Throughout different cultures, centuries (millenias) and locations there seems to always have been a need or invention of some kind of spiritualism. As of now most of the modern world is mostly culturally religious, but otherwise atheist or agnostic. What does that make of this... spirituality "need"? How would people in the future fullfill it? Do we replace it with Nietzschean men and women?
Sam Harris has a whole book on this. I don't totally agree with him, but after reading his book, I'm more convinced than ever that serious every form of spirituality must integrate meditation, as it the most important practice.
Idk but André Gernez wrote a book called "biologie et pathologie de la fonction religieuse" in which he posits that belief is innate in all men. It's very short so you can use AI to translate it.To be honest I think the future is gonna be Christian socialism, and I'm neither of those. It's clear when you read books by anti-modernity Christians and anti-capitalists Marxists that they have a lot in common and that this left vs right distinction is just there to keep the people fightin'
>>24988496>What does that make of this... spirituality "need"?people are self aware enough to see how shit the world is, so they have to make up stories to believe in cosmic justice to cope with it, its as simple as that
Religious fundamentalists are the only people having kids.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t7jdW14Rkkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYEyv5a_3LM
>>24988813The world wouldn't be shit if we just genetically engineered everyone to be as happy as possible.
>>24988496Anime feet is the new religion
>>24988496Faith has nothing to do with spirituality. Faith literally means Trust in Greek and Latin. The term Faith in English emerged in the mid-13th century, evolving from Anglo-French and Old French forms like feid and feit, ultimately tracing back to the Latin fidēs, which means trust, confidence or belief, to believe. More generally, "faith" is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.Example: "I have faith in you, you got this, you can do it." In the Roman world, faith was understood without particular association with gods or beliefs. Instead, it was understood as a paradoxical set of reciprocal ideas: Voluntary Will and Voluntary Restraint. In the sense of father over family or host over guest, whereby one party willfully surrenders to a party who could harm but chooses not to, thereby entrusting or confiding in them. Kind of like in the movie Django when Leonardo DiCaprio had Jamie Foxx and the other guy over for dinner and showed them the skull of the slave he used to own and cracked it in front of them. It was understood as the concept of not harming someone you could obviously harm (this was before the advent of firearms). Example: "I trust you; I have faith in you."
>>24988843>Religious fundamentalists are the only people having kids.We need to sterilize them
>>24988496>Do we replace it with Nietzschean men and womenholy LARP
>>24988850based
>>24988843I don't fault them, they are the winners in this case and us atheists are the losers. I am atheist and pronatalist, but the people who will inherit the future actually need to be there for that to be the case, and western atheist natalism is abysmal, sadly. Though there are factors that skew the incentives, I'll never get why the international "government" is hell-bent on boosting african birth numbers as much as humanly possible.
>>24988496You can have rational, secular beliefs about spirits existing and interacting with the world.You can have religious dogmatic beliefs about which text editor for linux serves humanity and which text editor is an evil cancer that must be eradicated.
>>24988847>hmmm yes goyim, let me rewire the part of your brain that feels disgust while I ogle your underage child
>>24988496>Indoctrinate 99% of children in 14-18 years of secular consumerism.>Almost all media and entertainment is oriented towards secular liberal consumerism.>Public spaces blanketed in art suggesting secular consumerism in the same way that Christendom blanketed public spaces in Biblical art and icons of saints, or the Romans covered their spaces in scenes of myth and civic glory/culture.>Told that science means accepting the particular epistemic and ontological presuppositions of liberalism despite philosophers not actually agreeing on this. "If you reject these beliefs you reject electricity and antibiotics!!!">"ZOMG, guys no one is religious anymore or just holds religion as an ancillary, privatized identity (as liberalism says it should be). How could this happen? It must be an inevitable consequence of 'progress' (as defined by our meta-narrative everyone is indoctrinated with). Truly, the end of faith is simply an unavoidable consequence of science and progress and tolerance. I guess neoliberalism is just the end of history."
>>24991748What's it like being born without a soul?
>>24991767But enough about pedophilic atheist technocrats.
>>24991773Is it like an empty dead feeling and state of joylessness?
>>24988843If religion was an inherited trait then their wouldn’t be atheists coming out of christian homes in the first place
>>24991798You're the one that wants to brainwash people, not me.
>>24991806So just dead bitter and lost?
>>24991806I will tell you exactly what life is like without a soul. You have zero conscience, zero emotions, and I am finding most recently, zero morals
>>24988496In Shartmerica we have 3 faiths: Capitalism, progressivism, and the cult of technological singularity
>>24991813>>24991815It's funny because you're a pedophile atheist.
