people on all sides. Too bad.
>wtf? of course that isn't what I am saying. you are simply giving the wrong input to the brain.
So love is fake when it doesn't go through a specific mechanism? Cool, I can use that explanation too if I want.

>unhinged omnicidal internet christian projects his own degeneracy thread #3593250

>>16882935
>You're claiming that I do not value people.
I am claiming your worldview entails that humans have no inherent value beyond what their emotions gives them, that's it. If I said that you don't value people then I am sorry I didn't mean to make that statement and will concede on that
>you're upset
Nope it's more like pity because you have lost actual value in yourself and in other people
>And there are learned people on all sides.
Yeah some sides have secular morality infecting them, it's safe to discard those learned people.
>So love is fake when it doesn't go through a specific mechanism?
What? Love has nothing to do with the mechanism. It's an internal state of the soul. If you give the soul wrong information then you are misleading it into forming love for your deception. But the love itself is real because it exists external to these attempts.

>>16881764

>Being Atheist
>Not believing in objective altruist morality
>Being materialist

These are all 3 different things

>>16882966
>I am claiming your worldview entails that humans have no inherent value beyond what their emotions gives them, that's it.
Which directly translates to "there isn't an omnipotent guy who says that you're sacred", and I still don't see what the problem is with that.
>Nope it's more like pity because you have lost actual value in yourself and in other people
And of course by that you mean "you have lost the idea that there is an omnipotent guy who says you're sacred". And again, so what?
>Yeah some sides have secular morality infecting them, it's safe to discard those learned people.
But of course you can't know which ones those are.
>What? Love has nothing to do with the mechanism. It's an internal state of the soul. If you give the soul wrong information then you are misleading it into forming love for your deception. But the love itself is real because it exists external to these attempts.
Same with the brain. If you inject it with oxytocin, you are giving it misleading information.

>>16882987
>I still don't see what the problem is with that.
I know you don't care about inherent value. What's so controversial in saying this?
>who says you're sacred
what the fuck are you on about?
>But of course you can't know which ones those are.
historical material exists, you can see who changed things
>Same with the brain.
No it's not because the love is entirely in the brain itself which is subject to manipulation.

>>16883003
>I know you don't care about inherent value. What's so controversial in saying this?
There's nothing controversial about it. I just don't understand why you're REPULSED and DISGUSTED by me not believing that there is an omnipotent guy who says that you're sacred. Seems weird.
>historical material exists, you can see who changed things
Let's take Christianity. Most contemporary Christians would say that a slave has every right to rebel against this master. This is one of those secular changes that should be opposed, yeah?
>No it's not because the love is entirely in the brain itself which is subject to manipulation.
I don't get your point. If you inject the brain with oxytocin, on your view, the soul is deceived into feeling love and on my view, the mind is deceived into feeling love.

Eat you whole

>>16883030
>I just don't understand why you're REPULSED and DISGUSTED
You reject an axiomatic truth of the world over your emotions. One that gives us all status above beasts. It's demeaning, dehumanizing and dangerous
>Let's take Christianity.
It isn't my religion but whatever sure. Christian morality was the driving force behind that supposedly secular value.
>the soul is deceived into feeling love and on my view, the mind is deceived into feeling love.
In your worldview you plant a chip in someone's brain to control him into walking into a wall, and in my view you put a blindfold and let the idiot stumble around and hit the wall himself.

>>16883070
>You reject an axiomatic truth of the world over your emotions.
I reject a made up wizard because I don't see efficient evidence to believe he exists. How is that dangerous? We've already agreed that I value humans.
>Christian morality was the driving force behind that supposedly secular value.
That value goes directly against christian teachings, actually.
>In your worldview you plant a chip in someone's brain to control him into walking into a wall, and in my view you put a blindfold and let the idiot stumble around and hit the wall himself.
Distinction without a difference. You can't use your spooky ghost powers to negate the oxytocin.

