/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21008328]

I started reading philosophy recently and I have to ask; Is it normal to just fundamentally, inherently, and completely disagree with 99% of the things basically every single philosopher says? I mean I was reading some various philosophers and I can not find a single statement I agree with. All of it I feel is just completely wrong, I cannot agree with the premises or conclusions they are constructing, to the point it's annoying. I just want to stop them and say "No, that's wrong, dead wrong, completely unfounded in reality." and it keeps happening with EVERY philosophy book that I read. I feel like I must be missing something here. Does anyone else feel like this? I keep getting really annoyed with authors.

[Anonymous No.21008345]

>>21008328
This is called becoming a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.21008348]

>>21008328
Articulate your opinions so we can bully you.

[Anonymous No.21008349]

>>21008328
the plato cult

[Anonymous No.21008364]

>>21008328
Which philosopher s have you read?

[Anonymous No.21008377]

>>21008348
I'm not saying I have better ideas then the great thinkers, no. I mean that I just thought, beforehand, I would come to these works and get argumentation that would, I don't know, blow me away, I guess. I mean like some logical combination of words which just literally causes me to have a fucking heart attack or something. Like I would open the book and it would literally shine light at me and I would float off the ground or something. Then I read the republic or something and it's like "Yeah let's just not have parents or children anymore, and tell people they have literal bronze and gold in their blood." and it's like...what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.21008384]

>>21008364
I've been reading a lot of the classics like Plato and Aristotle, specifically Republic and Ethics. The Ethics was pretty good but still there were just some bits and pieces which made me feel like "The fuck are you even talking about man?" like him saying "Children and animals cannot and never have felt happiness."

[Anonymous No.21008386]

>>21008377
Shut up, nigger. You're not allowed in Plato's ideal realm anymore. Contrary to popular belief, it's an actual place and not some perfected ideals or forms as philosophers would have you believe. BEGONE, NEGRO!

[Anonymous No.21008387]

>>21008328
>No, that's wrong, dead wrong, completely unfounded in reality

That's your problem. Philosophy is not grounded in reality. If you came in expecting profound truths about the world you are in the wrong place. That's Science's domain. Think of philosophy like an art, a mix of non-fiction , prose and poetry. Revel in the mental exercise and entertainment . Or don't, go watch a movie or read fiction instead

[Anonymous No.21008409]

philosophy is just >>>/x/ tier bullshit where they try to define a chair for 600 pages, fail, and then go publishing the next book on whether they should kill themselves or not for 1100 pages

philosophy is inferior in predictive or explanatory power to science and engineering
its inferior in entertainment to art, literature, movies, tv shows etc
if someone is reading philosophy in 21st century, he is just signalling his iq is not in triple digits

[Anonymous No.21008419]

>>21008377
>Like I would open the book and it would literally shine light at me and I would float off the ground or something. Then I read the republic or something and it's like "Yeah let's just not have parents or children anymore, and tell people they have literal bronze and gold in their blood." and it's like...what the fuck?

Ok, understandable, maybe start learning about metaphors. If you were to go to school it would be like a 4th grade or so, maybe? Depends where you are.

Then learn to lower your expectations. Magic doesn't exist too, so there wouldn't be any hallucinogenic experience after you process some letters.

Most of this famous "philosophy" is simply and boringly true, you can have an intuitive sense of what is right or wrong and what is possible and not, but keep in mind, these people manage to translate their feelings not only into paper, but narrative, which IS, arguably, the one of the major tasks of philosophy in general.

And lastly, general rule, if you don't understand it, try to read it again, later or reference it to the other idea that you experienced before, if it's possible in your case anyways. Making these connections not only will help you understand what they are trying to say, but also what you are doing yourself.

[Anonymous No.21008422]

>>21008409
>philosophy is inferior in predictive or explanatory power to science and engineering

t. doesn’t know

[Anonymous No.21008425]

>>21008377
>>21008384
Remember that both Aristotle and Plato are 2500 years old. They were mystics. We had people like Newton as recent as 17th century who practiced the psuedo-science of alchemy. We can't blame them for it, they just didn't know any better. Our current understanding of the world has reached far beyond what some ancient thinker could've ever imagined. If something they say sounds like total bullshit to our modern ears then it probably is.

[Anonymous No.21008426]

You're literally on too low of a cognitive plane (as of right now) to appreciate or even meaningfully disagree with these works. Experience more, suffer more, read more.

[Anonymous No.21008427]

>>21008425
>psuedo-science of alchemy.
t. doesn’t know

[Anonymous No.21008429]

>>21008425
kek you are so fucking retarded and I wish there was a way to permaban your entire gene cluster from this site

[Anonymous No.21008435]

>>21008426
>Experience more, suffer more, read more.

Thanks for the advice auntie

[Anonymous No.21008441]

>>21008429
Now now. We don't want this board to be entirely filled with retards now do we?

[Anonymous No.21008448]

>>21008425
>Our current understanding of the world has reached far beyond what some ancient thinker could've ever imagined.
Holy STASD. This anon has not read philosophy books bros.

[Anonymous No.21008451]

>>21008328
>>21008425
Read this: http://livros01.livrosgratis.com.br/gu005641.pdf

[Anonymous No.21008458]

>>21008441
The irony

[Anonymous No.21008485]

would you agree with this statement?

>What philosophers say about actuality is often just as disappointing as it is when one reads on a sign in a secondhand shop: Pressing Done Here. If a person were to bring his clothes to be pressed, he would be duped, for the sign is merely for sale.
t. kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.21008484]

>>21008448
Is the assertion you quoted wrong? A high schooler today knows and understands more than Plato in his time did.

[Anonymous No.21008490]

>>21008409
> is reading philosophy in 21st century, he is just signalling his iq is not in triple digits

Wholy, I can see a clear image even if it is pointed at the sun with this projector

[Anonymous No.21008499]

the only philosophy that i find acceptable at all is nick land because it is not only highly entertaining, but it also offers suspension of disbelief because he is talking to ai
philosophy is always full of >>>/x/ tier crap that instantly turns me off, i simply dont believe in ghost stories or gypsy fortune teller concepts that is 99% of philosophy
its also extremely pseudointellectual

ai horror stories, while extremely entertaining, at least sound plausible enough for me to not instantly go 'alright mate ive heard enough about your horoscope tier categories, im not reading any more of this shit'

[Anonymous No.21008525]

>>21008484
>knows
Anon, you must be young. One day you will be old and realize most of the shit you learned in school was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21008529]

>>21008409
>philosophy is just >>>/x/ tier bullshit

There's more truth to this statement in the context of this board than this ad hominem attack of philosophy reveals Since almost half of philosophy readers here unironically believe in mysticism, magick, occult of one or another flavour, or are just downright christians.

So it quite literally is >>>/x/ tier

[Anonymous No.21008556]

>>21008529
>Since almost half of philosophy readers here unironically believe in mysticism, magick, occult of one or another flavour, or are just downright christians.
Anon what do you think this means? Could it be that there might actually be something to this stuff?

[Anonymous No.21008561]

Anon, you're just unironically too smart for philosophy. Remember, philosophy is for LARPers who want to pretend being smart by mindlessly quoting people who are perceived as smart by other midwits. As soon as you start thinking critically and questioning philosophy, their whole books implode into meaningless drivel. It's your choice now. Either associate yourself with midwits and play along with the fake social LARP culture of pretending that Plato was deep and insightful. Or ignore the whole pseud cult and do something more useful instead, e.g. read STEM textbooks.

[Anonymous No.21008563]

>>21008561
Lol samefaggggggggggggg kekekek

[Anonymous No.21008688]

>>21008499
>philosophy is always full of >>>/x/ tier crap

You have a very broad definition of philosophy , as though any product that comes from woodworks is philosophy.

Philosophy is more of a psychology only objective. That's why most prominent psychologists are basically philosophers and vice versa.

Any thought conjuration that is /x/ is not without it's basis and "reality". You have to be VERY fucking careful and have VERY extensive background in both of the previously mentioned field to start to even approach that type of thought that /x/ symbolize, which is in a way what Nick Land is.

The closer you get to the truth, the more absurd everything around it becomes. After All, by our design, we are made to avoid it.

[Anonymous No.21008707]

>>21008556
Nah its just escapism. What this whole website is about.

[Anonymous No.21008721]

>>21008688
>Where does Philosophy end and Psychology begin? - when you start to make money.
t. another anon

[Anonymous No.21008743]

>>21008707
>escapism
Yes gnosis is the key to escape. The hylic must stay in this harsh reality.

[Anonymous No.21008751]

>>21008743
I'm just gonna let the memes write themselves

[Anonymous No.21008770]

>>21008384
>Children and animals cannot and never have felt happiness.
He's talking about a specific kind of happiness. A lasting happiness effectuated by excellence of moral character. He's not talking about happiness as a passion.

[Anonymous No.21008779]

Could you read a book on how to use a semicolon properly?

[Anonymous No.21008809]

>>21008328
Read Hume or Sextus Empiricus

[Anonymous No.21008823]

>>21008751
>the memes write themselves
The power of gnosis

[Anonymous No.21008859]

>>21008721
Ironic, since psychology is supposed to be scientified philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21008880]

>>21008770
I've never been as happy in my life as I was in very early childhood. It was not passionate, it was complete consistent bliss

[Anonymous No.21008884]

>>21008770
well the wording in the translation may have fucked it for me, but still you get the point, there's constantly statements I can't agree with

[Anonymous No.21008891]

>>21008328
If its just "Thats wrong" youre a retard
If it's "thats wrong because" than you are less of a retard
You can't articulate your own thoughts and see anybody going against your bred-in onions mentality as "wrong"

[Anonymous No.21008893]

>>21008328
Go ahead and be a maverick. That’s your right as a human being

[Anonymous No.21008900]

>>21008561
>Stem textbooks
>useful
Lmao

[Anonymous No.21008904]

>>21008891
But I mean is it common to disagree "because" of things this often in reading philosophy? I mean, I very often find myself disagreeing very strongly against random things, with reasons, to the point I have difficulty enjoying not only philosophers, but anyones opinions.

[Anonymous No.21008910]

>>21008377
>like some logical combination of words which just literally causes me to have a fucking heart attack or something. Like I would open the book and it would literally shine light at me and I would float off the ground or something

So you haven't read Nietzsche yet? (Although now I wonder if I was having a quarter life crisis at the same time that I discovered him.)

[Anonymous No.21008914]

>>21008328
>look at hundreds of fundamentally incompatible positions
>ask if it is normal to disagree with most of them
Stupid frogposter

[Anonymous No.21008919]

>>21008900
Was junior high bio really that hard anon?

[Anonymous No.21008934]

>>21008328
>is it normal
If the norm is given by the sweltering, unlearned horde then yes, it is quite normal to disagree with everything you read in a great work of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21008936]

>>21008328
yes

[Anonymous No.21008977]

>>21008328
Are you a modern progressive that wants the state to nanny you like most zoomers? Then I can see why you totally disagree with them all. I agree with most of Aristotle and Locke but I'm a classical liberal and despite progressives and the causes they promote that do nothing but murder a nation/people.

[Anonymous No.21008980]

>>21008977
despise*
If I say any racist shit God makes me spell words incorrectly so progressives can attack me for being low IQ. After all they push that only racists make mistakes.

[Anonymous No.21008993]

>>21008328
>he hasn't read bacon and kant yet

[Anonymous No.21009004]

>>21008977
No I just disagree with most statements and ideas from almost every philosophy book I have read thus far.

[Anonymous No.21009032]

>>21009004
You've barely read the Greeks. Of course you'd disagree with the mystical nonsense. Read more.

[Anonymous No.21009069]

>>21008429
What is it about someone pointing out the obvious bogus nature of superstitious larps that get your ilk so worked up like that? It's not like any of you are actually really religious or spiritual, so what is it with you really? Is it just le heckin reddit and you reflexively denounce this stuff because you've been conditioned by online retards to do so? Tell me what's going on inside your head right now, genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.21009092]

>>21009032
Now actually anon I have read a bunch of the greeks. I mean I read both of Homers works, Hesiod, Aesop, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and even a collection of fragments from various presocratics like Empedocles and Zeno and such. I mean that's a pretty big foot in the door reguarding greek philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21009102]

>>21008328
there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. it's perfectly natural. the value you gain from this stuff isn't in agreement, but the development of your own mind

[Anonymous No.21009142]

>>21008880
"bliss" is a feeling or passion. Aristotle is talking about self-realization (to use a contemporary term). He's talking about reaching your maximum potential, which children, by his definition, cannot do.
>>21008884
Oh yeah, same. But the fun of philosophy is understanding all the intricate parts of an argument and seeing how they come together to form a greater whole. You don't want to get too caught up in the individual strokes, or you'll end up missing the bigger picture.

[Anonymous No.21009145]

>>21008409
Movies mostly suck, literature is boring, and there's nothing good on tv anymore. There I fixed it for you. And most art is just money laundering these days.

Captcha: PSYMK

[Anonymous No.21009147]

>>21009142
>self-realization
Or, rather, self-actualization.

[Anonymous No.21009193]

>>21009069
>Doesn't realize /x/ is here

[Anonymous No.21009463]

>>21009069
What gets me worked is how you present your abandonment of reason as reasonable. You're promoting the most dogmatic religious movement in history while pretending you're not religious.