>>24991840>the cult of technological singularityThis concept suggests machines could become vastly smarter than humans, altering the course of human history in ways we can't foresee, possibly merging humanity with technology or ushering in entirely new forms of existence.
>>24991845 looks like you're just a bot programmed to say that over and over like a broken record. I hope you find ways to make up for being born without a soul. Good luck,!
>>24991853>looks like you're just a bot programmed to say that over and over like a broken record.You want to reprogram people into good goyim slaves so you can commit great evil on them.You should be on your knees begging ME for forgiveness instead.
>>24988905Why? You're disgusting and disturbing. Are you mad Stacy won't sleep with you or something?
>>24988496Spirituality in the sense of developing your immaterial and inner faculties is practiced in the modern world every time you go to a therapist, journal or say your affirmations, none of which was available to a layman a thousand years ago. Spirituality in the sense of transcending oneself is something we do neglect and I honestly don't see new ways opening up to the average person besides traditional religion or inflated political narratives.
>>24991802Amish have a retention rate varying from 50% to 80%, with the higher birth rate sects also having higher retention rates.There's more than enough left of them to explode the population.
all of religion in the 21st century is just performative. theologians today would be stoned to death by true believers for their poor simulation of religion.
>>24992164Atheism is performative and directly caused by mass media propaganda. We have plenty of documents describing how true believers actually behaved but you simply don't care about the truth even a little. All that matters is parroting the propaganda, performatively.
>>24988496It’s true but mildly difficult to experience, which is why religions keep popping up and people keep struggling to understand them.
>>24992183how is atheism performative?
>>24992209Like your post is performative, not about reality but making up these little stories that reinforce your status in what you believe to be the dominant group.
>>24992183all religion in the 21st century is indistinguishable form atheism.if you really believed, the govermet would see you unfit to be apart of society.
>>24988496We need to have a religion board so you people have somewhere to go and just pester each other with endless debates about what translations of the bible are least wrong, and which denomination is most right.
>>24992323yea, both /his/ and /lit/ are ruined by christians. I do not understand why they can't accept it's a fairytale.
>>24992315Just braindead, like usual from the lowerclass tranny squad there's nothing to engage with. Nonsense with no relationship to reality, a theater performance by a retarded clown.
>>24992348thats rightsperg and seethe when faced with truth
>>24992328Physicalist atheists are the ones spamming shitty anti-natalist threads and Godjak threads, faggot.
>>24992315>if you really believed, the govermet would see you unfit to be apart of society.so basically you admit atheism can only be enforced through secular brainwashing.
>>24992374is your belief so fragile that you'll let a government stop you from down what god demands?
>>24992371"physicalist atheism" is the objectively correct ontology.
>>24992368>>24992385Complaining about spamming and performing while spamming and performing. Like I've told you before you can't even pretend to think about any subject.The validity or usefulness or how relevant Christianity or Zoroastrianism or whatever is has nothing to do with the demonstrable fact that you can't even begin to pretend to think. You are cancer.
>>24992385>objectively correct ontology.proof?
>>24992397All forms of substance pluralism are disproved by bradley's regress, and from there physialism is demonstrated via multiple philosophical and empirical means.
>>24992385>>24992420Physicalist atheism is refuted by consciousness. The fact that you are understanding this sentence means you are conscious. Your subjective experience cannot be explained by physicalism, so your whole ontology is garbage.
>>24992425Consciousness is a physical process of the brain. This can be entirely explained by physicalism, you guys just cope and seethe and pretend it cant (it pretty much already has been).
>>24992448>>24992425>>24992420Physicalism is essentially a sort of dualism. Even epiphenomenalism assumes that consciousness is a product of strong emergence and so in some sense fundamental (it also has a huge explanatory problem because if consciousness isn't causally efficacious it can never be selected for, but that means it can be arbitrarily related to reality which undercuts any warrant for believing our senses or reasoning capacity).Whereas fundamentalists wish they could summon the full on reality denying dogmatism of eliminitivists who will say they don't exist just to save their flawed dogma.Of course, some copers just wave their hands and call out "strong emergence," but whatever is strongly emergent is irreducible and so fundamental (and so physicalism is a dualism).Notably, physicalists themselves constantly fall into talking like dualists and invoking Cartesian theaters with lines like "well your brain is tricking you..."
>>24992448Sorry, no one is falling for your little demoralization stunt anymore. Physicalism is philosophically unjustifiable.
>>24992420>bradley's regressaka infinite regress, therefore can be swiftly ignored.
