Thread 17753832

A whole board to discuss religion and philosophy. Damn. Now listen to me. Keep this in mind. If you want to get your car fixed, you don't ask a bum. You ask the professional with years of experience. The same.. goes for religion and philosophy. Do you trust yourself, or others on here, with minimal experience in contemplating higher divine truths, or do you trust the ancient sages and seers, who arduously contemplated the divine for years even often going into the wilderness fasting praying meditating and so on. Hmm? C'mon now. This is a reality check. Are you someone with minimal experience in contemplation and higher realities? Then.. kindly.. shut the fuck up. Tell me what you think about that.

>>17753832 (OP)
Philosophy has never contributed anuthing of value to humanity; no, mathematics and science aren't philosophy

>>17753836
I don't know about that. But religion certainly has.

>>17753842
Theology has also contributed nothing but musings of the insane enshrined as deep and meaningfull

>>17753861
Discarding organized religion's status as a cornerstone of civilization is a nonstarter. Go away, fool

>>17753861
Theology.. I think you're talking about catholic stuff more than anything. Seems like you have a big problem with them I assume. Anyhow though the divine is a reality and you are not someone who "contemplated atheism" for years while fasting so why the fuck should I trust whatever you say? Seriously.

>>17753864
Cope, you worship pages upon pages meaningless babble

>>17753865
And yet neither philosophy nor theology have any relevance outside of their books and cultists

>>17753869
"I know the truth" - has thought about it for five minutes (you)
"I know the truth" - has contemplated it for all his life (medieval theologians)
Whom should I trust?

>>17753872
So you're saying normal peasants and degenerates are an authority on who is right? I mean, all of china is now communist. That's more than one billion people. Are the commies trustworthy now?

>>17753874
Reality is subjective

You know your own circumstance and truth the best

>>17753874
I've never claimed knowledge of ultimate truth; medieval theologists discovered nothing of relevance but their own insane ramblings

>>17753877
>So you're saying normal peasants and degenerates are an authority on who is right? I mean, all of china is now communist. That's more than one billion people. Are the commies trustworthy now?

meaningless crashout; philosophy and theology will never be relevant to the real world, you know it and it makes you angry

>>17753869
This is not even about theology, it's more a utilitarian view of organized religion and its function in civilization. No morality without God.

>>17753879
Ok. Of course reality is objective, obviously. But you are too far gone, if you say stuff like this. A typical 21st century atheist. I'm out, atheism leads to death and stagnation in all levels of your life except the secular so talking with atheists is boring as fuck.

>>17753886
The eternal has no meaning to the transient, and vice versa.

>>17753832 (OP)
TRVKE. Most religion posters here don't believe in God. They believe in talking heads on twitter. They are leftover culture warriors from the 2010s who have exhausted every talking point. All they have left is cloaking their insane rambling about faggots and brown people with religious jargon.

>>17753890
If god was evil could you know it?

>>17753906
Philobabble

>>17753915
you are boring as fuck and not nice to be around. Learn from me. Give truth more way in your life. Truth is god.

>>17753913
Cultures are different. Of course some objective standards do exist like tribal cohesion and biological selection. All in all, if it survives, it's good.

>>17753893
>Of course reality is objective, obviously.
The concept of relativity proves you wrong; this is the problem with being stuck with the knowledge of the world people had 3000 years ago (the foundation of philosophy)

>>17753917
>completely avoids question
Answer, if god was evil could you know it?

>>17753918
If you say so, bro.

>>17753920
I don't believe in any religious theology. I do believe in a creator, but that its work is expressed through the fundamental forces of nature, which concepts like life's evolution derive from. That is inherently good and incapable of being evil in my eyes, so your question is an oxymoron.

>>17753916
Sorry for not immediately falling over praising your meaningless words as "deep" or "insightful
I will now give you the same treatment

The unexplainable results from
positive mysteries, as defined as a subtraction from a greater set of possibilities to a figurative immersion of the faith and logic in the shared subconscious, melding to reveal the highest truth

>>17753923
>keeps avoiding question
Cowardly philoloser

>>17753926
Interesting. That's at least something. I didn't understand parts of that but whatever. Just listen to my advice and start contemplating deeply pondering over real stuff that moves people. Religion. Spirit. God or truth. Nietzsche didn't discover his ideas after a good McDonald's meal, he pondered over them. That's what I want to impart. All else, well who cares.

