99.9% of all issues on this planet stem from religion bullshit. Change my mind
The church gave structure to society which is why the reformation tore apart Germany
>>537198226Because the reformation church is not religion?
>>537198141Total Abrahamic Death
Name 10 things.
>>537198293It created a bunch of different schizophrenic versions of Christianity which is very obvious especially in America
>>537198348And the versions before that were not schizo?
>>537198141Tell us about atheist morality
>>537198390The schizophrenia is a result of one religion turning into hundreds
>>537198141This is antisemetic
>>537198460So which one is the one religion?
>>537198141Okay, can you be specific about what issues stem from Christianity?Because if you just end up complaining about Jews, maybe Jews are the problem and religion is less so.
>my local and state politicians are corrupt shit bags How is this religions fault?
>>537198408>moralityIf you need to fear the wrath of a supernatural being to behave like a decent human being you don't have a moral at all to begin with. (Dawkins, I think)
>>537198551Religion is fake but the Catholic Church still served it's purpose of organizing the cattle
>>537198141If every Christian followed Christ's precepts, then Christians would be universally honest, kind, patient, compassionate and selfless. Same goes for Buddhists and Hindus and even Muslims. Clearly the issue is not religion itself, but the fact that so many people fail to live up to their religion. The only religion that actually teaches people to be evil is judaism, but that's because judaism is actually a form of atheism since it teaches that God is a creature and not a creator.
>>537198332Christians don't cut baby dicks. That's an amerimutt/jew/muslim/Africa/South Korean/Australian thing exclusively.
>>537198561Feudalism, slavery, witch hunts, Spanish Inquisition, European religious wars, colonialism and forced conversion, 1000 years of oppression of science (we already could scale the solar system as a species, if the church didn't hunt down and burn scientists)...
>>537198141religion is an evolutionary necessity. Remove it and nature will replace it.
>>537198621It's not possible to behave like a decent human being unless you believe that Good and Truth exist as informing principles. Anyone who believes in Truth independent of himself is by necessity a theist, because by acknowledging Truth he is acknowledging an essence that is superior to his own which ought to be obeyed and loved.
>>537198956ok this is a troll thread.
>>537198141Absolute midwit take. People below 90 IQ cannot be trusted to form a moral framework, and must be handed a pre-built morality if they are going to be a part of a functioning civilization. People at 100 IQ still struggle with the idea of their individual actions having wider reaching implications to the society they live in. Religion is the best tool we've built to keep these people from tearing everything apart. Granted, different religions work better at different levels of average intellect. Christianity only works to a lower bound of ~80ish IQ, if a significant portion of your population base is worse than that you need something closer to Islam.Without religion we'd be dealing with a completely different set of problems. You should be directing your irritation not at organized religion, but the people who require it to interact with each other without abject barbarity.
>>537198621you only have this perspective because you grew up in an ocean of chritsian morality. Study how the people of antiquity behaved.
>>537198659Why explicitly the Catholic Church and not one of the other 1000 secs?
>>537199038>>537199062Two words: Categorical ImperativeNow you just need to think harder and learn more.
>>537199040>People below 90 IQ cannot be trusted to form a moral framework, and must be handed a pre-built moralityWhich doesn't work either as history taught.
>>537199202That doesn't address my point at all. You can't refer to the categorical imperative as being true unless you believe in truth. If you believe in objective truth, you are a theist and not an atheist. If you do not believe in objective truth, then you are not a good person and you have no notion of morality. There is no way out of this dichotomy. If truth exists, it is by every definition a supreme being.
>>537198141Egalitarianism is just a religion
>>537199808You can deduct it logically. That's all you need. Logic. Universal human rights are based on the same logic: Assume every human being wants to live safe and in dignity. From this assumption deduct, that there's a basic set of rules that everyone can agree on because (categorical imperative) if they treat everyone else by the same principles they expect to be treated as, you abide an universal moral.You don't need a sky fairy for that. Only one assumption that there's a fundamental basic need that everyone can agree on.
>>537200276Of course, because logic comes from truth. If truth is the supreme, then logic is the supreme's gift to man. Logos is literally the name for Christ in the Bible. If you were to ever take the time to actually study ancient metaphysics and theology, you would see that Truth is what everyone talks about when they talk about God, and Reason is what everyone talks about when they talk about the son of God. There are no "magic sky fairies" in theology. Theology is and has always been the most rigorous study of logic mankind has ever known. "Deus" just means "the highest", so if you acknowledge Truth as the highest principle and Logic as the only means to reach that highest principle, you are a theist and not an atheist.
>>537200665You don't need a god for that because the reasoning supports itself. You start from an axiom and deduct from there consistently building an entire framework. Similar to math. You can explain that to every capable being whether it knows the concept of a god or not. That's its elegance.
>>537200665Oh and also. Religious moral is arbitrary. For the Aztecs it was morally acceptable to perform sacrificial bloodbaths to please the gods.In the 16th and 17th centuries it was morally acceptable to burn people at the stake if you somehow convicted them of being with the devil or some other bullshit.Jews and Muslims find it morally acceptable to mutilate the genitals of their newborn boys (and sometimes girls).What ever satisfies the current belief.
>>537200884You don't seem to be reading my posts at all. I'm not saying you need "a" god to understand truth. I'm saying that if you acknowledge that truth exists, and that you choose to be obedient to truth, then you have chosen to make Truth your deity, because the definition of a deity is an informing principle that guides and shapes behavior. If Truth is your highest numen, then you are a theist and you belong in the ranks of all the other theists who also make Truth their highest numen, although they give it various names. Buddhism, Christianity and Daoism are all just various systems explaining the importance of obeying Truth.
>>537201146No, religious morality is not arbitrary. It's always based on logic. What you're describing is irreligious immorality. All of those practices explicitly go against their own religion's teachings.
>>537199307History is littered with examples of the decline of religion coinciding with the decline of a society or civilization. If a religion isn't being stewarded by people who understand it's purpose or is being actively puppeteered by self-serving corrupt officials you end up with the issues you've made here >>537198956. Those issues precipitate from a dysfunctional religion. Look at India right now. Having lost any form of stewardship, hindu religions have become so perverted that they actively hinder the hindu people. Were the religion better maintained over the last millennium they would be in a considerably better position. Other parallel declines in religion integrity and civilization can be noted with the fall of Rome, the rotting of the Aztec Empire prior to Spanish interference, the consistent decline of the Ottoman culture even as their territory expanded, or the general forced spread of Islam to non-compatible cultures in the southern Mediterranean.
>>537198141Marxism, Globohomo, leftism, etc. All atheist. Then there's the fact wars are primarily fought for land resources.You need to take the advice of the second part of the meme and educate yourself. >>537199002What replaces it will be another religion. When people stop believing in God it's not that they don't believe in anything. They'll believe in everything. This is why globohomo is a religion unto itself.
>>537201228>then you are a theistYou are not a theist if you don't believe in any kind of a "god".>>537201279>What you're describing is irreligious immorality.Bullshit, the teachings can be bend and if you ask two priests you get three different answers. It's arbitrary because it's based on human made tales.Logic is not human made. Logic carries itself.
Jesus is God.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCP9UcC7BzE
>>537201307Yes, my words. That decline only happens because religious teachings are arbitrary and not universal.
>>537201536>Jesus is God.There are quite some Christians that don't agree on that.
>>537201416>Marxism, Globohomo, leftism, etc. All atheist.They are pseudo religions. (Yes, there are atheist religions.) Especially Marxism has salvation teachings (class revolution) as well as equivalent for demonic activities ("capitalist greed"). It's pseudo religious.
>>537201533If you believe that truth exists objectively then you do believe in a deity. That is what the word means.>Bullshit, the teachings can be bend and if you ask two priests you get three different answersYes, and if you ask two or three different people about the truth they will give you two or three different answers. That does not undermine truth or indicate that truth does not exist. In the same way, no number of people have the authority to undermine a religion's original teachings.>t's arbitrary because it's based on human made talesNo, it's not. The tales were made afterwards as a way of explaining the logic to the laity. Religion began as ontology.>Logic is not human madeExactly, which is why it's a deity. It existed prior to humankind, it informs humankind, it is responsible for humankind, and humankind must obey it in order to achieve wellness and happiness. That makes logic divine in every possible sense.
>>537198141Which religion is the one you hate?
>>537198141Can't, you're right.>>537198332Not just Abrahamic, all of them. Including Atheism, might as well be a religion.Is it really so hard to believe in a creator, and to also believe that they don't directly interact with us? We can be moral beings without religions, and we can rise above degeneracy without requiring a punitive God to coerce us into doing so.
>>537201884You didn't understand that my system is not based on a belief but on a rationale.
>>537201626And what I'm saying is that without religion at all you will end up in the same state or worse, and much faster. You seem quick to forget that enlightenment ideals and thought came from a religious foundation. When maintained it is a very useful tool, when abused or left to rust it becomes a slow acting poison. Vigilance is needed, but I would rather have the tool present than not.
>>537198141yes. the world would be better off without Christians, Jews, or Muslims.
>>537201954I don't hate religions. I just think that they cause most of all issues in history of humankind.
>>537202023You can't have a rationale unless you obey reason as a principle. Obeying something as a principle makes it a deity to you. Everyone has a "highest priority", which means everyone worships something, because the word "worship" simply means to "put first". There is no human being who doesn't prioritize something, therefore there is no human being who doesn't worship something. An atheist worships himself. A theist worships a principle outside of himself.If you don't understand what I'm trying to explain at this point, then I'm going to have to assume that you're being intentionally obtuse. Your responses come off as if you either don't understand English or you have the reading comprehension of an animal. If you're being sincere at all, then you desperately need to learn how to comprehend and integrate new terminology rather than reassert your own terminology overtop of the person you're trying to discuss something with.
>>537202053>And what I'm saying is that without religion at all you will end up in the same state or worse, and much faster. You didn't provide a proof for that claim.>enlightenment ideals and thought came from a religiousEnlightenment was started by religious people. But their ideas show that you don't need a religion.
>>537198141No. Im pretty sure its the free Ai cd's they gave out to everyone in the 90s
>>537198141Kill yourself jew.
