Succubus for lust, god for love, woman for children

I don't interpret god as person or being.

I interpret him as the sum of all virtues.

As the power, in and of itself.

Put another way; he is not omniscient, he is omniscience.

There is something mentioned in Morals and Dogmas by Albert Pike where he says something to the extent of "sufficient for the time" or "the best that could be done". I hate people that look back on the past and judge so harshly not realizing it was the very best thing given the time and circumstances and had they acted differently they would have brought problems on themselves. For example, one could not have begun slavery, had they not yet reached a stage where they could enslave their enemies and support their slavery… trying to take slaves would have maybe meant starving to death or some other trouble. Likewise, releasing slaves to freedom couldn't be done, until things were ready for that.

I want to add also you seem too reductionist. I see god as an actual and indispensable power not a mere model or abstraction.

Check this out: yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1922innersecret.pdf

Yes it's mostly imaginary. If you can't interface with reality you will have problems.

Are you just throwing insults or is there a specific nuanced philosophical meaning you are trying to convey here? What does "imaginary" mean to you and can you expand further on interfacing with reality?

I'm not insulting you, your reaction is based on your idealistic viewpoint, and the fairytales that you hold in high esteem. That defines your imaginary mindset. Reality is not manmade. All there is, is life, and no one owns it. Reality is too harsh so Humans prefer their dreams, over clarity.

I like that, it's a good distillation of what I was trying to say. I'll use that in the future.

Thanks for the book, I'll download it and check it out when I have the time.

I think I will need more time to stew on this topic.
I was raised Christian and went to a shitty church that failed to reach me with the message of religion. It took me years of thought and self examination to get where I am now, with the kermit guy being a catalyst. For the time being, I can agree that my position is more reductionist than yours. My understanding is my attempt to marry the moral inventions of our past with the specifics of our present culture that has rejected the idea of God. I live in the Northwest of burgerville, where the majority of people here are atheist, or at least agnostic, and do not attempt to explore their principles. For me, my understanding works and is valuable in helping others immediately around me to understand the value of religion. Though that's not to say I'm not open to advancing my position. Just trying to find a use for the reductionist approach, I suppose.

There is some merit to though in that if your position strays too far away from the specifics of reality and wades into the distant seas principles, without any ties back to reality, it can be difficult to help others understand your position. That's assuming that you would want others to join you in the first place - if you're only concerned with your own self-fulfillment, then that criticism is irrelevant to you.

I don't believe it's as simple as "Humans prefer their dreams," rather I would argue that that is all we have. Reality is not man made but our perception is, and we rely on our perception to act in the world. Without it, we would simply begin again in building our understanding. Any position claiming it is any more real than other positions is born out of hubris. We are all trying to model reality within our understanding of the world, try not to forget that.

Oh yeah because you mere mortal totally no reality and can judge it harsh and then think in that pronouncement you've covered it all.

Everything I think and believe is a rational whole that accurately describes reality for me.

All of these things I have learned are pragmatic, adaptive, and useful.

The sentences you're spewing at me hold no meaning to me. You just appear to affirming your misery and ignoring archetypes, synchronicity, implicate and explicate orders, polarity, attention, will, and so many other useful and valid concepts.

There is an ultimate power. This power is limited only by its nature, that is, it will not act contrary to its nature. This power is the power; all other power flows from it. By putting the attention of the mind upon it, this power comes into more direct contact with your mind, and flows through you.

This is not some mere tale to comfort me. This is an actual working principle that can transform your life and which, though it be a long and hard struggle, has gradually been uplifting me from rock bottom.

Go and read this book it does not say "god" at all but you will realize at some point that the very thing it speaks of is the only thing truly worthy of the name "god". yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1922innersecret.pdf

There is no personal self, this is a self defense mechanism, a concept, mental construct.
The 'Me' is completely helpless, you don't have a life, all there is, is life, it just happens.
And then the 'me' claims ownership, one ten thousandth of a second after the brain has
already decided. But you will never know this, your reality is an analogy. The ego is that
big sticky lump that you think is the author of everything, but is imaginary. This is the latest science. There is only liberation from the dream.