>>16883090
>We've already agreed that I value humans.
You yes, but secular states very easily turn against those values as evidenced by history.
>That value goes directly against christian teachings, actually
Who freed the slaves in the first place? Was it Atheists?
>Distinction without a difference.
The difference being that your love is an actual illusion while the other is real and merely deceived

>>16883108
>You yes, but secular states very easily turn against those values as evidenced by history.
And I've already told you that I would be glad if atheists who don't value humans converted to a religion that would make them.
>Who freed the slaves in the first place? Was it Atheists?
People who changed the religion's original teachings based on their own preferences. You know, the kind of people you don't like.
>The difference being that your love is an actual illusion while the other is real and merely deceived
It may be an illusion if you define love as something felt by a spooky ghost. Otherwise you've done nothing to demonstrate this.

>>16883117
>And I've already told you that I would be glad if atheists who don't value humans converted to a religion that would make them.
In this particular case this will mean a theocracy, are you okay with that?
>People who changed the religion's original teachings based on their own preferences.
That had nothing to do with it. Freedom of religion enabled them to challenge power structures that enforced slavery
>le spooky ghost
It's felt by the self, that's the realest thing you can possibly have even in your worldview. The container of it is irrelevant except that it can't be material.

>>16883134
>In this particular case this will mean a theocracy, are you okay with that?
Why would it? And fyi theocracy ain't it for me either, I don't want to be ruled by people who think it's great for a 50yo to fuck a 9yo and shit like that.
>That had nothing to do with it. Freedom of religion enabled them to challenge power structures that enforced slavery
They challenged power structures that enforced slavery by advocating for a moral view that contradicts original christianity. And they did it because they preferred this view over the original christian one.

>>16883134
>It's felt by the self, that's the realest thing you can possibly have even in your worldview. The container of it is irrelevant except that it can't be material.
I think language like "container" is utterly insufficient here. I've already told you that I'm partial to panpsychism and property dualism, and on such a view you can simply say the brain has both mental and physical properties, and the mental properties are fundamental rather than brutely emergent.

>>16883146
>theocracy ain't it for me either
Then you can't enforce the conversion of the bad kind of atheists. Also what is your standard for contesting any religious morals? I don't think your personal feelings will count in a society full of religious people
>And they did it because they preferred this view over the original christian one
They did it because it was finally possible to practice their faith without their society collapsing due to a lack of slaves. It was vital even in places like ancient Greece where the city states were quite insular literally and figuratively, let alone massive nations like the US
>on such a view you can simply say the brain has both mental and physical properties, and the mental properties are fundamental rather than brutely emergent
what are these distinct mental properties? can you see it under a microscope? As for a mind being fundamental that sounds eerily close to spooky religious beliefs

>>16883173
>Then you can't enforce the conversion of the bad kind of atheists.
I didn't say that I wanted to enforce it.
>Also what is your standard for contesting any religious morals? I don't think your personal feelings will count in a society full of religious people
My preference, of course. And who talked about a society full of religious people? I think that if there is an atheist who doesn't value people (and I think such people are rare), I would be glad if he became religious. That doesn't mean that I want my entire country to convert to islam and start raping kids.
>They did it because it was finally possible to practice their faith without their society collapsing due to a lack of slaves.
That's irrelevant. It still goes against original christian teachings, so it's a reinterpretation based on preference.
>what are these distinct mental properties? can you see it under a microscope?
Of course not, they are mental properties.
>As for a mind being fundamental that sounds eerily close to spooky religious beliefs
I'm not saying that mind is fundamental, but rather that there may be fundamental mental properties. Like the same way an electron has charge, mass and spin (quantitative properties), it could have some qualitative property. And again, I'm not saying that this is true, but to me it seems like the most attractive solution to the hard problem.

>>16881764
Atheists absolutely mindbroken ITT

File: 1720464581234012.png (39 KB, 673x346)

39 KB PNG

>>16883211
>I didn't say that I wanted to enforce it.
They are still going to exist, and due to their nature will take power. Just because you live in a society where the remnants of Christian moral dictate your experience doesn't mean that it can't change when the blood crazed atheists are at the door. There are theocracies where that doesn't happen though so your fears are unfounded.
>It still goes against original christian teachings
Does it? Rome's laws are not christian teachings. I doubt Jesus and his disciples even had any slaves
>Of course not
so they're spooky great
>Like the same way an electron has charge, mass and spin (quantitative properties)
The thing is those mental properties are still bound to matter by this description and so I don't see how it will make your love independent from the effects of those drugs. On a tangentially related topic do you believe you can make conscious programs?