>>537202214>Obeying something as a principle makes it a deity to you.If you define "deity" as a supernatural being or might or what ever, a "God", then nothing what you say proves that the existence of a deity is inevitable.If you define "deity" as a non-personal principle, then you misuse the word and deviate from the common understanding of what that word means.
>>537201812>ignores historic evidence So your argument now is everything is a religion? Then what is your religion? >>537201680>Christian>not believing Jesus is GodYou really do need to educate yourself
Atheists: Think harder, chop off your dick, put things in your buttChristians:
>>537202219>You didn't provide a proof for that claim.Religion is so pervasive in humanity that it is nearly impossible to find an example I could point to. Evidence of ritual burials go back over 80,000 years. However, the weaker the culture the weaker the religion, and what follows is barbarity. Look at the histories of Australian natives, sub-Saharan Africans, or Papuans. All of them have/had the barest shreds of a stable religion and all of them are defined by savagery and violence. Civilization cannot sprout in these conditions. Everyone else with a higher intellectual capacity developed their own religions alongside their cultures, and were able to reach a state of order. You ask me to prove a negative here, and there is only so much room for response.>Enlightenment was started by religious people. But their ideas show that you don't need a religion.All the same, those people wouldn't have been in a position to form those ideas without the framework they stood on. Going all the way back to the Greeks, logic has first flowed from a religious font. It may not have maintained it's religious context after emerging, but it's consistent origin should not be be simply ignored.
>>537202656>So your argument now is everything is a religion?No. I did not say that. I don't know how dull you need to be to assume that I did. Religion is a belief system. Marxism is a belief system too.>You really do need to educate yourself>Jehovah's Witnesses: Jesus is considered god's first creation and distinct from god>Unitarian Christians: Belief that Jesus is the messiah and son of god, but not god or a part of god himself.
>>537202507I'm using the word correctly. A deity is any informing principle, because "deus" means "higher", and a principle must be higher in order to be informing. Or in other words, if you obey and worship something, that something is your deity. It's you and everyone else who have no knowledge of etymology or ontology that misuse the word. I don't care how it's used commonly, my concern is that it should be used correctly and with a historical understanding. Men like Plato and Aristotle understood the word in the way I'm describing it to you. What the average redditor today thinks about the word has no bearing on anything.It's also worth noting that anyone who studies metaphysics comes to an understanding that Truth and Love are synonyms, and that the principle of Love itself can never be devoid of love. Everything that's true is also good, meaning the universe actually loves you, because the universe itself is by necessity objective and impartiality is the defining trait of love.
>>53719814199% of all abstractions man creates stem from him pretending he authored reality. Including religion. How about that? How about that you disingenous little shit? You people sneak in teleology all the time to excuse you blatantly making abstract systems ad hoc that only work if reality is stable, and even then, the abstractions don’t work because man is the vector in which they’re deemed necessary. And aside from God, since when the fuck can an object being both the perceived source of the problem and the solution? This is literally a doom looping computer example. It’s not even logically cogent. Man would rather larp then actually acknowledge God because man thinks that as long as he has dialectic parties to excuse his ontological failures of being the solution, he doesn’t have to address the fact that he’s going to fucking die, and on top of this, man wouldn’t care about dying if it weren’t the for the fact that God exists. You don’t create hundreds of sophisticated abstractions to handle reality ad-hoc unless you’re seriously coping with something your ego is absolutely mortified of addressing. Have any of these abstractions helped? No, and atheists are a prime example of how this has nothing to fucking do with death, so don’t bother pretending like you’re influenced by the concept of not existing. Religon externalizes guilt, it’s not secularism, which internalizes it. You are still both the very same man trying to do the very same thing while deferring on the method and you have spent millennia murdering each other over that sophistry to distract you from the fact that nothing you have ever done has ever fixed the problem.
>>537202943>and all of them are defined by savagery and violenceI can find examples of that in almost every religion, even with the so-peaceful buddhists.>All the same, those people wouldn't have been in a position to form those ideas without the framework they stood on.The point is that you can deduct the ideas of Enlightenment entirely without the need of a supernatural being.
>>537202979>I'm using the word correctly. A deity is any informing principle, because "deus" means "higherIn common language "deity" is a supernatural being. Stop twisting words if you want other people to understand your ramblings.
Anyone who wants to be a good man will be a good man with or without religion.Anyone who wants to lord a false moral superiority over others for the sake of their own self-aggrandizement will do so with or without religion.
>>537203192I explained to you in my absolute first post what I meant by deity. I not only laid out the definition, but explained why that must be the definition in order to achieve coherency. I went out of my way to tell you what my operative definition of the word was going to be, and you chose to ignore it so that you could instead slap your own uninformed common use definition overtop of it, as if it had any relevance. If you don't have the ability to accept new definitions temporarily for the sake of testing how they work within a given system, that means you aren't capable of abstract thought. Please take a beginner's philosophy course before embarrassing yourself like this again.
>>537203113>I can find examples of that in almost every religion, even with the so-peaceful buddhists.You asked, I answered. I assume you are not being so disingenuous as to imply all violence stems from religion, nor that you mean to imply that I hold that religion prevents all violence.>The point is that you can deduct the ideas of Enlightenment entirely without the need of a supernatural being.Perhaps. Do you have examples yourself? The only ones I can think of still pull significant influence from established works, which in turn have their foundations rooted in religious thinking. That said there are probably some pure-math related thought that I'm wholly unfamiliar with which might qualify.
>>537203509My point was and is that you don't need a supernatural being for anything of that I wrote. You tried to push a clearly religious loaded term "deity" into the debate just to shift the perception back into a religious interpretation.That is intellectually dishonest, hence my reaction.
>>537203564>Perhaps. Do you have examples yourself?I gave an example above when I was talking about the categorical imperative, which is an idea of Enlightenment, that I deducted logically without the need of a religious belief.
>>537198141>99.9% of all issues on this planet stem from religion bullshitFalse. The problem is defection or parasitism incentive.Religion is one of many means for controlling and organizing people. Military, bureaucracy, law, even logic or ethics, etc... these are also organizing systems.People will always find some sort of advantage in defecting, undermining, redirecting, subverting or controlling (overtly or covertly) any form of organizing system. It does not matter if it's within an ideological, religious, physical or even a logical system, in practice, the potential for parasitism exists, and therefore it will eventually be expressed.Take the I.C. (which itself is a deontological argument and does not overcome the induction problem ("should" =/= "is"), an issue Kant wrestled with into his grave).Even if we bypass the induction or other practical problems and just assume everybody will understand and agree to the logic.Somewhere, somebody will recognize and actualize the latent potential advantage that may come from defecting from the "logic". If everybody goes along with the I.C., except for me, I have alot to gain.
>>537203869And my point was that truth is by definition a "being", because it exists and "supreme" because it's higher than man. Truth is a supreme being, because to say it's not a being is to say that it doesn't exist and to say that it's not supreme is to say that it's not to be obeyed. You're the one being intellectually dishonest, because you insist that "supreme being" must be a "magic sky fairy". You're injecting your own superstitious notions onto the term. I'm doing you a favor by trying to disabuse you of that absolutely ridiculous notion. Because every intelligent man in human history used "supreme being" and "deity" and "God" in the way that I'm defining it for you. Aristotle and Plato did not believe in "magic sky fairies". They believed in Truth, or The Good. Your reaction was dishonest because you up to this point have been dishonest.
>>537198141You have no mind to change.
>>537198551The only one we use as a basis to count the years, duh.Like, the dumbest niggers managed to understand this, how are atheists even stupider than that?
>>537204214>And my point was that truth is by definition a "being", because it existsSo everything that exists is a being? What a load of bullshit. And you are doing it again, snaking a religious rendition into a profane rationale.
>>537203994Admittedly I haven't really been reading anything but direct responses. Even in >>537200276, you're still agreeing with my basic premise. The existence of the sky fairy in question doesn't really matter, just that a set of morals can be laid out and distributed. Later you referred to pseudo religions, recognizing that they serve the same purpose as a religion centered on some sort of divinity. It all comes back to my first statement. Even if you yourself are able to deduce morality out of a purely logical system, a massive portion of the population cannot do the same. How then, is that population segment to have morals placed upon them if not through a religious structure? Pure law? If so all you have done is create another pseudo religion that has elevated the state to a position traditionally held by gods.
>>537204475Yes. Do you not know what being means? Being means "to be". As in, "is". If it exists, it is.At this point I really doubt your sincerity, but on the off chance if you really are this uneducated then I suggest you go read a bunch of beginner philosophy books and eventually take on Aristotle or Plato.
>>537204142>Religion is one of many means for controlling and organizing people.In fact the only reason for religion (=institutionalized belief system) to exist is manipulation of people, and every ideology has a quasi-religious trait.>If everybody goes along with the I.C., except for me, I have alot to gain.And a lot to lose, especially when everyone else is treating you as an intrusive foreign body.
>>537198141You are absolutely right, but as the last century has shown, without religion it's even worse.It's not enough to identify a problem and assume it'll be better if the problem is removed, one has to consider what will take it's place.Most people are religious, without organized religion they follow something else, in the west that's science. That's not the scientific method, but rather what those in power want to tell you is science.This caN change at a whim. Oganized religion Is at least usually built on ideas that has stood the test of time, they might often sound stupid but they might genuinely be better than most alternatives.
>>537204214>every intelligent man in human history used "supereme being" and "deity" and "god" in the way that I'm defining it for you.That isn't true.
>>537204739Your entire substance is twisting of words. You use religious loaded terms to dishonestly turn the narrative into agreeing with your religious belief system, that's based on a supernatural entity.
>>537204819Yes, it is. Everyone from Ptah-Hotep, to Socrates to Plotinus to Aquinas to Cudworth. There has never been one intelligent person in human history who didn't acknowledge that Truth and God were synonymous, because arriving at that understanding is what it means to be intelligent in the first place.
>>537204775the bad people of today are still religious. they worship the government, media, money. it's still all temples and preachers and devotees.
>>537205046Many bad people are not religious. My county, if you ignore the Muslim invaders, is almost completely atheist and the things thet justify here are crimes against humanity.
