[EDantes]

From what I have studied, people are naturally spiritual beings with innate knowlege of a higher power; even from a biological perspective "religious" behavior is observed in animals such as chimpanzees and elephants.

This is why even in the case of modern atheists, you see them essentially deifying "science" and "evolution" as though they are a secular religion.

My theory is that if one denies the existence of any higher power then this leads to a purely materialist view of the world, which historically has been a key component of socialism; Marx for example believed unhappiness was primarily the result of material factors beyond the individual's control (ex. capitalism) leading to one to deify the state in hopes that it will bring them happiness, likewise Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the forefathers of modern progressivism were atheists.

On another extreme it could lead to total nihilism; as if one denies any power higher than themselves then they may essentially end up deifying and worshiping the self; which seems to be a key mode of thought in many nihilistc, left wing teens chanting "be whoever you want to be!"; or in more extreme cases individuals who promoted sexual deviancy like the Marquis De Sade used a philosophy of nihilism to justify it, arguing that man was nothing more than an animal and shouldn't restrain any of their impulses./

[Just_Die]

No it definitively does not.

Marxism (both cultural and economic) is the "religion" that every homo sapien is equal based on no merits and that it should get the same 'results' in terms of economic prosperity.

This is empirically false based on the most basic understanding of Darwinism and is malignant to society: people and tribes who contribute most are just as compensated people and tribes who negatively contribute. We have a lot of historical precedents on the effects this has on incentives and the societal result of the application of these types of policies (Mao's famines are my preferred example).

These ideas are extremely destructive for societies in the long run and can easily be imposed on the basis of rational thought.

[Big Swinging Dick]

What do you define as leftism?

Most of the members here would be socially left/libertine--which is kind of funny since you mentioned the Marquis De Sade.

I'm agnostic/atheist depending on the day, yet I'm as capitalist as they come.

Stop trying to put people in boxes. That's what progressives do...

I feel like the redpill movements has been hijacked by religious crazies, and social conservatives lately. And I don't like it. They've got a million churches, synagogues, etc..where they can conglomerate and tell people how to live their lives. Let's keep this forum liberal (in the classical sense), and let people live their lives as they see fit.

[BortimusPrime]

Religious and non-religious people seem to have their brains wired differently. If you take an inherently religious person and put them in an atheist environment, they just end up making a religion out of atheism, and you get atheism+ and social justice zealots. If you take an inherently non-religious person and put them in a religious environment, they'll just go through the motions for social acceptance, and you get Christians that only show up to church on Christmas and Easter.

It's best to just accept that some people have faith and some don't, and as long as neither side fucks with the other then we're all better off.

[scorpion]

(05-12-2016 03:51 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Religious and non-religious people seem to have their brains wired differently. If you take an inherently religious person and put them in an atheist environment, they just end up making a religion out of atheism, and you get atheism+ and social justice zealots. If you take an inherently non-religious person and put them in a religious environment, they'll just go through the motions for social acceptance, and you get Christians that only show up to church on Christmas and Easter.

It's best to just accept that some people have faith and some don't, and as long as neither side fucks with the other then we're all better off.

I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person. EDantes is exactly right: humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion. Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion. The other spiritual choice people make is self-worship: gratifying the ego and the pleasures of the flesh. This narcissistic hedonism becomes the defining life purpose for many "non-religious" people. It never occurs to them that they're engaged in self-worship despite spending all of their time in pursuit of their own self-gratification.

To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin). Denying the existence of God - or at least of some creative force, regardless of who or what it is, and whether or not we could have knowledge of it - was regarded as insanity. If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe. It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God.

[redonion]

By definition I am an atheist, but I would never label myself as one. All the atheists I know are very outspoken about being atheist and will try to push their agenda on you. I guess there are a lot of similarities between leftism and atheism in that regard.

I did, however, grow up Catholic. I don't believe in Jesus or any of that spiritual shit, but I do think the Catholic church instills good values in people.

[BortimusPrime]

(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:51 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Religious and non-religious people seem to have their brains wired differently. If you take an inherently religious person and put them in an atheist environment, they just end up making a religion out of atheism, and you get atheism+ and social justice zealots. If you take an inherently non-religious person and put them in a religious environment, they'll just go through the motions for social acceptance, and you get Christians that only show up to church on Christmas and Easter.

It's best to just accept that some people have faith and some don't, and as long as neither side fucks with the other then we're all better off.

