Fuck Nietzche

[Anonymous No.17385685]

I swear bros, I'm going to lose my mind over The Eternal Return someday. Why the fuck that fucking lunatic came up with this horrible idea as something life affirming?
>inb4 it's a metaphor faggot
Not it's not. Billions of years have passed but I was seeping and it all felt like nothing. When I will die, billions of year will pass and it will feel like nothing. The universe will be dead someday and fluctuations in zero entropy will cause another Big Bang and the process will be repeated endlessly, ENDLESSLY.

[Anonymous No.17385693]

>>17385685
Heidegger just said that the eternal return was the closest one could get to affirmation of being, under the belief of constant change. So just go with that and affirm your life as it is.

[Anonymous No.17385795]

>>17385685
The idea isn't original at all. A lot of people I've talked to thought about it as kids, so I guess that 4000 years ago lots of guys did too.

[Anonymous No.17385810]

>>17385685
Read Joshua Foa Dienstag’s short article on it. He has a solid contextual reading in pessimism.

[Anonymous No.17385894]

>>17385685
Seeing you seethe made it all worth it Anon. I want you to know that.

[Anonymous No.17386004]

read Straw Dogs by John Gray and rid yourself of the humanist bullshit that is poisoning your thoughts. nietzsche was a fool

[Anonymous No.17386029]

>>17385685
>I swear bros, I'm going to lose my mind over The Eternal Return someday. Why the fuck that fucking lunatic came up with this horrible idea as something life affirming?
atheists commit suicide after they invent nihilism, so they made up muh life affirming.

[Anonymous No.17386292]

>>17385685
Sounds fun

[Anonymous No.17386312]

>>17386029
Atheism is basically the desire to coom without guilt. All atheist philosophy is a cope with the meaninglessness of such a worldview.

[Anonymous No.17386328]

>>17385685
So, why aren't you bothering to live a life of no regrets then?

[Anonymous No.17386436]

>>17385685
>The universe will be dead someday and fluctuations in zero entropy will cause another Big Bang and the process will be repeated endlessly, ENDLESSLY.

lmao the assertion scientists make on an eventual universal collapse into itself influx to occur endlessly all entirely based on presupposed proven and unbreakable laws in science that due to their deep-rooted institutionalization and near-religious dogma to protect its status quo so as to not rock the foundations of science itself lest our collective minds are broken for making order out of chaos is the biggest load of shit ever.

We don't know a god damn thing, and neither do you OP.

[Anonymous No.17386449]

eternal return = will to power. You are totally mis-interpreting the concept...Read Klossowski, Heidegger or Deleuze if you want to actually understand N.

[Anonymous No.17386636]

>>17385685
Seem good to me. I can sing and dance and sing and dance and sing and dance billions of time. Can't wait until when I can fall in love.

[Anonymous No.17387594]

>>17386312
So same as theology?

[Anonymous No.17387647]

Its metaphysics and thus not important.

[Anonymous No.17387660]

>>17386636
You can suffer an die into the infinite.

No thanks I prefer the christian heaven.

[Anonymous No.17388016]

>>17386436
Anyone with basic understanding of cosmology knows that the universe isn't collapsing on itself. Do not straw man.

[Anonymous No.17388056]

>>17387660
>Thinking reality cares about your preference

[Anonymous No.17388081]

>>17385685
>the process will be repeated endlessly, ENDLESSLY
Thats pretty based ngl

[Anonymous No.17388088]

>>17388081
>Child rape will happen endlessly
>based
???

[Anonymous No.17388100]

>>17388088
>me having all my happiest moments again
See nigger? Its all p e r s p e c t i v e

[Anonymous No.17388140]

>>17385685
>The universe will be dead someday and fluctuations in zero entropy will cause another Big Bang and the process will be repeated endlessly, ENDLESSLY.
this is so stupid i dont know where to start. first of all, its infinitely unlikely that the big band was a fluctuation from zero entropy. the guy who came up with that idea refuted himself immediately with the boltzmann brain thing. but even if it did, that would mean that it was infinitely unlikely that the exact same universe and events would unfold. and even if somehow they did, why the fuck would that consciousness be the same as you?

and finnaly, it was a metaphor. it was originally used as a metaphor and there is no reason to think that that is what happens. so dont worry OP. goddamn

[Anonymous No.17388141]

>>17385685
>I wonder why Nietzsche recommended living without regrets since you'll repeat them forever
If you really believe in the eternal return, then whenever in doubt or in a situation of fear, just remember the concept and then you'll see your problems might not be so heavy

[Anonymous No.17388157]

>>17388140
I agree with your post but it definitely wasn't a metaphor lmao
Actually try reading him first

[Anonymous No.17388515]

>>17386004
> Nietzsche
> humanist

[Anonymous No.17388988]

>>17386436
incredibly based

[Anonymous No.17389165]

>>17386436
>lmao the assertion scientists make
>We don't know a god damn thing
Actually scientists know things, unlike post Kantian continental philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17389603]

>>17389165
Kek

[Anonymous No.17391023]

>>17389165
No they don't, they know theories, theories which can be replaced by other theories. Science is the epistemology of practically useful nothingness.