>>537204775>Oganized religion Is at least usually built on ideas that has stood the test of time, they might often sound stupid but they might genuinely be better than most alternatives.With a religion you always need to rely on a tale, on something that can't be proven or disproved. And there's no religion that hasn't split in disagreement on how to interpret that tale, up to the point of inflicting violence onto each other in the brawl of various versions of different interpretations of the ancient fiction.
>>537204921No, that's what you're attempting to do. Which is why you've dishonestly conflated "supreme being" with "magical sky fairy". The terminology I'm using has over 4,000 years of written history behind it.And even if I were somehow adulterating these terms, you should be able to adopt them long enough to prove that they don't work within the confines of the system I'm proposing. If your only argument is "I don't want to accept definitions that don't agree with my biases", then you're admitting that you aren't capable of abstraction and thus aren't capable of arguing for or against a position.
>>537205532If you think the same isn't true by the propaganda secular organizations tell yup then I don't know what to say.The worst part is if you're not religious you will have an easier time taking in the propaganda as gospel because of the innate need of a belief system.Religion is a shield.
>>537204972Every definition of god contains spiritualism, except for spinozistic pantheism, where god is not a spirit but a non-personal principle.
>>537205670>by the propaganda secular organizationsThere are quite a few of secular ideologies that contain a pseudo-religious character, like my above example, Marxism.>Religion is a shield.An institutionalized belief system that shields from other institutionalized belief systems.
>>537198141no its from stupid people and religion is great for keeping stupid people in check. thats it
>>537204972I don't believe in using circular reasoning to define terms and consider anyone that does unintelligent or disingenuous.I would like to see a well reasoned explanation that "arriving at the understanding that Truth and God are synonymous" is the definition of intelligence because you seem unable to do so without relying on vague axiomatic appeals.
>>537205544I don't need your interpretation of the terms. My narrative was entirely void of spiritualism and in fact claims, that logic truth is a profane rationale.
>>537206094Why is it that this seems to imply smart and sophisticated people cannot be evil, and if they are it’s somehow better than stupid people being evil? Because, that’s definitely false.
>>537198141
>>537198141Religion is largely an attempt to mediate inherent problems in human societies through a holistic worldview which makes use of natural human spirituality and social emotions. Trying to stop things from breaking down into anarchy and/or tyranny is a neverending struggle and religion codifies psychological and behavioral patterns which help with this. Naturally it doesn't always work and it can even backfire and make things worse. But society without religion tends to be even more dysfunctional, and people start creating pseudo-religions out of things like politics anyway, and these pseudo religions are often way more destructive.
>>537206361Remove the text, if you still have a problem with the flames, you’re unironically more receptive to God than the absurdists.
>>537205937Existence falls into two categories, material and immaterial. Material is the obvious world of the senses in front of you. Immaterial existence refers to things that exist objectively, but lack bodies. Justice, compassion, truth, geometric and mathematic principles, all of these are immaterial substances or beings. The immaterial world, filled with principles, is what's being referred to when philosophers and theologians talk about spirituality. That's why cultivating the virtues is considered spiritual practice, and why in the ancient world rationality and spirituality were considered one in the same. Rationalism, which trusts logic above all else, always leads to theism, while empiricism, which trusts the senses above all else, always leads to atheism.
>>537206208see, you are dumb. im a genius, god might exist. religion is a tool to keep really dumb people in check, smart people dont need religion to conduct their morality because its natural. Anyone can be evil, dumb or smart. Nothing to do with religion.
>>537206154>vague axiomatic appealsEvery defensible position grounds itself. Saying God being self-referential is circular reasoning is actually tacitly denying tautology and identity being possible epistemically. Which given your structured language and inquiry, seem to be disingenuously using to imply it’s just a means to an end, while flagrantly going after the concept of God as if he stole your sweetroll.
>>537199002Software can overcome some hardware limitations.
>>537206812And I’m guessing secularism is just this redundancy of BDSM fedora fags that like to project onto this religious-ran world you’ve concocted in your head?
>>537206958I dont know why you are arguing against a scenario thats not a thing, american christian people are quite retarded though. But not as bad as muslims and jews. I like my country christians though since they are good people.
>>537206812There's absolutely nothing "natural" about morality: there's currently 195+ different definitions of "rape", all legally valid. How do you know which is the "natural" correct one? You can't.
>>537206941thats just improvement in efficiency. lack of efficiency is just humans not being perfect. its not really an upgrade, more like a step toward to the baseline the hardware always could provide. computer science needs philosophy too
>>537206813OK but that just gestures towards some vague metaphysical structures rather than God specifically.
>>537207130Firmware (instincts) my bad
>>537207101You fail to misunderstand. Ontologically I account for my fallen nature by categorically rejecting secularism and religion as capable of solving the issues you clearly yourself see. The Bible doesn’t advocate for religion. If you actually thought religious people were stupid you’d have no problem latching onto this idea. But it’s not actually about intelligence. This is about providing yourself a ontological excuse for failing to just be better than your supposed opposition.
>>537206813Shut the fuck up with your Jewish pilpul and either answer my request or explain why you are unable to do so.I asked for a well reasoned explanation as to why "arriving at the understanding that Truth and God are synonymous" is the definition of intelligence, a claim you made when you stated >arriving at that understanding is what it means to be intelligent in the first place.I am not and have not at any point argued that God being self-referential is circular reasoning. I am not talking about God at all. I am talking about you, a mortal human, making the claim that intelligence means "arriving at the understanding that Truth and God are synonymous" and using that to rationalize your earlier claim that >Every intelligent man in human history has used "supreme being" and "deity" and "god" in the way that I'm defining itI am arguing that saying "Every smart person has always agreed with my definitions" and explaining that with "If you do not agree with my definition you are not smart" is circular reasoning. I am not even going to do you the disservice of acting like there is a chance you did not understand that.Once again I will ask:Provide a well reasoned explanation as to why "arriving at the understanding that Truth and God are synonymous" is the definition of intelligence.
>>537207120retards cant understand morality nor empathy, i guess you are one. dont care what laws says, anyone not a retard can tell which which one is correct. You telling me I cant just means you are a moron
>>537198141Yes Christianity, Islam, and judaism are the worst thing that ever happened to the human race.
>>537207162No, because epistemology implies truth is the medium in which reality is innately linked and to deny identity and tautology fundamentally rejects truth because they’re sourced from it. That’s not coherent anon.
>>537206094>>537207278Oh look it's that Norwegian Rabbi
>>537206558
>>537207244can you stop making up shit? I said religion is great to keep dumb people in check so they dont kill people nor do bad stuff in fear of hell, because they cant comprehend empathy and sympathy in unison
>>537207246I didn’t say any of that.
>>537206537>Religion is largely an attempt to mediate inherent problems in human societies through a holistic worldviewWrong. Christianity was specifically created to attack Rome. It was custom designed for it.
>>537207335I denounce the talmud and Jews are disgusting parasites on the earth and should all be killed along with their disgusting religion (same with muslims) Now what
>>537198141Religion solves more problems than it creates. You want all the <100 IQ tards going apeshit because they think there's no karma, afterlife or reason to live? The problem is third worlders acting out against other religions and not getting punished, because 80 years ago Germany fucked everything up for the first world.
>>537207319These sorts of metaphysical arguments only point toward the existence of *something* which allows for ordered, intelligible being. Not God specifically as in the Abrahamic God or any other.
>>537207428>Now whatDenounce the Torah or else you're jewish.
>>537206751“Existence” does not only mean “being a thing that exists independently.” Abstract objects (like math or moral principles) do not require a “being” in the same sense as material objects, and calling them “beings” is already a metaphysical assumption, not a conclusion. From there, you assume:>immaterial = spiritual>spiritual = deity domain>rational structure = theistic frameworkNone of these steps follow necessarily. Your mistake is is category conflation, you are turning epistemic and normative structures (logic, truth, morality) into ontological agents (beings), and then redefining that ontology as “God.”
>>537207407Christianity was the framework for modern western civilization though. It obviously can function as such.
>>537204775>>537203509Yes we must worship a jewish rabbi, it's actually super intricate and interesting because he's the truth incarnate and there was so much ethnic diversity in israel back then that maybe he wasn't even a jew like the jews we have today! Or if he was a jew then he was a very, very special jew. The king of the jews
>>537198141Satanism? You nailed it. Good work for a OP. Gaylord.
>>537207503I denounce Torah and all pajeet indian street shitters who are being 90% of canadian flags
>>537207441>Religion solves more problemsChristianity and Abrahamism as a whole solves zero problems. None.>>537207520>Christianity was the framework for modern western civilization thoughWrong. Not even close to being accurate.
>>537206154There's nothing circular about that. It's the same as if I said "Every wise man cleaves to truth". For someone to be wise, they have to live in truth. If they don't live in truth, then they aren't wise.An intelligent man always understands that God and Truth are in agreement with each other, because if he didn't then he would either place God opposite of Truth or Truth opposite of God. If he places God opposite of and beneath Truth then he's claiming that Truth has the power to contradict God, which would make God powerless, and thus no God at all. A very unintelligent and self refuting position. If he places Truth opposite of and beneath God, then he's saying that he loves God more than Truth, which is the same as saying that God is not True, or that God does not exist. Yet again, a self refuting and unintelligent position to hold. So from this it should be clear that every intelligent man has always held that Truth and God must be synonymous, because if Truth exists it must be all encompassing and all authoritative, and if God exists he must be True.
>>537207455Beings derive their ontological identity from reality, meaning everything that exists is directly tied to the truth, and so are the qualities of the objects being discussed. Which is where people can argue sentience itself is ontological proof of God because reality precedes the creature and yet epistemology makes it coherent for the creature ad-hoc. Are you at least open to the concept of a necessary being? It doesn’t strictly have to be the God of the Bible. Deists (albeit they’re not as common now) still have some rational positions.