I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person. EDantes is exactly right: humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion. Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion. The other spiritual choice people make is self-worship: gratifying the ego and the pleasures of the flesh. This narcissistic hedonism becomes the defining life purpose for many "non-religious" people. It never occurs to them that they're engaged in self-worship despite spending all of their time in pursuit of their own self-gratification.

To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin). Denying the existence of God - or at least of some creative force, regardless of who or what it is, and whether or not we could have knowledge of it - was regarded as insanity. If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe. It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God.

It's fallacious to conflate accepting the theories produced by the scientific method with a worship of science. And there is absolutely more proof for scientific theories than there is for religion, as a scientific theory makes testable and falsifiable predictions. If you can't produce an experiment that proves the theory wrong, then the theory is objectively true to the best of our knowledge. If a theory is proven wrong then it goes in the garbage can. Or you can get into the postmodernist "nothing is real and we're all minds vibrating in the forty-eighth dimension of the color mauve" existentialist crap, but that's where the real nihilism is.

[Big Swinging Dick]

(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:51 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Religious and non-religious people seem to have their brains wired differently. If you take an inherently religious person and put them in an atheist environment, they just end up making a religion out of atheism, and you get atheism+ and social justice zealots. If you take an inherently non-religious person and put them in a religious environment, they'll just go through the motions for social acceptance, and you get Christians that only show up to church on Christmas and Easter.

It's best to just accept that some people have faith and some don't, and as long as neither side fucks with the other then we're all better off.

I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person. EDantes is exactly right: humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion. Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion. The other spiritual choice people make is self-worship: gratifying the ego and the pleasures of the flesh. This narcissistic hedonism becomes the defining life purpose for many "non-religious" people. It never occurs to them that they're engaged in self-worship despite spending all of their time in pursuit of their own self-gratification.

To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin). Denying the existence of God - or at least of some creative force, regardless of who or what it is, and whether or not we could have knowledge of it - was regarded as insanity. If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe. It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God.

LOL. 200 years ago the upper classes pondered whether the masses had souls!

2,000 years ago it was "self-evident" that lighting occurred because Zeus was having a bad hair day.

We were a pretty primitive bunch until quite recently...I'm not sure why past beliefs on 'normalcy' should have any bearing on the present.

[Durango]

From Molyneux recently:

A higher number of atheists are supporters of a larger state than those that are religious. Also found his argument interesting that atheism eventually leads to sterility versus religious groups.

The modern Marxist inspired countries such as the former USSR, North Korea, and Cuba certainly don't give atheism and leftism a good name. Then again, theocracies such as those in the Middle East are hardly prosperous and champions of liberty and freedom.

[Atheistani]

Don't think this should be in the Politics and War forum...

(05-12-2016 02:36 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

From what I have studied, people are naturally spiritual beings with innate knowlege of a higher power; even from a biological perspective "religious" behavior is observed in animals such as chimpanzees and elephantsI.

What have you studied that says that and what "religious behaviour" do chimpanzees and elephants conduct? I dont think this is correct. What if this "higher power" is just the Laws of Physics? An atheist can argue the Laws of Physics are the highest power, but that does not make him religious or even 'spiritual'.

When you use words like "spiritual" and "higher power", you can pretty much make any assertion you want, because these are ill-defined terms. No point using these meaningless words, as it is just a waste of time. Be clear and specific.

(05-12-2016 02:36 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

My theory is that if one denies the existence of any higher power then this leads to a purely materialist view of the world, which historically has been a key component of socialism

By materialistic I presume you mean relating to the physical world. If so, do you think there is something which is greater than the physical world? I mean do you think anything exists that would stop you from dying if you dont eat or drink water, both 'material' acts? Does anything exist, or do you have any reason to think anything does, that is greater than the material world, that has power over it? Dont forget that the material, or physical world, contains all physics and all nature.

Lets say two guys are training for a fight and are pretty much the same in every aspect. One is - as you put it - "purely materialistic", spending all his time training for the fight in the gym. The other one is 90% materialistic and 10% spiritual, and spends the 90% time training and 10% praying to win. Who do you think will perform better in the fight?

Being "materialistic" is a component of success (and a marker of sanity). The Romans didnt become great by praying to Zeus, they did so by investing in their forces and technical prowess, amongst other physical things.