>>17753928
I literally answered your question but ok

>>17753935
Confusing the abundance of knowledge for the knowledge of abundance is the anathema of a theosophical scaling to an higher order of form, consciousness and logic; notwithstandimg that the latter has its axioms in conflict with the essence of being

>>17753939
It was a simple yes or no; you said everything but; highlighting your dishonesty; typical of people that think can discoer anything just by thinking very hard

>>17753944
Please talk like a human being, I don't really know English I'm esl.

>>17753947
I don't think you read. You still think I believe in 'God' right?

>>17753951
I can't say it differently or the sinolic link of matter and form implied in the writhing would be lost leading to invalid forms of logical speak

>>17753947
That was not me (op) that was some faggot. I think thinking very very hard doesn't lead anywhere if you don't have supernatural inspiration I mean Aristotle thought hard Plotinus did they said nothing of worth ever. Or almost. The ancient Greek philosophers were faggots who thought they can think really hard and know reality. Buddha taught a different way, he was a Buddha by nature, formed his intellect through aeons of practice. That's whom I meant when I said ancient sages. And Zoroaster too. Thinking alone is nonsense you need to fast, pray, have that spark of divinity or spiritual knowledge inside of you. It's all chosen people, not those who really think hard. Those who are chosen.

>>17753953
I don't care if you are atheist; but it should have no bearing on answering am hypothetical

>>17753956
Are you incapable of saying yes or no?

>>17753957
You should clarify what you mean by God then - is it the countless Gods that countless religions worship, or is it the metaphysical creator that I do believe exist. If it's the former, I already think some of them are evil, if it's the latter, then your question is an oxymoron as it can't be evil.

>>17753959
>metaphysical creator that I do believe exist. If it's the former, I already think some of them are evil, if it's the latter, then your question is an oxymoron as it can't be evil.
It's an hypothetocal, I'm not saying it's evil; it kinda funny you can't answer hypotheticals

>>17753958
I am not the guy who you answered to, I am op God damnit. No, I am not incapable. What is the question? If god were evil would I know? This is blasphemy, so I'm not gonna bother with that.

>>17753965
Of course, I would also not answer sonething that exposes my lack of morality

>>17753960
You just throw around without bothering to contemplate their meaning. You can't put the creator under morality as all morality stems from it. It cannot be evil.

>>17753970
So just divine command theory; if your god told you to kill children, would the right thing to follow the command?

>>17753969
As I said this just leads to more blasphemy as we have seen in the conversation below. So. Did you ignore my advice? The act of contemplating how to be happier leads to results does it not?

>>17753975
>your god
>told you to kill children
As I could already tell, you didn't read my posts. I don't believe in an interventionist creator.

>>17753832 (OP)
>the ancient sages and seers, who arduously contemplated the divine for years even often going into the wilderness fasting praying meditating and so on
how does that make them qualified

>>17753982
>still incapable to answer hypoteticals
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast?

>>17753986
They have often experienced divine inspiration. If you don't sense divine inspiration, then I am afraid you can't be truly happy. Try contemplating their teachings a while and you can come to my conclusion.

>>17753991
Hungry
If your hypothetical rests on the absolute certainty that this God is in fact our metaphysical creator, then it cannot be evil. There is no possibility of it being evil. If something was evil before and it changed its mind, then it's no longer evil. Morality is at its whim.

>>17753923
>but that its work is expressed through the fundamental forces of nature

Your talking about Spinoza. Good stuff

>>17753832 (OP)
Man *can* know the truth. He must necessarily think for himself. This platonist philosopher king mentality has kept mankind down and insecure for thousands of years now. Man's mind is his primary tool of survival, to tell him he can't use it to determine reality is truly to clip the wings of a bird.

>>17753832 (OP)
Based

>>17753886
>does not address the question
>repeats inane statement
yup, it's a r*dditor

>>17753832 (OP)
>professional mechanics exist, therefore it's impossible to learn how to change a tire yourself.