Why it is okay to deny most Gods but deny just one more and you suddenly edgy atheist...

Why it is okay to deny most Gods but deny just one more and you suddenly edgy atheist? The real Faith was always about keeping your heart to be open to all divine beings. Modern atheism is the most direct logical conclusion of the most faithless crusade that is the monotheistic battle against human nature of polytheistic spirituality.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QcF6jigpOzw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

dont understand what you said but your a retard

>"your"

People just believe whatever religion they get handed when they are an impressionable kid.

Or maybe they go through a midlife crisis and are desperate enough to get converted to something else.

Of course they flatter themselves and think they believe in a good thing because of how smart or holy they are but that's just rationalization.

>deny most gods, one more and you're suddenly an edgy atheist

that's a weird way to put it, the key difference is still: belief in god / no belief in god

>you suddenly edgy atheist

Generally people do not make fun of atheists but of the New Atheist movement, or at least their most neckbeardy followers, of which there are plenty.

>human nature of polytheistic spirituality.

Neither is it human nature to be atheistic.

The human mind has two natures, one for rational thinking and one for imagination. When you want to discover the meaning of something, you puzzle it out until you learn why, but if there is no explanation, your imagination takes over. Since human imagination uses social forms, if you see some mysterious phenomena, you think "who?". So we imagine a "Big Person" to perform the unknown task, hence gods.

Because there is only one God.

As kids, sure. As adults, they are exposed to others, and can make their own choices.

Allahu ackbar.

> So we imagine a "Big Person" to perform the unknown task, hence gods.
This is an infantile way of defining religion. Religion is a series of dogmas, generally put together by a series of anecdotes or sometimes direct commandments that set up the tone for the values and laws a society that adopts it lives by.

Without these value structures you are literally nothing but chaos. These value structures don't need to be religious, but they must exist for you to orient yourself, in the sense that you must have some value structure to organize yourself or else you'll fall to nihilism and probably suicide.

Nietzsche predicted for instance the rise of utopian ideology after he declared God to be dead, and even predicted that it would lead to disaster. The main problem with atheists is that they use empty cynicism to criticize religion while not understanding its importance beyond supernatural tales that are clearly unsupported by science.

Truth is, most of our values are still chirstian ones and even the Soviets threw the towel with atheism and started promoting orthodox christianity again when they realised society was falling appart when they aggressively attacked religion in favour of socialist dogma. What most people don't realise is that while chistianity is flawed and restrictive it also provides critical benefits to all societies that follow its dogmas, and we are still to find a better value structure for western society. However, this may be irreconcilable because it could be incompatible with science and westrern propensity towards questioning the truth.

Yes, there is also a devil.

>Truth is, most of our values are still chirstian ones and even the Soviets threw the towel with atheism and started promoting orthodox christianity again when they realised society was falling appart

complete fantasy

Nice argument. No, really. I make 4 large paragraphs trying to explain my thoughts and you refute it with 2 words that don't even explain anything. Brilliant.

...

The idea that you could believe in nothing despite being self-aware enough to imagine -something-, and adopt a mantle of disinterest towards what proceeds this life, and further apply this decisive concept of willful unawareness towards concepts like the origin of the universe is just illogical.

Moreover, monotheism is more natural than polytheism in that the Universe produces things in portions of one. You never find two people, two trees, or two birds that are exactly alike. Why would you expect a duality in god if you reached the enlightenment that life is just a manifestation of the divine?

> I'm too young to die
> Agnosticism
Requires zero effort and faith and amounts to not doing even attempt to sort things out
> Hey, not too rough
> Atheism
Requires at least to take actual position in spiritual sphere and some logical debates
> Hurt me plenty
> Monotheism
Requires following strict rules of dogma or faith in the true sense but still isn't hardest
> Ultra-Violence
> Polytheism
Requires open heart and careful balances between interests of various divine beings
> Nightmare!
> Omnitheism
Requires the unlimited enlightenment and the deep comprehension of spiritual world

> most of our values are still Christian ones
Many of them were never Christian to begin with, existed in culture from classical times before all of Christian influence. Religion is as shaped by culture as culture itself is shaped by the believe.