[Anonymous No.17391040]

>>17385685
Dumb bitch, read it again.
What a fucking moron dont try to explain it to yourself just understand what it says.

[Anonymous No.17391049]

>>17385685
Anon, don't forget: suicide is not an escape. Even killing yourself you will never be able to leave.

[Anonymous No.17391059]

>>17389165
They only know what is most likely and even then they can begin to understmad the realuty as a whole sectionating it until its simple enough to get into a simulation. Their knowledge is very useful, butp its not undisputted truth but any means, and its not carried around like dogma execept for those who dont really know science, just divulgation that tries to simplify what has alreoady being simolified until it makes not more sense that whatever mith you could come up with. Believing that any of those far fetched theory and models not based on anything real is dumb, and holding philosophy accountable for what science says is dumb too. Philosophy is there to go farther than science.

[Anonymous No.17391147]

the eternal return might be the most retarded idea in all of philosophy. what makes you think you have an independent existence in the first place? what makes you think that you’re the same you from 30 seconds ago?

[Anonymous No.17391155]

go back to /v/ and /tv/ and mindlessly sponge entertainment like the dumbass you are

[Anonymous No.17391166]

>>17391147
Thats a whole other discussion, in trying to be the better you and achieve happiness you can assume that you are the same you you remember

[Anonymous No.17391176]

OP have you watched Groundhog day? its a fun little movie that might get you to undestand the idea in a easier way without the need of abstraction.

[Anonymous No.17391292]

>>17391166

if that is the case you’d do best to delude yourself into having the best false memories possible

[Anonymous No.17391315]

>>17391292
You cant sustain that with being your present self, because you know what you are doing and what you been doing. False memories make your life confusing and agonizing, the only way is living your own life and make the best of it

[Anonymous No.17391350]

>>17391315

sounds like a problem with the convincingness of the false memory, not the fact that it is false. memory is already an unreliable arbiter of identity anyway, and eternal return is a dumb concept

[Anonymous No.17391380]

>>17391023
This is the point of view of the avowed subjectivist philosophers, who mistake their inability to grasp anything objective as a deep insight.

[Anonymous No.17391397]

>>17391350
I dont undestand why you consider it a dumb concept, memory doesnt matter in this scenario. Maybe you can think as if it were a differential, would you live your present again and again and be happy? considering your current memories as they are, even if they are not true its what you know so they are what matters and what defines you and your happiness.
If they are true or not is a meaningless question. They are your personal expirience and their veracity isnt a factor in your happiness

[Anonymous No.17391424]

>>17391059
>Believing that any of those far fetched theory and models not based on anything real is dumb
Dumb is denying the existence of rationality, which is the faculty by which humans obtain knowledge. Actually it's worse than that, sine most dumb people don't believe that objectivity is impossible. It takes a special kind of perversity for someone to try to use reason against the idea of objectivity. Pure delusional narcissism.

[Anonymous No.17391445]

>>17391380
I'm not a subjectivist. There are plenty of fine critiques of scientific "knowledge" that don't disavow objectivity.

[Anonymous No.17391450]

>>17391424
>Dumb is denying the existence of rationality, which is the faculty by which humans obtain knowledge.
Wait, so you're a rationalist now? Which proof of God is your favourite?

[Anonymous No.17391461]

>>17391380
>>17391380
You could thing that, but how can science access that objectiveness that eludes philosophy? Do they really work with purely objective and unrefutable ideas, is what they say the truth? The sciences are based on predicting what will happen based on the intial conditions and theyre own knowledge, but even in phisics where this is best accomplished they have to take assumptions and make simplifications of reality, and even then theres things that tgey cant exoplain. This is much worse than other sciences like biology that have serious holes in their knowledge and a considerable lack of rigorousity. So they are by no means purely objective. The deep insight philosophers get is in the effort to undertand reality as a whole and undestand the fundamental truths that lie underneath, what science deems imoosibke to know. I wouldnt go as far as saying that one is suoerior to the other. But certainly both have their place in the pursuit of knowledge by humankind. And in deeply metaphisical questions as well as complicated human mind matters i wouldnt say science is much farther than philosophy. And it is a serious problem when conjectures and models are taken as facts.