(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I actually don't believe there is such thing as a non-religious person. EDantes is exactly right: humans are innately spiritual creatures, and inevitably create gods of their own making if they do not practice some kind of religion. Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion. The other spiritual choice people make is self-worship: gratifying the ego and the pleasures of the flesh. This narcissistic hedonism becomes the defining life purpose for many "non-religious" people. It never occurs to them that they're engaged in self-worship despite spending all of their time in pursuit of their own self-gratification.

To look at it from another angle, atheism essentially did not exist until relatively recently (i.e. post-Darwin). Denying the existence of God - or at least of some creative force, regardless of who or what it is, and whether or not we could have knowledge of it - was regarded as insanity. If you had been born 200 years ago, you would have regarded the idea of God as self-evident from the existence and complexity of the universe. It's only because of the modern idea of scientific supremacy - which you have "faith" in, since its theories are entirely unproven - that you are free to jettison your belief in God.

The main point is that you, as a Christian most likely, 'believe' in ideas that are very far from what you may consider primitive spirituality, by which I am talking about older religions, specifically Pagan traditions that lead to the creation of Christianity and such.

Older religions made a lot more sense. For example, one time I was in India being guided around some old fort. The guide showed us a plaque and told us this was where some priest had sacrificed himself when the fort was built. I didnt get it. Why did he kill himself? Such an extreme act. Perhaps he believed it would buy 'the gods'' favour or something. Then I thought about it some more, and realized what was going on. When the guy 'sacrifices' himself, that may be portrayed as some kind of 'religious' act. But it's really not. The guy is voluntarily giving his life as an example to the people around him, that this fort, and this tribe is worth giving the ultimate sacrifice. It's sends a message to the people. It sets the tone. When someone comes to invade, the people will be more willing to fight to the death, to be less afraid of death, and to give whatever 'sacrifice' would be necessary to defend the fort.

My point is that this may seem like a 'religous' act, but it is not one requiring a belief in some "greater power".

Similarly, the oldest Indian 'religious' literature is considered Atheistic by many

Quote:

The Rigveda along with other Vedic texts, states Michael Ruse,[76] contains a "strong traditional streak that (by Western standards) would undoubtedly be thought atheistic". He states that hymn 10.130 of Rigveda can be read to be in "an atheistic spirit"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda#At...ism_debate

Here is a poem from the Rigveda about creation

Quote:

Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.

One about Earth

Quote:

Thou bearest truly, Earth,
The burden of the mountains' weight ;
With might, O thou of many streams,
Thou quickenest, potent one, the soil.

With flowers of speech our songs of praise
Resound to thee, far-spreading one,
Who sendest forth the swelling cloud,
O bright one, like propelling speed ;

Who, steadfast, holdest with thy might.
The forest-trees upon the ground.
When, from the lightning of thy cloud,
The rain-floods of the sky pour down.

Can you see how the composition and appreciation of these hymns does not really require one to 'believe' in somethiing similar to the Christian God? Can you see how these poems can be consistent with what we today call 'Atheism'?

I consider myself an Atheist, but I also consider myself a Pagan. To me they are both the same. Atheism is simply a reaction to the strong 'belief' system of Christianity and Islam. Look at how Pagans, Hindus and Buddhism have zero problems with scientific knowledge and progress. That's because these early religions werent all about 'Bellief'. Their religions had value beyond belief in one system, one story, one ideology. They had Art, Mythology, History and Culture. It was beautiful. Christianity destroyed all this in the West. Modern Atheist simply got sick of Christianity, it has no value if you dont 'beleive' in it. So these Atheists have nothing but Atheism, as the older religions dont exist anymore. The value of Paganism is not understood anymore. Their Art, Myth and Language is not really accessible to us.

Atheism is something that only exists through the eyes of Christians and Muslims. This is because they are the only religions where 'belief' (in order words submitting, joining up, paying your dues, being one of them) is the most important thing. Belief is not nearly as important in older Pagan religions, or in Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism. Do you really think Hindus 'believe' in their hundreds of Gods, the way Christians believe in theirs? Do they really believe in a monkey god Hanuman to physically exist, or is there some other value there for them?

Atheism, as seen by someone following a 'belief religion' such as Christianity or Islam, is simply 'being normal' for everyone else. There is far more similarity between an Atheist and Hindu or Buddhist, than there is between a Hindu and a Christian. In India there is no debate between Atheists and religious people. Atheists are simply those people who have left Christianity or Islam, and have found no other label for themselves.

