>Why do you assume people don’t choose these things? Eating meat is fun and tasty. Why would someone with free will be more or less likely to eat meat?

Because it's immoral obviously

>Are vultures immoral for eating a corpse? Or is it just immoral to kill an animal to eat it?
>So why do you think a creature with free will wouldn’t choose to be immoral? If anything the fact that immoral things happen is evidence of free will.
>If people are doing bad things without choosing to do them then existence is inherently evil.

Yes and no. It's unfortunate just like a 2 year old child shooting his 1 year old sibling with his parents gun he found.

I'd expect evil people I just wouldn't expect not extremely evil people to be so rare.
>If people are doing bad things without choosing to do them then existence is inherently evil.
>If someone sleep walks and damages someone else's property then existence is inherently evil

>>41629306
It's all caused by God. Sit back and relax. Pursue the Good and let God cook.

>>41629320
>Your sleep walk comparison doesn’t make sense. >First the sleepwalker has no awareness or intent. >Second, do you think people only have free will sometimes?
>If only some people have free will and people who don’t have it do evil things then whatever is actually controlling them is evil because it’s doing evil with awareness and intent.

Is an avalanche evil for killing someone?

>Second, do you think people only have free will sometimes?

What do you think not guilty by insanity is?

File: images(10).jpg (8 KB, 320x240)

8 KB JPG

>>41629306
>90% of people?
>They're fake

>>41629331
I don't know what you mean? Determinism is true? I already addressed that in the op

>>41629336
But why? Why would God make 90% of people "fake"? Atheism and determinism and 100% of people being fake seems more likely

>NPC theory is just a way to complain about shit you don’t like. “Oh NPCs don’t appreciate myths” “NPCs eat meat” “NPCs are instinct only”. Have you considered that you are merely a judgemental retard?
>I could get behind the concept if there was any attempt to create a comprehensive and cohesive theory of what an NPC is and how they act. But it’s always just the random shit anon doesn’t like shortlist.
>It’s especially frustrating that everyone who calls others NPCs or questions free will seems to be in completely confidence of their own free will and actual existence. How do you know you’re not just a meta-NPC programmed to question the behavior of others and view them as NPCs? If you don’t have free will you have no clue.

>>41629333
>Avalanche has no awareness or intent or intellect unlike people and/or the intellect actually controlling them if they don’t have free will.
>Insane people make choices dude

Someone can have free will but just very little of it. There choices can be incredibly limited

If someone is mentally ill and also very empathetic and genuinely believes everyone on earth will go to hell forever tomorrow if they don't kill their local mailman today I don't think they can choose not to kill their mailman.

>>41629340
I was mocking OP, somewhat. It's a line from this video where a bunch of retards trip on DXM
https://youtu.be/JKqV_ybCS-I

>>41629345
I don't think people are NPCs merely for disagreeing with me I think people are NPCs for being extremely hypocritical and logically inconsistent like almost all pro choice meat eaters in first world countries today.

Best evidence of my free will is intuition I feel like I have it

seriously grow up. how would you like it if someone saw you as a NPC? is that how low you've fallen. really? seeing other people as NPCs is fucking psychotic shit. FIX YOURSELF. you have parasites in your fucking brain.

File: 1763172997828173.jpg (230 KB, 1024x756)

230 KB JPG

Tribalism is a cancer. Giving rights to only humans or whites is ridiculous. There's no good definition of what a human is
Evolution is true
Did two non humans give birth to a human?

how you can give rights to humans and not give rights to non humans without defining what a human is.

If I say it's immoral to drain lakes but moral to drain puddles and I can't define when a puddle becomes a lake that's a big problem

>>41629337
Superdeterminism is true for all the content of mortal experience. God determines in advance the outcomes of all acts of will.

File: images(35).jpg (20 KB, 557x359)

20 KB JPG

>>41629354
>I'm checking my energy levels...
>Honestly I'm at about a... 5
>I should be fine
KEK. Is all of /x/ just these three dudes posting over and over?

>meat isn't immoral!!!

Because it's true they (animals) matter
https://benthams.substack.com/p/moral-realism-is-true?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
You can choose not to care and be irrational just like you can choose to believe 1 x 1 = 2 like Terrence

https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

This dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGT6ox0Y-M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJR5vsrkr9A

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLjgo2TfcM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtziO8Ffc4&pp=ygUjRHIgQXZpIGRlYmF0ZSB2ZWdhbiBuYW1lIHRoZSB0cmFpdCA%3D

If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)

>>41629372
Theism pretty much requires libertarianism to get around the problem of evil, if we can be free while being determined, why not make us always determined to do what’s right?

>I can sort of answer for the suicide thing as someone whose revenge fantasies keep me from doing it: it's a lot of work, which is hard when you're clinically depressed.

>I don't think you should count abortion. It is an act of self-determination to decide to not bring a child into the world.

Sure but is that you admitting you're weak lazy and lack willpower or you saying you have little to no libertarian free will?

The child is already in the world. She's deciding to be the mother of a dead child or a living one

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3vrevU9o

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brKhhZlUoOc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VIwWhdvrYRE

The earliest case for which I believe the precautionary principle should hold was around 43-45 days. Which comes out to be 6.1-6.4 weeks.

The fetal brain begins to develop around 3-5 weeks gestation. So I am okay with abortions prior to that timeframe.

It's hard to say what the levels of sentience equate to at each week. But I wouldn't not assume this is a miniscule amount of sentience. Many EEG brain patterns observed in fetal brains as early as 6.1-6.4 weeks ( high voltage
slow waves with superimposed fast activity) are comparable to mature birds, mature frogs, mature rabbits and the mature marmot. We can even observe sleep spindles in the fetal brain this early.

Does this prove the same degree of sentience? No. Does this give us reason to take the precautionary principle with respect to this degree of sentience? Yes

https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWMVqkRuj4

Besides most people support IVF being legal and the millions of children killed in that

>>41629392
>Theism pretty much requires libertarianism to get around the problem of evil
Wrong. Read the Bible. Evil is an important tool of the Creator. It is a means, not an end.

>why not make us always determined to do what’s right?
Because soul maturation requires dealing with adversity. The physical cosmos wouldn't even exist if full development of the soul could be achieved in the perfect conditions of heaven.

>>41629401
>Sure but is that you admitting you're weak lazy and lack willpower or you saying you have little to no libertarian free will?
>It's saying your theory that people with free will would want to make their suicidal urge count for something is true - and that the reason you see so little of it is because it requires effort which is hard when you are depressed which makes you weak and tired.

>The child is already in the world. She's deciding to be the mother of a dead child or a living one
>The earlier the better, but mothers shouldn't have to have children if they don't feel they should. Dead children are as natural as the rain in this world. Miscarriages happen, in nature mothers abandon or eat their offspring if the timing is bad, it's simply a method of survival. I think late abortions when it resembles something living are a bit barbaric, but before then is neutral. I don't impose my personal feelings on anyone else ultimate because I don't believe in forcing a woman to carry/deliver a child.

>I don't impose my personal feelings on anyone else ultimate because I don't believe in forcing a woman to carry/deliver a child.

