Anonymous
6/19/2025, 12:48:50 AM No.24477513
how old were you when you realized he was an atheist?
Replies:
Thread 24477513 - /lit/ [Archived: 867 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 1:28:14 AM No.24477624
>>24477513 (OP)
What’s all this atheist bullshit? Is this the summerfags with their lame posts?
What’s all this atheist bullshit? Is this the summerfags with their lame posts?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 1:43:56 AM No.24477658
>>24477624
It’s probably all from a single sperg.
It’s probably all from a single sperg.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 1:45:42 AM No.24477661
>>24477658
this is the first post i've made in a few weeks, not sure what that guy's talking about.
this is the first post i've made in a few weeks, not sure what that guy's talking about.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:02:15 AM No.24477682
>>24477652
Yeah, summerfags.
Yeah, summerfags.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:06:28 AM No.24477692
>>24477624
Atheists think 4chan is r/atheism, official 4chan banners mock atheists, yet they think every board needs to be their safe space.
OP's not even talking about books, but I am asking for book recommendations and you faggot tranny pedophile atheists spam my thread to death with your jewish kvetching.
It's more likely some fag atheist trying to make their critics look bad to get the mods to wipe every thread faggot atheist pedophiles don't like.
Atheists think 4chan is r/atheism, official 4chan banners mock atheists, yet they think every board needs to be their safe space.
OP's not even talking about books, but I am asking for book recommendations and you faggot tranny pedophile atheists spam my thread to death with your jewish kvetching.
It's more likely some fag atheist trying to make their critics look bad to get the mods to wipe every thread faggot atheist pedophiles don't like.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:15:10 AM No.24477702
>>24477692
The fuck is wrong with you?
The fuck is wrong with you?
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:21:12 AM No.24477719
You genuinely deserve 100 lashes with a cat o' nine tails for this post. This is not a joke, I am 100% serious. I am not a violent man, but given the opportunity I would volunteer to give you your just punishment, for your own good.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:26:26 AM No.24477726
>>24477692
Will you shut up with Reddit, you already made ten posts on different threads with that same "argument". Why are you trying to kill this board, anon?
Will you shut up with Reddit, you already made ten posts on different threads with that same "argument". Why are you trying to kill this board, anon?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:28:38 AM No.24477729
>>24477513 (OP)
Plotinus was not an atheist, his One fits most of the conceptions of God in the Classical Theist Tradition.
Demiurge-worshippers like WLC et dont have a monopoly on the meaning of “God” or “Theism”
Plotinus was not an atheist, his One fits most of the conceptions of God in the Classical Theist Tradition.
Demiurge-worshippers like WLC et dont have a monopoly on the meaning of “God” or “Theism”
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:32:16 AM No.24477736
>>24477513 (OP)
12 years of age living in my brainlet parents house
12 years of age living in my brainlet parents house
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:35:59 AM No.24477741
>>24477729
it really isn't, the Nous is closer to the God of classical theists, the Plotinian One is closer to Buddhist and Hindu annihilationist religions
one funny thing about Plotinus that Guenon pointed out was how silly it is to claim to have 3 discrete moments of unity with the One, as if one could find unity with it and then lose it. this was for Guenon proof that Plotinus was kind of a retard
but maybe it was Porphyry telling lies and butchering Plotinus, there is a very curious absence of any commentary on Christianity by Plotinus
it really isn't, the Nous is closer to the God of classical theists, the Plotinian One is closer to Buddhist and Hindu annihilationist religions
one funny thing about Plotinus that Guenon pointed out was how silly it is to claim to have 3 discrete moments of unity with the One, as if one could find unity with it and then lose it. this was for Guenon proof that Plotinus was kind of a retard
but maybe it was Porphyry telling lies and butchering Plotinus, there is a very curious absence of any commentary on Christianity by Plotinus
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:57:22 AM No.24477779
>>24477741
>Buddhist and Hindu annihilationist religions
Oh shit it's the annihilationist schizoposter again. Take your meds and stop posting here, tranny.
>Buddhist and Hindu annihilationist religions
Oh shit it's the annihilationist schizoposter again. Take your meds and stop posting here, tranny.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:04:31 AM No.24477796
>>24477779
Annihilationism is what Plotinus preaches. Any other reading is dishonest.
Unity with the One for Plotinus is about turning off your brain, losing your memory, losing your identity, and thinking of nothing forever.
Annihilationism is what Plotinus preaches. Any other reading is dishonest.
