There are a lot of anti-religion threads on this site. Some might be bot/shill spam, but there are people who have these opinions, you see it in posts within threads, and I've even seen it in real life.Something I've thought about is this. When you prompt people who have a negative opinion of a religion for an argument, their opinion, apart from being rather emotion-based, vague and ill-defined, usually boils down to a view that religion is something you pick and choose, like you go shopping for shoes in a mall. And it's like politics. Do I want to buy black shoes or white shoes today? Do I want to take from the city budget and fill in these potholes or do I spend that tax money on cleaning up this polluted river? And you can see how someone would view religion this way, because religions have rules, if you stop eating pork the pig farmer is affected, if you stop eating meat animals are affected, you spank your children because your religion says so, you spend money on charity, you do this and that, all these things are really politics.But there is another aspect of religion which is rarely talked about. A more philosophical aspect. For this the matter is not to choose one religion or the other, instead the question is whether the religion is TRUE or not. And truth doesn't care about your opinion or feelings. You may think all rules of a certain religion are garbage, but that is something else, the question is not do you like it or not, it's is it true or not what this religion says. This second aspect has less to do with rules and more to do with allegories describing the world and the mind, and whether the allegories fit with how things really are. I think that perhaps the main reason why this aspect of religion is rarely discussed is that most people don't even know that most of the stories in religions are not history but rather "myths", which means they are allegories which are used to convey a deeper message about the mind or the world.
>it's another "implicit atheist can't conceptualise people actually being religious rather than being petersonian postmodernists" episode
>>18481501As a non-retard, it's hard to imagine retards. Hence the dilemma
>>18481501Learn how to get the point and how to address it. That subject is called logic.
>>18481502>>18481504Ask a hundred Christians at random churches whether Jesus' bodily resurrection is just an allegory. Ask them if they think the Apostles' Creed is allegorical or literal.
>>18481512So?
>>18481516What do you expect they will say?
>>18481518Make a fucking point relevant to the OP or fuck off.
>>18481521It's interesting that you can't answer such a simple question. I'll help you - they'll answer that it's literal. Likewise, atheists do not necessarily claim religious themes do not reflect some psychological features or archetypes. They claim that the literal claims of the religious are false.
>>18481528Fucking retard. Read the whole OP and then address the subject matter. I don't give a flying fuck about your dumb questions, nor do I give a flying fuck what religious retards and atheist retards think. I'll spell it out for you in retard terms:There are two different aspects of religion, one is about rules and politics, the other about allegories which describe the mind and the world. People who discuss religion, regardless of whether they are for or against it, especially on this site, almost exclusively discuss the former aspect. This first aspect is one where you view religion as something you can choose like you buy candy in a store. The second aspect has nothing to do with choosing this or that. This second aspect is what I wanted to bring to the attention of you retards, but as you have proven it's futile.
>>18481542>There are two different aspects of religion, one is about rules and politics, the other about allegories which describe the mind and the world. People who discuss religion, regardless of whether they are for or against it, especially on this site, almost exclusively discuss the former aspect.Incorrect. People on this site almost exclusively discuss whether the literal supernatural claims made by the religious are factually true. You're mad because you lied and I called you out.
>>18481552Read the OP, fuckface. And study logic. Yet another swoosh moment.
>>18481563I did, and you lied in it. You claimed that people who discuss religion on this site almost exclusively discuss religious rules and politics. This is a lie because people who discuss religion on this site almost exclusively discuss whether the supernatural claims made by the religious are literally factually true.
>>18481568You're not getting my point. The second aspect of my two is not a discussion about whether the stories are literal history. There is nothing that says that being religious means believing in a literal historical interpretation of stories in scripture.Anyway you are so fucking inept at getting a point that I give up here. It's futile to discuss anything with retards like you.
>>18481582>You're not getting my point. The second aspect of my two is not a discussion about whether the stories are literal history.I understand that perfectly, which is why I'm telling you that you're lying. What most people who discuss religion on this site are talking about is neither of the two aspects you mentioned but rather whether the supernatural claims of the religious are literally true.>There is nothing that says that being religious means believing in a literal historical interpretation of stories in scripture.That's why I told you to visit random churches and ask people what they believe. Protip: nobody gives a shit about petersonian allegorianity.