>>16883269
>They are still going to exist, and due to their nature will take power. Just because you live in a society where the remnants of Christian moral dictate your experience doesn't mean that it can't change when the blood crazed atheists are at the door.
Buddy I live in a mostly irreligious country and it's chill. You picked the wrong person to try this on.
>Does it? Rome's laws are not christian teachings. I doubt Jesus and his disciples even had any slaves
Yeah, slaves are told to obey their masters.
>so they're spooky great
Shouldn't be a problem for you lol.
>The thing is those mental properties are still bound to matter by this description and so I don't see how it will make your love independent from the effects of those drugs.
On this view, love is some combination or pattern of mental properties within the brain. If you trick the brain with the foreign oxytocin, it's the same as when you trick the soul on your model.

>>16883287
>Buddy I live in a mostly irreligious country and it's chill.
Which one is it? If it's any euro nation the same applies
>Yeah, slaves are told to obey their masters
I know the verse, but how does that make a case for secular values changing their rules again? When bible believing Christians abolished slavery in the first place.
>Shouldn't be a problem for you lol
Something that is not testable is kind of a problem though. I know what you are going to say to that btw
>love is some combination or pattern of mental properties within the brain
Which are dependent on the state of the brain, meaning that any love to arise out of them is also dependent on the state of the brain. It's not simple deception because there is nothing being deceived the mental states themselves are being modified. It lacks genuine independence like a soul which can exist before and after the brain even exists

File: 1720513903117437.jpg (579 KB, 3569x4096)

579 KB JPG

>>16881764
If that's true why aren't atheists the ones being put in prison for violent crimes? 98% of the people who are in prison for violent crimes are some form of Christian or pagan, yet atheists aren't. Why is that? Why does the belief system that supposedly values life have so many murderers and rapists and thieves in its ranks?

>>16882277
Nothing is truly right or wrong aside from what "works" aka convenience and utilitarian min/maxing

>>16883444
atheists are scrawny beta cucks who only fap to drawn children and play video games all day

>>16883479
>WE WUZ BUFF AND SHEIT
Nice deflection: why is it mostly godly, enlightened people committing crimes?
>inb4 no true scotsman fallacy

File: atheist_kys_cult.png (150 KB, 685x1184)

150 KB PNG

>>16883468
what does this say?

>>16883487
post arm. I told you why, because atheists are physically incapable. also yes someone who doesn't adhere to the religion is closer to you lmao

>>16883490
What is this mismash supposed to say?
That's not how you plot anything

>>16883496
Do the needful and show yours first

>>16883503
it shows that you are vulnerable and need to be protected by the religious community through forced conversion

>>16883503
It would be a sin to brag, aren't you tempted?

>>16883509
Explain what exactly is this supposed to measure

>>16881764
>*monkey noises* GOD GOD HEAVEN HEAVEN SATAN HELL GOD PLEASE SAVE ME

File: 1720239155844747.png (8 KB, 623x394)

8 KB PNG

>>16883521
your chance of transition

>>16883545
>Islam is the true religion because it has the lowest suicide rate
Based dawahbro

>>16883544
you're the one with monkey ancestors though

>>16883545
Projecting? I am interested in neither. Also, if it's so important to you, why aren't you a buddhist or a muslim?

File: kys_atheism.png (1 MB, 3204x2015)

1 MB PNG

>>16883559
I am, I just don't want you to suffer bro. what's so wrong with that?

>>16883567
Save yourself first, mr humblebrag.

>>16883573
I pray to God for that but I also want you saved

>>16883496
I would but the maximum file size is tiny and my arm is huge so I'll just settle for you answering the question of why Christians are the ones raping and murdering while you call the honest law abiding atheists cucks in direct violation of Christ's doctrine of not casting the first stone.

>>16883444
Trips of truth.

>>16883577
I am from a country that has been ravaged by economic crisis as of late, and I assure you that while suicide probably increased a bit, it's still fairly low. Has more to do with the weather and overall mentality instead of larping as an orthodog or etradcath though.
Christianity has been cratering fast in the Med, by the way in general, not just Greece.