Unity with the One for Plotinus is about turning off your brain, losing your memory, losing your identity, and thinking of nothing forever.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:06:27 AM No.24477801
>>24477796
Although there are some like Lloyd Gerson who argue that Plotinus mysticism is in fact Nous mysticism. That he never really seeks to ascend higher than the Nous. Seems sussy though, and this would scandalize annihilationist advocates like people who half understand Guenon.
Although there are some like Lloyd Gerson who argue that Plotinus mysticism is in fact Nous mysticism. That he never really seeks to ascend higher than the Nous. Seems sussy though, and this would scandalize annihilationist advocates like people who half understand Guenon.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:16:34 AM No.24477815
>>24477796
>>24477801
Whatever you say, tranny. I've given you all the help I could. Seems like it will never be enough. Have a good life.
>>24477801
Whatever you say, tranny. I've given you all the help I could. Seems like it will never be enough. Have a good life.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:30:35 AM No.24477837
>>24477719
another follower of plotinus who was filtered
another follower of plotinus who was filtered
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:35:45 AM No.24477851
>>24477729
>his One fits most of the conceptions of God in the Classical Theist Tradition.
the One does not have any knowledge of itself and does not actively create anything. It merely "overflows." How is this theist?
>>24477741
>Buddhist and Hindu annihilationist religions
these religions are not "annihilationist."
>as if one could find unity with it and then lose it.
if you're an advaitin fag who thinks the physical world isnt real then you are too low IQ for greek philosophy.
>his One fits most of the conceptions of God in the Classical Theist Tradition.
the One does not have any knowledge of itself and does not actively create anything. It merely "overflows." How is this theist?
>>24477741
>Buddhist and Hindu annihilationist religions
these religions are not "annihilationist."
>as if one could find unity with it and then lose it.
if you're an advaitin fag who thinks the physical world isnt real then you are too low IQ for greek philosophy.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:35:50 AM No.24477852
>>24477796
>losing your identity
How is the One capable of losing something? Your composite is recorded eternally and can be perfectly recalled, reformed, etc. if the One does that.
>losing your identity
How is the One capable of losing something? Your composite is recorded eternally and can be perfectly recalled, reformed, etc. if the One does that.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:37:05 AM No.24477857
>>24477692
Well, /lit/ does have an unusually high number of redditors, so it makes sense they’d feel more at home here than on other boards.
Case in point >>24477726
>I’ve been found out!
Well, /lit/ does have an unusually high number of redditors, so it makes sense they’d feel more at home here than on other boards.
Case in point >>24477726
>I’ve been found out!
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:45:52 AM No.24477869
>>24477692
“Official 4chan banners” is the least 4chan thing in existence. Go back
“Official 4chan banners” is the least 4chan thing in existence. Go back
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:50:47 AM No.24477877
>>24477513 (OP)
I believe in God and I don't see how believing in God matters. It doesn't affect any important decisions a person makes or serve any ultimate purpose.
I believe in God and I don't see how believing in God matters. It doesn't affect any important decisions a person makes or serve any ultimate purpose.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:35:33 AM No.24478063
>>24477851
> How is this theist?
Even if we grant that it’s closer to Deism, Deism still isn’t atheism, which specifically refers to the denial of any God whether theist or deist. For this reason, it’s a juvenile and sophistic argument to make (as OP apparently is) that any conception of the divine which is not Theist is automatically atheist.
With that said, you have to remember that the Nous is an emanation of the One and is like a reflection of the One on a lower level of reality and that the Nous is carrying out many of the classic Theist functions for the One by proxy.
> How is this theist?
Even if we grant that it’s closer to Deism, Deism still isn’t atheism, which specifically refers to the denial of any God whether theist or deist. For this reason, it’s a juvenile and sophistic argument to make (as OP apparently is) that any conception of the divine which is not Theist is automatically atheist.
With that said, you have to remember that the Nous is an emanation of the One and is like a reflection of the One on a lower level of reality and that the Nous is carrying out many of the classic Theist functions for the One by proxy.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:37:08 AM No.24478068
>>24477741
> Hindu annihilationist religions
Nobody can claim that Hindu philosophy/metaphysics is annihilationist unless you are simply stupid or arguing in bad faith.
> Hindu annihilationist religions
Nobody can claim that Hindu philosophy/metaphysics is annihilationist unless you are simply stupid or arguing in bad faith.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:38:44 AM No.24478071
>>24477851
> if you're an advaitin fag who thinks the physical world isnt real then you are too low IQ for greek philosophy.
Plato says in Timaeus that things which change are less real than that which is unchanging, and the physical world is constantly changing.
> if you're an advaitin fag who thinks the physical world isnt real then you are too low IQ for greek philosophy.