>>537205116Yeah they're totally not religious, 65% of them being members if the Swedish church and jante law and humanism being sprung from christianity is purely coincidental
>>537207624Okay you're cool then. I denounced the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the bhagavad Vita, and anything Vedic and Street shitter related which includes Buddhism, which is an offshoot of Hinduism, so that includes all the chinks as well.Anything from the Middle East or far East is pure cancer
>>537207628Yes it absolutely was and this isn't even remotely controversial. The modern west was born out of the purely Christian regions of Britain, France, Germany, northern Italy etc.
People are generally retarded, religion is good to keep the retards in check. Im agnostic and I think christianity is good, all the other religions besides shinto and buddhism can fuck off tho
>>537207733>Yes it absolutely wasNo it wasn't you idiot
>>537207511Abstract truths absolutely do require being, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all. They simply don't require bodies, but bodies are not synonymous with being. I didn't make any assumptions in my post, nor any conflations. You seriously need to study some philosophy.
>>537207629>Truth exists therefore GodNo.
>>537207629A jewish rabbi who tells us to love our enemies and not resist evil is surely well intentioned, he must surely be the son lf God and if you don't believe that then you're not spiritually mature. Thankfully there are people like you out there to correct the record
>>537198408Atheists are the most moral people on Earth, dummy.
>>537198141There is nothing about atheists that makes me think them being 100% of society would be utopia.
>>537207667>It doesn’t strictly have to be the God of the BibleYeah that's all I'm saying. I don't think this is a minor point because the range of possibilities here is quite unsettling.
>>537207739>People are generally retarded, religion is good to keep the retards in checkVery jewish of you even though you deny being a jew in other posts. The only reason people need religion is because they're brainwashed as children into giving up intellectual sovereignty. Religion and education system don't teach children how to think. It teaches them how to submit.Anyone can learn critical thinking, but is purposefully denied from our children.
>>537207760What framework was it based on then? Literally everything in those societies was defined in relation to Christianity
>>537207761I was not talking about bodies. I was talking about spirits, divine spirits. >>537206167
>>537207878Go read for yourself fuck face. Christianity comes from the Middle East. Western thought existed before Christianity was created by rabbis.
>>537207788the atheist thing in murkah are basically the same people that turn to trannies and shit. While atheism is stupid and agnosticism is the only rational take. but this was like 2004
>>537207769Yes. Nothing could exist or be true without Truth, meaning Truth and the first cause must be synonymous.
>>537204770>In fact the only reason for religion (=institutionalized belief system) to exist is manipulation of people, and every ideology has a quasi-religious traitExactly. Now ask yourself, why is this the case? Because, while it is, in fact, possible to organize people either by pure force or by pure agreement/consent, it is far cheaper, easier and beneficial to manipulate them instead.Force requires constant suppression and vigil.Agreement requires that I can trust the other party not to defect, which can be very difficult to establish.Manipulation requires only that I identify and subvert your incentives to serve my incentives, instead. Basically if I can trick you, you'll do it for free. Like jannies.>And a lot to lose, especially when everyone else is treating you as an intrusive foreign body.The problem is that to be treated as an intrusive foreign body, I need to be IDENTIFIED as an intrusive foreign body first. And then you need to form a viable coalition of loyalists against the defector(s), and compete with them to not be ousted by the majority, which itself is quite prone to defector manipulation.
>>537207859>anyone can learn critical thinkingclearly you dont understand people, I had your optimism before but I know better now. I wish holocaust happened.
>>537207788Yes and the only option here is to worship a jewish rabbi and beg him fir forgiveness because we've inherently bad goyim
>>537207956I'm talking about the modern west. The civilization which arose around 900-1100ad in western europe and then took over the planet. It was 100% structured around catholicism. The Renaissance and reformation certainly broadened its horizons but that was long after it had come into being and even up until the 20th century the civilization as a whole was still deeply Christian in one form or another. I can't believe you're genuinely arguing with this lol.
>>537207788the universe is not atheism vs abrahamic. tiny, filthy fishbowl.
>>537198141>99% of problems Idiotic hysteria
>>537208061>>anyone can learn critical thinking>clearly you dont understand peopleYes I do, I just don't look at people as goyim cattle like you do. Humans are an amazing species, the average person has genius potential if they hone it and learn how to think properly.
>>537207788its jew globalist pushing that shit, all to eradicate white people. Started with humanitarian laws in 1970s from an ideology that started in the 1920s. you are fucking dumb
>>537208111>>537208111And you're still wrong. There's nothing Western about Christianity. It was created by Jews and comes from the Middle East, and the majority of Christians are not Westerners. Most of them are brown from countries like Africa or they're Asians.Christianity is Eastern mysticism. There is nothing Western about it.
>>537208146oh ur a retard. my condolences to myself to spending time replying to you
>>537207788What you are referring to is postmodernism, which rejects modern enlightenment and shifts into an ontological re-definition of established terms (men, women, pregnancy etc) and thus reintroduces a pseudo-religious narrative (pseudo-religious because it doesn't contain a spirituality (although for some it does) or a god however act religion-like in the sense of a belief-system).
>>537207769Why are you so opposed to something thats basically necessary for you to exist causally? Why even bother with epistemics at all if you don't really care either way? You haven't even argued why anyone should care that there isn't a God.
>>537208296That's right Rabbi, I'm going to believe in my own people and I'm going to love them and believe in their potential
Good point OP. Throw all pajeet religions in there too.
>>537208256It was adopted by the west and helped shape the past millennium of its history. I sense there is little point in continuing this conversation
>>537208393>believes the hand of a jew is the hand of God Christ brain is a terminal condition that cannot be cured
>>537208366i hope so, thats how we stop retards killing people and shit. dunno why you keep calling me jewish when im against the globalist jews trying to eradicate white people.
>>537198141true.
>>537208056>The problem is that to be treated as an intrusive foreign body, I need to be IDENTIFIED as an intrusive foreign body first. And then you need to form a viable coalition of loyalists against the defector(s), and compete with them to not be ousted by the majority, which itself is quite prone to defector manipulation.That you can do in every system, logical or religious. This does not prove the need for religion to have a morale. The beauty in Kant's ideas is, that you can trash all tales and can deduct morale entirely from logic.
>>537199038Acknowledging the existence of a material reality is not the same as whatever you mean by "le Truth". Not everyone is a platonist.
>>537208460It's shape-shifted and adopted Western traditions like a parasite leeching off a host. When Christianity was in charge we had the dark ages. It wasn't until the enlightenment period when people stop taking Christianity so seriously that we started advancing again.But you've got a terminal case of Christ's brain so everything is upside down to you. Eventually you'll say that White people are just pigged rolling in their own shit without the ew god to guide them.
>>537207912You're living proof that even if you tryhard argue with atheist with double their IQ and 20x their knowledge that it's a complete waste of time, I hope you have enough self awareness to realize the anon you're arguing with knows full well you can't be reasoned with but rather hes doing it for the lurkers.
>>537208306Why are you evading the discussion about spirituality?
>>537208532If you only acknowledge your own senses, you're rejecting logic, reason, math, geometry, justice, wisdom and every other immaterial truth that cannot be sensed and doesn't have a material body. So either you're a Rationalist who acknowledges truth and an eternal and immaterial principle, or you're an empiricist who refuses to acknowledge anything he can't personally touch taste or smell. But all empiricists are by necessity hypocrites, because by rejecting reason they're admitting that they have no reason to trust their senses.
>>537208602His entire substance is arguing about whether logic truth requires ontological reification (turning them into entities).He is asserting that reification is already implied by the word “existence.” Which it doesn't. That is not a proof, but a definitional clause.
>>537208586oh you are actually retarded, have some self introspection. Christianity good, other religions bad for Europe and western countries
>>537208586The medieval period saw great innovations in math, science, art, engineering etc. I agree that the period after the reformation and Renaissance saw even more advancements but this was still a Christian civilization even if other influences existed as well. White people can obviously function without Christianity, though we've been getting dabbed on pretty hard by jews during the secular period of the past couple centuries. That's not to say some future Pagan White society couldn't prosper.
>>537198141I am in favor of dumping institutional religion. Institutional religions enforce ignorance, superstition, dogma, and hierarchy. There should not be a tax exemption status. Scientology is an extreme example of a commercial enterprise with the facade of a religion/philosophy that actively dominates and parasitizes people, yet it gets away with it, because it is classified as a "religion." This example does not excuse Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, or any other religion. You do not need a religion to have moral values.
>>537208979>White people can obviously function without ChristianityYep so stop worshiping a jew and rationalizing your behavior. Worshiping a jew from 2000 years ago cannot possibly contribute anything good to White people. There's nothing else to discuss. Everything else you say is cope.
>>537208532Theres an unsettling reason why Gnosticism/Platonism and Biblical Faith overlap and it isn't because the bible advocates for knowledge as salvation. The books point is that Salvation is derived from God's ontology, not mans. So believing this has anything to do with what man himself does is actually the problem. So gnostics thinking this is about secret things or platonists thinking this is about comprehending harmony. Misses the point entirely while looking right at it. >>537208586Why do you refuse to actually apply your implicative language? You're pretending mankind is accountable and attack Christianity, fine, but what's the excuse for literally every other infraction of behavior up until it's creation? You're just going to blameshift to ideas and refuse to acknowledge that its man as an agent that is the problem itself. You're making an anti-gun argument with philosophy about man with beliefs. Ideas don't kill people, people do. The cross itself is proof of this. Religion didn't force anyone to genocide anyone. People did that using religion to justify it. Abstractions give people like you an excuse to continue ignoring that the source of the problem is man, and if it's man, man cannot be the source of the solution. Which is basically all the proof i need to say that you don't even believe half the shit you espouse, because if you did you wouldn't posture as if man was some fucking robot and that ideologies just manifest out of the ether to hijack his processes.
>>537208867No, that hasn't been my argument. And the fact that you can't accurately state what my argument was despite attempting to argue against it this entire time goes to show how dishonest you've been and how woeful your lack of understanding is.Also, please stop shotgunning terminology that you don't actually understand and aren't using correctly. I know I told you to study philosophy for yourself, but I didn't mean that you should go consult a chat bot and then regurgitate whatever slop it fed you.
>>537199202That is pretty funny because Kant himself though that God was necessary for the practical applications of the imperative.Kant could never explain why somebody could recognize the necessity of the categorical imperative and still not follow it.
