Tfw you realize that the only reason God loves you is because he has imparted his essence in you...

>tfw you realize that the only reason God loves you is because he has imparted his essence in you, essentially he loves himself in us and if it weren't for that you would be an indistinguishable piece of decaying matter.

...

...

>essentially he loves himself in us
No he loves you in Himself.

Saved.

Who is this faggit

And I don't concur with rendition of order, even in an a respectable or amicable way. I'm condemned to an eternity of torture. That's not love, that's conditional regiment. It's exacted way to torment someone before they can even pick torture. The only thing of value in us is God himself. He does not need us and in his nature he is OK to lose us. He most definitely would like no bloodshed or irreversible misery but he knows it's neccesary. He is protecting assets on principle alone, not pragmaticism. In reality how we end up does not matter. Nothing matters. Like completely, at ALL in the purest sense. There's absolute nothing to anticipate and nothing of value to ponder. If you become ravaged by God, it's simply liken to a chemical reaction. It's not a choice. It's fine tuning and programing. All of it has already been expected.

replace god with you

You don't have to be condemned if you don't want to be.

somebody who makes fun of religious beliefs

Making no sense
I guess you are not well versed with theology. There is no clean way to part ways from the kingdom. You abide or you will be destroyed.

That contradicts Genesis.

Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there

>implying god exists
>implying your consciousness is not just a side effect of biochemistry

>tfw you realize there is no god, and that it's a good thing and that reason and empathy will guide you through your life far better than any deity, real or fictional.

Reason will justify your existence but not the child who is held hostage in a third world country rummaging for crumbs while his parents get beat. He will have to swallow the bitterness of ten lifetimes, that's not possible. God is here and therfore so are we. Justice will be demanded.

>God is here
Is he? Then he's a horrible cunt for letting that kid suffer.

That's not the problem. God can override pain physically, he can make us able to endure more or not feel anything at all. That's not a problem. But spiritual pain on the other hand is up to us. He can't force us to take in the Holy Spirit. Hence nihilistic and neurotic and pessimistic people. My question is if a cold realizes he has no purpose on earth until death and decides he wants no place in heaven, how will the Father receive this decision. This is something we can't know now.

>reason and empathy will guide you through your life

bad idea, both are blind and robotic

How is empathy blind and robotic? How is reason blind and robotic? How is dogmatically following a ''God'' not blind and robotic?

tfw you realise hebrew mythology is just that, mythology, and Plato and Aristotle are the only true teachers when it comes to Theology. The supreme gods literally don't have any particular feelings towards you.

Enough of those blasphemic threads of heretical barbarism you Mongol devil's bastard!
It got unnecessarily stoic and stupid enough.

Why would you want to part ways and not abide in the Kingdom of God?

Wrong.

>tfw you realize that if god exists he doesn't love you and is in fact the most indifferent creature in the universe

The man who had OP's idea about 200 years ago, as well as many others that philistines think are theirs "originally."

>an indistinguishable piece of decaying matter.
an indistinguishable piece of decaying matter that came from God so you are stuck OP

lol, read malebranch you fucking pleb.

Everything that is worth loving us God anyways, so what's the problem?

>wahhh people posit a transcendent source for the things I like

Brcause I'm not a blind sheep that agrees without reason or understanding

That's why any achievement at all by any human being is not impressive whatsoever. It's just a matter of time when people come to conclusions. He probably thought this drowning in the shower, a true christian nihilist, the first of his kind

Verily you have your reward.

No proof

Empathy rests upon a value structure, which you cannot prove scientifically, and reason can be destructive as well as constructive. It is a valid scientific pursuit to create hydrogen bombs or mix two highly contagious and deadly diseases, but most value systems tells us that those are bad. Your value system also tells you when you should be empathetic. You shouldn't show empathy to rapists, for example. By themselves, empathy and reason are blind because you don't know who you should be empathetic towards or what pursuit reason should be used for.