I lived with yoga monks for a time and it's an interesting story, in fact it's their business, the way they make money. But it isn't science. They are still parasites like all faith and god promoting organizations. Good luck.

I wasn't even raised with religion at all. My parents neglected the shit out of me and I never heard them speaking about religion at all. Although I have lived almost my entire live in intense isolation I sometimes do end up in public and overhear people and also I obviously encounter people online. When I come across Christians it has always been some cryptic nonsense about Jesus that they spew at me and I have fucking clue at all what they want. It's like they want you to say "I accept jesus christ as my lord and savior" but what the fuck that actually means or translates into I can't comprehend at all. As for Jordan B. Peterson I only recently found out about him from when he appeared on Molyneux's show and when I listened through a few hundred hours of Peterson talking I don't think I got exposed to a single new idea or conclusion that I hadn't already reached and on top of that found myself getting all riled up wishing I could be there to talk to him and challenge some of the stuff he was saying. I am trying to think of some new idea he has brought to my attention in any of the many videos I've thus far listened to him speak in but nothing comes to mind for me. He's not even on my level at all, he talks to an audience that is impressed by him, but I feel if I were to meet him it would be far more interesting because I imagine I could actually challenge his worldview. While I'd certainly hope that in talking with him I'd end up coming away from the conversation with some new insight or understanding, maybe both of us would, I am not so sure. When I looked up him on wikipedia and found out his influences too, I realized it was stuff I was reading when I was like 12 years old, for example Søren Kierkegaard was my favorite existential philosopher back then, but beginning around 20 years old thanks to hermetic philosophy I have moved wayyy beyond that stuff.

Here is the truth concerning our current culture. It has not rejected the idea of God. It has completely lost the idea of God. The general population fall into two camps; ones who are clueless about god but think they worship and know him, and ones who think they reject god but are actually rejecting a something that is not god. Both camps neither adore, worship, love, reject, or hate god; because they simply do not know him at all. The concept of god that the masses have right now is some kind of confused, vague, and nonsensical crap.

There are a few who actually possess the very idea of God. The majority at present are as savages or worse, dredges, who have not even begun to get close to knowing god.

They don't even have principles. They have to actually start to think about and get principles fixated into the mind. They are sleepwalkers who have barely penetrated the depths of their own minds, who don't know why they think what they do, believe what they do, come to the conclusions that they do. What they engage in can hardly be called thinking. They are more animal than man.

Are you asking me about the application of the principles? The operative principles once understood, recognized, and worked with bring into conscious attention the actual sources of problems. They strengthen the mind and body and cure ailments. They heal relationships and optimize your interactions with the world. The specifics are many and Holla Forums has a habit of just ignoring me when I post books or I write for a couple hours straight and post a tl;dr series of posts. It requires an actual ongoing relationship with me and many discourses to really build an understanding. I am limited by the medium of communication and the will of the participants of my threads to engage with me. At present I am talking in a very generalized way but always when people ask for help with some specific problems I can examine them, break them down, offer insight and solutions, and so on.

Everyone is at different levels of understanding too here so depending who is posting in here it'll either be a case of trying to get them through babby's first philosophical conundrums or if they are more advanced tackling harder and more specific issues.

I can see that you are very confused so trying to talk with you will only result in another book being written in my direction. If it isn't science, it is story.
Thank you for the story of you someplace in time.