>>16883545
females don't transition because they're fucking hot, ngl I wish I was a girl, they're just so damn beautiful man, but trannies don't pass sorry

>>16883479
Meanwhile Christos are the ones raping children and cutting people's heads off in cartel execution videos.

Sounds like a cope to me lol

>>16883589
Use catbox or unsee, let's fight
>why Christians are the ones raping and murdering while you call the honest law abiding atheists cucks in direct violation of Christ's doctrine of not casting the first stone
Christians get what they want because they can. Atheists have to settle for sloppy seconds! I have not thrown a stone at you now, have I?

>>16883597
>Christians behave in an unchristian manner and that's based
Ok. Pride goeth before the fall. Thanks for proving me right. Guess you're not actually interested in morality in favor of being a shrieking douche. I'll accept your concession and leave while you to turn the other cheek.

Later fag

>>16883356
>Which one is it? If it's any euro nation the same applies
Czech republic. Tell me more about bloodthirsty atheists at our gates, Mr. Muslim.
>I know the verse, but how does that make a case for secular values changing their rules again?
Abolitionists didn't think that the slave should obey his master. In fact, they frequently helped the slave flee from his master despite the master's wishes.
>Something that is not testable is kind of a problem though. I know what you are going to say to that btw
Yeah your skywizard isn't testable either, and the difference is that I'm not claiming this is true, but rather that it's one of the possible solutions to the hard problem and imo the most viable one.
>It's not simple deception because there is nothing being deceived
The mind is.
>It lacks genuine independence like a soul which can exist before and after the brain even exists
Irrelevant. Your thesis is that on a different view than your brand of substance dualism, love is an illusion. You haven't demonstrated this, all you've done is show that a person can be deceived (and this is true on either view).

>>16883545
How do you even gather the data for this unless someone literally writes I DENOUNCE GOD in a suicide note before offing themselves? My bet is that this is based on nationality(ie Chinese) than actual religious affiliation.

>>16881764
its deperessing because they are midwits unable to think critically.
>uhh religion is just like a bunch of bullshit bro
>WTF WTF WTF RACES ARE PERFECTLY EQUAL NATURE IS TOTALLY CAPABLE OF EVOLVING PERFECT COGNITIVE EQUALS
These are very dumb people, most of them from religious households in the midwest, they are not worth your thoughts if you have an IQ above 105.

>>16883672
>atheism is everything i don't like
speaking of being unable to think critically

>>16882857
No it's not.

Galatians 6:7 - For God is not mocked. As one sows, shall he reap.

>>16881764
Why would you think that? I might be an atheist but it makes absolutely zero sense that morality is then gone. I've never understood how the retarded masses go from "durrr god isn't real" to "duhhhh it's OK to do horrible things".

Check your logic spastic. Such thinking is of those with a feeble mind and those who, despite claiming no belief in God, actually secretly believe in god very much, otherwise they wouldn't equate an absence of God with permission to be an evil fucking jew cunt bastard.

>>16881764
Atheism means that you can do whatever and be whoever for no reason at all.
You could be a serial killer or commit suicide for no reason and it wouldn't matter objectively. Any reason or argument other humans tell you is merely an illusion. There is no truth other than unintelligent matter. Dumb blind forces control your life. You aren't even anything more than a meat puppet going through space. Your life is a joke and the situation you find yourself in is absurd.

>>16883672
>religion is valid only when it doesn't touch the races
Do you even hear yourself

File: Jeffrey_Dahmer_Milwaukee_(...).jpg (22 KB, 220x309)

22 KB JPG

>>16883766
Anon, you could do this regardless. God isn't going to punish you, the court is. God does not intervene in amoral acts.
>dude I'm sorry Jesus I love you now
>of course, welcome home, my child

>>16883766
Nah that's calvinism.

>>16881764
They willingly subject themselves to a life full of sadness by denying all gods

File: 10400381044_344bd854dd_c.jpg (288 KB, 533x799)

288 KB JPG

More than half of the history of Christian culture has just been sulking over death.