[Anonymous No.21009822]

>>21009092
>t. Hasn't read neoplatonic corpus

[Anonymous No.21009838]

>>21008328
that's very good actually
most just agree with whatever philosopher they read and stick to it as the absolute truth

however, you really have to read a big bunch for your doubts to have effect, otherwise you'll just be some hipster retard

keep it up, retard

[Anonymous No.21009846]

>>21008328
You have to read Heidegger, brother. His philosophy is unironically irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.21009938]

>>21008328
Read aesops fables.
Totem pole animal philosophy is the philosophy of mother earth herself.

while a modern human only sees themselves in the animals, a wild and true human can also see the animal in him.

Loving wisdom means to adore the use of knowlage unto the world, and the way you use the world's knowlage is to learn from the animals and become one yourself. The wild human animal.

Once you become your "true self" like this
You wont feel the need to adorn your own mind and spirit with the clutterings and junk of random rich Jewish humans vomiting their so called " philosophies" onto the pages.

A real philosopher doesnt need to write out his love for wisdom onto a page. He becomes it. Like a falcon becomes the sky, like a crocodile embeds itself becoming one with the mud, as the horse bounces across the planes in a race between two equals with the wind.

You dont find philosophy looking down on a still page, wisdom is the implementation of knowlage, and you will only catch sight of it in its most fleeting poetic motions.

What I mean here is to accept that you are a unique and individual self.
Stop looking for things that agree with you and start making some things that agree with you. Become a dictator, betray everyone, breed all your slaves and take all the women for yourself, create an entire empire of subjects that stand below you looking up to you awestruck at your magnificent agreeableness. And then revel in your own agreement knowing that everyone around you agrees

[Anonymous No.21009985]

>>21009822
That's even more of a meaningless drivel. OP will find no value therein.

>>21009142
Frankly I don't care what he means. The texts are a reinterpretation of a reinterpretation of what was written 2500 years ago. I've never felt as happy or actualized or whatever as I did as a kid. Whatever he was describing simply doesn't exist anymore. Not in the modern experience.
>>21009069

>It's not like any of you are actually really religious or spiritual, so what is it with you really?

You are giving these retards way too much credit.
>>21009463
Oh hi again brainlet. How's the weather today in projectionople

[Anonymous No.21010063]

>>21008328
i see you’re reading the wrong philosophy
did you start with the greeks?

[Anonymous No.21010144]

>>21008377
I'm not that smart so take from this what you want. Most philosophers have been proven wrong one way or another many times by other philosopher's. You have to think about what information they have available at the time and how they come to conclusions they get. I don't know who you are reading but myself when I read philosophy I try to take away the method they use to reach a conclusion and apply that to my critical thinking skills. I don't personally read philosophy to find truths but more so that I can figure out how to ask the questions I need, answer them and figure out my own path through life.

[Anonymous No.21010159]

test

[Anonymous No.21010191]

you cant translate core principles in philosophy, they have to be understood in their original context.
Eudaimonia for example is not simply "happiness". Read those parts in their original versions and learn the language and important words which are hard to translate (principles, emotions and concepts are not easy to translate)

[Anonymous No.21010212]

>>21008328

Yes. The amount of caveman speculation that goes unchallenged here is how I know nobody on this board has actually read the greeks.

[Anonymous No.21010242]

>>21010212
Anon you are going through a fallacy like that out. It's almost irony that you would make such a generalized statement implying you have read the Greeks. I only say that you are implying that because in order to know No one has read the Greeks based on arguments you would have had to study them yourself to know how they argued.

[Anonymous No.21010254]

>>21009938
>a wild and true human can also see the animal in him.
fucking beautiful

[Anonymous No.21010268]

>>21008484
>A high schooler today knows and understands more than Plato in his time did.
A high schooler today doesn't even know and understand how the technology he uses on a daily basis works

[Anonymous No.21010286]

>>21010212
>goes unchallenged
Dismissing things you haven't bothered to try to understand isn't challenging anything or anyone.

[Anonymous No.21011030]

>>21010254
Thanks maaaaan

[Anonymous No.21011032]

>>21008328
Philosophy never was about the outside world. Philosophy is about the inside world of exceptional people.

[Anonymous No.21011039]

>>21008328
Read Moore

[Anonymous No.21011043]

>>21011039
I just started aphrodite in aulis, did you like it?

[Anonymous No.21011060]

>>21008409

[Anonymous No.21011077]

>>21009092
The fact you preface the vast majority of your sentences with “like” and “I mean” tells me that philosophy probably isn’t for you. Maybe you should stick to pornography and Netflix instead of tearing down what you lack the capacity to understand.

[Anonymous No.21011082]

>>21008328
Try Kant.

[Anonymous No.21011134]

>>21008328
>I feel like I must be missing something here.
It is polite to allow philosophers their "givens" when following their argument. You then follow their argument and determine if it is correct given the givens. Then after noting this, you can disagree with the givens, but that's trivial; unless disagreeing with the givens allows for more interesting arguments to follow.

Philosophy isn't proving who is right, it is following interesting argumentation given givens, and discovering new more interesting argument from new better givens.

You shouldn't be an active reader conducting aggressive readings until at least Australian Honours / UK Masters level. I mean you can try it out at home, but unless you understand the loss rates of the PLAF/PAVN then you shouldn't say that Deleuze and Guattari ought to have been executed by Autonomia for distraction from class struggle. And that such an execution would have advanced the general good of the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.21011273]

>>21011082
Kant was a midwit. He just copied from Plato and Descartes and added some racism.

[Anonymous No.21011274]

>>21011134
>Philosophy isn't proving who is right, it is following interesting argumentation given givens, and discovering new more interesting argument from new better givens

I realized this while reading Sartre's being and nothingness. It's literally a thousand page forum post dedicated to saying "you're a fucking retard, if you actually think about..." and "this guy gets it^" in quoting Husserl, etc.

The reality is that many of these works are so built upon each other that they are direct replies to one another. Obviously the ultimate truth is still somewhere out in a field waiting to be apprehended, and these are mere routes sprouting away from a central idea, as no ultimate happiness and complete understanding could ever take so many words to elucidate. Truth is a feeling correct. It is a vibration of the soul that has a distinct estacticly joyous flavor and has no use for brick sized prattlings on the undeniability of a chair, on the contrary, these are symptoms of a lost soul, and like a wound healing, they mend themselves from fallacious thought to return to a sane state, teaching other lost souls along the way. In this they are fantastic works of charity, but not everybody needs charity all the time.

Just kidding I'm retarded

[Anonymous No.21011357]

You don't believe the most wicked man is 9^3 more miserable than the absolutely just man?

It's obvious. You're dumb if you don't get it.

[Anonymous No.21011381]

>>21008384
Yikes, if you disagree with 99% of Plato and Aristotle you're getting filtered hard. You should wait until you're 18 before posting again. If you're over 18, you should wait until 30 because you have a slow mental development.

[Anonymous No.21011402]

Unironically take the analyticpill.
Russell, Wittgenstein and Ayer LITERALLY ended philosophy, and everything after them is just an intellectual dead end.

[Anonymous No.21011451]

>>21011402
Wittgenstein destroyed "analytic philosophy". It's nothing but pointless infantile language games.

[Anonymous No.21011462]

>>21011381
If you agree with Plato and Aristotle you're intellectually stuck in early iron age and missed out on more than 2000 years of evolution.

[Anonymous No.21011465]

>>21011402
>>21011451
This is the point, it is a scholarly version of OP, which would require 35 years of serious effort by OP to master, so we can avoid having to talk to a fuckwit like OP for 35 years. When he gets back we can dismiss him as an overinvested autie cunt who should have read conti instead.

[Anonymous No.21011476]

>>21011451
No shit. That's all that philosophy is, not just analytic. Read Language, Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer. It's basically a less schizo version of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

[Anonymous No.21011609]

Damn I really love philosophy.
Making up new shit and ideas is so much fun and the fact that so many get absolutely filtered by the process is just the cherry on top of it.

[Anonymous No.21012022]

good thread, this

[Anonymous No.21012199]

>>21008377
Well, a few things to keep in mind:

1) Philosophy in its early days was frowned upon at best and actively persecuted at worst. Questioning whether reality lines up with the common opinions of ordinary life butts up against impiety (to inquire into the nature of laws or political orders is tantamount in popular opinion, even if not precisely the same, as doubting the Olympian gods bestowed laws to the cities or that the gods or their children, the heroes, founded them or established their political arrangements). No one reacted to a controversial thought with an eyeroll or annoyance like we largely do today, but with real fear and hostility, since to seem to be impious could result in a miasma for the city, or bad harvests, or cosmic punishment by war or civil faction.

2) The philosophers steadily learned to pay more attention to how they wrote according to who might be able to read. Important lessons were taken from the persecution of the Pythagorean communities, the murder of Aesop, the necessity for Anaxagoras and perhaps Protagoras to flee Athens. Most people are not "enlightened" enough for a real open inquiry, and it was judged unlikely that most people could be enlightened. So there was greater effort to pay attention to how rhetoricians directed themselves at different audiences and use that in writing. (Consider what survives from Aristotle's dialogue Protrepticus and compare with similar arguments in the Ethics; the former has to make an appeal for his school's philosophy by much slighter rhetorical arguments that it's plain he would personally reject as sufficient for himself.)

3) At least from the Socratics onward, the effort is to come to knowledge by taking care of the real starting point, common opinion. With 2500 years of tradition behind us, it's easier for us to take that for granted and imagine that the only way to begin philosophizing is to start immediately from the best premises and deduce everything accordingly, but that's not the more cautious approach of the older thinkers. Aristotle harps on this quite a bit, that his inquiries move from what is better known to ourselves to what is better known in itself, and this procedure is everywhere in Plato's writings too.

4) I don't think the philosophers believed that one could be handed an indisputable argument that would innately compel anyone. They were aware that one could speak the truth plainly and be misunderstood or have their insights rejected for not living up to impossible hopes.

[Anonymous No.21012230]

People today are incapable of doing anything resembling philosophy. They're brainwashed by atheist dogma and can't conceive of anything except what is familiar.
They actually say with no hint of irony that their ideas about the world are irrefutably true and therefore their claims are not religious.

[Anonymous No.21012263]

I don't understand the point of doing philosophy past, say, Kant or Schoppy.
You don't even experience life under the technological apparatus, so what could you possibly have to say about anything?
Like some bozo would have anything enlightening to reveal to us while living in an urban environment, taking his car everywhere and having everything at his disposal with one click.
The only thing you can philosophize about is your situation and environment itself relative to any universal ideas that have already been explored in the past, but you can't make headway on the universal ideas themselves.

[Anonymous No.21012481]

>>21008458
>no you are the retards
>no, you
>no, you

Great discussion

[Anonymous No.21012494]

>>21008377
The Greeks were genuinely pretty retarded, with awful logic to back up insane arguments. Aristotle is the least like this, fwiw.

You probably won't find any philosophers that you genuinely really agree with until the last 200-150 years. The rest is historically important, but patently pretty stupid most of the time. More recent philosophy can also be stupid, but the hit to miss ratio has gotten way better.

[Anonymous No.21012516]

>>21008328
admit it op. you have never read a single philosophy book. you just want to fit in on lit by seaming like you have while also being a contrarian, but you have never read a single philosophical argument let alone a whole book full. I hope you get exactly what you deserve you faggot frog poster.

[Anonymous No.21012553]

>>21008328
>tfw too intelligent for philosophy

[Anonymous No.21012634]

>>21008435
He is right. Literature is only enjoyable after having lived. No one will need to explain great literature to you if you do it well.

[Anonymous No.21012638]

>>21008484
Hahahaha. What do they know, those highschoolers? Tell me even just one thing.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21012796]

>>21008328


1. Most socalled "philosophers" are actually sophists/odiosophists.

2. Fame is for vulgar mouths, and therefore easier to find; glory is for aristeic gladness, and therefore harder to find.

[Anonymous No.21012840]

>>21008377
>heart attack
it's funny because i actually got a heart attack while reading michele montaigne

[Anonymous No.21012860]

>>21012796
>accues someone of being a sophist
>is namefagging

[Anonymous No.21012889]

>>21008426
This guy is trying to read Plato after getting a C in highschool English, checking out /lit/ one day after jerking to weebshit and then feeling like a brainlet because there’s so much philosophy talk here

[Anonymous No.21012938]

>>21012230
>They're brainwashed by atheist dogma
keep seething, little christer

[Anonymous No.21012979]

>>21012938
There's no dumber religion than atheism. Even the dumbest claims attributable to any religion will still have more value than your methods of attacking anyone that dares think beyond your dogma.
>lol this guy thinks a polynesian volcano demon made the world
At least someone thought of that, it required thinking. Whoever thought of that wasn't a mindless parrot like you. He was capable of exploring things you can't conceive.

