"God" is common sense.

[dreamcake1mo]

You may ask yourself. If you don't believe in things that are objectively true and such, why do you believe in god, and why do you believe in morality? Shouldn't you live like how you want since we all die in the end?

Well, i consider my beliefs in god a objective truth, and/or at least hold weight observationally. First, life has a paradox. Lets start with a question. What came first, the chicken or the egg? One can say the egg, one can say a variation of the chicken. But this question is set for you to ponder on the paradox of the answer itself. The real question is; What was first before the thing, that created the thing, that created the thing, that created the thing inf., that created the chicken or the egg? The answer can only be a thing that is outside the realm of time and creation itself, since before something, another thing had to have existed. And since energy cannot be created or destroyed, the first block has always existed(since we exist). The answer is the beginning of understanding the concept of "god".

God is common sense in a way. Ideologies behind god is where things get silly. Things like god prefers this, god is this and that, and groups/ideologies formed behind these concepts that are beyond our capability of understanding, since we do not understand everything. This leads us to the flaws of ideology. Also, If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. By this statement, we can concur that its likely we wont have god figured out completely by our own devices (body/brain etc), and that ideology would almost always guarantee a flaw when categorizing and subjecting such a thing that encompasses existence itself.

Also, what about morality? Well, i treat it as a gamble. I might not gain anything from primarily choosing the better good, like sympathy, empathy, charity etc. but its a gamble. People who choose to do these acts in my opinion are gambling with "god" for positive (treating others the way you want to be treated). Bad karma is simply too much of a loss if true, and not much of a gain if false. I believe this is why the books claimed the beginning of wisdom is the fear of god. In this world, i may have to be a piece of shit sociopathic exploiter of men and women to survive, but since i dont really find the peaks of pleasure in life itself to be that much worth it, with life too short to be considered a instrument of enjoyment, it may be wiser to find stability away from those actions, and perhaps choose to divest in that just incase it leads to a worst outcome of future existences..

Also, there's a gamble with life being true after death. But if you ask me, the idea has high odds of being true.

We exist. Our only observation of life is existing. So the odds of existence happening again after death is similarly high, since it happened already with seemingly impossible odds. Like i said, nothing much can be gained or lost from this being false, and more can be potentially gained or lost from this being true.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

This was originally a reply to my thread here. https://looksmax.org/threads/reminder-to-never-drink-the-kool-aid-of-ideology.975528/#post-14760921

 

[Eternal_]

Pls make this thread shorter I have autism and need accommodations

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Pls make this thread shorter I have autism

No. It serves as double purpose. Not everyone needs to know something, at the same time, or in the same way. Long text is a filter i prefer. If you can read through these then your my audience. If not, then it is not your not, and knowing may even produce unwanted counter effects. I believe in predeterminism. And the gatekeep isnt that bad.

Also, words is information. Incorporating new information into your system is the foundation of understanding anything. When your ready to incorporate this information, you must do due diligence to incorporate is via reading/learning etc. You cant bypass this process. Me removing words or making it shorter is defeating the purpose of the post itself. Its like taking away your hamburger and giving you a NFT of a big mac. If all is one does that mean the NFT replaces the purpose and function of the real burger?

 

[_MVP_]

Dnrd kys

 

[Klasik01]

The function of thinking is to describe things, not to play with random concepts like time and existence like if your mind could create a being out of nowhere because you like the idea of a being ahead of time or space but you cannot know it (ex: ghosts/god) God would never be more than a flawed concept of something mysterious aka nothing. Unless you're a higher being cappable to trascend thinking and perception saying that God exists is imagination and it doesn't mean anything.

 

[vrilmaxxer]

Did not read saar

 

[Entschuldigung]

This thread:

 

[dreamcake1mo]

The function of thinking is to describe things, not to play with random concepts like time and existence like if your mind could create a being out of nowhere because you like the idea of a being ahead of time or space but you cannot know it (ex: ghosts/god) God would never be more than a flawed concept of something mysterious aka nothing. Unless you're a higher being cappable to trascend thinking and perception saying that God exists is imagination and it doesn't mean anything.

I disagree with a few points. Well, i agree to disagree.

For your reasons i dont think god is a imaginary concept. Its not like ghosts, "gods" or some other superhero imagination. The modern idea of "Ghosts" for example, serve nothing more than a temporal imagination as theres no natural phenomena that requires its existence to be true. Ghosts introduces a concept but it does not (commonly) describe anything in the real world.

