I act as though God exists

>I act as though God exists.

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11767
youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

in the Quran disingenuous faith is considered one of the gravest sins

he didn't mean anything, he's an android sent to destroy popular discourse about politics and values. robots don't understand semantics, a well known fakt demonstrated by John Searle

have you considered using your brain to contemplate the meaning of statements without the internet holding your hand?

the systems reply is SOUND, SEARLE

Fuck off jordanposter

He's a disgusting psychobabblist gnostic.

Let me give you a basic rundown

>Jordan Peterson represents the first open attack on the SJW movement in academia by a small elite group tasked with saving Western civilization
>in fact his body and personality are merely a vessel piloted by the combined shamanic energies of this hidden cabal
>the University of Toronto is run by a snake-cult of deranged OISE lesbians, who are sacrificing children via abortions to resurrect a pelasgian serpent goddess
>the goddess also needs an army of husks (created through miscegenation), spiritual nulls or "golems" who will do its bidding when the time comes
>they are mistaken about the identity and aims of this goddess, which is actually a primeval entity of chaos
>Peterson's gestalt group-mind is a blakean esoteric christian
>"he" is in contact with various beings that may or may not be avenging archangels
>Mircea Eliade is still alive, and he is housing Jung's soul like when McCoy housed Spock's katra in Star Trek 3
>aliens may or may not be involved, the spiritual crisis on earth is a spectral beacon visible for several thousand light years to anyone or anything with eyes to see
>full-blown spiritual warfare of the highest order will begin soon

First time I've heard someone accuse Peterson of being a Gnostic. What makes you think this?

He's a Jungian, meaning a neo-Gnostic except with no actual belief in God. They're turds that have the ridiculous need to reduce everything to systematic allegory and other forms of psychobabble.

>I don't know what I'm talking about

I do, just on a much deeper level than you do.

He basically thinks that the only possible reason to follow an ethic behaviour and not just walking around killing random people is by acting as if there is a God.
Related-ish question: do you know any books about the ethical principles on which laws are built?

>Related-ish question: do you know any books about the ethical principles on which laws are built?
Terrible ones. E.g., the ones you ascribe to

>I do not know what I'm talking about on a much deeper level than you do

...

/thread

prepare.

he is like a babby

Christian in the streets athiest in the sheets

>redirecting me to reddit
>knows the /r/ formatting
Tell me more about the identity between Gnosticism and Jungian psychology

I don't know how about you read some source material instead of shitposting.

I've read Jung, buddy boy, and I know enough about Gnosticism to know that you're bullshitting

...

You haven't, you can stop shitposting now you smelly Brazilian.

>buddy boy

>the only possible reason to follow an ethic behaviour and not just walking around killing random people is by acting as if there is a God.

But that's absurd, ask a priest if he would refuse the penitence of someone on death row, there is nothing you can do in life that will make religion abandon you. It's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission. Atheists tend not to take risks, because they don't have the fluffy cloud blanket of inviolability.

>buddy boy(o)
back to PSL

>Buddy boy.

Is this all just a game to you? I'm inviting you to show off your learning. You could post something with substance and give me the old BTFO, but you choose not to. Why is this? Are you simply too lazy or inarticulate? Or is it that you never had anything to say to begin with?

Jordan Peterson is the last stand, the final boss. He knows that with God dead, everything is permitted, but he walks the Earth to keep us shackled. He stands atop his tall pillarthrone, raising an army from the weary walking dead, to conquer our minds and subjugate once us more to the tyranny of MEANING. He sees himself as the replacement for - no, the new incarnation of - God and is working on technologies to wrap the Earth noosphere in psi-chains and to transcend his bodily form - replacing the crucified Christ body hovering above Terra. If we are ever to free ourselves, he must be destroyed.

Hasn't he always said he dose not believe in what people say, but in the way people act when talking about morals and such.

So isn't he saying that it doesn't matter whether he says he believes in a god or not, but that he acts as if he does. In doing so he has convinced himself in the presences of god.

Or maybe he really is a vessel of some cabal idk.

I actually am an atheist. I don't follow this Peterson guy, it only happens that I've seen that video, and I think he has an interesting question (that I had already thought to myself): "how can one justify his ethics and morals if there is no God, and therefore there isn't an absolute truth?" I mean, if we consider the non-existence of a God, we aren't able to prove any statements, like "all men are born equal before the law"

he fell for pascal's wager

Like this guy here () said, if God is dead, everything is permitted, so why shouldn't one rape little kids in the early morning? That's a very interesting question. Wtf, now I want to buy Crime and Punishment and re-watch Love and Death

>why wouldn't I rape little kids in the morning
-I have no desire to do so
-I would probably end up in prison and we all know what happens to kid fuckers in prison
-empathy

In other words, self-interest.

>we aren't able to prove any statements, like "all men are born equal before the law"
That's feelgood psychobabble anyways. Some pigs are more equal than others.

