/liberty/ - Liberty

>>99183

>>gay is okay

right to association

>>fucking animals is okay

animals can't consent, violation of the NAP

>>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism

freedom of speech on the properties of those who allow it

>>freedom of religion

this is bad?

>>racial equality under the law

the government promoting that is the anti thesis of libertarianism

>>democracy

that's the fucking government

>>99183

>not wanting to kill people for something means I support/want to associate with/would let them inside my property

Yeah nah

>gay is okay

I seriously do not give the slightest fuck what two or more consenting people do in their bedrooms/broom closets

>fucking animals is okay

Disgusting? Yes. Bad idea? Generally. That being said, I don't really give that much of a shit - this kind of issue tends to sort itself out eventually.

>polygamy/polyamory is okay

Again, consenting people can do whatever with each other. Polygamy/amory is pretty stupid, but I think people should be free to make bad choices with their love lives.

>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism

You take the bad with the good. Let them talk about communism, as long as I'm free to remind everyone there how fucking awful it is. The counter to "freedom to promote communism" isn't to clamp down on speech, it's to teach people how fucking idiotic and destructive communism is. By that point, anyone who STILL falls in with the commies was probably going to be a miserable shitcock to deal with in any event, and can be disposed of when they inevitably do something sufficiently communistic and stupid (but I repeat myself).

>freedom of religion

You saying this like it's a bad thing just cements your position as a shitbrained fucktard.

>racial equality under the law

The fuck are you on about? I've never seen anyone here who wasn't a fucking low-effort troll give this idea the time of day.

>democracy

Now you're just being retarded. Go away.

>>99186

>>>fucking animals is okay

>animals can't consent, violation of the NAP

Is killing animals a violation of the NAP?

>cuckime

>>99214

>Zoophilia is an abomination

The Abrahamic religious cannot, by definition, be ancap, having already sublimated their own agency to a mythical cosmic tyrant.

Fucking animals has nothing to do with politics until somebody decides to add it to their list of political weapons. Seriously I just want to have sex with farm animals but all these political people in NJ using my attractions for some illegal political harassment and threats.

>>99276

who do they harass? you? :(

>>99264

only if it hurts someones feelings

>>99257

>consenting people

Pedo detected.

>>99417

You're a pedo

>>99419

>Specifically allowing for the possibility of consenting children instead of saying "consenting adults" like everyone else

You're a pedo.

>>99422

Nope, you're a pedo

>>99185

>everyone I don't like gets physically removed

So when did you realize that you're basically just a fascist?

>>99430

>If you don't let me in your house you're a fascist nazi bigot

How about you fuck off back to tumblr, faggot?

Having sexual intercourse without consent is illegal and stupid. Animals can't consent and therefore, it's illegal a foul to have sex with one.

>gay is okay

I'm transgender and lesbian so I'd have to say yeah.

>freedom of religion

People tend to use religon as a tool to get whatever they want.

>democracy

It's not a democracy if far-left idealogs are pulling the strings behind-the-scenes.

If Zoophilia is banned then how will Jesus be reborn from a Hebrew womb?

>>99458

Is it immoral to kill animals for food without their consent? Is it illegal to milk them and steal their eggs without their consent? Is it immoral to kill pest animals without their consent? What about bacteria? They can't consent, can they? Is it immoral to own a pet? They didn't consent to live with you after all. It's basically kidnapping, right?

>>99486

Don't wear clothes nature didn't consent to dress you!

>>99430

A fascist uses monopoly of force through government over his subjects.

I am the dictator over my own property.

>>99430

>the absolute state of NeetSocs

why do you guys think having a set of rules on your property is fascist?

>>99183

>Freedom is bad because it means some people will do things I don't like

Typical autistic statist. I guess it's a good thing the state prevents everyone from doing all of those things you don't like. Oh, wait…

>>99186

>animals can't consent

humans are animals

>>99183

Nothing wrong with being gay you fucking pussy

Wanting to fuck animals is just not good from a hygienic point of view

Freedom of speech is the best counter to shit ideas cause if they are allowed they get shit on by other people free to speak

Nothing wrong with other religions faggot

Being equal under the law means if people genuinely chimp out they get punished

Your one of those guys who push views on your opposites to make yourself look good right without any actual points aren't you?

>>99417

How is that pedo ? if a 15 yo wants to fuck a 19 yo its not pedo

>>99526

>Wanting to fuck animals is just not good from a hygienic point of view

Being gay is worse from a hygienic/health point of view.

>Freedom of speech is the best counter to shit ideas cause if they are allowed they get shit on by other people free to speak

Freedom of speech won't exist in ancap, only the freedoms that you are allowed on someone's property. Same shit with religion.

>Your one of those guys who push views on your opposites to make yourself look good right without any actual points aren't you?

1/10, brainlet take

Gay is always ok

>>99528

Children can't consent, you baby fucker.

>>99544

>a 15 year old can't consent

>a 14 year old can't consent

>a 13 year old can't consent

>a 12 year old can't consent

>an 11 year old can't consent

>a 10 year old can't consent

>a 9 year old can't consent

>an 8 year old can't consent

>a 4 year old can't consent

>a 1 year old can't consent

>an unborn fetus can't consent

>>99545

wow you're right I guess 15 year olds and newborns are exactly the same thing.

>>99546

Are 14 year olds that different from 15 year olds? Are 13 year olds that different from 14 year olds? Where does it stop?

>>99548

as people get older their brain develops further.

>>99548

when they obtain agency

>>99548

I guess this means that white is equal to black since it may difficult to tell one shade of grey from another

>>99549

I agree, we should raise the age of consent to 25.

>>99550

Which is when?

>>99563

>when

\when they obtain agency

>>99613

It's degenerate behavior and I want it out of my covenant community. I don't care if you're breaking the NAP or not, you're still going out the helicopter right after the commies.

>>99613

This is why there will be at least one nigger slave in my perfectly white ethno-community. Someone has to take care of all that nasty shit.

>>99615

Refusing to associate with people because you dislike them is fine. Murdering them because you dislike them isn't. I will make it my life's mission to cause your aircraft to crash with no survivors if you fail to comprehend this. They will expect you in the Wreckage Brother.

>>99629

>being so autistic you can't enjoy helicopterposting

I refuse to associate with them, if they continue to attempt to associate with me I will shoot them for trespassing.

> I will make it my life's mission to cause your aircraft to crash with no survivors if you fail to comprehend this. They will expect you in the Wreckage Brother.

But you have no justification for sabotaging my private property. I'm not threatening you, so it can't be in self-defense :^)

>>99630

>I'm not threatening you, so it can't be in self-defense

Yeah, that's not how it works.

fuck everyone

>>99183

>libertarian means moderate leftists

No shit? Next you gonna tell us water is wet. Go back to /molarpchy/ you shitty troll

>>99615

>>99622

>>99625

Fascists get the fuck out this board.

>>99636

>libertarian means moderate leftists

If you actually believe this you're definitely not libertarian.

Get out, shitty cum sucking parody.

>>99630

>doesn't understand The Master Plan

Hotheads aren't meant to post here.

>>99545

>muh slippery slope

>having sex with a sexually mature person is no different than raping a newborn child

Right, the government's laws wouldn't lie to you! Fuck off back to whatever shithole you came from. I think you forgot where you were.

>>99636

>libertarian means moderate leftists

Since when, tranny?

>>99458

as a quadriplegic muslim negress with aids, I have to disagree on the animal issue, even the term "animal" is derogatory. we prefer to refer to them as other-kin. I have loving intercourse with my dog and pony, and you can tell from the sounds they make that they want it and enjoy it. best of all, I can't spread my aids to them as it has no effect on them.

>>99653

>fam

Go back to Facebook, nigger

>>99644

>Muh "we should allow children to have sex the moment they're fertile"

What could possibly go wrong?

>>99183

When did you realize that you're a one dimensional moralistic faggot? If you're so anti free speech, why not go post on facebook or twitter instead?

>gay is okay

I'm willing to tolerate it.

>fucking animals is okay

JESUS

>polygamy/polyamory is okay

Only if it's a harem, 3p is just cheating on your partner.

>freedom of speech

If it excludes hate speech it's not free speech.

>racial equality

It'd be nice if people were treated the same. Ethnicity does matter but the law should treat people equally. Even if they are too white.

>democracy

has failed, I don't care if it's a one party state, as long as it's stable at least save us from the hell that is multiculturalism.

>>99657

>best of all, I can't spread my aids to them as it has no effect on them.

Well, AIDS would affect them. It's HIV that doesn't (to my knowledge), since the H in HIV is "Human". If you can spread HIV to non-Humans it really shouldn't be called HIV.

Fucking animals is ok because it's the only thing people complain about for no good reason.

>>99670

>stripping rights from people because they might make a mistake

Just admit that you don't care about children and view them as property.

>>99715

>Let's encourage and endorse millions of teen pregnancies and then say "oops!"

More kiddies for your harem, eh?

>>99719

>Not treating people as criminals means endorsing them

>thinking ethics and morality are mutually exclusive

>>/pol/

>>99715

Mistakes are usually just a matter of opinion. I could always change my mind and say you're making a mistake for agreeing with me, but the fact of the matter is making is not taking. People who take accuse you of a mistake.

This is why there is nothing really wrong with having sex with animals, because the people who say it's wrong do so in an attempt to take from the people making the opinionated mistake.

>>99186

>>democracy

>that's the fucking government

Were a constitutional republic you faggot commie

>>99851

>muh republic

>muh constitution

They own you. There's no fucking difference.

>>99851

Mob rule and mob's puppet rule have no functional difference between them, my boomer friend.

>>99890

>sex "attacks"

I like how they always do their best to frame these encounters as voilent, unwanted, as if having your peepee massaged were the same as being sodomized ruthlessly with a broken branch.

Dude…are you just retarded or trolling? You wanna prevent freedom just cause some nobodies will do something you don't like? Give me a break dumb ass.

>>99183

Only need to throw those trespassers into the bog, your not actually physically removing them, actually you're preserving them, rent-free, on the property they were found upon, forever.

>>99214

>someone organizes a group that promotes communism, they meet in their own property

>you justify targeted killing because self defense

LOL what a joke,

what if killing me cause millions of people to die in the future

what if killing me causes you more harm than good

you cant claim self defense on something that might happen

people who actually advocate for preemptive self defense or political aggresion on the pretense of self defense are dumb. how can you even hold that belief be be against authoritarianism, because thats the best way to ensure you are safe right! its self defense from youreslf fucking up your own life lmao

>>100230

What if your mom sucks my cock?

You you choose to be a genocidal-level threat now, and you die for it, its not rocket science.

>>100232

youre a scared lil cuck if you think that speaking about an idealogy is a genocidal level threat. fucking simple minded as fuck and scared of the most basic of discourse. youre like the twitter bitches who whine about people using slurs. its problematic and is a systematic changing multinational level threat.

LMAO fucking read some books

My religion tells me to kill all the infidels and rape kids..am i free to practice thay?!?! Allahu akbar here i come USA

>>100236

As long as all involved parties consent.

>>100230

>you cant claim self defense on something that might happen

Actually, you can, as in any self defense situation, you are acting on probabilities. It's not because someone firing a gun in your direction is certain to harm you that you may resort to violence to stop him. If he's an extremely bad shot, you can still resort to self defense. Likewise, if a very bad driver is about to run you over, then you do not act in self defense, strictly speaking, if you shoot him before he can hit you. You may be in your right on it, but not your right of self defense.

It's intent to harm manifested in an action undertaken for the purpose of causing harm that grants you the right of self defense. When someone is shooting at you, you may shoot back. If he is only taking aim, you can still shoot. If he's buying the gun, with the full intent to shoot you in the next ten minutes, why should you not be allowed to steal his wallet before he can do so, so as to stop the threat? If he starts handing out his "Manifesto" which aims to incite your neighbors to lynch you, why shouldn't you be allowed to stop him with violence?

>>99430

Thats every libertarian after they realise that those types will never leave you or your children alone.

>>99458

wait, does that mean you're a straight man that chopped off his noodle or a lesbian that got a noodle?

>>99644

>howtoprepareyourchildrenforsex.guardianheadline

The slippery slope has never been a fallacy.

>>99183

/liberty/ is also pro-pedophilia

>>99644

>15 year olds are sexually mature

kek pedolovers are so retarded

youre all homo gay orgy goreans.