take care

Emerson, in his essay on “Compensation,” says: “The theory of the mechanic forces is another example. What we gain in power is lost in time, and the converse. The periodic or compensating errors of the planets is another instance. The influences of climate and soil in political history are another. The cold climate invigorates. The barren soil does not breed fevers, crocodiles, tigers, or scorpions. The same dualism underlies the nature and condition of man. Every excess causes a defect; every defect an excess. Every sweet has its sour; every evil its good. Every faculty which is a receiver of pleasure has an equal penalty put on its abuse. It is to answer for its moderation with its life. For every grain of wit, there is a grain of folly. For everything you have missed, you have gained something else; and for everything you gain, you lose something. If riches are increased, they are increased that use them. If the gatherer gathers too much, nature takes out of the man what she puts into his chest; swells the estate, but kills the owner. Nature hates monopolies and exceptions. The waves of the sea do not more speedily seek a lever from their loftiest tossing than the varieties of condition tend to equalize themselves. There is some leveling circumstance that puts down the overbearing, the strong, the rich, the fortunate, substantially on the same ground with all others. Is a man too strong and fierce for society, and by temper and position a bad citizen—a morose ruffian, with a dash of the pirate in him?—nature sends him a troop of pretty sons and daughters who are getting along in the dame’s classes at the village school, and love and fear for them smooths his grim scowl to courtesy. Thus she contrives to intenerate the granite and feldspar, takes the boar out and puts the lamb in, and keeps the balance true. The farmer imagines power and place are fine things. But the President has paid dear for his White House. It has commonly cost him all his peace, and the best of his manly attributes. To preserve for so short a time so conspicuous an appearance before the world, he is content to eat dust before the real masters who stand erect behind the throne. Or do men desire the more substantial and permanent grandeur of genius? Neither has this an immunity. He who by force of will or of thought is great and overlooks thousands, has the responsibility of overlooking. With every influx of light comes new danger. Has he light? he must bear witness to the light, and always outrun that sympathy which gives him such keen satisfaction, by his fidelity to new revelations of the incessant soul. He must hate father and mother, wife and child. Has he all that the world loves and admires and covets?—he must cast behind him their admiration and afflict them by faithfulness to his truth, and become a byword and a hissing.

No, it's philosophy and interpretation, and science is just a body of evidence that supports your theory.

As for me and what I believe in, it also is supported by said body of evidence, but not proven.

I don't accept scientific proofs as final concerning philosophical matters like the self, the imaginary, mind-body dualism, emergent properties, qualia, etc. You act like your interpretation is final but science has not yet reached conclusions that rule out all the different interpretations down to just one.

You need to define "imaginary" and "self" and "freewill" btw.

Also if you refuse to limit yourself only to the finding of scientific authorities or of empirical observation then you will fail to actually advance your understanding beyond the scope you have limited yourself to.

What I am trying to say is you capable of going much further and comprehending more if you will abandon this notion you can't figure out things for yourself beyond what popular science plugs in for you.

Why not a succubus for all three?

Some important questions I have for you:

1. Are thoughts "physical", do they take up space and actually exist somewhere? Can you touch, feel, smell, or otherwise physically interact with a thought? What does it mean for something to be physical, define physical.

2. What more adequately describes the ultimate nature of substance. It is physical (whatever that implies and means) or is it mental.

My proposition is this; all is mind. Substance is mental in its nature. There is no physical world at all.

If you need clarification on the full significance of what it means for something to be mental as opposed to physical I first await your understanding and definition for "physical".

Rolled 52 (1d100)
Materializing a succubus to the point it can produce children is a huge challenge.

Time to roll dice.

God, should I try to accomplish the three parts by way of the materialization of a succubus? 1 for definitely not, 100 for absolutely yes, anything in between being a degree of these two absolutes.

Go!

I'm trying to understand your point, so bear with me if you will.
In your position, can the two quotes I pulled from your post be tied together? 'You can allow this power to flow through you and make actual changes in your life'?

I'm curious to know if you think there is also an antithesis to God. Just as you changed to bring yourself out of rock bottom, can someone not also make changes to their lives that will lead them plummeting down to where you started?
I have very few sources I can mention that actually talk about the shadow (JBP and James Maynard Keenan in his music) so don't misunderstand; I genuinely would like to know your thoughts.

I encountered this exact issue with the church I used to go to. There's also the dumb fucking conflation between the son of God and God Himself, as if the archetypal son and father are one and the same (Perhaps given enough time the son evolves into the father, but they're still separate concepts).
I left when I realized it was just a scam, using scummy tactics to pull unsuspecting teenagers into their wannabe cult (And laughing when it backfires on them). Then I felt even more cheated when I watch JBP's bible series and I listen to all these foreign yet familiar interpretations of the biblical stories and wonder why churches largely ignore such needed interpretations.

I felt similarly, though I'm not nearly as well read as you. I went through a transition in life late in public school, and JBP put to words what I had discovered for myself intuitively then. I'm working up from there.