>>16883691
>everything I dont like
>anti-racism
wow, Thanks for informing me that anti-racism is the sole aspect of the world or atheists that I find distasteful.
>>16883731
>never mention being religious
>atheshit presumes everyone who criticizes their distilled redditry is religious
lol
your parents were fundamentalists, those genes that made them think retarded things, you carry those L O L
it doesnt matter what (You) believe, your genes are crap.
>>16883779
no one said this.
I am illustrating how atheists largely fall for the absolute spook which is race denial while declaring religion to be absurd.
At least religious belief can take the form of unfalsifiables or what-ifs or historical unknowns, like we will never know for sure if God exists or if Nirvana is achievable or if harmony is better attained by honoring your ancestors, but we can definitively say races are absolutely by unequal and by objective metrics of human development inferior/superior.
it is obvious, it is testable, it is accessible.

yet atheists will scoff at religion while eating up race-denial wholesale.
even the most fundamentalist southern baptist can say "well you cant disprove God"
while not a single anti-racism argument can stand up to empirical scrutiny, because we can test IQ, we can test behavioral function, we can screen for certain alleles and we can definitively say "x is superior to y within this context".
You can in fact disprove, empirically anti-racism.
you can not 'disprove' """""""religion"""""""

>>16883828
Ngl as an atheist that's metal as fuck

>>16883847
>HURR DURR NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN
So what do you believe in? And what's exactly reddit about calling niggers subhuman?

>>16883847
Most Christians aren't racist or aren't racist enough though.

>>16883847
Why are you raving about about anti-racism when you're on 4chan? Everyone here is a racist. I'm a racist. You're a racist. We're all racist. In fact, the only person ITT who's not racist is some religious faggot half way up the thread somehow arguing that all humans have inherent worth, which is phenomenally spooky.
We get it, you feel empowered that you can finally hit N on your keyboard and not have a panic attack, redditor. It must be very exciting.

File: 702714930770156b6fcb50ed3(...).jpg (1.62 MB, 2228x3655)

1.62 MB JPG

>>16883627
>Czech republic
Cool I've been there a few times it's nice. Communism reduced your numbers drastically. If you think that (not even) 100 years is enough to change the culture of the people you're delusional. So yes religious teachings have simply become part of culture and law that still stuck around and you are following blindly without knowing where the ultimate source is.
>helped the slave flee
That doesn't justify your position. They might have thought they should obey as long as they had to but once they were gone they were free. Still not an example of secular morality changing their preference no matter what. As an external observer I don't see how this is so different from the "render unto caesar" bit, he told them not to break laws
>testable
I disagree in fact it's a divine commandment to use reason. Now the question becomes what you will take as evidence. Dawkins for example will accept aliens seeding life on earth over God. Because he is being honest in his materialist worldview. I also know what you are going to say here btw
>I'm not claiming this is true
Don't worry pussyfooting is expected, but you have reasons to believe in these spooky things and I would like to know what convinced you over the other theories.
>Irrelevant
It literally solves the problem. Your consciousness is fully dependent on the brain's natural processes which can be tweaked arbitrarily. And if it's subject to such forces that can modify its physical state then so can the internal state (not simply the information it has to process) of the mind itself be modified arbitrarily. It becomes an illusion because your love comes from the self produced/injected drugs and not form the immaterial mind itself.

>>16884107
You can admit there were some gold nuggets in a stupid belief system that has largely become outdated and keep the gold nuggets of wisdom while discarding the rest or not pretending to believe something that you don't.

It's not rocket surgery.

>>16881764
I'm a gaytheist and yeah it's pretty soulless and depressing.

>>16884268
Dull people live dull lives.

File: atheist34768576.png (205 KB, 635x634)

205 KB PNG

>>16881764
true

>>16881764
I’m an ex-Christian, Christians don’t believe this and I would bet $10,000 that op does not follow Jesus’s instructions from the sermon on the mount.
No one is more full of shit than a 4chan Christian.

>>16884266
nta but truly the idea system is like a flower, you may cut it from its' roots and observe it, it doesn't whiter immediately, but as some point someone will say
>But why are we equal?
And now you've gone from
>"we are created in the image of God"
to
>"Well we just are I guess?"
Give a couple of generations and see how long people will live and die for such an ideology, our beliefs can only really stand the test of time if something as monumental as "God" explains it, otherwise it's just "opinions man".