Is it better to suffer and transcend it, or to never have suffered at all? Have you ever even thought about what a world without suffering would look like? We'd be bored out of our minds. While there is suffering, there is something to do.

You have no appreciation for art?

>He probably thought this drowning in the shower, a true christian nihilist, the first of his kind

kek. What? Stirner died of an infected insect bite, and he wasn't a Christian, or a Nihilist.

the idea of god seems exactly like projecting human qualities onto nature
better to deal with whats real instead of inventing impossible fantasies

>Is it better to suffer and transcend it, or to never have suffered at all?

A thought-provoking post? On Veeky Forums?

Is eternal boredom a small price to pay for no murdered children? Are murdered children a small price to pay for the heights of the human spirit that suffering makes possible?

You blindly accept many things without evidence or understanding. The world is so complex that we'll likely never completely and totally understand even one thing (the thing in itself). You must accept certain things as true, even without evidence, because you could not do or know anything otherwise. An example would be that you presuppose that the three base laws of logic are true, even though you cannot prove them to be true.

>The world is so complex that we'll likely never completely and totally understand even one thing (the thing in itself).

This seems like a disingenuous reading of Kant to me. The nature of the thing-in-itself is that it could not be cogitated, but this is no detriment to the understanding, because it was impossible to understand the thing-in-itself from the beginning.

Depends on if the children died from a tragedy (natural disaster, disease, etc.) or were murdered (from evil forces). Evil is something to fight against. And tragedies seem to be random events that just happen. What I think you're trying to ask is whether suffering is justifiable. Am I wrong?

What I was getting at was that only partial understanding will ever be possible, however the post sort of implies that the understanding needs to be whole.
>Brcause I'm not a blind sheep that agrees without reason or understanding
Partial understanding must be sufficient since whole understanding is not possible, and I assume he believes certain things, so what level of understanding is sufficient to accept those things? Some things are accepted without much understanding at all and other things require more understanding. How is this inconsistency justified?

How can we think the concept of the unthinkable?

Natural disaster or no, is the murdered child justified by every family that does in fact maintain itself through the negative and experiences a love and devotion that would never be possible in a safe, sterile world?

Is it even comparable? Who would I be to tell someone who feels in his heart of hearts that he's finally overcome his problems and feels complete that he shouldn't because of death, disease, etc.? Is joy dog-eat-dog? Is suffering something I accept will happen to Other because it makes my full stomach more satisfying for not starving, my bed more comfortable for not sleeping on the ground, indeed makes comfort possible?

Pseudo babble cool man
No the guy who thought of this post, he is clearly not a an atheist, and who cares about art, it's absolutely meaningless to the deprived, the fuck is a kid who is starving for food abandoned on the street going to think about the sitting chapel, or an African slave? It's a projection of ambition and control and it's elusive nature that makes beauty so invigorating to chase. Meaningless essentially.

faggotry is spook

I base of understanding that solidifies the confidence in my function. I can function without my purpose which is understanding. There has to be something concrete like morals for example or else we would not even be able to communicate with God. Stop distorting foundations when we have not yet found reasons to stop walking on them, you are being disingenuous. If God is truly a tyrant then we have time to choose.

The fuck is spook, faggit

>he is clearly not an atheist
No, he was one of the first actual atheists, as opposed to the pious atheists who worship science, progress, and all that other good modern nonsense.
>who care about art, it's absolutely meaningless to the deprived
Wow, so I guess you really are absolutely tasteless. Go read the Selfish Gene, or some other non-art.

Im talking about OP you dumbass lol and that's what I thought. No actual rebuttle. Dumb print pug fucker.