[Anonymous No.17391469]

>>17391445
Scientific knowledge is one of the paradigms of rationality. Denying scientific knowledge is pure subjectivist superstition.

[Anonymous No.17391477]

>>17391450
I know you are smarter than that, quit pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.17391501]

>>17391461
I am not arguing for "scientism", I do think that philosophy is a valuable source of knowledge when it is done in a rigorous manner (read: not like the travesty that post Kantian Continental philosophy has devolved to). What I am arguing against is conventionalism about scientific truths, which has its roots primarily in the previously mentioned philosophies.

[Anonymous No.17391525]

>>17391424
You are talking about rationality and objectivity like they are given. It is a very intricate concept, the intuitive thing is to think that there is no objectivity since the only thing we can know is what we experience and to experince something we have to filter it through our own personal senses, but i do believe in objectivity and reason.

When i say that beliving religously on science is bad im not defending antivaxxers or flat earth loonatics, im just saying that most people believe in science, but i say believe on purpose because they dont really undestand it, they just have superficial undestanding of what they are told by scientist that have the real knowledge. This is no better than those that refute science, they both defend their stance without really knowing what it means. Most popular explanations of science concepts are misleading or straight up not true because they are satisfied with a simple explanation that follows the rethoric of the sciences, not a real demostriation which would be really objective and follow reason.

Im saying that OP uses science to refute the philosophical ideas of nietzsche, but most likely they wouldnt be able to explain their own argument in a way thats actually adjusted to reality and not a mere divulgation of concepts they dont really understand.

[Anonymous No.17391559]

>>17391525
>When i say that beliving religously on science is bad im not defending antivaxxers or flat earth loonatics, im just saying that most people believe in science, but i say believe on purpose because they dont really undestand it, they just have superficial undestanding of what they are told by scientist that have the real knowledge. This is no better than those that refute science, they both defend their stance without really knowing what it means.
Actually believing the scientific experts is exactly what one should do if he doesn't have that appropriate knowledge himself. But this is not what we were talking about, the topic was whether scientific theories are true, which you are now backing away from for some strange reason.

[Anonymous No.17391594]

>>17391501
And following,

When that guy said we dont know a thing, hes right. Scientist do know a thing or two in their respective fields, but just that they dont even know about other fields, the common people know even less. Thats because the absurd complexity of reality cant be accesed by a single mind, philosophy tries to work around that, when reading nietszches work you shouldnt be preparing your "scientific knowledge" to refute his ideas like they are worthless, even if real science refuted nietzsches work it would still be valuable to understand human nature and how to live your live. But to disregard it based on a superficial knowledge you have on the most complex matter of phisics that not even the most bright minds dedicating their lives to understand can be sure to say they do, it is a disgrace and crearly indicates that OP should read it again with a open mind to really understand what is being said to him

[Anonymous No.17391598]

>>17391477
You're stuck in the 16th century, you absolute idiot. Science makes use of reason, reason is not contingent on scientific or empirical knowledge. Reason can be used (this was one of Kant's major topics) to prove the existence of God, of fundamental simplicity, and all kinds of metaphysical truth, which is why I was making fun of your claim. To posit science as the extent of scientific knowledge is to deny the objective validity of reason, unless you agree with Kant in that reason is a priori at the basis of scientific knowledge, and thus that reason and transcendental analysis supersedes scientific knowledge.
>>17391469
>Scientific knowledge is one of the paradigms of rationality.
No, it's not. You don't even know what "reason" is. Rationality is a paradigm of scientific knowledge, if anything.
>>17391559
>But this is not what we were talking about, the topic was whether scientific theories are true,
No scientific theories are ever claimed to be true. They are ALWAYS merely the best we have. It's impossible to prove any scientific theory as objectively valid, per the philosophical foundations of science itself.

[Anonymous No.17391601]

So what steps did nietzche take to comfirm god is dead?
Seems like he just made that assumption.

[Anonymous No.17391602]

>>17391598
>scientific knowledge
of all knowledge*

[Anonymous No.17391616]

>>17391601
I dont even know where to start explaining to you
I think i might go

[Anonymous No.17391624]

>>17391601
Im curious now, what do you think he meant to say whith that sentence?

