[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1715176488876.png (508.4 KB, 504x504, ClipboardImage.png)

 [Last 50 Posts]

Pretty much every people group exposed to Abrahamic faiths ends up incorporating elements from them. They are so successful that everyone, from pagan Nazis to "POC revival" faiths, essentially adopts basic elements of either Christianity or Islam and changes some names on top

 

For the same reason why Marxism Leninism is successful, it’s based on turning what is into what can be rather than reliance on witchcraft and vibes and subjectivity

 

repost? well there are many reasons, one of them is that abrahamic religions are extremely simple as religions yes there is a lit of “text” you can read, but there aren’t any especially complicated rules or rituals. Abrahamic religions’s scholars are also often very willing to just take from other religions and cultures and adapt them and rewrite them for the benefit of their own religion.

 

>>1848559
violence, superior political and economic organization, and the ability to absorb the conquered and their descendents as new foot soldiers.

 

>>1848564
I forget to add some stuff and requested it be deleted

 

File: 1715177651736.jpeg (549.62 KB, 925x1301, IMG_7150.jpeg)

Because most polytheistic faiths, already accepting that many gods exist, incorporate the religious beliefs of their neighbors and other cultures they encounter. The Abrahamic faiths cannot abide the existence of other gods. What typically happened is that Abrahamics would meet “pagans”, the pagans would accept YHWH and Jesus into their pantheon, after a while the Abrahamics would have attained social clout and said “Actually you can’t do that” and either have the power to suppress the indigenous faith or fail, get pushed out, and return with an army to just conquer and forcibly convert people.

At least part of the appeal of Abrahamism (outside Judaism) is that they tend to be universalist faiths with a God of love who individually cares for everyone on Earth, with special attention for the faithful who can be anyone so long as you convert. This contrasts with the parochialism of the pre-Abrahamic faiths.

A few words to distinguish this from the last comment i just deleted.

 

>>1848571
what about Islam?

 

>>1848573
Basically the same as what I said above, Islam and Christianity are remarkably similar religions, the outlier among the Abrahamic faiths is Judaism, which isn’t univeralist, isn’t focused on conversion, and whose main point isn’t a god of love that embraces all of humanity with equal desire.

 

Mostly because they're the only actual "religions" worth calling such. Most pagan religions up to Hinduism are superstitions that were a cover for the local aristocracy. Many "modern" Eastern religions are more like philosophy and answer the same questions that philosophy was tasked with in Greek and Roman society. What was really contested with the doctrine of Abraham wasn't a particular god but the concept of gods and spiritual authority itself - that is, it's a giant "how to take over the world with religion" guide, and did so in a way that never formed an organization or a nation elsewhere in the world. Just about everything involves how to subvert other peoples' gods and superstitions, and how to control society. The Abrahamic line is uniquely disinterested in the natural world, and saw humanity as hostile to nature and hostile to other humans, which is true.

Reducing it to a foundational cause ignores how all of these religions developed over the years. Christianity is founded as something overtly hostile to Judaism. In so many ways it is a Roman perversion of the old religion, with clear signs of Roman religion and particularly philosophy dominant throughout its teachings. The end goal of Christianity is basically the ideal city of the Republic, except made into omnipotent magic. In other words, it's a death cult. Islam forms in opposition to Christianity and is a not very well disguised rebrand of the old Satanist doctrines. It tells you outright its goal is to rape and enslave the world.

For a lot of reasons, what the Protestants did was a whole different religion, or a degeneration of religion as a concept. But, in the long run, religion is what humans do to understand the world, and none of the extant religions are fit for purpose. If there is a new religion, religion by its nature inherits the history of the world and priesthoods, and so it would inherit the same doctrines that came to dominate - reforming them along new lines, but ultimately obsessed with the cult of power as religion must be. If a religion did not do this, it wouldn't be religion.

Basically, think of religion like the Party from 1984, Ingsoc. That's what humans always were, and what religion channeled. By returning to that, we're returning to what humans have always been, and abandoning the brief fantasy that humans were going to do anything different.

 

>>1848575
I would actually say that Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity. While they can develop into certain similar worldviews, the fundamental difference lies in how much Christianity has been mistranslated since its inception. From Hebrew to Greek to Latin, Christianity has undergone significant mistranslations and localizations. On the other hand, Islam does have some translation issues, but they are not on par with Christianity. These mistranslations and localizations have allowed Christianity to evolve in a much different manners

 

If you get into any religion seriously, they will pull you aside and tell you there isn't a bearded man in the sky throwing thunderbolts, if you actually think that is religion. A child can see through that. Almost nakedly, the "god" of religion is a stand-in for aristocratic authority, whether that is a representation of human aristocrats or the priesthood which usurps and embodies those qualities in an organization.

 

>>1848578
this is what people call "reddit athiesm"

 

>>1848577
Perhaps in terms of the texts of Islam, but I’d say in terms of social function, relation to other societies, and how Islam spread, it’s functionally much closer to Christianity. The biggest reason is likely simply that Judaism was never majorly about converting people into being jews.

 

>>1848580
Most atheists are "reddit atheists" - that is, they don't actually think about the consequences of atheism or what an atheistic model of the world would mean. I did because I was born and raised atheist and hostile to religion. A lot of "atheists" are just edgy Christians or retarded.

 

>>1848582
decades of rhetoric and still no actual rebuttals to atheism other than calling it 'reddit'

 

>>1848581
Up until the physical destruction of Israel, the Jews were a fanatic people. imagine Afghanistan without allowing converts; but only one intellectual sect survived, and all other Jews descended from that sub-group.

 

>>1848559
Christianity emerged in an environment where it proved to be the most appealing faith that could also provide fanaticism and devotion, Islam is derived from Christianity and embodies these aspects.
Also the history of the Hebrew people, the struggles of the Iron Age Semites in battles and defeats resonates with tribal populations across the world. The parables of Christ and his triumph over death are awe-inspiring and the theology of Heaven combined with Indo-European elements becomes like an epic fantasy, specifically with the war in Heaven. Even Islam features a primordial war with Jinns

 

>>1848584
Maybe because idealism is self refuting and doesn’t deserve further examination or interaction other than insults?

 

File: 1715178767705.jpeg (648.58 KB, 669x1461, IMG_7152.jpeg)

>>1848584
Reddit atheists definitively deserve criticism when they’re promoting faggotry like picrel
Of course the problem with Reddit atheists is that they tend to be cultural chauvinists and idealists that think religion causes society’s problems rather than reflecting society’s problems
The average reddit atheist thinks Israel vs Palestine is a question of Jews vs Muslims rather than Settler Colonialism vs National Liberation for instance

 

>>1848587
how is atheism 'idealist' it's literally materialism.

>>1848588
richard dawkins hasn't been popular for like 10 years

 

>>1848590
Nothing says materialism like a worldview that violates the laws of physics with magic, am I right fellow proles? Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed? Who cares about silly little things like that when we get to feel superior to those heckin chinlets?

 

>>1848584
There isn't much to "rebut" about atheism. It is the lack of a position rather than an affirmative position on anything. It could mean anything from nihilism to this bizarro cult of the human spirit gone amok to a thin cover for the old Satanism. Besides, if you get into any of the big religion, they'll tell you that there is no god, and that shit was for the rubes. This is always about power and how to command it, and religion answers very particular questions about power, evil, and the world in which those things are relevant. Religion isn't a substitute for science or a theory of natural history. Religious men will study science in much the same way, because science concerns itself with a world that had nothing to do with any religious contest.

To give you an idea - you know that whole thing about not murdering people, and the basis of nearly every concept of law beyond the most basic? That always has a basis in religion. Without that, you get endless lawfare, Star Chambers, and things that make the law so hideous that no one would allow that to be invested in men or a thing that would be followed at all. In the absence of any religious guide, an ersatz religion will be inserted. This is what happened with today's "atheism". No "atheism" would stridently proclaim a worldwide agenda unless its adherents held religious convictions. If those convictions were described as what they were though, no one would allow the "atheists" any hold on institutions. They would be ruthlessly exterminated because they would be a clear and present danger.

The bigger problem is the "hidden religion" is - wait for it - Christianity itself. This was always its endgame - the "final revelation", the mask off moment, where you get the bad news that it was all a lie and you got scammed. It's a clever trap the Romans set, far smarter than anything most of the reddit atheists managed.

 

>>1848590
Richard Dawkins is the quintessential Reddit atheist
Just because he’s no longer popular doesn’t mean he no longer defines the archetype
Reddit atheists =/= atheists in general, but rather it’s a particular type of idealist liberal atheism that holds to the notion that religion causes the world’s ills rather than being caused and shaped by the world’s ills
To a Reddit atheist, the 30 Years’ War, the Crusades, 9/11, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the War on Terror, Trump, the Holocaust and all the rest were caused by religion.

 

>>1848597
Reddit atheists were literally mocking him for this comment on the literal r/atheism subreddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1c2qkv0/why_do_some_atheists_like_richard_dawkins/

 

File: 1715181360855.png (59.03 KB, 293x364, 1695561707730.png)

>>1848592
atheism doesn't claim to know where the universe came from, but adding a god to the explanation just adds another superfluous step to the original mystery, if you can use god to get around matter not being created or destroyed you can just say 'the universe did it spontaneously' and it's more parsimonious

>>1848595
>Besides, if you get into any of the big religion, they'll tell you that there is no god, and that shit was for the rubes.

lol I mean only in the sense of a conspiracy, you can't say people in high religious positions being cynical grifters means that religion 'isn't really' about believing in god

>To give you an idea - you know that whole thing about not murdering people, and the basis of nearly every concept of law beyond the most basic? That always has a basis in religion. Without that, you get endless lawfare, Star Chambers, and things that make the law so hideous that no one would allow that to be invested in men or a thing that would be followed at all. In the absence of any religious guide, an ersatz religion will be inserted. This is what happened with today's "atheism". No "atheism" would stridently proclaim a worldwide agenda unless its adherents held religious convictions. If those convictions were described as what they were though, no one would allow the "atheists" any hold on institutions. They would be ruthlessly exterminated because they would be a clear and present danger.


Moral instincts and so on have an evolutionary basis, and there's non religious reasons for ethics

>>1848597
obviously there are some chauvinist right wing atheists out there but people just use 'reddit' and 'fedora' etc as a cheap cynical copout to not engage with the complete lack of basis for religion

 

>>1848625
If religion didn't have a basis it would not have existed. What you mean is religion's lack of scientific, and thud material factualness.
>>1848599
You keep missing the forest to masturbate to some trees
The problem isn't being an atheist, the problem is making atheism, or rather antitheism, the entire basis to your worldview, not because it isn't a rational position to hold, but because antitheism without a more thorough going and ultimately materialist social analysis very easily diverts into cultural chauvinism, as, outside of socialist countries, the most aggressively secular countries tend to be in the EU

 

File: 1715181719117.png (622.47 KB, 678x519, 1688772357627.png)

>>1848630
>If religion didn't have a basis it would not have existed. What you mean is religion's lack of scientific, and thud material factualness.

yes but you knew what I meant

 

>>1848625
Nothing in nature gives you any moral sense. If you think for five minutes and actually can make connections, all appeal to nature arguments lead to the same outcome - all life dies, and death is painful. There would be no point to anything on that basis. A child can see this, which is why your stupid moral philosophy has to resort to unlimited violence to convince people that this is what "nature" is.

You can build a moral basis without religion, but it is never done by appealing to nature. Appeal to nature in the way you invoke it is a very religious argument - you would have to insert the aristocracy in nature itself to believe in "natural laws" that tell you what you are and what you must do. It's an essentially Satanic view of the world, hence why it is promoted. This is why basic moral sense always rejects "appeal to nature" as a guiding mind. What nature did was create humans who had a mind and faculties that relied on a world to exist, and so moral thought always pertains to a world outside of us.

Religion does not get to unilaterially decide what morality is, like the priest arbitrarily makes commandments. The priest, or anyone invoking religion, can only do so in ways that comport with what religion generally does. The proper business of religion is evil. It is not possible to truly describe evil without understanding religion and what religion invokes. If a religion doesn't pertain primarily to the evil, it's not a religion at all, but some other creature.

 

>>1848559
Because polytheistic faiths tend to be ethnocentric actually

 

>>1848625
And the point of this is - without a religious treatment of the evil, there's not really an argument for why murder, stealing, rape, sexual impropriety, or many other things, are actually "evil" or really particularly wrong. Humans have clever dodges where if they give someone a uniform or even a badge saying "I get to kill others", suddenly murder becomes a meritorious deed and is no longer definitionally murder. But, for all intents and purposes, if laws were moral - and the law is not intrinsically concerned with morality or any justice - it was intended as murder to violate the moral and ethical sense that would have existed, without this special exemption in human societies giving certain people special license to kill while you must obey. To make that license work, religious excuses will have to be invoked; and to understand why it works this way, religion has to be acknowledge by anyone asking the question.

I don't know if the concept is admissible for you. Those who insist violently on this will never change. Why would they?

 

>>1848634
>Nothing in nature gives you any moral sense.

evolutionary pressures do. watch the latest alien biospheres video it's like 20 mins before the end. can't be bothered to look it up. social species without a moral sense wouldn't survive.

of course the fact it's natural isn't the /reason/ why you should be moral, that's a simple utilitarian argument like 'if nobody is moral then the world would suck and I will benefit more from everyone following morals', it's like the prisoners dilemma

>>1848637
'religion' isn't actually synonymous with 'belief system', it requires a belief in a god or gods in the 'proper' and non colloquial definition

 

>>1848634
And this right here is why Berserk with its true God of the World, the Idea of Evil, is one of the best meditations on the nature of religion, morality, and will in anime

Basically all religions share the same God, that God being the idea that evil is a real force that exists in the world and is responsible for death and human suffering. The gods religions may actually worship may all be very different from each other, but they all serve the same purpose, explain what evil is and why it exists, feeding into humanity's belief that evil exists to begin with, leaving humanity in need of salvation from without against forces claimed to be from without as well. Except evil isn't truly out there in nature, nor is it even internally in the hearts of men, rather, evil is what humans wanted to exist, so that suffering would be unjust, rather than simply a fact of life or something humans choose to incur upon each other for material benefits.

 

>>1848625
>atheism doesn't claim to know where the universe came from, but adding a god to the explanation just adds another superfluous step to the original mystery, if you can use god to get around matter not being created or destroyed you can just say 'the universe did it spontaneously' and it's more parsimonious
So you admit that atheism has no answers to anything and is just a justification to drag society down into a nihilistic spiral of depression and ugliness. Compare that with Christianity or Islam, which not only provide answers that correspond with dialectic materialism (as they honor the creator of the material itself) but also provide permanent solutions and most importantly hope. And we’re supposed to believe that atheism is remotely compatible with a functioning society but Christianity is barbarism? Give me a fucking break

 

>>1848639
>evolutionary pressures do.
What are "evolutionary pressures" if not moral purposes of life to survive? Nothing in the world "compels" life to behave in this way, and if it did, you are invoking cosmological arguments which imagine nature itself as a very particular type of god. See, this is why it is inadmissible. Once you imbibe that religion, it never leaves, because its arguments are circular references. You can say "evolution" is the answer to everything, without acknowledging anything life actually does to change.

For a struggle for life to exist, life would have to independently want such a thing, and be organized enough to engage in "struggle". To a plant or bacteria, its behavior is not guided by struggle in that sense. Simply put, the Malthusian argument only applies to creatures which are able to hunt and possess social behaviors, which are not trivial things. That would be a consequence of inserting political economy into nature - those are the evolutionary pressures you're invoking. There is no argument to say this isn't what happens, but if you do, you would have to be clear of where that applies. What you're invoking is a pure religious argument which glorifies the struggle for its own sake and places it at the center of existence itself. This is Satanic.

 

>>1848641
I don't believe all religions say the same thing or follow the same "god". They wouldn't be distinct religions if that were the case. All of the religions pertain to evil and can understand the positions of other religions. That is another quality of religion - that it is rooted in knowledge rather than suggesting that something "just is". A religion wouldn't exist without adherents and institutions pertaining to it.