Though I disagree with the possible number of people, I agree wholly with your description of the two camps. At some point in Western history, I believe we had a golden age in religion where the wisest among us were properly discussing principles instead of getting stuck in the mire of what is right and wrong specifically. That might have been part of the downfall that lead to the general perception of organized religion today - forming one camp - and the remnants of which still exist today - forming the second camp.

This is what motivates me to strive to better myself.

No, and I won't deny what you said in the rest of that paragraph.
If you turned your life around by establishing your principles (Among other things, I know) and you want others to follow suit so they may better their lives as well, you need to be able to explain your position on things such as principle in a way that someone who has never considered the concept can understand. How else will you reach them otherwise?
I think someone like JBP is necessary for the zeitgeist, since he has the experience to pull from to demonstrate his points to people who don't have the mental capacity to talk about or understand the abstract/meta/derivative.

Perhaps this is why people take a more literal interpretation with regards to religion. It didn't work on me when I was a kid though, so I can't say for sure.

Looks like overall balance points towards god being in favor of the idea.

I will take this heart and plan things accordingly.

Thanks for the suggestion user, great things may well come of this soon.

I am a scientist and you are not. Catch up to current science and you will realize that your beliefs are just another form of faith; in other words, imaginary. But you are just another form of religious zealot that desperately wants to be right about something.

Science can explain how cells divide or how blood can maintain a certain pH value. It is undeniably vital to human existence to explain the physical world around us and to give name the emergent properties of our universe.

However there is no scientific method to determine moral truths, no experiment to find out what is the best decision to make in life's crossroads. Those belong outside of the realm of science and instead within the realm of philosophy, theology, and religion.

I worry about the imbalance between these two fields of studying the human condition. Science is extremely robust and its many terms well defined. We can discuss matters of science with very little confusion. Whereas the other lacks a fucking unifying term to call itself, and what language we have to describe God is personified.

You motherfuckers have fucked yourselves hard now.

Listen there is one faculty that is of the utmost importance. The faculty of attention. Speaking of this, William James is the best psychologist the field has ever known, and psychology has been severely degraded for the last 60 or so years.

In nature there are three parts to everything. The salt, the mercury, and the sulphur.

Whatever you center the mind upon, an influence from that is brought in via the dynamic process that connects these three parts.

Archetypes rub off onto you and transform you. Kek embodies certain archetypal powers and a sort of collective consciousness for us imageboard users and has become strongly associated with certain topics, images, ideas so he that whole body of of archetypes that he represents are invokved and influence us. Also as we grow and develop and especially the stronger ones amongst us, that feedbacks into the Kek egregore, and then pours out to the rest of us.

God being the ultimate, absolute, and purest he can successfully plug into and back everything.

I think maybe you are asking about the problem of evil or some other question like maybe is there something outside of god or whatever.

I'm just going to sidestep that and focus at the moment on the practical effect of god.

We have a lot of momentum behind our thoughts that come into and occupy our minds for a time. Really strong thoughts will sweep you away for awhile and you'll be powerless to resist. The physical body itself is a very strong condensation of thought but is always influenced by the new thoughts entering the mind to some degree. The whole world as well though is a mental condensation.

Now you will exhaust yourself terribly and even paralyze the functions of your soul if don't let things just run their course automatically, it's like trying to manually walk or manually breath all the time. There are many times throughout the day and at night though when one should bring the conscious attention upon something, make an adjustment, and let things run their course again. Sometimes posture needs correction, sometimes a thought needs to be completed or dismissed, sometimes a new influence has to be brought in to balance something.

A lot of this is very tricky toying with your mind-body system. You make adjustments here and there and then something else goes out of balance. It is a complex matter.

The god concept, who is sum of all virtues, is useful because if you think about it over and over and make the effort to love god (which is also loving virtue though I must emphasize god isn't an abstraction but also an actual vital power) you end up automatically making so many adjustments each time you do it. The stronger of a connection you can establish too the better. It like after a period of focusing the mind on god, sometimes you will feel like a new man already just the moment you are done, or you will wake up the next day and your thoughts and temperament and everything will have changed (see also the secret of sleep and auto-suggestion discussed by Franz Bardon in Initiation Into Hermetics as that is very related here).