[Anonymous No.17391629]

>>17391601
read him,

[Anonymous No.17391630]

>>17391601
He went outside

[Anonymous No.17391638]

>>17385685
I think you should ditch nietzche and start with something more basic and work your way up to nietzche, maybe you could even look for a tutor that helps you through the things you dont understand

[Anonymous No.17391693]

>>17391598
I should also add that to even agree with Kant, you have to also acknowledge the various problematic assertions within his philosophy. Hegel and Schopenhauer, take your pick, did a great deal to rectify them and create a more consistent framework for Kant's initial discoveries about the nature of reason and knowledge. No one else has really followed up his work in a thorough manner.
Criticising "all post-Kantian continental philosophy" without actually acknowledging the problems with Kant is called one of two things:
-intellectual cowardice
-purposive deception
You cannot just fall back on Kant's work without a proper rectification of the very same work. We can always just fall back on Hume's assertion that all reason is subjective and only "apparent." I think this assertion is rubbish.

[Anonymous No.17391710]

>>17391594
>When that guy said we dont know a thing, hes right. Scientist do know a thing or two in their respective fields, but just that they dont even know about other fields, the common people know even less.
This is a red herring. What he actually said is that certain scientific predictions about the universe are bullshit and scientists don't know anything. And I don't know why you are trying to bring Nietzsche into this. Yes this thread is broadly about Nietzsche, but the particular point I was discussing when you replied to my post was not about Nietzsche, it was about the objectivity of science.

[Anonymous No.17391779]

>>17391710
Im talkimg about the OP not getting nietzche. I dont know who you are

[Anonymous No.17391791]

>>17391598
>You're stuck in the 16th century, you absolute idiot. Science makes use of reason, reason is not contingent on scientific or empirical knowledge. Reason can be used (this was one of Kant's major topics) to prove the existence of God, of fundamental simplicity, and all kinds of metaphysical truth, which is why I was making fun of your claim.
You are not making any sense, this is an incoherent rant. What the fuck does the fact that people have tried to use reason to prove God with my claim that reason can obtain objective knowledge?
>No, it's not. You don't even know what "reason" is. Rationality is a paradigm of scientific knowledge, if anything.
"Paradigm(noun): a typical example or pattern of something; a model."
To say that Scientific knowledge is one of the paradigms of rationality simply means that it is a typical example of the use of reason. Try to actually read my posts in good faith instead of autistically searching for something to take issue with.
>No scientific theories are ever claimed to be true.
Actually they are claimed to be close approximations of the truth, even if we don't necessarily have all the details right. Which is very different than saying that scientific theories do not track reality at all and are merely useful tools for making predictions, which is what I was arguing against.

[Anonymous No.17391796]

>>17391779
Then stop replying to my posts and wasting my time for no reason

[Anonymous No.17391827]

>>17391796
Sorry, i thought it was a good discussion, ill leave you alone now.

[Anonymous No.17391875]

>>17391827
Nah it's cool it's just that it's not possible to have a discussion if we are talking about different topics

[Anonymous No.17391898]

>>17386312
Based.

[Anonymous No.17391903]

>>17387594
How is theology the same as cooming without guilt? Being a coomer is a sin in christianity

[Anonymous No.17391912]

>>17391791
>You are not making any sense, this is an incoherent rant. What the fuck does the fact that people have tried to use reason to prove God with my claim that reason can obtain objective knowledge?
Because they HAVE used reason to prove God, and you seem to be one of those people who just conveniently ignore that, whilst still touting the objective validity of reason. You people don't understand the things you try to endorse.
> a typical example or pattern of something; a model."
As I just said, rationality is a typical pattern of scientific knowledge, not the other way around. You're right though, this distinction isn't really very important at all.
>Actually they are claimed to be close approximations of the truth
Yes, but claims mean nothing. We are talking about truth, not assumptions and approximations. I can claim God exists based on Aquinas' or Aristotle's famous rational arguments, but so what. The point is, through scientific knowledge, we never actually know what is fundamentally there. We only have theories which can always be exchanged for other theories which make more consistent predictions.

A lot of people aren't aware of this, but thanks to Einstein, heliocentrism is now no longer the only valid solar system model. Heliocentrism is only the mathematically simplest model to describe the solar system. The solar system can be described, with more complicated mathematics, as all planets revolving around the Earth. Einstein fundamentally abolished necessitated objectivity within science itself, the only thing that is relevant for us is mathematical simplicity. Yet, we can still observe things ourselves which appear objective to us. There is now a fundamental disconnect between common human experience, scientific knowledge, and reason. They cannot be reconciled.

[Anonymous No.17391936]

>>17391023
>>17391912

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17391946]

>>17385685
>the process will be repeated endlessly, ENDLESSLY
<3

[Anonymous No.17392014]

>>17385685
There was no big bang. This always existed and always will, there was “no cause”

[Anonymous No.17392020]

>>17391903
if this is true, then there was never a single christian, especially a female one.

[Anonymous No.17392028]

So?