The business of religion is evil, but you could have a mostly "good" religion, or use religion for any purpose. If the religion is about unicorns and rainbows and ignores evil though, it isn't religion and would be laughed out of the room. The good of the world really has nothing to do with religion, and religion has nothing to say about it - nor does religion pertain to the bad or the ugly. It deals specifically with the evil, and we know of evil before we know of religion. The existence of evil is usually why religion can exist.

 

>>1848559
well when I speak to others they claim that science or atheism doesn't have spiritually meaningful answers, one claimed she didn't want to be a robot in a causal chain. So to some extent meaning-seeking and fear of permanent annihilation after death. Abrahamic religions solve these two problems.

 

>>1848641
Evil certainly exists in the world independent of humans, but humans can and have chosen to exemplify evil and generate it by the power they hold. That is particular to humans, rather than a universal rule of life or religion. To speak of evil requires speaking of history rather than something that just is in the world, which is not like many moral sentiments which are "just there" or self-evident without any great inquiry.

You could make an obtuse argument that evil is only evil to us - only entities with knowledge view anything in the world as "moral" - but evil to be evil suggests its existence as something independent of any will. You can make "pure evil", and purity of evil is one of its enduring qualities that have been noted. The good can be fleeting and not care, but the evil demands purity.

 

>>1848559
They are ubiquitous globally for reasons far removed from their contents. "Pagan" faiths are more than capable of performing the same functions, like they do in India and Japan. Today, nationalism, liberalism, socialism have a much broader ideological sway than anything religions have to say in most of the world, which is why the pope wants to project an image of agreeing with socialists.

 

>>1848641
all religions don't say the same thing about god though.

 

>>1848645
>>1848645
NTA
I somewhat agree with your ideas about the nature of religion and evil, but you have a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.
Living things aren't "compelled" to survive because of a moral force in the evil that convinces, say, a deer that not eating grass and letting a tiger eat them would be evil; fear exists prior to evil being conceptualized. And organisms don't struggle to live because some metaphysical force compels them, but because they are genetically programmed to fear death, because dead animals don't breed, and animals that don't fear death won't avoid it long enough to spread their genes. Genes have a self-selecting tendency for avoidance of death, starting with only some cells surviving to reproduce, leading eventually to cells cooperating to continue to reproduce, go eventually cells cooperating to form brains in entire multicellular motile lifeforms that have a new sensation called fear that programs them to avoid outcomes that end in death.
Plants actually do have similar mechanisms and responses to similar selective pressures to animals, plants have evolved various defenses against both weather conditions, different climates, and consumption by animals. Plants have adapted predatory lifestyles purely due to a lack of soil nutrients. Plants evolved to grow higher and higher in competition with each other. Plants will let out warning pheromones that other plants can detect when they are eaten or destroyed. Plants even share nutrients and sugars via their mycelium networks to ensure the survival of a community of plants. There are some plants that have evolved specifically to parasitize other plants. I think you have a very weak understanding of evolutionary theory based off your arguments.
>>1848648
>I don't believe all religions say the same thing or follow the same "god". They wouldn't be distinct religions if that were the case. All of the religions pertain to evil and can understand the positions of other religions. That is another quality of religion - that it is rooted in knowledge rather than suggesting that something "just is". A religion wouldn't exist without adherents and institutions pertaining to it.
I think you fundamentally misunderstood my argument and the Nietzchean philosophical position of Berserk.
The same God all religions worship isn't the same as the gods that compose religious pantheons.
That God is, what the story calls, the Desired God, the God of the Abyss, or the Ungodly God born of Man.
The hidden god all religions worship is Evil. Or, as the story accurately names it, the Idea of Evil, more a description rather than a name. The notion of a divine order to the universe. The notion of some unnatural evil that abounds in the universe. The notion of fate and the necessity of salvation with the three, evil, fate, and salvation, bound together. That's the point Berserk is making. Not that all religions' gods are the same, but the opposite, that none of these religions worship the gods they claim to, that their religions have a hidden god that unites them all, that god being a deeply held belief as an artifact of human consciousness, recognition of mortality, experience of pain, and notions of justice imposed by our social primate ancestry; that being the notion of evil.
>The business of religion is evil, but you could have a mostly "good" religion, or use religion for any purpose. If the religion is about unicorns and rainbows and ignores evil though, it isn't religion and would be laughed out of the room. The good of the world really has nothing to do with religion, and religion has nothing to say about it - nor does religion pertain to the bad or the ugly. It deals specifically with the evil, and we know of evil before we know of religion. The existence of evil is usually why religion can exist.
That's the point Berserk is getting at, actually, central to religion isn't the notion of good, but the notion of evil, such that evil might as well be the God of all religions.
>>1848651
>Evil certainly exists in the world independent of humans, but humans can and have chosen to exemplify evil and generate it by the power they hold. That is particular to humans, rather than a universal rule of life or religion. To speak of evil requires speaking of history rather than something that just is in the world, which is not like many moral sentiments which are "just there" or self-evident without any great inquiry.
In what sense does evil exist outside of human conceptualization of it? What's evil about a lion eating a gazelle when it is a survival strategy devoid of malice nor sadistic intent on the part of the lion? What's evil about disease when it is yet another survival strategy? Death and pain are only exceptional to feeling beings that experience and are destroyed by them and thus avoid them. But to the universe, with no sentient perspective, these are simply things. Good and evil do not exist. Especially not evil, which is synonymous with pain and death (but only when it affects ME)
>You could make an obtuse argument that evil is only evil to us - only entities with knowledge view anything in the world as "moral" - but evil to be evil suggests its existence as something independent of any will. You can make "pure evil", and purity of evil is one of its enduring qualities that have been noted. The good can be fleeting and not care, but the evil demands purity.
Not at all, for Evil to exist it need only be a concept. Evil exists the same way Darth Vader exists, it is a concept humans came up with, but otherwise, is not an actual force in nature or the universe, its relevance is to humans and humans alone, outside of humans it isn't even coherent as a concept, it is hardly coherent within humans as human cultures do not have a single morality, they all do claim evil exists, because humans are thinking animals aware of their mortality and pain and as social organisms we are instinctually compelled towards actions that benefit the tribe and against actions that harm the tribe.
>>1848658
They don't, and Miura wasn't claiming that they do with the Idea of Evil. His point wasn't that they all share the same surface level deity or feel the same way about morality and religion and deities. The point was that they all believe in evil. And that more broadly, most people, outside the religious, also believe in evil. Even though evil is an essentially spiritual concept. Hence why evil is the true god, the Kushans and Holy See may not agree if there is one or many gods and what the nature of that or those god or gods may be, but they do agree that Evil exists.

 

>>1848643
lol get real. there's a reason why marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, the cold reality of atheism opens up the possibility for change. atheism gives man and proles the flexibility to define their own morals in line with what makes more sense materially for the working class.

having vague religious abrahamic definitions of evil and goodness do not cut it in this world. porkies can literally co-opt religion to outwardly appear 'good' and they regularly do. Whats the consequence? you have rightoid chinlets who suck their dicks off.

if society was atheist it would become much harder to fool the common man that the person bombing kids abroad is good simply because he claims to believe in 'god'

 

>>1848663
No, I understand the concept of evolution very well. It has nothing to do with any inherent moral purpose to life. Life at a basic level does not exist to "struggle" or for "struggle" that is controlled by an imagined selector. Even if life were compelled by its existence to feed off of the world and other life, that would not be a moral philosophy at all. It is entirely possible for life to simply admit its existence is in of itself evil, or at least that its existence is vampiric and therefore a liability if they hold a belief in "eternal life" or life as a going concern. But, life doesn't exist to struggle at all, and life can easily expect its own existence to end at some point. For most who live, the idea that they had any moral duty to "nature" seems absurd, especially coming from the least reliable people ever, who openly want to kill the masses.

You won't have an honest discussion about this, because you're given over to your religious view. That is the great division so far as the division is ideological - those who uphold the eugenic system against the multitude who are oppressed by it. Some great "theory" if you must resort to torture and unlimited deception to maintain it! But, humans simply aren't rational in that way. They love eugenics more than they love anything else, and that is the final word on them as a society.

>n what sense does evil exist outside of human conceptualization of it?

Humans have to conceive it based on something in the world, and can reconstruct history to see that there was an evil that preceded them, from which the evil could be drawn. The native faculties of humans don't have anything morally significant about them. The moral truth of humanity's basic existence is that they are materially flesh, matter and energy in motion, and that at some point in humanity's history, they engaged in ritual sacrifice, torture, and the enjoyment of such things so much, which created a feedback loop creating humanity's practice of evil. Nothing about the human body or brain compelled them to do any of the evil, and consuming life to exist is not in of itself "evil". The evil is that which glorified the death for its own sake, rather than the mere act of killing. We're able to appreciate that killing is wrong at all because we have extensive experience with the evil of killing, and saw without too much inquiry into the matter "hey, that is actually fucked up and we should be ashamed of doing that". Absent this inquiry into evil, which is best communicated and understood through religion or religious metaphors, we would be left with facile ethical arguments which can always be destroyed by reductio ad absurdum. We would need to understand the evil to understand why the Germanic habit of pretending there is no such thing as evil is itself evil.

 

>>1848666
Oh God you're just that eugenics retard
I can't believe I wasted time trying to have an actual discussion with you

 

>>1848665
nta that's the point, 99% of us are probably atheists. The point is, many understand that this sort of holier-than-thou belief was incredibly cringe-worthy then and now. Whether we like it or not, the origins of religions are far more complex than even Marxist analysis suggests. They came from various intricate cultural and theological factors. Entire populations lived their lives based on a possible misinterpretation, a misinterpretation that would have given the priests and rulers nothing

 

>>1848665
Frankly, Marx is an idiot with an axe to grind. Most of humanity simply isn't religious in that way and never was. When the argument for religion was "convert or we will kill you", that does not make for an enthusiastic base of believers. There were some who are drawn to Christianity because it provided them a path to the evil that was suitable for their proclivity, and Christianity and Judaism are both profoundly evil religions compared to the human norm. Still, most of humanity has never had a strong inclination to believe in any "god", and went through the motions because it was expected of them. The primary motive for religion is fear of those who are true believers, who invoke the evil that religion entails.

This is not to say that the people are "without religion", but that the religion of the people was violently suppressed and destroyed many times over, and that has been the primary objective - to ensure that people don't get any ideas about the world independent of the evil that rules and has perpetuated itself for this long. It is entirely possible for the evil to find non-religious vehicles, but knowledge of the evil requires religion in one form or another.

 

>>1848667
And you're a fag, as I expected.

 

>>1848670
As much of a fag as some dude that spent at least five years reiterating the exact same brainrot never once engaging in anyone else's viewpoint or perspective while whining about how everyone else is somehow close minded while you are not?

 

>>1848663
berserk anon i had an unrelated question. where can i watch it. i tried to watch berserk, but are you talking about the 1997 version with like barely any dialogue? i quit like a few episodes in because i wasnt getting the point

 

>>1848559
I'd say it's because Abrahamic religions such as Christianity are a self-claimed universalist ideology, so there's a manifest destiny to spread itself in terms of "my way or the highway." There's no other way around it. To make this look kind of universalistic, Abrahamism also tends to desubjectify itself, alike Rome's own version of downgrading its Pagan past and slavery while being eager to spread Christianity to the barbarians, bringing onboard the local barbarian elites as Christianized Romans. This is similar to liberalism which is framed as not a North American and Western European ideology in terms of their nationalism or tribalism but is multicultural and universal.

You might say Christianity gave birth to liberalism. I was reading a little bit of Hobsbawm's book "Age of Revolution" and it was interesting how he described religious revival movements at the time. In Catholic countries, anti-clericalism could often go outright atheist. In Orthodox countries, new sects formed. But in Protestant countries like the U.S., there were anti-clerical Protestant revivalist movements that espoused liberalism and appealed to different social classes (Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists appealing to those lower down the social class hierarchy). There was even a trad-Cath revival at the time among sons of the upper class.

 

>>1848671
I have to repeat myself because people like you are too stupid and continuous repeat the same faggotry to retard any discussion. There is a reason leftypol is failing.

Obviously the mod team here is run by Satanists, and they got what they wanted. Reality has a way of asserting itself no matter what faggotry you invoke. The people of the world hate your faggotry more than they hate me, despite your insistence that everyone has to be like you, fag.

 

>>1848672
No, I'm taking about the Manga, the 97 anime is okay and the movies are slightly lesser versions of the anime with better animation

The Manga is an actual masterpiece that delves into philosophy, the human condition, psychology, war, and the nature of suffering and healing from trauma, as well as being filled from page to page with some of the best action illustrations and illustrations in general out of any anime, and blends fantasy, action, and intense horror
>>1848675
Maybe you keep repeating yourself because you keep making schizo claims and get furious with even the slightest bit of pushback and are openly and proudly unwilling to consider anyone else's perspective when espousing your worldview?

 

>>1848643
>So you admit that atheism has no answers to anything and is just a justification to drag society down into a nihilistic spiral of depression and ugliness.

There's millions of Americans from the average Joe, police officers, school teachers to top U.S officials in the government and military that sincerely believe once the Israel's completes their genocide and rebuilds the temple mound the apocalypses begins. I can't think of a more nihilistic and cynical religion than the Abrahamic ones. Especially the Christians. Who sees everyone outside their religions as pawns in their quest to end the world and send everyone to endless suffer and torment. I just don't think you can be religious and moral at this point.

If you're religious you are lying to either yourself or others. You're cynically pushing religion as a control tactic you think others need placed on them. Or you sincerely believe in this insanity and just a mark for the former group I mentioned. Its wrong and anons you need to stop going to church and pushing this crap. It rots your brain. It alienates you from humanity itself.

 

>>1848682
Never forget, Evangelicals are pro-Global Warming and Sixth Mass Extinction because once the biosphere dies Jesus will comeback 😉

 

>>1848682
You would have to ask though - why is the temple mount being rebuilt, while "human progress" has sputtered out and can't agree on the simplest program without degenerating into infighting? These two forces are not really opposed to each other. The former supplied the latter with their ideologies, their theories, their praxis, and told them a farcical philosophy that was designed to fail and told them to internalize it.

Fortunately, there are people who do see the absurdity of this, and they are fighting for their lives and for the world, in spite of those who would enable the rot. But, they do so because they have their own religious convictions - specifically, they have the conviction that this apocalypse cult stuff is Satanist garbage and should be violently rooted out. Somehow, when you tell this to the "good humanists", they have an excuse to jump to the defense of the rulers, and pretend what is happening isn't actually happening. It's always that.

 

>>1848676
I have considered others' perspectives. I don't consider YOUR perspective because it is childish and relies on retreating to the institutions like a craven fag. I've talked to people who disagree with me and held a genuine dialogue. It's only with you fags and people like you that this is a problem, because you insist everyone has to be like you and play by this fake and gay ruleset which guarantees nothing will ever be different or can be different.

 

File: 1715186996753.png (864.01 KB, 1600x1114, IMG_2340.png)

>>1848682
American Protestantism has nothing to do with Christianity, it’s simply the worship of consumerism and the ego peppered with a plastic cross and a black trans Jesus. Atheism is effectively the same thing but replace “Jesus” with Luke Skywalker and SpongeBob. If you’re going to attack religion the least you could do is focus on the actual doctrines rather than man made heresies designed to condition people to accept atheism, pic related

 

>>1848691
I've never once seen you consider someone else's perspective in five years, I've seen you claim that you do more than once between your typical bans, but I've never seen you accept anyone else's world or perspective.

Do you mean Christfag perspectives?

Because at least back in 2021 your rants weren't filled with appeals to the material existence of evil, the value of religion, and the mods being "satanists".