[Anonymous No.21013042]

>>21012979
>At least someone thought of that, it required thinking. Whoever thought of that wasn't a mindless parrot like you. He was capable of exploring things you can't conceive.
>Some primitive imagines a man like him but much bigger and stronger made the world like the primitive made a tool
Behold the power of thinking atheist chuds

[Anonymous No.21013055]

>>21012979
>accusing other people of being dogmatic
>why yes, sky landlord loves me so much he put me on earth and sent me instructions on how to receive the great food pellet, which I never actually live to taste

[Anonymous No.21013145]

>>21013055
>accusing other people of being dogmatic
Yes, precisely. Like this post.
You felt the need to make up a position I didn't present even when I gave you the perfect strawman to attack. I'm literally defending the idea of Polynesian volcano demons and you couldn't even engage with that easy target. It doesn't occur to you to think before posting these automatic kneejerk reaction posts like a robot. You have no clue how to begin to think. It's completely alien to you.
>>21013042
>Behold the power of thinking
Indeed. Why do you hate it so much? What motivates you retards to try to shut it down in all forms?

[Anonymous No.21013219]

>>21013145
>you couldn't even engage with that easy target
What is to engage with exactly? Those are your beliefs, which entirely lack justification and have no context for non-believers. Atheism is the mere negation of them. Since you won't put anything of substance forward in their defense which can even be discussed, there is nothing left to do but negate them. It isn't dogmatic but simply not being naive. Why should I trust your mystical utterances? And more than or to the exclusion if any other person's for that matter? Let us see if you have thoughts or merely Tourette's.

[Anonymous No.21013246]

>>21008377
The Republic is a psychological treaty on the soul, with obvious reference to Plato's political views, but mainly a psychological one nonetheless. His Laws are the reverse, and they do link to one another on many points, but reading each with the appropriate hermeneutic will help you tremendously.

[Anonymous No.21013272]

>>21013219
>Those are your beliefs,
I don't have dogmatic beliefs like you. Instead of talking about your own dogma you demand I have some you made up for me.
>Why should I trust
You're the one who can only conceive of thinking in terms of trusting an authority. If you were capable of thinking you could conceive of different perspectives, maybe even squeeze something of value out of them but you could at least discuss them sincerely even if you disagreed. You can't. You can only project or do the classic atheist thing where make demands that I accept some religious premise before even starting any discussion.
>prove my religious convictions are wrong using my religious convictions as accepted axioms.
> Atheism is the mere negation
Saying no to things without thinking because you decided to adhere to a movement that declares the answers to those questions to be settled. It's a declaration of adherence to a dogmatic system of thought.

[Anonymous No.21013317]

>>21013272
Why is it dogmatic to reject the authority of groundless claims made by persons who insist upon uncritical obedience to them and their beliefs? You really think I should agree with you to in order to prove (to you) I am some kind of non-dogmatic 'free thinker'? What sort of bullshit psychology are you playing at? Let's see your critical thinking about thus Polynesian volcano demon then. But of course, you know you've lost and are trying to dishonestly land a gotcha as if that proves Yahweh's wife's son rose from the dead and disproved all other theologies. You've still done nothing but through around the vague thesis that "atheists don't think for themselves, therefore rejecting atheism for theism is thinking for oneself" which is a bit like saying natural gas is bad for the environment so you are going to switch to the older fuel source, coal. Because if rejecting priests and scriptures for being false is dogmatic, how much more dogmatic it is to believe in them because they are false.

[Anonymous No.21013470]

>>21013317
>Why is it dogmatic to reject the authority of groundless claims made by persons who insist upon uncritical obedience to them and their beliefs?
It wouldn't be but that's not what you do. You use this as an excuse to not think just like in this thread. You demand this is what's happening every time anything beyond what's familiar to your own dogmatic worldview is mentioned.
>You really think I should agree with you
This is the problem. You can't conceive of thinking. All that exists are true/false statements and thinking any further on what a statement you deemed false represents is inconceivable. If you were capable of thinking you would agree that you're a dogmatic retard.
>Let's see your critical thinking about thus Polynesian volcano demon then
I already said what I wanted to say about it. The guy who thought of it was capable of thinking. The idea represents some perspective rooted in some history and does relate to reality from that perspective. It has value to anyone curious. Your dogmatic beliefs about having all the final answers to things like this has negative value, it suppresses thought. 20 years ago if I saw anyone English speaking thinking like this it would be some kind of influence from American style Christians. Today it's almost always people claiming to be "atheists".
>let me make up a story again
Strange how people harping about le objective measurements etc keep making shit up like this.

[Anonymous No.21013481]

>>21008328
finally someone said it. the emperor(s) have no clothes and you are all posers for saying they did all these centuries

[Anonymous No.21013483]

>>21013470
>All that exists are true/false statements
Are you going to tell me that this is a false statement? Are you a Postmodernist for Polynesian Volcano Demons?

[Anonymous No.21013529]

>>21013483
>Are you going to tell me that this is a false statement?
Appealing to rules of thumb like binary thinking, made up by smarter people than you as if they're absolute holy truth is an example of dogma. You're so deranged that you don't even recognize your ideas as ideas. You think your map is the territory, in terms familiar to your ancestors you believe you have direct access to the mind of God.
The volcano demon perspective contains information. Your mindless dogmatic "no" does not. A random polynesian shaman would likely not be as dogmatic and insistent about his ideas as you are.

[Anonymous No.21013574]

>>21013529
You're going through a lot of trouble to defend obvious bullshit and convince yourself that you're a critical thinker for not being normative but eventually you won't be a teenager. If you're such a good sceptical pomo then you'd know better than to argue for the supremacy of polynesian covenant theology as a sincere defense of it. Using one branch nihilism as a stick to beat other branches of nihilism with is all fun and games until you get splinters in the fingers you pretended you didn't care about. I do not get the impression you are mutually opposed to the positions of theism and atheism—you come across as snarky and butthurt that "the atheists" are somehow "controlling people" and taking away "thinking" but since by thinking you just mean "agreeing with my religion." It's all in poor taste, bad faith, a foul air. You still haven't owned up to your actual beliefs—though it seems highly likely they involve the Sinai volcano demon.

[Anonymous No.21013605]

>>21013574
>the supremacy of polynesian covenant theology
The example idea about a volcano demon is easier to defend than your position because the imagined shaman isn't demanding everyone accepts his idea as a premise behind all thought. You have to add that claim as if it's implied but it's not. It's just that you can't think in any other terms than dogmatic absolute claims.
>since by thinking you just mean "agreeing with my religion."
Again you have to make up things. You can't think about what I actually say. You can't actually think, just repeat the same tired dogmatic lines exactly like a Muslim.
>You still haven't owned up to your actual beliefs
You can't conceive of someone not being a religious zealot like you. I told you very explicitly that all religions I have even slightly studied have better points than anyone that identifies as an atheist. The religion that seems closest to yours is 20th century American fundamentalism which makes sense since that's where atheism historically traces to.

[Anonymous No.21013614]

>>21011462
> Newer = Better because... uh, it just does OK!

[Anonymous No.21013631]

>>21013605
>20th century American fundamentalism which makes sense since that's where atheism historically traces to
ok so just to be clear, you are a teenager, developmentally disabled, or an American

[Anonymous No.21013670]

Is the retard skydaddy dick lover still going on about why everyone but him is irrational and cannot think because they reject his blatant fantasies? I'm not going to read paragraphs of cope to find out.

[Anonymous No.21013677]

>>21013631
You'll say over and over that you're not delusional but all your ideas about the world are retarded and can't predict anything about the world, that's being delusional.
I'm retired from programming independently from my remote village in Europe. I followed "atheism" as it emerged and identified as one until it came to mean a new form of religious fundamentalism that's even more dogmatic than anything that came before. You demonstrate my point over and over.

[Anonymous No.21013695]

>>21013677
>You'll say over and over that you're not delusional but all your ideas about the world are retarded and can't predict anything about the world, that's being delusional.

Mr. Brainlet nice to meet you again today. When did you move from projectionople to copeville. Was tough finding you

[Anonymous No.21013708]

>>21013695
You don't understand how that post relates to the post before it? Still no clue how to put any thought on any subject together?
I'm not making up hypothetical stories about you retards like you do with me, I'm referencing your actual posts. Something you're completely incapable of.

[Anonymous No.21013713]

If I just repeat the same words that atheists use against me ,without a solid ground of what those mean and why they are truly applicable to my own behaviour. Then maybe my irrational belief in magic creatures would be validated.

[Anonymous No.21013722]

>>21013695
>Was tough finding you
I see you absolutely mindlessly seething about me in every thread that mentions something about religion like a month after I told you how retarded you are.
>>21013713
>If I just repeat the same words
You don't seem to understand words. You really don't grasp anything I said so far? Just sincerely ask for elaboration on the parts you sincerely don't understand. This is of course impossible for you.

[Anonymous No.21013730]

>>21013708
Nigga I'm not gonna read paragraphs of you talking about how volcano magic shamans are valid and then call anyone else irrational. You are just a passing curiousity of eternal midwitism combined with blatant self-delusion and a sprinkle of madness to me.

[Anonymous No.21013737]

>>21013730
>Nigga I'm not gonna read
>I'm not thinking dogmatically
>I'll prove it by dismissing anything you say preemptively

[Anonymous No.21013740]

>>21013614
In science and math newer is better. Modern methods of differential and algebraic geometry are objectively better than Euclid's axiomatic geometry. Einstein's relativity is better than the geocentric model. Modern antibiotics are better than shamanistic rituals. Chemistry is better than alchemy. If you say ancient philosophy is better than modern philosophy then this only highlights why we shouldn't take philosophy seriously. What kind of allegedly intellectual field of knowledge has not only made no progress but even deteriorated in quality over the course of 2000 years?

[Anonymous No.21013743]

>>21013722
>I see you absolutely mindlessly seething about me in every thread that mentions something about religion like a month after I told you how retarded you are.

It was tough actually. I did not see you spill your retardation on the board for two hours almost. I was starting to worry.

[Anonymous No.21013754]

>>21013743
I also saw you at one point arguing with people who you pretended were me. Similar to how you make up positions to argue against in your replies to me while ignoring every word said.

[Anonymous No.21013765]

>>21013754
could you please tag the ones that are actually yours

[Anonymous No.21013771]

>waah waah magic thing real
>waah not in my head
>why everyone dismissing me
>I not retarded , u retarded
>I not irrational, u irrational
>casper bit my ass last night
>why u no think??! casper real
>No I'm not delusional, u are
>n-n-n-no u

Lol

[Anonymous No.21013789]

>>21013754
>I also saw you at one point arguing with people who you pretended were me.

You are all the same to me.

[Anonymous No.21013810]

>>21013677
>all your ideas about the world are retarded and can't predict anything about the world
Yeah this is the primary reason to reject theism. It appears you are just using "atheism" as a stand-in for some form of materialism or science-ism given your interest in predictive power. Atheism isn't about predicting world events. It is a simple rejection of theism, which typically leans into the projection of other-worldly events, and does so as a form of world denial and nihilism. You can still have a bing bong theory of "where the universe came from" and be a Slovenian Catholic by the way. It's just that God did the bing bong that led to the Garden of Sneedin' and not some spontaneous inexplicable movement setting off other such movements (wait doesn't that just sound like... God?). Perhaps I agree—that assertions regarding a godless mechanical origin of the universe are as asinine as a godly mechanical one. If one is working with probabilities and origins then bing bong, Yahweh, and Maui are all the same family.

[Anonymous No.21013849]

>>21013631
>>21013743
These are verifiable delusions according to all the methods you claim as arbiters of absolute truth. False ideas about the world you persist in because you're emotionally invested in them for some reason.
>>21013765
Just leave or engage with the things actually said on the anonymous forum. There's no reason to make extra things up, a person capable of thinking would welcome the exercise of having their preconceptions challenged but you have no such instinct toward truth, no curiosity.
>this is the primary reason to reject theism
That's a pretty braindead idea about all "theism" but even if it was reasonable it's not some holy truth you can demand as a premise for all thought.
>It appears you are just using "atheism" as a stand-in
Like every single person that identifies with atheism does with all religious claims.
> It is a simple rejection of theism
And "theism" is everything that doesn't adhere to your religious ideas about the world.
I actually felt my skin crawl reading this pompous regurgitation of atheist lines as if there's a single person on the planet who hasn't heard you parrot your propaganda a million times.
You're not replying to anything I say, you're not thinking. Before writing this, did you think I never heard your braindead definition of the atheism meme before?

[Anonymous No.21013873]

>>21013849
>These are verifiable delusions according to all the methods you claim as arbiters of absolute truth. False ideas about the world you persist in because you're emotionally invested in them for some reason.

>If I call everyone false they will become false and the spirit from my magic color book will become real

Never fails to amuse

[Anonymous No.21013895]

>>21013873
These are verifiable examples but you pretend they're not and compare your delusions to another of your made up delusions you attribute to me.
You're not grasping this? You're not in touch with reality even a tiny bit. This is your strategy to defend the claim that you're delusional. To demand that verifiable delusions are in fact true.

[Anonymous No.21013915]

>>21013849
>you're beliefs are DUMB CRINGE MEME
>lots of people I don't like agree with that and i heard it all before so yuo are retard for saying it lol
>huh me? Well I believe in a theism I refuse to actually define and hide behind sarcasm if you question why that isn't dogmatic
Teenager. Mentally challenged. American. Pick one (or two, or all three; I'm not dogmatic about which)

[Anonymous No.21013927]

>>21013915
Who are you quoting? None of those apply like I already told you. Pretending your delusions are reality is not helping your case.