[Anonymous No.17392034]

>>17391559
>Actually believing the scientific experts is exactly what one should do if he doesn't have that appropriate knowledge himself.
lol that's just atheist drivel. and scientific realism is preposterous, just like any other religion.

[Anonymous No.17392037]

>>17391903
Theology is the same as athiesm in the sense that they're both attempts to make sense of a seemingly meaningless universe. The main difference is that there's no evidence for a god and that athiesm isn't the opposite of christianity but rather the null position.

[Anonymous No.17392040]

>>17391424
>>Dumb is denying the existence of rationality, which is the faculty by which humans obtain knowledge.
no, rationality is a belief made up by intellectual about ''reaching knowledge'' with what they call ''reason''

[Anonymous No.17392053]

>>17392020
There were billions of Christians throughout history. Only until the last 40 years when everyone decided that God isn't real and now western civilization has freefalled into degeneracy. What a coincidence.


Also because you sin doesn't mean you stop being a Christian. You just have acknowledge that it is sin and truly repent and truly strive to not commit the same sin again.

[Anonymous No.17392060]

>>17392053
Prove it

[Anonymous No.17392062]

>>17391350
>>17385685
The eternal return means several things all at once.

1. It is explicitly meant to test your attitude to whether you love being alive or not.
2. It is very much an anti-christian concept, it is meant to replace the notion of an afterlife.
3. It is meant to draw attention to how we are actually "being" when we are alive. We usually fool ourselves into thinking about life after death, or the end, and orient ourselves around that. However, we can only ever experience being alive. It is in a way a step further than the classic stoic "don't be afraid of death because you won't experience it". This is to say "see if you love your life, knowing it's all you'll ever experience."

T. Phl student who's reread most of neesha.

[Anonymous No.17392066]

>>17392060
Prove what?

[Anonymous No.17392070]

>>17392066
The existence of your God

[Anonymous No.17392079]

>>17392070
God can be proven by reason alone.

Aquinas’ first proof is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less then the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself. A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God.

The second proof follows closely with the first and expounds the principle of causality. St. Thomas explains that in the world of sense there is an order of causes and effects. There is a cause for all things such as the existence of a clock. And nothing can cause itself into existence. A clock cannot will itself into existence, it must be created and caused into existence by something else. A clockmaker creates a clock and causes its existence, and yet the material of the clock and the clockmaker did not cause themselves to exist. Something else must have caused their existence. All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God.

Aquinas next explains that things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be "possible to be and possible not to be". Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. However, as was already explained in his second proof, there must have been a first cause that was not of transitory nature that could have generated the beginning of nature.

[Anonymous No.17392084]

>he doesn't love his fate

ngmi

[Anonymous No.17392090]

>>17392053
>the last 40 years
Atheism has been growing in Europe since as early as Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.17392099]

>>17392090
Atheists and non believers have always existed. I'm talking about society as a whole. In 1950 almost 85%+ of people were deeply religious, as in going to church every sunday. That figure is at an all time low and is decreasing rapidly. At the same time, our society is degenerating rapidly.

[Anonymous No.17392100]

>>17392079
OK cool but do you have anything from the last few centuries? Because
>argument of motion
Is literally just "we don't know so it must be God" and
>causality
Is "we don't know so it must be God" and
>transitory nature
Is "we don't know so it must be God" so I'm just wondering if you have any actual evidence for your beliefs or not because something merely making sense (not that your god actually makes logical sense but anyway) doesn't make that thing true, just because logically it could be and you have no other explanation

[Anonymous No.17392108]

>>17392037
Jesus Christ is confirmed to have existed. Historians can argue about the resurrection, but it is proven that he was a real person, he walked on this Earth, and he was crucified by the Romans.

As for proof that God exists, see >>17392079

Atheism is not really a "null" position. It's a rejection of God due to the attachment to sin and to the material world. People don't want God to be real because of the consequences that comes with it. However, to those who are agnostic or are genuinely searching, you'll find what you seek :)

It's always good to search for the truth and not be afraid of what you find, and God is the ultimate truth.

[Anonymous No.17392116]

>>17392062
All correct, but it also seems to me like Nietzsche actually believed it for what it was.
>"don't be afraid of death because you won't experience it". This is to say "see if you love your life, knowing it's all you'll ever experience."
This is a pretty good simple summation of Nietzsche vs the Stoics as well.

[Anonymous No.17392117]

The point is, you can say to yourself that not only do you accept this life, but you wouldn't have it any other way and in fact, you'd request that it happen over and over for eternity because it's so awesome. If you can say this onto yourself then you have slayed death and time itself and have understood amor fati, a quality that gives you true power over your existence.

