Sociopath Community

Good said: 

Cawk said: 

Good said: 

Cawk said: 

Good said: 

Theres a lot more questions scientists cant answer, why chose those specifically?

i didnt watch them all tho, its boring after having seen 1000ts of videos like this one

 #10

Actually some of those scientists can answer, but none of those can be answered without science.

Including number 10, so theists can't answer it either.

"God created it/made it that way." is an answer to everything.

It is not an answer that can be explained. It is irrelevant. You can replace God with anything.

It's explained to us pretty thoroughly in Genesis. 

This whole god vs no god debate can get ridiculous. It is narcissistic to assume there is something super-natural being that would give our existence meaning. Just why would there be one? How are living beings important enough in the grand scheme of things that they warrant being created and having a purpose? They aren't.

Let's get a bit deeper into this. What do you mean by god? All religions that we know of are man-made and made-up. Are you going to argue that since we cannot disprove the ravings of mad men long dead that echoed throughout the ages, we must give them validity and value? Miracles, prophets, magic, and the supernatural, am I supposed to just believe this? Which religion do I even choose?

Let's define a generic god and see what we get. It created the universe. It dictated the laws of physics. It is all-knowing and all-powerful. Okay. Now, what sort of moral system would this god have, if he's to be called "good"? I can't think of anything that logically follows really. Anything that happens in the universe is good, since god allowed it to happen. We cannot sin, because there is no sin. Sinning would be to go against god's will, someone powerless going against the all-powerful, laughable. The concept of god alone doesn't imply much in terms of good and evil. You still have to stick your morality to this god. "He gave us free will, so that we can sin, the sinners will be punished and the virtuous rewarded". Just why would he do that? Makes no damn sense. Honestly, I'd rebel against such a god. I won't accept his judgement. I didn't ask to be created by him, I didn't accept to be judged by him. Where's my free will in all this? Might as well sell my soul to Satan, just to spite the creator, at least this way I've chosen my fate and master.

A god that judges your actions, is an evil god in my opinion. So god, or no god, it doesn't matter I'll act the same. If I ever meet god, I'll spit in its face just to see if I could.

user22212 said: 

This whole god vs no god debate can get ridiculous. It is narcissistic to assume there is something super-natural being that would give our existence meaning.

Is thinking that we're the slave race of an almighty creator really that narcissistic? I see all the answers on a fairly equal playing field personally (if we ignore their room for influence and sway in different directions), as it's more about what they do with what they know. 

Would it be narcissistic if expressed through polytheism, where people are but one part of the greater whole (like Hinduism)? 

Just why would there be one? How are living beings important enough in the grand scheme of things that they warrant being created and having a purpose? 

Technically, since we were made in "His image", we're but shadows of something greater. 

A lot of the "having a purpose" nonsense tends to root from people too naive to recognize that they aren't the center of the universe. 

Let's get a bit deeper into this. What do you mean by god?

God can mean a lot of different things, but falling into the specifics for faith is how they line their traps unless you have experiences with the fallacies within. 

All religions that we know of are man-made and made-up.

Are they though?

What is your basis? 

Are you going to argue that since we cannot disprove the ravings of mad men long dead that echoed throughout the ages, we must give them validity and value?

It's closer to their cult having enough followers to browbeat the idea of it being made by mad men away. 

Well, that and people who are raised on this garbage in their formative years tend to develop around it instead of other basis. Even a rebellious christian quitter tends to become achristian instead of atheist (despite how they outwardly label themselves). 

Miracles, prophets, magic, and the supernatural, am I supposed to just believe this? Which religion do I even choose? 

As Ricky Gervais put it, the one you're born into!

If there's no such thing as coincidence, and you're supposed to be important, then you were likely fated to be born in the right place. 

I also knew an ex-Christian that effectively preached that, as long as you keep to the common threads between multiple religions, that you'll find a bridge into a grander afterlife that all splinter faiths separated from, basically like religion's unsung common ancestor. He essentially argued more in favor of Karma as time went on as his answer for how people could be born in places with no access to Christianity at all. 

Let's define a generic god and see what we get. It created the universe.

So the Monotheistic approach that only so many faiths fall into is generic now? 

What of Polytheism? 

It is all-knowing and all-powerful. Okay. Now, what sort of moral system would this god have, if he's to be called "good"? I can't think of anything that logically follows really.

I actually went at length about this within my debate with Faethers.