>>24992461>epiphenomenalismretards who desperately beg the question>eliminitivistsretards with the most vulgar physicalism, practically controlled opposition made for being picked on>"well your brain is tricking you..."bad language for describing known heuristics and their shortcomings>strongly emergent is irreducible and so fundamentalobsessed with first principles (maybe you believe naiver-stokes is fundamental too, so we have an infinite pluralism instead of dualism)
>>24992490>Y-you're demoralizing!Physicalism is the only coherent and relevant ontology. It is the only philosophically valid stance.There is absolutely nothing "unjustifiable" about physicalism, you're just a moron and a coping retard. The fact that brain states determinstically supervene on mind states disproves any form of dualism.
>>24992636mind states supervene on brain states*
>>24992636>>24992641Let’s unpack why this is fallacious and why it begs the question.1. Understanding the claimThe statement relies on a supervenience principle: mental states are said to deterministically depend on brain states, meaning:If two systems have identical brain states, they must have identical mental states.From this, the claim concludes: dualism (the idea that mind and brain are fundamentally separate) is impossible.At first glance, this seems straightforward, but it assumes what it needs to prove, which is why it’s a question-begging argument.2. Why it’s fallaciousSupervenience does not imply ontological dependenceSaying mental states supervene on brain states is a correlation or dependency claim, not a claim about the ultimate nature of consciousness.Even if every conscious experience occurs with a particular brain state, this does not prove that consciousness is produced by the brain.An analogy: The pattern on a radio screen supervenes on the electromagnetic signal it receives. The pattern depends on the signal, but the signal itself is not “created” by the screen.It assumes reductionism implicitlyThe statement presupposes that all facets of consciousness are fully captured by brain states.It ignores the possibility that the brain could function as a receiver, amplifier, or interface for consciousness that exists independently.There are unanswered empirical and philosophical questions about the origin and nature of consciousness that supervenience alone does not settle.Begging the questionBy asserting that brain-dependent supervenience automatically excludes dualism, the statement smuggles in a reductionist assumption: that mind is nothing over and above brain processes. This is the very point under debate in dualist versus physicalist discussions. To claim it as evidence is circular reasoning.3. The “brain as receiver” alternativeSome theorists (panpsychist or non-materialist approaches) propose that consciousness is fundamental, and the brain does not produce it but modulates or channels it.In this view: Supervenience is an observed correlation, not a causal explanation.Brain states might correspond to or filter conscious content without creating it.Therefore, deterministic supervenience of brain states over mental states does not disprove dualism, it just shows a close connection.4. SummaryThe argument fails because:It conflates correlation with causation — supervenience alone does not settle ontological questions.It presupposes reductionism — it assumes the brain produces consciousness, which is precisely what dualism contests.It begs the question — the conclusion (dualism is false) is assumed in the premise (all mental states fully depend on brain states).In short: supervenience shows that mental states are closely linked to brain states, but it does not logically rule out dualism, nor does it answer whether consciousness might exist independently of the brain.
>>24992680>If we rephrase the claim as "Mind states supervene on brain states" is the second option still begging the question by assuming that disproves any kind of dualismExactly — yes, even if you phrase it as “mind states supervene on brain states”, the claim that this disproves dualism is still begging the question. Here’s why, carefully:1. What the statement assumesIf you say: “Mind states supervene on brain states, therefore dualism is false.”You are implicitly assuming that: Every aspect of consciousness is fully captured by or reducible to brain states, andThere is no independent existence of mind beyond the brain.This is exactly what dualism disputes, so the argument is circular. You are assuming the conclusion in the premise.2. Why supervenience alone is insufficientSupervenience is a dependency or correlation claim, not a causal claim.“Mind states supervene on brain states” only says: If the brain were identical in two systems, the mental states would also be identical.But it does not tell you why this correlation exists. A physicalist would say: the brain produces consciousness. A dualist or “consciousness-first” theorist could say: the brain channels or receives consciousness, or that both mind and brain are correlated via some deeper law.In other words, supervenience is logically compatible with some forms of dualism.3. The subtlety of “begging the question”The fallacy here is assuming that correlation = production.By concluding that dualism is false, the argument smuggles in the very reductionist assumption it should be trying to prove.Without independent evidence that mind is entirely generated by the brain, the conclusion does not follow.4. Key takeawayMind supervenes on brain dualism is false is still question-begging, because:It assumes all conscious phenomena are captured by brain states.It assumes supervenience proves ontological dependence rather than mere correlation.Supervenience alone never settles the debate; it only shows a law-like relationship, which could exist under physicalism, dualism, or other non-reductive frameworks.
AI will be the death of sophists
>>24992636>There is absolutely nothing "unjustifiable" about physicalism, you're just a moron and a coping retard. Can mind emerge out of nothing?