Plato says in Timaeus that things which change are less real than that which is unchanging, and the physical world is constantly changing.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:42:58 AM No.24478082
>>24478071
As far as we know nothing is unchanging
As far as we know nothing is unchanging
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:01:21 AM No.24478130
>>24478082
>As far as we know nothing is unchanging
have you ever heard of a thing called 'metaphysics' or are you some naive empiricist or something?
>As far as we know nothing is unchanging
have you ever heard of a thing called 'metaphysics' or are you some naive empiricist or something?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:04:23 AM No.24478145
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:11:34 AM No.24478165
>>24478063
It’s not close to deism because deists still believe in an intelligent creator.
Intellect does not carry out the roles of the theistic God. Intellect is completely self centered and is focused only on the divine intellection of the unity of pure being and the act of seeing itself. It does not create anything, things emanate from it through the same overflowing process of the One. Intellect does not administer anything in the cosmos, only soul does. The only candidate for anything by like a god is the world soul. But what does the world soul actually do? It essentially does nothing except emanate the individual souls. Plotinus didn’t even believe in astrology. His philosophy is completely fatalistic where anything proceeds according to the logic of procession/emanation (proodon). In Timaeus the conflict is between Necessity and The Good, in Plotinus none of the higher orders choose to emanate the lower orders. The lower orders emanate from them as a matter of necessity. There is never any act of creation throughout the whole chain, except arguably by matter, which is the opposite of the Good.
It’s not close to deism because deists still believe in an intelligent creator.
Intellect does not carry out the roles of the theistic God. Intellect is completely self centered and is focused only on the divine intellection of the unity of pure being and the act of seeing itself. It does not create anything, things emanate from it through the same overflowing process of the One. Intellect does not administer anything in the cosmos, only soul does. The only candidate for anything by like a god is the world soul. But what does the world soul actually do? It essentially does nothing except emanate the individual souls. Plotinus didn’t even believe in astrology. His philosophy is completely fatalistic where anything proceeds according to the logic of procession/emanation (proodon). In Timaeus the conflict is between Necessity and The Good, in Plotinus none of the higher orders choose to emanate the lower orders. The lower orders emanate from them as a matter of necessity. There is never any act of creation throughout the whole chain, except arguably by matter, which is the opposite of the Good.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:18:09 AM No.24478188
>>24478145
>That is not what he said.
Now first of all we must, in my judgement, make the following distinction. What is that which is Existent always and has no Becoming? And what is that which is Becoming always and never is Existent? Now the one of these is apprehensible by thought with the aid of reasoning, since it is ever uniformly existent; whereas the other is an object of opinion with the aid of unreasoning sensation, since it becomes and perishes and is never really existent.
>That is not what he said.
Now first of all we must, in my judgement, make the following distinction. What is that which is Existent always and has no Becoming? And what is that which is Becoming always and never is Existent? Now the one of these is apprehensible by thought with the aid of reasoning, since it is ever uniformly existent; whereas the other is an object of opinion with the aid of unreasoning sensation, since it becomes and perishes and is never really existent.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:22:53 AM No.24478205
>>24478188
none of this implies that the physical world is not “real,” or even that it doesn’t “exist,” despite the translation using the term “existent.” Again, he was writing in Greek and was using a Greek way of thinking. Meanwhile you haphazardly apply your 21st century dilettante mindset, influenced by eastern and other philosophies which did not exist in plato’s time, to draw the conclusion that plato thought that the physical world was not “real.”
none of this implies that the physical world is not “real,” or even that it doesn’t “exist,” despite the translation using the term “existent.” Again, he was writing in Greek and was using a Greek way of thinking. Meanwhile you haphazardly apply your 21st century dilettante mindset, influenced by eastern and other philosophies which did not exist in plato’s time, to draw the conclusion that plato thought that the physical world was not “real.”
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:45:21 AM No.24478260
>>24478205
He says the world of becoming is ‘never really existent’, what else would that mean?
He says the world of becoming is ‘never really existent’, what else would that mean?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:57:26 AM No.24478306
>>24478260
1. He didn’t say that. You are translating that translation into your own narrow conceptual range
2. Read the excerpt. He is clearly using “existent” as a synonym for “not having becoming.” You need to determine how he is using the word, rather than assuming that it means what you think it means. This is simply the Greek way of speaking. All he is saying is that truths and forms which the mind cognize are unchanging, and things in the sensory world are changing. He is just using “Existent” as a way of saying “unchanging.” this says nothing about their reality ir existence in the modern sense of the word.