What im saying is that god is beyond a personal imagination, and more of a fundamental and universal truth of the world. Its like "fire is hot". Yea, i can play with the concepts of fire in my head, and figure out what makes fire hot isnt the figure, the shape, but the atomic movements (understanding it more). But ultimately, if right, i would only be true because fire was a law already prepositioned by life itself. It did not require my personal imagination first, for it to remain true to what its functions were.

Like i said, life is a paradox. "God" is not a flawed concept as its the answer to the concept - existence itself. "God" answers that fundamental question of existence. That is, what created the thing that created the thing inf. Its not just a imagination, like you said, it describes the paradox of existence itself.

 

[Ultimate SUbhuman]

God isnt whitepilled hes esotericpilled

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Morality is subjective, god isn’t real, and the afterlife is cope

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Morality is subjective, god isn’t real, and the afterlife is cope

Subjective things like morality are capable of being objective. Because morality has capabilities of being objective, its remains in a grey area. Intersubjectivity. Rarely does a thief wants his own goods stolen. Rarely, does a abuser wants to be abused.

For us to judge good and bad for each person we need to collectively analyze and be truthful to whats actually god and bad for us as a human species. I think were far off currently. But lets look at gravity, where there is ample evidence for the existence of gravity, which is objectively real. But, it's nature is subjectively true. There lies disagreements. Some may even question the existence of gravity but it is objectively true, regardless.

Objective truth is based on evidence, as reality independent of the influence of individual or collective human feelings, opinions, logic, and reasoning. Subjective truth is based on individual and collective human feelings, opinions, logic, reasoning, and experience, whether in harmony with evidence or regardless of it.

Is there evidence of morality outside of collective human feelings, opinions, logic reasoning etc? Id say yes. We can see this by observing human nature from a outside perspective. The short answer is that a wide range of species have behaviors that are indicative of a sense of fairness and morality. Studies done with primates, elephants, humans, and dogs specifically, but not exclusively, all indicate this.

It makes sense that morals would develop to increase the chance of survival. The species is probably much more likely to survive and "be happy" if the individuals in it feel an obligation to protect and help the fellow members of their species, or at least direct population. So the objective nature of morality as a concept exists, just like gravity. But to determine what constitutes good and bad morality? This is currently known only in subjective capacity.

And even if so, subjectivity isnt the boogey man. Its still a intended objective feature for our consciousness.

I wont bother to talk about god. Both mathematically and conceptually. It fulfills all of the niches of what would make a thing objective truth, and based on facts. Existence itself is a fact that automatically proves 'god'. (Though i know your probably trolling at this point)

Afterlife is interesting. I consider it a gamble. It could exist, it could not. But all i will say is, we existed the first time, so it would probably be dumb to think we wont exist a second time. Not saying we will be here, but the odds of life happening is so small, let alone us in specific. So id say the odds are impossible it was by chance. And if we're so "lucky" now, I'm guessing we'd be "lucky again" (or eventually again, considering time does not exist for those who do not). With the possibility of us existing at a point of time coming from infinity, slim, but still there, its guaranteed. You click a box with extremely low odds in hopes of an apple, no matter how low the odds, if that box can be clicked infinity times, the chances of you getting the prize is 100% (without time).

In a way, the idea of personal death=game over is actually subjective. Your death wont mean the death of others at the same time, the death of the earth, or the things that remain infinite (like the most basic unit of energy)

 

[Deleted member 52057]

it's karma real?

 

[KDD5]

It’s delusion.

 

[Lynxress]

Nice larp

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Subjective things like morality are capable of being objective. Because morality has capabilities of being objective, its remains in a grey area. Intersubjectivity. Rarely does a thief wants his own goods stolen. Rarely, does a abuser wants to be abused.

For us to judge good and bad for each person we need to collectively analyze and be truthful to whats actually god and bad for us as a human species. I think were far off currently. But lets look at gravity, where there is ample evidence for the existence of gravity, which is objectively real. But, it's nature is subjectively true. There lies disagreements. Some may even question the existence of gravity but it is objectively true, regardless.

Objective truth is based on evidence, as reality independent of the influence of individual or collective human feelings, opinions, logic, and reasoning. Subjective truth is based on individual and collective human feelings, opinions, logic, reasoning, and experience, whether in harmony with evidence or regardless of it.

Is there evidence of morality outside of collective human feelings, opinions, logic reasoning etc? Id say yes. We can see this by observing human nature from a outside perspective. The short answer is that a wide range of species have behaviors that are indicative of a sense of fairness and morality. Studies done with primates, elephants, humans, and dogs specifically, but not exclusively, all indicate this.

It makes sense that morals would develop to increase the chance of survival. The species is probably much more likely to survive and "be happy" if the individuals in it feel an obligation to protect and help the fellow members of their species, or at least direct population. So the objective nature of morality as a concept exists, just like gravity. But to determine what constitutes good and bad morality? This is currently known only in subjective capacity.

