atheists act like this is a good thing

> atheists act like this is a good thing

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917131816.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=8A0ZIc6-0Pg
youtube.com/watch?v=2xTMZNFHUu4
youtube.com/watch?v=UCmUHY6QsWA
youtube.com/watch?v=ZAC3buoKDvs
youtube.com/watch?v=LyNykLz9UD0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Atheism is a symptom, mankind is no longer capable of a God or gods. Reverting to old religion isn't a real option, technologizing and scientism are more engrained in us now than creationism ever was. Unless people learn to think or live again only a cataclysm will open the way.

But they refuse to acknowledge that we even have a problem.

Lord, come with fire.

Is this Jung? It reads familiar

Don't worry. There will always be a height of civilization. Like the USA which persecutes godless filth.
>mfw God burns the sins of California away
glorious

Yeah, I finally got started on Man and his Symbols. I decided I might as well skip over Peterson’s misinterpretations.

first time I've heard people mention Jung on here in a while. He's fucking god tier, first great thinker that I ever got into reading.

>t. "ironic" JBP poster

I got into Jung in undergrad m8, long before JP was popular by bastardizing him. I've never heard him use proper terminology or even mention things like anima/animus, or the collective unconcious

>The chad [THING I LIKE] vs the virgin [THING I DON'T LIKE]

low effort chad/virgin meme, apply yourself

this

>Veeky Forums fetishizes religion
>again

Is it because literature attracts people who are more interested in beauty than truth? Contrarianism? The uncertainty of the world?

It's the new fad for NEETs.

delete this

It's for the sake of being contrarian. Atheism was pop on Reddit and 9gag so Veeky Forums is crusading now.

the natural solution for overpopulation is war, not social engineering

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917131816.htm

we have conquered nature by destroying our enemies. stop being slaves

The developed world does not have a problem with overpopulation. If anything, it has a problem with low birth rates, which is the excuse for importing third worlders.

>The developed world
there aren't a lot of people in the developed world that need to be killed--only the people who are doing the importing.

>the Goddess Reason
>implying your reason isn't Urizen

>777
perhaps you should look for enlightenment within yourself

Damn this is a coincidence. I screencapped this same part last night to make the same flame bait thread.

>mankind is no longer capable of a God or gods
On the contrary. Never before has Mammon been as successful, its idols so effective and its followers so devout. Money isn't a deal, money is faith. In something real, for as long as there is faith in it.
Self-serving people sacrifice everything for mammon, to get away from themselves and their creations, to succumb to the pleasant confines of Anime, video games, movies, TV-shows-- All carefully cultivated to nourish Mammon, each sacrificing its life, soul, truth and virtue.
One may lament the loss of standards, but they were the first sacrifice! Opinions labeled as science, the unhealthy and the disgusting labeled as beauty, yet everyone can go to Tinder to find out if those are upheld or merely paraded; to mock the beautiful in jealousy, and unwillingly, to shame the ugly.

Demons have notable noses, not horns.

Convenient excuses are interesting, I admit. You still shouldn't fall for them.

>Religions aren't true!!1
>My opinion is the truth!
Mate, atheism is linguistical confusion of the mind. You can't have a hierarchy in an atheistical system. Hierarchy is divine, and hierarchy paints all preference. To be an atheist, truthfully, one should be a biological reflex machine. No thought, truth or any such thing would carry a meaning over any other possibility.
Ergo, most people are not atheists, but confused on what they actually worship. Mammon, as I said earlier, is the winner's choice for now.

The rightful solution to social engineering is extinction, aside from religious fundamentalists.

>science and religion cannot coexist
Which scientist, experiment or model has disproved religion?

Speak for yourself.

>You can't have a hierarchy in an atheistical system. Hierarchy is divine, and hierarchy paints all preference.

Non et argumentam

>Non et argumentam
No and argument?

I see nothing wrong with realizing that nature is a thing to be conquered.
That man is the ultimate vehicle for that conquest and that the greatest among us earn the right to lead us in so far as they can impose their will on us.

Edgy

How is that even edgy?
Stop using "edgy" as a blanket term for things you don't like. It's like a sorority slut using "awkward" to describe anything and everything. Learn to use the rest of your lexicon.

Im halfway through Man and His Symbols right now. What misinterpretations does Peterson make regarding Jung?

He does mention both of those.

In that passage, Jung talks about how humans haven't even conquered the nature of themselves, yet they talk about controlling nature. If nature is something to be conquered then you're saying human natured should be conquered as well. That either has authoritarian outcomes or some kind of biological engineering implication. I don't think either of those are good.