[Anonymous No.21013938]

>>21013927
it does

[Anonymous No.21013949]

>dad dad, why is alex here so delusional? I try tell him the gabaghoul from goosebump is in basement. But he laugh n laugh.

Clara dear, how many times do I have to tell you. Don't read scary books at night

[Anonymous No.21013966]

>>21013915
>Well I believe in a theism I refuse to actually define
I specifically talked about volcano demons being more defensible than "atheism" but you keep demanding I defend some other belief you attribute to me because your programming says nothing else is conceivable.
I "believe" in the power of logic. There are arguments worth considering for all kinds of worldviews but "no" isn't one of them.
>i heard it all before
Repeating over and over that your beliefs are special because they just are is the kind of retardation I'm trying to point out in every post. That's dogmatic religious zealotry. How can't you recognize that? It's obvious when the bad guys do it but you're completely blind to it when you do it yourself?
>>21013949
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.21013975]

>>21008328
I kinda do this but the problem stopped when I started reading anthropology/post-structuralist society/culture analysis instead of philosophy.

This book "The Use and Abuse of Art" perfectly explains the world as it is today and the process it took to get here. It covers why modern art sucks why scientism has become the new religion and many other poignant insights into the downfall of the Western World. If there is one book I'd want to meme into popularity on /lit/ itd be this one. We could have such good discussions on it.

[Anonymous No.21013982]

>>21013927
Look, you're not good at this—christers never are—and I was never convinced of your sincerity. I simply enjoy a relaxing shitposter safari as opposed to big game hunting. If you really want to make some interesting arguments for theism you should try Spinoza or Shankara or even just Plato, but enough with this "I hate that Angloid ex-Protestants are also materialists so all atheism must be this way, and it's silly so that's why Polynesian shamanism is heckin valid."

[Anonymous No.21013989]

>>21013982
>If you really want to make some interesting arguments for theism
I don't you mindless shithead. The point is atheists are brainwashed retards, not that any specific theistic idea is correct. The point is exactly that there are many interesting perspectives including ones contained within "theism" that you can't just dismiss beforehand because "science" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.21013996]

>>21013966
>you're completely blind to it when you do it yourself
you are viciously insincere in representing the other side's position, which is how I am able to reasonably assume the position you're not admitting to is Christianity, because that is one of the most dogmatic, just-so systems there is, and any allowance is made to argue with the opponent in whatever means are available. Your means is to insist atheism is "more dogmatic" than theism—as if it is dogmatic to be sceptical of those advertising their dogma so aggressively!

[Anonymous No.21014005]

>>21013966
>Who are you quoting?

Acting dumb doesn't help the case of a subject who actually is dumb

[Anonymous No.21014011]

>>21013989
Dishonesty and cowardice in one single post

[Anonymous No.21014013]

>>21013982
>Polynesian shamanism is heckin valid
Because it is. It's a perspective with a history. It has value while "no" does not. Understanding the "spiritual" world or whatever aside the historical and anthropological value should be obvious but atheists don't act like it is. When it comes to the Bible as well as Polynesian shamen the goal is apparently to undermine all understanding of any meaning or common interpretations including history because it's hecking evil theism.
>>21013996
>which is how I am able to ignore everything you say and reply to posts I made up in my own head instead
What's the point of that?
>because that is one of the most dogmatic, just-so systems there is
American fundamentalism specifically which is who influenced your thinking as someone that identifies as an "atheist". I'm not making up your position, I'm talking about the history of what you admit is your position. I don't have to make up fantasies. For some reason you feel compelled to in every post.
>insist atheism is "more dogmatic" than theism
You are. The two concepts don't inherently say how sure you're supposed to be but today people that identify as atheists are absolutely certain while those that identify as theists tend to be less so. They tend to be measurably less dogmatic about their beliefs. You're a great example of the atheist stereotype that makes statements like "atheists are retarded" true enough generally to be valid.

[Anonymous No.21014014]

>>21013989
>non-specific theism is interesting therefore it's not dogmatic to avoid naming the one agree with but defending it generally
>atheism is wrong, don't loike it, simple as
lol lmao even. You're right, I would prefer dealing polynesian shaman, to whatever it is you won't own up to

[Anonymous No.21014025]

>>21014011
>Dishonesty and cowardice in one single post
You think it says nothing about you that you can't even conceive of the idea of being wrong? You can't hypothetically imagine the scenario.
I told you many times my history and position. You don't care and demand to pretend it's something completely different. Why? If you're not a deranged retard, then why?

[Anonymous No.21014030]

>>21014014
Again. What is it about how you think that makes you unable to conceive of being wrong? How is that not an example of dogmatic thinking?

[Anonymous No.21014054]

>>21014013
>the historical and anthropological value should be obvious but atheists don't act like it is
this is not only 1. a totally different issue from whether theistic beliefs are true vs the atheist rejection of them, but also 2. assumes all atheists are in agreement that culture has no value, which is bizarre given the intense violence inflicted by the world's major religions against the cultural products of heretics, heathens, and the like. And before you get totally derailed and mention communist anti-clerical violence, I will caveat that communism as a morality is of the same lineage as the religious one.

[Anonymous No.21014065]

>>21014030
Oh, am I a sinner? Am I too proud to decide the truth which Genesis has placed a ban on? What can I do for you to forgive me--would someone kindly tell me!

[Anonymous No.21014096]

>>21014025
>I told you many times my history and position

You didn't actually. Your posts read like a whole bunch of nebulous nonsense that are not grounded in any particular idea or thing. The only concrete idea you have ever presented is your borderline trollish strawman attacks on the "atheist" boogeyman that you've created entirely within your own head. And even at that you can't really deboonk the most teenage edgelord fedora level of atheistic arguments because its impossible. So we never see you address them

All your criticisms and calls for open thought and consideration of possibility basically boil down to a call for faith. Which is a requirement if one wants to believe in dragons and ghosts and shamans and whatnot. And I would respect you a lot more if you were honest about it, instead of pretending that your fantasies have a solid objective grounding in reality and making a fool of yourself in the process.

[Anonymous No.21014098]

>>21014054
>this is not only 1. a totally different issue from whether theistic beliefs are true vs the atheist rejection of them
Obviously you braindead retard. That you think things like this need clarification is a reminder of the subhuman level you normally work on and why you can never read anything with any hint of charity.
>assumes all atheists are in agreement
No. Your association with the label comes from a cultural trend and that trend includes things like the dogmatic thinking I'm referencing and you retards are demonstrating in this thread.
The same atheist retards that will undermine understanding of historical interpretations of the Bible will in the next breath say they value culture and use excuses like how some Christians didn't.
>>21014065
Are honesty and curiosity purely Christian virtues in your mind? You place no value in such things? How is not being able to conceive that you're wrong about me specifically, not Genesis, not an example of your dogmatic thinking?

[Anonymous No.21014133]

>>21014096
>You didn't actually
I told you I identified as an atheist until the label became used by retards like you to justify not thinking and undermining understanding of different perspectives in defense of your own ideas you're now absolutely certain are irrefutable even though most of you don't really understand any of the science stuff you justify this certainty with. It's more about being certain because you circlejerked so hard about it for so long.
>a whole bunch of nebulous nonsense that are not grounded in any particular idea or thing
Yes, thinking without demanding any preconceived ideas are correct in advance.
>the "atheist" boogeyman that you've created entirely within your own head.
Every single braindead "atheist" in the thread has acted out the stereotype with complete accuracy. Completely incapable of conceiving they're incorrect about anything, even about personal details about me.
>you can't really deboonk the most teenage edgelord fedora level of atheistic arguments because its impossible
In your mind. Any argument inconsistent with ideas you've already decided is true will be dismissed with no thought. There aren't any proofs or whatever about fundamentals of reality just more or less convincing arguments, models that develop over time. Like I said many times the point is not about defending any specific theistic ideas but point out your inability to think. You demonstrate the point every time you ignore the point and pretend you know all about my super secret beliefs despite me being explicit about them.

[Anonymous No.21014146]

>>21014098
Oh good, your claws came out. The problem with your "non-dogmatic free-thinkers' theology" is that it pivots around sneering at atheists. It is just a new garb for ressentiment, nihilism, all those putrefactions. And there aren't even pretty flowers growing in your shit. It's all about who you despise for reasons of cultural insecurity. My reference to Genesis is that we, not being God, are refused the right to evaluate what is good. It is left up to the arbitrary, that is to say, dogmatic will of God, which is of course, not accessible to non-mystics, and since mystics are rarely available, priests become the keepers of such morality, which is just passing the buck, from the sky bureaucrat to the earthbound one tasked with parroting the astra dogma. I don't have to consider your manure valuable if flowers won't grow in it.

[Anonymous No.21014173]

>>21014146
>It's all about who you despise
These posts are. You're the one deriving a theology from it. Observing your braindead behavior and pointing it out to you is not a form of theology.
>I don't have to consider your manure valuable if flowers won't grow in it.
By their fruits you will know them?
What are the fruits of the insistence to not think and just say "no" even when it comes to understanding different perspectives including historical perspectives? Do you think it's fruitful and representative of a fruitful thinker to make up all these fantasies to argue against instead of focusing on the actual points raised? The point about how fucked in the head you retards are is demonstrated again and again in the thread. All you have is cope by pointing fingers at me instead because on some level you must know how retarded you are.

[Anonymous No.21014206]

>>21014173
>focusing on the actual points raised
What is your point exactly? I can't find it outside of "theology has more value to me than atheism." I don't doubt that is true for you. What I reject are the claims of most if not all theists, especially regarding what their god controls, what rewards he doles out for agreeing with him, what punishments he inflicts on disagreeing with him, etc. because these are bullshit for a variety of reasons I don't need to ennumerate to you, just as you haven't provided me with a detailed analysis of why each religion is more betterer than atheism at being intradesting. You want me to argue with... your feelings? Why don't you stake an actual claim and we can go from there?

[Anonymous No.21014217]

>>21014133
>I told you I identified as an atheist until the label became used by retards like you to justify not thinking and undermining understanding of different perspectives in defense of your own ideas you're now absolutely certain are irrefutable even though most of you don't really understand any of the science stuff you justify this certainty with. It's more about being certain because you circlejerked so hard about it for so long.

So your identity is not being an atheist? Holy hell, talk about a role reversal. It is the atheist who is supposed to ground his identity in not being a theist. You are negative of a negative still somehow leads to nothing positive.

>Yes, thinking without demanding any preconceived ideas are correct in advance.

Thanks for proving my point with more empty words.

>paragraphs of "no u"

Your mind really is empty, isn't it? Its like the mind as conceived by Hume but without the scope for knowledge . Having irrational beliefs(or no beliefs at all?) aside you are a living embodiment of every atheistic stereotype and troupe. Egoistic, identitarian, petty, intellectually empty. Of course you would hate your "atheist phase". You are repulsed by what you became and you think that choosing the opposite side will change that. But you never actually grew out of it

[Anonymous No.21014229]

>>21014206
>What is your point exactly?
"Atheism" is a cultural trend associated with dogmatic thinking. It became a worse religion than any religion in only a few years.
>because these are bullshit for a variety of reasons
The entire framing you operate in is largely bullshit. I'm not interested in proving that to you but pointing out the fact that most of you can't conceive that it might be true or of alternative perspectives in general. The only alternatives you consider insightful are already rooted in what you believe is true so a theological idea suddenly becomes interesting if it's framed as scifi. The Last Question by Asimov is so clever, not like those dumb theists.
>>21014217
>So your identity
Again you can't actually think. Do I need to identify as something specific to note how braindead you are and everyone else who mindlessly identifies with this label now is?

[Anonymous No.21014296]

>>21013740
Your argument hinges off the assumption of equivalency, a false equivalency at that, between science/math and philosophy. Science may be "better" in the accuracy of its models of predictions about various phenomenon, but it's still wrong, and it always will be wrong. Science is fundamentally incapable about making an ultimate truth claim because of the inherent uncertainties that it is predicated on.
Philosophy, on the other hand, does try to make ultimate truth claims. It is therefore not relegated to the infinite inching forward of empirical data and review. Philosophers attempt to create fully fledged models of the universe, not little predictive methods of determining crap like how cold does it need to be outside for water to become ice. Science and math ultimately strive towards utility, and scientists’ advances are only so lauded as the practical utility they provide to everyday life. Your average Joe really doesn't give a shit about theoretical physics, economics, and mathematics outside of the utility they provide to him and that's why those fields are generally bastions of monomaniacal autists. Your average Joe cares about his microwave, his TV, his phone, pills that make his dick hard, etc. All things made possible through science, no argument about that, but how does that relate at all to philosophy?
Philosophy provides no utility, it gives rise to no neat appliances and inventions, it exists whether or not you care to acknowledge it, and there is no reason why the illusion of progress should have to apply to it at all.