And even if so, subjectivity isnt the boogey man. Its still a intended objective feature for our consciousness.

I wont bother to talk about god. Both mathematically and conceptually. It fulfills all of the niches of what would make a thing objective truth, and based on facts. Existence itself is a fact that automatically proves 'god'. (Though i know your probably trolling at this point)

Afterlife is interesting. I consider it a gamble. It could exist, it could not. But all i will say is, we existed the first time, so it would probably be dumb to think we wont exist a second time. Not saying we will be here, but the odds of life happening is so small, let alone us in specific. So id say the odds are impossible it was by chance. And if we're so "lucky" now, I'm guessing we'd be "lucky again" (or eventually again, considering time does not exist for those who do not). With the possibility of us existing at a point of time coming from infinity, slim, but still there, its guaranteed. You click a box with extremely low odds in hopes of an apple, no matter how low the odds, if that box can be clicked infinity times, the chances of you getting the prize is 100% (without time).

In a way, the idea of personal death=game over is actually subjective. Your death wont mean the death of others at the same time, the death of the earth, or the things that remain infinite (like the most basic unit of energy)

I aint readin allat luh twan

 

[dreamcake1mo]

it's karma real?

Its a gamble.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

It’s delusion.

Religious cels are delusional i agree,

But the most basic concept of god certainly exist, its actually common sense.

People who deny it i assume are mentally ill and low iq. Because to commit yourself to thinking its fake requires a serious level of ignorance and delusion of reality. Likely influenced by surrounding propaganda. It means your not even at the starting gun.

The idea that god believers are somehow low iq is social dynamic propaganda at best. The studies pair itself to religious fanatics which are low iq due to their social fanaticism with social order and such.


Remind yourself that newton and Einstein, nokia tesla were frequent bible readers. They were all inspired by it. No high IQ since the history of mankind has been a real aithiest.

 

[Klasik01]

Religious cels are delusional i agree,

But the most basic concept of god certainly exist, its actually common sense.

People who deny it i assume are mentally ill and low iq. Because to commit yourself to thinking its fake requires a serious level of ignorance and delusion of reality. Likely influenced by surrounding propaganda. It means your not even at the starting gun.

The idea that god believers are somehow low iq is social dynamic propaganda at best. The studies pair itself to religious fanatics which are low iq due to their social fanaticism with social order and such.


Remind yourself that newton and Einstein, nokia tesla were frequent bible readers. They were all inspired by it. No high IQ since the history of mankind has been a real aithiest.

You can't prove the existence of god with the same methods we prove the existence of real being that's not a real proof, at best it would qualify as a metaphysical theory. I don't think the existence of god as a concept is related to the Bible (which is a book). If you think about it, investigations on history doesn't search only for bibliographical records they also want other type of proof correlated to material beings. The same goes for the sciences, everything on science isn't only theory as we build science based on phenomenoms. God is not a phenomena, not a number, not a thing. If we cannot "see" God you can't say he exists, whatever you say is not real because you can say it. If I say there's a cat on the table and there isn't a cat on the table, the cat doesn't exist. I don't get why all things in the universe would be related to God as a one because "he's the creator, the one", then things wouldn't be different.

 

[lemonnz]

Afterlife is interesting. I consider it a gamble. It could exist, it could not. But all i will say is, we existed the first time, so it would probably be dumb to think we wont exist a second time. Not saying we will be here, but the odds of life happening is so small, let alone us in specific. So id say the odds are impossible it was by chance. And if we're so "lucky" now, I'm guessing we'd be "lucky again" (or eventually again, considering time does not exist for those who do not). With the possibility of us existing at a point of time coming from infinity, slim, but still there, its guaranteed. You click a box with extremely low odds in hopes of an apple, no matter how low the odds, if that box can be clicked infinity times, the chances of you getting the prize is 100% (without time).

I dnrd most of your argument but there really is no evidence of an afterlife besides trust me bro claims from people with low knowledge in science (no offense). There really is no “heaven” of such sorts because we’ve been in the sky before and we didn’t see anything besides clouds which is formed from different gases and such, no heaven there. When we die our “soul” doesn’t depart. What happens is our brain could no longer maintain consciousness so it shuts off. This could happen due to many reasons, but in no way is consciousness linked to a “soul” which is just another trust me bro.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

I dnrd most of your argument but there really is no evidence of an afterlife besides trust me bro claims from people with low knowledge in science (no offense). There really is no “heaven” of such sorts because we’ve been in the sky before and we didn’t see anything besides clouds which is formed from different gases and such, no heaven there. When we die our “soul” doesn’t depart. What happens is our brain could no longer maintain consciousness so it shuts off. This could happen due to many reasons, but in no way is consciousness linked to a “soul” which is just another trust me bro.