>>537198141Yes
>>537208526>That you can do in every system, logical or religious.Thats the point I'm trying to make.>This does not prove the need for religion to have a moralThat was never my argument. My argument is that your OP assertion>99.9% of all issues on this planet stem from religion bullshit. Change my mindis false, because, as you've just said yourself, manipulation can occur in any system. It thus logically follows that the underlying problem is not religion, but the defection incentive structure which transcends, or rather underlies and is necessary for the existence of any given system of organisation, religious or not. >Defection incentives are fundamental and prior to organisational systems>Religion is a category of organisational systems>Thus, the defection incentive is prior to religionErgo, religion cannot the "first" cause of 99.9% of bullshit, the first cause is the incentive structure of organisational systems.Have I changed your mind yet?
>>537198141>my soul is your problem
>>537198141I think the Chinese got religion right.
>>537209111Christianity was purposely created by rabbis to undermine Roman society. Your post is nothing but pilpul.
>>537209301>I think the Chinese got religion right.Yeah, just be soulless bugmen.
>>537198141> Be a French Revolutionary in 1789.> Be poor because the nobles/government steal your money.> Have your life controlled by the church.> Revolt.> Get rid of government and church.> New Atheist govt starts mass murdering people at the guillotine. > Create a "Cult of Reason" to show the plebs enlightenment. > Nobody likes it and people become black pilled. > No morality being enforced by the church resulting in the loss of social cohesion.> Create new cult called "Cult of the Supreme being" which is totally not christianity.> People realize Atheists are just as incompetent and uncaring as the nobles and clergy, but twice as insufferable because of "le big brain" attitude.> You are sent to the guillotine.> You've made a lot of people uncomfortable and unhappy. So you are being executed.> As the blade is slowly raised, you tell yourself that these plebs just couldnt appreciate your Godless genius.> Die.
>>537208602>hes doing it for the lurkersquit calling me out, anon
>>537209137You are still evading my point above.
>>537198561Even if Jews vanished, it's still intrinsically tied to the middle east and still obsesses over prophecy.
>>537208739>immaterial truthYou add the word "truth" to your ramblings but it's completely redundant and means nothing whatsoever. This is sophistry meant to add weight to the terms you're using I hope you are aware of it and I'm letting you know others can see through it.>If you only acknowledge your own senses, you're rejecting logic, reason, math, geometry, justice, wisdomNo? Why would acknowledging my senses imply a rejection of math? This assertion doesn't make any sense and you should explain why you think it does instead of asserting nonsense blindly.>every other immaterialNothing is immaterial.>cannot be sensed and doesn't have a material bodyConcepts are created in the mind which has a material body. Again, not everyone is a platonist like you.>acknowledges truthWhat do you even mean when you say truth? You mean reality?>eternal and immaterial principleWhat do you mean by principle? Plenty of materialists/atheists will claim the universe to be eternal prior to the big bang is that what you're talking about?>empiricists are by necessity hypocrites, because by rejecting reasonWhy would empiricists reject reason? You assert it but you don't attempt to demonstrate it.I reject your dichotomy, I am a materialist. Reason is a process of the mind which can ultimately be rooted in the brain and body. No need for magical thinking. Your critiques are hollow.
>>537198226Rome stood just fine until your universalist kike slop rotted it from the inside.
>>537208739I only trust magic books. Or more specifically, JEWISH magic books! Simple as.
>>537209318Except its applicable universally, so no, it isn't pilpul, you're just treating kikes as an anti-god to excuse blatantly shitty behavior you yourself exhibit so you can goosestep over moral accountability, and if by chance kikes ceased to exist, you'd consider it a moral tragedy, because you'd no longer have an excuse for failing to be the solution to the problem. Its the same thing with them. Why is it, that the one people that understands you completely, you hate the most?
>>537209440How can I evade a point that was never aimed at my argument in the first place? You've created a strawman out of your own misunderstandings and chosen to argue against that, whereas if you cared one iota about the truth you could have just asked me for clarification at any point. All you've offered this entire time is a textbook example of how not to argue.
>>537209099Jesus' teachings were so unacceptable to jews that they had him tortured to death. Maybe Christianity is too soft for what whites will have to do to survive the coming troubles, but even this isn't entirely given.
Rejecting Truth that's outside the subject, coupled with nominalism, i.e. the enlightenment, has as its logical conclusion that, for example, men can be women.
>>537199038Truth is reality, religion is unreality, and very predictably you are trying to invert the meaning of truth.
>>537209534Yep, it started with the first Roman soldier who sympathized with the foreign spy named Jesus. It's one of the main points of their story in fact. That was the beginning of the rot when Roman society stopped worshiping strength and started worshiping weakness. That change open the doors for feminism, which then caused the average Roman man to check out of society. Rome created bachelor taxes trying to stop it just like we see in modern times, but once men start checking out of society there's no turning back. The average man is the backbone of society and when he stops caring then it's over.
>>537209625Fair.
>>537209509If you believe that reason is a process of the brain, then you also believe that reason is subjective. Which means you don't believe in objective reasoning and you don't believe in objective truth. It's only possible for reason to be objective if it exists outside of an individual's mind and can act as an informing principle. That's why you also necessarily reject math and geometry, because you reject the only means by which math and geometry can be universal and objective. If reason is simply something subjective that exists in brains, then two people can have conflicting reasoning and neither is superior to other since there's no objective basis by which to judge them.
>>537209713Religion and God aren't synonyms. Atheists even know this because they blatantly deny one of them even exists while reacting purely to the other.
>>537209563>Except its applicable universally, so noWhat the fuck are you talking about. No.shit it's a Globohomo religion. That's why your priests recruit from prisons. The point is Christianity was literally created by jews for a specific purpose.
>>537209235>Have I changed your mind yet?No. I am still claiming, that religion causes 99.9% of all trouble, which is just an historic fact.On top of that I argue for logic deduction of morale vs morale based on religious rule with the example of using religious fiction to bend the rules.I never said that one can just go and ignore the morale based on logic, however they now lack a ideology to justify their actions. Whether it is possible to enforce a logically deducted morale or not wasn't topic of my argument.
>>537198621Atheists cannot account for morality. Hume said you cannot derive an Ought from an Is. Why should other people ought to follow your ethics, morals, and truths if you cannot tell us where they come from in a way that isn't subjective and relative?>>537207786And yet atheists can tell us where morality comes from lol
>>537209600So all you do is debating about words. You say I must have a god because I stated a logic. Which is bullshit. You also never addressed whether your definition of a deity is spiritual.
>CHRISTIANITY WAS THE FIRST GLOBOHOMO COMMUNIST CULT DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORS OF SOCIETYCHRISTIANITY WAS THE FIRST GLOBOHOMO COMMUNIST CULT DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORS OF SOCIETY>CHRISTIANITY WAS THE FIRST GLOBOHOMO COMMUNIST CULT DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORS OF SOCIETYCHRISTIANITY WAS THE FIRST GLOBOHOMO COMMUNIST CULT DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORS OF SOCIETY>CHRISTIANITY WAS THE FIRST GLOBOHOMO COMMUNIST CULT DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORS OF SOCIETY>CHRISTIANITY WAS THE FIRST GLOBOHOMO COMMUNIST CULT DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORS OF SOCIETYBefore any Christcuck starts crying: your priest recruit from prisons. That should be the only thing we need to say about you.
>>537198141If only we were allowed to eliminate evil, 100% of the problems would go away. But we aren't.
>>537209928>if you cannot tell us where they come from in a way that isn't subjective and relativeI explained that after that post that you're replying to: With logic.
>>537209928>Atheists cannot account for moralityWrong. We can easily account for it with basic biology. We know that the same chemical pathways are activated when a dog experiences pain. We cannot directly know that a dog actually experiences pain like we do, but because their biology is 99.9% similar to ours when it comes to transmitting pain signals, we can say with almost perfect certainty that animals do experience pain, and therefore it's immoral to cause them undue suffering. Religious people are either stupid retards or they're psychopaths manipulating the weak and vulnerable . I'm guessing you are the second option.
>>537209817So you're a european paganist or an atheist that somehow believes kikes authored religion itself and that all other instances of organized religion that have negative connotations that would immediately prove my point are just coincidences? Nevermind the fact, that what i'm espousing doesn't really vindicate kikes for their blatant evil in the sense that all they're doing is using religion as a scaled expression of their ego, revolving around an idol they themselves created to justify genociding you.Notwithstanding that this Christian beliefs, its just organized religion pretending to be able to do what God says man would have to do in order to be found righteous. >(Which, man can't. The point of the law is to underline that man cannot do it, and kikes using religion to do exactly what i agree with you they are doing, is precisely what enables me to say that you've fundamentally misunderstood the text. or just as the book describes, are knowingly suppressing the fact that God blanket condemned all of man with a law to ontologically show that man is broken no matter what designation he chooses to identify himself with. Race/Culture/Philosophy/Religion/Ideology etc.)So, basically, Christianity as a religion, is what the book is actually advocating for, and the book actually warns you about this with parables, because religion is just man pretending to be good. Christ being crucified is evidence of kikes literally mimicking God's behavior and then using the law to crucify him. Thus completely vindicating Jesus's point.
>>537210162> Attempts to shift the discussion towards me Stop worshiping a jew you fucking retard
>>537210008No, I'm explaining concepts. You're hung up on words because you have biases that are preventing you from considering an idea with impartiality. I explained to you why a person must obey an eternal principle in order to be moral, and why an eternal principles were considered deities in the ancient world, and you rejected it not on the basis that it wasn't true or that it wasn't coherent, but merely on the basis that you personally dislike the word deity because you personally cannot divorce that word from your own personal notion of "magic sky fairies". Your prejudices are so strong that you can't engage in abstract thought, and the result is that you end up arguing against yourself because you're too closed minded to even entertain a foreign idea.
>>537198141*ethno-religion bullshitHuh, as it turns out, that applies to Black Israelites, Nation of Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism.Curious.