[Anonymous No.21014302]

>>21014229
>"Atheism" is a cultural trend associated with dogmatic thinking
Theism is a cultural trend associated with dogmatic thinking too, retard. Atheism requires about 5% more thought processing since you have to listen to the theist's bullshit and then think about it instead of just agree with it for no reason/because it sounds nice/because you're afraid/because you're upset with life. It is interesting that secular culture has taken to UFOs and multiverses to replace angels/demons and heavens/hells. But if you think that makes theism less dogmatic because the atheists are still drinking from the same well but don't notice they are, then I don't know what to tell you. Atheism is the negation of theism. Whatever neo-religious ideas an atheist chooses to believe outside of that question is some other question

[Anonymous No.21014305]

>>21008377
>I would open the book and it would literally shine light at me and I would float off the ground or something
>he doesn't levitate when he reads
kek ngmi

[Anonymous No.21014313]

>>21014229
>Do I need to identify as something specific

You don't have to. But since you are cerebrally empty you are not able to do anything besides this either. Your entire identity and worldview revolves around "proving" me dumb

[Anonymous No.21014317]

>>21014296
Where are those "ultimate truth claims" made by philosophy? The closest I could think of are the supertautologies in Chris Langan's CTMU which (due to his 195+ IQ and the fact that it builds upon quantum mechanics, formal logic and computation theory) is infinitely more advanced than any primitive drivel by ancient Greeks.

[Anonymous No.21014328]

>>21014302
>Theism is a cultural trend associated with dogmatic thinking too
Not anymore. It used to be American fundamentalists like I said many times. Now atheists are the zealots certain that any challenge to the authority of their ideas is heresy that must be stamped out even if we undermine understanding of history in the process.
The connection between the trends is clear. The current wave of atheism started when Dawkins was popularizing evolution and kept get attacked by American fundamentalists. You can watch the common atheist arguments all emerge out of that interaction, not any sincere engagement with theology or history. It's just retards on both sides, American fundies pretending they represent "theism" and "atheist" retards also pretending those retards represent "theism".
>atheism requires about 5% more thought processing
There's no such distinction. There are interesting theistic ideas that need thinking to engage with and interesting secular ideas that need thinking to engage with. People that identify as atheists don't think. I guess most people don't but it's especially obvious with atheists because they're so sure of themselves while still not being able to put together a single thought.
>Atheism is the negation of theism
"No" isn't a position, it's the rejection of thought.

[Anonymous No.21014359]

>>21014313
>Your entire identity and worldview revolves around "proving" me dumb
These posts do but why do you always have to add on these fantasies? My roles in society or identities have nothing to do with how demonstrably retarded you are.

[Anonymous No.21014395]

>>21014328
>"No" isn't a position, it's the rejection of thought.
"Nobody has a unicorn in his garage" is a fact and it's something I believe very strongly and which informs my interactions with persons who claim they do have one, and it informs how I receive and assess the claims they make about the color of the unicorn, what it eats or doesn't eat, how much they spend on its upkeep, the "furbaby" parenting they do for it, and so forth. It is more of a position than their theo-ry is.

[Anonymous No.21014413]

>>21014317
They're called theories of everything.

What exactly is so primitive about the Ancient Greeks? Were they not men just like us, and why should there ideas be so flippantly brushed off by virtue of them not having incorporated quantum physics into their world assumptions? In 2000 years, someone just like you will think that the assumptions of the primitive quantum theorists are just as absurd as you think ideas of antiquity are, so why act so uppity about it now?

[Anonymous No.21014446]

>>21014359
Lol. Its so obvious. You are still the same old atheist who gets off to vacously calling people dumb on the internet. Only that you are atheistic to atheism. Your atheism was an empty mindless rejection of your parent's theism and your current atheism is another thoughtless rejection of yourself born of self loathing. Makes sense now why are incapable of making arguments

[Anonymous No.21014449]

>>21014395
>informs my interactions with persons who claim they do have one
Does that happen much? What are you talking about?
I gave examples of very reasonable claims atheists in this thread dogmatically refused to acknowledge as possible and you reply talking about unicorns. You pretend any claim that challenges you is in the realm of the unicorn you imagined as a tactic to avoid thinking.

>"Nobody has a unicorn in his garage" is a fact and it's something I believe very strongly
Based on what? How could anyone have such strong opinions on unicorns? If someone tells me that I'll be curious and give him the benefit of the doubt unless something serious rests on it. If you operate according to this true/false dogma you're not open to anything. Maybe it was a rhino and the guy was a retard, you missed a whole rhino related adventure that eventually led to a pot of gold from a leprechaun.

[Anonymous No.21014456]

>>21014413
Even the classical Indians (Buddhists) pointed out the issue with the atomism which resurfaces at the latest layers of today's science, and Whitehead does too for that matter—at every point we dig down, from say, a stone, to an element, to an atom, to a particle, to some uncertainty model of predicting where the particle should be based on other particles, to waves, to particles that are sometimes waves, to whatever, it just keeps going. Even the infinitesmal speck has a front part or face, a back, a left, and a right. And if those were chopped up they'd be mini infinitesmals themselves. If anything is primitive it is today's overspecialized scientist who has no background outside of his field.

[Anonymous No.21014463]

>>21014446
>Its so obvious.
But it's yet another example of you making up stories instead of engaging with what's said.
The original point is exactly that you think "It's all so obvious". You have your dogma that you can always defer to automatically, no thinking needed so everything becomes "so obvious". When you're corrected that's "obviously" just a lie.

[Anonymous No.21014479]

>>21014449
Why are you being so dogmatic? Can't you consider the possibility that I have encountered unicorn believers and have had disputes with them? The belief in cryptids is certainly more interesting and culturally valuable than having a Honda Civic in your garage, so it must be better than owning a car. Look, all I'm saying is, if you're too retarded to believe that other people believe in unicorns you aren't a free thinker.

[Anonymous No.21014497]

>>21014446
No greater self-loathing than believing God created the world you live in, demanding he get you out of it forever, and holding up the contract he signed with an ancient ethic group you don't belong to as evidence.

[Anonymous No.21014522]

>>21014479
>Can't you consider the possibility that I have encountered unicorn believers and have had disputes with them?
That's what I was doing. I engaged with your post as if it's serious which is something you apparently don't even do with your own thoughts.
I'm probably ready to side with you in your ongoing engagements with these unicorn cultists but that doesn't change how retarded you are.
The guy telling me he has a unicorn is more interesting than the guy telling me about a honda civic. If he really believes that despite the garage clearly being empty it's even more interesting to understand his perspective. This is analogous to why it's interesting to try to understand the delusional atheists retards in this thread. How does retardation on this level happen?

[Anonymous No.21014548]

>>21014522
Maybe you aren't even the same poster anymore since you apparently now want psycho-social explanations for mental phenomena instead of theological ones. I thought atheist explanations were boring? Are you a sociologist now, is that right? Out with divine mania, in with crowd psychology?

[Anonymous No.21014552]

>>21014463
>engaging with what's said.

All that's ever said is "le atheist bad". Since you don't have anything to offer besides calling other people dogmatic or dumb, we can set it aside and move onto why you are like this.

Infact my last thesis here >>21014446
is also corroborated by the bewilderingly weird viewpoints you ascribe to atheists. Since your vitriol is born from a core of self loathing, that rejecting atheism didn't cure. You are projecting your own nature as an (ex) edgelord atheist to anyone you see.

In conclusion you are not attacking me or anyone else, you are attacking yourself in an act of masochistic self flagellation, reminiscent of old priests

[Anonymous No.21014572]

>>21014522
>I'm probably ready to side with you in your ongoing engagements with these unicorn cultists
Just like I'm more removed from agreeing with American creationist ideas than ideas generally associated with "atheism" but the reality today is every creationist I interact with is now more humble and considerate of the possibility of being wrong than the dogmatic atheists that are polluting all forms of thinking. Kent fucking Hovind really is more reasonable than the average atheist today, not because I think he's right.
>Since you don't have anything to offer besides calling other people dogmatic or dumb
Can you provide alternative explanations for your dogmatic and dumb posts? Like this one? >>21014446
>the bewilderingly weird viewpoints you ascribe to atheists
I mostly reference your actual behavior in the thread. I don't need to make anything up like you do.
>you are not attacking me
I'm pointing out your posts are braindead. You can't help yourself but make up these stories. You don't know how to discuss anything. This specific post I'm replying to ignored all the specifics pointing out your behavior and made up a delusional fantasy. I don't have to ascribe anything weird or made up to you. You demonstrate my point with every post.

[Anonymous No.21014576]

>>21014497
This goes deeper. I would even argue that belief in God is actively harmful. I have seen both sides of the coin. Believing in a God requires you to hand wave away the suffering of most unfortunate. And yet psychologically step on their pain to feign confirm your faith in God's grace

[Anonymous No.21014578]

daily reminder that every frogposer is a cancer

[Anonymous No.21014600]

>>21014548
>Maybe you aren't even the same poster anymore
I never was any of the positions you made up and attributed to me. The point is "atheists" are retarded. If you identify as one you're not identifying as some kind of free thinker or skeptic or whatever. You're basically just advertising your dogmatic thinking and how easily manipulated by media you are.
>I thought atheist explanations were boring?
What are you referencing? What did you deliberately misrepresent this time?
Psychological models or whatever are "atheist" explanations now? Wasn't atheism just the rejection of theism? Now it's an entire worldview with claims about psychology?

[Anonymous No.21014618]

>>21014497
>also I would never misrepresent our valued history or culture stop ascribing these weird viewpoints to atheists

[Anonymous No.21014624]

>>21014572
>You can't help yourself but make up these stories.

Stories that are corroborated by actual evidence like
>none of your posts offering a concrete viewpoint of your own
>none of your posts offering a concrete rebuttal to those you oppose
>your admittance that you were an atheist once
>your entire worldview boiling down to a negative of a negative
>your insistence on calling those you oppose dogmatic and dumb but offering no rational as to why they are wrong.

I have a pretty solid narrative right now. And every post you make (including this one) is just mounting evidence. But we both know how much you disdain evidence and reality

[Anonymous No.21014637]

>>21014624
>none of your posts offering a concrete rebuttal to those you oppose
Every single post does including this one pointing out that everything you imagined about me is false. You can't conceive of being wrong which is the point.
>the bewilderingly weird viewpoints you ascribe to atheists
Like what? That they're so dogmatic in their thinking that they demand their position is holy truth even about something I can verify but they can't. Like you're doing in this post?

[Anonymous No.21014638]

Poor 90iq kid. He used to spend his free time calling christians dumb on the internet. Now he spends his time doing the same to atheists. If only he had the intelligence to actually say something, or the humility to accept his place as a midwit and let his ego ,based on false sense of vacous intellectual superiority , dissolve

[Anonymous No.21014652]

>>21008328
people who say things like this usually just don't understand what they read

t. college instructor

[Anonymous No.21014654]

>>21014638
But why are you so demonstrably dumb? What caused it? When it comes to burger fundies it was somewhat understandable, they claim to have dumb beliefs. You claim to believe in reason and thinking but then in action you spit on every principle you claim to value.

[Anonymous No.21014663]

>>21014600
>Now it's an entire worldview with claims about psychology?
Let's parse this all the way out. You have been saying you find unicornucoping more interesting than automobile ownership, so don't be coy, what it is it about other people stubborning believing in unicorns that is so intriguing? If you're reaching for anthropology or sociology as tools to deconstruct unicornucoping, as opposed to, you know, just accepting that the unicorn is in the garage without any further thought than having heard it was so, you are inherently rejecting the unicornucopers; you've already decided they at best are incorrectly interpreting something, and at worst have some motive they are acting on to deliberately misinterpret something to others. Where is your faith? Why have you been so dogmatic in assuming the unicornucopers are wrong? That's WHY they are interesting right? Because there is NO unicorn? If there were, it would be a boring as the Honda Civic!

[Anonymous No.21014679]

>>21012840
Like actually, or rethoric?

[Anonymous No.21014680]

It's not like it's a coincidence that this same group of braindead atheists showed up in a thread about not understanding philosophy to shit on the ancients.
>what it is it about other people stubborning believing in unicorns that is so intriguing?
Separate things. It's an extraordinary claim which is interesting. The stubbornness is intriguing as a psychological phenomena and as a warning to not get deluded like that.
>If you're reaching for anthropology or sociology as tools to deconstruct unicornucoping
To understand the stubbornness and dogmatic thinking like in your case. Separate from the claims.

[Anonymous No.21014726]

>>21014680
>not replying
well, looks like I win this round... maybe when you die you'll be rewarded

[Anonymous No.21014754]

>>21014726
You read so much into every little detail while ignoring the content.

[Anonymous No.21014799]

>Salley, stop it!! You are scaring me
>Rooney, stop being dogmatic, your position is not the holy truth
>you are not making any sense, you were with me when I bought the phone.
>yes, and it was an iphone 11,why can't you concieve of being wrong??
>I've never owned an Iphone in my life!!
>but don't you see. A guy who tells me that you own an iphone is far more interesting than a guy who tells me you own samsung
>Salley, *whips out phone*, see, this is the Samsung S20 that I bought. Where's the iphone, it is nowhere
>Why are you not open minded? Is empericism everything to you? You are dogmatic for insisting on evidence. You really own an iphone 11.
>You are scaring me now
>every iphone believer is more humble and considerate than samsung believers who are dogmatic trash
>WTFFFFFWNFJJ!!!!!!. HERE. IS. MY. SAMSUNG. PHONE. I. DON'T. OWN. IPHONE. It has samsung logo. It has samsung camera. Its the fucking model marketed by samsung.
>Why can't you "think", Rooney?? Didn't you read the ancient Greeks.
>THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE SMARTPHONES
>If you're not considering the possibility that you own an Iphone 11 you aren't a free thinker. Stop being like those dumb scientists. They are not as right as they think they are.
>Sally please, what happened to you?
>You are wrong about your samsung as you are wrong about your belief in UFOs
>Sally, you're not making any sense! i don't even believe in aliens
>Don't think you can fool me you dogmatic, close minded retard
>*hands over her phone* here salley, that's my phone we bought. Samsung logo, samsung model. Samsung software, trademarked samsung screen, EVERYTHING
>your dogmatic beliefs about having all the final answers suppresses thought
>Ok I'm calling the cops
>why don't you consider the historical and cultural perspective of Apple.
>*Salley gets institutionalized
>*spends the rest of her life in a mental hospitel

[Anonymous No.21014825]

>>21014799
Do you have any explanation for why you keep telling me I own an iphone when I know I never owned an iphone in my life? The psychological phenomena is interesting.