Assuming you are Eugenics-Kun

 

>>1848695
I genuinely think you're more schizo than ever if you're Eugenics anon

 

>>1848665
When I have quality discussions on here, it's because the "kill the weak" fags are silenced and they're not relitigating nonsense and making insinuations and aspersions about my character. That's what you fags always do - make it a personal attack, then retreat to some authority that will threaten and resort to violence to uphold your failed fag ideology and talking points. You want a fight, and have your method to ensure that others will never talk around you, that everything has to be dominated by your filth. It's all Germanic and Satanic. It really is about that.

 

This forum is useless for discussions because people like you jump in front and use the shame and fear tactics to make discussion impossible. For my part, in this thread I've presented arguments and all you have are character assassinations, because what I said doesn't conform to what you need reality to be. You don't have an actual argument so you made it about personal attacks and threats, and that's all people like you ever needed or wanted the world to be. I don't have that opportunity nor do I want it. I don't care to center the world on human conceits about themselves. The world exists without humans and it's a good thing humans are not strong enough to change that.

 

>>1848584
>decades of rhetoric and still no actual rebuttals to atheism other than calling it 'reddit'
You know damn well people here would call Marx or Lenin "Reddit" if they posted here. To me, it speaks to their success that people that would have joined the White Army/the fascists/NATO to destroy the USSR call themselves "Communists".

 

>>1848703
I’m not, not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. I’m sorry that having views consistent with Marxism Leninism sends you into such a fit

 

>>1848719
Only one of three types of retards that posted here have ranted about "eugenics" being the main logic underpinning the world:
Eugenics-kun
That retarded fucker that also claimed virology was false alongside evolutionary biology
And the "Climate Change don't real" crowd

I assumed you're Eugenics-Kun because you talk exactly like him, spewing the exact same victim complex, and furiously ignoring everyone that speaks to you in the same way.

 

>>1848714
Are the people that would join the White Army and NATO the same as the people that post critical support for Putin?

 

>>1848584
You literally just pretend atheism can be agnosic when people bring up agnosticism.

 

>>1848735
I never mentioned eugenics once in any of my posts, just that you shouldn’t be confusing American amorality with Christianity when the two have nothing to do with each other as demonstrated by the chart posted above. You’re the only one having a mental breakdown at the concept that not everything is permitted and that we humans are not god

 

>>1848741
>You won't have an honest discussion about this, because you're given over to your religious view. That is the great division so far as the division is ideological - those who uphold the eugenic system against the multitude who are oppressed by it. Some great "theory" if you must resort to torture and unlimited deception to maintain it! But, humans simply aren't rational in that way. They love eugenics more than they love anything else, and that is the final word on them as a society.

What do you get from lying?
Why do half the stupid cunts on this board lie constantly, consistently? Is it pathological? Is it an imageboard thing or an online left thing?

 

>>1848751
That’s not one of my posts dumbass

 

>>1848751
That's me, not him, and I'm right.
This is what they do - guilt by association, shaming rituals, threats, manipulation of discourse. The people running this place don't want to do anything except shit up discussion.

 

>>1848637
>butthole schizo is back without the flag

Oh joy, terrible arguments and abuse/redefinition of basic terms

 

>>1848751
imageboards attract schizo pseud cunts, and they don't know how to think in any way other than schizo pseud cuntery

 

>>1848559
The field of religious studies has your answer. Watch this video titled "Why Strict Religions Succeed"

 

>>1848795
What other definition of "evil" is useful? If evil is nothing but an empty sentiment, then it is worthless to speak of it as relevant, which says a lot about the dominant moral philosophy today.

You don't get to speak of evil while claiming that it's a completely arbitrary and subjective thing, then make strident claims about what the world "should" be, what "nature" says that is curiously in line with the conceits of a ruling elite, and so on. Either evil has some basis in the world that we draw on, or evil is something "unknowable" and "just so", which doesn't allow us to navigate the world. The latter is what occultists do, thinking they will terrorize the slaves and keep them blind forever. But, information does not work in the way those people believe it does, and the only idea they have when people speak to each other is to scream like retards, saying "NO NO NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!"

 

>>1848809
I want to mention before you watch this video that when he says "liberal" and "conservative" he doesn't mean those words in the political/economic definitions we use them. Theological liberalism and theological conservatism have unique definitions in the fields of religious studies that should not be confused with political/economic definitions.

 

>>1848577
>I would actually say that Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity
In terms of dietary restrictions, yes. In terms of ethnocentrism, no.

 

File: 1715199469373.png (344.17 KB, 600x1795, ClipboardImage.png)

You know I should have clarified more, I am not asking about the nature of belief itself, and I myself am an atheist. My question is why do do Abrahamic faiths(i.e Christianity and Islam) have a level of mass appeal and strict adherence that other religions seem to lack?

 

>>1848735
Idk Eugenics-kun is a really great writer. 9 times out of 10 you don't even know its them till you're reading the 8th paragraph. Also I don't think they're entirely wrong in that a bunch of Nazi eugenicist sit at top level echelons of the government. We're watching a extermination of a people being carried out right now.

>>1848695
<American Protestantism has nothing to do with Christianity
>Nooo those aren't real Christians like my specific Christianity

<Atheism is effectively the same thing but replace “Jesus” with Luke Skywalker and SpongeBob.


Kinda of agree with this, but I think this is more a product of being in a transition age. Without being subjected to the church people are discovering their own meaning. Sadly a lot of it is consumerist bullshit. But being obsessed with star wars lore or getting your morality from Luke Skywalker isn't any different or less meaningful than being a bible weirdo. Under socialism I would hope there's community centers that fulfill the needs for community and sharing stories. That isn't some mega church or funko pop collection.

 

>>1848879
Threat of magic lava and promise of endless hedonism after death. Also abrahamic religions have little qualms about using dishonest tactics to spread, and they like targetting children for brainwashing.

 

>>1848913
You know, you have a thing called the internet that allows you to communicate with like-minded people without regard for distance, and there is no legal barrier to talking to whomever in meatspace.

Maybe you should ask why there is a palpable fear to speak of anything real, instead of inventing more stories to pretend what is happening can't possibly happen. It's funny how even the most basic sense of community and human interaction is now verboten except as a fantasy, even though it would be trivial to speak to each other. No, you simply refuse to speak to those who are cast out, because you're opportunistic. Then you get the idea that no one else is allowed to speak if they dare say what has been done to them. You call them "negative thinkers" and enable every canned insult to silence anyone who will say no ever again. But, if that did happen, humanity would be ungovernable. No one would have any reason to abide coexistence ever again if we actually said what humans were and what they have done.

So this thread comes up, and it's funny because Christian civilization dominated the world and imposed its vision from start to finish. Instead of figuring out what many have already stated - that the religion was always evil - there are all manner of retarded stories invented to pretend it has to be something else. It's always to make sure eugenics can keep going on, so that opportunists and enablers can stay on the life boat. It's retarded and evil, but you do it because you're cowards, just pure cowards.

 

>>1848738
atheism is agnostic

 

I thought for the longest time I really was the asshole. It would be easy for me to think that, being self-aware and ashamed of actual things I've done. It was around the time these fags enabled Trump and allowed any of that to go on that I was fucking done. Nothing I or any of the condemned did or are warranted this level of enabling, against the interests of people who obviously should know better. But, they don't really think. They're just fags - pure, unmitigated fags, who ran the country into the ground and thought it was funny. They did it for nothing but a cheap thrill, and it was all the way to the top. That's all it ever was. That was my first take when I had to endure this as a child, but I made the mistake of thinking humans were more self-interested. Turns out a critical mass of humanity really are just fags, and most humans are too cowardly to even say what it is in private. They're still convinced that if they just try harder, these demons will totally spare them somehow.

 

I am unfair, since most of humanity is in no position to rebel, and most have done the only reasonable thing - keep their head down, due to being unable to trust anyone. Even if someone is trustworthy, the decent can be captured, interrogated, and even being near someone who is a "toxic person" became a crime. It's amazing how you dumbasses continue to play their game in spirit. Most humans learned a long time ago there was never going to be anything else, and never invested themselves in any grand historical mission. If that was going to happen, the past 150 years would have turned out very different. Eugenists would have been dragged out and shot before any of this was allowed to happen, and 1945 would have ended with every world leader or at least the most incorrigible denounced and never allowed to rule again, and the eugenists who took their place would similarly be exposed and removed. Humanity would have ended then and there.

 

>>1848970
And by this I mean, the concept that there is a "humanity" to save would have been abandoned. There are only associations of people, who might have something to do with each other, but without this grand mission, the only thing humanity would have to do with each other is to prevent this exact thing. It was evident by the turn of the 20th century that none of this should have been tolerated, and certain assholes needed to ensure the people didn't get ideas that none of this choking of life was ever necessary. So, the eugenists made it clear that they would resort to unlimited terror and transgression and dare anyone to stop them, and kept doing it for 100 years. By time living memory of a time before eugenics was gone, they stepped forward, generation by generation, to make the world as they wanted it to be, with terrible and predictable consequences. That is the human spirit. That is what "human freedom" meant. Humans don't deserve freedom. They deserve to be ruled with an iron fist and crushed. That would be better than living under the eugenic creed.

You're going to get the iron fist and the crushed part, but it won't be as if the bastards "rule" in any sense that would be appreciated. They simply revel in the thrill of torturing us as they have, and you assholes keep allowing it. Eventually, the iron fist will be worse than any despotism ever could be, until humanity is given the "relief" of outright despotism on the terms of the victor. And that is the final form of human government - because you loved eugenics more than anything we would consider good, and you don't believe people have any mind or will of their own to affect anything. You were very quick to substitute that whenever someone went against "The Plan", but did amazingly little towards anything worthwhile and made it look like the most pitiful crumbs were grand achievements - and then you conspired to take those away too, just to rub it in. It's disgusting.

 

The eugenists did what they did for their own reasons. It is the enablers, the venal fags who went out of their way to curry favor, that I hold in eternal contempt. The good news for me is that the eugenists will happily throw away their enablers once they're used up, so me damning the enablers would just be piling on. But, enablers are never going to be anything good. They're allergic to doing anything but slavish obedience, and you can only make use of faggotry for certain things. The moment they realize they're doing something other than the most venal thing, they snap out of it and "regress to the mean". This isn't just a product of education. They're naturally like that, and have been selected for and conspire with each other to make sure everyone else has to suffer. But, no one goes around saying that they are only happy when everyone else is miserable. No, they learned how to project that onto their victims. Project, project, project - the old Germanic mindset.

 

>>1848966
>>1848970
Touch grass ASAP
Maybe go to a protest for once in your life rather than rocking back and forth huffing angel dust in your room
Idea of Evil, Godhand worshipping aaa

 

>>1848663
>That God is, what the story calls, the Desired God, the God of the Abyss, or the Ungodly God born of Man.
>The hidden god all religions worship is Evil. Or, as the story accurately names it, the Idea of Evil, more a description rather than a name. The notion of a divine order to the universe. The notion of some unnatural evil that abounds in the universe.

Hmm, your statement especially brings a question about the Pagan religions, for an instance, in Hellenic Pantheon- The gods do not even constitute an unity in a relation to an 'unnatural evil' , the tale of Prometheus is one of the obvious, Prometheus, standing in the starry heavens, defied the Olympian Gods in favour of his own flow of will. So, is it Zeus or Prometheus who resembly the divine order, which one is the 'good'? The gods in paganic religions mostly stand as quasi-Socratic myth revealers, the spirit with its poetical imagination enters into dialogues with them as a 'true way' to achieve knowledge of the world, but as you see, it is not doctrinal, evil/good as concepts aren't even established amongst the gods, the good, as a label, becomes evil in some occasions, and vice versa.

 

>>1848559
if you have an exclusivistic "authoritarian" ideology competing in a field of syncretic "libertarian" ideologies, the exclusivistic ideology will come out on top, even if slowly

 

File: 1715236181027.png (450.72 KB, 720x481, beefmaster.png)

Ehem🎤
FUCK THE BIG 3

 

plot twist: judaism is god the father, christianity is god the son, and islam is the holy spirit

 

> Pretty much every people group exposed to Abrahamic faiths ends up incorporating elements from them.

World's First and Second Largest countries are both non-abrahamic and have been exposed to abrahamics for literal millennia. Your premise is flawed. Both nazis and "POC revival" religions are revivalist movements in countries that have already been Christianized.

The reason so many countries have been Christianized/Islamicized is the same reason so many countries are Buddhist(Which contrary to what reddit atheists think, is just as violent and expansionalist as abrahamic faiths are). These religions have a mandate to convert others, which is not a given for most religions. Manchu Shamans and Bantu Medicine Men don't give a shit what you worship or don't worship.

 

>>1849358
IT'S JUST BIG ME

 

>>1848559
Religions based on oral traditions and ethnocentrism are very fragile and can be destroyed in a couple generations

 

Because both Christianity and Islam are heavily proselityzing and universalist, most religions in the world are neither

 

>>1849425
>Religions based on oral traditions and ethnocentrism are very fragile and can be destroyed in a couple generations
Unfortunately, the world religions were stewed in the oral traditions and ethnocentrism of central Asia for thousands of years. That destruction is sadly not automatic.

 

Polytheistic religions are inherently based around tribal life, while monotheism has successfully expanded its outreach
In the past, pagan nations would often syncretise deities into compound forms (like how heroditus said that the jews worshipped dionysus), so there was a gradual conceptual overlay of the local gods into general concepts.
But only monotheism has the rights to the most abstract form which can encompass divinity. Thsts why in history it was only priestly types who expressed feelings of monotheism, like socrates (where he was charged for atheism, the same as the christians in rome - so here is the dialectical link between a "true belief" and unbelief which marks the protestant reformations inversion into enlightened humanism).
But also, the monotheistic societies have always been more powerful so convert by force.

 

>>1849523
But its also necessary for old gods to die

 

>>1849531
True. Again, that isn't automatic, and there aren't many guidebooks for how to kill gods, a lacuna in social theory that thirsts to be filled. I keep thinking I should write one.

 

File: 1715268001861.jpg (362.88 KB, 715x537, 715-537-blog-8.jpg)

>>1849359
Islam is the father, where even in its revisions of the torah in the quran, it declares that allah gave the names to things rather than adam, which is written in genesis. The god of judaism has always been personal and fraternal, while allah is beyond representation (and only does his will by the angels), so allah is the symbolic father (which might also explain islams androcentrism.
Christianity is the son and holy spirit.
I would say following christian prophecy that judaism is the "synagogue of satan" so represents the devil, in how the occult largely comes from rabbinic judaism with things like kabbalah (where hermeticism is always a secondary influence). Even the tarot cards are based on the kabbalah.
Judaism is the old law overturned by the new covenant, so the "third temple" is resurrected as a new myth that coincides with the age of aquarius (the battleground of armageddon; christ and antichrist).
>>1849535
Sure. I would read your blog post.

 

>>1849539
>The god of judaism has always been personal and fraternal
[LAUGHS IN METATRON]Which is to say Alan Rickman ofc

 

>>1849595
Theres a reason why judaism is always in "dialog" with god and why the jews can "put god on trial" after the holocaust. The jewish deity is fundamentally personal in this capacity. But the "true god" of judaism is the ain soph, or limitless nothingness which reveals itself as the holy law.
This is also why most jews are spiritually atheists, since their religion is quasi-materialistic. They dont even believe in an afterlife.
This is another facet of their "satanic" place in the abrahamic lineage.

 

>>1849539
>allah is beyond representation (and only does his will by the angels)

he is beyond representation and yet uses angels as his representatives, curious, checkmate muslims, etc. etc.

 

>>1849539
>christian prophecy that judaism is the "synagogue of satan"
you have a serious misunderstanding of christianity of that's what you think is being said. here are those biblical verses in their full context:

And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of the first and the last, who was dead and came to life: I know your affliction and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
— Revelation 2:8–9

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write… "I know your works. Look, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying—I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you."
— Revelation 3:7–9

The statement being made here by the author of Revelation is that they are the true continuation of the Jewish faith in a new form, and that the 2nd temple leaders persecuting them alongside Rome "say they are Jews and are not, but are lying."

i.e. the author of Revelation is saying that leaders of the pharisee sect of 2nd temple Judaism are not true Jews, but he is not necessarily extending that statement to the rank and file followers, the early Christian converts, the Jewish Christians, and certainly not other sects of Judaism like Sadducees, Essenes, or Zealots.