[Paracelsus]

(05-12-2016 07:01 PM)Big Swinging Dick Wrote:  

We were a pretty primitive bunch until quite recently...I'm not sure why past beliefs on 'normalcy' should have any bearing on the present.

That same assertion -- an extra-syllables version of "IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR!" as an argument -- is used to justify gender theory, which similarly says that all our "normal" ideas about sex are all "primitive" and not "enlightened," and that somehow you can identify as a man, woman, cat, dog, carpetlicker, or buttfucker without any regard to biological reality.

A longstanding idea is not to be dispensed with solely because someone comes up with a different one. The new idea has to demonstrably better represent reality or be proven on its consequences as worthy of displacing the old. Atheism ain't done that when one regards the history of states that adopt it as a policy.

[Atheistani]

(05-12-2016 08:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:01 PM)Big Swinging Dick Wrote:  

We were a pretty primitive bunch until quite recently...I'm not sure why past beliefs on 'normalcy' should have any bearing on the present.

That same assertion -- an extra-syllables version of "IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR!" as an argument -- is used to justify gender theory, which similarly says that all our "normal" ideas about sex are all "primitive" and not "enlightened," and that somehow you can identify as a man, woman, cat, dog, carpetlicker, or buttfucker without any regard to biological reality.

A longstanding idea is not to be dispensed with solely because someone comes up with a different one. The new idea has to demonstrably better represent reality or be proven on its consequences as worthy of displacing the old. Atheism ain't done that when one regards the history of states that adopt it as a policy.

I agree, this is how I used to think, that all religions were stupid and we are much more capable now. I realized I was wrong when I researched ancient religious ideas. Those were much better than the newer ones. Infact, I found that the older the religious idea, the more value it had to an 'Atheist', the more logical, cohesive and beautiful it was.

I think if we move away from the anti-creative, anti-intellectual and anti-artistic Christian/Islamic faiths, we should be able to creative something much better, more inline with the original Art.

[Horny Pilgrim]

(05-12-2016 08:12 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:01 PM)Big Swinging Dick Wrote:  

We were a pretty primitive bunch until quite recently...I'm not sure why past beliefs on 'normalcy' should have any bearing on the present.

That same assertion -- an extra-syllables version of "IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR!" as an argument -- is used to justify gender theory, which similarly says that all our "normal" ideas about sex are all "primitive" and not "enlightened," and that somehow you can identify as a man, woman, cat, dog, carpetlicker, or buttfucker without any regard to biological reality.

A longstanding idea is not to be dispensed with solely because someone comes up with a different one. The new idea has to demonstrably better represent reality or be proven on its consequences as worthy of displacing the old. Atheism ain't done that when one regards the history of states that adopt it as a policy.

That's a big leap.

Genders are biological realities. No atheist denies that (unless they're an SJW).

Science has repeatedly displaced religious ideas PROVEN to be erroneous. Examples:

"The world is 6,000 years old."

"Lightning is Zeus throwing a temper tantrum".

And the list goes on.

Such primitive thinking was the norm in the past. But thankfully as religious crazies become an ever shrinking minority--and church attendance drops to record low--we tend to be more enlightened these days.

[Disco_Volante]

Horny Pilgrim - Atheist countries are being overrun by muslims. (see Sweden, Britain, etc). So the opposite is true. we're adopting the most extreme religion.

Quantum physics has already proven there's other dimensions existing at the same time. Other realms.

Your ideas are very presumptive.

[Horny Pilgrim]

The fact that atheist countries are run by progressive, multiculturalist idiots is not a slight to atheism. Total red herring.

As for other dimensions, that does not in any way prove there is a God. And it certainly doesn't confirm the farrytale which is the Bible.

[cascadecombo]

(05-12-2016 10:19 PM)Horny Pilgrim Wrote:  

The fact that atheist countries are run by progressive, multiculturalist idiots is not a slight to atheism. Total red herring.

As for other dimensions, that does not in any way prove there is a God. And it certainly doesn't confirm the farrytale which is the Bible.

What's a

Quote:

farrytale

[Horny Pilgrim]

You know I meant fairy-tale...

[Glaucon]

Leftism is just all kinds of mentally ill people coming together to leech off the productive.

[Paracelsus]

(05-12-2016 10:19 PM)Horny Pilgrim Wrote:  

The fact that atheist countries are run by progressive, multiculturalist idiots is not a slight to atheism. Total red herring.