[Anonymous No.21014842]

>>21013055
>>21014799
Why is it dogmatic to reject the authority of groundless claims made by persons who insist upon uncritical obedience to them and their beliefs? You really think I should agree with you to in order to prove (to you) I am some kind of non-dogmatic 'free thinker'?

Its funny how other guys came to the exact same conclusions about this retard that I did a month ago

[Anonymous No.21014858]

>>21014825
I've launched a startup company that uses unicorn couriers to deliver iPhones at lower prices than traditional retailers and ecommerce platforms. At Pascal's Pager, we only use sustainable non-GMO feed to nourish our unicorns, and 90% of all our Parcel Associates are unionized. In addition, we are committed to meeting ambitious Diversity and Inclusion goals despite being headquartered in New Hampshire. We do hope you'll consider supporting an interesting, free- and forward-thinking business which places carbon neutrality at the heart of customer satisfaction

[Anonymous No.21014876]

>>21014842
They're not conclusions though. You already categorized any challenge to your dogma as retarded. You can't conceive of anything beyond it. What a remarkable "coincidence" that the same retards undermining understanding the history of religion are also the retards in this thread undermining understanding of philosophy before any mention of religion.
>>21014858
Sounds very interesting but mostly due to the unicorn aspect. I won't invest just yet but assuming your claims are true and you can demonstrate an ability to apply unicorns in an economically competitive way I'm in.

[Anonymous No.21014894]

>>21014858
If this is supposed to be analogous to something in culture it's burger nft salesmen / venture capitalists. It's also similar to burger fundies but that just reinforces the point that "atheists" generally think in terms framed by burger fundies, not some tradition of reasoned skepticism.

[Anonymous No.21014907]

>Why are you being so dogmatic? Can't you consider the possibility that I have encountered unicorn believers and have had disputes with them?

[Anonymous No.21014915]

>>21014894
>"atheists" generally think in terms framed by burger fundies
not everyone is locked into your culture war between urbane cosmopolitans only willing to shit on the beliefs of those both poorer than them and living sufficiently far away, and obese hillbillies whose idea of a different belief system is a Catholic family who lives down the road. You can just examine the claims of the theist, find they are unsupported, and reject them without participating in the reverse Midas touch of American identity theatrics

[Anonymous No.21014918]

>>21013042

[Anonymous No.21014928]

>>21014907
>FORESKINS ARE JUST MORE INTERESTING, OKAY?

[Anonymous No.21014935]

>>21013219
>Those are your beliefs, which entirely lack justification and have no context for non-believers. Atheism is the mere negation of them. Since you won't put anything of substance forward in their defense which can even be discussed, there is nothing left to do but negate them.

I don't even know why I bothered getting on this thread. The retarded christcuck was already getting buttblasted. I jist ended up repeating the same points others already did.

[Anonymous No.21014941]

>The volcano demon perspective contains information. Your mindless dogmatic "no" does not

[Anonymous No.21014952]

>>21014915
>not everyone is locked into your culture war
You clearly are, you identify based on media memes instead of any sort of local history to you. This is all from the perspective of an outsider looking in and noticing things like how the "atheist" trend really developed and how the supposed opposite factions dominating internet discussions are more similar than dissimilar. A typical internet "atheist" like well established as a phenomena in this thread has more in common with a burger fundie than the fundie has in common with anyone in my area who identifies as Christian.

[Anonymous No.21014963]

>The example idea about a volcano demon is easier to defend than your position because the imagined shaman isn't demanding everyone accepts his idea as a premise behind all thought.

>you should base your sense of validity of an idea on weather the holder of that idea is himself skeptical of it.

[Anonymous No.21014964]

>>21013949
OP here, that is actual personal information related to me, jesus fucking christ what the FUCK

[Anonymous No.21014967]

>>21014941
Refute it retard. Say something at all.
>just because I can only reply with wojaks and "no" doesn't mean I'm mindless
That's exactly what it means. If you had any hint of the vitality and curiosity needed to develop a capable mind you would appreciate being challenged.

[Anonymous No.21014973]

>>21014952
Can't I just believe that you are wrong since you won't put forward anhthing defensible? Why do I need to be psychoanalyzed and classified as a heretic/sinner for my badthink? You have no power here, retard. You are a typical internet "Christian" like well established as a phenomena in this thread, and have more in common with a burger fundie than the fundie has in common with anyone in my area who identifies as atheist.

[Anonymous No.21014982]

>>21014963
>you should base your sense of validity of an idea on weather the holder of that idea is himself skeptical of it.
Who are you quoting?
The entire point is that braindead atheists like you are incapable of conceiving of different perspectives. You think you have the ultimate truth so there's no need to think further.
An actually skeptical position is easy to defend even if that position makes some unreasonable claims, it's capable of adjusting. Your inability to conceive of different perspectives is indefensible. It can only lead to reinforcing already established ideas.

[Anonymous No.21014997]

>>21014973
>Can't I just believe that you are wrong since you won't put forward anhthing defensible?
I pointed at examples of what I'm talking about in this thread. Retards claiming they know verifiable information about me better than I do because they can't conceive of anything that challenges their ideas about the world.
What about this demonstrable fact is wrong? When I tell you this is how atheists behave and then every single poster behaves exactly like predicted what specifically do you dispute?

[Anonymous No.21015004]

>>21014982
You don't have an "actually skeptical position" your argument is that "whichever is more interesting is true," and as such Animorphs is more likely to be real than The Lord of the Rings. I mean really how much time can one spend describing foilage. I want to hear about girls needing to wear skin-tight leotards so their clothes don't break when they digivolve into leopards.

[Anonymous No.21015011]

>>21014964
Sorry op. I got the volcanic shaman to summon the pink unicorn of oracle in my garrage and now I can see all your internet history.

Now hand over all those goosebumps to me!!!!!

[Anonymous No.21015018]

>>21015004
>whichever is more interesting is true
Never said anything of the sort. Why can't you talk about what I actually say? Why always the made up fantasies? Can you quote my actual posts when you pretend to quote me? Like a sincere person that isn't just making shit up?

[Anonymous No.21015019]

>>21014997
>they can't conceive of anything that challenges their ideas about the world
This is your defense of theism that "the atheists" can't solve? That theism is a different perspective? You'd make a shitty priest if you're just going to use relativism to rescue theism. You've sawn off the foot that was caught in the trap, why are you now sawing off the other foot?

[Anonymous No.21015037]

>>21015019
>This is your defense of theism
From the start I told you I'm not defending any specific claims about theism and you keep demanding that I am while ignoring everything I say. How can you be this braindead? Atheists keep proving they're dumber than I can ever imagine or express.
I'm pointing out "atheism" is a trend full of braindead retards incapable of thinking and then you show up as if I paid you. Apparently you use the trend mostly to avoid thinking, to dismiss things including even ancient philosophy without needing to consider anything.

[Anonymous No.21015040]

>>21015018
>sincere person that isn't just making shit up
Can you find him for me? Because unless you care to demonstrate theism is true rather than "more interesting" or "more challenging" due to its complex lore—to be fair, you need a high IQ to watch the 80s' Mormon Jesus cartoon—then I am not sure we have anything to work with other than you making shit up. Anyway, I hope you'll consider investing in my unicorn unicorn startup that uses actual unicorns. I am not making shit up—you can uncritically accept that I have done my due diligence. If you want to see some financial statements it means you are dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.21015043]

>>21008419
>He's never had a hallucinogenic experience after processing some letters
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.21015056]

>>21015040
>unless you care to demonstrate theism is true
Would the validity of some theistic claim being proven to you suddenly make you capable of thinking? Would you suddenly not be a dogmatic retard? You would just be a burger fundie, your closest cousin in thought. You wouldn't be able to separate claims just like you can't in this post.
>If you want to see some financial statements it means you are dogmatic.
It's an appeal to my belief in financial statements however far that belief goes. If I can't see past financial statements or think you could prove the existence of unicorns through financial statements then I have irrational dogmatic beliefs about financial statements that I consider fundamental to evaluating anything like you do about your philosophical/religious premises that you never challenge.

[Anonymous No.21015057]

>>21015037
This idiot tried to proclaim that he can logically prove the existent of a God using christian theological arguments. Don't believe his nonsense he's 100% a christ larper. Doesn't even have the courage to admit it

[Anonymous No.21015058]

>>21015037
I read plenty of ancient philosophy, it's funny you should mention that! You know what I skip it's everything between Plotinus and Spinoza, really a little pointless don't you think? All that dogmatic uncritical, "the bible is true let's talk about how much we agree with it since otherwise a mob will come for me." Not my cup of tea! At least with theurgy and monism the category of God is effectively transvaluated, even if the arguments are a bit iffy. The full-on Judeo-Christian theologians are a bit too Thomas the Tank.

[Anonymous No.21015063]

Also notice how the retard never answers any of the truly damning points made against his position.

[Anonymous No.21015069]

>>21015058
>All that dogmatic uncritical, "the bible is true let's talk about how much we agree with it since otherwise a mob will come for me."
That's not what I found, are you sure you're not just dogmatically assuming what you will find before even looking or considering alternative interpretations? 10th century natural theology is cool and very likely part of the foundation for later scientific thinking.

[Anonymous No.21015070]

>>21015056
>he still won't argue for theism
I know "i am not an atheist" is super important to your sense of self-worth, but as I noted earlier, ressentiment doesn't go anywhere. It's no wonder you won't put anything forward and are just angrily leering at the free spirits who ignore your diatribe.

[Anonymous No.21015072]

>>21015069
>part of the foundation for later scientific thinking
Yeah I guess rediscovering Aristotle will do that for you

[Anonymous No.21015073]

>>21015063
Name one. This is only true if my position is something you made up and not what I actually presented.
>>21015070
Nothing I said in this thread relates to any theology. Just how demonstrably retarded you are like you're being here by deliberately refusing to separate the subjects.

[Anonymous No.21015081]

>>21015072
>Yeah I guess rediscovering Aristotle will do that for you
>I will find any possible way to undermine or frame dismissively everything associated with a certain label even when it's stuff I basically completely agree with
Yep, not a dogmatic one-dimensional thinker at all.

[Anonymous No.21015087]

>>21015073
>Nothing I said in this thread relates to any theology
For the benefit of anyone in the nosebleed seats who hasn't been able to see clearly, the person arguing against atheism claims to not be arguing for theism, and is hoping we don't understand how traffic lights work either on our way home.

[Anonymous No.21015092]

>>21015070
Wow. Another person came to another conclusion that I already made about it. Its just plainly in front of everyone.

[Anonymous No.21015094]

>>21015081
>noooo you have to like medieval theology
well I hope you like jeetology and pomo since those are my fields and if you don't like what I like it means you are dogmatic (that's what that word means right, it's someone who is wrong for disagreeing with me)

[Anonymous No.21015097]

>>21015087
>the person arguing against atheism
Have you read even one post I made? Is this another expression of being unable to even conceive of different perspectives? Even if you disagree you should have understood by now that I'm referring to "atheism" as the cultural trend you retards identify with and not what your dogma defines it as.

[Anonymous No.21015104]

>>21015097
>atheism is what I want it to mean and not what it is understood to mean by the ordinary speakers of English
cool story retard, well in that case let's get the sentencing first and the evidence last, one pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small

[Anonymous No.21015110]

>>21015094
>I hope you like jeetology and pomo
I know nothing about jeetology so I wouldn't identify as an anti-jeetologist or try to undermine different understanding of positions jeetologists through history held in the name of some misguided attempt to promote my anti-jeet stance.

[Anonymous No.21015116]

>>21015110
Ah but you would insist that the red light does not mean not to go, it just means that it is not a green light.

[Anonymous No.21015119]

>>21015104
>atheism is what I want it to mean
I referenced the history and clarified my position many times but you completely ignore every word and pretend I'm arguing something completely different. That history and facts of the matter don't go away if you make up some autistic definition for your pop ideology.
I deliberately use the label in a way that triggers you because it's an example of how you can't actually think. A simple label can completely blind you to the actual facts like what I'm actually saying.