You want your "personal feelings" to be imposed on other men and women so they can't murder you legally. But you don't want unborn humans to be protected by the same laws that protect you

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3vrevU9o

>But you can put that same logic on the woman carrying the child, especially in cases where the pregnancy endangers her life. Unborn humans don't want anything yet, they don't even know what they are

>They don't even have awareness until after they've been born.
>May as well stop killing animals for meat.

No you can't. She's not a victim. Assuming she wasn't raped she willfully chose to risk forcing another person into being in a state of dependence on her.

>Unborn humans don't want anything yet, they don't even know what they are.

Neither do newborns. Is killing them okay? How about severely mentally handicapped adults?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3vrevU9o

Yes animals should also not be killed for meat. Abortion and animal agriculture are both bad

File: 1763188371742702.jpg (131 KB, 704x643)

131 KB JPG

>Approximately 41% to 43% of Americans identify as pro-life, while a slim majority (around 51% to 54%) identify as pro-choice.

>This post is great rambling.

That's just self id. If you break down the 43% most do support some abortions including consensually conceived healthy children in the first trimester. Look at the results of ballot referendums on abortion in red states instead of vaguely worded polls
Pro life =/= abortion abolitionist

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGPv66ZqlEQ&pp=0gcJCQgKAYcqIYzv

For every one person born due go IVF, hundreds of embryos, aka babies to be, are destroyed. It is part of the IVF process. If not, then each woman doing IVF would by default, carry 2, 3,4,5, or more babies in her IVF pregnancy.

Pretty much.
When you ask a non vegan why it's okay to turn a pig into a sandwich but not okay to turn a human into a sandwich they'll say "because they're human and because they're non human"
But then they support IVF. Which kills humans.
Pro choice meat eaters are incredibly evil and hypocritical.

>Embryos are not people. They might be genetically human but so are your skin cells. Your body destroys tons of reproductive cells all the time that could become people.
>Who are you to say that death is evil? If you believe in a soul then death is only physical and temporary.
>You’d have to be an atheist to hate abortion. >Would you rather force a child to be born into a crack den just to be abused and eventually murdered, vs allow the mother to abort and return the soul to God or let it reincarnate, before it goes through a life of suffering?
>In that sense it’s clearly evil to force the child to be born and go through completely avoidable suffering. Only an atheist who doesn’t believe in souls whatsoever could disagree.

>>41629414
What are the odds that the ideal mix of evils for our growth and character building would happen to be those randomly churned out by indifferent natural laws? If there was a God who was designing the laws, aiming at the good, he wouldn’t make the laws uniform across the entire cosmos! He wouldn’t make the ordinary goings-on of the world utterly indifferent to value, so that whether gravity pulls some object down is wholly independent of the moral consequences of it doing so. If an ethical person was creating the law of gravity, he would not direct it to bring objects down if doing so results in them fatally falling on the head of a baby.
This is the core problem with every theodicy. While perhaps some theodicies can explain why some evils might be conducive to greater goods, it would be utterly and wildly inexplicable if the optimal laws for bringing about those goods are indifferent to value. In addition, such a view simply strains credibility. Is it really plausible that the world wouldn’t be improved if God had stopped any of the particularly gratuitous instances of suffering? Is it really plausible that if God had done a secret miracle—never discovered by anyone—to make COVID never infect humans, the world would have been a worse place?

The soul-building theodicy claims that evils exist to strengthen our characters. How, pray tell, does the small child who starves to death in her mother’s arms have her character strengthened? How does the old lady with dementia who slowly wastes away have a stronger character as a result of her suffering? The notion—that must be believed by proponents of this theodicy—simply strains credibility that there are no instances of evil that are better prevented by God and that the best laws for soul-building would be ones that function with total indifference to the extent to which their behavior affects soul-building.

>>41629458
>>41629414
Suppose one simply knew that God existed. Would they really expect a world as bad as this? This world? The one where thousands of children die every day, where nearly every organism who has ever lived has died after just a few days or weeks? If an angel proposed that God would make such a world, they’d be laughed at—and not invited to all the cool angel parties. The only reason anyone seriously entertains that this world is made by a perfect God is because they have status quo bias. They can’t imagine just how much better a world that God would actually make would be.

>>41629463
I don’t just think the problem of evil is a consideration against God’s existence. I think it’s single-handedly, overwhelmingly decisive. Theism does not withstand the problem of evil. Not even close. Theism requires one to believe a great absurdity—that all the world’s evils are for the best. That one who could prevent rape, slavery, genocide, starvation, hunger, torture, and each of the million other distinct and horrendous evils shouldn’t do so. That is almost too absurd to contemplate.

This absurdity was pointed out quite convincingly by Stephen Law. Imagine an evil God—limitless in power, knowledge, and wickedness. Such a being’s only motivation was to bring about evil. Do you think there’s any chance such a being exists?

Of course not! The world has too much good for such a hypothesis to be even remotely tenable. Such a hypothesis is laughably ridiculous. But all the things theists say about the problem of evil could be equally said about the problem of good. One could similarly posit that the being allows good because this is a side-effect of giving us free will. That our flourishing allows greater spiritual decay, so that we can exercise the evils of betrayal and wickedness.

>>41629445
>Embryos are not people. They might be genetically human but so are your skin cells. Your body destroys tons of reproductive cells all the time that could become people.

What's a person? Embryos are unique new DNA. They're a new separate individual.
>Who are you to say that death is evil? If you believe in a soul then death is only physical and temporary.

Murder is evil. Accidents / miscarriages not so much
>You’d have to be an atheist to hate abortion.

No
>Would you rather force a child to be born into a crack den just to be abused and eventually murdered, vs allow the mother to abort and return the soul to God or let it reincarnate, before it goes through a life of suffering?

Everyone suffers. No one has perfect life.
>In that sense it’s clearly evil to force the child to be born and go through completely avoidable suffering. Only an atheist who doesn’t believe in souls whatsoever could disagree.

You could justify murdering all newborns this way. They'll all suffer in the future if you don't kill them young.

>>41629476
Why is murder evil when the soul is eternal?
Suffering is unavoidable but a life filled with suffering is awaiting some children who are forced to be born. If the total amount of suffering can be reduced, isn’t that good? Opposing the reduction of suffering seems evil to me.

Because pure hedonism is false. Pleasure isn't the only good thing. Even some utilitarians acknowledge this.
If the soul is eternal shooting up a preschool isn't evil? Are you fucking kidding me?

A life filled with suffering is awaiting All children who are "forced" to be born.
>If the total amount of suffering can be reduced, isn’t that good? Opposing the reduction of suffering seems evil to me.

Okay in that case someone who robs or burglarizes you, gets away with it and then donates all the money they stole from you to the shrimp welfare project to more humanely slaughter shrimp has done something good. If he tells you he's about to rob you so he can donate the money in your wallet to shrimp and you resist him or call the police on him after you're opposing the reduction of suffering and it seems you've done evil to me.