>>99183

>gay is okay

Homosexuality is mental defect that needs treatment. Sodomy is a mortal sin that puts lives at risk in the pursuit of perverted pleasure. Faggotry is a political weapon to subvert civilizations.

>fucking animals is okay

Physical abuse of the weakest creatures for selfish pleasure. Capital punishment by castration.

>>polygamy/polyamory is okay

Yes. Marriage is nothing but a slave contract to give a 3rd party access to your private life. As long as children are bred and taken care off, it doesn't matter how many parents there are.

>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism

The first was never a thing anywhere in human history, and the second is a call to slavery.

>freedom of religion

Never worked out in human history. Religions where created to control large sizes of humans, they have to be enforced otherwise the lie of civility cannot be uphold. Atheism is the biggest religion, because the thousands of years of religious indoctrination made the ones who are not bound to specific idolatry, prime victims to fall for every false idol in the book (capitalism, money, status).

>racial equality under the law

Races self segregate in nature, because they can sense the danger coming from each other. It's instinctual. Human laws are just too profit oriented to let nature run it's course.

>democracy

Nonsense term to hide the political subversion by criminal organizations. Different groups can argue about topics all damn day, but a decision can only ever be made if there is somebody who takes full responsibility for it. Compromises have no place in politics.

>>100517

>Sodomy is a mortal sin

>Yes. Marriage is nothing but a slave contract to give a 3rd party access to your private life. As long as children are bred and taken care off, it doesn't matter how many parents there are.

Nigga, leave the christfagging to actual Christfags. If you think of marriage as a slave contract despite the tons of Scriptural endorsements for it, and the long tradition of the Church of endorsing it, then you're not a good Christian.

>Religions where created to control large sizes of humans

This proves what I said even more. If this is how you think of your religion, as a tool of social engineering, then I pity your utter lack of faith. So, do me a favor, stop using terms like "mortal sin" for now, until you've actually done your religious homework.

Also, how old are you? Because you sound like a teenager trying to sound like a hardliner. Kinda sick of you guys.

>gay

no

>bestiality

no

>polygamy

ok

>polymory

no.

>freedom of speech

ok

>freedom of religion

ok

>racial equality

misnomer. a Nation should consist of a homogeneous society

>democracy

hell no

>>100555 (checked)

>marriage as a slave contract

You want to be together, have sex together, live together, create life together, raise children together, spend the rest of your of together…nothing is stopping you from doing any of this. A marriage contract does not exist in nature, couples stick together because of attraction, lust, procreation, protection, obligation. A marriage is a window to give the outside word control over your private affairs. It's been used as a status symbol, as a liability in law matters, and as a shackle to put emotional stress onto a natural partnership, because of added obligations. Why would anyone invite money, status, politics and laws into a relationship? Only humans can be this insane.

>religion, as a tool of social engineering

Religions are solely human creations to enslave mankind to the written laws in exchange for empty promises. The natural traits superstition, faith and morality were hijacked into a lie, all the religious scriptures are tales of morality based on natural law, and the principal of God describes nature itself.

That's a bummer for most, and a terrifying outset, but it is also a necessary evil. Let me tell you why…Good and evil do exist, and natural law dictates that they have to coexist. To control big human civilizations one has to force morality onto them, otherwise chaos erupts. The means to achieve this is violence, but that comes with too much collateral damage, so laws were created, which also needed violence to enforce. This is where religion was born out of the necessity to make mankind accept laws without rebelling. So the concept of a god was put forward to give them something superstitious to worship, they were thaught to behave by tales of morality, they were given symbols to put their faith into, and the cherry on top…lies about imaginary achievements that makes them content and docile, like promises of peace, freedom, prosperity, enlightenment, a place in heaven, or virgins in an afterlife paradise.

Now we are in the present and all of mankind has thousands of years of religious indoctrination inside their genetic make-up. That means we respond to symbolism, idol worshiping and the concepts of morality. Especially so if you're an atheist, because that means you would fall prey to worship literally anything that benefits you personally, like money. That is all based on lies, it's ultimately evil, but it is now deeply festering in our human nature. We can not ignore this to go a different way, we must incorporate this religious identity and twist it away from the written laws and back towards the laws of nature.

>I pity your utter lack of faith

Faith is a human misrepresentation of the natural instinct common sense, which is a navigational tool that allows anyone to judge a situation instinctively as right or wrong. The same common sense will trigger awareness towards an unknown situation, for example the first time a human heard thunder and was afraid. This leads to superstition aka believing in the unknown, which is naturally followed by the instinct to acquire knowledge. Fast forward and we have all the knowledge about thunder, so our common sense is now capable to be even more efficient to judge that particular situation.

>stop using terms like "mortal sin"

You just broke two commandments "vanity & idolatry", by glorifying a man made term to a religious institution, while scolding others for using it in a wrong manner. All the laws humans made are contradictions, misrepresentations or corruptions of natural laws.

As for sin…the origin comes from when mankind committed the original sin to not embrace the laws of nature, but instead exploited it for their own "alleged" benefits. This is the corruption you talk about, the punishment that is our existence, the consequences of our actions. Everything mankind created was corrupted by that ongoing sin. Nature predates us, it created us, we are part of it. If we attack it, we destroy ourselves. I also do not despise religion, but I know what it is (indoctrination to civilization control), and I also know that the side effects of that indoctrination are so severe that we all have in in us, which means there is no other way forward than excepting religion and steering it back to worshiping natural law.

Also, how old are you?

Like every other anon I'm 12 years old.

>>100586

>You want to be together, have sex together, live together, create life together, raise children together, spend the rest of your of together…nothing is stopping you from doing any of this. A marriage contract does not exist in nature, couples stick together because of attraction, lust, procreation, protection, obligation. A marriage is a window to give the outside word control over your private affairs. It's been used as a status symbol, as a liability in law matters, and as a shackle to put emotional stress onto a natural partnership, because of added obligations. Why would anyone invite money, status, politics and laws into a relationship? Only humans can be this insane.

This reeks of romanticism, but I'll spare you the general rundown on why that's crap for now and focus on this:

>A marriage contract does not exist in nature, couples stick together because of attraction, lust, procreation, protection, obligation.

What's more likely is that in nature, when a woman leaves her man, he murders her. Monogamy was exercised throughout history, why do you think that is? Humans are monogamous beings. We do not enter spurious relationships, with no hope of them lasting long, perhaps an entire lifetime. In nature, as I said, "free love" wouldn't exist, because it is an unnatural institution for humans. Marriage carries a promise with it to stick together, that is why the institution exists. It doesn't even have to be legal, in that breaking this promise is legally sanctioned, but it at least affirms that promise, drawing a clear line between opportunistic flings and actual, long-lasting relationships aimed at creating a family. You can very plausibly doubt that our modern institution of marriage lives up to this ideal, but not that this ideal is the right one.

>Religions are solely human creations to enslave mankind to the written laws in exchange for empty promises. The natural traits superstition, faith and morality were hijacked into a lie, all the religious scriptures are tales of morality based on natural law, and the principal of God describes nature itself.

This view neither conforms to the historical evidence, nor to philosophical proofs we have for God. And my guess is you will not engage with either, only set up your own narrative and call it a day.

>Let me tell you why…Good and evil do exist, and natural law dictates that they have to coexist.

That is patently not true, not if you follow proper natural law philosophy, established by Plato and Aristotle, followed by the Patricians and then the Scholastics, and adopted by libertarians like Rothbard and Rand. According to all of them, the good has being of its own, whereas evil is a privation. Therefore, while good may exist all on its own, evil is largely parasitical of the good. They may be more or less explicit on this, but it's always, at the very least, implied.

This is not to say your conception is false. I assume it is, but that does not follow from my argument. What I intended to do was clarify that your conception of the natural law is actually a break with the long tradition of natural law in philosophy. You sound like you're embracing an ontological dualism of sorts, and while that is far from esoteric, it simply isn't where the philosophers of natural law came from.

>To control big human civilizations one has to force morality onto them, otherwise chaos erupts. The means to achieve this is violence, but that comes with too much collateral damage, so laws were created, which also needed violence to enforce. This is where religion was born out of the necessity to make mankind accept laws without rebelling.

Conveniently, as with most such anthropological laws, there is no hard evidence to either confirm or falsify this. I do not deny that religion has often served this purpose, but there are clearly other purposes, and the failure of your view is to disregard them all and focus solely on one of them. You don't consider that religion can just as well limit rulership (as Christianity in particular has done), that there are psychological motives behind adopting a religion (consolation, finding purpose, etc.), or - you know - that there may actually be a realm of Divinity, and that humans have a natural urge to get into contact with it. You claim that religion is a top-down invention, when it may just as well be bottom-up, or a middle class phenomenon. You give no argument for that. Same with all your other claims. It's a narrative and nothing more.

>>100586

>So the concept of a god was put forward to give them something superstitious to worship, they were thaught to behave by tales of morality, they were given symbols to put their faith into, and the cherry on top…lies about imaginary achievements that makes them content and docile, like promises of peace, freedom, prosperity, enlightenment, a place in heaven, or virgins in an afterlife paradise.

This passage presents a ton of new problems, too. For one, you blatantly extrapolate from Christianity into the past. Before Christianity, you did not have such a strong focus on soteriology and eschatology. Later, with its advent, every new religion, to be in any way appealing, had to come up with a view of salvation, the afterlife, and eternal justice. Sure, you always had the odd tale about an evildoer suffering for his deeds, or a good men being rewarded, but those were rather peripheral, and no attempt was made to make the promise of salvation in eternal. Instead, the focus was on charms, earthly success, and evading divine anger. In the Old Testament, you had some hints of eternal salvation, but not more than that. When God was angry with someone, like idolators or adulterers, the punishment got to them on earth. Especially the historical books make very frequent mention of that, and the view that bad luck is the evidence of prior bad deeds is explicitly criticized in the Book of Job, which shows that this view was very common.

With Christianity, eschatology and soteriology practically exploded. If your religion had no teaching on it, it was as good as dead. We know of hundreds of old gods, but most of them were about rather earthly things, from winemaking to pregnancy to fertility to warfare. They were charms, of the kind primitives in Africa have them. Compared to this, there is little to document the views of the afterlife. What we do have, both in Hinduism and in Germanic paganism, came well after Christianity, too. The further back you go, the more sparse do optimistic references to the afterlife become.

Nor was there much in the way of divine justice, or even morality tales. The gods are frequently portrayed as debaucherers, murderers, sleezy bastards, warfarers, drunkards, and so on. The old myths were a way to cope with the tragic reality we live in (if you do not believe in God), but they weren't happy pills. Do you think that people thought so much of tragedy, adultery and backstabbing because they were happy? The ancient tales are quite often fundamentally pessimistic, and there is not much hope in them. Oh, and they also completely failed in practice to pacify the populace. Life under a primitive religion was short and nasty. You were constantly haunted by evil spirits, witch doctors, angry neighbors putting curses on you, tribal warriors out to steal your soul, you may or may not have seen a neighbor get sacrificed and even participated in it… this is demonstrated by anthropologists who dealt with tribes, by prison wardens and foreign ministry servants dealing with African immigrants, by journalists who went to Africa, etc. The great consolation inherent in religion is, in truth, only inherent in Christianity and its derivates, a few isolated examples aside.

In all this, I don't wish to deny opportunism in religious myths. There is clearly opportunism involved. What I wanted to demonstrate is that your view does not conform to the evidence. You extrapolate from Chrsitianity, and you argue from the conclusion to the evidence.

>>100586

>Now we are in the present and all of mankind has thousands of years of religious indoctrination inside their genetic make-up. That means we respond to symbolism, idol worshiping and the concepts of morality. Especially so if you're an atheist, because that means you would fall prey to worship literally anything that benefits you personally, like money. That is all based on lies, it's ultimately evil, but it is now deeply festering in our human nature. We can not ignore this to go a different way, we must incorporate this religious identity and twist it away from the written laws and back towards the laws of nature.

Okay, we were religiously indoctrinated so bad it's now part of our DNA, over the course of such a long timespan that we can no longer really reconstruct the process, our very nature is ultimately evil, and despite being capable of rationality (as you wrote an entire post trying to convince me through rational arguments), we are doomed to live a lie. This is not just pessimistic, it's also ultimately less convincing than witchcraft and evil spirits just being real, or God being a reality that everyone unconsciously strives towards. As for your lack of evidence, I talked about that at length, and will refrain from doing so again.