[Anonymous No.21015125]

>I know nothing about jeetology so I wouldn't identify as an anti-jeetologist or try to undermine different understanding of positions jeetologists through history

[Anonymous No.21015145]

>>21015119
>actual facts like what I'm actually saying
Such as belief in Polynesian volcano demons being more interesting than the beliefs of the Angloid bugpeople you live near? I dunno some of those demon worshipers would sell a kidney to pay their way into Europe or the US to be employed by the bugpeople. Seems like the bugpeople have an interesting way of life to someone.

[Anonymous No.21015148]

>>21015116
Why would I do that? What's the point of making up all this shit instead of talking about how retarded you are?
If I make up a movement that's nominally about saving puppies but everyone in the movement just eats hot dogs all day is it a puppy-saving movement or a hot-dog-eating movement?
>>21015125
Why do you identify based on a negation of an idea? How is that not completely fucked in the head on a fundamental level?

[Anonymous No.21015157]

>>21015148
If atheism isn't "disbelief in God" but "loathsome cultural practices from my personal perspective" then the red light does not mean "do not go" but something else. Not green? Go if you want to? I don't really know since you've rewritten the definition on the fly.

[Anonymous No.21015160]

When your beliefs require such a degree of suspension of judgement, that you forgo all judgement and become the mental equivalent of a 4 year old child inorder to larp as a "free thinker"

[Anonymous No.21015174]

>>21015145
>Such as belief in Polynesian volcano demons being more interesting than the beliefs of the Angloid bugpeople you live near?
The main point was it represents a lot of information about a very different perspective and that can be useful to consider. Nothing I'm saying is about uncritically accepting claims as true, just being able to think in different terms. This pop trend has convinced kids not thinking is a virtue, they don't even practice on these forums whose only possible value is honing these sorts of skills.
>>21015157
>If atheism isn't "disbelief in God"
I clarified what I'm talking about many times. The puppy saving club is not saving puppies. You claim to identify based on a rejection of an idea but then all parrot the same specific lines like a cult, undermine understanding of history and even attack philosophy as "mysticism".

[Anonymous No.21015181]

>>21015160
What are you misrepresenting this time? Is there a reason you only quote me when you want to use the wojaks? When you try to say something you reliably don't reference anything I actually said.

[Anonymous No.21015191]

>>21015160
Infact I have an idea. I'll indoctrinate 4 year old children in the deep esoteric understanding of volcanic shaman demons and jeetology. And then leave them in the world and see how long does it take for them to shed those beliefs. That way we can determine anon's true mental age

[Anonymous No.21015207]

>>21008425
You sound like you're vaxxed lmao

[Anonymous No.21015222]

>>21015057
I have said and do think classical theists had reasonable arguments. I've also presented different ideas like from the Baghavad Gita of God as the immediate experience in which case the concept is referencing something that you know exists before you conceive of anything.
That's a good example where the entire thing is a matter of perspective or framing. Being unable to escape your specific framing of everything is dogmatic thinking that limits your abilities.

[Anonymous No.21015225]

>>21015207
I'm unvxxd thank you.

[Anonymous No.21015236]

>>21015191
>lol it's so funny that I can't conceive of anything that challenges my worldview on any level and I have to cope by making up bullshit and circlejerking with those that dogmatically agree with me

[Anonymous No.21015244]

>I have said and do think classical theists had reasonable arguments

[Anonymous No.21015251]

>>21015244
>noo they aren't arguments because they lead to conclusions that I know beforehand are false because.. because I just do ok and burger fundies are dumb

[Anonymous No.21015256]

>>21015244
>the perspective from the Gita isn't dumb despite being less formal or logical but I just know somehow anything related to Christian history is dumb

[Anonymous No.21015304]

>>21015236
>>21015251
>>21015256
https://youtu.be/gxW4p2Uuhhs

Ciao

[Anonymous No.21015307]

>>21015174
>The main point was it represents a lot of information about a very different perspective and that can be useful to consider
This is painfully banal—so your beliefs aren't not wrong, but just worth considering? Are you going to defend them or not? Please present something for us to consider! I have been nothing but clear, I stand by the position of atheism, I negate the negation of the world (falsely framed as the positive "God"). I believe in the world my consciousness provides me with a representation of and do not consider it an evil vicegrip I need to be rescued from through prayer, grace, or mercy, especially not at the hands of something also believed to have created this very world I am supposed to desire for release from. If there are gods that agree with me I welcome them to dance. If they should not, it remains to be seen that they are not in fact the delusions or epiphenomena of weaker minds seeking to sap mine. Once again, if you've something to actually say beyond gnashing your teeth at "atheists" for being too "dogmatic" to agree with your undeclared vague ecumenical whataboutist theology, please say it.

[Anonymous No.21015353]

>>21015307
>This is painfully banal
Exactly. That's atheism in a nutshell.
>your beliefs aren't not wrong, but just worth considering
The different religious beliefs have value, even as descriptions of reality they have more value than "no".
>Please present something for us to consider!
Consider that you're a dogmatic retard that ignores everything I say and make up stories because you have automatic mechanisms to avoid anything that challenges your dogma.
>I negate the negation of the world
So you work from definitions that have nothing to do with anything almost everyone labeled a "theist" on the planet says they believe. But I'm abusing definitions when I notice that "atheists" are all retards?
>long masturbation session about how incredibly right you are and how everyone who believes anything else believes in your specific version of some evil demon you imagined.
This is retarded. You can't justify any of your shit, it's all completely braindead.

[Anonymous No.21015393]

>>21015353
>you have automatic mechanisms to avoid anything that challenges your dogma
Is this all you picked up from whatever contemporary phil you skimmed through? And it doesn't apply to you right? Only applies to the unwashed retards, which you aren't part of because you've rejected the atheist rejection of the theist rejection of the world. That makes you special!

[Anonymous No.21015397]

>>21011077
>okay, you may be well read, but I will now resort to calling you a dummy because actually discussing the merits of these works is beyond me

[Anonymous No.21015422]

>>21008377
>Great thinkers
Lolololol

[Anonymous No.21015431]

>>21015393
>And it doesn't apply to you right?
I'm susceptible to lazy thinking too but the post is not referencing anything I said. It's a possible explanation for your behavior. What is this attempt at "no u" referencing? The original claim? That I can argue for using examples like you constantly making up fantasies? Do you not understand the difference between arguing for a point and demanding everyone else works from your premises before even starting an argument?

[Anonymous No.21015493]

>>21008328
It's all just personal opinion on the meaning and mechanisms of everything. It's all ultimately, while oft times interesting, bullshit.

You want the "gist" of recorded philosophical thought? Just watch "Waking Life" and then move on.

[Anonymous No.21015509]

>>21008425
Based.

[Anonymous No.21015520]

>>21015431
>the difference between arguing for a point and demanding everyone else works from your premises before even starting an argument
You are still yet to offer a defense of theism other than your preference for it over atheism, which says nothing about its truth value. So there is neither a point nor a premise, how many posts later? Christianity is doomed if you are its champion

[Anonymous No.21015522]

>>21008328
You should watch Michael Sugrues Lectures on the book you´re reading: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFaYLR_1aryjfB7hLrKGRaQ its great and he´s really enthusiastic.
>>21008377
>Then I read the republic or something and it's like "Yeah let's just not have parents or children anymore, and tell people they have literal bronze and gold in their blood." and it's like...what the fuck?
The metals means that not everyone is born equal. Some have inherent qualities which makes them suitible for certain tasks. A kind of antique eugenics. From what I remember Plato explains this earlier via the custom of breeding dogs.
You seem to get filtered anon, which is okay. I was personally filtered by early wittgenstein but moved on. The thing about reading philosophy is that it´s like sewing something. The lonely strings with strange forms and colors seem odd at first, but when winter has arrived and your glove is finished you see what function those strings had and the patterns in which the colors reside. Thats my best way of explaining it.

[Anonymous No.21015562]

>>21011273
Kant racism is the lamest racism in Philosophy, almost childish.

[Anonymous No.21015563]

>>21015520
>You are still yet to offer a defense of theism
And you're still demanding I offer one when the point from the start was pointing out that "atheists" are a trend of retards so dumb that they would keep making demands like this after having the issue clarified many times.
>which says nothing about its truth value
The fact that "atheists" are as braindead as you says something about their ability to judge anything. The point from the start and in every "discussion" I have with you is about how braindead you are which you then demonstrate over and over. That's not a theological discussion no matter how much you want it to be. You don't stop being retarded because a creationist somewhere also said something dumb.

[Anonymous No.21015616]

>>21015563
So you are an anti-atheist atheist! Ok then

[Anonymous No.21015625]

Why do we spend so much time on an anonymous message board arguing until we are red in the face about shit that doesn't matter over and over endlessly?

Why?

[Anonymous No.21015628]

>>21015625
ya u should stop that
cause thats totally not what im doing

[Anonymous No.21015632]

>>21015628
Liar

[Anonymous No.21015658]

>>21015625
I'm watching someone refuse to admit he is a theist while unceasingly insisting that atheism is "retarded." So if you are asking what drives retarded behavior, it would appear to be the presence of retards. After all, if he is not a theist, he's an atheist, and as we know, they are "retards." Since he is arguing with another atheist, it must be getting pretty bad—but we're too dumb to notice!

[Anonymous No.21015680]

>>21015658
Don't worry. The brainlet admits it right here. >>21014823

[Anonymous No.21015710]

>>21015680
ahhh he's just doing Canadian conservatism but at 3rd grade reading level

[Anonymous No.21015922]

>>21015616
>So you are an anti-atheist atheist
I'm an anti-retards-like-you-that-need-braindead-reductive-labels-for-everything-ist.
I have nothing in common with how you frame the world or religions. The example perspective from the Gita shows how pointless any "atheist" label is. You mean you're an "anti-burger-fundie". I disagree with those people generally but wouldn't identify in any way around what they believe, negating it or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.21015944]

>>21015658
>I'm watching someone refuse to admit he is a theist while unceasingly insisting that atheism is "retarded."
What I mean has been clarified many times but you don't care. You still blatantly misrepresent it as if nothing I actually say matters. What's wrong with you? Why do you think this sort of demonstrably retarded behavior so strongly correlated with people calling themselves "atheists"? What's the explanation? You can't dispute the fact that you're retarded after making posts like this over and over but you can try to explain it.
>>21015680
Another good example of how you retards live in delusional fantasy worlds. Anyone that disagrees with your mindless shit must be the same person.

[Anonymous No.21015966]

>>21008377
>I mean like some logical combination of words which just literally causes me to have a fucking heart attack or something
its philosophy, not a fucking 10 way mexican standoff against aliens

[Anonymous No.21015982]

>>21015922
>>21015944
Come on now, this is the 282nd post and you are still going "atheist is retard, me not atheist." If you won't admit to being a theist, you're an atheist. And by your own definition that would make you terminally retarded. Before you keep whining, there's no nuance here unless you're being a consistent sceptic, but we know that's not true, as you admit to hating atheists for cultural reasons and prefering theism for being "interesting." Your refusal is not because of some stance of philosophical equipose, but a botched attempt to use relativistic meandering to critique atheism and ignore the implications for theism.

[Anonymous No.21016000]

>>21015307
This has to be the cringiest imitation of Nietzsche on this board yet. I'll post my imitation of Nietzsche below so we can judge which is more tasteful:

I release myself from the pretensions of the mass of today's philosophers in order to consider a more worthwhile and far-reaching question. Also a question with vaster applicability to our problem, discounting the disproportionate and simply false quantity of value masquerading under the name “ethics” today. The real irony of so-called ethics, a fact which has not properly been lost sight of since Aristotle when he admitted that this field would only allow of estimation, and not “truth per se”, is that it does not admit of certainty–all admit this, and yet the highest value, or near-to-it, is attached to intellectual speculation surrounding the basis of ethical judgements. I must pause here; do all now admit ethics as fundamentally uncertain or is that a truth only a true man of old–a Greek– could stomach? We leave this question to the reader; certainly we do not consider action to be without a certain value.

Anyhow, the question still remains: what value does the speculation surrounding value possess? It seems our contemporaries still exhaust themselves in trivial matters of foundationalism, positivistic tomfoolery, reductions to absurdity, or the far more insidious “neurological models” which seem to want to extract from an ethical nothing, a something, under the guise of “positivism”: the “scientific method.” We prefer to see in the uncertainty of ethics precisely the value of life itself–what is life except this precise uncertainty of its value? Nihilism and fixed ideas, or more accurately: a fixed idea and fixed ideas, what could be more irrelevant to the question of life’s value? Forsooth, one must not understand the discounting of fixed ideas as a discounting of ideas themselves; ideas being the exact test and measure of a man’s strength, of his coming-to-terms. Philosophy as the true test of a man’s ability to endure the abysmal depths that this world affords us… What more could I ask from our contemporaries? Alas, there is no subtlety, no intellectual culture, no noblesse oblige, of our current thinkers. I say this in a very hushed tone–one has merely to whisper into their delicate ears the possibility of this life’s appearance as a mere gradient (to even speak of an “immortal soul” here would offend good taste)–what is a gradient but a transitional state–to witness the harshest reaction, reactions without a hint of thought or grace. I have, to the utter disgrace of our modern philosophers, found a greater quantity of materia philosophorum in men with no formal association to philosophy or “deep thought”, even in “religious” men.