Redemption also plays a roll here. You're going to fuck up in life, you're going to witness a lot of evil and disturbing things, you might even do them. If you can overcome regret and understand that true redemption is being able to say "I do not regret the past because it got me here and I wouldn't have it any other way" then you have truly redeemed your past. You may even be able to redeem others suffering by doing something so great that it overshadows their suffering.

Higher men would understand this. That the thought makes you horrified, anxious, even more nihilistic, is just a reflection of your own dissatisfaction in life. So change it. It's possible. I've felt the same thoughts and I thought about this stuff before I even read Nietzsche, reading Nietzsche was liberating because I knew someone else had felt it and had come up with a viable approach to the prospect of eternal return.

[Anonymous No.17392122]

>>17392099
Society as a whole is barely atheist, Christians still make up 65% of the US, atheists like 26%, also look up Mormon Corridor

And for your information degeneracy isn't new either and I hardly see it growing "rapidly." If anything is making it go up, it's something called the internet, which makes things like hardcore porn at high resolutions and surround sound easily accessible, which is the result of the political and economic structure, not atheism.

[Anonymous No.17392129]

>>17392122
The internet has caused inceldom to rise, if anything lowering degeneracy after around 1999 to the early 2000s. Degeneracy was at its peak in the late 1900s before the internet

[Anonymous No.17392149]

>>17392129
Okay, so let's say you're right, then that means degeneracy is going down on account of the political and economic structure / technology, not theism or atheism. Still not seeing a direct relation.

[Anonymous No.17392172]

>>17392149
I'm not a purist. I think both aspects are relevant, but I'm not the original person you responded to either.

[Anonymous No.17392210]

>>17392122
>Society as a whole is barely atheist, Christians still make up 65% of the US, atheists like 26%
Those are people who "identify" as Christians. Not real data such as families who attend church weekly. I can say I'm Christian on a survey and still not believe in any of it. There are many "Christians" who are in homosexual marriages. Would you count them as christians? If you don't notice that people are not believing in God anymore, then idk what world you are looking at.

>internet is causing degeneracy to go up
Ok but you also said that degeneracy isn't new, which I agree with. There have always been degenerate peoples. I also agree that the internet does cause degeneracy to increase with things such as porn. But even before porn, society was still going in a downward trend. Just look at the divorce rates and out of wedlock births. It really started spiking during the late 1900s and has been increasing since.

When there is no supernatural authority, then there is no reason for people to not do what feels good. Why shouldn't I fuck 100 girls on tinder or have gay sex while smoking weed if it feels good? If I find a wallet on the floor, why exactly should I return it? You can say because you are a good person, but without religion all it takes is a disagreement. Maybe my version of good isn't the same as your version of good. Maybe I see good as whatever feels good, whatever is pleasurable. Who's to say? There isn't any morality that transcends the flesh that I need to abide to. It's all relative.

[Anonymous No.17392224]

>>17392100
Well, it's not just "we don't know so it must be God."

The things Aquinas stated are laws that cannot be broken, unless by something supernatural. A clock cannot will itself into existence. There is nothing in the universe that can will itself to existence. That is scientifically impossible. You could make the argument that maybe there might be an unknown being or thing that can will itself into existence. But that would be supernatural, as it would be breaking the laws of the universe and therefore would transcend it. Same thing applies to the other points.

[Anonymous No.17392258]

>>17392117
life at all cost is really peak humanism, all due to the humanist's terror of death and nihilism, which they created themselves. This mental gymnastics is worse than Jewism.

[Anonymous No.17392275]

>>17392079
>their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things
Refuted by Schopenhauer. A first cause is just as inconceivable as a last. A consequent must have a ground and that ground must be a consequent of another ground ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.17392299]

>>17392275
>ground must be a consequent of another
What is Schopie's reasoning here?

[Anonymous No.17392313]

>>17392210
I don't have any reason to think that most people ever believed in God. Going to church doesn't mean you believe. I also don't have any reason to think that most atheists aren't just repeating what their fathers told them, rather than being actual atheists, i.e. pragmatic skeptics.

[Anonymous No.17392352]

>>17392313
>I don't have any reason to think that most people ever believed in God
People's entire lives revolved around Jesus Christ. Have you studied the history of Europe? Have you seen Christendom? Or perhaps I can show you the founding of America. People came here because they wanted to practice Protestantism without being persecuted. The first thing they did when they landed in America was immediately build churches. If most people didn't believe in God, why would they do this? Why would they set up missionaries to convert Native Americans to Christianity? Why would huge and beautiful churches be built, if not for the love of God? The first thing they'd teach their children was the ten commandments. The first thing they'd do before they ate was pray. The entire Constitution and America's laws were based off morality directly from the Holy Bible. Why would you attend Church every single week if you didn't believe in God?