Not really.
We used to serve "God's" proxied by leaders smart enough to understand religion as social capital.
Now as a whole we have progressed to understanding that God's are just a whimsical characterization of an ideal commonly heald by its host nation.
In doing so we can postulate that those who embody that national ideal the most will inevitably rise to power in that society and if the ideal is based on power which in this century at least is a given, then ad sequiter.

To be frank, I'm not a fan of Petersons basrardized Jung theme.

I can agree that it leads to authoritarianism.
I don't think authoritarianism is bad.
I think it's generally superior to democracy.

>We used to serve "God's" proxied by leaders smart enough to understand religion as social capital.

Only a fool believes religion nothing more than a tool. Before religion there were gods.

youtube.com/watch?v=8A0ZIc6-0Pg

I didn't say it was a mere tool. It was most likely a natural development caused by socialization sedentarism and common environment.
That being said. A minority of Individuals born in these societies are exceptional enough to utilize the religious environment as a tool.

Whether by reinterpreting the various mythologies to suit their aspiration or simply by not believing them entirely but lying about it.

Divine Command theory has no place in modern ethics or society.

>A minority of Individuals born in these societies are exceptional enough to utilize the religious environment as a tool.

Exceptionally foolish.

Do you understand what the word "god" means? That means immortal, intergalactic, superhuman power.

youtube.com/watch?v=2xTMZNFHUu4

I think he's against authoritarian systems become they either become murderous or collapse when someone less competent comes to power. They're also lead by a sort of hubris, as authoritarian systems enforce one order on everything while having limited knowledge, so things that are unknown to the system make their way in and disrupt. What does he bastardize regarding Jung?

Why not?

>they either become murderous or collapse when someone less competent comes to power
The same can be said of democracy. The differing results can reasonably be attributed to the founding circumstances.
>They're also lead by a sort of hubris
Would it not be the height of hubris to presume the supremacy of the majority over that of a privileged minority in matters of reason and statecraft?
>so things that are unknown to the system make their way in and disrupt.
Fair point albeit a great deal can be said of this.
>What does he bastardize regarding Jung?
I'll address this in another post if I can do so adequately.

I was pointing out the flaws of an overly authoritarian system. Democracy certainly has its problems, and I think Peterson gets it right that the right system for human beings is one that is between tyranny and chaos. All governments are at least partly tyrannical, but if they weren't it would be chaos. I thought a bit about stateless societies for a while, but I just couldn't see how it would be stable if another strong ordered force came in and took over.

It still can't solve the Euthyphro dilemma and fails right out of the gate

So my main problem with Petersons Jung is his fairly oversimplified presentation of the archetype.

Jung emphasised that the underlying complex or "superimposing principal" using that phrase a bit loosly, wasn't all that permanent in relation to the archetype. I.E. archetype A can have meanings X,Y,Z and often does overtime mean different sometimes opposing things.
The reason being Jung focused more or less on how all this translated to individuals thinking a certain way what with the animu(s) and what not.

Peterson does the opposite, he kind of spares us the idea that meanings change. And instead implies the idea that our archetypes are centered around core ideals that don't really change for any practical effect.
His push predilection for Christian and Jewish archetype interpretations always seem to have a bias. This could just be because he isn't pushing a general theory as opposed to a more modern American-Canadian applicable ideology.
But it irks me is all.

But doesn't Jung say that the archetype follows a pattern, and yes it is applied to specific people's lives differently when they have an archetypal dream (the imagery is different), but the pattern is still there being applied to another pattern, that of someone's specific problem in life. I don't see the problem. Peterson also does mention the anima and the collective unconscious, but they're not usually the most important part of what he talks about and he certainly admits to not fully understanding Jung, since he was such a deep thinker. The guy also has limited time and energy to talk about things, so he can't get to everything.

>Peterson gets it right that the right system for human beings is one that is between tyranny and chaos.
I can agree with this in part because its devoid of specifics. It would be a platitude to just say we need stability but we can't have it if the price is stagnation. We must have progress and competition but not if the price is civilization.

My quarrel with you I suppose is in the details of what actually needs to be done.
My ideal society in terms of proceduralisms leans a great deal more to the totalitarian than it does to the free.

I'd say that moral rules have no foundation without God and that God is omnipotent (able to follow the rules or not) so moral rules are made and founded on God's nature and word. I don't see why the dilemma is such a big issue for some.

If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself.

You forgot to take your meds.