I mean, i could say the same.

In any points of our interaction, did you even attempt to provide any evidence of your stance?

I also never said anything about "heaven". Maybe your coming to the discussion with a bais towards certain religious beliefs. But what im speaking about its simply existence itself. No idea why you thought to add heaven and also include the belief that such a place is linear to a upwards direction in the sky.

Aside from this massive bias. I still find your points confusing. You claim our soul dosent depart, yet i can argue that the concept of a soul outside of consciousness is very subjective, and also arbitrary. What is this "soul" you speak of? Are you referring to consciousness, or something else? Because as far as im concerned, science or data hasent really evolved/advanced to the point where we can discuss about such things, especially not with certainty and literature.

For this reason i didnt really present and argument or provide any scientifically claims to back up my opinions on my thoughts on the "afterlife". I simply call it a gamble, one with maybe slightly higher chances of being true, and scale the risk/reward of this belief. Thats all. My points on god is not pegged to a belief in the afterlife. Thats a totally different thing.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

You can't prove the existence of god with the same methods we prove the existence of real being that's not a real proof, at best it would qualify as a metaphysical theory. I don't think the existence of god as a concept is related to the Bible (which is a book). If you think about it, investigations on history doesn't search only for bibliographical records they also want other type of proof correlated to material beings. The same goes for the sciences, everything on science isn't only theory as we build science based on phenomenoms. God is not a phenomena, not a number, not a thing. If we cannot "see" God you can't say he exists, whatever you say is not real because you can say it. If I say there's a cat on the table and there isn't a cat on the table, the cat doesn't exist. I don't get why all things in the universe would be related to God as a one because "he's the creator, the one", then things wouldn't be different.

This is where id say your wrong.

We observe the phenomena of creation, and see the process everyday, with creator to creation. The child comes from the womb. The apple comes from the tree. The tree comes from the seed. This process of creation and creator is a naturally occurring phenomena, which poses a question almost paradoxal in nature. Like i keep saying, for the 100th time. This totally conceptuates god as a phenomena. Just as valid as gravity, fire, water. I just dont think the idea of god as this exclusively singular deity is the right tune, which i clarify in my post.

There's a reason why i brought my points up say god, as the answer to that paradox or phenomena of creator/creation. Look, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it come to be? God is a naturally observed phenomena once you see it this way. And if your point is to argue about it not being tangible in nature, well gravity cannot be seen. Its not a number, its not a thing. But it still is a occurring phenomena. And science itself can test the phenomena. Just like how our current sciences always try to find out the nature of the smallest unit of energy. We are always scrambling to find the relationship between creator/creation in things. See, without this phenomena of god, there would be no science. We scrable to always find the inner workings of a thing like, lets say the sun because of this creator/creation dynamic. What instructs the sun to be hot? We know its not just light, but a process nuclear fusion. Its not the sun which makes the sun hot, its the atomic structures that move it. So, what instructs those atomic particles to move? This goes down until our capabilities show its limits. https://www.space.com/how-did-we-discover-atoms.html Theres a reason why the beginning of wisdom in all times were equally paired with a belief in the concept of god (creator/creation dynamic).

What is a phenomena?
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

 

[lemonnz]

In any points of our interaction, did you even attempt to provide any evidence of your stance?

Sources:

afterlife besides trust me bro claims from people with low knowledge in science

Increased atheism amongst scientists: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

There really is no “heaven” of such sorts because we’ve been in the sky before and we didn’t see anything besides clouds which is formed from different gases and such

Muh heaven:
Matthew 26:64 (King James Version) “Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

What it actually is:

What are clouds and how do they form?

The range of ways in which clouds can be formed and the variable nature of the atmosphere results in an enormous variety of shapes, sizes and textures of clouds.

www.metoffice.gov.uk

When we die our “soul” doesn’t depart. What happens is our brain could no longer maintain consciousness so it shuts off.

Brain areas relating to consciousness:

The mystery of human consciousness: How much do we know?

How can we define human consciousness? And how can we study it better? In this Special Feature, we discuss the most prominent theories and the most recent research.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Said brain areas shutting down, leading to a loss of consciousness/brain death, aka “muh going to heaven”:

Brain death/death by neurologic criteria determination: an... : Current Opinion in Anesthesiology

ssues will be discussed. Recent findings There is variability in brain death/DNC determination worldwide. In recent years, successful attempts have been made to harmonize these criteria and, consequently, to improve public trust in the process and diagnosis. An international multidisciplinary...

journals.lww.com

I also never said anything about "heaven". Maybe your coming to the discussion with a bais towards certain religious beliefs. But what im speaking about its simply existence itself. No idea why you thought to add heaven and also include the belief that such a place is linear to a upwards direction towards the sky.