Read this also as it is informative montalk.net/notes/reality-creation-redux

Oh the shadow. I hope you don't look upon me as dodging you or anything but I really want to spend a couple hours, or even an entire night, or however long thinking about this and then I can come back later and post what has come to mind for me. I need to wrap things up and go sleep right now and what you've just brought up I don't have an immediate answer for at the moment. I have been focusing a lot on love and a couple other things and now because of you want I want to think about the shadow more. Hmmmm…

Oh god this particular thing I was just talking to a minister about like 2 or 3 weeks ago. It is the biggest hang-up I have concerning the theology book I've been reading. That exact thing you have mentioned really grates me.

I listened to that entire series as well. It was kind of stuff I've already seen discussed on imageboards and read on random sites for the most part. What I did appreciate though was just how much he was able to use the biblical stories to describe and navigate life's problems. The churches just have idiots reading out stuff to people and not even really going into depth about things at all. It is all in one ear and out the other, the people attending are just there to say "I attend church" or for the social functions and such, it disappoints me as the only reason I went to church is I was specifically there for some lectures a minister was giving on the names of God that was interesting. Church's only potential value for me would be as place to know and understand god but that's not what everyone else was there for, they didn't seem to care about that.

There was a Satanic text I read before (I've read a lot of different Satanist writings from the various Satanic cults) that in great detail talked about Christianity being highly legalistic. Aka the whole "commit a bunch of crimes and do evil hings, then ask god for forgiveness and get away with it" kind of thing. This legalistic tendency wherever it did drop up and predominated resulted in many of the medieval elites and their subjects not giving a shit about the religion except as a justification. The same book also described in a lot of detail btw blood sacrifices and other dark rituals carried out by Christians and basically claimed that a good Satanist calls himself a Christian, becomes a monk, and carries out black magick within the framework of Christianity. I think the author of the book has an interesting perspective and I learned a bunch from it though it was pretty obvious to me as well that his edginess resulted in him building up a narrative that was prone to a lot of selection bias just ignoring a ton of stuff and making history too simple.

I too believe in golden ages as well. There was an Islamic Golden age, a Pagan golden age, a Christian golden age, etc. where people started gathering together tons of knowledge and stopped killing each other over stupid bullshit and actually reached much higher understanding and society consequently prospered tremendously under the prevailing conditions at the time.

The Stellar Man btw elaborates on the animal and sleepwalker like nature of the masses. Also montalk has some articles about this too like montalk.net/metaphys/117/stages-of-conscious-awakening

He's a stepping stone. A lot like how the various degrees of redpill are being distributed by various people that leads gradually to Holla Forums.

Too bad nu/pol/ is such a colossal joke now

When you are a scientist AND a philosopher come back to me.

Also all knowledge is axiomatic and therefore based on a foundation of faith. t. Epistemology Pro

You are the zealot here.

I honestly can't even point people to it or recommend anyone to it anymore. It used to be a reliable redpill factory. It used to be that I could tell people "go visit Holla Forums and you will learn the truth". Now if I do that I know that all that will happen is they will see a bunch of Trump threads and they will get banned for daring to discuss anything besides the stickied Trump threads or merely being suspected of being whatever boogiemen the mods are currently thinking is tyrannizing their board right now. They have effectively destroyed the potential of the board to facilitate discussion and that is why I now just have political discussions on Holla Forums instead because the mods here don't make it impossible to have actual discussions.

It breaks my heart because there's no replacement for it either. There is literally nowhere I can send people and have confidence that after a few months of posting there, they will come out politically enlightened.

I wish the Holla Forums mods would just take the stuff from that one permanent sticky of there's and put it into a board page, put a link to that board page in the board announcement, unsticky all the other threads, unban everyone, and then from there on only moderate duplicate threads or delete nigger dick porn spam, and otherwise just leave the board alone. They right now censor and ban practically everything. Holla Forums works better when the users, not the mods, dictate the content.

BBC on pol will never stop

polboys love big nigger dick

You obviously aren't doing your job very well as I rarely ever see any big black cock on Holla Forums. I was thinking more back to /new/ and how it used to get spammed with it constantly and the mods would delete it.

Monogomous pairings. Buyer and seller. Harder it is to fins the match the more oyu have to ironically force free market anarchism.