Another thing to take into account is that the 27 book canon was hardly established when revelation was written. Revelation remained controversial even among early church fathers who did not have a canonical consensus, and engaged in rigorous debate with each other, frequently denouncing and ostracizing each other.

 

>>1849649
Yes, christians are spiritual israel since they are inwardly circumcised and made by the new covenant, so jews are willfully disbelieving in the messiah by not becoming part of the church. Its not about pharisees alone, its about undoing the old law by exposing its contradictions, which is part of christ's revelation.
Or are you like these idiot zionists who think the jews are still "the chosen people"?

 

>>1848643
>So you admit that atheism has no answers to anything
No, it provides plenty of answers, you just don't like them.
>and is just a justification to drag society down into a nihilistic spiral of depression and ugliness.
I don't see how that follows. Personally, my non-belief in religion makes me care way _more_ about things, not less. I want to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because I have no other to escape to.
>Compare that with Christianity or Islam, which not only provide answers
Wrong answers.
>which not only provide answers that correspond with dialectic materialism (as they honor the creator of the material itself)
If you talk of things that exist above and beyond the material world, you're not a materialist.
>but also provide permanent solutions and most importantly hope.
False hope.
>And we’re supposed to believe that atheism is remotely compatible with a functioning society but Christianity is barbarism?
So? "It would be nice if Christianity was real" is not in fact a compelling argument towards its reality. It'd be nice if I could eat ice cream every day with no negative consequences. That doesn't make it true.

 

>>1849659
>Or are you like these idiot zionists who think the jews are still "the chosen people"?
I neither said this nor implied this. I'll disengage if you ask more loaded questions like this. And no. I am not a zionist. or Jewish. Or Christian. Or Muslim. Nor am I even religious/spiritual. I just take some hobbyist interest in these things.

>Its not about pharisees alone, its about undoing the old law by exposing its contradictions, which is part of christ's revelation.


Even in mainstream early Christianity, it's not about "undoing" the laws of the old testament, which were still largely followed by the part of the Christian community who weren't from a gentile background. See Matthew:

<Matthew 5:17-20

<King James Version

<17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


<18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


<19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


<20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


when revelation was written, fairly early on in the church's history, the Christian community was largely a syncretic mix of people with different competing theologies, and the highly developed Nicene/Pauline Christian theology that would go on to make up mainstream Christianity wasn't yet hegemonic within the church.

 

>>1849539
Thanks. In the mean time, Caitlin Johnstone's doing some good work along related lines, killing narratives.

 

>spiritually successful
christianity was co-opted as a state religion by the roman empires before being co-opted by germanic kings who passed it onto the european colonial empires who used it to mindfuck their colonized populations
islam was literally spread by caliphates which were empires, and the dominance of arab merchants over mediterranean and indian ocean commerce
jewish diaspora formed an economically useful caste in their host countries and were allowed to keep practicing their religion as a result

 

>>1849677
>roman empires
empire*

 

>>1849649
gloops posting revelations on my /leftpol/. it's the end times anons.

 

>>1849680
i'm posting the verses where the "synagogue of satan" statement came from to explain why it was being taken out of context

 

>>1849667
Christ eats on the shabbat and tells the pharisees that the law is internally contradictory and that he himself has exception because he has come into the world. He defies the pharisees many times and fights the money-changers to purify the church.
Undoing the old law is in how he states that the law is embodied in the golden rule and the further tutelage that he gives in his sermon on the mount.
Also, salvation is offered by faith and baptism as opposed to the works detailed in the 613 strictures of the jewish religion.
Jesus' point about himself being the law is that he has the power to revolutionise it for a new age since he is the logos.
In any case, christians dont need to follow the mosaic law and hardly paid it any attention until the protestant reformation, when people retraced the old testament.
>mainstream Christianity wasn't yet hegemonic within the church.
Sure, but here is the hand of providence. Objectively, revelation was about a failed prophecy of nero kaisar (666) coming to persecute christians (where "the beast with 7 heads" is rome and its 7 hills), but then when this didnt happen it was forestalled, til luther declared that the papacy is the antichrist at the head of the roman church. Now today it is becoming more clear that we are literally living in the end times by contingency and that this was all about the passing of the age into aquarius where we will have "heaven on earth" after armageddon (which a figure like albert pike saw as a zionist war).
So, even if people werent clued up back then, they sure are today. I wonder who will take the mark of the beast and who will reject it?

 

>>1849681
Synagogue of satan objectively refers to jews who reject jesus, the messiah

 

>why come rape and pillage and spread via musket religion so "succesful?"

 

>>1849684
we are now straying away from the original conversation, which was some anon's assertion (maybe you?) that "synagogue of satan" is referring to all jews even though, embedded in the very context of the verses, is the author of revelation saying explicitly that the people he is calling the synagogue of satan "say they are jews but are not" because they are "lying." The author of revelation is clearly not referring to all jews otherwise he would not assert that they are lying when they call themselves jews, or say that they "say they are jews but are not". That's the only thing I'm really trying to say with this conversation. As for what Jesus says, does, etc. that is a matter of theology on the one hand, and on the other hand a matter of the historical Jesus, assuming there was one. I'm not here to make historical or theological statements, just to point out that the very primary source origin of the term "synagogue of satan" does not associate it with all jews. and i do not say this out of a motivation to defend zionism or judaism.

 

>>1849696
The jews who are "real jews" became believers in christ while all the other jews (jews in general - not christians) are part of the synagogue of satan
The church is a sublation of israel
Jews are NOT israel anymore, so do not worship god, which is why they resort to magic and the occult to cope
>historical jesus
I dont think there was an historical jesus, but sometimes a fiction can be more "true" than a fact.

 

>>1849696
To be fair, this entire thread is an appeal to mysticism and an attempt at the half-circular historical construction of "success" as whatever self-exalting thugs did that our bourgeois masters make us care about.

 

>>1848706
I could write an entire book refuting all the nonsense you believe and then-some, and every day I see your faggotry I get one step closer to taking the plunge and actually doing it.

>>1848966
>>1848970
>>1848976
>>1848980
Meds.

 

>>1848665
>there's a reason why marx said religion is the opiate of the masses
not religious but pic related

 

>>1849714
<The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

<Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


Uh, my face is up here… ->

<The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

 

>>1849714
>erm marx liked religion actually
LMFAO quote-miner moment

 

>>1849730
>erm marx liked religion actually
no one said that, stop strawmanning.

 

>>1849730
i don't think marx "liked" religion. just pointing out that his take was a little more nuanced than "just make everyone atheist right now lol"

it was more like "religion will gradually disappear once the economic base for socialism is established"

whacking away mindlessly at the superstructure of the existing society hoping to make religion go away isn't going to work. It's a many headed hydra. the heads will just grow back. the economic base of hitherto existing class society is the root cause enabling the continued existence of religion. religion will wither away with the state once the economic base is changed.

 

>>1849719
>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Except young Marx wrote this and old Marx knows better. You can't make the religious superstructure disappear by liberally calling upon people to give up their delusions. You can't vote away or debate away religion. And suppressing the superstructural elements of religion like the Soviets did just makes it go underground. You have to get to the root cause, which is the economic base of class society. religion is a reflection of class society. Religion is symptomatic of class society and will die with class society.

 

>>1849767
I think whats interesting too is that most ideological atheists are hardcore radlibs
So a marxist atheism differs in kind from a general godlessness that you find in the west
Like how stalin was an atheist but was still celebrated by the orthodox church

 

>>1849767
>>1849774
In the same way as stupidity recedes as intelligence develops, religion recedes with the development of science. But the two are nevertheless related, since each is defined at least partially in opposition to the other.

>>1849775
Wonder what Lenin had to say about democracy and religion.

 

File: 1715283440857-0.png (129.1 KB, 400x614, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1715283440857-1.png (702.18 KB, 694x1028, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1715283440857-2.png (721.41 KB, 715x1006, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1849767
>it was more like "religion will gradually disappear once the economic base for socialism is established"
Gallup polls show that this has indeed been happening, just as Engels' predictions of monogamous relations losing their male-dominance and indissolubility have more or less unfolded. Engels may have been a little spooked in supposing a monogamous nature to sex-love, but I haven't done much field work lately.

>>1849774
>You can't make the religious superstructure disappear by liberally calling upon people to give up their delusions
ILlusions.
Production is the point of departure, remember? Societies are products. Myths are products. One attacks this problem at its point of production.
You can indeed call upon people to stop conditioning themselves to, i.e. reproducing, fictions and falsehoods, although the bourgeois rituals of persuasion will glance right off. Instead, supply destructive information that undermines the group's self-projection, interferes with faithful reproduction of the creed, and casts doubt on the mission. Pics.

>>1849779
In fact, particular professions, such as electrical engineering, tend to attract individuals who are both extremely intelligent and extremely pious. I don't know why that is.

 

File: 1715287299749.jpg (63.53 KB, 1006x1007, GM8y5_5WAAA_u64 shotgun.jpg)

>>1848582
> Cristoid nonsense

 

>>1848595
> you know that whole thing about not murdering people, and the basis of nearly every concept of law beyond the most basic? That always has a basis in religion. Without that, you get endless lawfare, Star Chambers, and things that make the law so hideous that no one would allow that to be invested in men or a thing that would be followed at all. In the absence of any religious guide, an ersatz religion will be inserted.

 

>>1848634
> Skydaddy is real because otherwise life would have no meaning, and there MUST be a meaning

 

>>1849910
there are keks in the ancient images yet

 

>>1848813
Evil is not an autonomous concept.
The material universe by itself has no conceot of good or evil, it's humanity that picks events in the universe and categorized them as evil.
So, while the event itself indeed exists indipendently from humanity, it become evil when humanity categorizes it as such.

> If evil is nothing but an empty sentiment, then it is worthless to speak of it as relevant, which says a lot about the dominant moral philosophy today.

Morality is a spook. It's laws are determineted by societal reproduction, where a social group produces (mostly unspoken) laws about what ought to be, and these laws get progressively perfected as time goes on, by selecting for laws that facilitate the reproduction of the relationship of production that oerpetuate that society.
Of couse, morality is affected by the material conditions that the society, and the specie for that matter, lives in. Stealing, raping and pillaging was perfectly fine for raider societies because ot helped reproduce the society itself. Meanwhile death being bad and something to be avoided is something developed by all living beings, for they avoided death, while those who did not fear it went extinct.

You lament of the moral philosophy of today, but such philosophy is produced by the material realtions of today, the same thing that defines what is evil.

Yeah I am tired I will reiterate ten thousand times

 

>>1848913
I disagree, for the jesus stuff is integral to the doctrine, meanwhile atheism per se as no real doctrine or idols. Atheism more of a statement than a belief

 

>>1849973
You are half-right
Just because morality is relative to different societies doesnt mean morality is a "spook". It means it is concretely real and a felt aspect of our experience.
Even if you can *pretend* to be above it all, we still have a moral feeling, since this is a dialectical progression concording to the social as such. Thats why the truly revolutionary act isnt going "beyond" morality, but in forwarding a new moral paradigm.

 

>>1849977
Yet most atheists think the same way on innumerable subjects
Atheism is a western identity that manifests as anti-christianity
Again, we have to see the social grounding of such categories

 

>>1848961
> Maybe you should ask why there is a palpable fear to speak of anything real, instead of inventing more stories to pretend what is happening can't possibly happen. It's funny how even the most basic sense of community and human interaction is now verboten except as a fantasy, even though it would be trivial to speak to each other. No, you simply refuse to speak to those who are cast out, because you're opportunistic. Then you get the idea that no one else is allowed to speak if they dare say what has been done to them. You call them "negative thinkers" and enable every canned insult to silence anyone who will say no ever again. But, if that did happen, humanity would be ungovernable. No one would have any reason to abide coexistence ever again if we actually said what humans were and what they have done.

Is this uigha mixing the alienation caused by the current material conditions with atheism, and then blaiming them on it, or I am waaaay too tired?

 

>>1849982
Just because many atheists might do X doesn't mean atheism is X

 

>>1849985
Yes it does
If a christian says dumb shit like "im not like X sect" you can see the transparency of ideology in this, but if an atheist says, "i am the true atheist" they dig themselves into a bottomless pit.
Stereotypes exist for a reason, no?

 

File: 1715290960142.png (179.84 KB, 960x468, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1848813
>Either evil has some basis in the world that we draw on, or evil is something "unknowable" and "just so", which doesn't allow us to navigate the world.
Or, evil might be merely an expression of received emotion and a plea for recognition.

 

>>1849980
People can be conditioned to see illusions, and feelings aren't sacred.
>we still have a moral feeling
No, liberal
>Thats why the truly revolutionary act isnt going "beyond" morality, but in forwarding a new moral paradigm
Moral entrepreneurship is bourgeois capitalism. Holy fuck you make up a lot of false objectivities about how you should get good boy points

 

>>1849982
> Yet most atheists think the same way on innumerable subjects
Still not a doctrine or a belief
>>1849991
Seems more of a condition of protestant barinworms for that matter.
The catholic church holds that it's doctrine is THE thruth (which also soecifies moral code, how to.live, how the world works, etc), and so do most protestant sects. But atheism has no official doctrine beyond "god is not a thing". Hence it's qualitatively different from religions

 

>>1850001
You have no moral feeling? You are a robot or mentally retarded then? Stop trying to be edgy
Also, yes, socialism is literally a moral revolution. What do you think all of the pro-palestine protests are about? "Dialectical materialism"? Grow up.

 

>>1850006
I literally can't understand the people who want to pretend socialism isn't moral at all.

 

>>1849982
Also you're completely sleeping on atheists outside of the west.
I know it would deeply please my own pigskin if the world started and ended because the White™ race kicked it into motion, but other cultures are perfectly able to develop concepts (among which, atheism) without a white mastermind behind it

 

>>1850003
Doctrines dont exist in themselves. Theory must be put into practice.
If atheism is so characterless, then why does it create conformity? My point is that dialectically, something can be self-related through *negation*, meaning that most atheists are just anti-christians, which is also why they love the satanic get-up.
My point basically is that there is no *positive* atheism, but is a negative identity. It depends on rejecting something rather than positing its own perspective

 

>>1850010
Most atheists are westerners though
But i have seen that ex-muslim guy who literally teams up with christians to own muslims. So again, atheism is always a particular anti-theism.

 

>>1850006
> socialism is literally a moral revolution.
> picrel
>>1850009
Because socialism is about tacling the relationships of production that uphold our current society, and it's moral framework with it. It's not about establishing who is righteous, it's about material forces being set in motion

 

>>1850015
>Atheism is always antitheism

Oh boy how many false claims can you throw out there?

 

>>1850018
If you read capital by marx he brings up a lot of sob stories about children working 20 hour days in factories
Marx was also an edgelord, but at heart everyone gives a shit about something

 

>>1850019
Give me some atheists who dont have a rageboner against god and i'll believe you

 

>>1850018
Without some kind of morals you can't say why capitalism should be changed or why the workers don't just accept wage slavery. You can say 'well Marxism is just a study of the world' but then in that case there should be no socialist parties or activism because socialism is inevitable even if nobody works towards it.

 

>>1850012
> If atheism is so characterless, then why does it create conformity?
It doesn't. What was mentioned in >>1848695 is fruit of the consumerism produced by capitalism, not atheism

 

>>1850021
How can you rage against something you don't even think exists. I mean the Christan god is a psychotic madman sure but I don't actually think he's real so it's not like I'm actually mad at him

 

>>1850006
>You have no moral feeling? You are a robot or mentally retarded then? Stop trying to be edgy
Stop taking your ideology of emotion as real.
>Also, yes, socialism is literally a moral revolution. What do you think all of the pro-palestine protests are about? "Dialectical materialism"? Grow up.
They're about symbolic warfare, that's all. Read some Bourdieu instead of your whiny religious shit.
>grow up
Nah, Evropean ideology of adulthood is an infantile order. You can keep your pathetic little dramas to yourself.