I was occupied at the time of encountering your thread and since you seem to have a habit of adding loads of unnecessary words I just gave a short counter-argument to what is usually said when discussing the afterlife.

You claim our soul dosent depart, yet i can argue that the concept of a soul outside of consciousness is very subjective

Sure, but did I say something wrong? From a Christian and many other theist perspective, the soul departs at death and moves on to the afterlife usually depicted as the clouds/sky.

Are you referring to consciousness

Yup, that’s usually what people refer to consciousness as when they have no scientific knowledge about the brain.

Because as far as im concerned, science or data hasent really evolved/advanced to the point where we can discuss about such things, especially not with certainty and literature.

Well it has and I just proved it with sources.

For this reason i didnt really present and argument or provide any scientifically claims to back up my opinions on my thoughts on the "afterlife". I simply call it a gamble, one with maybe slightly higher chances of being true, and scale the risk/reward of this belief. Thats all.

Fair enough. Science isn’t always all correct. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll wake up to scientific proof about one of the many religions/beliefs that contrasts with our current evidence.

 

[lemonnz]

Remind yourself that newton and Einstein, nokia tesla were frequent bible readers. They were all inspired by it. No high IQ since the history of mankind has been a real aithiest.

Well for at the time they lived in, not only was atheism extremely frowned upon but it was accompanied with a lack of evidence, pretty much separating it as the truth and more as aligning it as a separate ideology. You yourself implied this.

Because as far as im concerned, science or data hasent really evolved/advanced to the point where we can discuss about such things, especially not with certainty and literature.

Unless by with “such things”, atheism was not at mind then I apologize.

 

[6ft4]

Also, what about morality? Well, i treat it as a gamble. I might not gain anything from primarily choosing the better good, like sympathy, empathy, charity etc. but its a gamble. People who choose to do these acts in my opinion are gambling with "god" for positive (treating others the way you want to be treated). Bad karma is simply too much of a loss if true, and not much of a gain if false.

I share a similar sentiment
It's brutal though that I have such a craving for women (average normie is just satisfied with one LTR his whole life or if incel they usually do nothing to change their circumstances)
While knowing that women are largely attracted to evil/psychopathic behavior
psychopathic behavior overrides the importance of all other attraction factors
A guy who would not be a girls type normally suddenly becomes her type once she gains knowledge of his psycopathic behavior

If only I could convince myself karma doesn't exist, I could just hurt people I dislike and take things I want
If karma is real and expresses itself through reincarnation if not all in this life, then does the person who has a feeling inside that he shouldn't be doing evil things get a worse punishment than the person who feels inside that doing evil things is perfectly fine because all that matters is his own direct experience

It's funny how foids claim to be so into muh spirituality and muh peace and love larper guys when the thing they're drawn to the most (evil) is effectively the furthest thing away from spiritual enlightenment which reminds as that we are all one and all of our feelings good/bad are dependant on and a result of each other, seeing as evil behavior is concerned only with ones own experience with no regard for the suffering of others

 

[slavicpsycho]

God=human conciousness
I am god kid

 

[Klasik01]

This is where id say your wrong.

We observe the phenomena of creation, and see the process everyday, with creator to creation. The child comes from the womb. The apple comes from the tree. The tree comes from the seed. This process of creation and creator is a naturally occurring phenomena, which poses a question almost paradoxal in nature. Like i keep saying, for the 100th time. This totally conceptuates god as a phenomena. Just as valid as gravity, fire, water. I just dont think the idea of god as this exclusively singular deity is the right tune, which i clarify in my post.

There's a reason why i brought my points up say god, as the answer to that paradox or phenomena of creator/creation. Look, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did it come to be? God is a naturally observed phenomena once you see it this way. And if your point is to argue about it not being tangible in nature, well gravity cannot be seen. Its not a number, its not a thing. But it still is a occurring phenomena. And science itself can test the phenomena. Just like how our current sciences always try to find out the nature of the smallest unit of energy. We are always scrambling to find the relationship between creator/creation in things. See, without this phenomena of god, there would be no science. We scrable to always find the inner workings of a thing like, lets say the sun because of this creator/creation dynamic. What instructs the sun to be hot? We know its not just light, but a process nuclear fusion. Its not the sun which makes the sun hot, its the atomic structures that move it. So, what instructs those atomic particles to move? This goes down until our capabilities show its limits. https://www.space.com/how-did-we-discover-atoms.html Theres a reason why the beginning of wisdom in all times were equally paired with a belief in the concept of god (creator/creation dynamic).