Because your whole hype is imaginary. I call it fairytale sales and marketing. There is nothing to talk about, nothing to argue. You are using the tactic as religion. Whatever you assert as truth, give the proof also or you are in the same class as TV evangelist's. I would say even worse.

...

Let's give credit where credit is due… OP has gone to a lot of trouble to compose this impressive copy/pasta for all of us. It must have taken [him] a lot of time, effort and work - thank you. See autism be a positive thing - even for a Fundidiot.

nope, 3DPD aren't capable of love

What if God's love is manifested in gifts for you in the world, nice things for you to experience, interesting lessons for you to learn?

What if sharing love with an equal, a nice lady for example, is different to being loved by God, and worth experiencing?

What if the very nature of genuine love is to be aware of the imperfections in the subject, and love the subject regardless (as God loves you despite your obvious faults) - what if the only way to experience genuine love is to love an imperfect being, i.e. not God?

"If"
"If"
"If"

*tips*

Btw you need faith to perform well at a job, faith to excel as an athlete, faith to trust your reason and your senses, and faith to be able to function or live at all. Faith is indispensable. Those who conflate emotions, faith, and other things with the real enemy; irrationality – are idiots.

You mean the properties/attributes of the universe. Saying it's emergent is going too far.

You mean within the realm of ethics and also scientific method supports ethics but whoever says you can do away with the study of ethics and use science only is some kind of retard. It's akin to say you can do chemistry without math or understand geometry without physics. It's impossible. All these retards that disown philosophy and then make philosophical statements through science and pretend they are not doing so are idiots.

Whoever pits science against philosophy is an idiot. You're just doing the inverse. The problem is when people fail to recognize what is the domain of science and what is the domain of philosophy. "Emergent properties" for example is the domain of philosophy and supported but NOT proven by scientific observation. Proofs and evidence are not limited to the scientific method or to empirical observation. Those who don't understand this need to study the differences between Aristotle and Plato and understand the ways to knowledge.

Whoever wishes to limit themselves entirely to empirical observation and the scientific method has to discard a huge amount of human knowledge.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Why would 3dpd love a narcisist little faggot such yourself? You can only love draws because the draw is the sum of your fantasies.
You could never do anything without expecting something in return.
Thank fuck people like you will die alone…it's the best punishmente there is.

Yeah and what if the law of compensation comes into effect like it always does and for each thing you gain there is something you lose? What if some of the things are lost are things that ought to be prized?

Anyways to answer your question god's love is always manifest through the world but even through the things that seem testament to tyranny and oppression and misery if you look closer you'll ultimately find his love still there.

If this is hard for you to comprehend then read sacred-texts.com/hin/kyog/index.htm

Women are not equals and egalitarianism is the worst meme. God's love btw can come directly to you but it changes everything around you as well. God's love will manifest itself through all the people around you, and in your body, and in your thoughts.

You are making the error of loving evil. The Corpus Hermeticum will help you see things right, read it: sacred-texts.com/chr/herm/

The divine seed in man is his real self. Not his body or his mind. Even as you may love another person, you should only love the good in them, and in so doing make the good aspects in them grow stronger.

You are clearly delusional about what is selflessness is. Go read sacred-texts.com/hin/kyog/index.htm this will correct your view though it might take you awhile to properly understand.

Great thread, but thought there'd be more succubus porn.

The questions were directed at the original poster, and were aimed at prompting self reflection on their idea that only loving God is wise.

Loving someone in spite of their failings is not the same as "loving evil", nice strawman though.

Women are most definitely equal in the sense that all humans are on a level under God's level, that was the point that was being made.

Re-read what was being asked, without assuming an agenda in the questions and you might be less hostile - in paticular the part about God's love manifesting as "interesting lessons for you to learn".

The quest for meaning or understanding of your nature, philosophy whatever you want to call it isn't a competition, it's not an argument where you "win" by shooting down any thoughts that don't match to your own perspective. Let ideas flow though you, and retain the aspects you appreciate.

It sounds like you have some level of interest and willingness to explore ideas and spirituality, philosophy whatever you want to call it, so keep at it.

you misunderstand, it has nothing to do with me
they are chemically incapable of feeling romantic love, like a psychopath is chemically incapable of feeling empathy
a 3DPD that could feel romantic love would have been at significant when it came to her reproduction, thus it never came about. Simple evolutionary pressure.