>lol I was talking about something you were never at any point talking about and you didn't refute it

So... this is the power... of vague pronoun antecedents

Let me try working towards an answer. Is being better than non-being? I don' t think you can rationally get an answer to this question, but if you presuppose being is better than non-being, then that's something akin to the most basic value, what is fundamentally good. But if someone holds the inverse to be true, and being is not better or worse than non-being, then that might be the fundamental axiom or truth of evil. However, being, or existence if you prefer, is also extremely tricky to define. It may help to define it in degrees of existence:
-A rock exists
-An animal exists, and is aware of existence (aware of existence, however not necessarily conscious)
-Lastly, human beings exist, are aware of existing, are conscious, and can bring being into existence willingly.
We can then say that the last tier is most good, because it can bring being into existence, which we presuppose as being good.
We could say that for a thing to BE it must be limited. If it is not defined (limited, a definition limits something to a conceptual boundary) then we cannot say it exists for sure(it may exist but we cannot say for sure whether it does exist or not). Since existence requires limitations, as far as we can tell, then being is good, even though it is limited (if you presuppose it is). This limited being leads to inherent suffering though, but also definite experience. We are limited to conscious experience in the presence, which makes now very real and defined, but that means we cannot experience past experiences the same way again. We have a limited range of touch sensation, which means we don't feel all the little things that we come in contact with and some things hurt, but then there are things that are just right, like a kiss or a hug, or other comforting stimuli. Why not have every stimuli be comforting and pleasant then? Because if everything was pleasant, there would be no such things as "pleasant." I know it's a lot, but I'm trying to answer the question.

imagine having this little self worth, fuck

Can you be more clear with what you mean?

No, I got you, it's what Schelling says: the human capacity for freedom opens up the space for both the good and the evil, precisely because it is freedom.

I don't think we can compare being to non-being because there always has to be being to make the comparison. In other words, we're here or we're just not here, simple as that.

I think every consciousness is its own prison and the universe has been justified/rejected as many times as people have experienced love and tragedy. Maybe the answer about suffering and evil really is: it depends.

So you think I said a prolific atheist was not an atheist...you're a fuckin nimrod

My friend it doesn't mean anything anyways if I did. I'm a Christian becuase logically it makes the most sense and is the most verifiable. I'm a nihilist becuase I have crept deeply further into the core of life's paradoxes. God doesn't exist in those things. We are there alone. In that dark. God has never known uncertainty, nor shall he ever. That's strictly for you and me. God will kill or abandon me to torture if I politely say no to his structure. This is not someone you play with. I follow purely becuase of his power. That is wisdom. I am wise but I am what I am. Meaningless.

Is this curiosity or cynicism

What you're describing is the Demiurge, or rather, a deified Necessity. God would be the wisdom in you that compels you to reject the worst of this universe.

I think to justify being, you must accept suffering as part of being and work to reduce it as much as possible, and in the pursuit of reducing suffering there is the meaning of life, it's justification. It's something for us to do. There's so much suffering in the world, but at least we can work to reduce it. I can see how it would be hard, maybe near impossible for people in certain circumstances to accept their suffering as part of their inherent being because it can be so bad, but I think if they did, then every bit of non-suffering they had would be fortunate and something to work towards achieving.

I've read a lot of philosophy and studied a lot of religions and yeah, when you're not interested in the mechanics of it all, what you said pretty much sums it up. I guess my question is: is there a level of suffering that renders even this task existentially intolerable? I don't know. Who can answer? Who can talk about death without our having experienced it? Maybe there really is nothing to be afraid of in the end.

it's because he literally imagines himself as a worthless meatbag without his elaborate safety blanket

Maybe suffering itself works like the range of limitation. If there were only one kind of suffering then there would be no suffering. Maybe it is because there can be too little suffering (no limitation, no being), too much suffering (seemingly unjustifiable torture and anguish, etc) and something in between that lets there be an amount of suffering that is tolerable and gives us a purpose to work towards. Since there is the possibility of intolerable suffering, then there must be an actuality of intolerable suffering, because if it was possible, but never happened, then would it really be possible? I think if you hold being to be good, then it is your task to stop intolerable suffering, because intolerable suffering negates being as justifiable. Perhaps the unjustified suffering leads to the necessity to stop the unjustified suffering, and in that pursuit you are justified? What do you think?