What is a phenomena?
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

Why are you implying that God is the idea of causality which is not a phenomenon and rather a skill of human perception. If everything has to be done by God as he is the first essence of the universe is straight bs because all science phenomenoms have different types of causality and everything that happens cannot be directly related to the idea of God as there's a very clear distinction between social sciences and natural sciences, if everything that happens (sequence) is made by God (for the eternity) why are some beings different? The reason I don't believe in God is because there's contradictions everywhere (polarity) in beings, all ideas of the mind have their own contradictions and this explains change, contrary to the notion of God which is unity. The fact we can understand something is different from the other is that they are both equal in some way but also different in certain aspects, if things were 100% different from each other you would never be able to learn a new thing. Causality is the idea of the mind cappable of connecting phenomenoms who look different from each other and this can be applied for everything (so it's not part of nature or a being "God").

 

[lemonnz]

Why are you implying that God is the idea of causality which is not a phenomenon and rather a skill of human perception. Basically you're being a pantheist (everything is God) or everything has to be done by God as he is the first essence of the universe but this is straight bs because all science phenomenoms have different types of causality and everything that happens cannot be directly related to the idea of God as there's a very clear distinction between social sciences and natural sciences, if everything that happens (sequence) is made by God (for the eternity) why are some beings different? The reason I don't believe in God is because there's contradictions everywhere (polarity) in beings, all ideas of the mind have their own contradictions and this explains change. The fact we can understand something is different from the other is that they are both equal in some way but also different in certain aspects, if things were 100% different from each other you would never be able to learn a new thing. Causality is the idea of the mind cappable of connecting phenomenoms who look different from each other and this can be applied for everything. The changes in the world are way different than what an religious person might think, for example I preffer using the word "power" to explain interactions between beings.

You can’t argue against such a baseless claim like that tbh. Like okay cool, you wish to interpret the laws of physics as “God”, go ahead.

 

[Klasik01]

You can’t argue against such a baseless claim like that tbh. Like okay cool, you wish to interpret the laws of physics as “God”, go ahead.

It sucks that some theists want to defend God which is a philosophical term with discoveries of natural sciences, it's too dated.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Why are you implying that God is the idea of causality which is not a phenomenon and rather a skill of human perception. If everything has to be done by God as he is the first essence of the universe is straight bs because all science phenomenoms have different types of causality and everything that happens cannot be directly related to the idea of God as there's a very clear distinction between social sciences and natural sciences, if everything that happens (sequence) is made by God (for the eternity) why are some beings different? The reason I don't believe in God is because there's contradictions everywhere (polarity) in beings, all ideas of the mind have their own contradictions and this explains change, contrary to the notion of God which is unity. The fact we can understand something is different from the other is that they are both equal in some way but also different in certain aspects, if things were 100% different from each other you would never be able to learn a new thing. Causality is the idea of the mind cappable of connecting phenomenoms who look different from each other and this can be applied for everything (so it's not part of nature or a being "God").

Once again, your wrong. The idea of casualty is a phenomenom. It is not just a skill of human perception.

"Cause and effect is implied by the laws of thermodynamics, that the amount of energy remains the same, neither created nor destroyed. Also intertia, that an item in motion or at rest stays that way until something acts upon it."

Causality is also the central concept in science. Though, science can't prove casualty. What it does instead it's establish a body of causal relationships that arent disproven yet under various conditions.

This is why scientists keep a open mind paired with abjectly cynical skepticism.

I dont quite understand your point after that. You claim polarity? Well, even though a persons thoughts are different the body and nature of humanity share the exact same templelate. So whos exactly different when we clearly are all within a category which is the human flesh system?

Being able to connect phenomena which are different from each other proves my point. If it werre different and shared no connection, it would not be able to connect under any circumstances. What your saying makes no scientifical sense.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Heres a few corrections to my last statement. @Klasik01 @lemonnz

​

​

Once again, your wrong. The idea of Casualty is a phenomenon*. It is not just a skill of human perception.

"Cause and effect is implied by the laws of thermodynamics, that the amount of energy remains the same, neither created nor destroyed. Also intertia, that an item in motion or at rest stays that way until something acts upon it."

This paradox of casualty is the question that im referring to in my original statements*. Causality is also the central concept in science. Though, science can't prove casualty. What it does instead it's establish a body of causal relationships that arent disproven yet under various conditions.

This is why scientists keep a open mind paired with abjectly cynical skepticism.

