Philosophy Religion, Belief, and Democracy

[CarlManvers2019]

Ah okay. I'm a Roman Catholic Christian, so I don't even believe in the Kali Yuga. That's the difference.

I prefer that we make entirely new religions with varying levels of inspiration from others

I want to worship an Azathoth-Expy with parts of said beliefs being that we are all part of a massive computer game it made because it was bored

Or because it hopes that with time we too will technologically advance and emotionally and psychologically mature to join it and make more universes

 

[The Name of Love]

I prefer that we make entirely new religions with varying levels of inspiration from others

I want to worship an Azathoth-Expy with parts of said beliefs being that we are all part of a massive computer game it made because it was bored

Or because it hopes that with time we too will technologically advance and emotionally and psychologically mature to join it and make more universes

Why? Why make new religions when you know they're fake? Do you like believing in lies?

Also, you haven't answered my question. What do you think my position is on moral degeneracy?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Why? Why make new religions when you know they're fake? Do you like believing in lies?

Also, you haven't answered my question. What do you think my position is on moral degeneracy?

I think your position is that of a slippery slope.

Liking Red Sonja and wanting her to keep that Chainmail Bikini and fight will somehow lead to Red Sonja looking like a dude and being a “sue” in-terms of combat, personality and convenience

Or liking female fanservice will somehow lead to people praising ugly, obese and/or dude-like looks

 

[The Name of Love]

I think your position is that of a slippery slope.

Liking Red Sonja and wanting her to keep that Chainmail Bikini and fight will somehow lead to Red Sonja looking like a dude and being a “sue” in-terms of combat, personality and convenience

Or liking female fanservice will somehow lead to people praising ugly, obese and/or dude-like looks

That's not my position.

My position is that looking at scantily clad women is wrong because it encourages effeminacy in men. Men need to be virtuous and either form stable, loving families or be celibate. A bit old fashioned? Yes. Necessary? Definitely.

Sexual activity must be confined within marriage. And not so-called same-sex "marriage", I mean the real McCoy, one man and one woman. Both should come to the altar as virgins. No divorce. No contraception. No abortion. No fornication. Anything less than this is immoral, period.

My reasoning for this position is simple: illicit sex violates the natural law because sex is ordered towards procreation and union between man and woman. Separating sex from its natural ends inevitably leads to the perversion of the sexual faculty, resulting in numerous problems in the modern day. Most notably is the large number of boys growing up in fatherless homes and growing up into drug addicts, mass shooters, atheists, and other moral reprobates as a result.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I maybe very Anti-SJW but let’s just say I disagree and think there should come a healthy balance and don’t think lumping atheistsm with being a douche’s a good idea

 

[The Name of Love]

I maybe very Anti-SJW but let’s just say I disagree and think there should come a healthy balance and don’t think lumping atheistsm with being a douche’s a good idea

I don't really consider you an expert on what's a good idea consider you want to worship a fictional deity.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I don't really consider you an expert on what's a good idea consider you want to worship a fictional deity.

Aren’t all deities fictional or simply theoretical?

Pascal’s Wager could work even on me worshipping Cthulhu

 

[The Name of Love]

Aren’t all deities fictional or simply theoretical?

No.

Pascal’s Wager could work even on me worshipping Cthulhu

The only benefit to Pascal's Wager is to show that, even from the standpoint of purely non-metaphysical self-interest, atheism is irrational. Considering it does not make an appeal to metaphysics, I don't consider Pascal's Wager to be a real argument for God's existence.

 

[Deleted member]

If the only reason you believe is Pascal's Wager then you might as well be an atheist, to be honest. I don't think calculated self-interest would be a virtue to the Almighty in any system of belief.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

The only benefit to Pascal's Wager is to show that, even from the standpoint of purely non-metaphysical self-interest, atheism is irrational. Considering it does not make an appeal to metaphysics, I don't consider Pascal's Wager to be a real argument for God's existence.

But the problem with Pascal's Wager is, what if you are wrong? And you are worshipping the wrong god, or god in the wrong way? I'd argue that Pascal's Wager could be recontextualized that worshipping god itself is a gamble.

