Deism is the only tenable religious belief to hold in the modern age. All Abrahamic religions ask you to believe in absurd historical claims with little justification, and paganism is completely dead. Atheism leads to epistemic contradictions. Embrace deism like the American founding fathers did.

>>17871545 (OP)
Deism alone is in practical terms no distinct from outright atheism.
>There is a god that created the universe
>But he has no interest in us
>And he would never contact is
>And he will never give us revelation
>No moral teachings
>No information about how we should structure our lives or treat each other
>No knowledge about the past or future.

Deism is based because it leads to atheism.

>>17871552
You're holding to a very strict (and mistaken) definition of deism here. Being a deist doesn't mean you don't think revelation exists at all, but that you think it comes through reason and observation of the world. Deism isn't in conflict with natural law, morality, or natural revelation (as seen through science and philosophy).

>>17871559
No it doesn't. It can lead to secularization though.

>>17871545 (OP)
Deism seems a but too conveninent.
>Sure all existing accounts of God are fairly tales made up by people who didn't know anything about it, but coincidentally God still exists.

>>17871572
Look into perennialism.

>>17871545 (OP)
Tell you what, say what you will, but self will is underrated

>>17871545 (OP)
The so called epistemic contradictions in atheism: "i dont wanna get called a fedora by internet virgins ):"

>>17871545 (OP)
Deism silently commits a category error. If a classical monotheist God created the universe and then ceased to care about it, the universe would cease to exist that very instant. The universe exists so God obviously cares. If God cares then the events in the universe must be meaningful. If the events are meaningful then intelligent agents participate in that meaning with God. If agents already share this communion with God, it opens the door to pretty much any other interaction, including revelation.

Deism only solves one problem: de-coupling your decisions and actions from any kind of normative beliefs. There is truth but it no longer matters really.

>>17871600
Deism doesn't require God to not care about stuff, you fucking moron. You just completely made that up, just like you made up that if an all-powerful God who can presumably do the impossible, like creating a universe, decided to look away from his creation, it would all just vanish like a toddler assumes a toy car vanishes when he looks away because he lacks object permanence. Which, judging by your braindead post where you just completely assumed your entire argument with no philosophical or logical reasoning whatsoever, much less evidence, you might also lack.

>>17871545 (OP)
Why do you worship non contradiction when the world is filled with them?
You are stuck in utopian delusion

>>17871605
Chill lmao.
Deism might not require either one of the beliefs, but it is a dichotomy. Either God lost interest in this world, in which case due to its contingency it cannot exist any longer, or he still cares about it. What I described in my previous post is what follows from God caring.
I'm not sure how you think "looks away" changes the picture.

>>17871600
>ceased to care about it
That doesn't follow. You can believe in a God that cares about the world but doesn't intervene directly.

>>17871610
Your entire post is theobabble where you make one unsubstantiated assumption and then claim if that unsubstantiated assumption is true, then another unsubstantiated assumption follows. There is not a single line you said that actually logically follows the past line and the false dichotomy you've created is absurd and nonsensical. It irritates me when people are confidently and clearly wrong.

>>17871600
>If agents already share this communion with God, it opens the door to pretty much any other interaction, including revelation.
"It opens the door" is your argument? That's not an argument, that's just asserting that something is possible. Possibility is not necessity.

>>17871617
The very fact that one second follows another is God's direct intervention. The Prime mover doesn't just set things in motion and then let them roll independently of him, he actualizes them in every moment. For Deism you'd have to set an arbitrary line between what God is willing or not willing to do about the universe. And from what I've seen the positioning of this line is driven by convenience, not by actual philosophical argumentation.

>>17871622
Then I suggest you sit there all irritated instead of telling me how "God either cares or doesn't" is a flase dichotomy.

>>17871623
Correct. I'm not arguing for necessity. I'm only arguing that deism arbitrarily sets a line of God's participation inbetween "sustaining the universe" and "revelation".

>>17871630
>For Deism you'd have to set an arbitrary line between what God is willing or not willing to do about the universe
This is true for all other religions lmao
>I'm not arguing for necessity
Then you don't have an argument

>>17871633
>This is true for all other religions lmao
Really? What line is Christianity setting?
>>I'm not arguing for necessity
>Then you don't have an argument
hahah you don't see how "your framework has arbitrary premises" is an argument?

>>17871630
The dichotomy is "God exists and cares about me and therefore the universe can exist" or "God doesn't care about me so the universe couldn't exist!" you moron. The fact that you're talking about some imagined arbitrary line in deism because it violates a series of ridiculous metaphysics that you completely made up in your own head is utterly absurd. Where do theist retards like you get off on just making shit up and telling everybody else their belief systems are logically inconsistent because they don't match your literal personal headcannon? Did it ever occur to you that an all-powerful God could just make a piece of wood or a planet bound by defined metaphysical rules and then walk away without it vanishing because ????

>>17871630
>The very fact that one second follows another is God's direct intervention

Prove it

>>17871645
>What line is Christianity setting?
That he intervened 2000 years ago and then disappeared lol.
>hahah you don't see how "your framework has arbitrary premises" is an argument?
It's not arbitrary, it's based on observation of the universe. Also, a deist doesn't purport to know exactly where the line lays, whereas a Christian does. This is not the own you think it is.

>>17871648
>he dichotomy is "God exists and cares about me and therefore the universe can exist" or "God doesn't care about me so the universe couldn't exist!" you moron.
Not exactly haha. The dichotomy is God either cares or doesn't. From the fact that he keeps sustaining this world, it seems he cares. Are you with me so far?
>ridiculous metaphysics that you completely made up in your own head
Sadly I'm not Aristotle. Or Ibn Sina. Or Aquinas. The Prime mover is a pretty unanimous piece of metaphysics so you'll have to do better than melting down.
>Did it ever occur to you that an all-powerful God could just make a piece of wood or a planet bound by defined metaphysical rules and then walk away without it vanishing because ????
Many illogical things occured to me. Continuing to talk to someone who thinks I'm Aristotle is one of those.