>Faith is a human misrepresentation of the natural instinct common sense, which is a navigational tool that allows anyone to judge a situation instinctively as right or wrong. The same common sense will trigger awareness towards an unknown situation, for example the first time a human heard thunder and was afraid. This leads to superstition aka believing in the unknown, which is naturally followed by the instinct to acquire knowledge. Fast forward and we have all the knowledge about thunder, so our common sense is now capable to be even more efficient to judge that particular situation.

This is Doolittle-tier of redefining and overdefining a term so hard that there is no way to engage with you without starting a debate that is ultimately semantic. Your definition of faith is "common sense but more stupid", pretty much. You do not engage with the etymology of the term, the history of its use, or even its use nowadays. You quite simply redefined it, with some pseudo-evolutionary hypothesis supposedly backing it, but ultimately just serving as a distraction. This kind of argumentation is incredibly boring, like all kinds of analytical philosophy, which is ultimately what you're doing here.

>>100586

>You just broke two commandments "vanity & idolatry", by glorifying a man made term to a religious institution, while scolding others for using it in a wrong manner. All the laws humans made are contradictions, misrepresentations or corruptions of natural laws.

Yes, whatever you say. Can you just make a thread on your first principles or something, instead of annoying me with the conclusions of your autistic philosophy that you invented two years ago? And when I say autistic, I mean it. Your argumentation is extremely intransparent, you don't seem to know where I'm coming from, you seem to have gotten all of it from navelgazing. And yeah, evolutionary psychology is the worst form of navelgazing. It's game theory applied to hypothetical scenarios that may or may not have existed ten thousand years ago. It is not based on evidence at all, but neither is it based on a priori argumentation. Underlying it are always the ideas that evolution is both true and unguided, and that biological facts are all there is to the human psyche. The evolutionary psychologist does not so much deny as simply ignore all positions to the contrary, and that makes discoursing with them very, very boring.

>As for sin…the origin comes from when mankind committed the original sin to not embrace the laws of nature, but instead exploited it for their own "alleged" benefits.

The term is obviously Biblical, and yet you don't even look at any of the Scriptural evidence. You have appropriated the term for your own ideology, and you have done so badly.

>This is the corruption you talk about, the punishment that is our existence, the consequences of our actions. Everything mankind created was corrupted by that ongoing sin. Nature predates us, it created us, we are part of it. If we attack it, we destroy ourselves. I also do not despise religion, but I know what it is (indoctrination to civilization control), and I also know that the side effects of that indoctrination are so severe that we all have in in us, which means there is no other way forward than excepting religion and steering it back to worshiping natural law.

I believe I have already established at length that your ideas are intellectually barren, and you cannot tell me that they give you much joy, either. So why not overthink them, look for a real religion, and become both a better philosopher and a better, happier person? You won't even have to give up all your intellectual progress. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but upon converting, far from finding all my former beliefs to be entirely worthless, I was able to put them to more fruitful use instead.

>>100590

>Humans are monogamous beings.

The reason why life exists is to create new life, as seen plenty if you put any compatible species together. This process can only be interrupted by outside circumstances like in the case of the Panda bears, who reject procreation if the ecosystem isn't healthy enough. Humans chose monogamy because it's the the most obvious constellation of procreation (1+1=2). This is a constellation that is the easiest to defend against dangers, which is the natural principle of survival. Self preservation. More partners means more dangers, so it's only logical to stick with one. Marriage has nothing to do with any of this, and only put a corrupted layer of control over a natural law.

>long-lasting relationships aimed at creating a family.

You only need lust to start a family, everything else is for self preservation of blood and race. Why would anyone need a sanction for something any life form can do naturally?

>my guess is you will not engage with either

On the contrary I want to be contradicted by factual evidence, because I don't want to be wrong.

Every way humans describe God…be it the creator of all life, the entity that connects everything on earth, the power that can hear our thoughts and feel our pains, the god that grows his power through our worshiping, the god that makes us part of himself when we die, the one that tests and challenges us, the one that shows us all the wonders on this earth, the one who dictates the morality of good and bad, the one who puts his own existence into the hands of his creation, the one true God…all this describes unmistakably NATURE itself. Humans not only based their religions entirely around what nature teaches us, but they decided to claim the achievements of nature for themselves and hide it behind a superstitious entity. Why? Because they think they can can get away with defiling and exploiting nature for themselves.

Whenever I engage in discord with strong religious "believer", I can easily dissect anything they bring up as proves with referring to actual explanations under the laws of nature. Fast forward and every dialog with Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Atheists, will end with them running out of material and bringing up the line "but you have to believe". Every time, and this is exactly what motivated me to find my own answers, because humanity is a broken construct full of never ending lies, and I merely looked for a constant to navigate this insanity. And it was such a simple process to see nature as the origin of all life, because it delivers nonstop evidence of it's doings. You can literally trace everything humans did right back to the fundamental natural origins. It's child's play to deconstruct civilizations, religions, science etc. if you just look behind all the paywalls humans put up to hide their crimes. So please bring on historical and philosophical proves for god, and I promise you nature will be the answer to all of these.

>proper natural law philosophy, established by Plato and Aristotle

It's a human interpretation of natural law. Today you would call it the "buy my books" fallacy. Let me prove good and evil to you. The boundaries of nature are two opposites…birth and death, yin and yang, 1 and 0, to be or not to be. All life exists in between those two, and the "good" path is the struggle to survive, while the "bad" path is the easy way towards death. This also proves that life itself is a test because temptation exists and lures everyone towards death. A great example is the sun, which offers nurturing vitality to all life, while also tempting you to forget the looming dangers of getting killed by it's rays. That's how nature rolls…a never ending test of survival.

>>100590

>religion is a top-down invention, when it may just as well be bottom-up, or a middle class phenomenon.

If you follow religions back to it's origins you can see that it was more and more based on nature, which means humanity chose to let religions stray them away from nature. You also have to understand that the more you go back, the more primitive the knowledge was. So why would a primitive culture stray away from nature? What would make more sense? That humans committed the original sin of exploiting and destroying nature for their own benefits, and started to reject any blame that common sense told them about the consequences of their actions, which later gave them the self justification to exploit others by creating a form of mass control that puts human laws over natural laws OR that they just started believing in something bigger that conveniently can't be questioned and must be believe unconditionally (a superstition)?

>>100591

Let me refute all your statements by explaining the afterlife to you with as much evidence as you want…I already told you about how life and death are the barriers to our existence, but there is something I withheld from you. The circle of life. It was actually hidden in the word coexistence, but that's another story. Anyway, when you die you dissolve into the fragments of your ecosystem (atoms, particles of life or whatever modern science will call it). What these parts are doing is becoming part of all life around it, literally food. Hence the circle of life is established, death became part of new life, and we dug right into another fundamental natural law life lesson…balance, which humans so spectacularly fail at. Everything needs to work together in unison to establish a healthy infrastructure. Now if you have the human race not adhere to this law, you create imbalance, humanity becomes a parasite to it's ecosystem, and natural law dictates that the host will fight the parasite to death.

>>100592

>we were religiously indoctrinated so bad it's now part of our DNA

I wouldn't say DNA because it's a zeitgeist term that has no meaning in nature, but the idea is based on subconsciousness, which can be found in nature.

>over the course of such a long timespan that we can no longer really reconstruct the process

No, reconstructing the truth, while deconstructing human lies is what I do. The whole redpilling process, as it's called today, is based on that. I can endlessly take out all the lies surrounding us today (like MSM), but the problem is and always was your inability to stop lying to yourself when it comes to accepting more and more fundamentals truths. That's a really fucked up side effect of indoctrination; natural self preservation can be tricked into accepting lies as truth (again temptation). A natural example would be the fata morgana, it's a lie that temps you to die, but your consciousness will hold onto the hope of survival by following it. You have to understand that not every human can handle all truths, it can literally drive them into suicide to to get their worldview broken, which is why the self preservation instinct is so hard at work, and why humans are so easily fooled into following the way of least resistance.

>our very nature is ultimately evil

No, we made a mistake and are now suffering the consequences for it. We can change at any time, but that doesn't mean the consequences of our actions will not destroy this ecosystem and end our existence. Death is waiting for all of us, but we can struggle against it reaching for us. We do this by living.

>This is not just pessimistic

Truth hurts. I don't make the rules.

>As for your lack of evidence

Ask me for anything you want to know more of.

>analytical philosophy

Have another natural example of common sense then…fire. Put a baby or small dog near a fire a see what happens. They will instinctively be curious, then be warned by the combinations of visuals (red) and sound (crackle), and finally physically warned by the perception of heat. Both creatures have no former knowledge about any of these things, but common sense will tell them to be aware of dangers. After that it becomes the struggle of choosing to not fall for the temptation of it, for which they will be instantly punished. Then in comes human faith, a lie that tells them that they only have to believe what other humans are telling them. What could possibly go wrong? But there is a natural component one could attribute to faith, that is the "believing in yourself" model. You know, the story about the mother who pulled up a burning car to rescue her children by believing in herself. But that's just another example of overcoming self preservation to secure the existence of your bloodline. This is the "good" way of struggling for life which was rewarded with success.

>>100593

>that biological facts are all there is to the human psyche

First, I don't believe in evolution theory, because it's nonsense. I believe in cause and effect, actions and consequences, and I firmly believe that when there is an answer, that one does not accept human believes as an end of inquiry. Nature explains everything we do, because we created it out of it, and if we go against the narrative it shows. You only have to accept that natural laws are the foundation of our ecosystem and then use them to prove if humans are lying or not. One cannot create out of nothing. Everything humans did can be taken apart this way, and you will be left with a logical explanation based on natural evidence. Stop pretending that not all humans are liars, who lie to others and themselves. Because I can easily disprove that as well.

>the term is obviously Biblical

Of course, and I couldn't communicate with anyone if I didn't use the most logical terms available to me. Sin is just a perfect explanation for a wrongdoing, and original sin fits perfectly with just that…the original wrongdoing of humanity. Also what do I care about scriptural evidence, when the laws of religion were created out of the laws of nature? How else do I describe something that came before humanity, without using human terms?

>your ideas are intellectually barren

I stated nothing but logical facts based on natural evidence and your only offering is to tell me that I have to believe in something humans made up. I won't. I believe in truth and humans are not offering it at all. But if you like lies, then humans can endlessly entertain you. And don't get me wrong. I don't intend to discredit your religion, because I understand that it's needed for humans to justify their existence. I just want you to question the human narratives, so that we may get a chance to actually move forward instead of running headlong into death.

>>100600

> I don't believe in evolution theory, because it's nonsense

Please describe evolution theory

>>100595

>The reason why life exists is to create new life

Not to sustain itself, or - in the case of humans - not to comtemplate the universe, or build a society, or anything like that? Once again, you are jumping to conclusions.

>Humans chose monogamy because it's the the most obvious constellation of procreation (1+1=2). This is a constellation that is the easiest to defend against dangers, which is the natural principle of survival. Self preservation. More partners means more dangers, so it's only logical to stick with one. Marriage has nothing to do with any of this, and only put a corrupted layer of control over a natural law.

Actually, the most "obvious constellation for procreation" (weird wording) would be several women for one man, if we look purely at the numbers. In fact, this is also what has existed historically almost as often as pure monogamy. That you cannot defend all your women, or all their offspring, shouldn't matter if it's all about procreating as much as possible.

>Marriage has nothing to do with any of this, and only put a corrupted layer of control over a natural law.

See, it doesn't, if we consider that humans are naturally monogamous because they have certain emotional needs that compel them to stay in a steady relationship, not because it is a good reproductive strategy. If they do have these needs, then it would be against the natural law to reduce the promise to help those needs to a mere whim.

>You only need lust to start a family, everything else is for self preservation of blood and race.

It's the precise opposite To propagate your race, you only need to have as many offspring as possible. To start a family, you need to stick around, not leave as soon as your wife starts puking and hysterically crying. You need love for your wife and for your children, and you need commitment to them, because pure emotional sentiment cannot be the basis of any stable social relation whatsoever.

>Why would anyone need a sanction for something any life form can do naturally?

Because humans are not bacteria or rabbits, maybe? Of course the natural law has different provisions for us.

>>100595

>Every way humans describe God…be it the creator of all life, the entity that connects everything on earth, the power that can hear our thoughts and feel our pains, the god that grows his power through our worshiping, the god that makes us part of himself when we die, the one that tests and challenges us, the one that shows us all the wonders on this earth, the one who dictates the morality of good and bad, the one who puts his own existence into the hands of his creation, the one true God…all this describes unmistakably NATURE itself. Humans not only based their religions entirely around what nature teaches us, but they decided to claim the achievements of nature for themselves and hide it behind a superstitious entity. Why? Because they think they can can get away with defiling and exploiting nature for themselves.