1. He didn’t say that. You are translating that translation into your own narrow conceptual range
2. Read the excerpt. He is clearly using “existent” as a synonym for “not having becoming.” You need to determine how he is using the word, rather than assuming that it means what you think it means. This is simply the Greek way of speaking. All he is saying is that truths and forms which the mind cognize are unchanging, and things in the sensory world are changing. He is just using “Existent” as a way of saying “unchanging.” this says nothing about their reality ir existence in the modern sense of the word.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 7:01:42 AM No.24478324
>>24478260
Notice in particular that he didn’t say things in the world if becoming are never really existent, as that would be a meaningless tautology due to the fact that “becoming” and “not existent” are synonyms. What he did say was that things perceived through the senses are never really existent, because what he is doing is identifying what “the world of becoming” actually is. He is taking for granted that existent and becoming are the opposites, and trying to identify which is existent and which is becoming.
Notice in particular that he didn’t say things in the world if becoming are never really existent, as that would be a meaningless tautology due to the fact that “becoming” and “not existent” are synonyms. What he did say was that things perceived through the senses are never really existent, because what he is doing is identifying what “the world of becoming” actually is. He is taking for granted that existent and becoming are the opposites, and trying to identify which is existent and which is becoming.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 8:09:33 AM No.24478478
>>24478130
I understand basic metaphysics, midwit. It doesn't matter and proves nothing. You can argue it makes sense that God or whatever is immutable but the fact is we don't know. If it changed somehow, you wouldn't know.
I understand basic metaphysics, midwit. It doesn't matter and proves nothing. You can argue it makes sense that God or whatever is immutable but the fact is we don't know. If it changed somehow, you wouldn't know.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:09:39 PM No.24479131
>>24477692
>faggot tranny pedophile atheists
you can sense the pure neuroticism of the christcuck in his fight against phantom enemies
the same as some schizo yelling at the sky, yet we're supposed to believe this creed has intellectual seriousness
>faggot tranny pedophile atheists
you can sense the pure neuroticism of the christcuck in his fight against phantom enemies
the same as some schizo yelling at the sky, yet we're supposed to believe this creed has intellectual seriousness
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:21:27 PM No.24479147
>>24478165
> His philosophy is completely fatalistic where anything proceeds according to the logic of procession/emanation (proodon)
That’s based, God making decisions and evaluating options to choose is laughable and is just projecting human traits onto God
> His philosophy is completely fatalistic where anything proceeds according to the logic of procession/emanation (proodon)
That’s based, God making decisions and evaluating options to choose is laughable and is just projecting human traits onto God
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:29:13 PM No.24479160
>>24478165
> It’s not close to deism because deists still believe in an intelligent creator.
Regardless, its not atheism because its affirming an eternal uncaused divine supreme principle as the source of everything.
> It’s not close to deism because deists still believe in an intelligent creator.
Regardless, its not atheism because its affirming an eternal uncaused divine supreme principle as the source of everything.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:31:21 PM No.24479167
>>24478324
> What he did say was that things perceived through the senses are never really existent
exactly, not really different from what many easterners are saying
> What he did say was that things perceived through the senses are never really existent
exactly, not really different from what many easterners are saying
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:33:14 PM No.24479170
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:45:24 PM No.24479198
>>24477513 (OP)
I grew up in a non religious household and cannot fathom how anyone follows any kind of religion
I grew up in a non religious household and cannot fathom how anyone follows any kind of religion
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:56:02 PM No.24479231
>>24479170
cope
cope
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:05:45 PM No.24479262
>>24477796
>>24477741
this is called a libel
§4.3.5. But how will one soul still be yours, another this person’s and
another another’s? Will its lower part still belong to an individual, and
its higher part not to that individual, but to that which is above? If that is
the way it is, there will be Socrates whenever the soul of Socrates is in
a body, but he will perish5 exactly when he comes to be in the best state.25
In fact, no Being perishes, since even in the intelligible world the
intellects there, just because they are not divided as bodies are, are not
lost into a unity, but each abides in its own identity in differentiation
from the rest. So, the same applies to souls, too, in their turn, depending
as they do each on an intellect, being expressed principles10 of the intel-
lects, and being more diffused than they are, having in a way become
much from little, and being in contact with the little which is, in each
instance, less divided than they are. They want to be divided, even
though unable to proceed to a full state of division, preserving as they
do both identity and difference, and so each remains one, and all
together are one.