>>17871651
The contingency argument, really. Everything we observe about the universe implies contingency (down to spacetime, since it can be affected; caused change proves contingency). Meaning that it relies on an incontingent substrate for its being in time and in space (since again, timespace is contingent). Otherwise we'd have to assume vicious regress which is logically untenable.

>>17871652
>>What line is Christianity setting?
>That he intervened 2000 years ago and then disappeared lol.
And appeared many times since lol. Again... where is the line?
>It's not arbitrary, it's based on observation of the universe.
Share those with me, will you?
>a deist doesn't purport to know exactly where the line lays
Exactly, there isn't a deist literally having a mental breakdown here.

>>17871667
Your arrogance is stunning and only matched by your brick-like stupidity. Not really any point talking to someone who just makes shit up and declares your logic is invalid because of shit he made up. I hope for your sake you're trolling.

>>17871668
Correct, I am Aristotle and I am trolling yall with the Prime mover stuff I made up in my head. If this is what deism requires you to believe, this was the own I thought it was.

Gaslighting that your hoodoo voodoo theory of god lacking object permanence is metaphysical canon is crazy.

>>17871708
>ITT: people who don't understand deism

>>17871667
>The contingency argument

The observable universe is also cyclical. Why can't it be a closed loop system? Beard sky man doing it is an inadequate explanation.

>>17871802
>The observable universe is also cyclical.

>>17871817
Is it not?

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed"

>>17871848
>Is it not?
Some as single repeated pattern that we've observed.

>>17871862
>pattern
cycle*

>>17871545 (OP)
The only problem is that the God of Abraham is the real God and his will will be imposed on earth. His instructions leads to eternal life and those who walk it will live with him forever.

>>17872018
Proof?

>>17872022
Proof is given to the innocent. Repent of your evil and seek righteousness and you will have proof.

>>17872057
So no proof?

>>17872076
It's up to you.

>>17871545 (OP)
Deism is too undefined to be tenable.
>God exists
>okay, so what does God want?
>umm.. I don’t know
If God is just some undefined force without desires then that’s entirely useless for orienting human behavior and relationships. At most you can preform science and physical studies with coherency as creation has a clear origin and externality under a deistic worldview but it fails to address core ethics without devolving into badly practicing organized monotheistic religions; it’s why Thomas Jefferson still held to the Bible while snipping out all the miracles he didn’t like. Eventually as you explore and deduce the nature of God you will settle on an organized religion.
>God’s nature is good
Islam
Christianity
Sikhism
Zoroastrianism
>God’s nature is evil
Gnosticism
Manichaeism
>God is all powerful
Islam
Christianity
>God is equal to opposite forces
Zoroastrianism
Manichaeism

>>17871552
God doesn't owe you a Discord call

>>17871572
Deists (like myself) believe God shows signs of existence through the Universe and Nature’s inner workings. Though, we wouldn’t be as crushed as Theists for thinking the evidence showed otherwise. God exists, because something had to have always existed, and everything in the Universe is slowly decaying. Even the Universe’s Space-Time as physics point out. So my belief is God made the Universe. Deists also generally know it’s just a belief. Rather than Theists and Radical Atheists who think their beliefs or lack there of are inherently truth just because they hold them.

>>17872217
No but Christians would argue that God wants to call you on discord but you need to join his server first

>>17871610
Do you know how large the universe is? Like how incomprehensible it is? Why does God have to be your baby sitter and purposefully play with some bald apes?

>>17872236
Because to believe the contrary prevents you from having any epistemology.

>>17871545 (OP)
Deism is cope for people who can't cast off their chains and just accept that there is nothing beyond this world and this life.

>>17872242
>Deism is cope for people who can't cast off their chains and just accept that there is nothing beyond this world and this life

>>17872245
Case in point.

>>17872228
Yes, you are retarded for these reasons too.

Look, when your definition of deism is compatible with atheism. You got some thinking to do.

>>17872245
Yes, like you are now.

Yo, deists!
What is a god?

>>17872247
>>17872254
>We're all stardust and life has no meaning BUT DON'T YOU DARE be racist

>>17872204
>Deism is too undefined to be tenable.
It's pretty clearly defined
>God exists, but beyond the point of creation he is largey metaphysical and does not regularly intervene with physical reality
People like you are really not as intelligent as you think you are, you're just pushing contrivances out of your own ass to try and make a point

>>17872242
Deism and physicalism are cope for people who can't cast off their chains and just accept that we're eternal spirits doomed to wander forever, aimless and amnesiac, in an infinite godless multiverse.

>>17872242
If there was truly nothing beyond this life then the need to assert such would be pointless. It’s the same paradox that all nihilistic precepts fall into because if nothing matters then there would be no desire to assert the claim of nothing mattering as it would be self evident. You’re making the claim that there is nothing to look forward to after this life off of the lack of experience of another life, meanwhile every NDE recipient will testify that an afterlife does indeed exist. Lack of evidence due to your personal unwillingness to look for evidence is indicative of nothing more than your own intellectual laziness and apathy. You personally may not matter but everyone who isn’t you matters more.

>>17872250
Prove it!

>>17872257
Can any Monotheist Religion define God? The closest Abrahamicism did was define him as “I am He who is” to describe his quintessential, absolute, obligatory and inernable existence.

All anyone needs to know that there is no other world, and that there has never been, is to look at the night sky. That's all of existence. An endless sea of blackness with flickering specks of light, possibly life, none of which we will ever see with our own eyes. Christoids want one of two things: to believe they could see it someday because their soul will leave their body and they will be swept to the cosmos (the blasphemous interpretation), or to believe that beyond this life they will be ecstatically fellating their lord for all eternity (actual Christianity).