If the only reason you believe is Pascal's Wager then you might as well be an atheist, to be honest. I don't think calculated self-interest would be a virtue to the Almighty in any system of belief.

I'd agree with that, even from my standpoint, I could not imagine any higher being, being impressed or at all amused by such chicanery.

 

[The Name of Love]

But the problem with Pascal's Wager is, what if you are wrong? And you are worshipping the wrong god, or god in the wrong way? I'd argue that Pascal's Wager could be recontextualized that worshipping god itself is a gamble.

The point of Pascal's Wager is that, in any case, atheism is foolish by any measure. If atheism is true and you aren't right, then nothing happens. Understand, Pascal was dealing with atheists who didn't believe in metaphysics and were skeptical of just about everything, but loved gambling. He presented this argument to them as a way to snap them out of their atheism.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

The point of Pascal's Wager is that, in any case, atheism is foolish by any measure. If atheism is true and you aren't right, then nothing happens. Understand, Pascal was dealing with atheists who didn't believe in metaphysics and were skeptical of just about everything, but loved gambling. He presented this argument to them as a way to snap them out of their atheism.

But that presuming again, that God is the only choice. Once you make that argument you open it up to about a thousand possibilities. Each has a chance of being wrong? Would you really want to bet on God, when it could turn out to be Zeus who rules the cosmos? Nor I doubt that Anubis is going to be too impressed with such a wager...which means your heart going to get snacked.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

But that presuming again, that God is the only choice. Once you make that argument you open it up to about a thousand possibilities. Each has a chance of being wrong? Would you really want to bet on God, when it could turn out to be Zeus who rules the cosmos? Nor I doubt that Anubis is going to be too impressed with such a wager...which means your heart going to get snacked.

This isn't how traditional religions functioned. The issue was not whether you believed in the existence of Anubis, let alone having faith in him, but rather the actions that you had undertaken in life and how well they had conformed to the requirements of Ma'at.

Thus, being a Christian in itself would only condemn you to Ammut's jaws if Kemetic religion was true if and only if being a Christian necessarily required actions that deviated sufficiently from Ma'at and towards Apep that would preclude your heart from conforming to Ma'at.

This may well have been the case for early Christians who refused to participate in civic religious ceremonies, but if Kemetic religion was true and also if the requirements involve a high specificity of the ceremonies we would all be swallowed up because those ceremonies have not been practiced for close to two thousand years.

The specificity almost certainly wouldn't have to be high, if you had engaged a practicioner on this and they had had a philosophical bent, as most traditional religions recognized each other as variations on a theme. And in addition, Apep hasn't swallowed the Sun and introduced endless chaos into the world, though of course Mr. In The Name Of Love would almost certainly disagree with that notion. But for analytical purposes, simply participating in social rituals and ceremonies that act to hold the human world together is probably enough, beyond the moral requirements recorded in the Book of Going Forth By Day.

This kind of mirroring of a very narrow interpretation of Christianity (certainly something which entirely ditches the parable of the sheep and the goats and the letter of James cannot be said to be truly engaging with the New Testament) is a very bad way of thinking about other religions. For a more modern example, being a Christian is not automatically relevant to Buddhism and what happens after death in it- your karma is a matter, again, of your actions.

Now, that being said, most conservative Christians do undertake actions that would accumulate karma of a negative disposition, or would deviate from the requirements of Ma'at, or would face a stern condemnation from Minos and Rhadamanthus, or would exclude them from Ásgard and Vanaheim. But those actions are still up to them and are motivated by religious doctrine only at the level of subsects, rather than at the level of sects or of the religion as a whole.

 

[The Name of Love]

Now, that being said, most conservative Christians do undertake actions that would accumulate karma of a negative disposition, or would deviate from the requirements of Ma'at, or would face a stern condemnation from Minos and Rhadamanthus, or would exclude them from Ásgard and Vanaheim. But those actions are still up to them and are motivated by religious doctrine only at the level of subsects, rather than at the level of sects or of the religion as a whole.