>most atheists aren't just repeating what their fathers told them, rather than being actual atheists, i.e. pragmatic skeptics.
Most atheists aren't pragmatic skeptics who are genuinely interested in the truth. Most unconsciously rebel against the idea of a God, because it goes against their postmodern lifestyle. If you are enjoying porn, enjoying premarital sex, enjoying the material pleasures of life, then why on earth would you want there to be a God? God would simply mean you'd have to stop doing all those things. It's something that happens subconsciously. You'd find that most people who isolate themselves, or who strive to remove these material pleasures from their lives naturally find God. You can see it a lot with people who have abstained from masturbation doing the NoFap challenge. You begin to seek something more, something pure, something infinite. Personally, I believe it's something that naturally happens when you decide to separate yourself from sin, but you can interpret this differently I suppose.

[Anonymous No.17392448]

>>17392053
>the last 40
Make it 300

[Anonymous No.17392463]

>>17392448
Kind of true with liberalism and the age of enlightenment but it really started accelerating within the latter half of the 20th century

[Anonymous No.17392940]

>>17392224
You say that but how can you prove it, what makes you say that things cannot will themselves into existance. You are just making that assumption. Could you prove it?

Also what Aquinas "proved" with that demostration is not the existance of a god, ut the existance of a first selfmoving power. The big bang is a fisrt selvemoving power. Being the first cause of movement does not imply being almighty omniscient and omnipresent, it doesnt imply the existance of a god and much less the existance of the christian god.

[Anonymous No.17392950]

>>17392940
>The big bang is a fisrt selvemoving power
Aquinas never made any arguments about the beginning of the Universe or the Big Bang. The First Mover argument is to do with each moment in time, not the "original" moment in time (if there even was one). I will post a fully structured argument if you want it so you can understand it.

[Anonymous No.17392956]

>>17392940
>it doesnt imply the existance of a god and much less the existance of the christian god.
Also, it DOES imply the existence of God (because, according to the argument, it would be omnipotent), but not necessarily the specifically Biblical God, correct.

[Anonymous No.17392986]

>>17392956
How does it imply the existance of an omnipotent god?, it just need a self moving object to start the universe. That can be anything its not omnipotent, it doesnt even need to have a concience, a selfmoving cloud of dust would be a god to that demostration, and the existance of that type of "god" doesnt matter to the concept of life meaning and the idea of good and bad. It doesnt mean anything trasdescental to this conversation. You could have that kind of god or have the big bang and both would serve the same purpose to the discussion

[Anonymous No.17393001]

>>17385894
I want to *eternally see Anon seethe again and again

[Anonymous No.17393013]

>>17385685
Remember in the Symposium where desiring what one has means to desire to have it forever? It's like that.

[Anonymous No.17393115]

>>17385685
Who the hell cares? Get over yourself, you're not as important as you think you are. Try a little humility. MUh timerino! What difference would it make if ten seconds passed instead of ten billion years?

[Anonymous No.17393190]

>>17392986
Because, as I said, the argument has nothing to do with a temporal "beginning of the universe." The argument concerns what causes everything to move ("change") at every given moment. The cause of all change, Becoming, is God, who is omnipotent per that very act.
>and the existance of that type of "god" doesnt matter to the concept of life meaning and the idea of good and bad
Now you're starting to get it. I'm not a Christian btw.

[Anonymous No.17393448]

>>17385685
>14 year olds

[Anonymous No.17393457]

>>17391630
No he didnt

[Anonymous No.17393465]

>>17393013
Wrong.

Niezsche btfo Plato.

[Anonymous No.17393783]

>>17392352
>If most people didn't believe in God, why would they do this? Why would they set up missionaries to convert Native Americans to Christianity?
Political control

>Most unconsciously rebel against the idea of a God, because it goes against their postmodern lifestyle.
Yes, that was my point. Most people are not sincere, regardless of their religious stance.

[Anonymous No.17393819]

>>17393465
Symposium was one of his favourite books anon ;)

[Anonymous No.17393902]

>>17393457
He did all the time

[Anonymous No.17394030]

>>17385685
>Bruh what if you lived the same life again and again forever
That probably doesn't happen and even if it does I don't remember it anyway so I don't care
>Yeah but just think about bro

[Anonymous No.17394642]

>>17392116
well yes and no. I don't think he held it as *the* cosmological theory explaining everything. He opens on "truth and lies in a nonmoral sense" talking about what he accepts as a cosmological theory (roughly speaking).