Once you know all of space and time, if you could only "do that which is best", then you actually have no choices. He's more of a prisoner to causality than any of us could ever understand, to the point of essentially being A ROBOT. All of time and space at his command would have had to have been witnessed all at once (assuming there isn't a meta-layer of time for him to process our time, or assuming that time can't be refracted or pocketed), rendering prayer pointless and worship equally pointless beyond fearing your own endgame (although The Bible admits that He is a very jealous robot, so that could be the petty motivation right there).

Feasibly, from our understanding of perceptions when compared to how it'd seem to Him, he'd have seen all of Humanity at once and would have thrown in all of his contributions for and against us all at the same time, since he could see all of Time and Space at once and could modify it at His leisure (including the apple). 

TLDR; He's a Timelord Robot with a Jealousy bender.

Anything that happens in the universe is good, since god allowed it to happen. We cannot sin, because there is no sin. Sinning would be to go against god's will, someone powerless going against the all-powerful, laughable.

"Without evil, there could be no good. So it must be good to be evil sometimes."

It can effectively be rationalized with his ability to see all of Time and Space though. He can see the long term reasonings for anything He does since he can see all of T&S, effectively having seemingly terrible things be done with the best intentions... but we can't. This simultaneously means that we're expected to take God's word when His machinations span beyond our lifetime and that we're effectively held accountable and punished for contributing towards things we're kept largely in the dark about. 

...of course how God's jealousy could be seen as a good thing is pure madness to me, but bringing that up tends to be where they show more of their slave cultist conditionings. 

"He gave us free will, so that we can sin, the sinners will be punished and the virtuous rewarded".

He gave us an animal's level of free will, but "The Apple of Knowledge of Good and Evil" fucked up His gumbo. For whatever reason we were supposed to remain ignorant of Sin so that we could not risk falling into it, or something, but also from that we'd not really comprehend what Good is. 

Come culling time (The Rapture), Earth will be closer in model to Eden, so we can expect things like art, history, and culture to be thrown away (I mean you've seen how many of them argue how much this life doesn't matter, so they'd be all for a cultural burning, plus they have texts demonizing knowledge and wisdom already). If you'd call a world without sin and death "living"... you ought to just be playing MMOs. 

Just why would he do that? Makes no damn sense.

There could be some grander scheme we haven't been let in on. 

Perhaps he needs the souls of man pure when they enter the kingdom of heaven from how making humans drained too much of his energy. Much like a computer, he needs the files (our souls) to not be corrupted if it's to be of any use to Him. 

For all we know it could be a matter of harvesting enough righteous souls before The Rapture begins, having Satan's job of corrupting souls actually turning out to be an understandably noble goal with the aim to preserve life and the Earth as we know it. 

God's second Eden strikes me as more dystopian than even Hell itself. 

Honestly, I'd rebel against such a god. I won't accept his judgement. I didn't ask to be created by him, I didn't accept to be judged by him. Where's my free will in all this? Might as well sell my soul to Satan, just to spite the creator, at least this way I've chosen my fate and master.

They'd argue that selling your soul to Satan is practically inevitable with all the sins and vices we're surrounded by and encouraging regularly, and that to find the path to God is "choosing their fate" in a world that otherwise offers a giant blanket statement called "Satan likes it". 

Basically, they think they are the rebels for following God instead of marching to the beat of Satan's drum (ie: everyone else). 

A god that judges your actions, is an evil god in my opinion. So god, or no god, it doesn't matter I'll act the same. If I ever meet god, I'll spit in its face just to see if I could.

Yeah I did a lot of "sympathy for the devil" and "fuck God" in the Fae topic I linked above too. 

I mostly share the sentiment from lacking any empathy or respect for "Him", while seeing Satan as a very relatable and sympathetic figure.

Turncoat said: 

Miracles, prophets, magic, and the supernatural, am I supposed to just believe this? Which religion do I even choose? 

As Ricky Gervais put it, the one you're born into!

If there's no such thing as coincidence, and you're supposed to be important, then you were likely fated to be born in the right place. 

I also knew an ex-Christian that effectively preached that, as long as you keep to the common threads between multiple religions, that you'll find a bridge into a grander afterlife that all splinter faiths separated from, basically like religion's unsung common ancestor. He essentially argued more in favor of Karma as time went on as his answer for how people could be born in places with no access to Christianity at all. 