Why? Is it because we think homosexuality is a sin?

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Why? Is it because we think homosexuality is a sin?

Since I was talking about how these religions emphasize actions, I don't know why you're talking about mere thoughts.

In any case, given the wanton misogyny many conservative Christians express and their expressed desire for homosocial bonding, most practitioners of traditional religion would have understood them as simply very bizarre in wanting homoeroticism without any sexual contact as such. So the often conflicting attitudes traditional religions have towards homosexuality are not really relevant here.

But what I was referring to is that, given that said traditional religions relied on the practice of shared civic ceremonies as a forestalling of chaos, the desire of conservative Christians to warp these ceremonies to be more exclusive and to be more particularist would thus be understood as a desire to open the gates to the chaotic world. In Kemetic terms, demanding prayer return to schools, putting up Ten Commandments monuments, would be understood as a sign of Apep slithering into the world.

Buddhism is of course entirely different- there it would be conservative Christianity's emphasis on the notion that suffering is good.

 

[The Name of Love]

In any case, given the wanton misogyny many conservative Christians express and their expressed desire for homosocial bonding, most practitioners of traditional religion would have understood them as simply very bizarre in wanting homoeroticism without any sexual contact as such. So the often conflicting attitudes traditional religions have towards homosexuality are not really relevant here.

Yes, because all male bonding is homoeroticism because reasons, and excluding women from anything is “misogyny.”

But what I was referring to is that, given that said traditional religions relied on the practice of shared civic ceremonies as a forestalling of chaos, the desire of conservative Christians to warp these ceremonies to be more exclusive and to be more particularist would thus be understood as a desire to open the gates to the chaotic world. In Kemetic terms, demanding prayer return to schools, putting up Ten Commandments monuments, would be understood as a sign of Apep slithering into the world.

No, we need more exclusion, and we need more public prayer. Secular atheism is a serious spiritual threat, and every time organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation or the American Civil Liberties Union take down another religious icon, it’s another blow against the idea that religion is something public, not something private.

To put it in terms you understand: your attempt to confine Christianity to the private sphere and replace it with state atheism is a sign that Apep reigns supreme.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Yes, because all male bonding is homoeroticism because reasons, and excluding women from anything is “misogyny.”


No, we need more exclusion, and we need more public prayer. Secular atheism is a serious spiritual threat, and every time organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation or the American Civil Liberties Union take down another religious icon, it’s another blow against the idea that religion is something public, not something private.

To put it in terms you understand: your attempt to confine Christianity to the private sphere and replace it with state atheism is a sign that Apep reigns supreme.

I am not stating my own particular beliefs here. I am attempting to communicate what the believers of traditional religions would have thought. And they would have looked at the pluralistic reality of the current United States and understood that the civic religion must necessarily be pluralistic and that efforts to make it less pluralistic would be, in their terms, cutting a hole in the wall of Midgard to let the giants of frost and fire in.

Of course, you tip your hand here by admitting that you believe American society must be closed to, at a minimum, all who are not Christians and presumably, all who are not some species of conservative Christian. Maybe you even recognize that in this state of exclusion coexistence between conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics will no longer be possible. Quite the disruptive desire for society, but that's the paradox of conservatism.

 

[The Name of Love]

I am not stating my own particular beliefs here. I am attempting to communicate what the believers of traditional religions would have thought. And they would have looked at the pluralistic reality of the current United States and understood that the civic religion must necessarily be pluralistic and that efforts to make it less pluralistic would be, in their terms, cutting a hole in the wall of Midgard to let the giants of frost and fire in.

Of course, you tip your hand here by admitting that you believe American society must be closed to, at a minimum, all who are not Christians and presumably, all who are not some species of conservative Christian. Maybe you even recognize that in this state of exclusion coexistence between conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics will no longer be possible. Quite the disruptive desire for society, but that's the paradox of conservatism.