>>17872263
So if God is uninvolved with humanity then what is preventing you from spiraling into Gnosticism? After all if suffering exists and God does not care then doesn’t that mean God allows for suffering of humans with no purpose outside of apathy to misery? If you continue to explore the thought patterns of your own worldview you will inevitably reach an organized religion since existence comprises of more facets than the material. Great, you’ve come to the conclusion that God is uninvolved with humanity, and now you have to figure out ‘why’. Your puzzle is incomplete because you’re not asking all the questions.

>>17872267
I am not a nihilist, I don't believe there is no meaning to our lives. But they are all separate yet unified meanings that we gave ourselves by doing the things we have done, from individuals to the whole social structure, across all of our history, and it is extremely abstract, such so that I think it's more significant and meaningful than anything religion has to offer.

>>17872284
>If you believe X then why don't you believe Y?

>>17872285
Im a nihilist. I don't believe in NOTHING. LIKE MY image is gonna be something else completely random *holds up spork*

>>17872260
>most loving Christian

>>17872260
See >>17872285
Life absolutely has meaning. Join existentialism today, it's way better than magic BS.

>>17872263
What is a god?

>>17872285
>I’m not a nihilist
Why and where does purpose stem from? What gives life value and for what reason? It can’t be God according to your worldview because he apparently is uninvolved with humanity.
>But they are all separate yet unified meanings
You’re word salading to avoid addressing the simple fact that you do not know what the meaning of life even is. Not knowing is uncertainty. You are uncertain of life’s meaning but find nihilism to be too harsh. The end result of your deism is uncertainty, therefore it is ultimately useless to you and others as your worldview boils down to a dressed up “I don’t know”.

>>17872269
Sorry, that was mean of me. I just think your beliefs, despite being accepting of science, still hold us back from becoming a unified humanity.

>>17872286
It seems like a logical entailment unless you think God was just kinda irresponsible ad incompetent - unable to predict what would happen when he caused the world - would that even be a god? What a mess

>>17872304
Why does humanity need to be unified and for what reason?

>>17872302
I think you may have mistaken me for one of the deists here, I am not one of those.

>>17872302
>What gives life value and for what reason?
God does it, duh

>>17872315
It doesn’t change the fact that you have no idea what the meaning of life is.

>>17872304
Nature is what's holding us back from becoming a unified humanity. The West has tried to achieve this goal for 60 years and it's brought only sorrow and destruction. It's poetic that you almost get it, because in a sense God is the one keeping you from achieving your retarded libtard utopia.

Every Theist converts to Deism when they're losing a debate regarding how illogical their religious doctrine or canon is and then they always convert back later when the debate is over. This happens every time. Next time you point out how batshit insane the Bible is, I want you all to pay attention to how the Christard falls back to some broad metaphysical commentary instead of addressing serious points about their religion.

>>17872297
Maximally great being
Beginningless, timeless, changeless, uncaused, spaceless, enormooooously powerful immaterial mind that caused the universe
Man with holes in his hands

>>17872317
If God gives it then God needs to be involved. If reality is just the creation and the creator has no investment in it and doesn’t care what you do nor has desires nor will then this is just atheism with a few extra steps of coherency. There’s still nothing to live for if God is undefined; God has to be defined for life to be purposeful.

>>17872322
You have definitely trapped yourself somewhere and cannot see anything outside of your own narrow thoughts. If you can delineate to me how anything I have said is wrong, or explain why you find it difficult to understand, that'd be great.

>>17872311
Unification of mankind would be a transcendent moment for us, and we would then be on the path to becoming higher beings.

>>17872335
So why did Thomas Jefferson adhere to the Bible if the Bible is so incoherent? Deism only exists because of Christianity.

>>17872329
Psychotically wrong. Unsurprisingly apathetic, even antipathetic toward victims of western barbarism. You've just got a twisted morality. I especially see it in how you say "the west has tried to achieve this goal." It most certainly has not.

>>17872345
>Deism only exists because of Christianity.
This isn't the argument that you think it is

>>17872315
>>17872344
You failed to answer any question asked of you and just tap danced with word salads. You haven’t articulated why anything you advocate for is the case so I’ll just assume you aren’t capable of it. You began by asserting that afterlives are non-existant due to nothing more than your own hubris and are now shilling globalism after quietly dodging the fact your claim was blown out of the water.

>>17872352
>victims of western barbarism
Barbarism is when you invent technology that the entire world can subsist on and give foreigners all of your money and opportunity.
>Twisted morality
Because I agree with the American founding fathers?

>>17872241
My view is that God exists but he doesn't really care what humans do because we’re like little germs. Also there's no afterlife God doesn't give a fuck about you.

>>17872353
>children should beat their parents according to this anon
This is why niggers are niggers. No obedience in the household leads to cannibalism of the family structure.

>>17872367
>there's no afterlife
How do consciousnesses just disappear magically?

>>17872260
This lol

>>17872367
According to what? Why should I listen to the opinions of a man who does not know God over religious fathers who claimed to have heard God?

>>17872363
You just repeated the same thing three times, and it was equally non-specific each time. I'll assume you can't actually explain what I was wrong about. Go learn about symbolic interactionism and get back to me.

>>17872365
>Because I agree with the American founding fathers?
It's funny that you accused me of "almost getting it" when you're willing to openly say this.

>>17872336
Those certainly are... words in English language

>>17872380
Absolute projection. You also continue to dodge questions which is funny, you genuinely can’t answer a single one.

>>17872267
>You’re making the claim that there is nothing to look forward to after this life off of the lack of experience of another life, meanwhile every NDE recipient will testify that an afterlife does indeed exist.
NDEfags are just hallucinating. The airforce did a ton of experimenting on the effect of G’s gained in flight and the temporary starvation of oxygen to the brain, and found that when robbed of oxygen under stressful situations pilots would experience NDEs. They would reunite with passed loved ones, see light, talk to God, and “see themselves” in 3rd person.