>>41629486
>Okay in that case someone who robs or burglarizes you, gets away with it and then donates all the money they stole from you to the shrimp welfare project to more humanely slaughter shrimp has done something good. If he tells you he's about to rob you so he can donate the money in your wallet to shrimp and you resist him or call the police on him after you're opposing the reduction of suffering and it seems you've done evil to me.
Maybe that’s true. We can only argue that human suffering is “more important”. But we kill tons of “lesser” animals to sustain our lives. Is a human not an inherently evil creature because it needs to kill to live?
OP brought up veganism so clearly animal suffering is important. Do humans deserve to do what we do?

No because a utilitarian vegan can argue humans are good because more human infrastructure and more humans means less wild land and less wild animal suffering. Almost all animal suffering is experienced by wild animals not domesticated ones.

>There’s no such thing as morality for animals. Morality is a function of the distinctly human ability to discern right and wrong. Your position is preposterous. And of course it’s moral to eat meat. I’m betting you’re some sort of sick deviant who copes by creating his own subjective moral framework. And in emphasizing the aspects of your personal moral code that make your system distinct, you justify your depravity by shouting loudly of your rectitude according to your ridiculous set of morals. That’s not going to cut it. Not eating meat justifies nothing in your life.

Define murder
Explain why it would be immoral for someone to kill a mohel who mutilates babies
Cross the is ought gap by creating a syllogism with 2 premises that have is statements and a conclusion that has an ought statement that successfully crosses the is ought gap

For example
That man is a judge
That judge is a liar

The judge ought not lie

And no judge's shouldn't inherently be truthful. It's my preference that judges should be as truthful as possible yes but that's me creating a sperate premise it doesn't cross the is ought gap

Is statements will never be able to deduce into an ought statement unless you're defining ought as some kind of is.

>Ok well it’s very obvious that the list in the OP is just you projecting traits you dislikes about yourself onto others.
>Now do the second step and look at the things you don’t like about yourself and compare it to your list. I bet you feel useless in the face of powerful evil. I bet you think about suicide and you know for sure you’d take someone evil with you if you went. I bet you’re unhappy about eating meat. >I bet you’re frustrated you can’t do anything about abortion. I bet you wish you were rich so you could use your money to help people. I bet you struggle with your health and diet.
>This is normal shit to feel and it’s stuff everyone is dealing with. You think you’re the only one frustrated by this and expecting others to be better, when basically everyone is feeling the same way. It’s only a lack of perspective and empathy that makes you feel alone or in the minority in these feelings.
>Everyone else is feeling the exact same shit you’re feeling all the time and they are just expressing those feelings in different ways.

I'm thin. I'm not overweight and never have been.
I'm vegan.

I don't think most people are NPCs because they do things I disagree with I think most people are NPCs because they do things they disagree with. They're massive hypocrites

If the world had more people like me in it it'd be a much better place! People like me are rare because idk environments and genetics like the ones I have are rare.

>People just do what they want and make excuses for it later.

Yes but I wouldn't expect most people to behave this way if most people had a large amount of libertarian free will.
How can religions like Christianity be plausible? People are accountable for not believing in Jesus? Despite having been born into environment and genetics making it difficult to do so?

>>41629458
You're making too many assumptions both about what God "would do" and about the supposed suffering of this world. God's ways are not your ways. The external world is only a figment of his imagination. Despite appearances, it contains no more suffering than is necessary to develop the soul.

>>41629533
"Libertarian free will" is total nonsense, and inconsistent with all true theology.

>>41629551
So all those skeletons of all those animals who existed millions of years before humans who suffered and died living mostly bad lives are just fake? Animals weren't living mostly bad lives and dying before men existed? Proof? Because that seems extremely unlikely so unless you have a lot of evidence idk why anyone should accept your view

They are just trying to survive. If you want them to step out of their shells, you have to build the safety net that will catch them. Not everybody is strong enough to stand apart and be isolated. It kills people.

>>41629463
>The one where thousands of children die every day, where nearly every organism who has ever lived has died after just a few days or weeks?
Again, you're assuming the world of appearances is not illusory, but it obviously is. The world presents itself as existing independently of mind, which is a lie.

>>41629575
I don't expect everyone to martyr themselves and declare libertarian free will doesn't exist if they don't my standards aren't that high. But veganism is incredibly easy. Ticking the anti abortion box on a ballet referendum is easy. Donating to vegan and abortion abolishinist charities is easy. Doing what Luigi mangione did is easy if you already decided to commit suicide with a firearm. Losing weight without appetite suppressants is easy even if your genes make you hungry.

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/41487009/#41518441rest of old thread here but I included relevant responses.

>>41629584
Where's your proof of idealism?

>>41629569
What is considered 'true' within the simulation is not true in the ultimate reality, which is free of all death and deprivation.

>>41629609
It's true to the animals that experienced it. What about the human suffering and existential dread caused by humans noticing it?

>>41629593
>Where's your proof of idealism?
Gnosis. All is one consciousness.

>>41629615
>It's true to the animals that experienced it.
You don't know for sure what anyone else experiences. You directly know only your own experiences. God can make whatever illusions he needs to effectuate his will. Including the illusion of suffering.

>i'm a vegan so i'm better than you
ok cool story bro come up with something an NPC wouldn't say plx

>uhhh buhhh why do bad things happen to people wahhhhh
Because they deserve it. It's a very terrible truth.
the girl who got raped? she was a rapist in previous life
the person who got faced injustice? they committed injustice in previous life. or stood by and did nothing as it happened (cowardice)
this is how it works

>>41629622
What about the anthropic argument?
https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-for-god?utm_source=publication-search
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze0lIjYqsng

>>41629655
Doesn't make sense cause at some point the first person who raped a child couldn't have been a child rapist in their previous life because they are the first person doing this. So this means for every crime and pain in life innocents were struck first.

There also billions more animals slaughtered than people or animals who slaughter animals.

>>41629632
That's all technically true but still seems incredibly unlikely
>>41629655
Or maybe desert and moral responsibility are false https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0TDpRJCrU2Q https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/41535224/#q41535224

>>41629661
Wrongheaded and hylic. Once you start doing math, you've lost the plot.

>>41629676
>incredibly unlikely
Not if you know God.

when i was in college i was briefly seeing a girl and she would undress in front of me and i would see her huge titties

it was awesome.

then i did lsd and realized metaphysical solipsism is true and we are all one consciousness

>>41629666
you're not thinking big enough
its also not a 1 to 1 mapping
no one is innocent

>>41629306
I have no idea wtf you're talking about.

>>41629682
Why?

>>41629696
At some point, a guy raped the first child in history. That child couldn't have been a "child rapist" in a former life if this was the first incident in existence. So what could have possibly caused this?

>>41629689
Fair enough if you've witnessed a miracle which convinced you of this but I haven't. I want to know the Truth but the Truth you describe has not been demonstrated to me and I can't just take your word for it

>>41629715
Because you're assuming an independent physical reality with objective properties, which is the hylic delusion.

>>41629717
>its also not a 1 to 1 mapping
also that kid probably was a demon that tormented souls
stop coping
your masturbatory need for righteousness is pathetic
who told you this life is fair?

>>41629733
And you're assuming idealism? Which is a fringe view?

>>41629730
That's all fair. I was the same way before awakening. A stubborn hylic who looked to physics for my metaphysics. Gnosis flipped my understanding of the world upside down. Or more accurately, rightside up.