>>24477741
this is called a libel
§4.3.5. But how will one soul still be yours, another this person’s and
another another’s? Will its lower part still belong to an individual, and
its higher part not to that individual, but to that which is above? If that is
the way it is, there will be Socrates whenever the soul of Socrates is in
a body, but he will perish5 exactly when he comes to be in the best state.25
In fact, no Being perishes, since even in the intelligible world the
intellects there, just because they are not divided as bodies are, are not
lost into a unity, but each abides in its own identity in differentiation
from the rest. So, the same applies to souls, too, in their turn, depending
as they do each on an intellect, being expressed principles10 of the intel-
lects, and being more diffused than they are, having in a way become
much from little, and being in contact with the little which is, in each
instance, less divided than they are. They want to be divided, even
though unable to proceed to a full state of division, preserving as they
do both identity and difference, and so each remains one, and all
together are one.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:56:56 PM No.24479366
>>24477513 (OP)
>no God
>no special revelation
>somehow has detailed giga-autistic breakdown of the workings of the supernatural world
You may not like it, but even a charismatic Christian in a strip mall church is neoplatonicucks.
>no God
>no special revelation
>somehow has detailed giga-autistic breakdown of the workings of the supernatural world
You may not like it, but even a charismatic Christian in a strip mall church is neoplatonicucks.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:18:12 PM No.24479410
>>24479262
Are you gonna sue 4chan for libel? As an unironic neoplatonist inspired person, no it’s not atheism. Why does god have to take the form of some chode with lightning in hands sitting at the gates to heaven deciding whether or not hell should exist or not for people like me and you quite capriciously? You’re basically saying that guy must be the guy, meanwhile, I’d say that’s more equivalent to a high power angel or demon and a fragment of their nature, lol, given that my theories on this stuff are correct. There is honestly a roll on whether there’s an afterlife, and this never changes, however, the ramifications for this are static, and amount for the above in catholicism. Personifying the one is hilarious though, please keep making the divine human and this subjected to human sin.
Are you gonna sue 4chan for libel? As an unironic neoplatonist inspired person, no it’s not atheism. Why does god have to take the form of some chode with lightning in hands sitting at the gates to heaven deciding whether or not hell should exist or not for people like me and you quite capriciously? You’re basically saying that guy must be the guy, meanwhile, I’d say that’s more equivalent to a high power angel or demon and a fragment of their nature, lol, given that my theories on this stuff are correct. There is honestly a roll on whether there’s an afterlife, and this never changes, however, the ramifications for this are static, and amount for the above in catholicism. Personifying the one is hilarious though, please keep making the divine human and this subjected to human sin.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:55:25 PM No.24479476
>>24479262
You have probably spent a non-negligible amount of time writing up a response to a known schizo who's been obsessively posting slander about various spiritual traditions on this board for years. He won't learn. Many have tried to teach him already.
You have probably spent a non-negligible amount of time writing up a response to a known schizo who's been obsessively posting slander about various spiritual traditions on this board for years. He won't learn. Many have tried to teach him already.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 7:17:17 PM No.24479529
>>24479377
No Im not, also I’m not the “annihilationism” guy.
No Im not, also I’m not the “annihilationism” guy.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 7:36:28 PM No.24479586
>>24477513 (OP)
Platonism was the worst combination of spiritual atheism with dogmatic religiosity.
Going from the most basic prime move argument to a multi-layer elaborate cosmology involving the nous and logos that they argued for like there was any empiricism behind it is outstanding in the worst way. Plotinus especially, with how baroque the Enneads are.
Its a shame they left their malign mark on Christianity before their cult died.
Platonism was the worst combination of spiritual atheism with dogmatic religiosity.
Going from the most basic prime move argument to a multi-layer elaborate cosmology involving the nous and logos that they argued for like there was any empiricism behind it is outstanding in the worst way. Plotinus especially, with how baroque the Enneads are.
Its a shame they left their malign mark on Christianity before their cult died.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 7:39:10 PM No.24479592
>>24479262
This is having one's cake and eating it too.
If he seeks unity with the Nous then this internal division is going to vanish because the Nous is not subdivided but itself indivisible.
This is having one's cake and eating it too.
If he seeks unity with the Nous then this internal division is going to vanish because the Nous is not subdivided but itself indivisible.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 9:06:07 PM No.24479828
>>24479366
>somehow has detailed giga-autistic breakdown of the workings of the supernatural world
he's mostly wrong, though
>somehow has detailed giga-autistic breakdown of the workings of the supernatural world
he's mostly wrong, though
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 9:07:37 PM No.24479830
>>24479366
nvm, i thought this was the Epicurus thread. but to your point about special revelation, it's because he had access to natural revelation like all humans.
nvm, i thought this was the Epicurus thread. but to your point about special revelation, it's because he had access to natural revelation like all humans.