He did bake the eternal recurrence into a LOT of what he said, since its first mention is situated chronologically in the middle of his works, and sits right at an important turning when he would begin writing all of the stuff we really know him for.

the first mention of it also posits it as a hypothetical: "what if a demon came in and said eternal recurrence of the same? how much would you have to love life to accept the demon's claims as a good thing?"

[Anonymous No.17395546]

>>17392108
>you'll find, what you seek
find what?

[Anonymous No.17395729]

>>17392986
a moving cloud of dust cannot exist without something moving it. So it begins at the First Mover, who willed themselves into existence. That can literally only be God

[Anonymous No.17395743]

>>17392950
yes please post the argument

[Anonymous No.17395859]

>>17391912
>Because they HAVE used reason to prove God, and you seem to be one of those people who just conveniently ignore that, whilst still touting the objective validity of reason. You people don't understand the things you try to endorse.
You are still making zero sense. How is my belief in the objectivity of reason incompatible with the fact that people have attempted to use reason to prove the existence of God? I may think that these attempts succeed, or I may think that they fail, but both views are compatible with reason being objective. There is no contradiction.
>As I just said, rationality is a typical pattern of scientific knowledge, not the other way around. You're right though, this distinction isn't really very important at all.
Actually rationality is the broader category, not science. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is a mortal. <-- this isn't scientific reasoning but it's still a rational argument.
>A lot of people aren't aware of this, but thanks to Einstein, heliocentrism is now no longer the only valid solar system model. Heliocentrism is only the mathematically simplest model to describe the solar system. The solar system can be described, with more complicated mathematics, as all planets revolving around the Earth. Einstein fundamentally abolished necessitated objectivity within science itself, the only thing that is relevant for us is mathematical simplicity. Yet, we can still observe things ourselves which appear objective to us. There is now a fundamental disconnect between common human experience, scientific knowledge, and reason. They cannot be reconciled.
I take it you meant to say Galileo, not Einstein. And in fact your example doesn't show much. Some theories may fundamentally change but others don't. For example the theory of evolution has no prospect of being refuted in the future, although it will probably be modified in its details.

[Anonymous No.17395928]

>>17385685
It's a metaphor retard.

[Anonymous No.17396001]

>>17393783
>Political control
That's a very pessimistic outlook on things and I don't think any historian would agree with you. Look at the diaries and journals of the First Explorers. Every other sentence is thanking Jesus. The fathers, mothers, and children came on the Mayflower not for "political control", but for the freedom to be Protestant without any persecution. To say that "everyone was just faking it" might be the most low IQ take in the entire world. Read the history of Catholicism, read about the saints. People would dedicate their entire lives to worship and prayer. People would spend hours praying the rosary before bed. They would write hymns and chants worshipping their Lord in Church.

>Yes, that was my point. Most people are not sincere, regardless of their religious stance.
The point I was making was about atheists rebelling against the idea of a God because of their own vices. A Christian going to church every week is not rebelling against the idea of a God. It's quite the opposite.

It's like you right now rebelling against the idea of a God to the point where you've taken on the stance that "everyone in the past who believed in a god was just faking it." You realize how dumb that sounds right? Were the Native Indians who would do spirit dances and offer sacrifices faking it also? Were the Egyptians faking their beliefs? What about all of the Muslims? Or is it just Christians that were faking it?

[Anonymous No.17396020]

>>17395859
God has been proven with reason. This is a fact. Ironically, to think that there isn't a God would require more faith than to believe there is a God

[Anonymous No.17396065]

>>17392275
Can you explain how he refuted it?

[Anonymous No.17396089]

>>17396020
I am actually an atheist, I simply made the point that belief in the objectivity of reason is perfectly compatible with the belief that God can be proven.
But we can argue about it if have done your homework and know the arguments.

[Anonymous No.17396096]

>>17385685
You have to think of it more like a game of dice. When you cast your dice, do you like the outcome? If so, you're living the right way. If not, you're doing something wrong. Perhaps you identify too strongly with a fantasy, and now that the outcome disturbed that fantasy, you're unhappy. Your better self is only a fantasy to you. If you were one with it, then the outcome couldn't disturb you.

>>17396020
>God has been proven with reason.
But reason has not been proven.

[Anonymous No.17396216]

>>17385685
Having infinite lives is indistinguishable to you as having one life.

[Anonymous No.17396241]

>>17385685
>tfw i had those excact thoughts last month
dont worry anon, those thoughts come and go... ENDLESSLY

[Anonymous No.17396282]

>>17388056
>thinking God cares about the scientific method

[Anonymous No.17396291]

>>17391049
>the exit is just another entrance
I want off Mr. Nietzche's wild ride...

[Anonymous No.17396304]

>>17396241
Anon!!