>soys
who are they quoting?

non-religious people are the eternal bane of vibes and walk around in public without a head doing nothing interesting. even the most heretical weirdo is at least an instrument of vitality if they live by faith. otherwise lemmings live to impart npc cringe on the rest of the npc's and that's just not cricket

>>17830018
LMAO this pseud thought he was cookin

>namefag
>blasphemes the holy ghost
>linked a spreadsheet expecting me to expand it
bless you

>>17830004 (OP)
Buddhists aren't atheistic though.

>>17830192
The meme doesn’t say they’re atheist though, it just says they reject the monotheist god- which already makes them spiritual nobility and aristocrats of the soul.

The most noble calling on this earth is to spit in the wretched face of the “god” of Abraham and the cockroaches who follow her.

>>17830004 (OP)
First mover is unironically a great argument, but I have never met or read a single atheist who has actually read (and understood) the entire argument from start to finish. To be fair, I have not personally met such theists either, but at least I've read them...

>>17830213
>they reject the monotheist god- which already makes them spiritual nobility and aristocrats of the soul.
Not really. It makes them something inbetween monotheists and atheists. It's the whole deal with atheists that they oppose the idea of God being something ultra-personal. Every scientific methodology we have starts with the assumption that whatever we're investigating is sub-personal. It's just a bunch of fields or particles or thoughtless mechanisms etc. And if it happens to be a person, we break it up into bits as lifeless as possible. There can be no personhood in science. Subsequently, to an atheist it feels extremely unscientific to propose that there can be something not only personal but even more personal than humans themselves. That's why an average agnostic is content with God being "some kind of a field" or "energy" or "force" or whatever else sub-personal entity they see fit. Because they cannot fathom it being personal or super-personal. Buddhists are like this - they would believe in a monotheist God, but as it happens, their methods don't allow personhood to be concluded. It's a methodology/paradigm issue.

>>17830192
The Buddha essentially told his contemporaries that their gods were worthless and their priests were frauds. He didn't just dismiss divine beings—he stripped them of all power and dignity, reducing mighty deities to pathetic creatures as trapped and clueless as everyone else. While people were prostrating themselves before altars and enriching temple priests, the Buddha declared the entire enterprise a cosmic joke. Gods can't save you, can't enlighten you, and can't even save themselves from the same cycle of death and rebirth that torments insects.

His "middle way" was actually a merciless demolition of divine authority. The Buddha looked at thousands of years of god-worship, ritual sacrifice, and priestly mediation and declared it all elaborate nonsense—a distraction from the fact that you're completely alone in your suffering and only your own discipline can free you. He didn't need to call himself an atheist; he just made gods so irrelevant and impotent that believing in them became an act of self-deception. The Buddha's enlightenment was ultimately the realization that the universe operates without divine care or intervention, leaving humans to confront the brutal mechanics of existence without cosmic comfort or supernatural rescue.

if there is a god

it simply cannot be the abrahamic one

>>17830018
>UR A ATHEIST POOPY HEAD
clockwork

>>17830439
>it cannot be the Abrahamic God because I would be left with a question "whence cometh evil?"

>>17830453
>2000 years later christkikes still don't have an answer

>>17830458
I suppose. But existence of a question really isn't proof of any sort.

>>17830439
The problem of evil is only a “problem” because Western thought insists on dualism — that good and evil are separate, opposing forces, one divine, the other demonic. But this split is artificial. It assumes a clean cosmos: God is pure good, evil is the intruder. Yet this framework immediately collapses. If God is all-powerful and good, why does evil exist? Either He allows it (so He’s not good), or He can’t stop it (so He’s not God). The contradictions multiply because the premise is broken — dualism doesn’t describe reality, it imposes a false binary onto it.

In reality, what we call “evil” isn’t some independent force — it’s part of the same field as good. Suffering, death, destruction, chaos — they’re not glitches in creation, they are creation, inseparable from beauty, birth, growth, and love. Eastern and non-dual traditions don’t suffer from this contradiction because they don’t try to exile one half of existence. They see darkness and light as interdependent, like waves and troughs. The Western mind, stuck in its dualist delusion, demands a universe that makes moral sense — and can’t accept the one it lives in. So the problem of evil remains “unsolvable” not because it's profound, but because it's built on a lie.

>>17830232
Any argument in favor of mysticism is poisoned because the conclusion precedes the observation. You're taught from birth to believe in something unprovable, find out other folks don't give a fuck and THEN start coming up with arguments why they should totally take it seriously. If god can be a first mover than so can any compacted mass of atoms, even a former universe going through a big crunch

>>17830515
>If god can be a first mover than so can any compacted mass of atoms, even a former universe going through a big crunch
No, by the very definition it can't. Like I said, I've never met an atheist (?) who read the argument and even a brief reading would disclose to you why "mass of atoms" could never be the first mover. Please use an LLM for this.

>>17830519
first mover is dumb

because if you argue one entity self created and exists outside time and space

why can't there be hundreds or thousands?

>>17830522
Because multiplicity presumes difference and difference presumes conditions and conditions imply contingency. The one thing that makes prime mover the prime mover is NOT being contingent.

>>17830526
no its not

if you claim one entity can self create why can't several

>>17830531
Like I just said, multiplicity logically implies contingency. The prime mover is not contingent. You might be getting stuck on the term "self-create". There is no "create" outside time and space. It just exists, it's not like there was empty space and one being popped up and another could pop up next to it, but happened to not appear.

>>17830539
Anon we call that special pleading

If one entity can exist outside time and space why can't several?

>>17830556
Special pleading would be me arbitrarily setting apart one case from others. I have instead shown you the logical implications that lead to prime mover being necessarily one. Please use a LLM.

>>17830559
>setting apart one case from others

That's exactly what you do lol.

>self creation is possible

>only one entity can do it though

>>17830561
Self-creation is not possible. See >>17830539
You seem to be oscillating between three questions that seem as one to you because you have not read the argument you're discussing:
>Why is the prime mover one
>Does the prime mover self-create
>How many entities can exist outside time

Which one interests you and do you understand how it differs from the rest?

>>17830566
>Why is the prime mover one
>Does the prime mover self-create
>How many entities can exist outside time\

you argue this because your deity exists outside time and space

so if one being can do it why can't multiple

>>17830570
Okay so you selected "How many entities can exist outside time". Do you understand how this differs from the other questions and why this isn't necessarily about the prime mover at all?