Rationalize much mr hype, enjoy your brainwart.

t. retard

God isn't separate from us. Loving god is loving all. God's name is The All.

Not a strawman because I'm not representing that as your argument. I am saying that to love someone as they are is to love evil. You should love them not as they are but for what they can be.

Seems very misleading for you to plug in that "equality" word if that's what you mean also everything might be "under god" but there's obviously many degrees of development, many levels or stages, on the way to god and not all humans are on the same level.

Everyone has an agenda. I hate people that claim they don't have an agenda. They are more dangerous than people whose agenda is known.

Yeah as if I don't do this. Every couple of months I assimilate new ideas. I have radically changed perspectives many times over. The fact I'm even arguing you means I'm open to actually reading and understanding things outside of a bubble. You're just mad at my debate style.

This the whole point of my life and all that I do with my time. Saying some level of interest is way downplaying things. I dedicate all my time and thought to this.

Have a taste of some of the finest ideas conceived by man in a condensed, consumable and on-demand form, mon ami. Buddhists who say that pursuing form is vanity never tasted Debussy.
t. a fellow theologian Christian

youtube.com/watch?v=mskURYO7DiA

The concept of emergence is not bound within the realm of philosophy. If it were, we wouldn't exist to begin with, since that's putting the cart before the horse.
A very simple example of an emergent property not bounded within the realm of philosophy: you can't phase through solids despite the amount of empty space between your atoms and the obstacle's due to an emergent property of electromagnetism. We push our hands against the surface of a table, and we interpret the collective repulsion of the atoms involved as "This is solid".

Computers are another great example of emergence at work. The video demonstrates this well, as the game does not allow you to add any input once the system starts running. What we experience when interacting with computers now is the product of multiple layers of emergence.

I shouldn't need to explain this to you - you are an intelligent person, I can tell.

You say is doing the inverse. You are doing the opposite.

= 2
= 1/2
= -2

Whoever pits philosophy against science has a mental illness; philosophy and the rest of your soliloquy is dead in this day and age. I studied with the best, Pierre Grimes & his Philosophical Midwifery, of The Noetic Society. And I am a scientist as previously stated. Why do we need philosophy when we have anthropology, and the other sciences that actually work. I spent 2 years with a tribe of yoga meditation monks, and have a lot of experience with things and the people from India. Even people from India won't support them because they know that they are frauds and parasites. So they come to America where the money is. Buddhism was invented to get the babies to stop crying, and Zen honestly says that it has nothing to teach. I'm familiar with David Hawkins and understand that some people need god and a certain cosmology to try and explain things. Osho on the other hand teaches a combination of Hindu non-duality and Zen. They all tried really hard in their own way to understand something that can't be understood. I have hope for Neuroscience, and have already stated that free will is imaginary, complements of science. I have skimmed through your attempt to explain your dream, but found nothing original or different worth considering. But you are a good science fiction writer. You tried to throw me off by insulting me several times, but adults are used to problem children. I do have some advise that may help you though; no attachments, no conflict. Thank you for the story of you someplace in time.

take care

lol

Science is incapable of providing meaning. It is a tool, worshiping it and exalting like some kind of pseudo-deity is every bit as pointless as praying to any sky-wizard. And that's exactly what you and your kind do; you present this current year shtick,and then proceed to denigrate every belief system that is actually capable of imagining a grain of meaning beyond pursuing material gratification. If strict materialism works for you, great! I just can't stand how fedora-tipping atheists can never keep their noses out of other peoples business. Jesus Christ you people proselytize more than fucking Christians do! I've known plenty of Religious people who have the decency to NOT bring their belief systems; but every Atheist will find an excuse to tip the old fedora and tell you: "I'm an atheist, you know. Religion is stupid!" You hate on theistic people for being sheep, yet your kind are constantly compelled to cram objectively dogmatic presuppositions down everyone's throat.

Lmfao you aren't as smart as you think

You found words to say what I've been trying to for years. Thamk you user

Here we go more Drama. Humans = drama and dominance, everything else is an imaginary concept, except science. Science is the only thing that can prove you have a mental problem.