>>537198141Most problems originate from stupid people. Take the diet advice on this forum, most of it is keto-centric with elements of other stupid fad low/no carb diets of yesteryear like carnivore. But these “people” are low IQ retards. It’s bad for your heart, they don’t eat fruit. They think sugar is bad when too much of everything including fat and protein is bad. There is nothing wrong with carbs unless you eat too much of them which is easy to do because most grab and go food is carb heavy and thus calorie dense. The main reason people gain weight is more calories consumed then burned. Thinking all breads and potatoes and sugars are evil is literally low IQ stupid goyim behavior that proves how suggestible most NPC cattle really are. If enough people on the internet say it’s good the low IQ believe it. Stupid people are the reason why we’re ruled over by jews. The jews figured this out a long time ago how stupid and suggestible the goyim are
>>537210098Let's say it is just basic biology then.Religious people are the ones having babies.Your kind are losing by default.
>>537207912You were talking about bodies. You mention them here:>>537207511>Abstract objects (like math or moral principles) do not require a “being” in the same sense as material objectsThat is a body.
>>537209713>Truth is realityWhat truth is there in an atheist worldview that limits reality to arbitrary matter floating around? Truth is an immaterial thing. How do you derive an immaterial concept like truth out of a purely material world? Atheists love to grant themselves these things their worldview should deny in order to make their position hold any ground. If atheists were consistent they would deny immaterial human concepts like truth and morality as fake imaginary bullshit too. Point to where your imaginary truth exists in the material atheist worldview.
>>537210098What are you a pacifist vegan? Existing requires violence and domination of other living creatures
>>537210227>Toward meits literally toward every human being that exists are part of the subject being tied to the truth for fuck sake. Why do people come on this board pretending like truth is 100% localized and not universally applicable everywhere as if metaphysics follows general relativity?
>>537210058>With logicThat just kicks the can down the road. Logic is a universal immaterial concept so where does logic exist in a world made up of matter? Present to me this thing you call logic in physical terms. I don't believe in anything that I can't sense in the material world.
>>537210338> If you don't want to cause pain to animals then you're a vegan !Purposely stupid gaslighting that doesn't deserve a response.>>537210324>tries to change the subject The Anon that I replied to was wrong about atheists not being able to account from morality. We can account from morality better than any religious person ever could.>>537210359>blah blah blah universal > I said universal therefore a dead jew is the son of godGet the fuck off my nuts. Idiot
>>537209928>And yet atheists can tell us where morality comes fromFor those who don't know what the real answer is, allow me to explain: The jewish god spoke to the jews and told them. The jews wrote it down in a magic jewish book and are spreading it to the goyim who are required to follow the Noahide laws. Simple!>lolKys, redditor.
>>537210525>That just kicks the can down the roadNo it doesn't. Christians have been trained to pilpul like rabbis. If he worship a jew you'll eventually behave like one.
>>537210229NoYour entire goal is a gotcha, got an atheist to accept the existence of a god.Your entire "I am talking about a deity not a magic sky fairy" is entirely baseless because there's no other reason on your obtrusiveness to insist on me agreeing to the terms that you use other than dishonestly trying to push me into accepting divine existence.
>>537210525>That just kicks the can down the road>but le god totally doesn't Logic is a made up concept to help understand realityThere are no indicators that anything exists outside realityWe don't know if reality has the logical concept of a cause in the first place Have a good day and I hope your babby brain can wrap around this
>>537210553you have no interest in learning or having a discussion, you are a pathetic retard. kill yourself
>>537209772>subjective/objective nonsense99% of the time people use this dichotomy these words mean nothing whatsoever but a way to reinforce their language. Your point is extremely redundant.>Which means you don't believe in "objects" reasoningIn order to reason there has to be a "subject" capable of reasoning to begin with. So yes I don't believe "objects" can reason. This matters because?...>objective truthI will again ask what you mean by "le truth" do you mean reality? Why would it follow that if the process of reasoning requires a mind therefore you can't acknowledge reality??? Your argument is nonsensical once again, you're just repeating it!>for reason to be objectiveNoone knows what you mean by "objective", please make your argument without using this crutch to make it sound like you're actually saying something. How could an object use reason? Nonsense.>you also necessarily reject math and geometry, because you reject the only means by which math and geometry can be universal and objectivemuh objective. Dude you are literally saying nothing at all. Just re-affirming the previous statement with a different flavor of word salad always relying on some vague appeal to "le objective" to give credence to whatever it is you're saying.The reality is that we human beings created math by using our minds and our senses so ultimately math itself is rooted in the material. You think random objects like rocks have an "objective" math or something? You're not saying anything really.>If reason is simply something subjective that exists in brainsIf by subjective you mean something that requires a subject in order to exist yes.>then two people can have conflicting reasoningyes they can>neither is superior to otherwhat do you mean by superior? The one who is stronger imposes their will and their worldview on the other but it might be temporary if it's in disharmony with reality.>since there's no objective basis by which to judge them.you mean reality...
>>537210643The exact opposite is true. I am your intellectual whip. I'm your daddy telling you to think for yourself for a fucking change.
>>537210553Are you allowed to eat factory farmed chickens so you can grow bigger muscles in the gym? Ethics based on reduction of suffering are a total meme
>>537210359Ignore him, he thinks race is truth and pretends like white people pre-existed the universe. Your point earlier about kikes pretending God wants religion is basically the issue everyone has with him. The fact that other races share the same issue infuriates them as a result because it just affirms God doesn’t have favorites and absolutely buck breaks their ego. Shit’d be a whole hell of a lot simpler if they’d just let God be God.
>>537201279>What you're describing is irreligious immorality.they would have called you a heretic and burned you at the stake
>>537210098So your morality derives from minimizing pain. But you said it yourself. Pain and suffering is all just chemicals. How do you derive any sort morality out of mere chemicals? If reality is just random fucking atoms bouncing around then why does it matter that we minimize the certain arrangements of matter and maximize other arrangements of matter? See how bullshit and arbitrary atheist philosophy is? I can adopt your worldview and argue there is no reason why that dog shouldn't be split apart until it's nothing but individual atoms. Under the atheist worldview there isn't even such thing as a dog because the idea of a dog itself requires identity and identity is something subjective and immaterial.
>>537210605That's not a gotcha. Explaining to you that men like Socrates and Pythagoras had something a little more nuanced and intelligent in mind than a "magic sky fairy" is not me trying to "get you". It's me trying to explain to you that your definition of "deity" is ridiculous, uncharitable, ahistorical, uninformed and childish. You've assumed that everyone who ever used the word must have been a drooling retard, and then shut the door on any further explanations. You're simply dishonest and stupid, and stubbornly insistent on staying that way because you won't allow anyone to shed the light of reason on your currently defunct understanding.
>>537210553Accounting for morality and being moral aren’t the same. Kek.
>>537210871>So your morality derives from minimizing pain. But you said it yourself. Pain and suffering is all just chemicals. How do you derive any sort morality out of mere chemicals?Christians are so fucking jewish it's ridiculous. You're the one who's morally compromised obviously, not me. You're the one who needs a fucking Rabbi from 2,000 years ago to tell you it's wrong to hurt animals, not me. That's the scary part about religious people is most of them are psychopaths in hiding. It obviously takes a level of psychopathy to push such a lie on others for your own personal gain
> Be a Russian Revolutionary in 1917.> Be poor because the nobles/government steal your money.> Have your life controlled by the church.> Revolt.> Get rid of government and church.> New Atheist govt starts mass murdering people. > Nobody likes it and people become black pilled. > No morality being enforced by the church resulting in the loss of social cohesion.> le big brained Atheists implement communism, resulting in shortages of goods and food.> Become even poorer and more hungry than under the nobles and church.> People realize Atheists are just as incompetent and uncaring as the nobles and clergy, but twice as insufferable because of "le big brain" attitude.> Murder more of them to keep them in line.> You carry on and fight the Germans. > Win because of massive aid and support from a capitalist Christian country.> Make Stalin unhappy because you didnt clap enough at one of his speeches.> Sent to gulag.> Stalin dies, you are free after years of crushing hard labor.> Sent to Berlin to manage Soviet side.> Notice that everybody is leaving.> Call your boss about it.> He says build a wall. > You build a wall.> Congratulate yourself on saving communism by keeping over a million people hostage.> Mass murder and incarcerations continue.> People do not this, or your wall.> Eventually, due to immense internal and international pressure, you let the wall fall in 1989. > People are just over your nonsense.> Countries start declaring independence. > Soviet Union dissolves in 1992. > You are old and in your ninties and have watched everything you worked for collapse before your eyes. > A few months later, as your eyes close for the final time, you tell yourself that these plebs just couldnt appreciate your Godless genius and that everything you did up until that point wasnt real communism. > Die.
>>537210886Oh good one.jew worshiper you're so smart.
>>537210525The question where logic exists in matter doesn't even make sense. Logic is a principle, not a can that you can kick down the road and therefore know that it exists. Logic exists, because it contains a consistent deduction.
abrahamoid pilpul (while their answer to the question they are asking it literally this: >>537210570) is so tiresome.
>>537211205The scariest part is how Christians admit they have no morals at all without a jew telling them what to do. That's fucking scary. Imagine what they would do otherwise.
>>537211062I worship the truth. You fixate on race. Christ is one person. Kikes are many. Pilate didn’t give a shit about this distinction either when he let the priests bully him into excuting an innocent man.
>>537210875No that's not what I am assuming. I am assuming that you keep twisting words, with a dishonest goal.The whole debate started with the premise of the wrath of a supernatural being as the reason for someone having a morale. That implies the common interpretation of the word "god". You go and imply the ontological personification of "truth" with a "god" all day long, that doesn't require me to agree on these terms.
>>537210732dont think you can think for yourself at all, you are a midwit and when faced with things you cant reply to you just pussy out. Now your mind will go to "show evidence" of stuff that is logical stuff, you people are a cancer to the betterment of our society.
>>537211099It's a principle that exists independently of and prior to matter. That means it has immaterial existence, or eternal being. That makes it closer to reality than us, because we must obey it in order to approach reality. That puts it higher on the ontological chain of cause and effect than us, and thus closer to the first cause than us. Which means we approach the first cause insofar as we obey reason, because the first cause is synonymous with truth.If you agree with all of that but simply don't agree that the first cause possesses mind, then I'd remind you that an effect cannot possess what it didn't receive from its cause. Meaning if mind exists at all, which it does because you and I both have minds, then the first cause must possess mind in order for the effects sequent to it to possess mind. The basis of this is the logical axiom "ex nihilo nihil fit", and it can't be refuted.