File: 1680375125305771.png (3.04 MB, 2288x1700)

3.04 MB PNG

>>16881764
Atheism is outdated anyway and the future of spirituality lies in NDEs as NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point learning more about NDEs.

Want to know what heaven thinks of atheists?

>"Naaaawwwhhh, that's SO adorable and cute, he doesn't remember and he doesn't know! He's so innocent! :3"

File: 1721154228639440.jpg (248 KB, 1920x1080)

248 KB JPG

>>16884333
First off, Christos here don't believe we are equal or else they wouldn't be spewing hate all day.

Secondly, an opinion can be held strongly without religious accompaniment. I think people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't need to come from a creator. It just has to come from us and while you can bitch about how it's just an opinion, your morality is nothing more than an opinion as well and pretending that the creator of the universe bestowed it upon you doesn't make it any less of an opinion, it just makes you delusional.

"We just are" is a perfectly valid argument, because everyone has the potential to become or do something great, regardless of where we come from or what we are. That doesn't require divinity. It requires a basic level of observation.

File: 1720640375858760.jpg (125 KB, 1024x1023)

125 KB JPG

>>16884334
I've had an NDE.

I slipped on an ice patch and smashed my head against the corner of my staircase, barely missing my eye. Things went dark and I was aware of a deep and comforting void. There wasn't anything except this void, a part of me as much as I was a part of it. No angels, no judge, no god or visions of myself. I felt myself melting into it and was joyously released from all pain, all fear, all doubt. I was ready to slip away and become one with the universe.

Then, I was pulled out of this and snapped awake in a puddle of my own frozen blood. After a moment my systems clicked back on and I felt this intense, piercing pain in my head, and I crawled/staggered upstairs, looked in the mirror to find a jagged gash starting at the corner of my eye and running to my temple, bleeding pretty profusely. I went and knocked on my roommate's door, and he was grumbling about waking up early until he opened the door and saw me and froze. I smiled a little and he took me to the hospital and they sewed my face up.

I'm an atheist and this experience really solidified my knowledge that there is no hereafter in the way described by any religion. I do think some part of us remains after death in some collective unconscious, but that isn't what any religion describes, it's so much more esoteric than any religion COULD describe.

I don't fear death anymore. I don't like the idea of dying but now I have truly lost my fear of being dead, because I know that what awaits us is devoid of judgement or doctrine as we would describe it.

>>16883664
it is lmao, best part is somebody pointed this out to the retard before but in typical fashion he just ignores it

>last night when the OP first made this thread I saw it didn't get any replies yet
>turned off the computer and went to bed
>come back the next morning and saw it had around 60 replies and now is over 200
You done fucked up good, /his/.

Sneed

>>16883894
>what do you believe in
>tell me so I can criticize you
No, I think I will continue to strike at you from the ether and watch you flail helplessly because you cant actually defend yourself as you have no coherent ideas, just criticisms of others.
If you say the N-word on /his/ without getting banned by the pajeet mods you are either a pajeet or a shitlib, no exceptions.
go back
>>16883906
so what? This thread is about atheists.
>>16883920
nice sperg out.

This thread is about atheists.
Are you an atheist? Is that why you feel the need to defend their honor here?
The vast majority of atheists believe in absolutely retarded things like anti-racism.

I think it is funny that atheists as a generalized group will talk about the "science" and "evidence" while frothing at the mouth in defense of human equality a proposition that literally requires something akin to divine creation of man with the explicit goal being equality.

All of this to demonstrate how retarded "atheism" is.
You are going to mistake for a defense of theism. it isnt, I am only saying atheism is retarded.

File: cosmic_bear.jpg (55 KB, 346x346)

55 KB JPG

Eeh, thats a bit of a strawman innit?
Obviously mere bags of meat aren't capable of abstract or rational thought like we humans are, and atheists are astutely aware of this. Atheists simply only believe in things that can be physically and independently verified, which anything that falls under metaphysics simply cannot. Atheism really doesn't go much deeper than this, and I'm not saying this in a bad way.
Of course there ARE people who make atheism their entire personality. I would consider myself an atheist in many ways, but I also don't see myself as above religion, that's just silly

>>16881764
Good thing Pantheism debunks atheism.