>>17872380
>It's funny that you accused me of "almost getting it" when you're willing to openly say this.
What?

>>17872384
Why would I repeat myself? The answer is >>17872285. You've already outed yourself as being unable to even wrap your head around it.

>>17872267
>every NDE recipient will testify that an afterlife does indeed exist.
Why should we care about what people who did not die thinks happens when they die? Made-up BS

>>17872371
What was it like before you were born?>>17872374
Every religions founders have said to hear God.

>>17872371
There's no magic involved. Consciousnesses "disappearing" is explained in non-magical terms
it involves very mundane events, like your heart stopping or a nuclear bomb dropping on your head

>>17872371
Every turn off a TV?

>>17872392
Why do all NDE victims report having the same experiences if afterlives are non-existent? Wouldn’t their experiences just be too inconsistent from each other’s if they were hallucinations? Why aren’t they dreaming of pink elephants and vagina mouths if it’s nothing more than chemicals in the brain hallucinating? The fact they all report having the same experiences is extremely unusual, reducing things down to material components fails to explain this.

>>17872397
Admiring those guys is definitely a sign of being deficient in a genuine understanding of, or interest in, humanity. Just because they advocated secular government doesn't mean they were in favor of making the world a better place. They had their own ideas about that. The only based one is Thomas Paine. The rest are shit.

>>17872405
>died and came back to life
>durr why should I care
Absolute brainlet

>>17872416
>Why do all NDE victims report having the same experiences
you are lying so much, lmfao. NDE experiences does not replicate across cultures

What are they dreaming off? Please tell us what the afterlife everyone dreams of the same is like
Maybe getting specific would be useful, you're kinda vague

>>17872416
Most NDE reports come from people in western countries, who come from cultural or familial Christian backgrounds.

>>17872419
They literally didn't die
Else it wouldn't be an NDE, it would be a DEATH

Please tell us why the experiences reported by people that did not die, should inform us of what happens to people who do die


Seriously.. What's the theology here? What's even supposed be happening. God let them in to heaven by mistake then the doctors yoinked their soul back to the material plane. Oooopsie
This is such halfbaked nonsense, totally made-up, and not even thought through

>>17872423
Doesn’t that just mean Christianity is true?

>>17872429
No, because NDE reports from people from other backgrounds are not similar to Christian ones.

How does the soul see heaven without eyes?
Seeing involves light, photons, hitting your retina. This is all physical events
What's supposed to be going on when a soul sees the afterlife during an NDE? Is there even a theory being put forward?

>>17872427
>it didn’t happen because I don’t believe
Facts don’t care about your feelings. Objective medical documentation is of a higher standard of truth than human seethe

>>17872433
Not religious at all, but dreams definitely contradict this.

>>17872429
Going to heaven for a short while because God is kinda incompetent and can't figure out if people are actually dead or not, is NOT compatible with Christian theism

>>17872431
Such as? Give examples instead of lying

>>17872435
What facts? They didn't die
You're the one that keeps lying about that. You are so confused

>>17872439
Cope. Jesus literally raised Lazurus from the dead but the non-Christian is arguing that coming back from the dead is compatible with Christianity. Crack open a Bible.

>>17872440
A good attempt to try to pull me in with an accusation, but it's too sad of a topic for me, I'm not going to partake any further.

>>17872417
Love my nation. Simple as.

>>17872436
Dreams presumably involves the brain, at least that's my explanation

How does the soul see heaven without eyes? Do you have an explanation?

>>17872442
>dies
>comes back to life minutes later
>referred to as NDE
You lacking proper right brain functions and liberalizing terminology out of some autistic ego isn’t indicative of reality. Pretending to be ignorant of what NDE’s entail doesn’t change what medically and factually occurs in the experience

>>17872443
So the theology is: "God did an ooopsie"
Please elaborate if you feel I'm misrepresenting you

>>17872446
Nations are also anti-humanity, anti-progress, and actually quite similar to religion. Just look at what they have done to their supposed citizens. My god, how can anyone say they love that?

>>17872444
Btfo’d

>>17872447
>materialist needs an explanation as to how non-material things don’t utilize physical functions
The absolute state. Kek

>>17872450
What the acronym NDE stand for?
NEAR death
It's not a DEATH experience, no one died. Else they wouldn't be telling us about the experience

This isn't like that one time 2000 years ago with Jesus

>>17872457
Cope.

>>17872447
Why do dreams presumably involve the brain? That word presumably certainly deserves some thought, but I'm going to go do something more fun than talking about death. See you around.

>>17872455
Okay, so holding spooksters to the standard of having *any* explanation is too much, I get it - you got nothing
Feel free to provide a supernatural explanation for how the soul sees without eyes, btw I don't want to limit you to material explanations

>>17872452
>Just look at what they have done to their supposed citizens
Made us pretty rich lmao. Anyways you're just a retard. Groups of people are different and this difference inherently leads them to have different collective interests.
>cue vague paraphrasing of Carl Schmitt

>>17872452
If everyone in the world was white and I'd be all for open borders.

>>17872460
What am I coping about?
You're the one that just KEEPS ON LYING in every single post
NDEs does not involve dead people, that's just a fact

I don't understand why you are being so difficult about this. You should just go like "ok, my mistake"

>>17872465
Yeah, look at what thinking we are "different" has done. Not only do they fuck shit up for their own people, nations also fuck shit up for each other, always for total bullshit reasons. You know what it takes for a nation to not be shit and do something good for once with the power structure it upholds? For America, it took 750,000 lives to ban slavery once and for all. Revolution. That's what it takes, every single time.

>>17872461
lmao
You are committed to same belief, you also believe dreams involve the brain
Don't pretend you don't

Acting like this is something I need to justify, and argue for.. JFC

>>17872479
>look at what thinking we are "different" has done
But... we are different. If it were so easy to just say we're all the same and abolish war people would've done it years ago. It's simple game theory.