Alright, "nature" - let's define it as the aggregate of the creatures around us, and leave it open whether we will also count the environment - is the following:

>the creator of all life

Semantics aside, we can say that we are all products of nature.

>the entity that connects everything on earth

We can also accept this about nature.

>the power that can hear our thoughts and feel our pains

This is where it obviously becomes wrong. Not a single entity in nature can hear our thoughts, or feel our pain. Even other human beings do not experience our own experiences directly, they don't share our thoughts directly, and they have no direct access to our feelings. To say that nature itself somehow does any of these things is a baseless claim.

>the god that grows his power through our worshiping

Not only does nature gain nothing from our worship, it's also not an entity that necessarily rewards cooperation and reverance. On the contrary, we can frequently destroy whole patches of forest, kill predators, domesticate wild animals, and only gain from it. Besides, none of the religions that are still relevant teaches that God is in any way dependant on our worship and prayers. The Aztecs believed they had to keep their gods alive through sacrifices, other pagans protected their idols as if the gods were capable of dying, but the Abrahamic religions in particular explicitly deny that we are capable of diminishing or increasing the power of God. Frankly, if you fail so hard trying to characterize religion, it makes me suspect you just have never understood it.

>the god that makes us part of himself when we die

That is true enough to say concerning religion, but not nature. When we die, we die, unless there is an afterlife. Decomposing and being incorporated by some other creature into its body is the opposite of living on. Your experiences, feelings, thoughts, emotions, those are all lost in the process. That is, unless you superimpose some kind of divinity on nature, but you have denied doing so, and claimed that you are only looking at things as they are.

>the one that tests and challenges us

>the one that shows us all the wonders on this earth

Fair enough.

>the one who dictates the morality of good and bad

Also okay, if I interpret this charitably.

>the one who puts his own existence into the hands of his creation

Here, you are losing me again. This is only true of Christ, and that's it (I'll simplify the theology here, for the sake of argument). Such an idea would be foreign to most other religions, and that is if you give what you said a veeery charitable interpretation. A Muslim would not subscribe to what you said, neither would a Jew, nor one of the followers of the ancient religions, as far as we can tell. So, once more, you extrapolate from Christianity to all other religions, showing me you have not actually looked at the evidence.

Have to cut this short before the post gets too long: Not only are several of your parallels severely overdrawn, and not only have you shown yourself to be utterly ignorant of religion, you have also shown that your reverance of nature is not at all realistic. You worship nature, attributing several religious aspects to it which, if we observe it coldly and without an eye for romanticism, it doesn't have, and then - without any argument - declared this worship of nature to be the proper origin of the worship of God. Again, absolutely no argument given for that.

>>100595

And now, a brief word on this:

>On the contrary I want to be contradicted by factual evidence, because I don't want to be wrong.

Evidently, you don't care very much for facts. You superimpose your worldview on them before you draw any conclusions from them. Your methodology is whack.

>Whenever I engage in discord with strong religious "believer", I can easily dissect anything they bring up as proves with referring to actual explanations under the laws of nature.

Make a convincing argument before you gloat, will you?

>Fast forward and every dialog with Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Atheists, will end with them running out of material and bringing up the line "but you have to believe".

I have never in my life said this, not in a debate like this. Thinking about it, I also cannot remember any Christian bringing it up during an apologetic debate. What I do remember is hearing it constantly as an atheist. I suspect it is the same with you, frankly. I have thrown more than enough evidence your way, many concrete examples of religions not fitting into your worldview, and you have ignored most of it.

>Every time, and this is exactly what motivated me to find my own answers, because humanity is a broken construct full of never ending lies, and I merely looked for a constant to navigate this insanity. And it was such a simple process to see nature as the origin of all life, because it delivers nonstop evidence of it's doings. You can literally trace everything humans did right back to the fundamental natural origins. It's child's play to deconstruct civilizations, religions, science etc. if you just look behind all the paywalls humans put up to hide their crimes.

Misanthropy going hand in hand with romanticism, imagine my surprise. Tell me, why do you see humans as broken, and not nature? Or why see any one of these two as broken? Why not see humans as acting perfectly in accordance with nature if they destroy it, and ignore its supposed lessons?

>So please bring on historical and philosophical proves for god, and I promise you nature will be the answer to all of these.

Do I have unlimited time? If you must ask me for this, then you haven't done your homework. Look up the Five Ways, Anselms ontological proof, the argument from finetuning and its derivates. They are basic knowledge in religious philosophy. Like with the historical evidence, I am not too keen to write an entire post detailing them if I have two more of your posts to deal with, in which you have apparently ignored entire passages of mine, like my entire critique of overrelying on anthropological evidence:

>Conveniently, as with most such anthropological laws, there is no hard evidence to either confirm or falsify this. I do not deny that religion has often served this purpose, but there are clearly other purposes, and the failure of your view is to disregard them all and focus solely on one of them. You don't consider that religion can just as well limit rulership (as Christianity in particular has done), that there are psychological motives behind adopting a religion (consolation, finding purpose, etc.), or - you know - that there may actually be a realm of Divinity, and that humans have a natural urge to get into contact with it. You claim that religion is a top-down invention, when it may just as well be bottom-up, or a middle class phenomenon. You give no argument for that. Same with all your other claims. It's a narrative and nothing more.

>>100595

>It's a human interpretation of natural law. Today you would call it the "buy my books" fallacy.

That is not actually engaging them.

>Let me prove good and evil to you. The boundaries of nature are two opposites…birth and death, yin and yang, 1 and 0, to be or not to be. All life exists in between those two, and the "good" path is the struggle to survive, while the "bad" path is the easy way towards death. This also proves that life itself is a test because temptation exists and lures everyone towards death. A great example is the sun, which offers nurturing vitality to all life, while also tempting you to forget the looming dangers of getting killed by it's rays. That's how nature rolls…a never ending test of survival.

>The boundaries of nature are two opposites…birth and death, yin and yang, 1 and 0, to be or not to be.

Well, awesome. Death is the absence of life, 0 is literally, well, zero, and yin and yang are symbols for dualism, and bringing them up to prove dualism is like pointing to the existence of textbooks on Keynesianism to prove that Keynes was right. So, yin and yang aside, of the two genuine dualities you mentioned, both pairs consist of one word for being, and one for the absence of being. Death is the absence of life, zero is the absence of quantity. Both examples, then, point to ontological monism being true, not ontological dualism.

>>100608

If you think evolution is an image it's time to go open a book. Please describe what you think evolution is.

>>100598

>If you follow religions back to it's origins you can see that it was more and more based on nature

See, this is where it would have come in handy to read what I said about anthropology above. We do not have proper evidence on the ancient religions. Yes, many of the gods we know of have aspects of nature in them. Many are also anthropomorph, however, and many are also embodying concepts that have, on the face of it, nothing to do with the physical world (unless you superimpose your religious views on the world, that is - which I maintain is exactly what you did). So, with the evidence we have, it is actually hard to say if the religions started from the worship of nature (with anthropomorhism imposed on them later), the worship of humans (with aspects of nature given to them to embody men's dominion over nature), or the worship of more alien or abstract concepts. What we have are pictures, temples, and so on. What we do not have are any theological treatises from the ancient times, or recordings of their worship, or discussions of the content of the worship. We simply don't know if a worship of nature existed before the religions did, or if it was one religion of many, or if it competed with the worship of famous kings who were made into gods, and so on.

>You also have to understand that the more you go back, the more primitive the knowledge was. So why would a primitive culture stray away from nature?

Well, maybe because they had no appreciation for it? You know, just like many primitive cultures nowadays have no appreciation for it? Nature is out to kill you, it has you hunted down, inflicted with diseases, and possibly worse. For civilized men, it is easy to see only the nice aspects of it all, the flowers, the warm rays of the sun, and to ignore the diseases and the hunting, the periods of starvation, all that. There are primitive tribes hunting fish by throwing dynamite into seas, and records of them hunting animals to extinction and destroying entire forests. The Aborigines used to set wildfires. When you live in a concrete block, you obviously - and rightly - learn to appreciate nature, but savage men are not so inspired. Not the least because they are kinda assholes.

>What would make more sense? That humans committed the original sin of exploiting and destroying nature for their own benefits

As I said, even supposedly natural peoples exploit the environment. Perhaps nature is all about animals eating plants and other animals?

>and started to reject any blame that common sense told them about the consequences of their actions, which later gave them the self justification to exploit others by creating a form of mass control that puts human laws over natural laws OR that they just started believing in something bigger that conveniently can't be questioned and must be believe unconditionally (a superstition)?

I go with Option 3: Man has the desire to get into contact with the divine, that is why he invents false religions if he has no recourse to the real deal. Makes the most sense, if you believe in God for independent reasons.

>that they just started believing in something bigger that conveniently can't be questioned and must be believe unconditionally (a superstition)

Also, nice strawman, there are plenty of believers who don't think you have to cast aside the use of your reason.

>the consequences of our actions will not destroy this ecosystem

Don't tell me you believe in anthropogenic climate change, but not DNA?

Have to cut this short, but I guess I have already made my major points anyway. Busy.

>>100590

>>100591

>>100592

>>100593

>>100604

>>100607

You. I like you, we need more effortposters on this board check out /monarchy/ when you get a chance too. If I might take your attention away from the autist for a moment, and pick your brain:

>Underlying it are always the ideas that evolution is both true and unguided, and that biological facts are all there is to the human psyche. The evolutionary psychologist does not so much deny as simply ignore all positions to the contrary, and that makes discoursing with them very, very boring.

Would you care to elaborate on this? Specifically, your beef with evolution? It has its flaws, yes, but I've yet to see a plausible alternative explanation for species differentiation. Your criticism of evo-psych is very relatable, however, and I say that as someone who first got interested in economics because of the game theory chapters in the back half of the selfish gene–you can find some interesting tidbits here and there, but there are no greater implications that stem from these.

>Look up the Five Ways, Anselms ontological proof, the argument from finetuning and its derivates

A question about Aquinas' five proofs: I've never doubted that these are logically sound arguments, but it seems to me that they are only proof of a first cause generally, and not the Christian God specifically. I'm very sympathetic towards religion and especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches. While I outwardly identify as part of the latter, I can't say that I've ever been blessed with faith–while I'm certainly cognizant of the many positive effects faith has on a man's psyche, and the innumerable benefits the church has on communities, I've never been able to believe in a god.

>>100602

>Not to sustain itself

That's what an ecosystem does by itself. If humans weren't so busy being parasites, we would be creators who would use our surroundings to create for the benefit of the entire system, which in reaction benefits us.

>to contemplate the universe

That's a freedom you have to first earn, by creating and sustaining life, by building civilization and acquire enough knowledge and protection to create individuals that are capable of contemplating.

>build a society

Again you need life for that, and since it's a circle, you need to make more of it.

>several women for one man

Magnets, anon. Two negatives will always repel each other. Billions of men can teach you the mistakes about having multiple women competing with one man. It ain't pretty.

>To start a family, you need to stick around

Nope, you only need to stick it in to start a family. When the kid arrives you maintain the family unit, as a means to protect your bloodline.

>You need love

Love is a social construct. It's a word that has infinite meanings, which makes it meaningless. There is no "power" that connects partners spiritually in nature. All the reasons why they stick together are purely circumstantial, and humans merely made the spiritual connection up to feel better for themselves, while ignoring the natural answers already in place. Millions of humans spend their lives together simply for money…it's all just self preservation hiding under a human lie.

>Because humans are not bacteria or rabbits, maybe?

All life works together in the same ecosystem. It's about sharing purpose. A flesh eating bacteria acts as parasitical as humans destroying their environment, and if you think rabbits are stupid and horny all the time, you should visit Africa (or wait until they dump it in your backyard). Once again humanity made the error of lying to themselves about their superiority over all species, without realizing that they commit suicide by destroying them. A good example are all the animals who can't control their eating habits, until they run out of food and die out. Nature using greed to tempt towards death.

>>100603

>leave it open whether we will also count the environment

Why? Everything has a purpose. Our environment sustains us and even a stone offers life sustaining protection (shade or shelter) for smaller creatures.