>empathy
>self-interest
no

>empathy
Irrelevant.
>law
Slave

That was just a silly example. Let's take a situation à la Love and Death. If you don't kill Napoleon, he will keep bringing war to the whole Europe. If you kill Napoleon, you've murdered a man. What would you do?

I don't care about 'muh learning' you fucking dope.
Read some source material and make the connections yourself.

>being a filthy utilitarian

>empathy is irrelevant
please elaborate

Somehow a religious person will have an easier time answering this question? Is there an answer to this exact scenario written in the bible or something? I doubt every single christian would have the same answer to this question.

Empathy is meaningless without God. Either repent or fall into the abyss already, nihilist.

>Somehow a religious person will have an easier time answering this question?
The question of tyrannicide was dealt with by various Christian thinkers, mainly during the Renaissance.

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11767

>I doubt every single christian would have the same answer to this question.
They aren't Christian if they would allow a frog LARPing as a Roman go through Europe and kill God.

What do you mean by meaningless?

Also, you mentioned that obeying the law is tantamount to being a slave. Aren't God's commandmants laws? So you're a slave either way.

>human meme laws are the same as divine laws
Back to /r/eddit

So have you christfags always been this obnoxious or is this just a natural shift in tone in response to the rise of the fedorafags in the last decade?

Man, this place is fucking intolerable!

>'muh learning'
1) Who are you quoting?
2) >using muh
3) Continuing to reply after I've outed you as a pretender in a desperate attempt to maintain the illusion that you are correct, smart
I would love to discuss "source material" with you, but I highly doubt you will take me up on this

>if u dnt do thing fr me then ur dumbie
Nice rebuttal, illiterate.

>I don't care enough to explain myself but I do care enough to insist that I'm right

How is obeying one set of laws slavery and obeying a different set not slavery?

How do you expect me to rebut a baseless assertion that you refuse to expand upon in any way? I care more about that than getting the last word here (and with the coup de grace of telling me, for the second time in this thread, to go to reddit, I suspect you want the latter)

Yes?
>one
'laws' based on memes
>other
laws based on the will of an awesome being
Why would I 'expand' to an illiterate?
How the hell do you not see Jung as the gnostic he is? Answer: you haven't read any material on either.
Fuck a sheep m8

Ok but how is one slavery and the other not in the context of our conversation? You said I'm a slave because I wouldn't do something (in this example, raping a child) because I was afraid of the legal repercussions. How does that differ from your case where you choose not to do because God said so? In both cases, we're choosing not to do something because of the consequences.

You are a fucking idiot.

Care to elaborate?

No, I don't.

Why are you so mean? You really hurt my feelings, you know.

I will give you what I can without any cooperation from you. Jung is in no way a "neo-Gnostic" (a totally incoherent notion). He studied Gnosticism, yes, and there are noticeable parallels between analytic psychology and Gnosticism, but remember that Jung (despite his mysticism, which you may not realize is not the same thing as Gnosticism) is a materialist. "God" is located in the unconscious, an ultimatey physical phenomenon. Moreover, a total identification with or "return to" the unconscious is both undesirable and impossible.

karma. Law of cause and effect, co-interdependent origination. No god involved.
I would do nothing.
If I kill Napoleon I would go to hell.
The people who were going to die in Napoleons war, would simply die in some other way because its their karma.
If Napoleon kills people he will go to hell.
If Napoleon kills me my karma becomes purified, while Napoleon goes to hell.
So in the later 2 cases I have love for Napoleon cause Hell is a horrible place that I do not wish upon my worst enemies.
Not the person you are responding to, but you are hallucinating on your ego trip my friend
You do not care about that poster at all. The only reason you want that user "to show his learning" is so that you can then make more counter arguments to feel smarter about yourself.
When the other person denies that opperunity you become offended and give snarky remarks in a desperate attempt to validate your insecurity.
I feel sorry for you.

So, you're illiterate, or didn't even read my OP. Good going gaylord.
>neognosticism is incoherent
No it isn't, it's atheistic (materialistic) gnosticism. Holy fucking shit, if you actually read [THE FUCKING SOURCE MATERIAL] you would realize that you agreed with me this whole time.

>karma. Law of cause and effect, co-interdependent origination. No god involved.
None of this is existent.
Fuck off, fatalist.

>I feel sorry for you.

>Not the person you are responding to, but you are hallucinating on your ego trip my friend
You do not care about that poster at all. The only reason you want that user "to show his learning" is so that you can then make more counter arguments to feel smarter about yourself.
When the other person denies that opperunity you become offended and give snarky remarks in a desperate attempt to validate your insecurity.
I feel sorry for you.
Why would you presume to know my motivations for replying to this guy? It's pretty meaningless and reflects more on the sort of person you are ("I feel sorry for you," kek, OK) than me.
>
I agree that the notion of a materialist Gnosticism is incoherent, but I don't think Jungian psychology can be reduced to that. His conclusions about human nature, for example, do not really square with Gnosticism

the age of gods won't return until after 2200

we're in age of titans, pleb

If computers don't understand semantics, how are they even programmed?

with syntax

Dude you can entertain Jungian concepts (like archetypes) and it's not in any way heresy.