>>17872482
I am actually not committed to any such thing. We have never once translated a dream to a visual that we can view on a computer screen. When we can do that, the needle moves toward one side for me. But when it comes to dreams, which we really have very little understanding of, I keep a very open mind.

>>17872464
Your inability to comprehend the topic is of no fault other than your own. You lacking the core processing to comprehend metaphysics is a sign you need psychotherapy. You’ve done the equivalent of walking into a discussion about mathematics and demanding the participants to explain to you in simple terms how two objects added unto two other objects consists of four objects. No one has any obligation to give you an explanation for topics that are out of your league, and in fact it’s expected in this environment that you would already possess the basic comprehension of metaphysical concepts to begin with rather than needing a 12 year old’s philosophy lesson.

>>17872470
More cope and projection.

>people fell for this for over 2000 years

>>17872493
We really are not. When you actually look at what a nation is, it's just a house of cards. As I mentioned, all supposed differences are bullshit and fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. But the power structures of nations inevitably want more power, and they will not be the ones who scrutinize those reasons. Those who align themselves with nations are dupes. The transcendent ideal is that humanity scrutinizes these purported differences into oblivion.

>>17872494
Mind so open your brain fell out

Do you think humans can dream without a brain, like if they took a nuclear explosion to the head?
Of course you don't, you're just being difficult for the sake of it. That's why doctors can put electrodes in your brain, and guess if you're dreaming or not. Wake you up in the middle of a dream, waaay better than random chance
Putting all the work on me, to justify the most BASIC shit literally every human agrees on - that dreams involve the brain - , while offering contributing no theory of your own. Do you think that's a double standard?

>>17872392
If you actually read the few examples of G-LOC experiences given in what I believe is one of the main papers on this topic, the G-LOC experiences seem much more like dreams than NDEs, and the author doesn't seem to mention seeing passed loved ones, talking to God, having life reviews, or even (though maybe I missed it from skimming) proper out of body experiences as part of G-LOC.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc798874/m2/1/high_res_d/vol15-no4-231.pdf
G-LOC Subject #1
I was home... saw my mom and my brother. I could not see myself. I can't remember what we were doing, but when I came back [to consciousness] I thought I shouldn't be here [in the centrifuge]. We were outdoors; it was wild! I got to go home [by dreaming] without talking [military] leave!

There was a sunset. I cannot remember where. The sun was orange-red; an October sunset... Maybe it was in Michigan.

G-LOC Subject #2
I was floating in a blue ocean on my back, kind of asleep but not asleep. I knew the sun was up.. like someone was trying to wake me up. Finally, I woke up and I was on the centrifuge! I did not want to wake up. I could see myself on the water and also look at the sun; the sky was very blue, the sun was very yellow.

G-LOC Subject #3
I was in the grocery store going down one of the aisles. I was being propelled by something like a magic carpet, although I could not make movements. I wanted to reach out and get a carton of ice cream but could not move my arm or even my eyes to look for it. It was intensely frustrating to hear the warning horn and not be able to get my arm down to turn the darn thing off.

>>17872497
lot of text to keep saying nothing

Still waiting for - how the soul sees heaven without eyes
how any of this is supposed to work?

>>17872510
Show me how we know for a fact that a dream requires a brain.

>>17872499
Do you even disagree with anything I said?
Be specific, what did I say that you think is wrong

>>17872509
>When you actually look at what a nation is, it's just a house of cards
You can deconstruct literally anything if you dig hard enough.
>all supposed differences are bullshit and fall apart at the slightest scrutiny
fucking lmao. The enemy nations that take over yours won't agree.

>>17872519
I don't have proof, I just have inductive reasoning
too bad, so sad

But you already know this, and agree with it

Why did God stop sending bears to maul children for people on their behalf?

>>17872511
>Christians invented sunsets

>>17872523
>unsourced image

>>17872528
You're actually retarded.

>>17872523
As I noted, it takes no digging whatsoever.

The "enemy nations" have the exact same problem. But the very concept of an "enemy nation" is quite simple-minded and lacking in the scrutiny I have mentioned. Have you ever asked why you think someone is your enemy? It doesn't sound like it. And if you are a racist, I'm sorry but there are only a couple of things we can do with you.

>>17872529
>unsourced image
>unsolicited insult in response to inquery
Estimted IQ: 85

>>17872519
Do you even disagree with anything I said?
Do you believe humans can dream without a brain? If so, I'dd like some kind of reply as to how you explain away the doctors ability to wake you up in the middle of dreaming, etc

don't think I'm just missing how you contribute nothing and keep dodging any implicit challenge to your beliefs

>>17872517
Again you aren’t owed an explanation of basic metaphysics if you have the hubris to debate about it despite failing to comprehend fundamentals.

>>17872540
Just tell me how the soul see without eyes

>>17872542
No.

>>17872533
>Have you ever asked why you think someone is your enemy?
Because they're different to me. And because the interests of those who are different to me and similar to me are in conflict. If you don't want to think collectively then you will lose. Universalism is an unstable position, it's not a Nash equilibrium. You can't build a political system off it.
>>17872537
You don't need to dig deep to know that Whites make more money than blacks and Hispanics, and that blacks and Hispanics are more often on government services because they're poorer. Any source will agree with that.

>>17872527
What does this response have to do with my post? I don't think NDEs actually support Christianity for the most part. The idea that they reliably reflect a person's existing religious beliefs seems to be mostly a myth, an impression coming from a minority of claimed NDEs mostly written by people trying to sell books.

>>17872539
We don't even know what dreams are. I don't accept any positive takes on the matter.

>>17872545
>You don't need to dig deep to know that Whites make more money than blacks and Hispanics,
Appeal to Self-Evident Truth Fallacy
Estimated IQ: 80

>>17872553
Look for the sources yourself if you disagree. I won't play along with your bullshit because you know I'm right and you don't want to argue on substance.