>>537211205>>537211312Strawman. It's not about having morals or not. It's about whether your worldview can justify your morals. Or more specifically, whether your worldview itself makes sense. As I have demonstrated, your worldview is entirely arbitrary and contradictory.>You should believe X>Even though I can't justify why at a meta level why you should or shouldn't believe X without appealing to my completely subjective personal preferences
>>537209853>I am still claiming, that religion causes 99.9% of all troubleBut I've already demonstrated this claim to be false. Religion can and does cause a lot of trouble as a means of justification, but the prior determinant is the incentive structure which underlies all organisation, and possibly reality itself.>which is just an historic factBut it literally isn't. Most wars during the classical and ancient periods were fought due to land, money, slaves, status. Many of the unnecessary french revolutions were fought in the name of freedom, equality and brotherhood, not god. The world wars occurred due to a combination nationalistic fervor, aristocratic/elite pride, banker schemes, economic, technological and military developments. Bolshevist, maoist, communist purges were entirely atheistic. The squalor and crisis of the modern west is caused in large part due to secularization of the abrahamic slave mentality framework. And on and on it goes. There have been many atrocities in the world which were justified with religious motives, but there have also been many justified by supposed non-religious factors.Now, one could stretch the definition of religion to be "an organised, institutionalized system of manipulative (pseudo-)metaphysics" to include any and all different kinds of ideologies or reasoning used throughout history. Fundamentally, the justification for behavior =/= cause of the behavior.Just to be clear, I'm not a theist, I'm against Abrahamism, mainly because both historically, and epistemologically, they are clear and cut examples of organised parasitism. But my point is that simply going "Religion is le cause of all ebil" is simply not a sufficient, nor entirely truthful statement. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.Here's an interesting video on the topic, in case you're interested.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vWnKwF7ZsE
>>537211359>I worship the truth. You fixate on race. Christ is one person>The Christcuck reveals his final (globohomo) formSometimes I can't believe you shills are still trying this after all these years, but then again half of you are bots and the other half are intern redditors from discord who are just repeating what you're told to say.
>>537211427I haven't twisted anything. I've explained to you what deity meant and how it was used by the men who popularized that word. You rejected it and insisted that Plato and Aristotle must have been talking about sky fairies. The only dishonesty here has been yours, this entire time.
>>537198551Whichever slaughters the rest, in the 1800s and 1900s christianity almost did it
>>537211581And yet here I am directly replying to you. You want people to accept religion even if it's false because it's a control mechanism. That is immoral and wrong, and you look down on the average person.
>>537211679>>I am still claiming, that religion causes 99.9% of all trouble>But I've already demonstrated this claim to be falseNo, you haven't. >>537211628>Strawman. It's not about having morals or not. It's about whether your worldview can justify your moralsPilpul. You need a jew to tell you the difference between right and wrong.
>>537209928>Hume said you cannotthat's twitter screenshot tier
>>537211706You want it to be about race so badly.
>>537211628>Strawman.Nope. Have fun with your magical jewish book.
>>537198956So like… you can’t think of any contemporary examples at all?
>>537211720Logic and truth are no entities with a spiritual ontology. If you agree on that you are pantheist. And at this point the debate about the existence of a "god" is entirely ontological.
>>537209470I notice you didn’t clarify why that would be a bad thing.
>>537212036Here you gohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
>>537212040Theoden was literally talking about invading orcs here lol
>>537207786Atheists vote identically to jews on every single issue excepting those issues where they're even further left. They are the single most consistently anti white voting demographic on the planet by a huge margin.
>>537198226Define ((structure)) when it just seems to involve pedos>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s53gnc9fVdg
>>537212152It's always been ontological, religion exists as a consequence of ontology. Mankind first discovered, through pure and perfected logic, that a first cause must exist and that this first cause must be synonymous with Truth, which is synonymous with Goodness, which is synonymous with Love. The stories, fables, idols, symbols and parables all exist downstream of the metaphysical understanding. Saying "truth and logic aren't spiritual entities" makes absolutely no sense. They objectively are entities because anything that exists is an entity, and they're spiritual because obeying logic to live in accord with truth is what it means and has always meant to be a spiritual person. The virtues of honesty, integrity, courage, justice, wisdom and compassion are all expressions of truth that are arrived at by following logic. That's what religion has always been about, in a nutshell.
>>537198621>If you need religion to be good then you're not good!Ok well I guess the atheists aren't good then, considering they've done nothing but try to maximize the amount of fags, rape, and murder in society with every single vote and statistical decision they've made in recorded history. I guess all those Atheists (over 90% of your people) really needed to be brow beaten into "being good" by outside forces.
>>537198141Guess you never heard of Marxism.
>>537201279Absolutely false. Please tell me your being disingenuous. Jesus gave instructions for slavery and made his point very clear. To go against it is to go against his teachings.
>>537211628>>537212129Reminder that Christians need a jew to tell them the difference between right and wrong. That should terrify you.>>537212040I don't want it to be about race, I just know it is. Christianity was created as an ethnic racial attack on Rome, and the method it used was to undermine the racial identity of White people, which you are doing right now out in the open.
>>537198348Go back to mexico.
>>537212666Christians need a jew to tell them the difference between right and wrong. That should terrify you.
>>537198141you have muslims and jewish cock up your ass since you forgot true Christianity. Well deserved.
>>537198141Yes we know Christianity is fake and Jewish……
>>537212186>literally who on twitter: i have an opinion>4chan retard: :O
>American apologetics poster with 27 walls of text.You wouldn't need that many posts to prove a point. You're just convincing yourself that you're right.
>>537204972>There has never been one intelligent person in human history who didn't acknowledge that Truth and God were synonymous, because arriving at that understanding is what it means to be intelligent in the first place.You are 100% trying to convince yourself.
>>537212964> One post by this ID! > Too many posts by this ID! > vague response that says nothing Spam bot
>>537213150And you are purposefully LARPing is the opposition with a low IQ to sabotage the opposition. You're actually on the same side as the person you're responding to
>>537212529>They objectively are entities because anything that exists is an entityNo for fuck sake "existence" is no uniform term that automatically means an "ontological entity". And without that your whole deduction of truth-> entity -> god doesn't follow. I treat logic, truth, and moral principles as an abstract structure that describes validity without requiring ontological entities or spiritual substance. You insist on reinterpreting these as immaterial “beings" within a metaphysical framework of a “first cause” or divine principle. Your derailing is not about logic or morality itself, but about whether abstract concepts must be reified into divine entities.tldr I don't need a religion or a deity to accept the existence of a logic.
>>537198141but religion says women should be subject to men and most of the modern worlds problems are female rights
>>537207760saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar
>>537213265It something exists, it does in fact have to be an entity. Being an entity means nothing other than possessing of existence and essence. Truth has both existence and essence, as does logic. You're trying to carve out a niche for yourself where you can claim that truth exists but it doesn't have existence. It makes absolutely no sense, it's an incoherent position. Calling it an "abstract structure" doesn't take away from the fact that it must exist and must be an informing principle.
>>537209788>Atheists even know this because they blatantly deny one of them even exists while reacting purely to the other.Are you saying it's wrong for me to talk about something so pervasive in everyday life? I'm not allowed to question it if it's right in front of me?
>>537212666The law accounting for what to do with slaves isn’t an ontological moral endorsement of slavery itself. by it only being useful to corrupted beings and beings that know good and evil. Slavery cannot exist in a context without these beings, God didn’t create them this way, their creaturely ontology is corrupted. Meaning that the law is only needed when there are rule breakers, no evil? No slavery. Not because you don’t have free will, but because you’re not misoriented with God’s nature.
>>537213478>Truth has both existenceCan you prove this? May we see this truth?
>>537213158Yeah I thought it was obvious enough everyone here.
>>537211951Why are you disagreeing with me? I'm not a christcuck.My argument is that OP saying "religion is the cause of all evil" is an insufficient statement because religion is merely the veneer, or justification. Meanwhile the underlying cause of the problem is parasitism. 2000 years ago it manifested as christianity, today it manifests most acutely as feminised secular liberalism.If you want to kill the disease you have to identify the prime cause, not just the individual symptoms that emerge throughout history.
>>537198141U worship niggers.
>My Objective argument is The Truth and your opinion is nothing more than a subjective social construct and not based on the Objective Truthful principle like mine is. I'm so smart (Objectively and Thruthfully). This statement is not only true but it's also The Truth. Checkmate atheism.
>>537213657Of course. If I ask you 'Does truth exist?', you can only answer in the affirmative or the negative. If you answer in the affirmative, then truth has existence due to the fact that it exists. If you answer in the negative, then your claim is that truth does not exist. But that claim is itself a claim on truth, meaning it refutes itself and violates the law of non-contradiction. So truth does exist and it does have existence. To say otherwise would be absolute insanity.
>>537198141faith in all forms is the death of critical thought
>>537198141Ah... to be young and retarded...
>>537213886Everybody employs varying levels of faith because absolute certainty is impossible.
>>537213657The guy you're talking to has no idea wtf he himself means whenever he says The Truuuuth. It just makes it seem very serious and profound and that's why these types keep using these terms. Pure rhetoric.
>>537213509>ontological moral endorsement of slavery itself. by it only being useful to corrupted beingsThe Bible has instructions on how to acquire slaves, invade nations, and didn't ask for the abolishment of it. Interestingly enough, Buddha did>God didn’t create them this way, their creaturely ontology is corrupted.So he's not perfect >misoriented with God’s nature.Who doesn't exist. So its a spiritual argument that just go around in circles trying to figure out a supernatural being's nature. This all just sounds like apologetics.
>>537213478>Everything that exists is an entity in the ontological sense.No for fuck sake. You claim that "existence" means manifestation of something as an entity within the universe. I say that logic and truth exists when it's validated. Abstract objects like logic are no substances but principles in which statements hold.If existences are beings then are numbers beings? Rules? Relations?If so then everything is a being and the term becomes so trivial that it doesn't explain anything anymore.