 

>>1850012
>If atheism is so characterless, then why does it create conformity
They're followers of the American civic religion, most likely, not atheist.

 

>>1850028
Emotions are real though..?
>>1850025
>How can you rage against something you don't even think exists
Good question, but it happens very often

 

>>1850031
Well here you dangerously imagine a "true atheism". My point is that there cant be since its always about hating the particular religion you grew up in.

 

>>1850022
> Without some kind of morals you can't say why capitalism should be changed or why the workers don't just accept wage slavery.
Because the conditions that capitalism produces are intollerable. They don't produce moral rejection, they just go against human instinctual needs until the whole thing blows up
> You can say 'well Marxism is just a study of the world' but then in that case there should be no socialist parties or activism because socialism is inevitable even if nobody works towards it.
Because without marxism we would be back to capitalism.
I don't do so because is moral, I "follow" marxism because I wanna get rid of a nail in my finger, and I don't want it to come back.
I don't do so in terms of morality, I do so because pushed by my human instinct, with a strategy elaborated by my frontal cortex

 

>>1850032
Even if atheists were all secretly mad at god it wouldn't change anything anyway, it wouldn't make their arguments less valid, so this is just another cheap theist attempt to escape the logical reasons not to believe

 

>>1850039
No atheist is "secretly" mad at god lol. Its out in the open.
Its part of the atheist identity to rebel against the symbol of the heavenly father.

 

>>1850025
I do so only because 90% of italian curses are related to christianity dio cane

 

>>1850020
>you're not being middle class and respectable and that's bad
I love it when teenagers screech about good bourgeois moral behavior in the process of constituting themselves as good middle class adults. No, actually, it's cringe. Read book related

>>1850022
You don't need a moral theory to refuse to obey a direct order. If anything, you need a moral theory to justify obeying it, and continuing to obey it.
You don't need a moral theory to fail to submit to someone else. If anything, you need a moral theory to justify submission to the whims of others, and for counseling that same submission in others.

 

>>1850037
Unless you were brought up without a religion. Like I was, or like how millions of people were in the former red block.
This is just bottom tier cope

 

>>1850048
So believing in right and wrong is "bourgeois"?
So all of humans in history are bourgeois?
My point is precisely that a *new* morality must be made to combat the discourses of today's oppression, not to conform to it
Its weird when "marxists" dont believe in progress

 

>>1850048
Interesting oresentation yours. The quality of the pdf seems rather low though

 

>>1850049
But you still admit that most atheists are antitheists or will we play the semantic game again?

 

>>1850055
No they aren't. Stop assumimg one has to belive in divinity for like 3 minutes or something

 

>>1850057
I never said anyone should believe, im just saying that theres no such thing as "neutrality" in ideology. If you believe in dialectics, then everything is mutually opposed. There is no "unbelief", but there is "belief" and "anti-belief".

 

File: 1715293101436.png (1.07 MB, 720x864, matterisgod.png)


 

>>1850060
Anti-theism is the position that god is evil, atheism that it doesn't exist.
Do not conflate them

 

>>1850064
They *are* conflated though by atheists themselves
Like i say, show me an atheist who is totally fine with people believing in and worshipping god. This exception *proves* the rule.

 

File: 1715293697190.mp4 (377.79 KB, 964x720, Read nigga read video.mp4)

>>1850068
This uygha is doing exactly wat I told him not to. Can you even read?
No they aren't conflated for anti-theism isn't atheist

 

>>1850052
>So believing in right and wrong is "bourgeois"?
Yes.
>So all of humans in history are bourgeois?
Actually, morality was institutionalized by the Greeks, and also (first) skepticized by the Greeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
We'll talk about your simplistic, breathless attitude toward history later.
>My point is precisely that a *new* morality must be made to combat the discourses of today's oppression, not to conform to it
How about arming the oppressed? I probably don't want to be around their oppressors anyway, and unless you're a bourg neither do you. There really is no reason for another moral enterprise. Baseline communism can be turned up fairly high without your creepy emotional entitlement entering the picture at all.
>Its weird when "marxists" dont believe in progress
The history of Marxist thought is rich and complex, and doesn't necessarily converge on your tendency and your org. That delusion is called sectarianism.
Likewise, history is rich and complex (and multifarious), and not everyone's experience necessarily converges in your ideals here and now, nor goes in the way you wish it would. That delusion is called Whig history.
My friend, you have so much reading to do to get out of this 19th century reenactment cult you seem to have stuck in.

 

>>1850072
Okay so lets take an example you will understand better
If we make a distinction between christians and homophobes, and keep insisting that bc they dont *necessarily* imply eachother that they cannot be correlated? No, because lived experience shows us the truth, the same way that a guy who says "im not racist, but…" is a racist
Is it up to a guy to say "im not racist" to be known as non-racist? Every racist says theyre not racist!
So, every atheist says they are just mere nonbelievers; neutral. But an atheist is a loaded identity because all identities in society are.
Here the social in practice reveals the truth against the platonic void of theoretical concepts.
Your thinking is some sort of vulgar idealism if you think otherwise. Words only have meaning in the societies that use them, and words betray themselves.

 

>>1850075
So if its bourgeois to have morality its proletarian to not have morality (to be a robot or mentally retarded)?

 

>>1850075
History is dialectical self-reproduction at higher stages of contradiction (progress) or do you not believe in dialectics?
Whwt do you sctually believe in? Just seems like youre a very unserious person

 

File: 1715295829958.png (236.06 KB, 1390x385, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1850054
I kept that one for my library because the embedded text is alright and the file size is small.

>>1850086
>ooh, yeah, let's transpersonally exclude him! that'll make him care about our personhood
Your judgments are unimportant.

>>1850091
Believe in?! What rot you exude. Take careful note of point 7. World history has not always existed. Nor need it exist. Nor need any particular "world" exist forever, considering those that have been lost already, and those yet to come. A "world" is just a set of all things that are important in some way.
>unserious
Lol. Modernism is reaction and the very use of the term "unserious" is unserious in the meta-Modern age.
What kind of broken slave are you who is trying to repeat Protestant Pietism in the key of Marx?

 

>>1850107
well im just trying to be factual. To be a nonmoral being means being a robot or a retard. My point thus is that to properly be a person is to be moral, in whichever sense. Thats why sublation incurs a moral revolution for whichever transition in society happens historically. There is class conflict and moral conflict wedded to this in the same capacity. Thats why i say that a socialist morality must supersede a capitalist morality for us to normatively become socialist in kind. No?
>A "world" is just a set of all things that are important in some way.
I would say each era is determinately *real* by its historicity. We are historical so are born into a "generation" we belong to and are given to it.
>Modernism is reaction
Sounds interesting. Could you elaborate please?
>What kind of broken slave are you who is trying to repeat Protestant Pietism in the key of Marx?
Wasnt marx's father a preacher? Isnt communism "heaven on earth" for the new milennium? Didnt engels say that the early christians were proto-communists?
Christianity as the myth of our age hasnt completed its final revolution yet. Im waiting for armegeddon, as are all of us.

 

>>1848559
Cos abrahamic faiths stole everything from religions that came before, and religions that came afterwards steal from current trendy religions.

 

>>1849982
>Yet most atheists think the same way on innumerable subjects
Citation needed.

 

>>1849982
>>1849991
>>1850012
>>1850021
>>1850033
>>1850044
>>1850055
>>1850068
>>1850084
If you play around with words enough you can describe anything as anything.

 

>>1850232
Sometimes it takes a lot of words to make a simple point, especially when dealing with stubborn people
>>1850202
I cant help autists

 

Because Jesus works in the hearts of many people and saves them from a life filled with sin. Jesus is king, and he died to save everyone from their sins and save us all. It is not too late to accept him into your heart, and may Jesus reign forevermore.

 

>>1850238
thank you the widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst Caleb Maupin

 

>>1850236
>I cant help autists
So this is just vibes then?

>especially when dealing with stubborn people

Lol. Lmao, even.

 

>>1850236
>source?
<youre autistic bye
riveting

 

>>1850243
If you wanna call it vibes then sure
But real life is where the truth exists

 

>>1850250
Yes you are autistic. An unfortunate result of today's social disease. Im just being objective.

 

>>1850251
>But real life is where the truth exists
Again, source? If it's the truth you should be able to point me to a link supporting it.

 

>>1850254
If you cant see the truth then you live in lies, what more can i say?

 

>>1850256
You're dodging the question. If it really is the truth then a source should be trivially easy to find.

 

>>1849977
>I disagree, for the jesus stuff is integral to the doctrine, meanwhile atheism per se as no real doctrine or idols. Atheism more of a statement than a belief

Agree, kind of disagree too. I think people after losing god find some other bullshit to fill time. I just see religion as a cultural/entertainment product that people kill each other over. Maybe cause I got sever burger brain and that's just how religion is presented to me in America. In the most cynical and consumerist way. Although I prefer religion in that way over a brutal "authentic" theocracy. The way I see it, is humans need institutions. We need stories and mythos or at least, we create those things. So sure, Star wars and the avengers are a religions. Still a more moral, ethical religion than the big three. Also more coherent story lines and less plot holes. I'll say though bible is more interesting story wise. Even as an atheist I've picked up the bible more times than I'll ever watch some capshit.

>>1849982
Theres Atheist all over the world, of many different sizes, shapes, gender identities whatever. Most don't make it their personality, like how most people don't make religion their personality now a days too. The only reason were seeing revival of this debate is because the big three religions are on a reactionary war path or passively accepting it.

 

>>1850257
No. The truth is already in your own experience but youre playing dumb. Its a typical trick. I cant help a guy who plays dumb.
>>1850258
There is no "debate". Theres people who believe in god and people who hate god. Its always been like this.

 

>>1850263
>Theres people who believe in god and people who hate god?

Which god(s)? What people believe about something as intimate as their own death, you can only believe what they say what they believe. Or not at all, you're not a mind reading anon.

 

>>1850265
Why would i need to read minds to know what is self-evident?

 

>>1850258
No, people do not need to enslave themselves to lies like class or dreams. You're simply reifying bourgeois philosophy and forcing class on us just so that you can love lies.
>We need stories and mythos or at least, we create those things
Who does, exactly? The problem is other people's stories and being involuntarily cast in them.
>Still a more moral, ethical religion than
On what scale, the useless middle-class softhand crying scale? No. Your religion is bourgeois liberalism.

>>1850263
>loving an imaginary friend
I'm sorry, but the ability to enjoy doublethink with faulty ontology only makes you a defective source of information.

 

>>1850263
>No. The truth is already in your own experience
No it's not. Most of the Atheists I know are just normal people who aren't particularly opinionated on this kind of thing. And I still want that source.

 

>>1850272
Its not about ontology, its how we symbolically self-relate. Thats why i bring up dialectics. God is not an object, but a concept - what lacan would call the master signifier.
The atheist hates god because they hate paternal authority when the dialectical irony of course is that it is the "true believer" who believes least by wrapping up his faith in theology.
But the atheist needs god more than the theist by the same measure. Thats why hitchens famously said he wouldnt abolish religion, since it preconditions his subjectivity.
But your condescension is certainly a throwback to the new atheist cringe lol
>>1850289
Ask them about god and you will get your answer

 

>>1850294
>the master signifier
Exactly, and if one wishes to dispense with masters, then what?
>The atheist hates god because they hate paternal authority
As well they should. There is no reason to love submission except to justify and extend class society.
>But the atheist needs god more than the theist by the same measure
Your mysticism still bores me. I'd be perfectly happy to abolish either identity and the very idea that being lied to might be something to love. Polarities can be undermined and thus killed.
>Thats why hitchens famously said he wouldnt abolish religion, since it preconditions his subjectivity.
He's a bourgeois cunt with a grift. Of course he's not going to abolish his gig flow.
>But your condescension is certainly a throwback to the new atheist cringe lol
Stop loving lies, and I'll have nothing to say.

 

>>1850272
I'm sorry anon, I'm stoned and trying to be more diplomatic to the nerds and religious people. But I also think you misinterpreted my point. After capitalisms is overthrown things will still be organized by institutions, culture and art will continue. Right? But we're not talking about that, were talking about right now. We're in no position to be slapping bibles or funko pops out of peoples hands right now. As of right now people get their morals from cultural products like religion and Hollywood. So you got to pick your battles and find a way to relate to people through these cultural frameworks.

 

>>1850294
>Ask them about god and you will get your answer
I have. I suspect the answers aren't what you expect them to be.

Why do you refuse to provide a source? You can support your position with evidence, and if it were true such evidence would be trivially easy to find.

 

>>1850296
>Exactly, and if one wishes to dispense with masters, then what?
Well here is the problem. When we forcefully oppose something, say, we hate someone or something, we are bound to that thing by a negative self-relation. We LOVE to hate. This happens all the time politically, where i would say that the right wing for example is obsessed with owning the libs, and in truth, they couldnt be anything without rageporn - so see here how you can oppose something so much that you cant live without it. Thats my basic point.
But how to resolve the master? Well, there is no total solution if we are being dialectical. Someone like zizek would point to the hidden figure of the father itself, that he is strict and whatnot, BUT there is also a perverse permission written into his authority. Think about how youre not supposed to drink under age, but the law here suffices in a formal setting to give permission to its informality. Like how weed is illegal but everyone smokes weed.
Zizeks theological point is his "christian atheism", that it is only *through* the father that he is dissolved (in his crucifixion/castration). This functions as a sort of "phallus". Like how a guy who compensates for his insecurity *reveals* his insecurity by trying to be masculine. My favourite example is sunglasses. Only insecure men love sunglasses, but their stoicism betrays their coolness. This is also why i ethically refuse to wear sunglasses.
Zizek also makes the political point that if we have our will in the father then we also transact his permission (like how a fascist doesnt use the police as a formal instrument, but uses gangs as an informal imposition). Zizek says that if we believe in god then all is permissible (in the dangerous sense).
So, we either hate our dads or live to see our father's castration. But either way, the master is problematic, i agree. Vidrel has a good mantra: "we want our fathers dead". Am i so different?
>>1850299
What are their answers?

 

>>1850296
>The atheist hates god because they hate paternal authority
As well they should. There is no reason to love submission except to justify and extend class society.
How is the paternal authority of God so different from the paternalistic authority of the state?

 

>>1850319
It isnt at all
But you also dont want to be a cringe anarkiddy larping as a revolutionary, when what you really want is no bed time

 

>>1850310
>What are their answers?
Along the lines of "I dunno, I just don't see any reason to believe".

Off the top of my head, the only example of outright antipathy towards Christianity from atheists I've seen was a literal autist I knew in highschool, but that was like a decade ago, and he's hardly representative of the general population.

 

>>1850294
>>1850324
I don't "hate God" anymore than I hate the Combine. It would be laughable to hate a fictional character. I don't even hate the bourgeois; I see them as an obstacle than can and will be overcome. What I do hate having to defer to their psycho-sexual pathologies, their backwards morality and their determination to set the world back by centuries.

 

>>1850335
God as a fiction is still Real in his sociality though. Thats the point. We dont relate to the *object* of god, but we self-relate through his concept. When you talk about "god", people know what you mean.
>>1850334
Well, they seem like antisocial people then. Having no opinion on God is like a down syndrome take. Its like being the guy who's "not into politics". Even apoliticism is political - thats my point about unbelief in anything.

 

>>1850339
>Well, they seem like antisocial people then
No, they're regularly social people. I think you overestimate how opinionated your average joe is on these kinds of issues.

