Friendly reminder to western atheists that your whole life is centered around a Christian framework whether you accept...

Friendly reminder to western atheists that your whole life is centered around a Christian framework whether you accept it or not

Yes but did sandy hook really happen?

My life can't be based on society if I never go outside

Yeah and it's the reason why we're so cucked.
Nobody ever denied that bong bong pish poff

How come I'm a nihilist them?

>Inb4 underage

that clip is extremely hot

I accept it. I just can't make myself believe in the supernatural aspect. Values in Christianity are good.

Smort

Not for much longer it isn't. Soon the west will be Muslim.

Friendly reminder to christians that European morality existed before their kike-on-a-stick worship, and will exist after.

But its not.

how?

The woman in OP os clearly a witch. Honor killing when?

>Soon the west will be Muslim.
and athiest will be thrown off roof. hurra

Whether it was becoming the official religion of Rome or the reformation, Christianity was just as influenced by western civilisation as the west was influenced by Christianity.

> a Christian framework
what does this mean to you?
monogamy?
non-slavery?
capitalism?
not one of these is a christian ideal
in fact, they are the opposite

No my life revolves around science, which christkikes pushed back, and actually decreased our discoveries because of the dark ages.

At least other fairy tales had golden ages like Islam. Kilestianity had nothing.

>inb4 kikestians were scientists
Oh you mean the closeted atheists that had to hide from Christian extremism?

Because you are rational, logical, intelligent, and have common sense.

There's a reason why your country has a better educational system, and better political structures.

Christianity never influenced the west.

It was just repackaged paganism, as Jesus didn't exist.

okay, but that doesnt help me believe any better.

I think 2 steps are required to get from where you are to being a reasonable Christian, with neither step being as simple as a decision. The first is to admit to yourself that the values in Christianity are not good by your judgment, but by someone/something else's. Maybe God, maybe the cosmic order, maybe evolution, but not you. Most people get hung up religions because of texts written by humans, and so they view picking a religion as if it was a "Hmm this sounds good" menu. Pagans and atheists make a lot of the slave morality, but there is something to be said about not insisting on creating your own morals. If you believe in higher morality, then you should focus on conceptualizing where this comes from. There are many answers for that question and most are unsatisfying for long, is my experience. But whatever you do you have to move away from the "I follow the morals I choose to be right" nietzschean super ideal. Yes judgment is important yes you must strive to be Good yes yes yes but WHERE does your vision come from?

The second step after conceding some cosmic order or spiritual dimension is to understand the sacrifice of Christ. Why is this so important for Christians and how come all of the fedora "lol you can't die for someone else's sins" stuff seems silly to them? You could think of Christ as a redressing of the cosmic karma debt of humanity, but why was this necessary and why would people care about it 2000 years later? Answers like "ppl just like religion cause they're weak" don't cut it.

Friendly reminder that christcucks were never welcome here.

>the closeted atheists that had to hide from Christian extremism
top lel. never happened you retard

without churches, there would be no schools
without monasteries, there would be no records of greek works
you are mistaken
christian culture has created the happiest of peoples
the danish do not need god anymore, but because their culture was entirely changed by christianity, they will always be a christian people. caring, giving, good christians atheists.
do you see?
culture is beyond our control, until it isn't
and though we live in a land of tens of thousands of laws
we also live in a lawless land

Every religion is a repackaging of some other relgiion that came before it. I don't disagree. But, whether it's art, literature or law, Christianity has influenced the west. You can say it could have been any religion, but it was Christianity.

Did you forget about the inquisitions, the CRUSADES, the dark ages? Idiot.

You cannot be a Christian and an atheist, that is like saying you are a smart dumb person.

Those societies were founded upon pagan ideals which Christianity adopted.

The countries you confuse as Christian, are atheist countries as they got past your fairy tale bullshit.

>Christianity
No it was not, you missed the whole point of my commentary. Yes, religions have origins, although Christian was hardly different from paganism. Paganism influences in Christianity are why Europe developed beautifully, not because of your kike religion.

Nihilism is incoherent and ontologically false.

>which christkikes pushed back, and actually decreased our discoveries because of the dark ages.
I'm sure that's why indigenous people had spaceships and skyscrappers.