>Not a single entity in nature can hear our thoughts, or feel our pain. Even other human beings do not experience our own experiences directly, they don't share our thoughts directly, and they have no direct access to our feelings.

All actions have consequences and all live is connected in the ecosystem. Take our consciousness for example. How can nature tempt us to lie to ourselves, if nature couldn't understand our thoughts? And it is temptation because it can easily lead to fatal real life actions, when you made up lies in your head. Same goes with feeling our pain, because the damage you have to endure is the result of how nature tests your survival ability. Maybe the term "entity" is the problem here, because humans use it to describe god, but also add human attributes to it. You can call it supreme being, or maker or just "it just is". Nevertheless natures existence can be proven everywhere, while the human concept of god stays a superstition, which characteristics describe nature 100% What a convenient coincidence.

>nature gains nothing from our worship

When we worship nature by keeping the balance intact and creating for the benefit of all life, then our ecosystem will grow, spread and sustain more life. Our natural ecosystem literally put it's existence into the hands of it's creation, because if we destroy our ecosystem, we both will die. That is why life needs to be a constant struggle, because it's a test of loyalty.

>we can frequently destroy whole patches of forest, kill predators, domesticate wild animals, and only gain from it.

The difference between short term gains and long term consequences. Of course you can kill all the wildlife for food, but then you starve to dead. The whole reason why our bloodlines and races are getting destroyed is because we rebel against nature. So now we have the unfriendly jews using race-mixing, incest and degeneracy to destroy other races, while not realizing that they are also destroying themselves in the process. The problem why humans cannot understand this logic is because they are seldom capable of understanding history in a flow of time, instead of just seeing dates, names and events. There are long term consequences for everything we do, and all "bad" actions have a very distinct goal nature loves to show us all the time…death.

>none of the religions teaches that God is in any way dependent on our worship

Because that would put the leaders in demand to prove that god received the worship and is getting stronger. Kinda hard to sell this lie long-term. Just believing in something is so much easier to sell. A great lie needs to be so big that nobody would believe it could be a lie, while also as simple as possible to make it hard to disprove from many different angles. This is why the holocaust narrative has to be oppressed by international laws. Too many holes create cascading problems.

>Your experiences, feelings, thoughts, emotions, those are all lost in the process.

Your bloodline transfers anything worth keeping; it's all about characteristics, but also deeper level instincts and traumatic alterations.

Let me tell you about another highly important natural law that was corrupted by humans to control others. Individuality. Nearly every human being has the false believe that the world revolves around him. That he is important, that having a consciousnesses is giving him the right to act like his own god. That is a lie that's been promoted by jews since forever and it's why they're succeeding with their crimes. Individuality can only exist if the collective is healthy and strong enough to create the freedom needed to become an individual. Individuals are the fruits of labor, created by a hardworking, stable community, and they are the means to reach out and uplift the entire collective with their unique actions. This collective is based on blood, race, culture and upholding morality. When you have an honest look at the history of mankind you see that only a handful of true individuals ever existed. The rest is white noise in the history books. The jews learned about this early on and used it to promote the false hope of becoming individuals to the gentiles. It's always about standing out, chasing the dream, being your own boss, yada yada yada. All this has nothing to do with divinity. It's all logic.

>>100603

>A Muslim would not subscribe to what you said, neither would a Jew.

I didn't even bring up other religions, you did. Anyway, Muslims believe in submission to Mohammad, Islam and Allah, the almighty. So let's talk islam. Mohammad took like over 20 years to narrate his political tool of power acquisition orally, and it took another 20 years to put it all in writing. That's over 40 years of human meddling into a religion based on what he knew about Christianity and Judaism. then came countless different interpretations of this material until the 3rd caliph Uthman destroyed all of them and made his version the only existing translation of Mohammad's Islam. At this point it's complete and utter nonsense, that has nothing to do with it's highly questionable origins. Fast forward and we got jews getting their hands on it as well and now we have not a religion but a self destructive weapon, controlled by inhumane laws. As for jews…they are the parasite that acts parasitical to us being a parasite to nature. Call it divine retribution. All these are just symptoms of the corruption that cascades throughout humanity, the lingering side effects of going against nature.

>utterly ignorant of religion

I know enough to understand that specifics don't matter, only the fundamentals. Just look at the Torah. It's drivel so big that they have interpretations of it that are 18 volumes long. Meanwhile the average jew has an IQ of like 90, and often calls himself religious. Christians had no problem doing pilgrimages in Africa to an audience of 60 IQ retards, and here you are telling me I have to look deeper into scripture to understand religion. There is a reason they call it opium for the masses.

>without an eye for romanticism

I'm a very romantic and nature bound person, but logical truth has no place for sentiments, which is why you cannot explain logic with holding onto feelings. It only makes you lie to yourself about the impacts of truths.

>worship of nature to be the proper origin of the worship of God

Nature came first and can be proven. Then came humanity, then the concept of god. The truth fears no investigation, anon.

>>100604

>you don't care very much for facts. You superimpose your worldview on them before you draw any conclusions from them. Your methodology is whack.

Baseless accusations. Test my logic, anon.

>Make a convincing argument before you gloat, will you?

That's a lazy way of making me do all the work but fuck it. Let's talk commandments. "Thou shalt not steal" That's a lie inside the construct of civility. We all steal all the time. We rob nature of it's resources, we use tax loopholes, we use the works of others for our own benefits (like memes), we steal a look down a cute girls decollete, we steal each others land, we steal freedom away from animals and humans and so on. I can disprove each and every one of the commandments this way, and your only defense will be interpretations, which I will call lying to yourself about why you didn't listen to what common sense is telling you. You know it's wrong, but you make up an excuse anyway. This sentiment is what religions are exploiting. They give you the justification of committing the sins, for the small price of being obedient to their laws. Superstition, faith and morality is what religions are based upon, and the human laws within are the corruption that gives the creators the power to control you. Imagine what this simple knowledge can give you over believers who don't know it? It's brilliantly evil.

>I have thrown more than enough evidence your way, many concrete examples of religions not fitting into your worldview, and you have ignored most of it.

No, you use big words to tell me little to nothing. I use little words to tell you fundamental truths. I have prove in nature for anyone to understand, you are hiding inconsistencies behind human constructs and buzzwords. How does saying "philosophical teachings of so and so" proves anything? It's just another form of "you have to believe". And i tell you again…I don't have to believe anything if I can come up with a logical truth, and neither should you.

>Tell me, why do you see humans as broken, and not nature?

Because nature cannot commit a sin when it's testing us, and it would also be laughable to divert the consequences of our own actions onto our creator. Do you blame god?

>why see any one of these two as broken?

We were born into a fully functioning ecosystem and we are destroying it. Me realizing this proves that we have the ability to not not do this, which also proves we are at fault.

>Why not see humans as acting perfectly in accordance with nature if they destroy it, and ignore its supposed lessons?

Common sense. A parasite that chooses to be a parasite is by definition suicidal. Common sense tells me that's a non-no, if I want to live.

>Look up the Five Ways, Anselms ontological proof, the argument from finetuning and its derivates. They are basic knowledge in religious philosophy.

When I ask you about proves on a public image board then I did not fish for book recommendations. I simply want to for you to give me a proof for the existence of god (based on anything) in your own words, and I will prove you wrong. I will look up your recommendations tho, but I'm sure I already know the basics of it.

>>100604

>my entire critique of overrelying on anthropological evidence

So you need step by step then…okay.

>religion can just as well limit rulership

So a means of mass control like I stated?

>consolation

I just saw a video of two elephants walking over a small stream, while their baby had problems stepping over the water. You should've seen the consolation they gave that child for like 10 minutes. Beautiful, but do i have to thank religions for that? Nope, comforting comes from nature.

>finding purpose

You mean navigating the struggle of life with common sense? Here's an answer to a question all the wannabe philosophers seem to fail at. What is the meaning of life? Creation! See, that wasn't so hard.

>there may actually be a realm of Divinity

I just have to believe in something humans made up and that can't be found in nature…am I right? I say you better have some solid evidence for a claim like this, because dishing out a lie of that scope to 7.5 billion humans is outright nasty. Imagine how disastrous their quality of life would be if they would've made to believe that they don't have to struggle for a better life as long as they believe in a realm of divinity, a heaven, a paradise with virgins?

>humans have a natural urge to get into contact with it

The way of least resistance aka believing the lie instead of facing the ugly truth of dying. There is a reason humans are so perverted when it comes to handling their dead. Making the corpses look pretty, making an industry around fancy caskets, using dying flowers as decorations, and building hedonistic temples for the worshiping has nothing to do with respecting the dead, or acknowledging the truth of nature…it's just another despicable lie to feel better about themselves, while trying to hide the fact that death is waiting for all of us.

>>100607

>Death is the absence of life

No. Death is the end of life and the beginning of new life.

>0 is literally, well, zero

Nothing can't be nothing, it has to be something. 0 is the state of not being 1, both must coexist to function.

>yin and yang are symbols for dualism

Dualism stands for the balance between two opposites and the necessity of coexistence.

>>100609

This imagine is exactly how evolution was described to me many times over. This is what science sells as the origins story. It's nonsensical construct out of different lies. They ignore adaptations, they somehow link humans to other species, they don't mention blood and race heritage. I cannot explain evolution, because it doesn't exist. A human was always a human, and apes were always apes. Lifeforms adapt to their surroundings. That's all it is. There are no evolutionary mutations to be seen anywhere in history.

>>100626

Them; Evolution is real, bigot!

me; so about those black peopl-

Them; Racist!

>>100611

>We do not have proper evidence on the ancient religions.

We don't need it, we have common sense, and can use logic. See I'm smarter then my ancestors and live in a more advance society. The same can be said about them and their ancestors, and when we follow that logic back we will arrive at very dumb people living in a very rudimentary civilization. On religious scale we would be somewhere around animism by some tribesmen. That's about 100k years ago if you believe science. It's all irrelevant to me. What I need is the understanding that they didn't have the knowledge to understand the nature around them. So a good ol fashioned blizzard storm is like entertainment by gods. So naturally everyone pisses his non existing pants and hides under a rock. Then some fucker realizes that the odds of getting killed by it are pretty bad, and so he had something other didn't have…knowledge. So what do? Sharing or being a cunt and exploiting it? That's btw humanity in a nutshell in 2019 as well. You don't need any historical evidence to understand simple concepts as these, you can just look at what nature offers as evidence. In this case the existence of haves and have nots aka hierarchy. Almost all animals have these hierarchies, which are mostly based on power over others. Like the the leader of the wolf pack who uses physical dominance to rule or the ant queen who dominates by breeding power. See, all natural, no superstitions.

>no appreciation for it

How can you not appreciated what sustains your life? No, humans fully understand the importance of nature, but they chose to ignore the consequences to gain short term profits out of it. It's why hedonism rules mankind, and why we are in this sad stage of existence.

>Nature is out to kill you

So you think is somehow intelligent to ignore something that unmistakably will claim you at the end, while doing everything it can to get you before it? Only humans can be this stupid. That's an insane level of self deception. But guess what? It's just a lie on the same scope as accepting racism, while walking into a group of blacks wielding machetes to prove that you're not a racist.

>civilized men

It's a lie. You're not civil. You only pretend to be until nature catches up with you, which it naturally always does. You ignore your natural instincts because of human lies. Why? Because humans promised you that this is the way survive. Then you die anyway or make up excuses as to why you keep pretending to be civil, while the world around you falls into violent madness. I mean the Vatican is raping children. How civil is that?

>savage men are not so inspired

And we are still paying for their sins, while still following their ways. Or no wait…we're actually even more destructive to nature then they were.

>Perhaps nature is all about animals eating plants and other animals?

Perhaps the ability to have a consciousness and using common sense puts us into the position of maintaining the balance of it? I mean we know we die if we don't do it? What's the holdup? Do I miss something?

>if you believe in God

Yet again the "you just have to believe" excuse. And I promise you will use it many more times while running out of explanations. Meanwhile nature stands strong.

>who don't think you have to cast aside the use of your reason

Do they look behind god tho? And if yes, why doesn't nature come up more often? I mean sharing all these similarities is kinda coincidental, isn't it? Kind of a dick move to claim the creator of all life title without evidence.

>Don't tell me you believe in anthropogenic climate change, but not DNA?

