 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
He's Still Right, You Know
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
I have accepted that either God doesn't exist or I'm going to hell. I'm just not cut out for heaven, I'm an butthole. Maybe he will forgive me on my deathbed or something but tbqh I don't see it happening. Sometimes I have dreams where I'm being assaulted by demonic monsters and I call out Jesus' name and it saves me and then I feel tremendously guilty when I wake up for 'using' him like that when I am not even christian.
I think there’s a good chance “God” does exist but I don’t think it’s particularly concerned with humanity and I don’t think it has a bunch of human-like qualities. I can’t accept the anthropomorphized version of God. It makes no sense to me. However the universe became is something that cannot be known.
The Abrahamic God is arguably pretty spooky and abstract.
>I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’
>Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it?
>And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am:
Whenever anyone tries to ask him what the deal is he produces incomprehensible gibberish
Buddy, no one is cut out for heaven, because we are all sinners! If we had to get into heaven on our own merit, heaven would be empty. But Jesus died for our sins, and our sins are forgiven through him! So rejoice, you can have eternal life through Jesus! I encourage you to reas the gospel of Mark, it's very short and it could change your life.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%201&version=NIV
I have read the gospel of Mark. I don't just sin, I barely feel remorse. I am not repentant.
Like a young girl, you are too caught up in "feelings." You must understand that theses thing like 'love' are not just feelings in the chest, but intellectual affirmations.
To love God and your fellow man is not to "feel," but to know in your mind what you are doing. A "feeling" for remorse will not come until you know your failing.
No man is beyond redemption, and no sin is new under the sun.
I'm not claiming I'm some uniquely evil person, just one of the many who will fail. The path is narrow remember, most people don't make it.
Imagine trying to convince other people that Noah's Ark really happened and there's a magic israeli wizard living in the sky that loves you. What a fricking loser.
I have accepted that either God doesn't exist or I'm going to heaven. I have a little bit of awareness of my own internal processes, my agency and malleability of identity to know there is nothing divine about it and it simply does not make sense to judge a person by the standards that the god of the bible judges man.
If christianity didn't have such a long history in the west we would all look at it as this silly thing like scientology.
>All in the long run is done with; even Voltaire’s Tragedie could not hold on, and the thing capsized. What has Science not pinned its faith to, and not so very long ago, that to-day lies on the dust-heap? The contrary with works of Art; alter, transform your views and sciences as ye will – there still stands Shakespeare, there Goethe’s Faust, there the Beethoven Symphony, with undiminished power!
>Physics etc. bring truths to light against which there is nothing to say, but which also say nothing to us.
>The most crying proof how little the sciences help us, is that the Copernican system has not yet dislodged dear God from heaven, for the great majority of men: here an attempt might haply be made from some other side, to which the God Within might lend his aid! To Him, however, it is quite indifferent how the Church may fret about Copernicus.
>God is real because human sentimentality
I even agree with this position but it to be a rebuttal to atheism is asanine.
Reducing feeling or wille to sentimentality is extremely vulgar. It IS God, it's not a proof of God, it IS the divine.
everyone who works in intelligence knows hell is real and they're going there
"The death of God is a religious event – a transgression, experiment in damnation, and stroke of antitheistic warfare – but this is not to say it is pre-eminently a crime. Hell has no interest in our debauched moral currency. To confuse reactive dabblings in sin with expeditions in damnation is Christian superficiality; the Dantean error of imagining that one could earn oneself an excursion in Hell, as if the infernal too was a matter of justice. Our crimes are mere stumblings on the path to ruin, just as every projected *Hell on Earth* is a strict exemplar of idolatry. Transgression is not criminal action, but tragic fate; the intersection of an economically programmed apocalypse with the religious antihistory of poetry. It is the inevitable occurrence of impossibility, which is not the same as death, but neither is it essentially different."
"This ambivalence responds to that of death ‘itself’, which is not ontological but labyrinthine: a relapse of composition that is absolute to discontinuity, yet is nothing at the level of immanence. The very individuality that would condition the possibility of a proprietary death could only be achieved if death were impossible. One dies because discontinuity is never realized, but this means that there is never ‘one’ who dies. Instead there is an unthinkable communication with zero, immanence, or the sacred. ‘There is no feeling that throws one into exuberance with greater force than that of nothingness. But exuberance is not at all annihilation; it is the surpassing of the shattered attitude, it is transgression’."