In that it fails miserably under the scrutiny of natural philosophy

christianity is nihilism; literally all of earth is a test and all that is good is either a sin, or needed to be cast aside in order to 'love god' (love nothingness). As Pascal put it; the ultimate christian thing to do is to not love anything.

The Christian will be first to hit the ground.

Elaborate.

Explain yourself

>You cannot be a Christian and an atheist
You can if you take a look at the larger perspective. Christianity introduced strict morals to a rough people. Do not confuse the actions of modern Christians for what was intended in the scripture. The Scandinavians are today among the greatest of societies and are entirely a Christian atheist people. Their cultures are entirely Christian and there is no other word for it. But, they are also scientists, and are atheists. It just is.

I swear Christians like you piss me off.

You ARE delusional you dumbfuck.

From your perspective as a human, it is factually false to say everything is inherently equal or of equal value. Happy things make you happy, happy things are good. Bad things are not good. It's not equal, it is not the same. You are taking the disconnected/disassociative perspective of nothingness, which is not the case. It is incoherent and irrelevant.

I am a Jew

your vision comes from the christian values based society we live in
its circular

Yeah that's a materialistic historical analysis of religions being morals + spiritual nonsense. If you believe that then you have to go back to step 1 of my post. Even the social Darwinists have a better answer than yours.

The paradox of "if everything is inherently equal, why do you prefer this perspective" is also relevant.

and just for clarification I am not a Christian.

The west will be here long after diabetes has claimed your feet shill.

i was talking about step1

yes I was there

top lel. name a single scientist who was ever persecuted for being a scientist

You didn't quite get nihilism. It's not about all things being equal, it's about things having no intristic value, only the subjective value we associate with them.
A normal individual would associate good with physical pleasure and bad with physical harm, for example.
While an ascetic or a flagellat would indulge in pain and abstinence from what most people consider good.
Nihilism is realising that good and bad are not absolutes, but rather values we give to our experienced.

If you are talking nihilism from the stance that there is no point to human life, you are making an arbitrary assumption. I think you need some absurdism in that case.

It's true, whether you are religious or not most people in the west have a christian egalitarian mindset and that is a problem

Its resulted in the secular cult of progressivism, which is just an extension of christanity's extreme egalitarianism where everyone is the same and virtuous as long as they are believers, and believers can be converted from anywhere, even third world countries. The only reason progressivism is secular is that it began to see Christianity as an being in conflict with egalitarianism.

We need to do away with the christian mindset all together otherwise we will be self consuming in the same way Christianity is.

We need a strong culture based on meritocracy and hierarchy that values strength over weakness, with a master morality at its core.

I believe that is relativism and even that has it's limits in my opinion.

bohr

>muh dark ages

>bohr
>dark ages
>persecuted
>at all
lel no

I do take an idealist perspective though. I literally see the intrinsic value of food being food. And yes I believe food itself has intrinsic value to humans.

Who is Galileo, eh?

Oh yes i love those...

(((Judeo-Christian values))))

Yeah I know, yours is an answer to step 1. The answer is "it comes from culture, which comes from history and geography". OK, but then why does it look the way it looks? Because society operates better that way? Because non-christians were murdered? Because capitalists took over and needed an opium? Because...? Until you have some concept of non-arbitrariness somewhere you can keep going speculating about the relation of morals to history until the end of days and never get any closer to who you are. If you believe in some morals and agree they are not the product of pure reason, then you have to decide how they can be valuable in some other way. Bad look to just admit you're following a random herd.

>agree they are not the product of reason
here is were you are wrong kiddo
even in christian based countries some values are different
the smaller you go the more different they become
go to asian or african nations and the idea of an absolute origin to morals becomes pretty weak
im not following some herd i know exactly what you mean and agree to a certain extent because the logic behind is pretty solid but still falls apart

top lel
never happened

Yeah well they're not the product of pure reason even though they vary geographically and historically. You did not choose your morals because you thought they had convincing logic behind them. That's even worse answer than the guy who says it comes from culture (and thus history).

lel. that's been debunked already a long time ago

i did chose my morals and have changed them many times
i understand not everyone does this and in a societal level its even more rare

historical or cultural values are so because ppl feel they have been right
when you overwrite them you are going against what "has worked" and are calling your ancestors inmoral