>>41629735
You're such a weirdo. Why are you defending suffering? If you had a wife and a child, someone violates them you'd just go like "Um yeah my wife and kid probably hurt someone in their previous life who cares"

wtf bro lol

>>41629738
>Which is a fringe view?
It's not fringe. It is the metaphysical basis for Christianity, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Vedanta, Buddhism, etc. It is the only metaphysics that can make sense of consciousness.

>>41629749
Was your awakening you taking drugs?

>>41629763
No.

File: 1000038586.jpg (274 KB, 1024x980)

274 KB JPG

>>41629320
Lmao is it not the ultimate sign of free will to be told by an obnoxious holier-than-thou loser that "waah you're being so evil by spending ten dollars at Taco Bell instead of donating it to a charity that helps kids grow up to be artisanal miners and Somalian pirates"!

Shut the fuck up nigga you clearly have the least free will of all letting invisible laws, relative concepts, and the phantoms of long-dead thinkers tell you what is and isn't free will

What the fuck does any of it even mean? We're assigning names to forms that are in constant flux

In short: boo hoo nigga shut the fuck up and put the fries in the bag

>>41629759
Why not this?

Non-reductive physicalism (very common today)
Mental properties (or the “soul” in a secular sense) are real but depend on and arise from physical (brain) processes. The mind/soul begins to exist when the brain becomes complex enough to support it typically at some point in fetal development or shortly after birth.

>>41629778
>>41629759
Or this?
Emergent Dualism

The soul/mind is a distinct, non-physical substance or entity (so it’s genuine dualism, not physicalism).
This non-physical soul does not exist before the body/brain.
It begins to exist (is “generated” or “emerges”) at some point when the brain reaches sufficient complexity or organization — usually during fetal development, at birth, or shortly after.
Once it comes into existence, the soul can (in most versions) survive the death of the body.

>>41629593
> Veganism is easy
Veganism is a social death sentence to normies. You really don't understand.

>>41629778
>>41629784
Because it's all backwards. Bodies and brains do not exist except as ideas in the mind. Space and time, again, are only ideas. All objects and ideas are creations of mind. Physical objects, which present themselves as external, are therefore illusions.

>>41629809
Why is this theistic idealist worldview more likely than deterministic non idealistic atheism?
Don't a lot of arguments for God's existence require an external world like the anthropic argument >>41629661 fine tuning, psycho physical harmony etc ?

>>41629797
I suppose that's a good enough reason if determinism is true but if most people have lots of libertarian free will why don't they choose to care more about the torture they'll inflict on hundreds of animals and be vegan?

>>41629826
That's all hylic level folderol. Stop listening to 'arguments' from intellectuals, and look into your own nature, the I Am within. That is where God resides, not out in the cosmos.

>>41629842
How? That just sounds like empty platitudes? I don't think I'm God

>>41629853
Read the Gospels. God is to be found in your own heart, nowhere else. It sounds like a platitude because you're so used to understanding the world in terms of space and time and powerful material objects. But it is all one big illusion, a simulation of sorts hosted in God's mind for purposes of soul development.

>>41629874
I've prayed before but nothing ever really came of it. Just some coincidences but nothing much

>>41629874
What about relationships between different humans? If objective reality doesn't exist how are humans supposed to interact with each other?

>>41629882
If you seek him out with a pure heart, he will answer. Check out the Gospel of Thomas if you're interested in gnosis.

File: 1689351906175676.jpg (135 KB, 933x946)

135 KB JPG

Reminder

up to 80% of humanity does not have inner speech
up to 80% of humanity cannot defy an authority figure (Archon)
up to 80% of humanity do not experience any form of NDE and just see nothingness

>>41629891
They all still exist, they're just not limited to some external physical realm. We are all emanations of the I Am, the Christ Self. As Jesus says, "I am the vine and you are the branches".

>>41629910
But why not? Why would an all good God allow this?

>>41629306
id say i have free will and if i didnt have family and friends holding me back from doing any of it i wouldve probably become a domestic terrorist and died like a year ago

>>41629899
It seems like it's fake from some limited research I did

>>41629950
That's a good point but most people who don't have good networks of friends and family still don't do Luigi mangione stuff, aren't vegan, aren't abortion abolishinists, etc etc

>>41629951
Everything in this world is fake, except the words of the Savior.

>>41629977
What about the words in the canon Bible that seem to contradict gnostic ones?

>>41629991
There is no contradiction. Both are useful. Some teachings are exoteric, some esoteric. You need the esoteric teachings to understand how it is all metaphysically possible. And to experience gnosis.

>>41629320
>because it’s immoral
Eating meat is not immoral, it’s natural. A wolf is not an immoral creature. Hunting is noble, providing for yourself is noble, we all have a role in the cycle. Death is not a bad thing. You’re trapped in a tiny human perspective.

>>41629910
This is all made up and if you’re willing to believe it that says tremendously more about you than it does about the people you’re judging

>>41630010
It seems the majority of scholars believes the author wasn't Thomas. I'll try reading it but I have doubts

>>41630010
Thank you

>>41630042
Hylic cope

>immediate DARVO smokescreen and social shaming
lol where do you think you are

>>41629320
If you think the majority of people are evil, you are one of the evil ones. Full stop.

>>41630332
>pointing out evil is evil
>just consent and keep quiet like a hyli- I mean a good person

only abusers say that lmao. also another DARVO attempt

>>41630472
>pointing out evil is evil
I didn't say that. I said claiming the majority of other people are, is. Sweeping otherment always leads to negative outcomes. Your attempt to call that DARVO is itself DARVO. Manipulative, and expected of bad actors.

>>41629306

90% of people are right-handed. I find that weird. I think males should be left handed.

>>41629340
the same reason a video game developer would
>the same reason they cant solve these NPC check captchas

>>41630271
>I can picture an apple, check mate hylic!
You're the fedora tipper of psychology.

>>41631052
Nah. Your obfuscation of the truth is failing

>>41631471
>not even what I said
desperate

>>41631171
I jack off and cut steak with my left hand that's about it though

The number of hylics on this board is exhausting

>>41630044
The Holy Spirit is the author of scripture. 'Scholars' are operationally atheists and know nothing.

>>41630271
He's correct, unfortunately (for you) you are projecting.

>>41631904
>nothing to backup your claim that npcs aren't real
>meanwhile multiple studies attest to it
>just stop noticing

lol are you afraid of exposure archon? you're dripping loosh

>>41630332
I think either that or the majority / all are neither good nor evil just determined to do what they do

>>41631841
I find that unlikely since it seems scriptural inerrancy is almost certainly false

Scriptural inerrancy is false

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLe1tMOs8ARn3Uy9dvxyqhBvEldBgkqtN5

Were I to be a Christian, I would not be an inerrantist. I think the case against inerrancy is about as convincing as the case is for anything. The Bible is filled with bits that look like obvious errors. For instance, Genesis 4 and 5 have related but contradictory genealogies.

Genesis 19 tells the story of Lot having [incestuous sex with his daughters, who then gave birth to what ultimately became the enemy nations](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=NIV) of Israel. It’s obviously far more likely that the Israelites would make up mean stories about how their enemies got there than that a single act of incest with two daughters would result in two pregnancies, which then founds two separate enemy nations.