>>17872543
No, but seriously
During an NDE when the soul floats out of the body and you look down at your unconscious body at the operating table
The soul is able to perceive stuff the body on the operating table would not, like numeral plates on top of of lamps, details of the equipment being used and even the colour of the surgeons clothes - all with the patients eyes closed and zero brain activity
all that physical stuff, without physical interaction

How do you explain the soul seeing all of that, without eyes? What's going on?

>>17872555
>Look for the sources yourself
Burden of Proof, if it's easy for me to find said sources its just as easy for you to as well and the burden if on the one making the claim
Estimated IQ: 75
I thought the master race would be smarter than this

>>17872545
Name the differences you perceive. I need to know which lines of bullshit you have integrated into your life.

>>17872559
I concede. Blacks make the same amount of money as whites and are on welfare at the same rate. Fuck you. Doesn't even matter to the point I'm making.

>>17872552
Right, you only know stuff like this
>Not religious at all, but dreams definitely contradict this.
clown

>>17872563
They're a difference race.

>>17872566
>Blacks make the same amount of money as whites and are on welfare at the same rate.
I know that's not true, but I was wondering where you get the idea that they're a net loss because when I read that my bullshit detector immediately goes off

>>17872571
>I know that's not true
Then you're admitting you've been facetious the whole time. I don't know if the numbers in that graph are exactly correct and I honestly don't care. The fact is that they contribute less per capita than whites do. Whether both are a net negative or only blacks are is irrelevant.

>>17872570
So this is why I support re-education centers for remedial adults.

>>17872577
We tried that. For 60 years we've been taught that racism is bad, that to judge people on their race is worse than murder. I myself was educated believing this. But when I realized that the standard of living and quality of life of people like me has declined since the civil rights revolution I began not to care. I am a white identitarian because. I need no justification. The generations before me didn't. Young white men are the most right wing demographic. The multiracial experiment has failed.

>>17872582
You associated the decline in QOL with a weak, libbed up "expansion of rights"? First of all, your history is completely wrong. Life in America was swell up until the 80s, when it got worse for minorities in particular, and then afterwards it got worse for the rest of us. Neoliberalism is your enemy. And of course you never paused to even consider this.

>>17872587
>Life in America was swell up until the 80s
When the country was 80% White?
>Neoliberalism is your enemy
It is. And who supports neoliberalism?

>>17872582
>>17872587
Living standards have by-and-large gone up over the past half-century, they're just not YOUR standards specifically so you project your personal issues onto everyone else. Nobody cares that you think le west has le fallen bud

>>17872582
They are the "most" right wing demographic, but still not a majority. Rightoids rely on elderly people whose brains don't work anymore. The tide is breaking and pulling back hard.

>>17872589
Every corporate elite in existence.

>>17872556
God did it. Which is why this is evidence for deism.

>>17872593
I don't know why you replied to me there, I don't even believe in "the west".

>>17872593
>Living standards have by-and-large gone up over the past half-century, they're just not YOUR standards specifically
It's almost like you're getting it.
>>17872594
Young white men will control the destiny of the west.
>>17872596
And the corporate elites are super racist and hate immigration... Right? How deliberately ignorant can you be lmao

>>17872602
We have completely different, totally contradictory interests. And you are on the side of the elites here. It's funny that you think you're not.

>>17872614
>We have completely different, totally contradictory interests
Almost like that's why universalism is impossible AHAHAHAHA
>And you are on the side of the elites here
Then why are all of the schools, media, and companies anti-racist?

>>17872615
Universalism is impossible between corporate elites and the rest of us? Abso-fucking-lutely. What a question. You're obsessed with aesthetics. "Anti-racist", "pro-immigration", more bullshit. You want to keep those power structures, and strengthen them. You want to suck cock so your idealized daddy state will give you special treatment.

>>17872634
>between elites and the rest of us
So after the revolution, how exactly are you going to go about abolishing power? Leftists are so delusional that they think they can abolish power entirely lol.
>You want to keep those power structures
Yes? We cannot operate as a society without an elite class. My only problem is that the elites are not loyal to my nation.

>>17872637
Abolishing power? Which right wing pinhead moron gave you this idea? And thank you for agreeing that you want to suck daddy's cock for special treatment. The first step to recovery is acknowledging there's a problem.

>the elites are not loyal to my nation
Or maybe, the nation is not loyal to you.

>>17872645
How is this problem not going to happen again after the revolution? Because after the revolution you're just going to have a new elite, and your problem is with the fact that an elite exists. So how do you stop this from happening?
>Or maybe, the nation is not loyal to you.
That's just not true lol.

>>17872649
There is no "after the revolution." Again, where did you get this idea?

>>17872655
So what's your ideology then? How do you get rid of the elite class?

>>17872657
The capitalist class is a structure that does not necessarily automatically evolve into existence. It only exists because humanity took a wrong turn at some point in history. If it is destroyed, it does not automatically come back. Once the global capitalist class is done away with, things can return to normal mostly.

>>17872661
What exactly is "normal" to you?
>The capitalist class is a structure that does not necessarily automatically evolve into existence. It only exists because humanity took a wrong turn at some point in history
I agree, that's why we need a nationalist, racist elite class.

>>17872663
The lives of the normal working people are normal. The elites will be gone, which will make the world a much nicer place to live in. They are the source of all misery.

>>17872665
>The elites will be gone
And new elites will rise up.
>They are the source of all misery
Insofar as human nature necessitates elites, and human nature is the source of misery, I agree.

>>17872673
Nope, as I mentioned, this is not a natural mechanism of history. There will be no new "elites" as there is no way that such a thing could happen. If the people consciously get rid of them, don't you think they'd want to keep them gone?

>>17872679
>this is not a natural mechanism of history
Find a society without elites. You won't be able to.
>There will be no new "elites" as there is no way that such a thing could happen
Who's preventing it from happening?

>>17872683
Do you consider yourself class conscious? If you do, I gotta say, you really aren't.