Climates change, humanities doings are not the main motivator. It's just another test in an endless line of survival situations. I can't say anthing abut DNA tho, because modern science is ruled by money and oppression of thought, so I see everything coming out of that direction as a flat out lie until proven otherwise. But using the laws of nature again I know that bloodlines equal health and that they also can be corrupted, which makes me think the idea of provable genetic make-up is a logical assumption. I'm not gonna give em my blood tho. Ever. Fuck 23 and me and the jewish police state behind it.

>>100616

>species differentiation

What has that to do with evolution? Lions, tigers, cougars, lynx, and house cats are not evolutionary stages of felidae, they are distinct sub species with distinct roles for their distinct surroundings. Just because they share certain characteristics doesn't men they are the same. Put them together if you don't believe me, and stay close to learn your lesson from it.

>>100631

>doesn't mean

>>100616

Glad you liked my posts!

>Would you care to elaborate on this? Specifically, your beef with evolution?

Oh, I actually don't have that much of a problem with the theory of evolution. I have some objections, but those are mostly on details. For example, epigenetics have been ignored for too long. We already know that Lamarck was not completely wrong, but scientists, it seems, are slow to catch on to that. What I don't like very much is just evolutionary psychology.

>A question about Aquinas' five proofs: I've never doubted that these are logically sound arguments, but it seems to me that they are only proof of a first cause generally, and not the Christian God specifically.

You are correct about that, they don't eliminate among the monotheistic religions. Going by the Five Ways alone, you cannot determine if Allah, God, or any other "First Mover" is the right one.

From an academic standpoint, the next step, after the Five Ways, would be to eliminate among the alternatives through historical analysis. I would say that the Old and New Testament are the only historically accurate religious books, with the others - like the Quran - being derivative. When you read the New Testament as a historical source, you have to conclude that it does, in fact, describe the events that happened in it, notably the miracles that Christ worked. If He did that, then He must have been the Son of God, as He claimed to be. We have no one comparable to Him in the entire historical record, no one of His might, and no one who lived such an untarnished life at the same time. The only way to deny this conclusion from the historical evidence is by declaring it to be impossible a priori, and this is where the Five Ways come in very handy.

What's more important for the spiritual life, however, are our personal experiences. If you have not made them yet, then I hope from the bottom of my heart that you do. They are not very useful for most apologetic discourses, but for myself, and many other believers, it is hard to overestimate their importance. At the top of my hat, I can think of no less than five events in my own life for which I have a strong feeling that God was directly interfering. Dreams coming at just the right time to give me a wakeup call, crippling back pain ceasing for the first time in two weeks after I applied holy oil and prayed on it… it's very easy to chalk this all up to selection bias, but such it is with almost all personal experience.

Then there are the documented miralces in the past, and in our time. My patron saint, St. Charbel, is credited with perhaps a dozen confirmed miraculous healings. There are many more that aren't documented well enough to be accepted by the Church as definitely genuine. I personally know people who swear to have seen Him. Of course, that could be chalked up to schizophrenia or epilepsy or something if you wanted to, but then we eventually reach the point where I'm suffering from selection bias, the people I am very close to are all undiagnosed schizophrenics, and every single historian from before the 16 century was mentally ill, yet showed no symptoms of any illness other than documenting the occasional miracle. And then the whole case against Christianity starts to resemble the ramblings of some conspiracy nut who believes the mailman is out to get him, and everyone but him is insane. Not convincing.

>>100617

>Love is a social construct.

This speaks for itself.

>>100619

>the god that grows his power through our worshiping […] describes unmistakably NATURE itself

<none of the religions teaches that God is in any way dependent on our worship

>Because that would put the leaders in demand to prove that god received the worship and is getting stronger.

Clear contradiction to what you said above, which I got from this: >>100595

>>100620

>It's drivel so big that they have interpretations of it that are 18 volumes long. Meanwhile the average jew has an IQ of like 90, and often calls himself religious. Christians had no problem doing pilgrimages in Africa to an audience of 60 IQ retards, and here you are telling me I have to look deeper into scripture to understand religion. There is a reason they call it opium for the masses.

The IQ 60 Christians are not the ones who can explain the concept of the Trinity to you, or the Five Ways, or the controversy surrounding the Immaculate Conception. You are telling me that because retards can be religious, there is no expert knowledge to be had about religion. That is like saying that experimental physics is a worthless endeavor because even retards understands that "apple go down". If you can teach them gravity, then obviously, looking deeper into physics is worthless, right? You, anon, have to say this if you want to be at all consistent.

>There is a reason they call it opium for the masses.

Trailerline.

>>100623

>Baseless accusations. Test my logic, anon.

>"Thou shalt not steal" That's a lie inside the construct of civility.

A law is a lie, because it gets broken? Then the "natural law" is full of lies, as we humans break it all the time.

>Imagine what this simple knowledge can give you over believers who don't know it? It's brilliantly evil.

Anon, I have heard this theory since I was eight. This isn't some forbidden knowledge. If you want to be original, you have to step up your game.

>Because nature cannot commit a sin when it's testing us, and it would also be laughable to divert the consequences of our own actions onto our creator. Do you blame god?

No, because God is by definition the source of all that is good, and only of the good. You, on the other hand, have, to my knowledge, explicitly said that nature is both good and bad. At the very least, you have heavily implied that the bad is just as much a part of nature as the good.

>No, you use big words to tell me little to nothing. I use little words to tell you fundamental truths.

They sound like big words because you are ignorant of their meaning.

>>100623

>I simply want to for you to give me a proof for the existence of god (based on anything) in your own words

Well, if you say so:

1. There are things that exist contingently

2. For contingently existing things to exist, something must confer existence on them

3. Only what is in existence can confer existence

4. The chain of contingent beings conferring existence on each other cannot go on endlessly, but must terminate somewhere, as otherwise, we have no explanation why things exist instead of not existing

5. A being with necessary existence must have conferred existence to the contingently existing beings

6. This necessary being, everyone understands to be God

Have fun.

>>100624

>I just saw a video of two elephants walking over a small stream, while their baby had problems stepping over the water. You should've seen the consolation they gave that child for like 10 minutes. Beautiful, but do i have to thank religions for that? Nope, comforting comes from nature.

I hope you did not forget to comment that "cats are the better humans" today. This is just ridiculous.

>Here's an answer to a question all the wannabe philosophers seem to fail at. What is the meaning of life? Creation! See, that wasn't so hard.

That's not common sense, it's you jumping to a conclusion, with no argument given, thinking that you're smarter than everyone else for it.

>I just have to believe in something humans made up and that can't be found in nature…am I right?

>that can't be found in nature

Begs the question.

>There is a reason humans are so perverted when it comes to handling their dead. Making the corpses look pretty, making an industry around fancy caskets, using dying flowers as decorations, and building hedonistic temples for the worshiping has nothing to do with respecting the dead, or acknowledging the truth of nature…it's just another despicable lie to feel better about themselves, while trying to hide the fact that death is waiting for all of us.

Yeah, funeral rites are disgusting, except, I suppose, when it's elephants burying their dead, then it's suddenly proof that nature is godly. Anon, do you hear yourself talk? You need to think less, and go out more, to talk to actual human beings. You're highly misanthropic.

>>100625

>No. Death is the end of life and the beginning of new life.

Way to overcomplicate it.

>Death is the end of life

Yes, it is the absence of life. As I said it.

>and the beginning of new life

Not even true, strictly speaking. It is easy enough to conceive of procreation in a world without death. That means that death is distinct from procreation.

>Nothing can't be nothing, it has to be something.

Proof?

>0 is the state of not being 1

Show me a zero in nature, then. I'll be waiting.

>Dualism stands for the balance between two opposites and the necessity of coexistence.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

>>100630

<We do not have proper evidence on the ancient religions.

>We don't need it, we have common sense, and can use logic.

So you will figure out what people five thousand years ago prayed to, and how, and why, solely by focusing reaaaally hard? That's next level rationalism.

>See I'm smarter then my ancestors and live in a more advance society. The same can be said about them and their ancestors, and when we follow that logic back we will arrive at very dumb people living in a very rudimentary civilization.

>Only humans can be this stupid.

Here we go again with the misanthropy, this is just incredible. Seriously, for your own good, stop looking at everyone like they're perpetually being assholes or idiots.

>I mean the Vatican is raping children. How civil is that?

Yes, at roughly the same rate as evangelical pastors, and school teachers, and possibly the population at large. Do you into comparative statistics, or do you just look inward if you want to compare the criminal risk of population groups?

>Climates change

They do, but it's not anthropogenic. Big difference.

>>100640

>My hypothesis is plausible ONLY if you have first established, one way or another, that God exists.

Not for me. I'm perfectly capable to judge any statement on it's own merits without having any associated believe system. I also clearly proved that the concept of god exists, but that humans misinterpreted it. Nature created humans, humans made up religions, humans claim god created nature. Meanwhile nature is creating life all around us, while humans still hold on, to a concept that can't be proven and strangely aligns with all the other human lies. Anyway, answer me this…what would you as a religious believer lose if you replace god with nature? Also who would be more offended? The follower or the controllers behind religions?

>>100641

>Clear contradiction to what you said above

Good catch. Poorly worded by me. BUT I stick to it because you made a tactical error. Let me explain…my first statement is fully correct

>the god that grows his power through our worshiping […] describes unmistakably NATURE itself

Then you said…

>none of the religions teaches that God is in any way dependent on our worship

See that is incorrect, because they don't say that gods depends on worshipers, but the entire principle of religion is build on having followers keeping it alive. A god is forgotten without his worshipers.

>Because that would put the leaders in demand to prove

This I will take back because it was a hit at the term "dependence" with the terms "demand to prove". I should not have brought worshiping into it. That was a mistake.

>IQ 60 Christians

The IQ 60 blacks.

>If you can teach them gravity, then obviously, looking deeper into physics is worthless, right?

I have nothing against higher learning, but the topics I discuss here are fundamentals. I don't use big words when my opponents can't explain little topics.

>Trailerline.

1.8 billion Muslims, anon. Islam is the definition of opium for the masses and exactly the mass control tool I described.

>A law is a lie, because it gets broken?

A law is a lie when it can't be upheld naturally. Everyone steals. All commitments are corruptions of natural laws, that are designed to hold you hostage in the loop of being a sinner and repenting your sins. The perfect, docile slave class.

>"natural law" is full of lies, as we humans break it all the time.

You can't break a natural law, it will always be there to punish the ones not following it. It's an unshakable truth that connects your existence with the ecosystem you live in.

>This isn't some forbidden knowledge.

Yet our entire global education, media, and political systems are based on controlling people with lies, and the masses buy into it wholesale. Or do you brush this one off as a theory too?

>you have heavily implied that the bad is just as much a part of nature as the good.

Absolutely. One cannot exist without the other. Life and death are a circle, 0 and 1 create together, positivity and negativity are natural opposites, up cannot exist without down, silence can only exist in world of noise etc. If you make the error of assuming that God stands for good only, then it means that you also equally believe in an anti-god (Satan). Now your religion has two equal gods, that is nonsense. Meanwhile nature creates equally for every life on earth, and never holds back in showing us the beauty of good or the horrors of bad. All in harmony, all logical, all based on evidence everyone can see. Where am I wrong, anon?

>you are ignorant of their meaning

2.1 billion Christians. I really doubt the majority wants to hear big words or is capable of understanding them, so why do you disrespect so many followers by avoiding easy to digest answers to the most basic questions?

>>100642

>There are things that exist contingently

Chance is simply prove that the perfect balance can never be established, and that eternal struggle always stays the main motivator for life to move forward.

>For contingently existing things to exist, something must confer existence on them

That's nature testing life.

>Only what is in existence can confer existence

Irrelevant statement because nothing doesn't exists. Nothing is always something.

>we have no explanation why things exist

We exist to create, we were given the tools to do so, the material to do it, a set of rules to follow, and a environment that tests us endlessly. How is this hard to understand? Every fucking animal follows it's purpose instinctively, only humans are so dumb to getting tricked by their own consciousness into questioning themselves into suicidal inactivity.

>A being with necessary existence must have conferred existence to the contingently existing beings

Just no, fuck you. Nobody speaks like that. That's the kind of bullshit sentence politicians would build to hide their crimes.

>This necessary being, everyone understands to be God

How about the necessity to exist inside an ecosystem? As far as I know god doesn't threaten to kill you, so the priority ranking about necessity goes right to nature. And everyone understands the treat of dying.

>This is just ridiculous.

About as ridiculous as humans claiming superiority over all other life or religions making distinctions between men and beast, even after men proved time and time again to be the real monsters.