In Exodus 3:6 God says “And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by my name [Tetragrammaton].” However, in Genesis, God was known by the Tetragrammaton. The modern scholarly view of the Torah—which claims different stories got fused together—has quite an easy explanation of these facts. However, inerrancy does not.

File: 1759282234302929.jpg (85 KB, 640x507)

85 KB JPG

>>41632012
The book of Joshua is dedicated almost entirely to discussing the glory of the conquests by which the Israelites conquered and pillaged with little regard for innocent people. Joshua 6 describes what happened after they conquered Jericho:

24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord’s house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

Joshua 8 describes similar brutality after conquering Ai:

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed [ [a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%208&version=NIV#fen-NIV-6029a) ] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

One can, of course, cook up elaborate justifications for Israeli conquest. But the ubiquity of the conquest combined with its alleged divine sanction makes this quite hard to swallow. The odds primitive militaristic Israelites would think God loved it when they conquered are much higher than the odds that God actually would love it when they conquer and senselessly murder women and children. Almost everyone thinks the gods approve of their sieges and conquests.

>>41632021
Not only is Joshua morally objectionable, it’s also [factually doubtful](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Jericho#Academic_consensus) . The dominant historical view is that it was written long after the events it purports to describe, and was primarily fiction. In particular, archaeology [seems to put pressure](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Browning-Jr/publication/338633396_The_Hill_Country_is_Not_Enough_for_Us_Recent_Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Joshua_Southwestern_Journal_of_Theology_411/links/5e20add6a6fdcc10156f7808/The-Hill-Country-is-Not-Enough-for-Us-Recent-Archaeology-and-the-Book-of-Joshua-Southwestern-Journal-of-Theology-411.pdf) on the claims made in Joshua.

As James Kugel [explains well](https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Bible-Guide-Scripture/dp/0743235878) , nearly all of the Bible is better explained as primitive mythmaking than recording actual history. It’s not just the early books. The Psalms—the music of the Bible—often contains passages [like this one](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20137%3A8-9&version=AMP) (talking about Babylonian babies):

How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Or look at Isaiah, and its routine and violent fulminations against Israel’s enemies. Talking about the Babylonians, for instance, [it says](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2013&version=KJV) :

9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

…

15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

>>41632024
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

Isaiah 49:26 contains the delightful sentiment:

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

It’s not hard to find passages like this. The Hebrew Bible is filled with obviously morally objectionable sentiments. One can find things that seem like errors on almost every page. A sizeable portion of the Bible is dedicated to either gloating about past conquest or hypothetical future conquest.

This will obviously be evidence against Christianity. If the Bible were extremely wise, just, and temperate throughout, that would raise the odds of Christianity, so the fact that it’s run through with errors is evidence against it. The Bible—certainly the Hebrew Bible—looks much more like what a non-Christian familiar with its contents would expect than what a Christian would.

>>41632031
More troublingly, Jesus seemed to have a high view of scripture. John 10:35 [asserts](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010&version=KJV) “scripture cannot be broken.” In [Matthew 5:17-18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A17-18&version=NIV) , Jesus notes that he has “not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” He claims “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Jesus seems to repeatedly take scripture to be authoritative as people at his time did. Thus, Jesus seems to have had a much higher view of scripture than is correct. Jesus seemed to believe the Bible was without error, but it’s plainly not.

Now, one can, of course, posit that he was exaggerating the veracity of scripture to fit into the surrounding culture. But it’s much more natural to suppose instead that he was simply mistaken about scripture, and that Christianity is false. Making excuses for false statements is always a cost. If Jesus isn’t God, given the surrounding context, we’d expect Jesus to have a high view of scripture. If he is, him viewing scripture as highly as he does is extremely surprising.

>>41632012
>>41632021
>>41632024
Literalism is for hylics. The Lord speaks in parables. Go deeper.

>>41632037
I'm not just arguing you can't move mountains with your mind. I'm also arguing scripture is imperfect.

>>41632046
God's Word is perfect and inerrant. Your understanding of scripture is not.

Vegans are kind of disgusting, as they disregard the suffering of plants as of less importance than animals.
If we're rating things on importance, then I have to say I have many plants I prefer to many animals.

>>41632065
God's fake, and so are you.

>>41632065
2 contradicting geneologies of rabbi yeshua lol

>>41629306
They're bugs that support the current thing no different than the Chinese version but more invasive. They need a culling.

>>41629306
Milgram's Obedience Experiment (1961–1963, Yale University)

A volunteer ("teacher") was told by a stern authority figure in a lab coat (the experimenter) to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to a "learner" (actually an actor) in another room whenever the learner gave wrong answers to word-pair questions. The shock machine went from 15 V up to 450 V ("XXX – Danger: Severe Shock"). The learner screamed in pain, begged to stop, mentioned a heart condition, and eventually went silent (implying unconsciousness or death). If the teacher hesitated, the authority calmly said phrases like "Please continue," "The experiment requires that you continue," or "You have no other choice, you must go on."

**Result**: 65% of ordinary people (all men in the main study) went all the way to 450 V. 100% went to at least 300 V (where the learner first pounded on the wall). No one stopped before 300 V once ordered firmly. Participants sweated, trembled, laughed nervously, protested strongly — but still obeyed.

### Why this is powerful evidence against strong libertarian free will

Libertarian free will requires that, in the same circumstances, the person could have done otherwise — that they had genuine, ultimate control not fully determined by prior causes.

In Milgram’s setup:
- The situational pressure was strong but not physically coercive (the authority only spoke calmly; the teacher was physically free to stand up and leave at any moment).
- Almost everyone believed they were seriously harming or killing an innocent person.
- Almost everyone showed intense moral distress and said they wanted to stop.
- Yet 65% inflicted what they thought was lethal voltage simply because a perceived legitimate authority told them to.

>>41632392
>>41629306
If people had robust libertarian free will, we would expect at least a substantial minority — if not most — to defy the authority when the stakes became obviously immoral. Instead, the behavior was highly predictable from the social situation. Swap the lab coat and calm prods for a different script ("You are free to stop anytime"), and obedience plummeted below 1%. The same individuals, same beliefs, same moment — radically different choice based only on subtle situational cues.

The experiment (replicated dozens of times worldwide with similar results) shows that most people’s moral choices are overwhelmingly driven by authority cues and social roles, not by any deep autonomous capacity to "just say no" when it really matters. This strongly suggests that what feels like "I could have done otherwise" is largely an illusion; under the same internal states + external pressures, the vast majority do the same shocking thing.

In short: when push came to shock, almost no one freely chose to push back.

>>41632397
>>41632392
Yes, Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment has been successfully replicated numerous times since the 1960s, with similar high rates of obedience observed across studies, cultures, and decades. Ethical constraints in modern versions often limit shocks to 150V (the point where the "learner" first cries out), but the core finding—that most people obey authority even when it conflicts with their morals—holds up.