There's also the answer that questions if most if not all religious texts could be simultaniously correct with the presence of multiple afterlives, some rules lawyering to untangle discrepancies in perception for who's actually in charge of things like "The Sun", "Our Creation", and some cultural fusion of deities that otherwise did the same stuff or had the same stories. The Christian God if we based it on human history would have more reason to be jealous and angry at other deities than if they didn't exist at all (to the point of The Bible's authors taking traits of popular gods and squishing them together to make Satan), seeing how Christianity was essentially a crime worthy of execution to practice for a while... until an Emperor decided to take the texts and change them into The Bible we still follow today. 

The idea of worship being how they gather power's always been a fun notion too. What better way to make a faith monopoly than saying that the rest don't exist? It's almost like if McDonalds could convince people that Wendies and Burger King don't exist. At least the older faiths had multiple deities present that could fight each other and everything, while God doesn't even want us to look at Satan, let alone believe in the presence of other divine forces. 

Omnism in it's more extreme forms can lead to some very fun conclusions. For it to work though, no one book could be taken as complete gospel. For Christianity to exist within a purely magically thought out Omnist model for instance, their stuff about how no other gods exist would have to be wrong, raising questions as to why God would need to try to convince people of that (He didn't want us to know of Good and Evil likely so that we couldn't judge how not good He's being). 

I'm not in an appropriate state to properly answer this.

polytheism:

What's up with polytheism? Can't I just call the collection of gods and their specific traits "god"?

religions not being made up by man:

Someone, or a group of people came up with some sort of form of organised religion. The alternative to that would be magic, or divine intervention, sure, can happen, but it's absurd.

Good needs evil:

the whole greater scheme might explain natural disasters, but if that greater scheme requires someone that presumably has free will to act in an evil way for which he will be judged, that ain't sitting right with me.

Furthermore, I can just imagine a world where everyone's happy. Just have everyone hallucinate their ideal world. No need for them to actually interact with each other. He's omnipotent, right?

Omnism:
Similar to polytheism.

user22212 said: 

I'm not in an appropriate state to properly answer this.

polytheism:

What's up with polytheism? Can't I just call the collection of gods and their specific traits "god"?

As much as I could call my left toe "Gretchen", yes, but if you want to be accurate beyond your own self-invented systems you can't. 

The presence of multiple deities strongly changes how the faith functions, as then you have to look at their conflicts with one-another and the ladder of power as it's understood. It takes no time to go "God, Son, and The Holy Ghost", while it takes a deeper understanding and quite a lot of time to try to understand something as expansive as Hinduism's 33 million gods. It also completely flips the religious system on it's head when, within your own pantheon, you'd feasibly have 33 million choices to pick from, while Christianity basically just gives you two choices. There's a lot of fundamental philosophical differences between the two structures that can't rightfully be ignored. 

TLDR; Conservation of Ninjitsu applies to pantheons. The more gods you have, the more that their powers are to be split between them, and as you're shown to have more than a limited set of options you're also made out to be far, far less of a slave. 

religions not being made up by man:

Someone, or a group of people came up with some sort of form of organised religion. The alternative to that would be magic, or divine intervention, sure, can happen, but it's absurd. 

I lean towards the same notion, but there's always room for proof otherwise from within the unknown. "Magic" across history has largely been just "the currently unexplainable" (ie: voodoo and witchcraft), so I'd say that's quite likely. We only are working within known realms of what we believe reality to be, and to assume that that's all there is is itself (inevitably) presumptive. 

TLDR; Nothing is Certain. 

Good needs evil:

the whole greater scheme might explain natural disasters, but if that greater scheme requires someone that presumably has free will to act in an evil way for which he will be judged, that ain't sitting right with me. 

Free will in it's current form has been corrupted. The free will we (Adam + Eve) were initially given was not the free will we're expressing now, and come The Culling (Rapture) that taint that has been overlaying all of human history will finally be purged from us. 

We'll no longer know of things like good, evil, and death, but we will be able to pick what food that we want to eat that day (that isn't meat, remember that death is gone now). That is a form of free will... albeit one with significantly less options and details to mull over, which is why I'm more about the capacity for specifics within free will as opposed to it's mere existence. 

TLDR; The specifics of our free will are the problem, and God would rather have us be like happy immortal zoo critters, ignorant of grander concepts we need not waste our time with (after all, individual knowledge and wisdom are both meaningless and risk soul corruption). 