>>17872683
Also, the fact that such hierarchies are common between cultures just indicates that the wrong turn happened very early on. They are not all identical either.

>>17872685
I think that's an absurd oversimpliciation of the way power works. I consider class collaboration to be the ideal form of society, and us straying from that is the problem. I have an actual way to fix my problem. You don't.
See >>17872679
>If the people consciously get rid of them, don't you think they'd want to keep them gone?
To keep elites from rising up, someone will have to have power to prevent this. That person will become the new elite. The example I use is of music. A string quartet doesn't need a conductor. An orchestra does. As the population increases, so does hierarchy. It's a necessary function to keep everything working.

>>17872688
>just indicates that the wrong turn happened very early on
So are you just a Unabomber fan?
>They are not all identical either
Obviously not, but elites exist in democracy just like they do in autocracy. Elites exist in communist (realistically fascist) China, and they exist in democratic (realistically oligarchic) America. How do you propose getting rid of elites?

>>17872693
Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant guy and I think he could have been a much more effective foe to capitalism when he was young. I think he had some kind of mental collapse that caused him to do the things he did, targeting university professors and stuff. Not a fan of that.
Also, elites do not automatically exist anywhere, the establishment of a people's government sees to the defense of the people's power from any nefarious uses. Capitalism should be the dirty word, not socialism.
>>17872691
I mean, when you call my take a simplification and then compare it to an orchestra, which is actually a diverse collection of elements that work in harmony with the "leader", idk man lol. But I'm having fun, we can continue if you want.

>>17872722
>the establishment of a people's government sees to the defense of the people's power from any nefarious uses
Those are just loyal elites. They're still elites, since they hold the power.
>which is actually a diverse collection of elements that work in harmony with the "leader", idk man lol
Isn't that exactly my point? You have a leader, who has the ultimate power, and then the individuals are essential for the production, but they can't all have equal power. So the conductor is the authority, and he gets his power from the people. It's a perfect analogy. Oversimplification yes, since an orchestra is dozens of people and a country is millions.

>>17872728
No, 'government' in socialism is completely distinct from the capitalist state. Labor would be involved in policy decisions. "Loyalty" is to the singular goal of mankind's elevation as a species.

>>17872746
>Labor would be involved in policy decisions
So it's just democracy then. You're not going to get a better system than the American one, at least the original, unmolested vision. Having "Labor involved in policy decisions" is literally just what we have now.
>"Loyalty" is to the singular goal of mankind's elevation as a species
What makes you think that your goal is universally shared amongst everyone? I have my goals of what the ideal future would be, but at least I'm humble enough to understand that not everyone shares it.

>>17872747
I'd say every single thing any socialist would do if they took power would contribute to that goal, regardless of if that is their specific intent. It all contributes. We think socialism is just part of human evolution. If the ruling class were more consenting to it (and maybe this could have happened in a different history) the change from one social organization to the next could be far less violent. Not so with ours. Additionally, let us not forget the materialist part. The fact is, we did not have the technology to have this kind of social organization when the first actual socialists began calling for the kind of universal society we still call for. The future they pictured is here, truly, and personally I am optimistic.

>>17872765
>We think socialism is just part of human evolution
Yeah well that's just retarded. You realize that at this state evolution is a process guided by people to where they want to take society? We now have agency. My goal is a white supremacist global world order that fuses technology with traditional values. That's fundamentally opposed to your vision. You still don't understand that not everyone shares your vision.

>>17872771
Oh yeah I get you completely, and that's why when I with my friends take over, you go to gulag. I'm an authoritarian socialist.

Christ is the Lord.
If 4chan is making you to separate from God (constant hate, racism, nazism, etc) then its better to quit it off.
Thanks and God bless you my dear brother

>>17872776
Gobless

>>17872775
Schmitt vindicated

>>17872776
>racism
A concept that didn't exist until the twentieth century? I won't hand over my nation to be destroyed so easily.
>God bless you my dear brother
Kill yourself faggot. Don't pretend you have love for me. It's all fake, and you know it.

>>17872779
Only because the times call for it. I've been a much more peaceful person in the past. I wouldn't want it to stay that way. Like I said, things will go back to normal after some tough times.

>>17872784
Well young white men are going straight towards my side, not yours. Not looking good for you guys.

>>17872787
Nowhere close to a majority of them. The more the right pokes and prods, the more authoritarian the left is going to get, and those young white men are looking for authoritarian figures to follow, that's literally all they want. The left doesn't have any authie figures out there, and I think that's all we really need. The times are calling for this. And anyway, it's super easy to be authoritarian about giving people better healthcare and housing. To make the other side your enemy because they don't really want to do those things. That's what the shitlib democrats fail on.

>>17872798
>Nowhere close to a majority of them
No, but they're closer to my side than yours.
>The more the right pokes and prods, the more authoritarian the left is going to get
And the more authoritarian the right is going to get as well. We're seeing the political bifurcation of America, and young white men are (naturally) going to want to be on my side. The fact is that white men will be better off in a racist system than a colorblind leftist one. There's no way to bridge that gap. And I think history shows that young white men are a force to be reckoned with. So sure, start the race war. I don't think you're gonna win.

>>17872803
I really do not believe yall would win just saying. I think the right really does not have the revolutionary spirit, I don't think it can exist with them. I've never seen any indication that they could be effective at it. I think you'd have money on your side, but I don't know if that would be enough. The US military would not be effective against an active guerilla militia either.

>>17872810
>the heckin' multiracial equality coalition will win
dude you are so fucked.
>The US military would not be effective against an active guerilla militia either
lmao

>>17872813
See, you'd base your strategy off of caricatures. I think it is your side that are the pussies who are fucked.

>>17872817
What the fuck does your side have to offer to young white men? As for non-whites, they'll have far inferior organization, and many of them will self-deport.

>>17872819
Well, to the smart ones who don't behave like chimpanzees, I can offer jobs, meaningful existence, and a brighter future. To the racist types, we will have very nice education facilities where they can stay and become social beings.