 

>>1850345
Your average joe's 'opinionated' position in this hypothetical would be 'I don't have an opinion on God', though, so that's incoherent. (NTA)

 

>>1850345
Theyre antisocial in the way that a person whose favourite film is high school musical is unreal. I dont consider such unculturedness something that can be called human since it drowns out into a banal ahistoricism, like an animal or a stone.
But you will notice, and let me know - all these "atheists", they believe in something, right? Whether its aliens or "the universe", karma, "simulation theory", the moon goddess. W/e.
My point here is part of the same monotheistic polemic. You either believe in god or you are an idolator.
I remember getting my brother baptised and my uncle said the dumbest shit to me about how religions all fake, then he starts parroting off about UFOs and shit. Its like listening to joe rogan.
But this is how irrelevant some people are.

 

>>1850298
That's fair. I've been in a kind of a non-diplomatic funk for a minute. Much grass.
>We're in no position to be slapping bibles or funko pops out of peoples hands right now
No, at least not overtly, but we may be in a position to slap down their institutions or those institutions' members. We can't change their relationship with their idées fixes, but we certainly don't have to accept those idées fixes as valid merely because they were proposed via well-formed political activity.
>As of right now people get their morals from cultural products like religion and Hollywood
True enough.

Pro tip for parties that want to exit parliamentarism: makerspaces. It's a workshop, a petty income source, a productive social activity, a source of direct industrial *material* competence (too many Marxists are proud not to understand how things are made in current year and make terrible, uninformed, anachronistic interpretations), a talent sharing network, and more.

>>1850324
>anyone who doesn't want to be a smol boi submissive to an imaginary friend is dumb
You sure romanticize smallness don't you? Anyway, your palette of received emotions is just another charm bracelet to me. Have fun with it

>>1850339
>Well, they seem like antisocial people then
Stop trying to sell your imaginary friend as something necessary and beautiful. You're still a fucking idiot for creating a master at all.

 

>>1850353
God isn't a master. We had this discussion before. Remember me?

 

File: 1715318301457.png (293.85 KB, 720x611, demiurge-grillman.png)

>>1850062
>matter is god
yaldabaoth moment

 

>>1850048
>i misquote you and assert you are screeching
my favorite genre of chanposter

 

>>1850361
I'm here for the inevitable "you complain about imitating 4chan behavior yet post on an imageboard, curious!!" autist who you'd think has an alarm sound whenever someone says the C-word here.

 


 

>>1850365
Atheism is orders of magnitude more unintelligent, especially so because it's self-assured in its ignorance.
inb4 BUT LE RELIGIOUS DARK AGES ARE THE REAL SOURCES OF IGNORANCE

 

>>1850048
That book is an absolute joke by the standards of the ethics philosophy field as a whole. Woaaah dude what if morality and right and wrong were just like.. constructs? - The book

 

>>1850366
>especially so because it's self-assured in its ignorance.
This is coming from the person who can't back up anything they say with complete confidence.

 

>>1850367
>by the standards of the ethics philosophy field as a whole
Yeah, it destroys their class property and I cum everytime they cry.

 

>>1850268
>>1850263
> I have no basis so I must cope

 

>>1850347
>But you will notice, and let me know - all these "atheists", they believe in something, right?
Fifty thousand years of projection. No. The answer is no. I know it's futile from my side, but you should stop trying to impose positions unto your opponents that they don't hold.

 

File: 1715349493689.jpeg (286.79 KB, 1160x773, download.jpeg)

>>1850563
So why do some atheists not believe and others simply believe in something otherwise?
Again, you play an ideological game when you qualify what makes a "real atheist"
My point is that to unbelieve is to actively not-believe. Again, this is part of dialectics.
Lets put it in political terms again - would you agree that the "apolitical" guy is inherently political? Most critical thinkers would.
Thus the position of the excluded middle is the place of ideology. Thats why dialectics deals in polarities. There is no political centre and there is no theological centre, because we are born into theology, whether we like it or not.
>>1850353
We dont create our masters, we are born into their bondage. The figure of the father is eternal.
Whether we rebel or abide in him, the son is always transcending him. But this is what atheists dont understand. The person who believes in god isnt cucking themselves, they are using "the will of god" for their own ends. This is the permissive underbelly of the father against his stern foreground. Why do you think christians and muslims can do horrors "in the name of god"? For this precise reason. The same way a fascist can support "order" but can only esteem to this order by breaking the law. This is also the link between lolberts and fascists - the hatred of the law.
So here see the inversion. The fascist glorifies the military dictatorship but at heart is a criminal. This is the same relation to the father and to god. The "true believer" is the true unbeliever.
Be critical and stop being cringe. What im saying is that i am the true unbeliever, not the true "atheist".

 

>>1850576
>We dont create our masters, we are born into their bondage. The figure of the father is eternal.
Reported for mysticism

 

>>1850592
Mysticism? I am being anti-mystical. The father as a symbol is eternal by concrete experience.
A good btfo to deleuze is seeing how emotional orphans get when they see pictures of their biological parents. The father exists even in his absense. Thats why he cannot be overcome.
The mystic is the gnostic atheist who imagines he can transcend theology.

 

>>1850595
When did eternity start, then, to the nearest millennium?
>by concrete experience
Oh you sweet anti-historical summer child. Marx already taught us not to eternalize social relations.
>A good btfo to deleuze is seeing how emotional orphans get when they see pictures of their biological parents
I shrugged
>The father exists even in his absense
Mysticism is attractive to the illiterate
>Thats why he cannot be overcome.
Lol. You'rejust hypnotizing yourself now. Very common among fascist Euroids.

 

>>1850619
>Mammalian life is based on the relations of the family structure
>the family structure preceded mammalian life
Idealistic trash. Stop posting

 

>>1850624
It would be more dignified if you just admitted defeat
But i dont want that either
You are mad for no reason, so just calm down
its ok

 

The magic of being at once a death cult and a fertility cult

 

>>1850631
This isn't a game. People who believe lies are defective and need to be put into wood chippers. answer to OP: we haven't been doing this

 

>>1851000
Sure. I'll let you kill me if you beat me in a 1v1
But duelling is a lost art today

 

>>1850619
>>1850631
You say
>Also, and no offense, but saying "my sweet summer child" is really reddit and cringe, so never do that again please.
(possibly missing the meme?), but then you turn around and post >>1850631, like a true fucking faggot.

 

Hey, I still never got my source.

 

File: 1715377020772.jpg (22 KB, 338x324, Mussolini.JPG)


 

>>1851026
>Hey, I still never got my source.
Mother and father loved each other very much and so they called for the stork who brought you into this world.

 

>>1851023
>ur a fag
<no u
thats fine
>>1851026
Source on what? The fact that sociological identities like "atheists" exist and can be recognised by people with common sense? Again, if you *need* some pointdexter to give you numbers on that you have a developmental disorder like autism, so i cant help you.

 

>>1849519
>Because both Christianity and Islam are heavily proselityzing and universalist

 

>>1851041
>Source on what?
That a core part of the atheistic identity is antipathy towards Christianity. The claim runs contrary to my lived experience, and in the absence of any proper evidence, I'm going to trust myself over some guy on Leftypol.

 

>>1850086
actually yes. The new socialist person will seem retarded by today's standards. Retards of the world unite!

 

>>1851055
such a weird victim complex when christians are the bloodthirsty ones - even after the russian revolution the reason the bolsheviks went after christians was because they attacked them first

 

>>1851055
>>1851067
also even many christians hate christianity as an institution these days and with good reason

 

File: 1715380394383.jpg (129.44 KB, 864x646, VanE.jpg.jpg)

>>1851055
Yeah thats fine if youre being honest
But my point is that negation is always positively negative. There is no "unbelief", there is only "disbelief".
A good hypothetical to ask is "would you believe in god if he showed himself to you?" And my intuition is that most atheists would say no. Because its not about the *object* of god, its about how we self-relate to his concept, and this is the place of *theology*. The theology of atheism is implicitly satanic, and thats why so many atheists become satanists. Here satan does not stand as "no god" but the anti-god.
This is why "apostate prophet", an ex-muslim atheist, teams up with christians to own the muslims, because his position is not "no-god", but "anti-allah". This is also why atheists can get into the occult and worship angels and demons, but the father is always barred from the symbolic order.

 

>>1851070
>A good hypothetical to ask is "would you believe in god if he showed himself to you?" And my intuition is that most atheists would say no.

retarded

 

>>1851070
fucking schizo babble

 

>>1851075
If you saw god appear you, you wouldnt believe. I think i made my point with your snark.
>>1851076
Why?

 

>>1851083
and how would you know he isnt a false god?

 

>>1851083
Why wouldn't I? Of course it would not be possible for him to 100% prove that he's god and not a hyper advanced alien but I think with enough miracles and discussion I would be convinced.

 

>>1851085
What does a false god look like?
>>1851086
The point is you cant prove it, since the *object* of god is irrelevant. God is not an object, but a concept. Ive made this point before. But lets say jesus comes down and does miracles, would you REALLY start following the bible? NO. because its not about that.
Stephen fry gives the perfect atheist hubris when he said that if he went to heaven the first thing he would do is question god antagoinstically about all of his horrors, in a sort of mirror of the book of job. And whats gods reoly to job? It is what it is. Like how his name is "i am that i am"
The point is that God here stands in the place of ideology, not as something in himself.
Okay so lets re-state my point. If jesus showed up and told you being gay is wrong, is being gay suddenly wrong because its written in the bible? My point is that the atheist *cant* believe in that, which is the truth of their being.
This is why theology exists and why atheists probably read the bible more than christians. God is not an object, but the bible is. The law remains.
This is also the truth of judaism. God is in his heaven and man must fix the world he made.

 

>>1851096
>Okay so lets re-state my point. If jesus showed up and told you being gay is wrong, is being gay suddenly wrong because its written in the bible? My point is that the atheist *cant* believe in that, which is the truth of their being.
>This is why theology exists and why atheists probably read the bible more than christians. God is not an object, but the bible is. The law remains.
lol imagine coming to a anarchist/communist imageboard and posting this

 

>>1851096
I never said I would worship god but I would certainly believe in him if he demonstrated his existence sufficiently. I like to think I would also confront god for the horrors he has wrought on this world if I encountered him.

 

>>1850576
There are definitely moral atheists, but your attempt to construe them as representative of atheism as a whole is you "playing an ideological game". Both kinds exist. Let's talk about their difference, because it's kind of crucial.

You claim that the real non-believer is one who uses the mantle of authority (based on the cultural context they're from) in order to sanction their own, amoral or selfish, actions. The pious atheist still believes in some way in the power of the transcendent authority but fears and repudiates it, and so is stuck in its web of morality while taking a hostile position towards God (or, in my experience, taking a self-deifying position in order to take back a sense of agency lost in the relation of impost morality and the chaos of the world - this looks like the various wicca, pagan, magick, etc. idiots). But the non-pious atheist, they are selfish and amoral in the same vein as the fascist, with the key difference being they refuse to replicate the authoritative logic of religion and take the place of the Father. They are revolutionaries. Eat my ass, nazi.

Also Zizek fails to consider the actual true believer, who is actually submissive morally and with their framing. E.g. make it into a square divided in four quadrants, headings 'moral believer', 'moral non-believer', 'textual believer', 'textual non-believer'. The vast majority of christians I have ever met are genuine believers, they openly believe in words and deeds. A minority are perverters who probably want to be cult leaders or something. And of course the myriad non-christian 'spiritual'ists are believers of the general idea but reject it in name. I used to be in that camp. And on this topic, I think Zizek is right to call hysterics the revolutionary position, because it's precisely the pious atheist (or spiritualist) position which represents a hysteric relationship to power - fear of the power of the given social authority, keen feeling of their own powerlessness, with a drive to be just as powerful in order to no longer fear or feel castrated by the constituted social authority, but the method of empowerment typically being the seduction of the authority! (and you can see how this is mirrored in basically all occult practices, where there is an attempt to win over otherworldly powers to your side, by offering yourself). Anyways that's all fake bullshit which is easier to grow out of on account of not being a socially fortified delusion, so which lends itself eventually to the full atheist position. Hail Satan (for being easier to mentally overcome than Yahweh, lol)!

>>1851070
>And my intuition is that most atheists would say no
>my feels
typical nazi
but besides that… I think you're conflating factual belief with obedience.

anyways what's with denying reality? Have you seriously never met a normal atheist who simply doesn't believe in the imaginary friend in the sky?

 

>religion is a necessity to have morals (aka be le "good")
Why are people even entertaining this idiot?

 

>>1851119
I really hope the Ukrainians nuke Ljubljana

 

>>1851122
Because taking the bait is a crippling addiction.

 


 

>>1851100
You miss my point even though i made it many times
"The Law" is the object of constant re-inspection. Thats why there are over 30,000 sects of christianity. Christ himself was a figure who poked holes in the pharisees' legalism.
>>1851115
Okay well thats an interesting answer.
Why believe in god but not worship him?
But this my point about satanists. Here is the disbelief of an unworship
>>1851119
>But the non-pious atheist, they are selfish and amoral in the same vein as the fascist, with the key difference being they refuse to replicate the authoritative logic of religion and take the place of the Father. They are revolutionaries. Eat my ass, nazi.
You are naive if you dont think revolution is a religious act. Even robspierre made the comment "i am god" as he was slaughtering gods' representative in the nobility.
>Also Zizek fails to consider the actual true believer, who is actually submissive morally and with their framing
Theres no such thing. People mortify themselves for clout. Nietzsche describes this as the "will to power" thst underlies moral systems. Jesus also talks about how the arrogant believer will openly pray, when he is supposed to pray privately. This doesnt exist. None are good but God.
>genuine believers
Yeah theyre called lambs to the slaughter. Fools for christ. But this is my contention. The "genuine" believer will eventually become theological. They will start using their head, and when this happens they become un-true believers. But this is the basis of the bible as a hermeutic device. Only someone who doesnt read the bible can be a "genuine believer" since to read the bible enters one into discourse.
>Anyways that's all fake bullshit
You were making a point then you ruined it. Like i say, this is not about the *object* of God, but his symbol.
>Hail Satan (for being easier to mentally overcome than Yahweh, lol)!
What does this mean?
>anyways what's with denying reality?
What reality am i denying?

 

>>1851158
>Why believe in god but not worship him?

I wouldn't worship an entity that wasn't worthy of my admiration. Frankly it's hard for me to think of any person that would be worthy of worship but the god that created our world definitely isn't worthy.

>But this my point about satanists. Here is the disbelief of an unworship


You said earlier 'this is why so many atheists become satanists' but you realise satanism is completely fringe right? I doubt even 1% of atheists are satanists. Most satanism doesn't entail belief in a literal satan anyway, they just call themselves that to shock Christians.

 

>>1851158
and robes pierre was a liberal xD
we are dealing with the end of class society, nazi

>Theres no such thing. People mortify themselves for clout

you are a shut-in autist. Go meet real people.

>Yeah theyre called lambs to the slaughter. Fools for christ. But this is my contention. The "genuine" believer will eventually become theological. They will start using their head, and when this happens they become un-true believers. But this is the basis of the bible as a hermeutic device

You just said this doesn't exist in the last text block, nazi. Self-crit for your retard ways. But yes I agree they are fools, and that their position is temporary…. and yet we are similarly only temporarily alive, but it would be wrong to call us dead. Capitalism is in the process of decay, yet it would be wrong to say we have overcome capitalism. Things existing in a process of transformation is not an argument against the existence of said thing. And yes again, yes… most believers don't read the bible. They are naive.

>You were making a point then you ruined it. Like i say, this is not about the *object* of God, but his symbol.

No you fascist dog I was making a point and you took a shit on the floor. Most people are dealing with objects! Yes, the object of god is not real, yet people still need to come to that realization. In your perverted mind everyone already understands what you understand, which is that God is a tool for justifying your actions. Yet grounding that is a wider reality of people coping with the world, and they want an object god who will hear and grant their wishes. Even though the concept of God still survives as a symbol. It's the demand for a "true" god that leads a path out of religiosity as a whole. You're playing the part of a cynical, corrupt priest. You ought to know that not everyone can be that, that most will be dupes. While you fantasize your position in reproducing delusion-based hierarchies, nearly everyone else is the dupe or with the dupes, and atheism is an expression of our self-emancipation. Also what grounds do you have to see yourself in such a virile position, you basement-dwelling pasta eater? You're a boring cynic, that's all.