> Soviets threw the towel with atheism and started promoting orthodox Christianity
They never started doing that. Like many other cults, Church just used weakened censorship for proselytizing.

>Nietzsche predicted

Lmao who gives a fuck

In North Korea you worship Kimmy. At least there is proof he exists unlike the rest.
youtu.be/QcF6jigpOzw

Gods are just anthropic projection onto nature based on human social imagination.

The idea that morality comes from religion is an anomaly from ancient priest castes codifying laws since they didn't have to work. Quite a convenience for them since their "morality" always seems suspiciously similar to "obey my authority".

Why fucking can't the rest of Veeky Forums figure this out

>Many of them were never Christian to begin with, existed in culture from classical times before all of Christian influence. Religion is as shaped by culture as culture itself is shaped by the believe.
This is true, but denying judeo-christian influence in modern culture is like denying helenic influence in roman culture. Not only the art and culture but the very notion of universal human rights.

>They never started doing that
several books, testimony and material evidence on the subject. But since you're just ouright denying it and not providing any evidence at all like a baby I'll just give you a few paragraphs on wikipedia on the subject so you can start from there. You're welcome.

Most philosophers consider Nietzsche a genious, even far-left ones like Foucault. Just dismissing him like some bum is pretty stupid user.

>The idea that morality comes from religion is an anomaly from ancient priest castes codifying laws since they didn't have to work. Quite a convenience for them since their "morality" always seems suspiciously similar to "obey my authority".
This isn't even antithetical to what I wrote, which makes me suspect you didn't read it, couldn't understand it or maybe I expressed myself poorly.

Most sufficiently advanced human civilizations had classes of people that didn't "work" as you put it, just pass their time philosophising, scribing history and coding laws. I guess bureaucrats don't do any work to you either. Priests were usually the scholars and philosophers of their society, and were often nobles. Obviously, they were the ones responsible for compiling history and law.

Honestly, my point was that, observing historical precedent, western attempts to get rid of its christian roots may lead to disaster, as secular ideology alone may not be enough to hold society together indefinitely, and christianity may be the best thing it came up with wether you like it or not. I'm not religious by the way.

> few paragraphs on wikipedia
I don't see any real promotion here, they just stopped with prosecution when tried to be more liberal and less totalitarian

The thing is, they tried to be more "liberal" because the previous ultraliberal/progressive administration failed horribly.

The kind of socialism they were trying to implement was one that assumed that things like the nuclear family was bourgeois, patriarchical, authoritarian and religious stupidity. The society they first tried to implement was pretty much a 60's "free love" one where people were free to have sex with whomever and inherence or caring about direct descendents was tribalistic nonsese, unfit for modernizing socialist superstructure.

It was so disastrous they ended up becoming an almost puritanical regime where religion was encouraged and traditional families were very encouraged to stick together by the state and gays were sent to concentration camps.

See this pic

>dont understand what you said but your a retard

So you can't understand, can't spell or grammar, but someone else is the retard? You must be american.

False, when I was a kid FIRST I believed, then I was taught some lies.

Abrahamic faiths are one of the few ones that hate you for not being of that faith. Most other faiths tolerate other religions, since they were mostly polytheistic..

so...you're mad people are ok with you not believing in Zeus but not ok with you not believing in God (of Abraham)???

Its not the content of their argument, its their attitude that they're on a moral crusade.

>Why it is okay to deny most moral systems but deny just one more and you suddenly edgy nihilist?
gee idk maybe you're a fucking idiot

All sorts of atheism are acceptable and even encouraged except the one against Mammon.

who fucking cares

>Why it is okay to deny most Gods but deny just one more and you suddenly edgy atheist?
Bias. Pretty simple.

Money, get back
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
Giving none away, away, away

If you want to hang out, you've gotta take her out, cocaine
If you want to get down, get down on the ground, cocaine

She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie,
Cocaine

>Why it is okay to deny most Gods but deny just one more and you suddenly edgy atheist?
It used to be this way when being an atheist was rare and really edgy.