>>17872823
>I can offer jobs, meaningful existence, and a brighter future
Except there's less chance of white people prospering in a multiracial environment than in a white supremacist one? My friend has a CS internship and the Indians there are blatantly favoritist.

>>17872365
don't pretend christian colonizers saved anyone

you were there to kill and replace the locals and steal everything that you can put on a boat

>>17872831
>replace the locals
And build a far superior civilization.

>>17872827
Job placement and advancement is an important process and should not be left up to a single individual who can hire or fire anyone at will. Favoritism could not exist without that. Also, I am of course not in favor of any racial group being allowed to prefer one over the other, and I am opposed to race-based affirmative action. This policy should have ALWAYS been based on class, but when it was implemented, talking about class would get you called a communist.

>>17872836
You still don't understand. You'll be begging for mercy and appealing to Marx and then the brown savages will kill you.

>>17872837
Nah I'm cool with the blacks.

>>17872841
Until one high on crack shoots you on the street lmao

>>17872843
Never said I was opposed to self-defense, but generally when me and my friends take power, that won't be a thing that happens anymore, period.

>>17872845
You are actually so delusional.

>>17872849
Right back atcha.

>>17872850
How exactly am I delusional? You think that somehow you're going to get rid of all crime, abolish all power and integrate all races. At least my ideology is a Nash equilibrium.

>>17872851
There you go again, "abolish all power", what does this mean? The power goes to the people.

>>17872857
Power, by definition, cannot be held by everyone. "The people" cannot wield their power in any way.

>>17872859
I guess that is a fundamental disagreement that we have.

>>17872860
Yeah and I'm right lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
You couldn't come up with a single society that doesn't have an elite class.

>>17872862
We addressed it already, I don't need to. Society didn't exist when we made the turn toward this behavior.

>>17872864
And again, you've provided no mechanism through which to change this. Your only suggestion was to democratize everything. The problem is that even in democracies there's an elite.

>>17872867
I addressed this as well. Destroy the elite class. Specifically a conscious effort by the working people to do so. That's a revolution. Any kind of revolution, but in our world there has always been some violence because the elites resist the change. But this is the final confrontation, after which the world can become one. The iron law simply does not apply to socialism or communism, because the society is built from the bottom up.

>>17872867
"Michels was born to a wealthy German family in Cologne, Germany on January 9, 1876."
This guy couldn't even conceive of a proletarian world government. Fuck him.

>>17872873
>Destroy the elite class
This has happened many times over. It even happened in Nazi Germany. Nature abhors a vacuum. How do you propose that we prevent an elite from forming after the revolution?
>The iron law simply does not apply to socialism or communism, because the society is built from the bottom up
>built from the bottom up
Meaningless statement

>>17872876
Most of the innovation in the world has come from the upper classes. If you dismiss someone's ideas because they were born in a wealthy family then you're a retard.

>>17872304
Why would Deism hold back Humanity from unification. In my opinion, the law of evolution and change prevents man from ever being fully unified. At least in a biological/mental level. I’m sure God (in a deistic sense) wouldn’t mind if Mankind every unified. So I don’t see how Deists hold it back. At least not in the way Theists and Atheists wouldn’t be the same or more decisive to a unified Humanity and Earth. I’m not against Globalism, believe it or not, but I don’t see it possible for aforementioned reasons. It could be, but since there is no true collective thinking or thought besides genetic inheritance/intuition. It seems not likely unless a biological, chemical, or digital mode of operation and/or discovery makes it plausible beyond those genetic codes. Many Political and Religious institutions and ideologies have tried via their functions, rituals, beliefs, force, attempts, trials, etc; that it clearly could not be by those methods to unify Humanity. In fact, they did the opposite for thousands of years.

>>17872878
Oh, I'm the king of retards then, because I think it is totally valid to judge someone for being born rich, unless at some point they became very poor, because that actually can give someone who may have false consciousness real class consciousness.
>>17872877
You don't know what socialism is.

>>17872882
>I think it is totally valid to judge someone for being born rich
But it's not valid to judge someone for being a certain race? LMAO
>You don't know what socialism is
I don't, its definition is so vague that it can mean any number of things.

>>17871552
>there is a god that created the universe
>he wants us to worship him
>he only revealed his existence to some jews in a desert thousands of years ago
>he expects you to believe everything these desert jews said thousands of years ago and refuses to reveal himself to anyone

>>17872335
This

>>17871545 (OP)
Deism is just another fantasy for people who are too cowardly to grow out of religion. The universe works perfectly fine without any creator whatsoever.

>>17872416
>Why do all NDE victims report having the same experiences if afterlives are non-existent?
They don’t lol. An Americans NDE is different from an Indians NDE. They meet different Gods, “experience” different afterlives, etc.
>Wouldn’t their experiences just be too inconsistent from each other’s if they were hallucinations? Why aren’t they dreaming of pink elephants and vagina mouths if it’s nothing more than chemicals in the brain hallucinating?
Because it’s an evolutionary coping mechanism. Your brain is panicking and trying to convince itself that it’s alive and that everything is going to be okay.
>The fact they all report having the same experiences is extremely unusual, reducing things down to material components fails to explain this.
It does tho

>>17872443
Lazurus was actually dead tho. Near death experiences are exactly that: being near death. You can’t come back from the dead. So why would someone who’s not dead be let into the afterlife?

>>17872440
Indian NDEs have them seeing Shiva and shit

>>17872461
>Why do dreams presumably involve the brain?
Because you can alter dreams and their intensity through substances + we can scan yoyr brain while you’re dreaming and see what parts of your brain are active.

>>17872552
>We don't even know what dreams are
Yeah we do lol it’s your brain cataloguing shit

>>17873126
No it doesn't. There being no God means that we cannot authoritatively say that evolution granted us reason that maps onto the external world.