Key replications:
- In 2006, Jerry Burger (Santa Clara University) replicated it in the US, finding 70% obedience past 150V (vs. Milgram's 82.5%), only slightly lower despite societal changes.
- A 2015 Polish study by Dariusz Doliński et al. found even higher obedience (90%) in a setup mirroring the original.
- Cross-cultural replications (e.g., in Europe, Australia, Jordan) yield comparable results, supporting the universality of the effect.
- A 2025 study on imagined scenarios showed people underestimate their own obedience, aligning with real replications.

Meta-analyses confirm the robustness, though some critics note variations in methodology. No major disconfirmation exists as of 2025.

>>41629306
### The "Hungry Judge" Effect (Extraneous Factors Study, 2011)

A famous 2011 study by Shai Danziger, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso examined over 1,000 real parole decisions made by experienced Israeli judges in a single year.

**Key finding**:
The percentage of favorable rulings (granting parole) dropped dramatically from ~65% right after a food break (breakfast or lunch) to nearly 0% just before the next break. After the judge ate, favorable rulings jumped back up to ~65% again.

Graph of the day:
- Start of session (post-breakfast): ~65% parole granted
- Mid-morning, approaching lunch: drops steadily ~0%
- Right after lunch: jumps back to ~65%
- Afternoon: drops steadily again ~0% before dinner break

This pattern repeated across hundreds of judicial sessions.

The decisions were not explained by case severity, prisoner ethnicity, or prior criminal history — those were statistically controlled. The only strong predictor was how long it had been since the judge last ate.

### Why this is strong evidence against libertarian free will

Libertarian free will claims that, in the exact same circumstances, a person could have genuinely chosen otherwise — that their decision flows from an uncaused, autonomous "self" rather than prior causes.

But here:
- The judges were highly trained professionals making life-altering moral/legal decisions.
- They believed they were deciding solely on the merits of the case and justice.
- Yet the single biggest predictor of whether a prisoner went free or stayed in prison for years longer was the judge’s blood-glucose level — a completely irrelevant physiological state.

>>41632408
>>41629306
If libertarian free will were true, these experienced judges should have been able to "rise above" hunger and decide identically before and after eating. Instead, but they almost never granted parole when hungry, and routinely did when fed — even though nothing about the prisoner or law changed.

This shows that a trivial, extraneous factor (low blood sugar) causally determined outcomes that the judges themselves would insist were freely chosen and rationally based.

Similar "extraneous factors" effects have been replicated many times (e.g., decisions worsen with mental fatigue, heat, unpleasant smells, even the outcome of a local football match). Together with Milgram, it strongly suggests that what feels like autonomous choice is heavily shaped — often dominated — by factors outside conscious control or moral reasoning.

In short: when judges get hungry, justice gets denied — and the judges literally could not do otherwise.

>>41632413
No one can predict your individual adjudicator’s blood-sugar level on the exact day and hour they open your file.
But the research we just discussed (and dozens of follow-ups) shows that **yes, it actually matters** — a lot.

Real-world data on U.S. immigration, disability, asylum, and benefits hearings all show the same patterns as the Israeli parole study found:

- U.S. asylum grant rates drop from ~60–70 % first thing in the morning to under 20 % right before lunch, then jump back up right after lunch.
(Source: Ramji-Nogales et al. 2009; updated replications through 2023)

- Social Security disability approvals follow almost the same saw-tooth pattern: highest right after breakfast, lowest right before the judge breaks for food, then high again.
(Source: Shroff 2018, SSA ALJ data)

- In USCIS immigration interviews, cases scheduled in the late morning or late afternoon are denied at significantly higher rates than identical cases scheduled right after meal breaks.
(Source: multiple FOIA-based studies 2015–2024)

So while I can’t promise your officer will be well-fed, the honest answer is:

Your odds are measurably better if your case is decided
- first thing in the morning (post-breakfast), or
- immediately after lunch (1:00–2:30 p.m. in most offices).

If your hearing or interview is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. or 4:30 p.m., the data say you are fighting both the merits of your case **and** your adjudicator’s low glucose and decision fatigue.

It’s not fair, it’s not “free will” in the libertarian sense, and it’s not supposed to happen — but it very reliably does. Good luck, and may your file land on a full stomach.

Also posted here >>>/his/18218599

>>41632392
>>41632397
>>41632402
>>41632408
>>41632413
>>41632827
All this is theologically irrelevant. God controls the outcome of every action. He is the source of all agency and the author of all experience.

>>41632874
Then why is there so much evil suffering and sin?

Theism pretty much requires libertarianism to get around the problem of evil, if we can be free while being determined, why not make us always determined to do what’s right?

>>41632962
>Then why is there so much evil suffering and sin?
Because the illusion of such cultivates the soul.

>Theism pretty much requires libertarianism
No, the opposite.

>>41629363
Lots of claims with nothing to back it up but belief. Id say its pretty easy to differentiate lakes and puddles btw.

>>41634033
>So in other words creator is evil
No, the Creator uses evil to prepare the Soul for eternal glory.

>>41632413
but did this control for the demographic of the judges?
I have a niggling that a non-white male judge is far more susceptible to letting extraneous factors contribute to decision making than a white male judge.

>>41629392
There is no problem of evil. Evil does not exist. Evil has never occurred. Everything proceeds as God wills and God is Good.

seeing a lot of self worship stemming from getting carried away with gnostic diatribes. which is what all this is, an attack on anyone not "in the know". I know the burden of proof isnt on anyone for me not understanding, but surely someone else sees this?

>>41634817
self betterment shouldn't be to prove youre better than others, thats just ego inflation. so if this truth isnt learned to help others, why is it worth learning at all?

>>41634975
>nooo you should treat a cockroach like a butterfly
>be ignorant that this world is full of mimics and npcs and archons in skinsuits

judeo hylic running an ignorance script

>>41635053
was only asking a question which you convienently did not answer, thats ok.
also you are a cockroach to something, surely you'd appreciate compassion rather than a boot. thankfully higher beings aren't like you in that regard.

>>41635095
chin up buddy, youll get there

>>41635105
but some grand cosmic victim complex isnt insecurity? give me a break. looks at how many pissy responses I got, so many fragile egos

>>41635081
>archon spirit
>darvo

whatever. you won't stop the noticing despite all your seething

>>41634817
>muh vax
guess what, you're normal

>>41635131
>someone dares to reply to you
>instant butthurt
what a baby you are lol

>>41635143
Nta but no it isn't, you're just too retarded to understand

File: OIP (2).jpg (16 KB, 474x632)

16 KB JPG

NPC Theory explained:

Retarded people think that slightly more retarded people are not real. That is all. It's the ultimate midwit philosophy. Teenage boy reddit fedora babbies first independent thought coupled with a Disney childhood telling people they are speshul and one in a million, producing little narcissists that are spiritually detached from the people around them

>>41635624
You sound nervous hylic

>>41635677
>one line buzzword response to a thought out post
>you sound n-n-nervous h-hylic
No u. You got nothing, teenage boy redditor

>>41635727
>nervousness increasing
>tinge of desperation
>how do you do fellow 4channelers

lmao

>>41635753
>projection increasing
>l-lmao
>so shook he spaced his post like he blew in literally today
Nothing about my post indicates nervousness in the slightest, Anon. This is obviously coming out of your ass. Say hi to the other enlightened midwits on your favourite subreddit for me, and don't forget to tip your fedora

>>41635761
>words words words

Ok bootybothered hylic

>>41635777
I'm really sorry I got you so worked up, little guy. Things are going to be ok in the end, I promise. It's not that deep. Have a great day now, but please, if possible, stop spacing your posts in such a retarded manner. It just looks ugly. Thank you!

