@multiversal_gangstalker @shortstories @GoonPatrol @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta Well I "get it" in the sense that you don't really "need" religion to operate a economic and political system. However, I think some of the historical arguments on atheism are a bit dated.

Historical materialism likes to basically think of itself as a science. However, science is neither atheist nor theist in nature. To claim god exists or doesn't exist is a immaterial question. You would first have to define god (something that is probably impossible in a diverse society) and find ways of measuring if god exists or not. These are not scientific questions so therefore it would be a mistake for a modern Marxist to claim to be either atheist or a theist if they are trying to be true to their principles. I think part of this is that atheism meant something a little different before than it does today. More on this here:

@multiversal_gangstalker @GoonPatrol @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @shortstories

Lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism.

Agnosticism is a lack of certainty, atheism is a lack of belief.

I don’t see how “atheism” is “lack of belief“ - as the word clearly means “not-God-ism”.

Most atheists actually believe in God; they just hate him. They never rail against Allah, Buddha, Lord Ganesh, etc... but they've got plenty of venom for Yahweh & Jesus Christ.

I think "American Christianity" has had a lot to do with that problem.

While I’m no Protestant, the general “tone and timbre” of American Christianity, while starkly divided, was actually doing pretty darn bangin at ordering societies up until the 20th Century

It's fundamentalism. There was at least some understanding that religion and science could reasonably coexist with accomodation, and then the Red Scare happened, the Dulles brothers got the bright idea to weaponize religion, and we've been in backslide ever since.

People don't want to listen to it man.

Even when explaining the Jews - the Jews WROTE THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Do you not think it's reasonable to ask where they got this information and how they decided upon it?

But they never look into how the Jews do things. And consider it all "divine" when it's not. It was a bunch of Jews sitting around arguing until they all decided someone had won the argument. The entire jewish religion starts out with Abraham arguing with god and "winning the argument".

This is the basis for their whole religion - this is your old testament. It has nothing to do with divine beings from the sky.

Even if it were true that the OT were ahistorical (a claim I highly doubt), it misses the point entirely.

The OT was written centuries before the Incarnation of Christ, and was positively stuffed with Messianic Prophecy that wasn’t fulfilled until hundreds of years after all the authors had died. No merely-human agency at any level could possibly pull that off. That’s its actual significance

Of course it can be pulled off.

That's like saying "That last domino can't possible fall just because someone pushes over the first domino."

That’s not at all what it’s like; nobody human could possibly have steered events like the God-Man being born in a specific town, to a specific virgin. One doesn’t get to decide things like that about their own birth.

Yeah, they did, because these are narratives being presented within the context of things the narrators could not have witnessed.

Yeah I don’t know what to tell you. Shepherds and peasants and fishermen don’t really have a lot of ability to steer the sorts of narratives that rulers pay to have written down

That would presuppose the lack of a pre-existing oral tradition, which given that the apostles are mostly working-class illiterates, would dismantle the concept of apostolic tradition. I'll trust that's not what you meant to do, because that would be blasphemy to Orthodoxy.

Pretty sure we’re talking past each other; I’m referring to OT Messianic Prophecy

Which came from a bunch of Kabbalah Jews - which 'word for word' come out of the Torah.

So you might want to get interested in how they decided what was in the Torah, and what they mean by "God"

Kabbalah is younger than islam, but close.

No, it's been around for a longass time.

It got moved across most of asia for thousands of years.

That anthropologist guy was constantly going on about it appearing in pre-history.

No. One jew who was part of the muslim spanish ruling class "discovered ancient text" as soon as Spanish started kicking out jews with the muslims.

Yeah and the oral traditions were from 4000+ years ago according to the Jews.

The Hindu religion alone is 5000 years old dude. They simply have different names for the same thing.

I believe that there are ancient shared memories across all civilizations. I just don't think that means what you do. And Kabballah was invented, or possibly whispered in an ear in Spain centuries later.

I'm not talking about shared memory.

This system along with the symbols and chakras and sex magic, are all contained in religions from 5000 years onwards.

I should be clear. By shared memory, I mean similarity in tradition passed on through separate cultures however they were. But the more specific from the kabbahah were invented. This is a fact.

"Kabbalah was invented by the spanish" well how is it in a religion 3 continents away 5000 years earlier you nigger?

All you did was google it without knowing shit about it.

It was invented by a jew from Spain. He may have been whispered to by demons, but that's a side note. He took common themes and made theme jewish.

Yeah ok dude.

It is foundational in religions many believe were started by the old aryans from Iranian territory, many thousands of years before spain was even a thought.

@thefinn @shortstories @PodunkPotato @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd Zoroastrianism? There is a lot of crossover from Zoroastrianism and the Hindu/Vedic belief system.

Yeah I was a fan of Zoroastrianism too.

I don't know LOTS about it - but I read up on it once upon a time, like I did with all the major religions.

@thefinn @shortstories @PodunkPotato @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd One of the better more interesting ones. Kind of got me thinking about duality more and free will. I have a weird idea about how free will can exist, even if not during the material phase of life. Perhaps free will exists between lives though. Something I've considered and feels interesting to contemplate.

I don't think there's free will.
I don't think there's any afterlife that any Christian would recognise.

All our decisions are predicated upon the moment before we make them. That's not free will, that's just you playing your part.

@thefinn @PodunkPotato @Sovereign @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd

Am I forced through no free will of my own to believe there is free will without any free will decision on my part

@shortstories @thefinn @PodunkPotato @Sovereign @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @KingOfWhiteAmerica @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd

As long as there is no external force, you could always adopt compatibilism, and reconcile your two ideas of free will, with natural laws.

I believe in the existence of Free Will; though I think it “works differently” than most people think it does or should.

@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories @PodunkPotato @Sovereign @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd @thefinn

How do you think it works? And how do you reconcile it with the laws of nature?

You’re asking me how Free Will works ?

Imo, Free Will is most commonly exercised by directing attention, and setting priorities.

@KingOfWhiteAmerica @shortstories @PodunkPotato @Sovereign @zeke @GoonPatrol @James_Dixon @Kalogerosstilitis2RevengeoftheJunta @multiversal_gangstalker @thatfightnerd @thefinn

It sounds vaguely in the compatibilist direction, that is, as long as you are free to act in line with your preferences, it can be said you are acting out of your own free will, regardless of if the laws of nature dictated that action or not.

The focus is on preferences and wishes, and blockers to those.