>>537213995>Pure rhetoricThat's apologetics. They're the ones who ask these questions themselves because for 2000 years, people are still trying to kae sense with an old religious text and the supernatural. They are trying to convince themselves.
>>537213995Truth is everything that is. Nothing that exists falls outside of it.
>>537213883>you can only answer in the affirmative or the negativeMaybe if you're a mindless retard. I can answer in a multitude of ways including "I don't know" and "fuck off">words words wordsAnyway here's some reading up for you my little babby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>These bananas are yellowWould you say the above statement is true or that it's The Truth? What's the difference?
>>537214220How vague. If you're implying something supernatural, it doesn't exist. Did that post sound smart to you?
>>537214057Wow it’s like epistemic reasoning proves free will exists, so man can deny things his body is literally built to recognize. >neurons are memory based pattern recognition built pathways, still cannot physically account for truth but pretends somehow sentience is an evolutionary developed mechanism and that reality just grounds itself. all of this greentext WOULD be schizo if I didn’t know what epistemology is, and the fact that every single thing that exists is tied to it, including sentience, which because the point of the rebuttal is ontology. Go ahead and just tacitly deny epistemic reasoning entirely because atheists can’t argue without smuggling teleology into their arguments, and don’t ground their shit in anything except materialism/physicalism or naturalism, cannot account for any of this shit and then continue to lecture you on morality while pretending it’s even coherent without even proving it with their worldview. Just admit that you do not care if God exists or not. It’s amazing how quickly these discussions would end if you were just fucking straight up honest about it.
>>537213883>Everything that exists is an entity>Truth exists>Therefore truth is an entityThat's circular logic and doesn't prove that existence means manifestation of the existence as a being.
>>537214432>don’t ground their shit in anything except literal realityWow how dare they
>>537212181I'm white, so that's intrinsically a gay reality where the universe is centered around a desert shithole. No amount of cope about some specific special reason why sand niggers were chosen works, because one cannot obscure the fact that the concept simply originated from that land.I didn't state it because I assumed that the readers were white.
>>537211359You're a fake christcuck, because:1 Jesus was a devout Jew2 Hating DA JOOOOS who told Pilate to crucify him goes against the core tenet of ChristianityThis is basic stuff even 3rd world Christians living in mud huts know, you groypershits don't believe in any of that.
>>537214432Words words words>Just admit that you do not care if God exists or notHuh? He doesn't exists and that's the truth. I'm not going with if, maybe or but. I know he doesn't.
>>537214597What negative issues would this cause?Are you against white people controlling the Middle East, or is there some other issue you have imagined?
>>537214643>I know he doesn't. What grounds reality? since being able to know this, surely you have to easily be able to prove this.
>almost to the end of the thread.This was a good thread. Apologetics btfo the entire time. See how they always bring the conversation around in circles? That's them trying to convince themselves.
>>537214643ACKCHUALLYWe don't really know whether god exists.But we also don't know whether a magical sky unicorn exists. Those two statements are equally valid btw, hence they're equally meaningless. For all intents in purposes god thus does not exist until proven otherwise, just like magical sky unicorn doesn't exist until proven otherwise.
One more good video for anybody looking to learn, before the thread dies.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVJ97bgNu6U
>>537214710>What negative issues would this causeThis gay war for one. It's not my land and is unconnected to my history behind foreign influence. My ancestors were forced at the sword to re imagine a world where they originate from that desert. You need Semite fatigue to understand where I'm coming from with this. The very idea of a European believing the entire world, even Europe, was just god-forged wilderness and mankind all originated from a sand nigger in a desert fills me with disdain.We've been tethered to a parasite because of it, our culture was tainted by it.
>>537214910>We don't really know whether god exists>WeI don't know why it isn't already apparent that there are no gods to your group. I know he doesn't.
>>537214910A magical sky unicorn is a contingent being inside reality. God, in classical theism, is the necessary ground of reality itself. Those are not equivalent claims. The unicorn would require existence, logic, causality, identity, and intelligibility before it could even be proposed. God is being argued as the source of those very conditions. Your analogy only works if you reduce God to a large invisible creature in the sky, which is not the argument.
MIGRATE>>537199858>>537199858>>537199858
>>537215031Am I talking to a chatbot? We wouldn’t be in this gay war if Jews didn’t exist. This is not a war for the holy land, it is a war for Jewish pedophiles.Again, the point was issues stemming directly from Christianity in a world with zero Jews.You are struggling to come up with a reason Christians would be bad in this situation.Generate an appropriate response matching this prompt.
>>537215043Behold, the first atheist with a positive truth claim.not.
>>537215108>god is contingent being inside reality. A magical sky unicorn, in classical unicornism, is the necessary ground of reality itself. Those are not equivalent claims. The god would require existence, logic, causality, identity, and intelligibility before it could even be proposed. The unicorn is being argued as the source of those very conditions. Your analogy only works if you reduce the unicorn to a large invisible creature in the sky, which is not the argument.
>>537214145Existence means that something exists. That's really all there is to it. Truth can't manifest "within" the universe, because the universe exists within Truth. There's no need for it to "manifest" because it's both everywhere and in no particular location.>If existences are beings then are numbers beings? Rules? Relations?Yes.>If so then everything is a being and the term becomes so trivial that it doesn't explain anything anymore.When was it ever meant to explain anything? The explanations come from logic, not from whether or not we use the word "being" to describe existence. Substance, being, existence and essence are all words for the same thing. It's not coherent to split hairs and say "logic exists but it doesn't have being" or "logic holds true statements but it doesn't have substance". You're trying to create a distinction where one cannot exist under any circumstance. If something exists, it has being, if it has being, it has substance, if it has substance, it's true, if it's true, it's abiding, if it's abiding, it's a principle. These are all synonyms and no one who's being honest would ever try to split them.
>>537214492That isn't circular logic and there's no such thing as "manifestation as a being". If something exists it already has being by definition. It would never need to "manifest".
>>537215108>A magical sky unicorn is a contingent being inside reality.Nigga what? No no I stopped right there. The rest is just nonsense.
>>537215220You didn’t refute the distinction. You performed a label swap. A unicorn is conceptually a contingent creature inside reality. If you redefine “unicorn” as the necessary ground of being, then you are no longer talking about a unicorn in any meaningful sense. You’ve just renamed God or the necessary ground “unicorn” while dropping the creaturely content that made the analogy work.Argue in bad faith, but don't be retarded about it.
>>537215220Do you actually not understand the argument, or is this your way of simply pretending you don’t?
>>537215335It flew right past your head.
>>537215325>pretending to be illiterate to win an argumentUm… based?
>>537215335>ackchually you aren't allowed to perform a label swap because it would hurt my feefees and show how retarded my argument and my imagined god is
>>537215295>If something exists it already has being by definition.That's circular.
>>537215409> ackchually you aren't allowed to perform a label swap because it would hurt my imagined god and show how retarded my argument and my feefees are
>>537215432No, it's not. That's called a tautology. Because that's what being and existence are. They're tautologies.I hope you've been arguing in bad faith this entire time, because if you were sincere then you truly are shockingly uneducated.
>>537215544>because if you were sincere then you truly are shockingly uneducated.You're one to talk.
>>537215204>There wouldn't be a gay war if jews didn't exist.Yeah, like in the alt time line when it's "The Kingdom of Jerusalem" there still wouldn't be some gay war.The evangelical retards that support Israel are equal to Jews in terms of faggotry so you can't say with certainty.Whites being obsessed and tied to that land, practicing foreign religions and obsessing over an apocalypse is a problem.
>>537215377No, you're just aggressively pretending to be smug while showing blatant retardation of the fact that ontology != semantics.
>>537215544>Truth exists>Truth is fundamental>The fundamental principle is god (defined as such by us)>Therefore god existsYou are constructing the pivot in your proof, which is dishonest.
>>537215685>aggressively pretending to be smugAnother fantasy you made in your head.
>>537215764turn that fucking thing off.
>>537215639Say anon, we’ve gone back and forth several times and you have yet to come up with a single fucking issue with Christians absent Jews…Maybe it’s just the fucking Jews that are a problem, you retard.Now, dance like a monkey and tell everyone why we should blame Jews less and hate white people more.
>>537215915How about be more specific? You're making my eyes roll.
>>537215922I have you moron, the Christians become the new Jews.
>>537215732That's not the argument. The argument is that Truth, which you've now just conceded does exist and has being, is what Plato and Aristotle and Pythagoras and Socrates all meant and were referring to when they used the word God. Which they absolutely undeniably did because you can read their works for yourself and see that that's what they were talking about and not a magical man in the sky who threw lightning bolts. I'm not using the existence of Truth to say that my own religion is the truth, I'm saying that religion as a whole flowed from ancient man's understanding of Truth.
>>537216083k
>>537216213I accept your concession, it was a pleasure dismantling your incoherent worldview for all the thread to see. Hopefully someone somewhere learned something from it.
>>537216263You just convinced yourself.
>>53719814199.99% of all issues stem from bad genetics and low IQ before they even get to learn what religion isGenetics is destiny, always has been
>>537216031Sorry, can’t help it when I’m fucking you with a big dick called ontology. Now answer the point: changing the label does not change the category. If your “unicorn” is contingent, it cannot ground reality. If it is necessary being, then it is not a unicorn except by joke-label. You swapped words, not ontology.
>>537216357>The fantasy I made is realK
>>537216060So Christians will undermine Christianity and start an ethnostate?Yeah this bot is retarded
>>537216375>He even replies with K like a passive aggressive woman after i've already pumped and dumped.kek.
>>537216524Another fantasy you made up in your head?
>>537216577me: categories have content.anon: what if I rename the category unicorn?me: labels are not ontology.anon: K.
>>537198141Belief in libshit and capitalism also are religions. So is currentthingism, socialmediautism, democracy, even nationalism.>everything retards believe in is a religionSo the problem is just retards and their tendency to stubbornly ignore things like facts or evidence or common sense.
>>537216660Way to convince yourself that your are right.