Furthermore, I can just imagine a world where everyone's happy. Just have everyone hallucinate their ideal world. No need for them to actually interact with each other. He's omnipotent, right? 

It's closer to a spiritual lobotomy through altering how the pillars of existence work. 

Happiness, to me, needs an opposite to be relatively comparing itself to. With all of strife gone, I'd argue happiness has been replaced with contentment. That strikes me as criminal, as that would mean the death of passion, and therefor the death of many things I hold dear. 

Did you ever see the show ReBoot? The character Daemon essentially tries the same shit on a smaller scale. Those infected by her basically drop all appearances of stress and just follow her because she's "in charge". 

Omnism:
Similar to polytheism.

Omnism is arguably absurdist if you don't take the time to sort out the contradictions, while polytheism is more of a matter (typically) of subscribing to a different set of books. 

It looks like you're trying to apply all faith practices under one blanket attack, but there's so much more to each of those faith paths than just that. You also structure your attacks like the classic achristian, and lumping other faiths and life paths in with Monotheistic structure, philosophy, and history, is doing a disservice towards the argument's room for general legitimacy. 

At the very least sort them between different practices, or just stick to general reasons why they all don't make sense. Sticking to Christianity as the basis for your "faith is bad" practices just serves to lump a ton of varied paths under one gross banner, and shows your distaste towards it to be more culturally based than a matter of open-ended faith exploration. 

What other faiths have you looked into other than Christianity? 

Nothing wrong with calling your left toe "Grethel".

There is a misunderstanding here. I was not talking about the christian system. Let's scrap the literal selling my soul to Satan part, that was just an edgy homage to the Master. What I meant by that is simply going against "god". The duality of god and Satan when I talked about them, is simply about whether you accept a belief system or not.

What I meant by calling the whole pantheon of a polytheistic religion god, is that we can just define god as the collection of supernatural beings that exist. Serving one deity or another in such a system, is still serving god. "god" imposes a collection of moral rules to be followed. If those come in the form of the ten commandments, or if they're of the form worship and respect the rules of one of the many gods in a polytheistic system, it doesn't matter. Sure, you get a choice, but my point is  "god, or no god, it doesn't matter I'll act the same".  Next you're going to tell me that some system doesn't work like that at all, there are no rules, etc.. But the point still stands, I reject morality imposed by a higher being/force.

You could hallucinate your world of strife and not know any better if that makes you happy. I don't see how that would be different from "the real thing" as long as you're not aware of it being a hallucination. Hell, you don't even need to hallucinate it, an omnipotent god can send you to a parallel world that's made specifically for you that works exactly like that. Obviously the members of that world, apart from you, are not to be considered "alive" and having free will.

I'll give you that I only superficially looked into this omnism thing. It's basically accepting all religions, right? What I meant is that just how I claimed the entire pantheon of a polytheistic religion can be clustered as "god", having conditional rules for you to follow, so can the collection of all beliefs and gods/forces in those beliefs.

My knowledge of religions is limited, and I wish for it to remain as such. Wilful ignorance, I'm not searching for meaning. I have a basic grasp of how things are supposed to work in eastern religions versus western ones. It's strange really. Gods are very different in eastern ones from my understanding, they're more like forces/laws of nature rather than sentient beings. 

After writing this stuff I can see your point of me having modelled my argument against a christian-like god/pantheon. Okay, fine. 

My general stance:

I refuse religion on a basic level, in any form it may come.

Blind followers of doctrines bother me.

I wanted to present an argument that even if there would be a religion that's correct, that still doesn't mean you must change your way of life or subscribe to it.

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said:

It's also an odd stance because it's a baseline belief when most individuals understand it and take the extra step to search out a passion or a principle(s) to live by.

What's the point of doing that though other than personal fulfillment? 

Personal fulfillment? How about goals, aspirations, dreams, living life more comfortably? You didn't choose this life but you can certainly choose to live it more comfortably, it takes an investment in effort

Thinking family emphasis is about reproduction shows how many colors you are missing from your perspective. Family values and ethics, very little to do with having children.

Actually, most expressions related to going "the family way" tends to be related to having or otherwise raising children... 

So what are these "Family Values and Ethics" then? 