>>41635802
>he's really trying hard

an archon is going to eat you because you're so unconvincing lol

NPC is just a background person, they're just there to fill the scene. if the person has any bearing on your life then they are not an NPC.

>People even a little bit like Luigi mangione are incredibly incredibly incredibly rare.
good, we don't need more murderers here.

>>41637898
they are not videogame npc bots

they are twitter shill manufacture consent/participation bots

irl equivalent of a jeet engagement farm for the demiurge

>>41629306
Not only they are "npc's" they are also very fucking annoying and sometimes dangerous. Fun fact i was an npc too. No inner voice just going with the flow. Like an animal. And then negative stimulation came in. Eventually had to start thinking outside of the box. Slowly but surely i started to grow spiritually. Now i'm preparing myself for what prophet Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov said in his warnings. Also stop with the "nyooo not the hecking hennerinos and cowerinos" stuff. God gave us cattle to raise and use. Meat is very nutritious for us. Cattle worship is pajeet level of thinking.

>>41639603
Cattle and humans are too similar (both have a lot of consciousness, can experience well-being, can suffer etc) for me to only care about humans. If it's wrong to torture a severely permanently mentally handicapped human then it's wrong to torture a pig

Bump

>>41630035
That's only true if you're some kind of hippie living in harmony with nature on a small scale. Modern meat production isn't hunting and it's definitely not noble or moral, unless you like concentration camps

>>41639645
Yeah. People are delusional and scummy
>make industrial hellscape meat factory holocaust that's poisoning everything around it leaving only a barren wasteland
>muh god told me to do this, this is totally fine, we're supposed to use advanced machinery to rape the earth for all it's resources every day until we drown in shit and run out of breathable air. God said so

>>41637898
>be namefag
>disgusting bootlicker
Every time. What do we call someone who murders a murderer? A hero. You corny cunt call yourself mother but you defend the people killing our families by denying them medical care. You are morally bankrupt

>>41635677
>>41635777
>hylic
anyone who uses that word unironically can be put in the drooling retard tinfoil hat schizo corner. Nothing of value is going to come out of them

Bump

Bump

>>41629306
>Most people are pro choice
>that's against free will
>pro life and anti ivf is freedom
just look at this retarded faggot of an OP

>>41629320
>someone with free will wouldn't eat meat because it's immoral
free will has nothing to do with morality you retarded vegancuck

>>41642122
>anyone who uses that word unironically
You mean anyone who misuses the word.

>>41629331
I don’t doubt this but I do have to wonder what purpose they serve.

Luigi wasnt the shooter, NPC-tier thread

>>41644289
That actually strengthens my argument. Lone wolf attacks like that are still extremely extremely extremely rare.

>>41643798
So everyone or almost everyone has lots of libertarian free will yet almost no one is even a half decent person? Almost everyone is a massive hypocrite even though they could choose otherwise? That's odd
It's not odd / unexpected if atheism determinism physicalism is true since EVERYONE is just apes so if they just chase food sex etc that's unsurprising

>>41629306
>All people are NPCs
Kek

>>41644009
To avoid unnecessary suffering. Only suffering that is integral to your soul's development is actually experienced. The rest is illusory.

>>41644429
If the other human beings I'm witnessing the suffering of aren't actually real or suffering then I'm missing out on good/value like relationships

>>41644451
If that's the case, then it would be integral to your soul's development. But only God knows for sure. Your neighbors should be treated as yourself.

Bump

File: Näyttökuva 2025-12-11 095010.png (140 KB, 437x441)

140 KB PNG

>>41642085
yeah, fuck you. killing a man while he is just minding his business, is murder. even if he personally oversaw all the cases where medical care was denied even then he deserves a trial. and seeing how Luigi was being glazed by the leftists collectively who then proceeded to celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder means that leftists are murderers themselves.

>>41647028
I didn't know business is more important than literally anything else, even human life. That man's business consists of dehumanizing opression of the worst kind. You're a pathetic bootlicker. A trial? That's cute. You still believe in that? No wonder you defend the worst of the worst. Also crying about charlie kirk and leftists is so immature lmao, /pol/ literally exists to make fun of the misfortune of other people and as soon as the tables are turned ONCE you pathetic toddlers start crying about how unjust everything is lol, a bunch of pampered babies

>>41647028
A trial! Of course! That's the solution! We can just do a trial, because we live in happy land where it rains candy and everything is made if chocolate, nothing bad ever happens and if it does we make a trial where everything will always be fair and just, no exceptions, everyone will be happy forever dancing barefoot round the fire singing koomba ya

>>41629306
>>Vegans are about one percent of the >>population.

much more, because there is also Bharate, but vegans are villains, they hate plants, so they eat only them, my family treats meat, fish, poultry, vegetables and fruits equally, so we are not vegetarians.

>>41629306
>>Most or all people are probably "NPCs"
This does not justify treating them badly. the hypothesis of the game even pleases me. I've played a lot of games and been successful, so I need to evolve in this game and become successful again. So you're saying that the biggest threat isn't NPCs, but monsters and other players? Are monsters even real? The most I've seen of the monsters is a video with chupokabras. They don't look like a serious threat yet. There aren't many of them.

Bump

I found this in the archives maybe this helps explain it?

>Free will is generated via acausal feedback loops in the brain.
>This is a part of quantum immortality: your consciousness has to go somewhere when it dies, if the easiest place is a week prior, it's going to go there, and it's going to bring a bit of "intuition" with it.
>Each worldline is deterministic, but the probability of moving from one to another is acausal in nature.

>>41648347
Also this

>The brain is a morphically-resonant device. It IS a deterministic flesh computer, in a single worldline, but it changes size/shape/structure/connections/etc with EVERY SINGLE THOUGHT. Time is an illusion and physics itself is an emergent property, every possible combination of things exists. So what's time then? It's the sort-order through which we view all possible combinations of things, based on conformational similarity. So what's physics? It's what your brain creates, that deterministic flesh computer can only exist and function where physics doesn't break down (you ARE spontaneously combusting every moment, as is everyone else, you just can't feel it because your brain can't take your consciousness there - and lucky enough, there's so much stuff in "infinity" and it's sorted by conformation similarity so you're fantastically unlikely to ever even have someone else spontaneously combust in your own realm of perception. A side-effect of this is that while we experience this false thing called "time," "reality" doesn't. Thoughts can traverse time when your brain has enough conformational similarity to other moments of itself in time, this results in intuition, dejavu, free will, and ultimately the connection between all your selves is your "soul." In this way we go from deterministic meat puppets to transcendent and immortal "souls" with free will.