[Anonymous No.21016003]

>>21015307
>>21016000
It is a rare sight indeed to see anyone affirm the dreaded “fixed ideas” of old, and when it occurs we most commonly see in it a type of crass nihilism–the other types are rarer, but even afford a breath of fresh air when they occasionally arise from their tombs. First lesson to the aspiring philosopher: keep this dictum in mind, like a hidden dagger which one cannot dispense with, yet which is only drawn in special moments: “Nothing is true; everything is permitted”, one with keen vision will immediately see its higher meaning: “Nothing is true; everything is true.” The Old Man of the Mountain, Hassan-i Sabbah, a real man and philosopher, could not have spoken more truthfully, nor more dangerously. Let none think anything is simple; let none think anything is true; let none think anything is false; let none think anything is complex… Has my meaning been divined? Do we know what the philosopher must be? Do we look down on our modern philosophers with the eye of an eagle… or vulture?

[Anonymous No.21016007]

>>21012494
This has to be bait, right?

[Anonymous No.21016009]

>>21008484
>>Fr fr on god no caps

[Anonymous No.21016039]

>>21015982
>you are still going
You're still making up fantasies while ignoring everything I say.
>you admit to hating atheists for cultural reasons and prefering theism for being "interesting."
Not even close to anything I said. "Atheism" is a movement of retards that consists of people that don't understand anything about religion and refuse to try to understand anything about it parroting the same tired lines over and over dogmatically. They are incapable of considering any challenge to their worldview or conceiving of any alternatives. What did you do in response to these points? Played out the role like you're being paid for it. You're seriously not even aware of how fucked in the head you are?

The dumbest religious ideas like polynesian or scientologist volcano demons are still not as dumb as your inability to conceive of anything outside your dogma. It really is easier to justify those ideas than your retardation.

[Anonymous No.21016047]

>>21016039
When are you going to prove the rejected god should not be rejected? If you won't, you're the retard for affirming such a being, and there is nothing wrong with holding that "atheism" is the rejection of such a being. You won't defend the God, and you won't accept the rejection of him. Are you going to come out as a Buddhist next?

[Anonymous No.21016073]

>>21016047
>When are you going to prove the rejected god should not be rejected?
Do you believe the retardation of people adhering to some pop culture trend has anything to do with theology? Why would it?
>Are you going to come out as a Buddhist next?
Saying anything to you retards is completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.21016081]

>>21016047
I expect people will disagree with the position I presented but what is it about your brain that makes you completely incapable of even conceiving of it? You can't grasp the idea conceptually, it's beyond you and you keep demanding I make some theological claim. What is happening here if not exactly what I said from the start? You're incapable of even the simplest thought. You don't know how to think about anything.

[Anonymous No.21016092]

>>21016073
>>21016081
>atheists are dogmatic retards for not being theists
>no, im not telling you what my theology is
Ok I assume you are an atheist [retard]

[Anonymous No.21016096]

>>21016047
>When are you going to prove the rejected god should not be rejected?
1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
2. So, actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualized it. This is the principle of causality.
4. So any change C is caused by something already actual A.
5. The occurance of change presupposes some thing S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes itself presupposes either:
+ the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence (a) or
+ A's being purely actual. (b).
9. (a) If A's existence at the moment it actualizes *S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either
+ infinite (c) or
+ terminates in a purely actual actualizer (d).
10. (c) But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitue a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8))
11. So, either (b) A itself is a purely actual actualizer or (d) there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, (4) the occurence of change C and thus (6) the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer (PAA).

[Anonymous No.21016102]

>>21016096
>everything changes
>this requires an unchanged who sets the change in motion
So back to my unicorn unicorn startup, I'll give you a 20% stake for $25 million; don't worry about the whole unicorn thing. I don't have any unicorns at the moment so I understand the scepticism but believe me I've got a unicorn breeder in Nebraska who will get us at least 30 to start by second quarter 2023.

[Anonymous No.21016105]

>>21016102
>is unable to understand the argument (thinks it is a cosmological argument, something totally different and non-hierarchical)
>still believes it is unproven
Thread ends here, I'm not even that anon but you're officially confirmed to be the retard in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.21016108]

>>21016092
>for not being theists
This doesn't become true no matter how often you demand it is.
You're retards for acting like retards. How is this so incredibly hard for you to grasp? You're retarded because you're a brainwashed retard incapable of thinking about any subject like you demonstrated in this thread.
Why people calling themselves "atheists" behave like this is a mystery I guess but you can't dispute that they do after this thread.

[Anonymous No.21016115]

>>21016105
I understand you don't want an infinite regress of unicorns, that would obviously be bad for business. You'd be able to rent them for pennies. That's why we have a limited set of unicorn breeders allowed to operate. We can't have unicorns just come from unicorns, there has to be a unicorn breeder. Preferably one, keeps the supply chain simple. Used to be a way more but there were big mergers historically, wiped out a lot of the smaller operations. Anyway, just take my word for it, since unicorns have to come from something somewhere that has nothing to do with them and is entirely unlike them insofar as it was not produced by anything itself, just so—I will get those unicorns from the breeder, that's where unicorns come from (duh!) and you will get a good return on investment. All set?

[Anonymous No.21016118]

>>21016115
Anon, we get it, you're not cut out for logic or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21016120]

>>21016115
What kind of brain damage convinced you that this is clever or whatever you think this post is?

[Anonymous No.21016121]

>>21016108
>blah blah blah you retard me smart
If you won't defend god, you're an atheist. If you're an atheist, you're a "retard." But I am repeating myself you already know that

[Anonymous No.21016122]

>>21016118
>>21016120
I'll make it simple for you. "Everything has a cause except God, who causes everything" is not a demonstration of God. So anyway, wanna invest in my venture? It's very promising.

[Anonymous No.21016125]

>>21016121
>If you won't defend god, you're an atheist
>if you pet puppies you're part of my super special puppy-petting club where we all agree on puppy related matters
>no we don't actually pet puppies at the club, we eat hot dogs

[Anonymous No.21016130]

>>21016125
Atheism is literally the rejection of theism. You have understood it to be something else because you are disabled

[Anonymous No.21016131]

>>21016122
>is not a demonstration of God
Would your posts be any less braindead if it was? Would you suddenly be capable of sincere thought? Would you somehow be less brainwashed and dogmatic about your brainwashing?

[Anonymous No.21016135]

>>21016122
>I'll make it simple for you. "Everything has a cause except God, who causes everything" is not a demonstration of God.
That is not the argument. Please read it again. You're still misunderstanding it as a cosmological argument. The argument is more like this (but consult the full chain for the entire process of reasoning):
>Change C implies something actual A that caused the chance C, therefore we are assured that there really is something actual A in the world that initiated a change.
>Because there is even one thing A in the world which is actual, but not entirely actual in itself, this thing A is not of itself sufficient for its own actuality A at any given moment (ie, we are not speaking about a series in time)
>Therefore there is something which is purely actual (PAA) which is the actualizer of every actual thing at every moment in time. A PAA exists through its own essence, therefore it is its own cause. In your analogy it is not like saying unicorns come from unicorn breeders, it is like saying every unicorn's being is in itself insufficient for existence at any given moment.

[Anonymous No.21016137]

>>21016130
>Atheism is literally the rejection of theism
It is literally a pop culture phenomena that retards like you claim is something different.
Like I said many times, I can understand you disagreeing with this but you don't just disagree. You're completely incapable of grasping the idea I'm presenting to you despite it being incredibly simple. You're so deranged you can't even conceive of perspectives outside your dogma.

[Anonymous No.21016143]

>>21016131
Please buy my NFT it's going to be worth a lot. You need to have faith. Just trust me. You literally can't lose. If you don't buy right now you are dumb. I didn't want to be so blunt but you are basically damning your own bank account if you do not act now on my offer. Stupid people ask questions, don't be that way.

[Anonymous No.21016148]

>>21016137
I don't care that you hate Rick and Morty fans. People were atheist before that and it doesn't make whatever you won't admit to any more defensible

[Anonymous No.21016152]

>>21016143
>stupid people ask questions
This ca 2007 reddit post is supposed to be a clever parody of religion but you really believe this. You actively undermine the process of inquiry constantly including in this post. Why do you hate questions so much?
>>21016148
>People were atheist before that
They didn't behave like you. They weren't "atheists" like you. The phenomena did not exist until recently. This is very likely something you can't conceive of because you're a brainwashed retard but can you really not imagine that someone might have different ideas about a phenomena than you?

[Anonymous No.21016158]

>>21016135
Where did this actual thing come from which does not change if everything else changes? How did you think you'd carve out an exception that fast to the premise without anyone calling bullshit? Christians never really figured this out but the jeets butted heads over it for a thousand years, resolving into non-dualism, one version being theistic (Vedanta) and the other atheistic (Buddhism), and in both cases change is understood to be some form of delusion or illusion compared to "the real" whatever that may be in the respective system. But here we're stuck arguing everybody poops therefore somebody must not poop. Yet, nothing changes if we take out the constipated God. Everybody still shits!

[Anonymous No.21016162]

>>21016148
That atheists in general are retards like you incapable of thinking about any subject put all their bullshit into the right context.
>it doesn't make whatever you won't admit to any more defensible
I mentioned the Gita example among others which is basically only a matter of perspective. You don't care to even consider it or anything because you're clearly not motivated by any sort of curiosity or interest in finding things out. You really are a brainwashed religious zealot demanding I accept your dogmatic definitions and absolutely refusing to consider it's even possible to disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.21016164]

>>21016152
>can you really not imagine that someone might have different ideas about a phenomena than you?
Yeah I am aware that someone who won't defend his position is probably wrong about it. If you are right for whatever reason, you aren't even aware or able to articulate it anyhow. Seems a little mentally stunted

[Anonymous No.21016165]

>>21016164
>Yeah I am aware that someone who won't defend his position
I made my position clear over and over. You're so brainwashed you simply demand I'm saying something else that fits your dogma.

[Anonymous No.21016173]

>>21016165
Your "position" is that you hate atheism. So you "can't" be an atheist. But if you won't argue for theism, you're an atheist. Simple logic flies over your cratered head.

[Anonymous No.21016182]

>>21016173
>if you won't argue for theism, you're an atheist
But I don't accept these premises you present as irrefutable facts that is impossible to question. I don't accept your religious dogma as fact. You define "atheism" a certain way but I'm talking about the actual movement as I've mentioned many times. Atheists don't stop being retarded if you pretend it's just some philosophical position like any other. The history of the movement doesn't disappear if you delude yourself about it hard enough.
You don't just disagree, that would look completely different. You really can't conceive of someone reasonably disagreeing, it's impossible according to your dogmatic definitions.

[Anonymous No.21016198]

>>21016182
>the history of the movement doesn't disappear if you delude yourself about it hard enough
The lowliest and stupidest people in history have worshiped gods, and some religions have made it a virtue to be as stupid as possible and burn whatever disagrees with the manual. There are certainly stupid atheists. But that does not make theism intelligent, or atheism stupid, or vice versa. What makes them so is whether their claims are true or not.

[Anonymous No.21016226]

>>21016198
>What makes them so is whether their claims are true or not.
Everything you say is braindead.
What makes you retarded is behaving like a retard. You can choose the authorities that are most "correct" to mindlessly defer to and still be an incompetent retard incapable of putting together a single thought on any subject. You're still appealing to words you don't understand as authoritative sources of information.

[Anonymous No.21016282]

>>21016158
>Where did this actual thing come from
It didn't come from anywhere, it always is, it never was nor will be.
>How did you think you'd carve out an exception that fast to the premise without anyone calling bullshit?
Exception to what premise? You still have yet to demonstrate that there is any exception. The impossibility of a hierarchical regress refutes the entire idea that the PAA would itself have a cause.

[Anonymous No.21016289]

>>21016198
>What makes them so is whether their claims are true or not.
Right, and we've already established that theism is more likely to be true as per >>21016096
Which makes atheism the less intelligent belief.

[Anonymous No.21016686]

>>21016282
NTA

>It didn't come from anywhere, it always is, it never was nor will be.
So its a presumption rather than a conclusion or proof. Hence not a demonstration of God.

>Exception to what premise?

The premise is that everything changes. The exception is that God doesn't. So, since your premise is violated your conclusions can be discarded. Simple logic.

[Anonymous No.21016745]

>thread about how OP is seemingly to smart for philosophy.
>300 posts of "muh god" seething and counter-seething
Holy fucking shit you guys are retarded.

[Anonymous No.21016749]

>>21016198
You have to understand that anon is a christian. You try to assume that there is a distinction in head between "atheists who just reject theism on reasonable grounds" and "modern atheists who are dogmatic and don't consider opposing viewpoints"

But since he's a christian he automatically rejects that reasonable grounds for atheism even exist. So first option is caput and in his head every atheist is a dumb dogmatic retard who can't think freely because he doesn't consider obvious bullshit like unicorns.

He doesn't really hates atheists for being dogmatic. He hates them for pointing out obvious flaws in theism instead of believing them at face value. Which translates into his head as "dogma".

[Anonymous No.21017155]

>>21016749
>You have to understand my headcanon and ignore everything said like I do
>dogmatically ignoring any challenge to your ideas about the world proves you're not dogmatic

[Anonymous No.21017471]

>>21017155
>dogmatically ignoring any challenge

Challenge? Where? All I see is infinite seething. Oh I forgot, to you seethe+cope = argument