I dont quite understand your point after that. You claim polarity? Well, even though a persons thoughts are different the body and nature of humanity share the exact same templelate. So whos exactly different when we clearly are all within a category which is the human flesh system?

Being able to connect phenomena which are different from each other proves my point. If it werre different and shared no connection, it would not be able to connect under any circumstances. What your saying makes no scientifical sense.

Keep in mind, everything in science, is part, a theory. There is no real definition of what makes something "law", as "law" is usually a loose description given to a more complex statement or observation about the universe we believe holds true in a large probability.

 

[Klasik01]

Heres a few corrections to my last statement. @Klasik01 @lemonnz

​

​

Keep in mind, everything in science, is part, a theory. There is no real definition of what makes something "law", as "law" is usually a loose description given to a more complex statement or observation about the universe we believe holds true in a large probability.

You would never find a scientific lecture on causality. Causality is one of the oldest philosophical terms used by many cultures to explain change and order. There's no scientific theory on causality. The same goes with thought: to recognize something it has to be different from the other and also equal, example: categories of fruits, buildings, art, codes, animals and so on... The thing is a difference but it cannot be understanded without other things (or beings), dogs and foxes share some similarity but they do not belong in the same animal family due to other geographic differences. So when you recognize or name something, the difference has already done. When you mention God, what's the difference of God? Nothing. God cannot be related to anything in the real world, God cannot be put on words or thoughts as Aquina's said. To talk about God is a relativism with no base whatsoever on the reality we perceive. About polarity I meant that many concepts we use have their counterpart: Beauty/Uglyness, Dark/Light, Love/Hate, Above/Beyond and an infinite amount of these examples. A modern approach is to use the word probability rather than causality.

 

[not.curry]

No. It serves as double purpose. Not everyone needs to know something, at the same time, or in the same way. Long text is a filter i prefer. If you can read through these then your my audience. If not, then it is not your not, and knowing may even produce unwanted counter effects. I believe in predeterminism. And the gatekeep isnt that bad.

Brilliant. One of my friend did years of research on making money (dropshipping, investing etc) when I asked him to give me detailed information on what he learned, he said "I did so much hardwork just to learn what I know now. You have to do that hardwork yourself to learn, I cannot just give away my knowledge like this."

At first I disagreed with him and I remember thinking at that moment that if I ever do so much research on any topic then I'll definitely share what I learnt with others. But now I've realised he was indeed right. Nearly everything is determined by how available it is, if it's less available then it's rare and has much value. If it is available then it's common and doesn't have much value. The moment you make the knowledge or information available very easily to any person, that very moment it loses much of it's value.

Thinking about this, I'm thankful to anyone who gives me knowledge easily or not easily. I value knowledge and it's unfortunate for humans that do not value knowledge.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Brilliant. One of my friend did years of research on making money (dropshipping, investing etc) when I asked him to give me detailed information on what he learned, he said "I did so much hardwork just to learn what I know now. You have to do that hardwork yourself to learn, I cannot just give away my knowledge like this."

At first I disagreed with him and I remember thinking at that moment that if I ever do so much research on any topic then I'll definitely share what I learnt with others. But now I've realised he was indeed right. Nearly everything is determined by how available it is, if it's less available then it's rare and has much value. If it is available then it's common and doesn't have much value. The moment you make the knowledge or information available very easily to any person, that very moment it loses much of it's value.

Thinking about this, I'm thankful to anyone who gives me knowledge easily or not easily. I value knowledge and it's unfortunate for humans that do not value knowledge.

Yup. Another thing is intent.

You know how when a ticktocker finds out some food hack, he goes on to tell everyone and his followers. What ensues is usually exploitation or lack of restraint from the people he told it to. People abusing the hack and/or the restaurant owner patching it because its losing him a bit of money. A few weeks later the restaurant then has to charge or ban the hack because everyone wanted to do it. At some point, something went sour due to the flaws of human nature. Whether its greed or what.

Certain things should remain gatekept or at least published in a niche community. A rich guy tells the crowd of poor men to "work hard". And is hesitant to let them know exactly how he got rich.

 

[not.curry]

Yup. Another thing is intent.

You know how when a ticktocker finds out some food hack, he goes on to tell everyone and his followers. What ensues is usually exploitation or lack of restraint from the people he told it to. People abusing the hack and/or the restaurant owner patching it because its losing him a bit of money. A few weeks later the restaurant then has to charge or ban the hack because everyone wanted to do it. At some point, something went sour due to the flaws of human nature. Whether its greed or what.

Certain things should remain gatekept or at least published in a niche community. A rich guy tells the crowd of poor men to "work hard". And is hesitant to let them know exactly how he got rich.