>>16883847
>wow, Thanks for informing me that anti-racism is the sole aspect of the world or atheists that I find distasteful.
Thanks for attributing political beliefs that have nothing to do with atheism to atheism

>>16885199
No he's right. A lot of atheists share these political beliefs like it is a religious conviction. Some people are better than others. This is just scientific fact. Evolution did not stop at the neck. Actually I won't even call the other groups human because they are too different genetically from my people. Now the question is why is this seen as such a sin to express in atheistic circles?

>>16885224
>A lot of atheists share these political beliefs like it is a religious conviction
A lot of people have these beliefs and a lot of them also happen to not be religious. Not believing in race realism is not a core tenet of atheism. Atheism is only a lack of belief in god(s), and nothing else. People like you use it as a catch-all term for things you don't like.

File: atheist-lgbt-and-women.jpg (91 KB, 960x719)

91 KB JPG

>>16885234
Are you willingly blind? There is a clear difference between how we see social issues and how the religious do. No it's not a core tenet but when most of us share it it becomes very fucking annoying. Damn humanist retards have taken our name

>>16885252
>atheism is things i don't like (in this case gays and slutty women)
You're doing it again. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). There is nothing else to it. People who don't believe in god(s) may have a greater overlap with other beliefs, but those beliefs are not fundamentally tied to their lack of belief in god(s).

File: 1412641196000-AP-Mormon-C(...).jpg (461 KB, 3000x1692)

461 KB JPG

>>16885259
>those beliefs are not fundamentally tied to their lack of belief in god(s)
Why else would you guys adopt these religious beliefs if it weren't for your rebellion against the Almighty?

>>16885305
They're not religious beliefs and there's no rebellion. Some people just don't think there's any compelling reason to believe in god(s).

>>16885310
It seems that the other anon is trying to communicate, that he (also atheist, actually) picked up the religion because its values align with his own, not because he thinks it's true.

>>16885310
You can have religious beliefs without believing in god(s) though. For example in China many atheists believe in ghosts and give offerings to their ancestors

>>16885098
The point is that it's hard to take any criticism seriously from people who are both anti intellectual and anti empiricist.
Almost like the vast majority of Christian preachers here are liars, etradcaths or just plain vain, arrogant contrarians.
The few sane ones don't bother with threads like this.

>thread lasting this long
Idiots like OP do not argue in good faith.

>>16885252
>>16885224
>You must be religious if you are racist!
>You can't be atheist and racist!
I can't even call this a straw man

>>16885359
Fucking idiot I am an example of that myself. Doesn't mean I don't hate the vast majority of other atheists for being cucked shit stains who betray their race

>>16885364
Yeah, cause Christianity isn't being a race traitor, foreign religion either.

>>16885370
Christians marry within their denominations. Those are extremely correlated to race in my part of the world. Just that alone keeps whites pure. Not to mention they have actual biblical beliefs against mixing. But with most other atheists? We are le star stuff so we are the same!!

>>16885373
>In my part of the world
>Correlated
You are finally being accurate. Anyway, most sane atheists or agnostics have rightly rejected Christianity for a variety of reasons:
1) unfulfilling spiritually
2) universalist
3) foreign to begin with
Now, if you live in a locale with heretical cult/denomination like Mormons or Amish or w/e, with stricter social laws, good for you. For most of us, those are even more insane and inane than the average denominations like Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox

>>16885379
Atheism doesn't protect from mixing with the other subspecies of humanoids meanwhile those "loony" cults are doing a good job. As much as I hate to admit it secular humanism crap has poisoned our people's genetics. And this wouldn't have been possible if they still believed in God

>>16885389
No, you just need strictly enforced racialist/caste laws. Don't make me create a collage of mixed race Christian marriages.

>>16881764
>believe that we're all just a bag of meat controlled by electrical signals and nothing matters in the end
This doesn't invalidate any happiness you can find in life.