It means Jordan Peterson is spooked beyond fucking belief he is the epitome of being spooked. He should change his name to Spooky McSpookerson.
He can't accept the fact that God doesn't exist so he lies to himself to make him feel better. The truth is that God is beyond human comprehension and the arguments for or against God is just the failure of language producing what appears to be a legitimate philosophical inquiry.

...

That's why he's neognostic, not just an atheistic gnostic. Him and his fanboys really can't be described as anything other than neognostics, it just permeates through their entire mindset.
I absolutely disagree. When one accepts any of Jung's concepts, they put a nail in God's coffin. They reduce God to a Form, when Christianity is fundamentally a massive drift away from that sort of Neoplatonics. If God is merely a Form, then Christ's death and ascension were just metaphorical. If God is merely a Form, then there is nothing 'actual' or immanent about Him, which is absolutely heretical. That's gnostic/deist theology and it is absolutely heretical. It's more heretical than Antichristian Satanism or any sort of paganism.

holy fuck, how bad are leftist memes? how could they ruin even stirner, the easiest meme to use?

this post proving yet again that young clueless stirner sycophants are far worse than young hapless peterson drones.

I was going to take this as a joke, but then I remembered what goes on in South Korea.

the big enchilada basically
youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>When one accepts any of Jung's concepts, they put a nail in God's coffin.
Accepting a concept does not make the concept the full spectrum of truth. Religious truth is shaped like a fractal anyways; it is true in various ways in multiple levels, and you can expand upon it indefinitely, so long as you keep looking at the pattern. I think jungian concepts fill one such layer. I used to be against evolution, but I began to see this vast expanse of Creation. Mind is one such frontier of God's glory. A scary one, yes, but a necessary one to understand these days. Otherwise you will be playing Othello like /pol/.

>evolution
Fuck off, deist.

>deism
Nonsense, God works in every level. Not a single bird dies without God's permission.

Nope, I just see more deism.

>Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered
Your sight can betray you. Ask for wisdom.

From what I have heard of him he seems less interested in morality than psychology. He doesn't necessarily want you to believe in God, he wants you to be the hero in your own archetypal story. He thinks this is the solution to nihilism.

The posters in this thread would benefit a LOT from reading his book and not by guessing what he's trying to say. It is with threads like this that Veeky Forums really comes off as no better than /r/books

Kek, the only psychobabbler here is you.

False.

Lmao

I have read
the post
that was in
the 4chans

and which
you were probably
saving
for the apocalypse

Forgive me
it was perfect
so green
and so hnng

He's saying he doesn't act as if god does not exist.

>What did he mean by this?

"If I was not bound by the common morality of you IDIOTS I would probably be re-making this world in my image, starting with the decimation of all inferior life forms."

>You do not care about that poster at all. The only reason you want that user "to show his learning" is so that you can then make more counter arguments to feel smarter about yourself.
>When the other person denies that opperunity you become offended and give snarky remarks in a desperate attempt to validate your insecurity.
>I feel sorry for you.

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks onto you!

Not the poster you replied to!

Aargh. One of the rare, dreaded intermittent reinforcement posts that feeds my addiction to this place.

>tfw you at last achieve stirnlightenment w/in spooktopia
>tfw Veeky Forums internets confirmed best internets

>When the memepool only gets denser with every memearrow.

So what goes on South Korea?

If God exists everything is permitted as well. You kill a little child, well if that child is innocent it goes to heaven so you haven't actually harmed a person, you've basically done them a favor.

How many times have I heard of some serial killer victim and they say "oh they are in a better place now." Worse than the prospect of infinite forgiveness is the impossibility of doing any actual harm. The denial of material reality has consequences. Atheists must live in the world we create. Christianity was always about escapism from that reality.

last year it was discovered that the President of South Korea was actually being controlled and informed by a cult of feminist billionaire shamans, no joke, look it up. She was impeached and removed a few months ago.

It means he can't understand secular ethics

"But on earth we are indeed wandering, as it were, and did we not have the precious image of Christ before us, we would perish and be altogether lost, like the race of men before the flood. Much on earth is concealed from us, but in place of it we have been granted a secret, mysterious sense of our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds. That is why philosophers say it is impossible on earth to conceive the essence of things. God took seeds from other worlds and sowed them on this earth, and raised up his garden; and everything that could sprout sprouted, but it lives and grows only through its sense of being in touch with other mysterious worlds; if this sense is weakened or destroyed in you, that which has grown up in you dies. Then you become indifferent to life, and even come to hate it. So I believe."