Family emphasis is not about reproduction in the least. Either you really have a reptile brain or you are being needlessly difficult on this minor issue. By your stance, someone that has had 8 kids and runs has more of a family emphasis than a underage sibling that takes it upon themselves to support the family

Nihilism is an escape for most. It is our default state to only care in the moment and how we feel at the time. Carnal pleasures have shaped humanity far more than isolated ideals and discipline. Most people today live weekend to weekend, with little concern for the future and even less planning for it. Reactionary masses that only care to shape what's going on for the day

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Atheist strike me as not only ignorant but arrogant, that there is "nothing" because of our small understanding of this existence. I've also noted from personal experience atheist tend to be self-absorbed in this concept as it plays a central theme in their life.

I'd say every perspective yields that, just replace "nothing" with whatever their bender is about. 

It sounds more like you dislike Atheism because you think it's arrogant enough to think it knows something at all (spoiler alert: that's most if not arguably all faiths).

You do a spoiler alert, just to rephrase my own words. I've addressed the implied arrogance of faith already. And yes it strikes me as very arrogant to think you have even an accurate opinion on the creation of existence itself. 

How zealous do you imagine most who practice faith are (including atheism as faith, even though for many it's marked by the belief that others make no sense)? A person can suppose that something works a certain way, figure that they have the most likely answer, without being as full of themselves as to say it could be no other way. 

Arrogance comes in all flavors, even Agnostic. I'm sure you've met your share of Agnostics that lord it over others how dumb they are for thinking that they know all the answers, which really translates to the Agnostic thinking that they know the answer by "knowing" it is unknowable. 

In the end it's the same ego expressions regardless, showing it's not about what faith is prescribed to, but rather what attitude they take with it. 

Call it zealous but it's true. We know nothing about something we know nothing about, anything more than guesses are arrogance.

 

There are Atheists who are essentially waiting for that moment when something can prove it wrong, who instead of presuming "to know", they'd presume "to guess" until shown otherwise as their understanding of an Occam's Razor perspective. 

You will always have members of every group that are tiptoeing onto another.

How is an Atheist that isn't full of itself tiptoeing into other groups? This isn't even what I explained above. 

Atheists actively disbelieve or lack a belief in god. Anyone that would say they dont know, but would rather guess without commitment aren't atheist. I'm not talking about this group of people, only the group committed to the belief of non belief

I am addressing the points the title they identify with represents.

Which are what, stuff like how it's a "gateway to Nihilism" (and Depression)? 

The Nihilism tends to precede the Atheism. Even former religious sorts converting to Atheism tend to be in the bouts of a Nihilistic spiral ("What's the point of _____ if _____ isn't the case?") before swapping labels. Personally I'd attribute most of that to a culture backlash more so than atheism itself. 

You ought to be attacking whatever's making for the Nihilism instead of the Atheism, as while Atheism is itself often a symptom of Nihilism, Nihilism is usually a symptom of something more psychological in nature. 

It is circumstancial. It is too broad of a psychology topic to argue which vague, abstract idea came first when they are both massively present in society naturally. It would require a lot of unfounded assumptions

Nihilism and depression are central themes in all 5 I have known well.

Should something not be believed simply because it's "depressing and nihilistic" to them? Who's to say them being depressing and nihilistic wasn't how they found atheism instead of the other way around? If it's the actual case as well, since to one it certainly feels real anyway, what kind of person would then turn away from the truth as they know it simply because it's too painful to handle? 

Also while Atheism is a gateway to Nihilism, the two handle pretty different areas (religion and philosophy respectively). A Nihilist for instance could still believe in God and simply recognize no value or purpose in Him. While a happy nihilist is rarer and generally less authentic, happy atheists aren't as difficult to come by. 

Nihilism is largely regarded as poisonous for it having no real drive or zeal behind it, but Atheism can be quite motivated and think life has purpose without it having to come from something external (Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, etc), and the ego arrogance I'd say has equal room to be present in all walks of life, demotivating or not. 

There is a very strong theme with nihilism and depression, and a very strong correlation from atheism to nihilism. 

A past expression of Nihilism tends to lead to Atheism, but that does not make Atheism inherently Nihilistic, that makes Atheism Counter-Culture in relation to Western Living.

The implication that a person needs God(s) and/or religion to not be depressed and nihilistic is a bit insane. A lot of what has you judging Atheists in this light are how loud the squeaky wheels are being as a backlash response towards a culture that once endorsed religion a little too strongly, and as time goes on those areligious fags will fade into obscurity in favor of a more neutral variant that didn't have to think about it as much.