>>16885392
Your cherry picked images don't mean shit. I know from experience what I am saying is true. Atheists are by far more socially liberal and that invites faggot shit and race mixing.
>you just need strictly enforced racialist/caste laws
Impossible. The only places these exist are in religious societies for obvious reasons

>>16885347
Pretty sure they also believe in the ancient Chinese Pantheon. Although that is not advertised much.
>>16885389
Neither does christianity. Tbh a race-conscious atheism of some sort would be the best way to go about it.
>meanwhile those "loony" cults are doing a good job.
All the mormons I have ever seen where Mexican. The Amish-Mennonites are fair enough, I guess.
>And this wouldn't have been possible if they still believed in God
I'm suuuure christian Humanism would have been a looooooot better.
As if they don't come from the same source.

>>16885398
>Impossible. The only places these exist are in religious societies for obvious reasons
No. You can just expell all of them and institute apartheid. The amish/Mennonites are endogamous because they are ethnically as well as religiously different to anyone around them, that's it.
Regardless, those communities are complete devoid of any life or energy, all they do is tend to their crops/animal then praise Gawdn'sheit. Basically tax cattle for anyone wanting to plunder them.

>>16885400
>Pretty sure
"Presently, the PRC government officially promotes atheism,[3] and has engaged in antireligious campaigns.[7] Many churches, temples and mosques were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, which also criminalized the possession of religious texts.[351] Monks were also beaten or killed.[352] As such, China has the most atheists in the world.[353]" Well you are wrong. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s), it says nothing about supernatural beliefs in general or religious beliefs. Just the same way you can be irreligious but believe in deities Only 6.3% don't pray to ancestors and the like apparently

>>16885430
kek I know so many girls who don't believe in god but will put their life on the line because a horoscope somewhere said some bs

>>16885430
I mean the chinese lay people, who tf cares about official government policy.

>>16885812
>754 million people (56.2%) practise ancestor religion, but only 216 million people (16%) "believe in the existence" of the ancestor
Most of the country is atheist and out of those atheists only a minority don't worship ancestors that's what I am saying. I only pointed it out to show you that there is a very strong push by the government to be atheistic and despite all that these atheists have beliefs that are traditionally associated with religions. The fact they lack a belief in god(s) doesn't change that

>it must be depressing to be an atheist because all of this shit I just made up
Why are jew worshipers so utterly disingenuous?

>>16885823
NTA, but the Chinese attitude to religion and -to a lesser extent- world views in general is really weird. At least to someone coming from a Western background.
I’m married to a mainland Chinese and lived there for two years.
A lot of Chinese will self-identify as atheists, but on occasion still pray to gods and/or Buddhas for good grades, wealth and health.
Whenever I point out this contradiction, they either tell me that Buddhas aren’t gods (fair enough, I guess) or they agree that it’s most likely bullshit, but better to cover all bases (a bit reminiscent of Pascal’s wager in that regard).

You have shit like a Mao figurines next to Buddha figurines in the home of elders, both being venerated while the owner proudly proclaims that all religion is poison.
And as you correctly pointed out, even section of the population that are hardcore materialists/naturalists still engage in ancestor worship.

Many Chinese seem to be fine with holding mutually contradictory beliefs regarding relgion/metaphysics/ideologies and in practice default to whatever position is most advantageous at any given moment. Someone once said that they basically have a “mercenary attitude” towards religion.

>>16881909
It violates the categorical imperative.

Morality is consent based.

>>16885900
Wrong.

>>16885948
What is the difference between murder and euthanasia? Between sex and rape?

>>16881764
>"You are depressed" the anime poster writes

>>16881764
Most people don't matter.

>>16885870
This reminds me of a funny thing I once saw

A shaman dressed like a red guard tried to exorcise a shaman in the Sichuan/Yunnan Highlands, it didn't work and she was kicked out because the locals didn't like Mao very much.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/656543

>>16885343
No, I still think he's just being stupid and trying to use the incorrect label for beliefs he doesn't like.
>picked up the religion because its values align with his own, not because he thinks it's true
This is even worse. Political converts are the worst of both worlds because on a secular level they're too retarded to argue their own beliefs and on a spiritual level they're completely bankrupt because their faith is not genuine, it's just a convenient source of arguments to use vs da libs.
>>16885347
I'm not sure where the line between religion and the supernatural is drawn, but in this case it still doesn't matter.