>>41648358
>1. if its true, does every conscious person have it or only some people
Every mind capable of morphic resonance. Human minds have this ability (e.g. they change physical shape as they think.)
>2. how do you explain old age? if quantum immortality is real does that mean that you will end up in the universe where somehow you end up living forever, what about when human civilization ends?
There are practically (from a Human perspective) infinite worldlines (the number of particles in the visible universe to the power of the number of particles in the visible universe of worldline divergences for every quanta of time - a quanta of time is the speed of light divided by the planck length, so it's a fucking lot.) The only thing quantum immortality does is ensure an emergent consciousness (such as a Human mind) won't experience death, it's still possible (and across all worldlines a necessary fact) that you will see everyone else die at some point barring some tech to control divergence and convergence events to avoid that being in place. I for instance am in my late 30's and look like I'm 14-16, as I have since I was actually 14-16, your mileage may vary, but death is a mind-virus, not a real thing. People can appear to age and die because your mind is capable of accepting the idea that they can age and die. Ancient peoples likely mostly got filtered to worldlines wherein fairies or gods or other mythological things were real and saved them, in the modern time it will likely come from the healthcare industry. This isn't to say that choice/free-will isn't important: all possible combinations of things exist, but the probability of a given vector when traversing the practically-infinite futures and practically-infinite pasts associated with a given moment can be altered via consciousness. There are practically infinite heavens and hells, but you have to do the work to pick which you experience if you seek to adjust that for your many selves.

>>41648366
1) use a pair of cascading RF linear accelerators (you could feasibly build this in your basement) aimed at one another with a strong magnetic trap directly between them with a shell of plasma around it as an EM reflector
2) carefully tune them such that a black hole is formed between them with enough charge to be confined in the magnetic trap
3) feed them for awhile such that mass is no less than that necessary for the black hole plus hawking radiation to fully saturate the space between the black hole and plasma reflector within the magnetic trap
4) repeat
5) use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr%E2%80%93Newman_metric to calculate how to use the overlapping ergoregions from two such black holes to safely traverse time by feeding and venting them to alter mass and spin of each black hole
6) add sensors that can detect collisions before they occur to avoid piloting yourself into a mountain or some such
7) be a psychopath, because you have to genuinely not give a shit about anyone or anything, you'll never see the people you care about again because there's no getting back to where you came from, it's a physical impossibility; you can get to similar worldlines with similar people, even those a similar version of you left, but they won't be the same

>>41644418
>almost no one is even a half decent person?
Morality isn't absolute, what's evil for you could be indifferent or even good for others.

>>41648423
I think moral realism might be true but like I said in the thread a dozen times already they're evil according to themselves because they're hypocrites. They lack internal consistency and they don't care about becoming consistent

https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

This dialogue tree has been used by vegans many times in live debates, (feel free to comment on one of their videos, email them, message them on Instagram etc to challenge them to a debate on NTT )

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiGT6ox0Y-M

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJR5vsrkr9A

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLjgo2TfcM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrtziO8Ffc4&pp=ygUjRHIgQXZpIGRlYmF0ZSB2ZWdhbiBuYW1lIHRoZSB0cmFpdCA%3D

If someone says it's okay to kill a animal and turn them into a burger but not okay to do that to a human and the reason they give is that animals can't reason but humans can they'd have to bite the bullet and say it's okay to turn severely permanently mentally handicapped humans who can't reason into burgers. Or go vegan. Or name another trait(s)

>>41648477
I may give it a view later, however, will answer now.
Eating human meat is a taboo nearly everywhere in the world, animals on the other hand are very tasty and it's culturally acceptable to eat them.
You can see me as evil hypocrite but I just don't care.

>>41648521
Slavery was culturally acceptable

File: 1765414082960095.jpg (511 KB, 1350x900)

511 KB JPG

>>41647028
>>41647199
>>41647254
Abortion is still legal in all fifty states

I go to jail for years if I possess a plant (cocaine) but if I possess baby murder pills, a baby's stolen foreskin or a baby calves heart I'm a law abiding citizen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg8B9D8fjFI

>>41629306
People attribute NPC people into some kind of inherent spiritual property. As you are or aren't born with it and if you have it too bad that's you. They believe these individuals are some kind of necessary part of the world and hence justifies their existence. But its really not that complex. Its simply just intense social manipulation of people via media/ social norms which slowly wither the persons sense of individuality.

Imagine you are walking through a building and you open a door and entre a room that you need to pass through and there's a funeral going on. Do you feel like you need to act in a certain manner as you pass through? More quiet or respectful maybe? Even if you don't know these people you might do that just so they don't mark you as some rude person.

You do this kind of stuff all the time, changing actions and thoughts to suit the current situations. To fit in and to be treated equally and fairly. But NPCs have this on super overdrive.

Rather then a core individual choosing to act, there entire being is almost centered on the environment around them. There is no internal choice to follow the situation, its more of an instant reaction. So instant that any context or reasoning behind why its necessary is lost. It stems form fears of not being normal and then being being ostracized or marked as uncivil. They all coalesce into a being who's entire identity is simply a reflection of the world around them with no centralized individual.

The mark of an NPC is the lack of context. Ask them serious questions on "normie" things and if they can't give a reason they are an NPC. Why did you want children? Why do you love your family? If they answer those kind of questions with "because that's what you're supposed to do" they are an NPC. The idea that their answer is out of social obligation or something they can't put into words.

Constant pressure to act normal has made them unable to be a self anymore.

>>41648555
trips of truth
it still is in western africa for example

>>41648600
To follow on this I think another reason why NPCs feel more frequent then ever before is putting a more negative onus on any form of introspection. I can imagine some rock star pointing to his head saying "its scary in their man!" or some kind of tik tok where they release their inner thoughts and its some silyl scream.

People are being more manipulated into believe that the mind is some scary place of filth and uncontrollable self consciousness. Those that do stuff like meditation or even any form of occultism or seen as fringe weirdos. A person minding their own business alone is strange and unnerving. 'People should talk to their government approved psychologists instead or go to their support groups of other NPCs are the kinds of shit NPCs' unironically think.

They've become afraid of their own minds and think their inner workings are some uncontrollable demon that they best suppress. They are so bad at it that they almost need someone else to guide them.

I think that Eliza is an excellent demonstration on how an NPC has becomes so unable to self diagnose or do any kind of self reflection, they literally need a mirror of themself to be able to do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMK9AphfLco
https://www.filfre.net/2011/06/eliza-part-1/

Its not a permanent thing and people can be brought out of it I think. Like once you help them help themself in a way similar to Eliza did, they star to realize how they can actually catch, think, and reflect on their own thoughts. Making them aware that in this instant the external situation they habitually reacted to, was actually themself. And in turn means they can actually influence their own experiences, not just act according to the world. So many self help books try to touch on this shit as thoughts its some divine epiphany and not what should be a natural thing.

>>41629306
>Vegans are about one percent of the population.
that's 100% too many

>>41648596
That's because womens actions should have no consequences

>>41648801
So you believe women should have less rights and also be less held accountable for their actions like young children? At least that's consistent
Right now women have more rights then men and are held responsible for their actions far less than men.
How do you define woman?

Bump on

>>41629306
Everyone is special therefore none of us are, life is pointless and at times scary and sometimes fun and then you cease to exist so who cares

>>41629306
You certainly are.