Not at all. Said progressive, multiculturalist idiots were only able to come to power in an environment where there was no longer acknowledged a spiritual purpose to existence.

Religion as a societal institution has one feature in its favour: it inoculates that society against narcissism. Narcissism is not compatible with religious thought, chiefly because adopting religious thought invariably requires acceptance of the idea you are not the centre of the universe.

Precisely because the West has chosen to abandon spirituality in all its forms, man has had no choice but to make himself God. The result is multiculturalism -- all cultures deserve to continue alongside one another, making no allowances for the resident one. Progressivism is a twisted mirror image to Christian eschatology -- the world will be all perfect when we are all equal, all poor, one skin colour, no gender.

These perversions of thought are not possible where a religion - be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or anywhere else - has a strong influence on a society. Where atheism has gone institutionally, misery follows. The French revolution was atheist. Victims of the Reign of Terror totaled somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. According to one estimate, among those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes. China, Russia, and Cambodia attempted the same experiments. In the West the experiment is not so overt, but it is the same experiment: once again trying out man as God, with all but predictable low levels of success.

[N°6]

International socialism linked materialism and atheism. Before this, socialism was a political movement of non-conformist Christians who believed that education was important to the working class so that it could compete with the upper class and also so that it could read the Bible for itself.

The defeated Trotskyite and Anarchist elements left the Soviet Union for the West and in the 50s to 70s merged forces with international liberal capitalism against the Soviet Union.

Now in the West, the political paradigm is liberalism (both economic and social). This is why the Left and Right in English speaking countries are essentially the same. One side asserts social liberalism and uses rich celebrities while the other asserts economic liberalism and uses big business which pays little or no tax.

The working classes whose leisure time is significantly spent watching the television often vote for the social liberal party of big celebrity.

The liberal materialist era has seen a collapse in religious observance.

[EDantes]

(05-12-2016 02:53 PM)Big Swinging Dick Wrote:  

What do you define as leftism?

Most of the members here would be socially left/libertine--which is kind of funny since you mentioned the Marquis De Sade.

I'm agnostic/atheist depending on the day, yet I'm as capitalist as they come.

Stop trying to put people in boxes. That's what progressives do...

I feel like the redpill movements has been hijacked by religious crazies, and social conservatives lately. And I don't like it. They've got a million churches, synagogues, etc..where they can conglomerate and tell people how to live their lives. Let's keep this forum liberal (in the classical sense), and let people live their lives as they see fit.

I'd still say there is a difference between casual and unmarried sex - which is biologically natural; marriage is more of a social construct instituted to make sure that the woman and any children produced were provided for (in the modern world where women are independent from their family and support themselves financially it makes it less necessary).

A difference between that and the types of behaviors being promoted by the far left such as acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism and other "alternative sexualities" as accepted "identities".

[Mage]

In the material world the woman is the superior sex. If we live materialistical lives females will inevitably dominate men and this will create anguish for both sexes.

In a spiritual world the man is the superior sex. If we live spiritual lives men will govern women and this will surely create hapiness for both sexes.

This is the esoterical answer to this queastion based on how male and female root bodies align themselves if overlaid on the axis of the five spiritual worlds.

Several degreees more mundane way of expressing this thought would be to say:

Females are needed and unreplacable for continuation of species (material existance, societies with no females are outbred by the horde)
Males are needed and unreplacable for continuation of culture (spiritual existance, societies with no males are assimilated into the horde)

[Anabasis to Desta]

You got it backwards.

It's leftism that naturally leads to atheism.

It's not uncommon to see hardcore atheists that are red pill in other aspects of their lives. But it's almost impossible to meet hardcore leftists that are not atheists/agnostics.

[EDantes]

In fairness even most historical atheists (ex. Epicurus) were not militantly anti-religion.

The militant atheism (anti-theism) from what I can tell however is strongly linked to Karl Marx and other utopian socialists

[Delta]

(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Today's secular religions are science, evolution, equality, social justice, etc... People have "faith" in these things despite there being no more absolute proof for them than there is for any religion.

This is flat out wrong (well, half of it). Science is a method of seeking truth, not a set of beliefs. Evolution is considered proven fact without a shred of controversy among those who study it.

I don't claim to have any clue about how or why the universe exists, how life began, the nature of consciousness and whether it continues after death, etc. But I feel 100% certain that the answers aren't contained in any book full of ancient myths that have been disproven by modern technology. If that means I've just replaced traditional religion with the "religion" of science, then so be it.