>>18481589And I don't give a shit about what retards think, as I already fucking said. I made a point about religion, you went off on a tangent about what retards believe rather than addressing the central point I made. Retard. I'm not here to discuss the psychology of retards.
>>18481661So you think almost all religious people are retards, gotcha.Still, you lied because neither of the two topics you mentioned is the most discussed topic with regards to religion here. Now you're getting mad because I called out your lie.
>>18481672What matters is that the second aspect is almost never discussed. The retarded discussion you talk about is in the domain of the first aspect, the retard domain. That's where you belong by the way, nothing can make you gain access to the second domain, your brain just can't handle it.
ITT: ameritards discuss about outdated (but, apparently, valid in their country) tool for mass control.
>>18481680>The retarded discussion you talk about is in the domain of the first aspect, the retard domain.The discussion I'm talking about isn't about rules or politics or about whether you like a religion or not. It doesn't fit your criteria for the first aspect in any way. It is about whether the religion is true.The irony of this whole thing is that you are an atheist btw.
>>18481854swoosh...swooosh........swooooooooosh
>>18481485There is absolutely no reason to believe in god if we use the same standards for believing in anything else being real...That's allPeople who believe in god just want to rationalize a posteriori a belief that they could not have concluded if they used an experimental protocol.People who believe in god do not understand that our tools for forming rationality and logic are shaped by our brain and flawed experience, and that they cannot ascertain anything... Mathematicians have an incredibly hard time proving even maths is real in any degree, and at least we know it has a real word application... There is also a problem of induction.Religion makes absolutely no prediction and it is useless as any other tool than an antidepressant.Saying that religion brings you something or that god brings something to your life is a testable claim, and so you should provide an experimental protocol for other people to replicate (and they will prove you wrong)
>>18481485Religious zealots claim they have not just the responsibility, but the right, to kill those who disagree with them. Why am I supposed to think this is good?
>>18481873how is such a protocol made?
>>18481485>DEUS VULT
>>18482479if someone tells me "god made my wife pregnant"we can ask you, "how do you know?", you provide your evidence, as in:>I did not have sex with her since I'm a wagie loser beta cuck that works six days a week and suck priest cock on the seventh, therefore god impregnated my wife>scientists take a dna test of the baby and from the single nucleotide polymorphisms, statistically assert that actually, there is no other explanation than, half this baby's dna is chad's, your atheist neighbors who believes in equality of the sexes, that women are not inferior to men, and that your wife deserves better than a bitter jealous husband that uses god as an excuse to demean her and treat her like a lesser person. They had consensual sex because they enjoy each other's company, and it brings them happiness.
>>18481485Yeah, but why do you think spirituality is about competing for prizes like on a TV show?
>>18481485The word religion is a misnomer
>>18481485I just want ALL the fucking religion threads off this goddamn board because you are all the cancer that is kicking the dead horse into an unidentifiable paste.
>>18482607retard
>>18482951Why tho? Arent you reading a rules manifesto and entering a game show where you have to imitate some behaviour in the face of adversity to win a price?
>>18483016Read the OP, retard, that's the first of the two aspects I mention.
>>18483039What is your religion, op? I wonder which one produces such angry spiteful malcontents.
>>18483039No, it's not about truth. Think deepeer. The thing is, this is merely a game you're being played in. You can opt out. And do your own thing (spiritual), instead of sucking dick.
>>18483054Then you need to provide arguments for why it's not true, which is exactly what aspect two is about. You need to study the Trivium to engage with aspect two, something you haven't done, at all, hence you're stuck in aspect one.
>>18483054>random irrelevant image for attention>total retardno surprises here
>>18483072No, I havent, as I'm not Christian. I have studied and practiced Left Hand Path stuff. Think like this: a wizard on a funky hat, on a wizard tower, is working on a classic wizard problem: making gold. You're not this wizard, but you can be, provided you truly look for gold and arent too busy conjuring porn in your orb of pondering. What I mean is, you can study a tradition where results matter, and not faith, so I don't ask for faith of people, merely try my junk, it might just work for you, thus the proof is in the pudding. Going back to the topic at hand, chaos magick doesnt require excessive training, though, you can try, case in point, a shaman's approach.
>>18483074You'd rather necrozooohilia as a Christian man, yes? Zero fucks given, I don't need what I don't crave.
>>18483089didn't read your shitpost, fuck off