>thinking that you're smarter than everyone else

See my explanation above. Also I'm in the position where i can safely say that the majority of mankind is stuck in a loop of not accepting any truth, because they are ashamed of falling for such obvious lies.

>Begs the question.

Prove it.

>elephants burying their dead

They put a naked corpse into the ground where it rots naturally away. that is literally cleaning up after themselves in accordance to the laws of nature, while also keeping the balance of not interfering with their ecosystem. They literally give back to the earth what they don't need anymore. It's as good as it gets.

>You're highly misanthropic.

Nah, I just don't mix logic with emotions. Also believing in a world full of lies makes the truth seem like an attack against principles, but it's really just the ugly truth.

>Way to overcomplicate it.

Says the guy using the most high strung word combinations possible. But again..you live, you die, you become worm food, you are now part of new life. It's the circle of life (in Elton John voice)

>absence of life

Life is never absent only your perception of it (your consciousness). Reread what I wrote about the lie of individuality. You are not an individual, the history books will not remember you, your death will mean as much as the death of a fish in the natural flow of time. The only thing that matters is what you did for your collective, that's your bloodline and your race. Both of which are fucked all across the human species, because of our ongoing sin against nature.

>>100642

>in a world without death

Doesn't exist.

>Proof?

You can say there is nothing inside a glass and it's a lie, because there is air inside the glass or you could say there is nothing inside the glass of water, which only describes the absence of water. Nothing doesn't exists in nature, because you cannot create out of nothing. And before you ask…the big bang is utter nonsense.

>Show me a zero in nature, then.

Now you are contradicting your own statement when you ask for proof that nothing can't be nothing. I give you proof anyway…before you were born your parents carried the genetic material that would create you. That is you being the 0 that isn't 1 (born) yet.

>This has nothing to do with what I said.

But it describes a word you used.

>So you will figure out what people five thousand years ago prayed to…

That is the difference between learning by useless facts, names, and dates like the jews are forcing into the school curriculum, and learning by understand history in the flow of time. Once you understand that everything is connected by nature, you realize you can simply travel through history by the knowledge how live works, how societies are constructed, how behavior plays out etc. I know how a chicken is born, I don't need the to know it's name, the birthplace, the date of birth, or the political climate surrounding it.

>this is just incredible

You mean obvious and logical, because otherwise you would've disprove my statement if you could, which you couldn't, so you chose to be offended by it instead.

>Do you into comparative statistics

And you call me misanthropic, while whitewashing child abuse into statistics.

>but it's not anthropogenic

Which is why I said humanity isn't the main motivator for it.

I call it a day btw and will answer the rest tomorrow. Have a good one, anon.

>>100644

>Not for me. I'm perfectly capable to judge any statement on it's own merits without having any associated believe system.

You misunderstood me, and you misunderstood how systems of belief work. You cannot say that my hypothesis is plausible or implausible whether you believe in God or not.

>Anyway, answer me this…what would you as a religious believer lose if you replace god with nature?

Nature isn't God. I have established that several posts ago. You gave me a catalogue of things that God and nature have in common, I pointed out exactly where and why you went wrong. You have not really engaged with that.

>BUT I stick to it because you made a tactical error

>tactical error

Perhaps one of your first errors is to even think of online debates this way, as a battle to be fought and won. I don't do it that way, not very often.

>I should not have brought worshiping into it. That was a mistake.

Alright, acknowledged that there was no contradiction in your belief then, but how was it a "tactical error" of me to point your contradiction out? You really ought to be more humble, not act like you have won some major battle because your vicious enemy pointed out you worded a sentence badly, when you actually meant the right thing.

>I have nothing against higher learning, but the topics I discuss here are fundamentals.

They really aren't, you're just describing your own theories here.

>A law is a lie when it can't be upheld naturally. Everyone steals.

And everyone ruins the environment for his own gain, and considering we live past sixty these days, I'd say we get away with it just fine. Sounds like the natural law cannot be upheld naturally.

>Everyone steals.

Also, no, I actually don't steal. I don't even take leftover coupons that don't belong to me. I used to steal in the past, but not anymore. Look, not everyone's fully corrupted. There are people who don't steal, who don't masturbate, etc. Everyone is bound to sin sometimes, but no single, specific sin is unavoidable. What you're criticizing the Church for is acknowledging that people aren't perfect, and giving people a way out of sin. Not a good thing to criticize, doesn't quite have the punch of "The Church turns you into sinners so you go to confession!". No, we are already sinners, and confession is an option we otherwise wouldn't have.

And furthermore:

>All commitments are corruptions of natural laws, that are designed to hold you hostage in the loop of being a sinner and repenting your sins.

Doing penance for your sins is not a universal religious thing. In fact, it is something we know mostly from Christians. Muslims don't have confession, neither do many protestants. You will be hardpressed to find something like penance in the Greek or Germanic myths, in Hinduism or Shintoism. You can shoehorn some religious rites into the category of "confessional booth", but at that point, you're making your whole theory surrounding religions controlling the population by making them out to be sinners worthless, because even atheists apologize to each other and have a guilty conscience if they do wrong.

>>99483

Excuse me?

>>100658

oh and to explain further the universe is accelerating apart so eventually there will have to be a new universe popping into existence to conserve the equilibrium or whatever

>>100658

>first way

You are thinking of the First Way as describing a chronology of how the universe came to be, when you don't have to look at time at all for it to work. The cloud of gas you describe only had potential existence, and would have to be actualized by something to exist. What actualized it must exist in actuality, but for this to be the case, it must, in turn, be actualized by something, and so on. You will probably see the parallels to the argument from contingent and necessary being now. Both arguments talk about the same thing, just by invoking different (but related) categories.

>Causality is a feature present in most of our universe. It does not hold in some circumstances (singularities).

The only singularities I am familiar with are those in the middle of black holes, and those actually do have a cause.

>At most one can say the causal regions of the Universe must have at some point emerged from a non-causal fabric.

This just supports the Second Way, if anything. If the universe emerge from a "non-causal fabric", then it was caused by an uncaused cause.

>To say that this caused or preceded the universe is a misunderstanding of what non-causality is.

Sure you're not looking at this in terms of chronological causality again, instead of hierarchical causality?

>To attribute the existence of the universe to a single cause is unfounded.

It isn't, Aquinas' went on to show that the uncaused cause has all the attributes of God, among which is unity. There can be only one uncaused cause, not several.

>Saying that cause is God is an asspull of collossal proportions.

Actually, no, not if you think the argument a bit further. Think of of this as the second stage of the argument. You show that the universe has a first mover/prime cause/etc., then you look what attributes it must have (timelessness, immutability, and so on), and looking at those, you can only conclude that it must in fact be God.

>third way

>"being"

>In the absence of a proper definition of being, this argument is less than pointless.

I would say that being is as straightforward a concept as it gets, I really don't understand why you would get hung up on this.

I am not entirely sure I am fully convinced of the fourth and fifth way yet, so I won't say anything on these for now.

>>100658

>Nothing in the Universe's ballet of interacting forces would suggest that it had to be set in motion.

Everything about those forces suggests that. First, if interpreting your statement in the most literal way, analyzing those forces and the motions they produce suggests that they all originated from a single point. The fact that the night sky isn't a uniform blinding white implies the stars haven't been there forever, but had a distinct beginning. The anthropic principle further suggests the universe had a distinct beginning, a certain number of years ago. Even if we ignore the all of the a priori arguments—the fact that infinite regression of causality is philosophically unsound—empirical evidence alone suggests that a first cause must exist. I will agree that it's presumptuous to declare that this first cause can only be some kind of God. The core of the argument, however, is plenty sound. The other guy covered the conceptual justifications well enough, so I won't repeat them here.

Regarding singularities—black holes themselves have a cause, and causality still exists even within the event horizon, albeit on an asymptotically high delay. Only at the unreachable center does causality stop, and once again, the singularity itself has a cause. The only singularity in which the laws of time completely break down is the the one which encompassed the entire universe, which is to say the Big Bang. And wouldn't you know it, the Big Bang is the first cause, the thing which is not explained by causality but is the initiator of it.

>>100668

>>100671

>the thing which is not explained

wrong, it's caused by conservation of energy as the universe inflates until a virtual particle (big bang) pops into existence to balance it out

see>>100669

>>100667

>>100672

That's not what virtual particles are at all. How did you even arrive at this autistic worldview of yours? Did you create a book from the even-numbered pages of Brief History of Time and the odd-numbered pages of The God Delusion?

>>100673

so tell me what you think a virtual particle is

and to be clear you are disputing that virtual particles can pop into existence in a sufficient vacuum?

>>100681

>The way I see it, the First Way is a failed attempt to equate motion and causality.

That's being pedantic more than it is addressing the argument. When Aquinas (or Plato, for that matter) says "motion", he means what you or I would mean by causality. Besides, I don't how distinguishing between motion and causality would invoke any holes in the argument.

>The isue here is that we are operating under the assumption that causality is a hard rule in the universe

Why wouldn't it be a hard rule? Causality is the most basic precept in not just formal logic, but the very way in which we intuitively understand the world. If it isn't a hard rule, we may as well throw up our hands in despair and stop trying to understand anything, because neither we nor any machine that we create is capable of operating outside of causality.

>The universe wasn't created, it emerges

That's still causality, though. The universe still has a first cause from which it emerged.

>>100681

and to be clear sheldrakes experiments have been reproduced with and without positive results but the journals only will talk about the negative ones

>>100684

ok sam harris

>>100507

>beings that biology textbooks refer to as sexually mature are not sexually mature and you are retarded for referring to them as such

>people who fucking have sex all the time are not sexually mature

Can you imagine the level of Dunning-Kruger it takes to actually make that post?

>>99183

>>gay is okay

>>fucking animals is okay

>>polygamy/polyamory is okay

>>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism

>>etc

It's not okay, it should be legal.

It is up to you to live a live in that pleases God, not the state to make it happen for you.

>>101121

>the state should allow you to do what is wrong

>the state shouldn't force you to do what is right

Next you gonna say genocide is wrong, cuck

>>101126

it is

>>101126

Genociding commies is ok.

>>101126

One cannot be forced to accept enlightenment. To attempt to do so breeds evil.

>>101121

>>101138

Posting to reinforce. There's nothing moral when someone else makes the choice for you.

communism is great my dudes

>>99183

hope everyone is noticing the op and the anti-freedom type of christian.

>gay

not against homosexuality, it's just none of my business. i'm asexual myself, though that unfortunately meaning me being part of the LGBT agenda, i find the in-your-face, im-so-gay-and-proud individuals pretty obnoxious.

>fucking animals

/cracks knuckles

i'm not a practitioner or advocate of beastiality. it is also none of my business, nor the governments'. though somehow killing animals without consent is overlooked while having sexual intercourse is prohibited.

i think that, IF:

- the animal is willing and showing signs of being ready

- not being injured in the process,

there is no harm done by allowing both sides to satisfy their urges.

it is also natural and has been going on for thousands of years prior.

zoophilia should not be considered a full-blown "crime", rather a victimless crime.

citing Lexxi Stray: "We spend millions of dollars trying to stop people from bending over for their dog or taking a puff of weed while men beating their wives or people drinking themselves into comas hardly get a second glance." and that we should "stop wasting more tax money trying to stop people from engaging in actions that don't harm anyone else."

>Wanting to fuck animals is just not good from a hygienic point of view

fair point, though some zoophile owners keep their pets in a really good overall and hygienic shape and show them lots of love that some animals even in non-sexual ownerships would never recieve with the majority of pet-owning people.

(also looking at people who think that drowning unwanted sucklings/abandoning or even worse, throwing in the trash for example dogs/pups they can't afford to own or train is okay)

keep in mind there's still people who enjoy scat and other disgusting stuff, though.

>freedom of speech/freedom to promote communism

speak whatever while you're anonymous

i don't really like communism and what it's done in the past in europe

>freedom of religion

choose whichever you want, but most dead-set orthodox christians i know act like they were fucking possessed

>racial equality under the law

i'm perfectly okay with blacks or asians since all races (including whites) have their advantages/disadvantages and individuals who give their race a bad name. though i'm not quite ok with inbred/degenerate gypsies who just hunt for tax money without ever going to school or actually working hard for the money.

>>101162

>asexual

obvious troll

>>101195

lol, why would i be faking being an asexual

>>99186

You're right. Libertarians are basically kikes.