Very true. I would also argue that many people can't even handle a certain truth, they just cannot comprehend. They may even consider you "weird" because you don't fit their criteria of what you should be saying/are just different than them.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Ryan Garcia is Controlled Opposition

His effect is making people who research truth look crazy. This is through suggesting association between similar archetypes and religious fanaticism to, high IQ people or thinking men that actually do properly research about certain things in a cynical skepticism manner. Think of when people...

looksmax.org

 

[Vermilioncore]

Jesus is Lord and I will proclaim this as truth even if I get sent to Hell. In hell I’ll be the only man still praying to God

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Jesus is Lord and I will proclaim this as truth even if I get sent to Hell. In hell I’ll be the only man still praying to God

If i get sent to hell id think it would be appropriate to ask why.

My biggest thing about 'jesus'.

Behavior in my opinion trumps words. Anyone can say jesus this, jesus that. But how many people actually adopted the traits the person titled jesus told people to adopt and was? Life shows us this tbh. We see all the time that rich pastor who can say all that jesus shit, but sit and exploit for tithes.

I have bad run ins with Christians, or people who seem to idolotize that character in the bible. Ive met far too many fanatics and people who do all of that prayer stuff but treat other people like trash. Or fail in empathy, sympathy, and general morality torwards decisions that can affect others. Ive found it over the years hard to see that type of word worship as beneficial. If your the type to be, then im not sure its a reason to sit down and pray with words. And technically, the concept of prayer never had to be a word thing. So how did the idea of word worship come to be? Seems odd.

The weirdest things, is that theseres verses that specifically says this. Like Matthew 15:8-12. I mean, i can find over 5 verses that explicitly speak against this behavior. So i really wonder if the whole religions getup and word worship is some sort of ego self stroke. Maybe its to look and feel devoted instead of be.

 

[Themanletauticel123]

You may ask yourself. If you don't believe in things that are objectively true and such, why do you believe in god, and why do you believe in morality? Shouldn't you live like how you want since we all die in the end?

Well, i consider my beliefs in god a objective truth, and/or at least hold weight observationally. First, life has a paradox. Lets start with a question. What came first, the chicken or the egg? One can say the egg, one can say a variation of the chicken. But this question is set for you to ponder on the paradox of the answer itself. The real question is; What was first before the thing, that created the thing, that created the thing, that created the thing inf., that created the chicken or the egg? The answer can only be a thing that is outside the realm of time and creation itself, since before something, another thing had to have existed. And since energy cannot be created or destroyed, the first block has always existed(since we exist). The answer is the beginning of understanding the concept of "god".

God is common sense in a way. Ideologies behind god is where things get silly. Things like god prefers this, god is this and that, and groups/ideologies formed behind these concepts that are beyond our capability of understanding, since we do not understand everything. This leads us to the flaws of ideology. Also, If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. By this statement, we can concur that its likely we wont have god figured out completely by our own devices (body/brain etc), and that ideology would almost always guarantee a flaw when categorizing and subjecting such a thing that encompasses existence itself.

Also, what about morality? Well, i treat it as a gamble. I might not gain anything from primarily choosing the better good, like sympathy, empathy, charity etc. but its a gamble. People who choose to do these acts in my opinion are gambling with "god" for positive (treating others the way you want to be treated). Bad karma is simply too much of a loss if true, and not much of a gain if false. I believe this is why the books claimed the beginning of wisdom is the fear of god. In this world, i may have to be a piece of shit sociopathic exploiter of men and women to survive, but since i dont really find the peaks of pleasure in life itself to be that much worth it, with life too short to be considered a instrument of enjoyment, it may be wiser to find stability away from those actions, and perhaps choose to divest in that just incase it leads to a worst outcome of future existences..

Also, there's a gamble with life being true after death. But if you ask me, the idea has high odds of being true.

We exist. Our only observation of life is existing. So the odds of existence happening again after death is similarly high, since it happened already with seemingly impossible odds. Like i said, nothing much can be gained or lost from this being false, and more can be potentially gained or lost from this being true.

There is no God, and if there is one, it is NOT "all-loving" like the kikes, christcucks, and mudslimes will have you believe.

 

[gymislife]

high iq thread

 

[dreamcake1mo]

There is no God, and if there is one, it is NOT "all-loving" like the kikes, christcucks, and mudslimes will have you believe.

I would say theres definately a god. By definition i stated above.

But i doubt greatly that many of these religious people have a clue about it. In matter of fact, I actually would not be surprised if those types of religious people lacked sentiency. Their behavior mimics biological preposition more than it does divergency or "higher mind".