Look I'll be real with you. I spent years reading theology, philosophy, buddhism, all that shit. Thought I was being so intellectually honest by deconstructing everything, making sure my beliefs could survive scrutiny. Built these elaborate frameworks where God is process and persuasion, where everything has to fit with science and logic. Felt smart, felt mature.But here's what actually happened: I lost the ability to just pray. Like actually pray, not "contemplate the nature of divine persuasion" or whatever. My grandma would just talk to God like he was there and it *worked* for her. She had peace I couldn't touch with all my philosophy books. When her husband died she didn't need a theodicy about divine suffering and consequent nature, she just knew God was with her. And she was right, in the way that matters.All that intellectual honesty? sometimes it's just cowardice dressed up. Couldn't handle the vulnerability of simple trust so I made it complicated enough that I never had to actually surrender anything. Kept God at arm's length where I could examine him safely. The philosophical God can't actually demand anything from you because you're too busy revising the metaphysics.Yeah simple faith can be brittle, can be manipulated, whatever. But philosophical faith can be sterile. Can turn the infinite into a concept you masturbate over. At some point you gotta ask am i trying to understand God or control him? Because if your faith needs a PhD to function maybe you've missed something really basic that a kid can grasp.Not saying everyone should be simple believers. But for me personally? the complexity was cope. Just fucking kneel, anon. The rest is noise.
>>24763651You weren't supposed to intellectualize God, you were supposed to realize that he doesn't exist.
>>24763707>you were supposed to realize that he doesn't exist.
>>24763739I've seen God and I still know that he isn't real.
>>24763746Reality isn’t literal or material or dead or rational. This is all obvious common sense intuition. However you believe that you are god and thus cannot see true reality, only your false construction.
>>24764027There are many atheist philosophies that don't think philosophy is only literal, material, dead, or rational. I don't think you were ever interested in deconstructing anything or testing any of your beliefs, I think you just went looking for some elaborate theistic philosophy to justify your belief, discovered whitehead and assumed that he is the end-all be all of philosophy.
>>24763651your kike on a stick isn't real lil bro; and if he was, he sure wouldn't be reachable through your watered-down american evangelicalist idea of prayer.
>>24763707But that just leads to nihilism and despair
>>24763651I'm reading through the NIV at the moment, and this shit is absolutely hilarious in spots. The Old Testament is just Jewish fanfic, essentially.
>>24764077Don't you see how they're smiling in the paintings? You fear that it will lead to nihilism and despair because you think that whatever meaning there is in your life comes from God. in reality, God is irrelevant to your life and to any meaning you find it in it. He's just a delusion you add on top of it for no reason. The religions use fear to stop you from not believing. When people were dumber, it was easy to strike fear in them by talking about "heaven" and "hell." But now that people are moderately intelligent, "hell" is replaced with "nihilism." don't stop believing or you'll become a nihilist. it's a lie.
Why are the AI jeets back?
>>24763651To be frank, this reads like you attempting to launder a crushing defeat into victory using a counterfeit of chestertonian language for your own sake. You sought to justify, fortify your faith by reason, but did not reach satisfying conclusions; reasoned God could not be what you wished it to be. Hence, you abdicate reason. You retreat into a bailey of fuzzy feelings, vague notions, duty, morality, the values of the stomach. You weep with Joy, really, you do. You have the great victory of having returned back to the same level of religiosity as a Guatemalan writhing on the floor of a stripmall church. Bleary eyed with joy, you accept the proposition that you cannot know God (or at least your god) using reason and blubber out a victory-cry of retreat!
>>24763707Atheists really do come across as the most arrogant of low-IQ thinkers. They theorize endlessly about how God “doesn’t exist,” yet fail to grasp the core principle: worshiping God is simply acknowledging so far more wise/intelligent/advanced than yourself, that simply be aware of them brings you to your knees in worship. Logically, do you truly not believe it’s possible that somewhere in this vast universe there exist beings of such knowledge and intelligence that they would make you feel like an ant?Look at yourself: one tiny human, on a fragile planet, in a species riddled with hypocritical logic, egomaniacal copes, and an endless addiction to dopamine and validation. You really think you are the pinnacle of wisdom? Of knowledge? Of logic? Don’t delude yourself, little human.Every religion interprets God differently, whether through a church, a mosque, a temple, or a lone spiritualist, but the act of worship itself is the same: it is the admission that you are small, that the universe and what lies beyond your comprehension is immeasurably grand and what unknowable creation created this existence. To truly grasp that depth would make one weep in awe. To deny God is not logical skepticism, it is an ego’s flimsy defense, a coward’s cope.Think about it: if humanity doesn’t wipe itself out, by the year 3000 our descendants will look back at us in 2025 and laugh at how primitive and arrogantly illogical we were. If you stood before a human being from the year 3000, evolved in technology and cognition far beyond your imagination, you would tremble in fear and awe. You would beg forgiveness and in that moment call them god, not because they are divine, but because their presence shatters your illusion of "there is no god, i athiest am the best".Atheists make me laugh. Drop your ego, it’s obvious that disbelief is nothing more than fear disguised as logic.
>>24765108> do you truly not believe it’s possible that somewhere in this vast universe there exist beings of such knowledge and intelligence that they would make you feel like an ant?why would they concern themselves with my prayers or want me to worship them? I don't care if ants worship me or not, lol. your philosophy leads itself to lovecraftianism (cosmic atheism) before it does theism.
>>24765010>Don't you see how they're smiling in the paintings?
buh, what does philosophy have to do with faith? if it felt like you were trying to control God its because philosophy is a tool for mechanizing the world.
>>24765675ok but democritus didn't kill himself and was famous for being happy all the time
The unmoved mover together with the expansion of the universe (Big Bang) has convinced me at the very least there is deistic designer, be it personal or impersonal. Wether it’s the God of the bible it cannot be proven in any way, other than personal experience.
>>24763651read guenon (pbuh)
>>24763651based>>24763707>le smiling atheist (actually terrified of the void every single day)kek
>>24763651What you really need is wisdom. You're not giving things the time and space necessary for them to breathe, and you're blocking out the doorway that leads to your heart. Walk on and God bless.
>>24765086None of this shows that he's ultimately wrong
>>24766169textbook projection
>>24766195Miserable people are the ones not aware of how stupid they are.
>>24765010>But now that people are moderately intelligentLOLFucking degenerate progress cuck.
>>24763651>tldr there's nothing real about anything you said.Where is it?
>>24766238You are jewish.
>>24766236it has nothing to do with muh progress, the increase in IQ is a well documented and uncontroversial scientific fact
>>24766250>IQShit no one cares about besides bugman technocrats. Humans are not machines, you imbecile.
>>24766255ok bro
>>24766241Well, at least you've thrown your garbage out there. Yeah so if you are interested in esoteric Hobbesianism you might want to drop Land and Yarvin. Stauffer may have offered one of the best ones, he was initially scoffed at, likely due to when he published. At face value his version is easy to dismiss, but if he was right then Hobbes may have held back on religion instead of superstition and may have even altered some of his other ideas. If you go for it then give it some thought, he did go through all of Hobbes's philosophy and I'll happily admit an easy 2/3 to 3/4 of that is garbage. You can definitely tell he wanted to avoid Strauss, but I'm not sure how well he succeeded. His version does have some interesting outcomes though.