"Bataille’s texts are ‘a hecatomb of words without gods or reason to be’, led back down through the crypts of the West by a furious impulse to dissociate theism and religion, and thus to return the sacred to its shamanic impiety, except that nothing can ever simply return, and Hell will never be an innocent underworld again. The depths have become infernal, really so, quite irrespective of the fairy tales we are still told. ‘[F]lames surround us / the abyss opens beneath our feet’ reports Bataille from the brink of the impossible, ‘an abyss that does not end in the satiate contemplation of an absence’ because its lip is the charred ruin of even the most sublimed subjectivity. ‘I have nothing to do in this world’, he writes, ‘[i]f not to burn’. ‘I suffer from not burning … approaching so close to death that I respire it like the breath of a lover’. It is not only due to the inquisition that all the great voyagers have for a long time been *singed*. For well over a century all who have wanted to see have seen: no profound exploration can be launched from the ruins of monotheism unless it draws its resources from damnation."
>akshually hell is not hell it's like when bad things happen
tremendous.
Embrace tragedy, gay.
>akshually Hell is when you communicate with Zero, i.e. the sacred.
Lazy bait thread.
The technological singularity will create God.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/
More like create the antichrist. Come on now that would be so fricking obvious
He's right the same way someone who has the answers to the ACT by knowing the wording rather than knowing the actual topic is right.
Science is absolutely incompatible with all Christian theism, including classical theism, but the arguments he offers against theism are unacceptably sloppy.
All the New Atheists are like this. They are right that Christian theism is incompatible with science, but their arguments against Christian theism are sloppy and unacceptable.
I still don't know what actual primary positions he takes in the book, never read it. Is he entirely mindbroken into only considering divinity from an Abrahamic perspective, like basically every Westerner?
What's a QRD on his arguments?
I will refrain from being too biased, as I am myself an atheist and am broadly sympathetic with Dawkins.
Essentially, yes, he is exclusively Abrahamic in responding to the evidence for theism. That said, a lot of his assumptions and arguments would not apply to classical theists (divine simplicity, omniscience). Dawkins argues under the assumption that God is a fairy in the sky doing magic tricks.
To quote Terry Eagleton,
>Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms.
Well that's disappointing but expected. He's targeting an audience composed of people who are similarly addled, after all.
I weep that Akhenaten was permitted to rule, and that Rome was so lenient with Judea.
>he's addressing what 99.99% of Abrahamics believe
Well, yeah? No one believes that Yahweh is just a Fundamental Interaction like Gravity or the Strong Nuclear Force or whatever, they believe that he's an old bearded guy up in the clouds and that he sent his wizard-rabbi son down to go do magic tricks. Getting into wordsalad arguments about Essence vs Energy or whatever would be completely pointless for addressing the actual religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as practiced and believed in by their adherents.
>No one believes that Yahweh is just a Fundamental Interaction like Gravity or the Strong Nuclear Force
Most philosophically-oriented theists wouldn't argue this. The fundamentals of physics depend on something simpler, which the theists argue (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) is God.
>Getting into wordsalad arguments about Essence vs Energy or whatever would be completely pointless for addressing the actual religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as practiced and believed in by their adherents.
Dawkins is one of the most intelligent biologists and we should hope that his writings for a public audience would be more charitable than targeting the man in the pew.
Most people who support abortion rights haven't thought their position out, but we should expect intellectual anti-abortion ethicists writing for a public audience not to target the thought processes of a teenager going to Planned Parenthood after her boyfriend's condom broke.
As someone who broadly agrees with Dawkins, it is frustrating when creationists target misconceptions of natural selection.
Dawkins really didn't bother to study before ramping up his atheism business. He's a witty English guy and moronic Americans always mistake that for being educated on a topic. Basically religion is bad because we should love gays and not follow our evolutionary programming that makes us hate gays.
Are (You) the same moron as
I'm not a christcuck, but I wish total suffering upon (You). Hopefully it'll make (You) less of a homosexual.
>Muh Aquinas is dumb
Have him engage in and refute picrel, and I'll be impressed.
Even if God does not exist in the Christian sense of it, I still think that there is a religious impulse that human beings have in our genetics that needs to be satisfied by some sort of spiritual meaning.
Im a fan of the European pagan religons, as they are just about living contently with the beauty of nature, and creating a better world for our children.
Christianity is a mind virus for Europeans, and its what is turning everyone into pussies. Christianity affects everyone, even the so called atheists. Its moral standards permeate all of Western society, and its whole mantra of turning the other cheek and looking at life as the fallen corrupt thing is just not that appealing to anyone who truly wants to live a spiritual life.
I'm just a fan of desert landscapes. I dislike having too many metaphysical commitments. To me direct experience is beautilful and utterly mysterious, calling anything in that experience God just removes me one level from experience itself.
there is no delusion because God is a concrete reality, it is us. Follow the Christ.
someone post a page from this book, I want to know whether I should call it based or cringe
Dawkins is a terrible critic of religion. Go read atheists who actually know about the topic like Russel or Anthony Flew
>Still
He never was right. Still isn't right, was what you meant to say.