>>99257

if you could teach people how stupid communism is it wouldn't keep working, since the time of rational thought it has long been observed that the masses are fucking morons. communism is the oldest conmans trick in the book that preys on people good nature,well meaning and the promise of security… it's an appeal to the heart and the senses, you're fucking stupid if you think your going to just beat that by teaching people it's bad. only reason we know it's bad is because people are still alive who saw how bad that shit was, when they die off the cycle will be repeated.

democracy is bullshit because the masses could vote for something like communism or some other fucked up shit, we've already seen time and time again the Constitution is fucking bullshit, with democracy the people can and will eventually vote their way to whatever they want.

the faggtory stuff, you just have no morals. ethics maybe, but not morals.

>>99183

>Either newfaggotry or a /pol/ack trollventing from all the newfaggotry.

>>99430

Fascism + economic freedom is the best ideology.

>>101259

Fash+economic freedom is no longer recognizably fash. It's just Hoppean/paleo libertarianism.

>>99548

are 16 year olds that different from 15 year olds?

are 17 year olds that different from 16 year olds?

are 18 year olds that different from 17 year olds?

Without the goverment, who will keep me form killing niggers, marrying 12 years olf girls, raiding weaker communities, and disrespecting women? Check m8

>>101138

>>101139

Good point.

>>101298

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH MY DICK! MOOOOAR!

This very thread is a proof why /pol/tards like OP would never accept true freedom of speech.

Once being let loose to speak, they will make themselves look stupid, and later demand to abolish freedom of speech so that they could delete the proof of their idiocy.

Kindly go back to your containment board.

>>101286

Those numbers are not the problem, anon…it's those above 30 numbers that want to bang them.

No it's not. It's a mental disorder that has a huge suicide rate and spreads decease.

>>99183

Modern leftists coopted and bastardized the liberty movement.

this is a power move by the elite to undermine the west. Using our own systems of freedom and democracy to remove our liberties. The only way to stop them is to abandoned our liberties for authoritarianism, or join them in total fascist authoritarianism.

The liberty movement pushed back against this notion, only to be swarmed with sophist radical authoritarians pushing radical leftist immoral propositions to push the destruction of our culture and society.

What we must do is ban together as Christians and walk in the light of Christ, not devolve into internal division and civil war. This is the desire of the powers at be. Do not play into their hands.

>>101816

Religion is outdated thing destined to vanish in a modern society. More and more people realize praying etc. is just waste of time and that religion was just a tool to control masses

>>101831

What part of those statements says "killed"? It clearly says physically removed, which can be done kindly in a diplomatic fashion before the use of force is necessary. For example, if you have property such as a house, and you don't want me in your house, you would ask me to leave. If I don't leave, you have the right to use force because it is your property. Similarly, if a small group owns a bunch of property and agrees to not allow certain undesirables onto their property, they have the right to do so. Violence is not necessary for the removal of undesirables unless they refuse to cooperate with the property owners.

>>101844

what if all owners don't want black people on their property? where will you put them without killing them?

>>101846

So you're telling me even black people wouldn't want black people on their property?

>>101846

They could homestead their own property. Or offer their labor in exchange for money so they can purchase a cheap plot of land.

>>101846

Why is that my problem? They can figure out where to put themselves all on their own. They can either find a slumlord who's willing to put up with the increased costs of renting to them, or homestead their own property somewhere. Makes no difference to me, once the blacks have been physically removed from my covenant community I don't care what happens to them, so long as they stay out.

>>101848

what guarantees they'll have any property?

>>101849

Define cheap plot of land, land is not cheap nowadays, people work all their life to get 30 m2 apartment in city. It's not about getting land in some shithole, they have to work too. I think corporations would buy out all usable lands and then sell them for any price they'll want

>>101851

>why is that my problem?

With that approach ancap will never happen, ancap has to benefit most of the population to reach revolution.

>>101853

They already have property, who's going to take it from them?

>With that approach ancap will never happen, ancap has to benefit most of the population to reach revolution.

Firstly, blacks are not the majority in the US, so even if ancap had to benefit the majority it wouldn't matter. The only reason there isn't revolution right now is because the majority is uneducated on the topic. But ancap in reality does benefit the majority, so that's not an issue. The only people it doesn't benefit are those leeches who can't provide for themselves, but with no taxation and the lower cost of goods and services that will come from free market forces there will be more charity. With how things are now, many people don't have the funds to donate to charitable causes because the government takes it in taxes and the price of goods is inflated by government intervention in the free market.

>>101855

You know, you're not half wrong. "Fascists" are about as far from right as you can get!

>>101853

>With that approach ancap will never happen, ancap has to benefit most of the population to reach revolution.

First, revolutions are for gay communists. Secession combined with reformism is the low time-preference white man's way. Second, "you mind your problems and I mind mine" will very much have appeal for most of the population. No one enjoys it when busybodies mess with their shit and private lives.

>>>/leftypol/

>>101856

56% minus feminists, nazis, commies, leeches etc.

i think you could be glad for 10%

Welllll

>>99183

When I realized that I don't give a fuck about this society. I just want to become rich and oppress the lesser folks.

>>101877

So you work for the government?

>>99185

Private corporations also promote this degeneracy.

>>100631

>distinct

You have no idea what that means or what evolution even is. I bet you think gravity is just a "theory" too. Jump off a bridge then, we'll see just how much reality cares about your blatant ignorance.

>>101692

>muh free speech

is a nice utopist idea that doesn't work in reality, as it requires all parties to argue in good faith, something lefties are physically incapable of.

That, in turn, means "your" free speech ends up defiled and turned into an exercise of tests for more leftist crap.

Simply put, all ideas are not born equal, and do not desserve equal fair treatment.

>>101940

>can tell them apart

>it's somehow not distinct

>>101940

dawkins said gravitation is a theory too

>>101994

I hate to defend that cuck but I'm willing to bet it was gravitational waves and not gravity that he was talking about.

>>101940

Certain monks can levitate once they reach a level of spiritual mastery. Gravity doesn't work how you think it works.

>>101998

they cant

I like this guy's take on it. Hah, principle. Society is not principled.

>>99185

Honestly the only things mentioned that degenerate our communities are sodomites, animal lovers, puppet democracy and the control organized religions institutions and many false prophets have on people of all walks of life.

As for the first two; different behavior and mating patterns suggest we aren't even the same species not sure how the NAP applies.

Might as well remove the sodomites whole nine generations just to be sure you take care of both the branches and the root of the problem.

When you got a cancer; gotta take it all out or it will just get you again later.

Those that symphasize with the cancer are also cancer; the hardline, remove it all and restructure.

Ur mom gay

>>99536

Tell that to my roommate or his brothers. Oh wait they're hicks they'll just shoot you for trespassing. They may OR may not Fuck your corpse afterwards. Just a warning.

>>102316

> The more obvious example is a baby or someone who is paralyzed. They have no agency, they can't consent and they still have rights. But even non-living entities have rights. For instance, a historical monument has the right to be preserved. A forest has the right not to be burned down. A river has the right not to be polluted with chemicals, etc.

Absolutely wrong. Children and the infirm don't have any rights. They are considered property either of an institution or of their closest kin. It isn't said as such because that would be "dehumanizing" but it is de facto true. Furthermore your insistence that property has rights is just baffling. A forest does not have the right "not to be burned down". Imagine if it was so, would those rights be violated by brushfires started by dry storms? Would the violation of those rights be meaningful? Where are you getting any of this from? Your definition of "rights" are clearly so broad as to be meaningless. Not that "rights" aren't a spook anyhow.

>>102317

>Children and the infirm don't have any rights. They are considered property either of an institution or of their closest kin.

No, children and the infirm absolutely do have rights, and cannot be agressed against. The guardianship contract for such people may be traded, but the people themselves see not property and cannot be traded.

No one has any right you neckbeards. The goverment you so much hate and its mindless white minions are what give you rights. Remove that and nothing keeps people from going back to the natural "might makes right" mindset even if they work together and talk.

No goverment = no major cohesion = collapse = no police/laws = you liberal faggots gonna get murdered like you deserve.

Once all subhumans (like you) get killed people will calm down, self domesticate and tame themselfs in goverment and the cycle repeats.

>>102331

Who are you talking to?

>>99430

They will get removed from my private owned city is that better with you now?

>>102335

He's rambling incoherently like /pol/yps usually do

>>102321

This.

>>102317

>>102316

Rights are necessary constructs which let us play together in a way in which the greatest benefit is achieved for the greatest number of actors, and where no one actor can reliably improve their position by violating them.

They emerge out of repeated interaction, like an iterated prisoner's dilemma. It doesn't matter whether rights really exist or not (whatever that means); they're natural, and we can clearly identify a number of them.

Children and the incapable have rights because they have the potential to be actors, or were actors in the past. It is in the interest of other actors to protect their rights because they may find themselves in that position.

It's ridiculous to say animals or objects have rights because they're not playing the game. They're not actors and never will be.

>>102331

Ancap isn't "noone enforces your rights", it's "rights are enforced in a distributed manner without a monopoly on violence".

>>101945

>arguing in good faith

Spooky

>>102398

>In places like New Zealand, Ecuador and Colorado rivers have rights of personhood. There have been cases of "rivers" suing companies for polluting them, for instance.

Your conception of justice is drenched in authoritarianism. There is no such thing as a crime without a victim. When you say "a river sued someone" what you really mean to say is the government arbitrarily decided they had an arbitrary right over a plot of land they had neither homesteaded nor traded for. It's the government that is the actor here, not the river.

> If you pollute a river or burn down a forest, you're going to prison.

<if the government enforces the law, it must be good!

What are you? Are you a libertarian? You sound like a democratic socialist whinger.

>LOL. Being this boastful of one's unaware ignorance…

>LOL. It's like talking with a cartoon.

Oh fucking sod off mate. Honestly, fuck right off with that reddit shit

>>102401

>Your argument makes a bit more sense. Less edgy, more pragmatic. Of course everybody knows rights are "spooks" like the other retard said. Your explanation of how they came to be is very effective.

Oh I'm honored you like my arguments you smarmy, suburbanite american millenial twat.

>However, I have to say that "being an actor" is not a precondition to enjoy rights.

Why?

>You mentioned the potential to be an actor in children or having been an actor, in the case of the dying, for instance. You are saying that only humans can and should be able to enjoy rights. I think humanity as a whole is moving away from that notion and expanding it even beyond sentient beings:

>Animals have rights too: You can't abandon dogs and cats, it's against the law. Most people are not okay with eating dogs and cats. A growing number of people think someone who tortures / fucks animals should go to prison, etc.

Do you have any actual arguments beyond banal waffling?

Because so far you've argued that mistreating animals is wrong because of

<muh society(that we live in)'s feelings

<muh statist laws

>You disagree with these developments, I assume?

I think its a cause du jour for bored teenage girls and anti-humanist eco-crusaders, and you have only made me more certain of that opinion.

>animals can't consent

Oh? I think you need to not make such false generalizations. What is important is that, in any given case, to examine whether all involved parties consented. If the animal that you fucked consented to you fucking that animal, then anyone else forcing you to stop would be the aggressor.

There is, of course, the other question of proof. If someone violates you, and claims that they were justified because they were protecting the animal which you fucked (or tried to fuck, as the case may be), which they claim did not consent to you fucking them, and you claim that they were not justified in violating you, because the animal did consent, how is the question of who is reponsible for what restitution settled? I'm inclined to go for 'innocent until proven guilty', which would mean that the person violated you would have to prove that you were violating the animal, but then, what if the proof of guilt is too great? Of course, being a careful person, whatever I do, be it fucking an animal or otherwise, I ensure that I have proof that all effected parties consented, but that's me being a careful person.

(Not that I fuck animals or anything. It's all hypothetical here.)

>racial equality

SO. (Ahem.) What is important isn't racial equality per se, but that all discrimination is legitimate. There may be cases where discrimination based on race is legitimate. Of course, >>99186 a government that promotes racial equality is the antithesis of libertarianism, but it's not because that government promotes racial equality, but because it's a government.

[Age of consent]

>Are 14 year olds that different from 15 year olds? Are 13 year olds that different from 14 year olds? Where does it stop?

The point is that you don't look at the arbitrarily chosen property of 'how long has this person existed' to determine whether they are capable of consent, and you don't even look look at whether they are capable oc consent, but whether they did consent (!!), because that's what we care about here. Sure, if they have no ability to consent, then they didn't consent, but that doesn't mean that the question is about whether they can consent. Get your head on straight next time you wake up.