Interesting, so the good as nothing other than existence's will towards self-justification. As if the very intolerability of suffering, and our being fundamentally unable to accept a reality that makes it possible, precisely what then redeems that reality.

That is more or less my view. Maybe we wouldn't have any idea of God without intolerable suffering? Maybe God is so much God that you can only arrive at him after rejecting his "handiwork", as it were? Maybe there is a God that is so worthy of the name he CAN redeem unjustifiable anguish.

I think that you don't reject the reality of intolerable suffering if you believe being is good. If you rejected the intolerable being then maybe that's just ignorance or willful blindness or some kind of escapism after you encounter it. If you accept beings as good and you accept the reality of intolerable suffering then perhaps it is our capacity to change being, which maybe is the divine part of God that resides in us, that allows us to work towards changing the intolerable being into tolerable being. It's not a rejection but an acceptance of what is and working to change it to what could be.
>being is good, justifiable, valuable, etc.
>there is being that is not tolerable, justifiable, etc.
>perhaps that could be changed
Maybe to go even deeper, being is justified because it can be worked toward being justified through our divine spark of creation. Being may be ultimately good because it can possibly be good. If we could not change being then being WOULD be unjustified, but it is because we can change being that it can be justified. Maybe that's just the other side of the same coin though.

I pretty much agree, but I think you do have to reject part of reality to redeem it. I think only that kind of hopelessness that comes after rejecting the only thing there is, the world, on account of its not living up to what a world "should" be, that paradox of being in the world and rejecting it, that is God. I firmly believe God is that which sees being as potentially justifiable, if not justifiable in the moment, like you're saying.

Thanks for replying seriously user. I don't see many people honestly trying to have a discussion towards the truth on Veeky Forums or anywhere else really for that matter.

No problem, good discussion bro. Nice to have all that information condensed into some pragmatic statements

>Empathy rests upon a value structure, which you cannot prove scientifically
Nor can you prove it via faith

>reason can be destructive as well as constructive
So can faith

Faith is no more a guide than reason and science

You don't know what faith is. Read Kierkegaard.

Faith isn't so much a guide as a sort of acceptance that something is true when it cannot be definitively proven. Your values are your guide. Your faith is the belief that your values are true when you cannot prove that they are.

So what is he compelling to the purposeless? And the pure dissenters? Those who get what he says but amicably choose to disagree on eternity, why kill them from the inside? Why not let them have what you gave them? Leave them be?

What safety blanket

I think it could use some polishing. That was the first time I wrote those ideas down, and I'm sure some philosopher has written something similar before, but thanks for the compliment.

I love how to finally bend your knees to God you need to go the nuclear atomic level for this to make sense and even there its a jump. How is this going compel the objectively lost of purpose. Oh I know. What he does every time. Overrides them. Game over, pal.

Can you explain what you mean in more detail?

And everybody has faith in there most basic beliefs at the bottom of their worldview

Something as perfect as the engineering perspective/pathology of love and proper justice and undeterred morality and mercy in the face darkness which presents the perception with temptation to fall into victim hood which in turn can cause a spiral into an over all and general case of deterioration, which man blatantly struggles with, is worth that love.

God is the ultimate combatant in the face of darkness and despondency. Again, something man struggles with. Faith alone in God allows man to pass through decaying situations and darkness with confidence while avoiding the trap of further spreading the misery of the brief suffering.

Which makes the search for light, in darkness, not only a formidable task, but one that will sharpen and over all benefit the very existence of yourself. The powerful test from a powerful teacher, which is our Father m8's. I pray all you guys do well on your tests. It's not easy, but when at total peace, even if it's brief peace, I don't think you would want it to be super easy. Keep fighting for good famjams.

I had similar thoughts when I left the Catholic Church also was disturbed at having to thank god for skills and accomplishments I worked for it’s like any time you do anything right you have to thank him for allowing you to be you.

>not thanking God for your fortunate existence

>God loves you