>>24988496The problem I see is that everyone embraced the idea of "separation of church and state", but only used it as a control for the clergy. People, rightfully, wanted religion out of the sphere of politics and governance. But people never really considered the converse, which was to keep the state out of religion, and the spheres of morality and public ritual. A lesson we have learnt too late.
>>24993343I think he gave up on this thread after it was pointed out he was relying on a fallacy
>>24988496>invention of some kind of spiritualismwhats needed is Jesus Christ, not a human invention but the techne who invented humans
>>24992164>theologians today would be stoned to death by true believers for their poor simulation of religionfact
>>24992209because what you want is a banana in your butthole so you pretend God doesnt exist
>>24992379no, ill let the government stop me from openly doing what im not commanded to do openly, like spanking my kids when they misbehave
>>24991565TBF liberals have a major advantage insofar as they largely control public education in America. It's true that fundies are the ones having kids but if these kids are being sent to K-12 and University (which is becoming more and more necessary to get a job that isn't awful) they will have to contend with liberal ideology for a large portion of their pre-adult life. Which is why it makes sense so many of the ANTI-NATALIST progressives are also anti-homeschooling: they need to find a way in to indoctrinate fundy kids (which isn't to say they aren't indoctrinated in their own way). Fundies need to get more serious about homeschooling unless they get the political stomach to defund the Department of Education.
>>24994109Why would god care if anon shoves bananas up his butthole
>>24994143because he thinks it's gross and doesn't want to see it, but he's omniscient so he can't stop himself from seeing it, and also smelling it etc
>>24994126>unless they get the political stomach to defund the Department of Education.Seems like that's way more possible now than before. Didn't Trump promise to do just that not too long ago?
>tfw want to believe in God but cannot, as i have never encountered any evidence for him or anything paranormal>tfw too much doubt to become a fully convinced atheist because there are too many stories of other people having supernatural experiences for me to dismiss them outrightI'm stuck in (a)theist limbo /lit/, what do?
>>24994509>stories of other people having supernatural experiencesread up on hallucinations, they're much more common than most people realizeand also read up on people telling outright lies to make their religion or cult look good/real
>>24994579>hallucinationsMaterialistranny cope.>and also read up on people telling outright lies to make their religion or cult look good/realMaterialists do this through deranged cults like the cult of transhumanism and AI singularities.
>>24994509I'm on a similar boat, anon. While I've read plenty of logical for and against the existence of (a) God, there is a spiritual aspect that I'm lacking. Religious people I've spoken to feel a presence (physical or mental) of deity, or spirituality, yet I have yet to experience anything as this, in any form.
>>24994143how would you feel if you gave your son a banana and he shoved it up his ass then told everyone that he didnt bring shame to his father because he has no father
>>24988496I think it would be constructive to work with a 21st century paradigm regarding identity and belief. It's the concept of LARPing we should use as a starting point. What distinguishes larp from authenticity in religious and spiritual practices? Why do we think of Zoomer Tradcath/Orthodox/Mainline Protestant converts or reverts as larpers but 'born-again' Evangelicals, who converted out of political leanings and materialistic concerns, and old Catholic grandmothers as legit religious experiences?
>>24991802Modern society brainwashes them.
>>24992385Objectivity is just shorthand for "accepted paradigm" or "discourse regime"
>>24994746Not a good analogy because I'm not some nebulous immortal sky father figure that ostensibly watches over every living soul. >>24994761And Christcucks don't brainwash their kids? lmao
>>24992688Sophistry works, thoughbeit
>>24994769I'm sorry you were never hugged as a child
>>24988496>there seems to always have been a need or invention of some kind of spiritualismThere is no "need" for spirituality, it is a solution in search of a problem and always has been. The fact is a significant portion of the human population possesses a strong inclination for religious mania, which makes them ripe for exploitation by charlatans, soothsayers, and prophets who capitalize on their gullibility and superstitious beliefs.Because the majority of humans do not actually possess any inclination toward religious belief one way or the other, they are easily swept along by the fervor of the religiously minded, whose manic tendencies make arguing with them futile wherever it isn't hazardous to the health, since religious maniacs have a tendency to murder those who question their beliefs too sharply. The lack of any strong religious belief is, ironically, what allows popular cults to spread quickly. The strongest resistance to the spread of a new religion can be found among the most fanatical believers of the old religion. The majority of believers will simply convert to whichever religion makes it easier to get on with living. Without active proselytizing and reinforcement of rituals by the religious maniacs, a cult will inevitably dwindle in membership. Indoctrination is a continuous process. The passive majority has to be kept in the herd. Christians likening their believers to a flock of sheep is not an accidental metaphor. Sheep will stray if they are not shepherded, they will happily follow anybody who leads them or wander aimlessly if left to their own devices.
>>24994784I'm sorry your parents brainwashed you
