God is dead

>God is dead
>Fuck yes. Does Veeky Forums agree?

No, God is not dead - God cannot be killed by mortals though mortals can kill divine servants.

youtube.com/watch?v=OuGax5gafU4

>it's a "i haven't read nietzsche but pretend i have for (You)s" thread no.123874571290635712364512

stop shilling your autism

Stop responding to him.

>>>reddit

who cares

>stop shilling your autism

I must be in hell and others aren't real because when you have fulfilled prophecy like the Shakespeare quote: "But I am constant as the northern star,. Of whose true-fixed and resting quality. There is no fellow in the firmament." Rational people don't have much choice but to believe.

So, either God isn't dead or I'm in some sort of hell dimension where evidence is non-persuasive.

youtube.com/watch?v=l8duBWwnriM

Nietzche didn't mean God in a literal sense is dead. I'm pretty sure Nietzche didn't believe in God, if he did it was more in line with Spinoza's idea of God.

What Nietzche meant was that with the creation of mass culture, industrialization, global integration, etc, organized religion would become obsolete.

Eventually people would become Nihilistic (wubbalubbadubdub) and this would lead to society self destructing unless people created a moral code for themselves to overcome Nihilism.

>...we have killed him, you and I

Indeed, God is dead in the eyes of men. Read Jung for the development of Nietzsche. While privately glad Christianity had collapsed, he was not triumphant... He was pessimistic, though he lived in hope of a future triumphalism. It is up to us, those of the new millennium, to complete Nietzsche's system of thinking.

Read Heidegger and Jung.

tl;dr

There haven't been that many threads made in Veeky Forums.

>tl;dr

No skin off my teeth - isn't my soul on the line. Before you can find out if God is dead you have to know what you're looking for.

youtube.com/watch?v=4GNE3lrw41E

Put your fucking name back on and stop advertising your shit channel cunt

No and you mid understand Nietzsche

Nietzsche was lamenting the downfall of Christianity as a centralised system of moral values.

who was wrong?

...

were people in ancient times that hated their religion just there are people now that hate christianity?

Put your trip back on so we can filter you properly.

>being an individual is fedora now

>Fuck yes. Does Veeky Forums agree?
Been a while fucktard, clearly the autism meds didn't work out

up until fairly recently it made a lot of practical sense to worship and try to gain the favour the giant burning orb in the sky

The group is stronger than the individual

ImperialCult can't stop

What is "a leader"?

Why are people disputing "god is dead"? Western politic is devoid of theocracy and western morality has become secularized. Do people not fucking understand figurative speech? Who the fuck believes we are living under a devoutly religous paradigm?

The mass movements of the 20th century are what replaced god.
"Here morality is good for the herd"(paraphrase)

*herd morality

He was much more nuanced rather than simply lamenting or celebrating the death of God. He saw Christianity as developing towards the morality of the complacent, mediocre herd, but that its death also meant the collapse of the bulwark against nihilism.

>ImperialCult can't stop

It is a prophecy - it has come to pass - therefore God is TRUE - enjoy eternal hell Earthlings! You earned it!

youtube.com/watch?v=IUX0D-r7bZI

>What value system could replace Christianity or any religion and remain legitimate?

The constants that determine the structure of the cosmos also convine the variability of matter. Fortunately the conditions that arose out of the constants allowed for the materialization of creators. In a place where constants depict what may or may not happen, we are optimal states of matter with the ability to play with the materials the universe has already established and conjure up unique ways to utilize them. Despite the so-called boundaries, the constants no longer seem so limited as they have created creators.

The most fundamental creative method is the Darwinian method: generation of potentialities, selection from those potentialities, and synthesis/reproduction. As self-creators we have learned to apply these very processes to themselves, to create creativity. The birthright of conscious beings is that of existential artists experiencing and partaking in the continually re-creating tapestry of existence. To call ourselves gods is an insult as our nature is far more profound: we are questioners, and questioning is the most powerful of all possible abilities. God cannot question, as omniscience is the death of all questions. Our definition as the creative processes of the universe applied to ourselves is reflected in our ability to ask questions about questions; self-awareness is synonymous with self-questioning. To question is to create, to generate potentialities of what isn't but could be.

But who killed him?

There are two basic modes of consciousness: being and doing. Being is "being in the present," when one's inner monologue is silenced. Past and present are not experienced, only a singular ever-present moment, and instantaneous change in that moment. Eastern philosophy is focused on this mode, and for this reason Eastern philosophies often claim that the self is an illusion (as the self is a story, which requires past and future) and that the present is all that exists.

Doing is the mode of planning, anticipating, and remembering. In this mode all momentS (plural) are equally real, and what is fixed is the line of time, analogous to a film strip. Western philosophies and religions are focused on this mode, and for this reason often claim that the story of the self is the most real of all things (I think, therefore I am) and are fixated on eternity.

These two modes are actually two different reference frames of moment and time; one is the fixed point of reference, and the other variable in each. That this is more than a psychological construct is shown in the field of calculus, the mathematical science of change, in the relationship between integrals (cumulative change) and derivatives (instantaneous change.) Nihilism is the result of the instantaneous or cumulative monopolizing human experience, in Buddhism "freedom from suffering" is liberation from an instantaneous pheonomenon, whereas in Christianity a Heaven/Utopia is always in the future, consuming the present. That we slave away all our lives to retire so we can enjoy life right before we die is an irony born of this.

.. It's an observation, not a proposition. You aren't meant to agree or disagree with it. It describes the situation he expirienced the society to be in at the time.

Next up: Death of an Author; should it happen?

Not really, but you're entitled to your opinion.

>He thinks Veeky Forums will listen to actual explanations
This place is basically reddit now user, there's no reasoning with it.

A part of a group that by definition does not exist without the group.

We did, user

there is one god and his name is abraxas

Well I ain't going to jail for this!

Cultural change has increased exponentially through time via a feedback loop where it creates technologies of the manipulation of cultural information (writing, the printing press, transportation technologies) that increase the rate of change even further. With the internet we have created a global super-accelerator of cultural change. We are experiencing a cultural singularity where the rate of cultural change has surpassed the ability of social institutions to regulate it, even while they continue to accelerate it. This is the result for the current sociopolitical chaos, which is the result of the fundamental contradictions of global society becoming exposed and magnified. The cultural force of conservativism has to pull harder and harder against change to survive, resulting in things like alt-right fascism and fake news. Meanwhile the status quo is trying to recuperate social change in the form of regressive leftism that seeks to only offer hotfixes to a breaking system that is doomed to fail, yet framed as being "too big to fail."

A tipping point will be reached where the efficacy and rate of social change is so high that cultural problems are quickly solved, making additional problems even easier to solve. This will be a social singularity, where the state of humanity self-optimizes itself to reflect the dual nature of change. This will be the "end of history" when humanity actualizes its potential. This future isn't guaranteed, as we can very well destroy ourselves in the fragile period we are in leading to this.

If God was dead, why do we have to keep fighting religiously-incentivized wars? Why can't we tell the ME "Lol your life is a life" and have them submit to our "scientifically-supported" will?

>religiously-incentivized wars
name two