@UncleIroh @basedbagel My entire point is you don't understand Buddhism, and I used your exact argument against you. You fell for it perfectly. I know full well I've twisted Christianity using word magic; my point is that you did the exact same thing with Buddhism.
This is the most consistent experience I have of Christians: you never understand other worldviews. Your misunderstanding is very deliberate, biased, and tiresome.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel What? You clearly don't understand what an ad hominem is. It doesn't matter if the ad hominem is true; the kind of person Nietzsche was is irrelevant to his being right.
I'm only talking about his descriptive side anyways. That's all that's even necessary for this conversation: Christian slave morality is the foundation of all the problems we have. That slave morality is used to justify all the victimhood and need to tax "the privileged."
@basedbagel @UncleIroh And yet it has everything to do with the overall point. Being Christian has nothing to do with getting the results you want. There's a TON of Christians out there who pick and choose what they want to follow in the Bible, and there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians. Adopting Christianity, therefore, doesn't even guarantee we'll get rid of feminism, nor does it mean Christianity didn't give rise to feminism.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel By this argument, Christianity is self-negation and nihilism just as much. Its goal is to get to heaven, and its logical conclusion is that after the rapture, humans will no longer physically exist on Earth.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh This is exactly the argument liberal Christians make: that "love your neighbor" supercedes anything in the Old Testament. You're the one being disingenuous if you don't recognize this.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel You're only seeing the modern outer shell. The inside, the foundation, is Christian slave morality...victim mentality.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel It's LITERALLY an ad hominem. "Nietzsche was a bad person so his predictions aren't relevant."
Yes, they are relevant. Christianity's slave morality is the foundation of modern progressivism. I'm not advocating for Nietzsche's solutions, I'm only saying his identification of the problem is absolutely correct. If it's not, then explain how he predicted the entire modern Western world's situation?
@UncleIroh @basedbagel Buddhism is not nihilistic. Nihilism is the idea there is no purpose to life. Buddhism establishes a clear purpose, which is enlightenment. It's literally the opposite of nihilistic. Further, karma is not the end "thing" of Buddhism. Enlightenment is.
This shit is old. You're arguing for a specific conclusion you want and trying to form facts surrounding it. This is such a common theme with conversations with Christians: they warp every other worldview, deliberately.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh I didn't ignore that. That's exactly what I was responding to. Christians conveniently pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow all the time. They don't care about mixing linens or eating shellfish either...they're just taking "love your neighbor (even if he's gay)" over "don't be gay."
"Also progressivism has satanic orgins not christian."
No, it doesn't. It started in the late 19th century with the social gospel movement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
@UncleIroh @basedbagel OK, I don't care. This is ad hominem garbage. The man predicted everything. He's the only man in history I'd call a legitimate prophet. And he identified the common theme as Christian slave morality. That's the cause. That whole religion needs to be jettisoned. Buddhism is literally and outright superior, if only for not relying on a bunch of metaphysical nonsense to have any weight.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh The Bible also says to not mix linens and avoid shellfish, but people don't exactly follow all the rules. Christians have always picked and chose what's convenient. So this doesn't mean much. Christians founded progressivism and their slave morality values continue to fuel the movement. You're only looking at the outside paint and not the engine.
@UncleIroh @basedbagel Well, and here's why Buddhism is outright superior. It has a metaphysics but its central claims have nothing to do with shit humans made up and then want to claim are objective (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics all fall under that). There's nothing false required in Buddhism. Christianity rests on nonsense that a 10 year old that figures out there is no Santa Clause can see through, because it's the same thing if it doesn't have social force behind it.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh "I suppose if you don't believe in any higher power and that we randomly ended up here for no reason then yeah it would seem subjective to you."
This is no small point. Unless you're already Christian, then Christian values are not objective. I wish Christians would stop making this claim that they are lol.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh No, it doesn't. Nietzche predicted EVERYTHING, and identified Christianity as the CAUSE. Further, the social gospel movement FOUNDED progressivism. This whole situation is the fault of Christian values!
@UncleIroh "It advocates for basing law on a Christian moral framework"
Since honoring God and putting no other God's before the Christian God is a BIG part of this moral framework, i have a hard time seeing the difference.
@UncleIroh How does this demonstrate you can't get a secular ethics? Communism is not an inevitability of secularism. In fact, it's more likely to be considered under Christian ethics.
@basedbagel @UncleIroh How is Christian ethics not subjective? Unless you already believe the metaphysics, it's just as made up and subjective as any secular ethics.
I see arguments of this form from Christian Nationalists a lot:
1. If we were Christian, we would ban {a bunch of things like feminism}.
2. We really want to ban those things since they're bad.
3. Therefore, we should force Christianity on folks.
This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Further, we don't need to force this religion to ban bad things. Christianity, as history has shown, also brings its own bad things.
@Zeb Well, maybe not ALL women. I've dated a couple rational, high IQ women. But I get what you're saying: it's like 97% of women can't be rational, which might as well mean all of them.
Ya, math/logic is the final gatekeeping tool, and that includes against stupid men too. It's like...here's proof. If you see a problem with his assumptions we can talk about it. If you don't address this argument, though, you're either too stupid to understand or too biased to be rational. Either way, fuck you.
@Zeb Yup, exactly. It also changes the discussion in a subtle way. It elevates the conversation. If you disagree, you have to dispute either his reasoning or his assumptions. In other words, you have to dispute it rationally.
If someone doesn't dispute it on those terms, then their opinion can safely be ignored as there's a far more airtight and reasonable explanation always available (his).
Joined Sep 2022