The problem of pluralism isn’t just a problem for conservatives, but a problem for everyone. Liberals claim to have a system like what you suggest, a belief system that encompasses all society, one that crosses cultures and metaphysical beliefs. In fact, it excludes all ideas that are “unreasonable” and then defines “unreasonable” as any “beliefs that go against liberalism.” Your proposed civic religion will inevitably exclude us just as our current secular liberal regime excludes us. Too many Christians still operate under the delusion that we should aim for an open society, but in fact, the open society only leads to intolerance and exclusion.

I’m for religious toleration of non-Christian beliefs to the extent that it promotes peace and virtue, but no further than that. Given the history of 20th century America has basically been the ultimate vindication of McCarthyism, I’m not inclined to be inclusive of people who would not reciprocate.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

The problem of pluralism isn’t just a problem for conservatives, but a problem for everyone. Liberals claim to have a system like what you suggest, a belief system that encompasses all society, one that crosses cultures and metaphysical beliefs. In fact, it excludes all ideas that are “unreasonable” and then defines “unreasonable” as any “beliefs that go against liberalism.” Your proposed civic religion will inevitably exclude us just as our current secular liberal regime excludes us. Too many Christians still operate under the delusion that we should aim for an open society, but in fact, the open society only leads to intolerance and exclusion.

I’m for religious toleration of non-Christian beliefs to the extent that it promotes peace and virtue, but no further than that. Given the history of 20th century America has basically been the ultimate vindication of McCarthyism, I’m not inclined to be inclusive of people who would not reciprocate.

I am not proposing a civic religion here, but yes, I would propose a civic religion that seeks ultimately to strangle conservative Christianity (as opposed to Christianity as a whole, and alongside other reactionary religious interpretations) because I am firmly convinced that it is a malevolent force in society. But I am not as of yet Empress of Everything, nor would I like to be, really. So I don't know why that's relevant.

In the end, though, your argument here is fundamentally silly. Of course a society that wishes to promote tolerance and openness must defend itself against the advocates of intolerance and closedness! What, are you demanding that we offer up our throats for you to freely cut? How absurd! This is like someone who goes around beating up Quakers and then whines that they're not really pacifists if they take action to stop him from doing it anymore.

Really, the basic problem here is that you consider yourself an American rather than an anti-American. You would probably be much less dependent on asinine philosophical arguments to justify yourself to yourself if you recognized that you were set irretrievably against American society and sought its total destruction and replacement.

 

[The Name of Love]

I am not proposing a civic religion here, but yes, I would propose a civic religion that seeks ultimately to strangle conservative Christianity (as opposed to Christianity as a whole, and alongside other reactionary religious interpretations) because I am firmly convinced that it is a malevolent force in society. But I am not as of yet Empress of Everything, nor would I like to be, really. So I don't know why that's relevant.

In the end, though, your argument here is fundamentally silly. Of course a society that wishes to promote tolerance and openness must defend itself against the advocates of intolerance and closedness! What, are you demanding that we offer up our throats for you to freely cut? How absurd! This is like someone who goes around beating up Quakers and then whines that they're not really pacifists if they take action to stop him from doing it anymore.

Really, the basic problem here is that you consider yourself an American rather than an anti-American. You would probably be much less dependent on asinine philosophical arguments to justify yourself to yourself if you recognized that you were set irretrievably against American society and sought its total destruction and replacement.

Well, I’m against America as it currently stands today, yes. So is any reactionary, really. But I’m glad to hear that you’d basically do what Emperor Diocletian did while claiming to be tolerant. And you wonder why we’re so intolerant? Maybe it’s because of a lack of reciprocity, a lack that you freely expound. You deride Conservative Christians as wielding knives against you while openly claiming that, were the positions reversed, you’d do the exact same thing against us.

This naked hypocrisy is the beating heart of the AntiFa Left. Bigotry in the name of fighting “bigots.” Hatred in the name of fighting “haters.” Oppression in the name of fighting “oppressors.” Intolerance in the name of fighting “the intolerant.” And of course, whoever invents the civic religion defines what those words in quotations mean.