 

>>1851173
What is worthy of worship to you?
>satanism
Yeah i know all about satanism. I used to be a satanist. But like, a true believer.
And this is where my perspective comes from. Satan is the anti-god, but how can you positively believe in what is given against positive being? Only by believing that satan *is* god, so to say, that God is evil, but that he exists and we should worship the evil God.
Okay, so God is the author of evil. But, if you look into reformed (protestant) theology, this is the exact perspective. That the world is evil. That God has even predestined us to go to hell. If you also read some passages even said by christ, he declares that God punishes the righteous in life.
So see how a true belief in disbelief ends up with (un)true belief in God.
This is why i say there is no way out. We either believe or we disbelieve.

 

>>1851192
I wouldn't like to think of myself "worshipping" anything, since I basically just see it as a pejorative. If there had been a god that made this life a utopic existence of pleasure then maybe I would worship them, I don't know.

As for the rest of the stuff you said I'm not sure I really understand it. Yes the Bible says that the world itself is fallen and evil but I don't think most Christians would think that it implies God himself is evil. A large part of modern theology is to try to tie yourself in knots to explain how the obviously evil things God does in the Bible are in fact not evil.

 

>>1851198
I feel like if an all-powerful being made a utopia… a pre-condition to it being utopia would be that we don't need to worship. Like y can't god just give us this as a gift, and not expect favors for it? God is a jealous, manipulative dick.

 

>>1851190
>And yes again, yes… most believers don't read the bible. They are naive
Yeah, so belief is not based on anything except our inherited discourse, not the object of study. You either believe or disbelieve before encountering the bible.
My point about the "genuine believer" is how can you believe something that you dont even know you believe? Think of it politically. A lot of people call themselves "marxists" without reading marx. Same deal. So, "true belief" is based on the impossibility to truly believe. Thats my dialectical point.
>Yes, the object of god is not real, yet people still need to come to that realization.
But as you said before, "hail satan" is the position of choosing a new master, and i agree. But then in abolishing christianity you get a new religion. Islam seems to be pretty popular these days, no?
>It's the demand for a "true" god that leads a path out of religiosity as a whole. You're playing the part of a cynical, corrupt priest.
Yes precisely. You truly are wise.
>atheism is an expression of our self-emancipation
As far as ive seen, the new atheists are largely zionists and liberals, not radicals.
>>1851201
In the bible it says that there are no churches in heaven since the spirit of God is all around you.
>>1851198
God openly admits in many passages that he is the author of evil. The whole book of job situation is a tale about how all theologians who make excuses for him are wrong and how only job is right in his complaints.

 

>>1851201
Well yes no being that was worthy of worship would require it but you still could choose to worship this god just because you love them so much.

>>1851206
Maybe the Bible says that, I don't know, but most Christians certainly don't believe that God is evil.

 

>>1851206
The staples of modern christianity like kiekegaard and tolstoy and dostoevsky are analogous to job in the position of the hysteric. The sufferer. The complainer. Atheists would be great christian poets if they didnt take the bible so seriously lol.
Even schopenhauer's rhetorical appeal to christianity is in how it reveals the meaninglessness of life, like tolstoy's own admission. There is a holy tradition of the oppressed in the church.
>>1851210
Well, think of how when a person is in denial they will come up with excuses. Or how an abused wife will defend her husband. The endless pages of theology attempting to square the circle of "the problem of evil" reveals the truth in its lie.
The "evil" of god is revealed in the crucifix. God is charged for his crimes and suffers eternally with the rest of us.

 

>>1851126
Weak men create bait times
Bait times create strong men

>>1851173
>Why believe in god
Can't kill a god that doesn't exist, and there is a certain pleasure in the doing.

>>1851206
>As far as ive seen, the new atheists are largely zionists and liberals, not radicals.
New Atheists more or less worship the immediate liberal state as the world-god.

 

>>1851220
>New Atheists more or less worship the immediate liberal state as the world-god.
Yeah, but everyone believes in something

 

>>1851206
Okay I see your point on genuine believers now.

>But then in abolishing christianity you get a new religion. Islam seems to be pretty popular these days, no?

Only among neo-nazis and southern europeans lmao

>As far as ive seen, the new atheists are largely zionists and liberals, not radicals.

as you've seen from what, reddit glow ops? put down the fetuccini, give your mussolini posters a parting kiss, and abscond the basement

>the apologia at the end

the christian tradition is the eclectic sysnthesis of two hostile religions, has been added to and removed from and re-interpreted in so many ways over time, and is fundamentally not connected to anything that would unify its claims (i.e. reality), and because of this it says just about everything. Why make any reference to the texts? They are interpreted in various ways to serve agendas, as you yourself claim. So who cares?

>God is charged for his crimes and suffers eternally with the rest of us.

You sound like a good catholic. Come be with us sheep, where you belong.

>>1851224
believing in only "something" (in making the mundane sacred, or proliferating the sacred into many little sacreds) is the first step to worshiping nothing. At least in worshiping the state, there is a delusional belief that a tangible human institution will intervene in the tangible world in a way that benefits you. It's all the self-centered magical thinking of religion but none of the anti-materialist woo.

 

>>1851226
>southern europeans
Italians?

 

>>1851227
all of the good countries taking in southern migrants from regional conflicts

 

>>1851226
>Why make any reference to the texts?
Because the west is still fundamentally christian today.
In china they dont have to care about the bible. But the bible is still our myth.
>You sound like a good catholic
I am a bad catholic, which seems to make me a great catholic lol
>It's all the self-centered magical thinking of religion but none of the anti-materialist woo
I would disagree but its too much to get into the whole history of religious thought. And so i would also say that its very flippant to just call people in the past dumb bc muh science. A bit too rick and morty reddit for me if you catch my drift.

 

>>1851070
I am being honest. I think you forget just how secular the West has become.

The more you type, the more I get the impression that you've based your position on a combination of vibes and things you've seen on r/atheism. I feel like I'm being a dick for saying that, but it's true.

I still want that source, by the way.

 

>>1851234
>I would disagree but its too much to get into the whole history of religious thought. And so i would also say that its very flippant to just call people in the past dumb bc muh science. A bit too rick and morty reddit for me if you catch my drift.
I'm calling people in the present dumb because muh science. If it was the most accurate thing at one point - according to the understanding of the world and how knowledge is produced etc. at the time - to believe all the religious woo, then I don't condemn them for it at all. I condemn the people here and now who believe in it because it makes them feel good. and I'm too weak to condemn genuine dupes honestly, they just need education. But the modernist heretics make my ass itch

 

>>1851239
anon be more of a dick to this retard

also, is it really that secular? What western country are you talking about? I live in the US and christianity is practically our way of life, and there is a strong christian nationalist movement that controls huge amounts of economic activity, politicians, education, and so on. Salt lake city is our Vatican. Britain has it's own religious superstructure merged with the state, in the form of the crown. Italy has the literal Vatican. What western country isn't deeply bogged down with weaponized religion?

 

>>1851234
>Because the west is still fundamentally christian today.
I'd argue it's the other way around; that Western culture's influence on Christianity has been significantly greater than Christianity's influence on it.

 

>>1851239
>I think you forget just how secular the West has become.
Maybe. But at the same time i still see a lot of people celebrating halloween and christmas. What does a "secular" culture look like? A rhetorical question.
>>1851241
>I condemn the people here and now who believe in it because it makes them feel good
Well, i dont see much wrong with having a heart in a heartless world. It is annoying when the dogma nerds show up with their aquinas and augustine though. That to me is the true heartlessness, and why i say a true believer is an untrue believer.
>and I'm too weak to condemn genuine dupes honestly, they just need education. But the modernist heretics make my ass itch
Yes, very good. Now you speak my language. Either believe or dont!
And trends also show that only the more conservative churches get any popularity today. But see here how belief must *find* its object, not be made from it. Same way most of us just read books to prove what we already thought lol.
>>1851249
Ah, now we are getting into neo-pagan weirdness. Best not to open up that pandora's box
But in reality, no, the west is christian. Its too late. You cant retvrn.

 

File: 1715389522992.png (83.56 KB, 937x660, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1851224
I suppose one could "believe in" skepticism, but "belief in" seems to mix a lot of positive and negative (in the logical sense) philosophies together which may not necessarily be comparable.

>>1851243
Individuals do seem to be more quickly dismissing the church and the identity. Once the Zionists are sat down, maybe sanity will prevail.

>>1851253
>Hallowe'en
>misses Easter

 

>>1851254
>I suppose one could "believe in" skepticism
Yes and many try to but fail, because skepticism is only skeptical of certain things. Skepticism is like the controlled opposition of philosophies since it is highly normative in its deductions.
>halloween
I pick halloween since it is the site of the blasphemous and so buys into the conditions that the christian myth sets for it.

 

>>1851249
>>1848577
>>1851239
Christianity is no longer a religion.
Its a poltical theology

 

>>1851253
>But at the same time i still see a lot of people celebrating halloween and christmas
So? A holiday with religious origins need not stay religious. Halloween in particular is a good example of this.

>>1851243
>also, is it really that secular?
See >>1851254. Christianity is definitely still around, but it's on a noticeable downward trend, especially among younger generations.

 

>>1851253
>le partial marx quote
ok go shoot up then ig i won't stop you.

>thing about conservative churches

>thing about "the west is christian" in response to "christianity has become western"
But you just pointed out how only conservative churches get any popularity today. It's true, evangelicals are growing. It's these specifically political churches, and churches which believe very cynically, that see spread. And don't you believe that the current pope is kowtowing to wokeness? Religion flourishes only when it adapts to its environment. Pacifist churches are few and far between, most christians in the US support murdering foreigners for money, which is extremely anti-christian if you consider christianity dogmatically. What christianity is is an empty vessel for various people's agendas. In that way it's more correct to place the current time and place as foundational to our moral superstructure than the historic existence of the symbol used by our time and place… if that makes sense. (actually it should make perfect sense, it's everything you were just arguing above. Our christianity is a pervert's christianity, It is devoid of inherent meaning. It is a movement or aesthetic device more than it is its textual existence)

 

>>1851260
>Skepticism is like the controlled opposition of philosophies since it is highly normative in its deductions
Are they? When I say skepticism, I'm referring to the de-reification of social relations by arguing that they do not objectively exist. There are good cases against objective values, against cosmological mimicry, against a prior meaning of life, for example. It's hard to preserve a commercial society without the pretense of objective value, or a wage system without a reason to live, though neoclassical eclownomists try nonetheless.
It is true that skeptical ideologies deny certain possibilities of dubious worth. Not even mad.

>>1851265
Maybe it never wasn't

 

>>1851269
>Our christianity is a pervert's christianity, It is devoid of inherent meaning. It is a movement or aesthetic device more than it is its textual existence)
But like the father, it still requires his permission to function. Like how a racist can only be racist by saying "im not racist". The christian too must justify himself by the word of God. The text remains and always will. Thats why i think an atheist must still have his own literature, like how marxists use their own holy texts for reference.
Think even of evolutionary discourse. All horror is justified by scientists who chalk it up to "instinct" or "survival of the fittest". Even nature must have her story for herself to allow such monstrosity.
And your point about politics is true too, thats why so many nazis are becoming muslims or satanists, in order to justify their desires.
But this is why i dont condemn the bible as a text itself, because our belief precedes the text. And most importantly, christ himself is still rebelling against his own creation within his own myth. None is good but God.
>"we learn from history that we dont learn from history" - hegel

 

>>1851276
>The christian too must justify himself by the word of God. The text remains and always will.
Except when it changes, which it has on multiple occasions. And even if it didn't, different people have interpreted the text so vastly differently over time that it might as well have been rewritten every week.

>All horror is justified by scientists who chalk it up to "instinct" or "survival of the fittest".

That's like saying scientists justify the horror of earthquakes with tectonic plate movements. Instinct and survival of the fittest are natural phenomena; they simply *are*. Pointing out their existence is not a value judgement.

>thats why so many nazis are becoming muslims or satanists

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

 

>>1851276
>And your point about politics is true too, thats why so many nazis are becoming muslims or satanists, in order to justify their desires.
Okay, now I need two citations from you.

 

>>1848559
they are uniquely emotionally manipulative religions. some random native american animist religion isn't emotionally blackmailing you into spreading it around.

also such religions were adopted by europeans and arabs who became materially successful and spread such religions by the sword and through soft power

 


 

File: 1715432334694.jpg (76.5 KB, 991x754, book-of-job.jpg)

>>1851313
My larger point is how *everyone* needs their propaganda, so even if christians arent directly quoting the bible (like netanyahu did to justify his extermination of the palestinians), their justification is inherently *christian*. Like how when bad things happen we say "god works in mysterious ways". This to me is directly biblical in the story of job, of how evil things are justified in the way of things. I remember for example a chilling rhetoric from an overly-defensive meat-eater saying "in the end we are all just atoms". But you see how this apparent apathy is issued for an uncritical conformity? The revolutionary position is job simply saying "i am suffering"; this is the scene of contradiction and the beginning of critique.
>some things just *are*
I think this is a dangerous way of thinking. Like how a capitalist will say that their brutality is "human nature". My discourse would be to assign morality to the situation. Capitalism is evil, like the natural world is evil. But this is my inherent theology. To resign ourselves to neutrality is the place of ideology, as i have said. Thinking youre above the situation is the deepest place of conformity.

 

>>1851526
>I think this is a dangerous way of thinking.
It's the materialist way of thinking. Morals don't exist beyond the human mind.

 

>>1851526
> But you see how this apparent apathy is issued for an uncritical conformity?
It doesn't have to be however, looking at material reality doesn't force a specific view. Look no futher than marx.

 

>>1852110
Yes it does have to be
>looking at material reality doesn't force a specific view
The point is that the "material world" still has to be abstracted as a concept for it to have a discourse. But the world "in itself" has no content by contrast. The same way kant's noumemon is a categorically irrelevant "fact" of existence. This is also why radical materialists like deleuze fail, since they dont recognise their transcendental horizon
>marx
Marx comes out of a rich intellectual history terminating in hegel. Marx is not some guy standing above reality, he is part of a lived tradition. Same way lenin doesnt rewrite the rules, but follows from an antecedent wisdom.
This is why the Evental circumstance of religious reformation is so crucial, since luther doesnt counter the church with atheism, but with a reversion back to the rule book itself. And once this reinspection occurs, it turns out the holiest of holies in the papacy is actually the antichrist itself.
The same logic is employed by marx and engels when they see how the bourgeois revolutionaries became the very thing they swore to destroy.
Dialectics means turning the tables in this way, not in a radical negation.
marx's hidden point in capital is about how the notion of liberal free exchange (C-M-C) is utopian, but it is perverted from within itself, and this is the principle corruption of liberalism; the turn of liberalism into *capitalism*. This is also the precise turn that adam smith feared could happen. If adam smith was alive today he would be a socialist

 

>>1851543
>But you are a human mind so whats your point?
Nta but consider that the divine right of kings has proven not to be one of those things that just *is*, and it is just possible that other things might also refrain from that membership. Moral abolitionism is a sound philosophical position, though iit's been argued that assertion may not be an effective therapeutic for moralism. However, that alone doesn't stop the memetic fertility of the moral idea; that is harder to solve.

>>1852153
>Dialectics means turning the tables in this way, not in a radical negation.
Sounds mythological. Demystified, it appears that you're proposing reneging on the commitment to end class, money, and the state, aren't you?