I don't know which specific system of governance is the best because I don't know the specifics of all the systems, but I'd say that the best is probably the one that has lasted the longest while stable. I do think the government is important for simplifying life and being an authoritative decision making body, I just don't know to what degree that is the best. It probably depends on the population. Some groups are more orderly than others.

I wouldn't say we are trying to "conquer" nature, we are trying to control and shaping nature to our preferences.

Yes Jung did charecterize it as following a pattern. But perhaps not one that could easily be predicted. A better way to define it would be that the generally understood meaning of an archetype changed as a reaction to present relevant circumstances affecting society on a large scale. Individual circumstance don't vary against the collective interpretation all too often unless the society itself is fractured to the extreme and individuals are thereby more prone to thinking a different way.

This contrasts with Petersons continued categorization of things in the framework of chaos vs order.
What I'm saying is I don't believe Jung can/should(?) be boiled down to that.

Do the archetypes change tho? The archetype of the wise king and his evil brother is a pattern, and it hasn't changed since. Peterson interprets that as the free and authoritarian parts of a governing system. Is that wrong?

That's interesting, so anything outside of God's word can never be considered "good?"

What decides if it is good? If God isn't the basis, then there is no basis for it.

I suppose I would be more at ease if Peterson read Max Scheler and that Fuerbach guy in his spare time as opposed to Jung.
The similarities of thought are a bit more pronounced.

I do wish he branched out a little as well. He mentioned wanting to give lectures on other writer's like Milton, which I'm interested in. Im reading Paradise Lost right now

>Do the archetypes change tho?
In a way this can be said but I would argue against its relevance.
>The archetype of the wise king and his evil brother is a pattern, and it hasn't changed since.
As I said in a way it does change oscillating between wise king and conniving daughter(s) in the case of king Lear and the egyptian sun God ra but for all intents and purposes I agree with this statement. It has not particulary changed.
>Peterson interprets that as the free and authoritarian parts of a governing system. Is that wrong?
I don't think it can be characterized properly as right or wrong.

More along the lines of useful here and now or not. I would argue not.

The interpretation itself is arbitrary.
One can interpret it from the beginning as a presupposed understanding that power trumps petty wisdom.
That what we call wisdom is a facade of beneficence.
Or they could interpret it as a warning against nepotism.
Or
As a justification for paranoia.

Society, using the reason granted by God to analyse things based on what will bring the most benefit to the most amount of people.

How is it for you?

>maybe if i write more words then i'll say something correct

Which religion has been scientifically proven?

What evidence would you accept?

First off I apologize for not immediately addressing you. I was attempting to put half remembered Jung into words that could be properly expressed in a separate discussion.

>Exceptionally foolish.
Sometimes yes.
>Do you understand what the word "god" means?
Metaphysical entity(s) usually characterized by the common traits of the nation's that come to posit them
>That means immortal, intergalactic, superhuman power.
No usually not.

>No usually not

Well, whatever names people address them by - that is their fundamental nature.

>Metaphysical entity(s) usually characterized by the common traits of the nation's that come to posit them

No, they're not metaphysical. E.g. the god of storms controls the storms - there's nothing metaphysical about storms.

youtube.com/watch?v=UCmUHY6QsWA

>Well, whatever names people address them by - that is their fundamental nature.
Not necessarily true.
>No, they're not metaphysical.
Then they are psychological.
If not that then they are fictional.
Unless we're talking about Azathoth which as we all know is absolutely real.

Never, ever respond to that guy. He is literally insane, and feeds off of your responses. If we ignore him, he might go away. You will know him by his religious shitposting and his youtube videos he spams with every single one of his posts.

Also
I ain't clicking that s word, n word!

>Monotheists think they didn't start this shit

Oh true? Nevermind then.

>the natural solution for overpopulation is war
*famine or disease

war is shit at killing people

>If not that then they are fictional.
>Unless we're talking about Azathoth which as we all know is absolutely real.

From the description sounds like it could be - you take the stories about the divine too literally - the godhead predates Earth and mankind:

> O]utside the ordered universe [is] that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZAC3buoKDvs

>Oh true? Nevermind then.

No, I'm not insane - this planet just has a lot of people who would prefer to deny all evidence to the contrary than admit there are powers beyond mortal control. There's a reason nearly all pagan pantheons are indistinguishable from reality (god of storms, god of earthquakes, god of love, god of wisdom, god of agriculture, god of death, etc).

The fundamental definition of a "god" must be "super-mortal." Jews and their collaborators have hijacked divine names to make "god" something entirely under the control of mortals - "God" is a set of laws mandating rape, murder and plunder.

The real godhead remains outside of mortal control.

youtube.com/watch?v=LyNykLz9UD0