Then it became less rare and they started coming out everywhere (in the west, it's a whole different story in the old iron curtin). So when the internet came along and they began making fun of creationist bible literalists back in 2008 or so and it became cool being an atheist. Then for some reason they all began wearing fedoras and now being openly atheistic on the internet is just kind of gay.

Colossians 3:5 ESV

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role for the poor, yeah

But it's a sin when success complains,
And your writers block-it don't mean shit.
Just throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
Gotta write a hit
I think this is it.
It's a hit.

Because Crazyianity is the dominant religion, if Greek polytheism was the dominant religion most humans would call you insane for suggesting the idea of a single all powerful deity.

/thread

I see more people worshipping money and status.

I agree with you, even though I don't believe in any god I recognize that religion has provided to societies with an indispensable value structure, but I would like to hear what's the reason you believe society would fall in a, hypothetical speaking, total secular society? I mean, I don't see a bunch of atheists going in a mass murder or suicidal rampage, but it's clear that one reason for this is the christian values they were indoctrinated in their childhoods, why would society fall? Do you mean the next generation who won't get any christian values or why?

>I have no understanding of how classic religions worked, their history or how people worshiped multiple deities in the past: the post
Both greek and egyptian polytheism morphed into some form of monotheism at some point in its history, just like judaic religions once had large pantheons

I thought that god and the devil were a duality of good and evil.

A form is an abstract property or quality. Take any property of an object; separate it from that object and consider it by itself, and you are contemplating a form. For example, if you separate the roundness of a basketball from its color, its weight, etc. and consider just roundness by itself, you are thinking of the from of roundness. Plato held that this property existed apart from the basketball, in a different mode of existence than the basketball. The form is not just the idea of roundness you have in your mind. It exists independently of the basketball and independently of whether someone thinks of it. All round objects, not just this basketball, participate or copy this same form of roundness.

In order to see exactly what a form is and how it differs from a material object, we need to look at the first two of the properties that characterize the forms. The forms are transcendent. This means that they do not exist in space and time. A material object, a basketball, exists at a particular place at a particular time. A form, roundness, does not exist at any place or time. The forms exist, or subsist, in a different way. This is especially important because it explains why the forms are unchanging. A form such as roundness will never change; it does not even exist in time. It is the same at all times or places in which it might be instantiated. A form does not exist in space in that it can be instantiated in many places at once and need not be instantiated anywhere in order for the form to exist. The form of roundness can be found in many particular spatial locations, and even if all round objects were destroyed, the property of roundness would still exist.

le centralist meme
Fuck off
Wrong.
All atheists are disgusting. It is not 'human nature' nor does such a thing exists.
Rationality doesn't exist, it's a farce.
Your definition is much more infantile.

*tips fedora*
Because it's wrong
>hate
Wrong

People dont worship money, if they did you would see people not steal money because money would be a divine object and thus to take money like a cheap whore is a great disrespect.

New International Version
They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

New International Version
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

ITS CRAZY BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT AND HAVE A STUPID FUCKING HAT

>Your definition is much more infantile.
Give me a more mature one then.

You will do anything for the thing you worship.

Yes to someone how is not christian, Christianity looks crazy.

Nice arguments, I see you follow Trump's impeccable arguments.

>arguments are good because some greeks said so after fucking a boy

> but I would like to hear what's the reason you believe society would fall in a, hypothetical speaking, total secular society?
I don't think it will "fall", nothing that drastic. I just think that what western people have designed to substitute religious moral and cultural superstructure is faulty. What we have now is the "question everything" idea that comes from critical theory that involves a lot of moral relativism and often defaults to marxism when it comes to finding a "north" as to where society should go or what should be politically correct to think or say. I think the USSR is a good example of what an extremely secular society would end up looking like. I think religion would actually come back with a vengence at some point, again like it did in the USSR.

I have, however, limited knolwedge of societies that have indeed developed a sophisticated "secular" moral and philosophical structure, like the chinese with confucianism. I don't know exactly how it works, but it seems to have been able to mantain civilization. I know it involves a light take on religious beliefs, where people have their little shrines and temples but no harsh central religious structure. I'm not sure if I prefer chinese ways over christian ones, though.

kek