 

>>1852167
>Moral abolitionism is a sound philosophical position
You mean, its… "good"? Curious.
>divine right of kings
The political instantiation of modernity is cromwell's revolt against king charles i, where he was put on trial for "being a king". This comes from the puritan faith (where the "divine right of kings" is also a biblical exegesis). So see here how reform can overturn what was once justified by the same source. So the divine right of kings is not overturned by some apathetic "reason" (radical negation), but by an even deeper faith in its integral reality.
>However, that alone doesn't stop the memetic fertility of the moral idea; that is harder to solve.
It isnt something to "solve", its something to "re-solve" through our position in it. Like protestants using the bible to banish the catholics, one good can only be destroyed by another good.
>"the greatest tragedy is not conflict between right and wrong, but between two rights" - hegel
>Sounds mythological
Of course. We are embroiled within the christian myth. The world is literally holding slectacle to a holy war in israel right now. And the permanence of christianity is our prelude to "armageddon" by the same measure.
>it appears that you're proposing reneging on the commitment to end class, money, and the state, aren't you?
What "commitment" did i hold myself to in the first place? Im just a guy looking for answers.

 

>>1852186
> You mean, its… "good"? Curious.
Reductio at moralonium lol
I await for the day I am told about the moral stace of nuclear reactions

 

>>1852186
> Im just a guy looking for answers.
I have never see a "just looking for answers"-guy who wasn't a deep reactionary

 

File: 1715560399070.png (66.6 KB, 655x393, F73YJOHbMAA2_dg.png)

>>1852410
Since the beginning of philosophy the truth has always been paired with goodness, thats why all men strive to *know* and why even saying "there is no truth" is still an epistemological statement, which contains within it its own moral ideology, like in the example how "nihilists" are always conformists. Think of how terrorism is also just a sublime conformity to things. Thats why the chinlet is eternally saying "nothing ever happens". The reactionary doesnt want things to happen so repeats his mantra to keep the world together.
But on the relation to truth, why is "abolishing" morality "sound" but not "good"? Here you are just positing an empty signifier to cover your bases. Why be afraid of embracing your intrinsic morality? Because its "unmaterialist"? Here is what lacan would call "the big other" - the figure which beckons authority even in its discursive fiction.
>>1852412
Lole. So i shouldnt be open to the truth and should be some unread dogmatist like 90% of "marxists"? Like i say, the "true believer" cannot believe in his own belief, so the only way to respect something is to critique it, by taking it seriously.
The idiot who never questions thinks he is brilliant for always having the right opinions in bad company.

 

File: 1715584883057.jpg (45.84 KB, 1080x408, GNV-UqJXAAEgqx8.jpg)


 

>>1853085
Abolition of morality calls for a suspension of moral judgment. In the sense of self-sufficiency, it's "good", but having suspended moral judgment entirely, that's all there is to say.

 

File: 1715614002155.png (339.87 KB, 768x767, TheLichExtinctWorld.png)

>>1853529
So we should suspend moral judgement if a woman is raped?
I defer to kant's literal "critique of pure reason" here, that Reason can only be preserved if it is self-limited. That is, Reason only has meaning as far as it is expressed in The Understanding by grounding our sensibility.
I think in the same way that the world "in itself" is meaningless, but society, history and whatnot, these are *real* in their revelation (which is more of a hegelian point). The absolute truth of a woman getting raped is that it is an inherently evil act. It cannot be given except by this fact.
The fallacy of "pure reason" is that it is still a Reason derived from our human sensibility. It is uncritical consciousness. And its only in History that objective conditions for such things can be considered as True in-themselves.
This is also my total critique of nietzsche; that nietzsche has not travailed the kantian bridge so still believes in the world of noumenon. The world of inhuman "objectivity". It doesnt exist.
Zizek has emphasised this point in a goid way where he says how many people position a gaze in the objective (like carl sagan's "pale blue dot"), but this gaze is still normative of a particular affection. People speak of a "coldness" which is not mere indifference, and people speak of an "indifference" which is cold. They see things through the devil's eyes. Capitalists do this all the time when they say "thats life, get over it". This to me is the uncritical consciousness of an "orthodox" materialism, which is always conformist. It beats you into submission. "You dont matter. You are just a speck" it says, and you believe it. How strange.

 

>>1853541
>So we should suspend moral judgement if a woman is raped?
Yes. Whatever the woman sees fit to do to the assailant(s) deserves no judgment.
>The absolute truth
Your received conditioning is a mental illness, not a truth device.
>of a woman getting raped is that it is an inherently evil act.
No it isn't, any more than any other act that reproduces the prevailing order.
>Zizek
Meta-Modernists should kill themselves for being emotional whiners.

 

>>1853541
>muh noumena
why do phil undergrads still believe in this meme when hegel btfo'd the whole concept in like two sentences?

 

>>1853591
>noumena
They bring it up because they are ideological and want to believe in the sublime "other", like how aliens arrive in sci-fi novels to either save us or destroy us.
I bring up noumena to dispell it, since most materialists always want to zoom out of the human experience.. from within the human experience, or give deference to "matter" as our intrinsic *externality* when kant's point is that The Understanding grounds Reason in the sensibility of our subjectivity.
But see here again the paradox. German idealism is about redeeming the trusting of our senses, while "materialism" lives in this existential doubt, because its still operating in empiricism. This is the epistemological boundary of an uncritical consciousness.
>>1853579
i mean, youre either an idiot or a coward. your choice. your mother being raped isnt evil to you? but again, see how a radical skepticism breeds stupidity.

 

>>1853643
>not internalizing my historical situation and some dead guy's opinions means your stupid
I understand how being indoctrinated into a myth makes one the slave of that myth, and how children exposed to too many video games interact with reality in a ritualistic, rudimentary way.

 

>>1853643
>>1853692 (me)
>idiot or a coward
Nah, just impervious to sentiment and uninterested in childish games that call themselves adult enough times to convince the stupid.
I mean, the fact that someone's forcing themselves on anyone else is a problem that needs to be prevented from happening again, but isn't the whole drama around rape really just a reason to spare some "lesser" crimes that happen to serve the reproduction of the bourgeois order?

 

>>1853692
>>1853695
rape has always been a moral evil, youre just pussyfooting with rhetorical strategy
Its funny you talk about ritual and illusion when you have let dogma blind you against reality
the real "ritual" here is the emptying of your reason by the transcendent idol of the sublime untruth
but like i say, this is the place of deepest ideology, so youre certainly not unique in this futility

 

>>1853712
>rape has always been a moral evil
No, marriage legitimizes it.
No, morality, being an ideology, was created. Moral evil could not have existed before that. Didn't Marx tell you not to eternalize relations of production?
>Its funny you talk about ritual and illusion when you have let dogma blind you against reality
Isn't that exactly what you are doing with your presentist appeal to "always been" above? Rape had no material reason to be proscribed until patrilineal inheritance developed.
>received emotions are reason if I repeat myself enough
Yeah I get it, retard. Any lie that leaves a state for you to be boss of, I know how it is
>but like i say, this is the place of deepest ideology, so youre certainly not unique in this futility
>love isn't ideology
There is an error theory of love, too.

 

>>1853720
*when* and *where* was morality "created" so you can enlighten me?
>didnt marx tell you-
oh, right, i daren't upset my imaginary master. How's being a "materialist" suiting you when you are constantly looking over your shoulder for ghosts?
>emotions arent true
um…
>There is an error theory of love, too.
idk you sound completely corrupted. Love is much more real than your deranged delusions. But i'll just chalk this up to a poisonous amount of autism on your part. Just dont shoot up any schools in the meantime, kid.

 

>>1853720
>>1853732
>theres a single morality
are you pretending to be retarded

 

>>1853737
When did i say that?
Morality is a medium of our inherent sociality, not a law written on celestial tablets.
But you see how the anti-moral position has its appropriated inversion of the divine logic, where it is the morality of no-morality, written in the stars.
Here the link between the moralist and anti-moralist affirm the *object* of morality as a self-relation, either by its total presence or absense.

 

>>1853748
Morality is a bourgeoisie lie, it doesnt exist

 

>>1853732
>*when* and *where* was morality "created" so you can enlighten me?
Plato "discovered" virtue the same way Smith "discovered" capitalism, mid-1st millennium BC, Athens.
>How's being a "materialist" suiting you when you are constantly looking over your shoulder for ghosts?
I mean, if you presume to "be" a Marxist, one would expect you to commit to his method and to the history of thought more generally, not some crypto-capitalist perversion of it. If names are to mean anything I don't think that's an unreasonable confession to hold you to.
>idk you sound completely corrupted
Good, "corruption" is a religious ideology and "purity" has done nothing but generate the classes that cause the problems. Sounds like you're some bourgeois leech who's pissed off that someone's making their magical workings impossible.
>Love is much more real than your deranged delusions
Yes, errors are very real, and they're problematic.

>>1853737
The concept of virtue ethics will never not generate class or a state.

>>1853755
>Morality is a medium of our inherent sociality
Existence is not a warrant.
>But you see how the anti-moral position
This sounds like the bourgeois moral neurosis in which making no choice is itself a choice.

 

>>1853769
It was invented by capitalists?

 

>>1853772
Yes, it is not the duty of the dictatorship of the proletariat to deal with revisionism, specially the worst kind of revisionism, the "think of the children" revisionism

 

>>1853771
>Plato "discovered" virtue the same way Smith "discovered" capitalism, mid-1st millennium BC, Athens.
Ha! Its funny ofc since socrates was killed by the moralists of the time who wanted to maintain the status quo and saw socrates as a subversive atheist. But ofc what is socrates' point in apologia? I AM a subversive, but i subvert the good with a greater good. This to me is the definition of progress. Like luther reforming the church
Also, adam smith wasnt a thinker of "capitalism". Marx is the first thinker of *capital* proper. Thats why his famous book is called "capital".
>I mean, if you presume to "be" a Marxist,
I never said i was a marxist. I am a fan of marx but so what? Also did you know that marx once said that if anything, he himself is "not a marxist". This ties into my point about true belief. The true believer is the untrue believer, and the founder himself is the unbeliever! Same way jesus himself wasnt a christian.
>love is a lie
I wonder where things went wrong for you
>This sounds like the bourgeois moral neurosis in which making no choice is itself a choice.
Well yeah, negation is positively-negative, like how minus-1 doesnt get swallowed back into zero. Its called dialectics. Think of a popular example, the person who says "im not political" - are they political? If not-being is being then you agree with me.
>>1853777
>morality was invented by capitalists
Hmm…

 

>>1853769
we aren't libertarians faggot, morality exits

 

>>1848559
Because they were synonymous with technological development and law while the pagans lived in mud huts, worshipped clay sculptures and didn't even have soap. It was a stage of development for most countries. Monotheism also makes more sense than polytheism so with all of above, it didn't take much to convert people to it.

I mean they did commit atrocities too but overall, it was a stage of development. Even Buddhism was born out of poor, polytheist social conditions.

 

>>1853792
>morality exits
i agree, it exits the entire frame of material reality (cuz it doesnt exist)

 

>>1864196
undialectical materialism
>>1864182
monotheism centralises organisation, while polytheism expresses the pagan city state with its patron deities. In catholicism these particular spirits are sublated for saints and the (god)head of state retains its sublime authority.

 

>>1853643
> from within the human experience, or give deference to "matter" as our intrinsic *externality* when kant's point is that The Understanding grounds Reason in the sensibility of our subjectivity.
https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=19225

 

>>1864301
Kant's qualification of his own "empirical realism" is that the "external world" must still be internalised. And through this filter of human subjectivity does it become its own "human" essence within Reason, grounded within "The Understanding" of spatio-temporal causality, against the "transcendental" categories of "things in-themselves" (like how Time is not necessarily causal, but encompasses past, present and future in its concept - therefore Time must be self-limited so as to give meaning to itself, such as Reason, which is Kant's principle "critique").

 


 

File: 1719041634506.png (218.52 KB, 267x416, yahweh penis.png)

>Why are Abrahamic religions so spiritually successful?
big YHWH cock

 


 

>>1864182
>Another leftypol racist
Imagining bashin the head of a racist self-proclaimed socialist just to see what makes their brains tick

 

at first because of political expedience, later because of military conquest

 

File: 1719087994232.png (92.21 KB, 474x726, billions2.png)


 

>>1848590
>how is atheism 'idealist' it's literally materialism.
Reddit Atheism is bourgeois idealism because it's imperial core chauvinism mixed with cultral christianity and a thin veneer of quasi-materialism. Look at the image in the post you're responding to. Reddit Atheists like Dawkins literally call themselves "cultural christians" and Reddit Atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens supported the Neoconservative and Neoliberal war mongers who waged the GWOT. It's telling that Reddit Atheism rose to peak popularity during the patriotic xenophobic fever that took hold of America after 9/11. Though they were still despised by the majority of the population for being atheists, they nevertheless supported the hegemonic war mongering. They are fundamentally the Agent Kochinskiites of the 2000s decade.

 

>>1864182
This theory of cultural evolutionary "development" that starts with animism and ends with atheism, with polytheism and monotheism in between, is an antiquated and eurocentric understanding of religion from the middle of the 19th century. The field of religious studies has developed to thoroughly discredit it in the last 175 years.

 

>be religion
>Be based on ancestor worship/being the chosen ethnic group/local spiritual rituals
>Meet religion that promises salvation to anyone regardless of who they are
>Everyone who convert to the universal religion is lost for you, but nobody converts to your side
>Get into war
>If they get conquered they stay universalist
>If you get conquered your people convert to their faith

It's that simple. It's not just abrahamic religions, it's Buddhism too. Hinduism and other forms of polytheism have little converting power, ancestor and nature worship like in Japan and Chinese folk religion has no converting power. Universalist religions such as abrahamic ones, Buddhism, or even sciencetology just win out by the sheer fact people are more likely to convert to them than the othet way around. A universalist either becomes a sifferent universalist, gets killed like in Japan after 1600 or becomes an atheist.

 

>>1892256
Why do you post the amazing Atheist? He is actually based now.

 

>>1892259
>[x] is discredited
>shows no evidence how
James Frazer's book "the golden bough" is a fascinating example of the anthropology you loathe, where he correctly sees how first it is "magic" as primitive science, then religion as appeal to nature, and then finally practical science which affirms human will.

 

>>1892295
Now, yeah, but he still spearheaded reddit atheism in it's early years.

 

File: 1719093195058.png (118.06 KB, 575x591, q2p700pdrzj11.png)

>>1892295
>>1892302
How is he remotely "based"? He is a fat ugly liberal. Basically the jason unruhe of radlibs.

 

>>1892304
>idpoling this hard
also he draws decent smut

 

>>1892308
So he's not just physically revolting but also a porn addict
Good to know

 

>>1892328
Again, idpol

 

File: 1719098045908.png (920.52 KB, 983x713, ClipboardImage.png)

this is what christians actually believe:

 

>>1892297
Did you even watch the video from the phD in religious studies I posted

 

>>1892364
No, i was responding to your comment
The video i assume just describes animism, which is based on the symbolic science of magic that precedes the rise of organised religion.

 

>>1892353
You're not going to trick people here into watching a Agent Kochinski video.

 

>>1892363
I just want to point out how colosally retarded the roman soldier using Jesus as a swearing word given what he's doing.

 

>>1892373
he was directing that thought at jesus obviously

 

>>1848559
>Pretty much every people group exposed to Abrahamic faiths ends up incorporating elements from them
this is kindof a weird historical analysis anon, of course in the west where society has been officially christian in some capacity for over 1600 years, will have influence from christianity. You may as well ask why chinese marxism is influenced by confucianism or something.

 

>>1848582
>Most atheists are "reddit atheists" - that is, they don't actually think about the consequences of atheism or what an atheistic model of the world would mean.
neither does the majority of most belief systems?

 

File: 1719107116091.jpg (16.4 KB, 720x540, pontiac.jpg)

>>1848559
>Pretty much every people group exposed to Abrahamic faiths ends up incorporating elements from them. They are so successful that everyone, from pagan Nazis to "POC revival" faiths, essentially adopts basic elements of either Christianity or Islam and changes some names on top
That OP & pic…

 

>>1892373
anachronistically using "jesus" as an expletive while talking to and crucifying jesus himself is the joke


Unique IPs: 92

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]