You did not choose your morals, you only believe that you do. This is my contention and it doesn't matter if you can produce books on the logic behind your morals. I think that insisting on the supremacy of your own logic, reason and judgment is something that reliably keeps people atheistic and existentialist. In other words the nietzsche ideal is the best they can hope for, and hope they must because their morals better be the same as what other people 'logically' conclude. Anyway I don't know how to talk to someone who believes to be in complete control of their own morality. It's very strange to me, so maybe you'll have better luck with another user.

its not that my reasoning is superior
its just it is all i have to go by
the nietzche thing is true
but we asume other ppl are logical players all the time in all fields why not in morality
you too reasoned that your morals are absolute and come from some greater begining (the absolute one)
it just makes you more arrogant on your belief

>its just it is all i have to go by
Well yeah but that's what keeps you in the Nietzschean realm. The thing about obsessing over how to become the superman is that it might be the case that you can't become the superman if you only follow your own judgment and insight. What you're saying here is basically a mild version of the hyper-modern concept of relativity, namely that every human on the planet has his own version of reality and his own version of spirituality (and morality). I did not reason anything, and I did not say that my morals come from something absolute or Godly. Very nice how you call me arrogant while maintaining that you reasoned YOURSELF into morality. It's truly a mystery how you can say that that is the humble position. I guess you're just a slave to your skepticism huh? Nietzsche had something to say about that too. Anyway I guess we're gonna be ships passing in the night again.

then were does my reasoning and morality come from if not from myself
what am i if not them
if they are not truly mine then what have i left

Your personality and reasoning faculties are a small part of what you truly are, and an enormous dose of humility is required when thinking about how much you're in control. I agree with you that it might seem like anything you haven't decided on yourself is not truly yours, but I don't think this is the case. This sentiment is another side-effect of the Nietzschean sphere, where only deliberate acts of power are 'real', and the rest is a vague soup of dreams. I can't really tell you where your morality "comes from". Clearly it's a life-long quest, like you said. But consider how completely strange it seems to you how anybody could ever be religious. In my experience this comes mainly from 2 sources. The first is that your impression of what it means to be religious is the Nietzschean one, namely "anything superstitious", so irrational by definition. It's important to note that this category comes with a requirement of judgment on your part. Horoscopes? Superstition. Climate change? Solid science. Hmm. Either way that's not how religious people think about their religion, so your only recourse is to label them either 'insane' or 'misguided'. The second thing is that you insist that anything you 'believe' in must come from your reason and your judgment. So you would believe in chemistry because you trust the universities and perhaps the scientific method. Do you feel any responsibility for trusting the authority of universities, or does this just make 'sense' to you? The way out is to consider the possibility that spirituality is not just superstitious nonsense, nor scientific claims, and the best way to do that (i suspect) is to develop some humility towards your own powers of reason. See, you call religious people "arrogant" because you think they are dogmatic in their beliefs. Those beliefs come from NOWHERE (pure fiction/history), according to you. This is one of the fundamental mis-perceptions atheist have i think.

>But consider how completely strange it seems to you how anybody could ever be religious.
its not i understand the reasoning pretty well logically its not that far fetched there is a god

>spirituality comes from nothing
obviuosly human nature is inclined to the spiritual and it doesnt come from "nothing" i just think its more likely a mix of culture a cummulative experience than from a supernatural origin

>your critique of empiricism
is pretty bad have you ever studied anything? its one thing to argue spirituality another pretty different to discredit science, you dont just believe you study it and see it, the proof the results the uses
its true you have a certain degree of trust over the science you dont know but you dont blindly trust it

>arrogance
i have changed my world view many times and what i think is right or wrong also i think this is the humility if the argument is solid i can be convinced even of god, dogmatic ppl on the other hand..

I'm reading "The Strange Death of Europe" too OP.

I guess we're not getting through to each other. I think it's arrogant that you call me arrogant, and I'm not critical of science (am mathematician) but of your insistence that logic, reason and empiricism are all you use for your beliefs. You are the one who has transcended petty religious concerns, and call those outside of that world arrogant and dogmatic. Anyway good talk.

>God tells Noah that he can eat everything, that the Earth is theirs for exploiting
>Not a part of Earth, but dominion over it
Hell no, Christianity was a mistake.