Answer me this:
1. Is the universe deterministic or indeterminate?
2. In the study you mention where x part of one self decides before y parts is aware of, is not x oneself, and therefore you making the decision?
3. Is conscious deterministic or indeterminate (or capable of alternating between or even having features of both at the same time)?
4. Where on this chart are you?

Do your own work and find the scientific studies and reports yourself, this way you will actually learn something, and then you can stop being like a dog that runs to the end of his chain and barks.

My iq was 127 when tested. That test was took several hours to complete and was done alongside many other people who. I was amongst the top 10% of the people that took that test. At the time of doing that test I had been awake playing Minecraft for 100 hours straight, thus severely sleep deprived, which means my IQ may be higher still.

Besides IQ I was tested at 11 and when it came to reading and comprehension scored university 5th year. My ability along those lines is exceptional. I was reading very advanced literature, encyclopedias, and university textbooks from a very early age because other stuff was fucking boring.

I was advanced 2 years ahead of everyone else in school and was taken out of school to be homeschooled. I took my highschool courses online. I graduated with honors and got a scholarship. After first semester of university I dropped out though as I was the only white kid in the class, the rest were chinks, and I hated it.

I have read over 200 books just on occultism, many sites, and many threads – and made probably a hundred thousand shitposts.

Does that make me super intelligent? Possibly - but who cares. Whoever neglects to use his abilities will see them become useless for lack of exercise.

Now all this talk of my intelligence aside I want you to actually provide citations / reading material and make your case about whatever it is you believe. This isn't about impressing people or proving I'm so "smart" it's about figuring out reality because once we know reality and have mastered it we can accomplish whatever we want. To this end only the truth is my ally, and though I criticize others views, and feel strongly about what my current understanding, when new information comes to my attention I revise my ideas appropriately.

Now stop being so butthurt.

I already do read many scientific studies when they are interesting to me or relevant to the things I care about.

You're a lazy faggot who doesn't even know what he believes.

If you don't want to make your case and defend it then admit you don't really give a shit and prioritize doing other things with your time than arguing on Holla Forums.

Are you even going to stay where on that chart you stand?

These science worshippers need to read:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science

So that they understand the importance of philosophy. Science literally can't exist without philosophy. Science is based on philosophy.

The fedoras are cargo cultists. Worshipping what they don't understand.

These dipshits don't even know that materialism is the domain of philosophy.

They say things like "we don't need philosophy we just need science" and then inject philosophical ideas into science and pretend they're not arguing in the domain of philosophy.

I will respect someone more who actually knows what materialism, determinism, emergent properties, and related ideas are from a philosophical perspective.

Thing is if they actually studied that shit they would realize it belongs in the 19th century where it died.

Ignorant morons are pushing 19th century ideas without knowing what it is they are even saying but because some popular scientist stays some shit they go along with it.

These fedoras with their clockwork universe and other stupidity are preaching old Christian dogmas!

It's hilarious when someone is clearly entirely immersed in the Christian cultural sphere and doesn't even know it. They think they went outside of it and yet their thinking is entirely Christian in nature (mind you, a shitty branch of it).

Fedoras are simpletons.

If you worship science and can't even understand what your positions are then you're dumb ass.

People who don't even know what positivism, empiricism, reductionism, coherentism, etc. are don't even really know science.

The education system has failed the people by not teaching them philosophy.

hahaha how can you call yourself a scientist if you won't even debate his points?

you give credence to your opponent while shooting your own stance in the foot you dumb cunt hahahaha

like what are you so afraid of? you're obviously confident in your position
just talk with him

pic related is what you are literally doing

i.e. Love in spite of their failings
good job, glad you can keep up

Who are you to measure a person's "value"? Only God can decide what "level" a person is, it isn't for your imperfect mind to cast aspersions over whether you are worth more or less than someone else.

I never said I don't have an agenda, I said that your assumption about what my agenda was is wrong. My agenda is to hear other people's ideas, share my own and hopefully grow more enlightened in the process.

My comment was literally about how this isn't an argument / debate, learning isn't an argument, it's an exchange of ideas.

you're on Holla Forums

webm.land/media/JWDN.webm