Jfl at the neckbeards trying to disprove God by jumping to inherently illogical conclusions

[Caesercel]

I have been a believer and I have been an Athiest. Having seen things from both sides this is my take:

There is absolutely no rational argument or evidence that could ever prove or justify the existence of God. Period. Anyone with a thinking brain who is not deluding themselves could see that. Its a position that is indefensible. Any argument that has ever been made to that effect has been debunked over and over. It had always been that way. The issue is, now, with the advancement of science and knowledge, religion and God are becoming irrelevant.

Having said that, I do believe in God. Because of my personal experiences I believe and I know. Maybe its irrational, but it is what it is, we do a lot irrational things anyway. But its not a position I will ever try to defend in a debate. Because I know for a fact that as far as logic and evidence is concerned the Athiest position is robust.

Basically yeah, although I must add that there are tons of sand gentlemen who transcend the sandnigger label, just like there are tons of blacks who aren't niggers. It's all to do with personality and willingness to override base nature. I won't associate with many kinds of stereotypical nordic faggots, so why would I not offer the same benefit of the doubt to my brothers from other mothers? Fuck that..

Yeah sandniggers are kinda the lowest of the low, they are aggressive and overcompensating copers without anything to back it up, ngl. Their religiousity is off the charts.

Curries are still sandniggers in a sense, or the closest thing to it atleast. I thought he was a flying carpet paki though, tbh. Sorry for the confusion.

Islamcopers are on another stratosphere of coping. They would literally jihadmaxx and blow themselves up to empower Chaddam to have his own 300 virgin foid harem. While hoping to get 72 hoor in jannat. If this is not low iq Teracoping I don't know what is

 

[Made in Heaven]

Circular logic, the vast majority of humans throughout history HAVE BEEN RAISED TO BE RELIGIOUS (sometimes under threat of death)

That's like saying humans are raised to be monogamous or tribal or mate guard. lol It's already been shown that belief in God is natural, religion however, may be different.

These numbers are changing over time the more knowledge humans acquire and ironically the more educated the human population becomes

Come on, man. This is so low IQ. It's like saying the more knowledge and education humans acquire, the more feminist/liberal/LGBT they become. Like how like that wheelchair scientiest was a feminist.

being able to think for yourself and form your own ideas tends to lead to believing less and less in a God

The more advanced the species becomes technology wise, the less religious it becomes, that's not a coincidence

Oh and atheists being into bestiality is just a strawman argument, it has nothing to do with the topic, even if it was true it literally holds no relevance to the topic at hand. Atheists could be both into bestiality and be right about God's none existence, those two positions aren't mutually exclusive (this is the problem with emotional thinkers, you think emotional arguments are actually valid)

It does, because atheists almost always use moral grounds as a means of arguing for why God doesn't exist, such as blathering about evil.

It also shows atheism, is not a healthy way of life. Beyond bestiality, it also promotes adultery, drugs, suicide, and individualsim (EI the destruction of the family). If the point of life is to survive, thrive, and reproduce, Islam beats atheism in its own game.

Even if you want to put moral arguments like bestiality aside, philosophical and mathmatical arguments are still in God's favor, hence why atheists cope with the complexity of life by using the multiverse as a scapegoat.

 

[BlkPillPres]

That's like saying humans are raised to be monogamous or tribal or mate guard. lol It's already been shown that belief in God is natural, religion however, may be different

Its been shown so much that you provided not one example, why do you idiots argue like this?, wouldn't this have been the perfect time to post an example of how it was shown?

You argue like this because you are used to just believing things you are told to believe without requiring actual evidence

Belief in a SPECIFIC God (or set of God's) isn't natural at all, human beings are intelligent and self aware, so throughout history they tended to personify aspects of creation and liken them to humanity, that's the original concept of "Gods" (plural) e.g. The Sun God, The Moon God, The God of Harvest, The God Of Wealth and Prosperity, etc

They would depict these beings as being human in form, having human traits and emotions, etc

Religion is taking all of these concepts and placing them UNDER THE MANTLE OF A SINGLE BEING OR SET OF BEINGS INSTEAD OF THEM BEING SEPARATE PERSONIFICATIONS

Come on, man. This is so low IQ. It's like saying the more knowledge and education humans acquire, the more feminist/liberal/LGBT they become. Like how like that wheelchair scientiest was a feminist

No its like saying after no fault divorce was put into place women initiated 70% of divorces

Its also like saying when you add college education to that situation women initiate around 90% of divorces

(look up the stats)

This is observable reality

The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

As secularism grows, atheists and agnostics are trying to expand and diversify their ranks.

www.nationalgeographic.com

The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising

The rise of the atheists

www.scientificamerican.com

"God" is a concept that thrives in the absence of knowledge, the more knowledge people have, the they attribute unknown things to God

You do realize that once before people thought that lightning striking was because of God, now even someone like you knows the scientific process behind lightning, but ironically you have just retreated towards "other unknowns" as proof of God, and those things too will soon be explained and then the people like you of that future will retreat further away again, all the while more and more people become atheists

It does, because atheists almost always use moral grounds as a means of arguing for why God doesn't exist, such as blathering about evil

You are confused, maybe other atheists do this, but I'm a nihilist, when I bring up evil (the concept), its not that I think it exists, is to show the hypocrisy of God himself being evil

It also shows atheism, is not a healthy way of life

Well its nonsense to begin with, but either way I'm pretty sure being a blue pilled beta provider is more mentally healthy than believing in the black pill, so by that logic why don't you aim to be a blue pilled beta provider

Ignorance is never a positive no matter how much "better it makes you feel about life"

Beyond bestiality, it also promotes adultery, drugs, suicide, and individualsim (EI the destruction of the family). If the point of life is to survive, thrive, and reproduce, Islam beats atheism in its own game

You are using circular logic here, there is no point in life, life simply happens, the point is to do whatever you want

Also you seem to be confused about "atheism's game", in the theory or evolution, the point isn't SURVIVAL PERIOD, the point is for THE FITTEST TO SURVIVE

So people doing shit that destroys their lives IS PART OF THE GAME NOT A CONTRADICTION OF IT

Even if you want to put moral arguments like bestiality aside, philosophical and mathmatical arguments are still in God's favor, hence why atheists cope with the complexity of life by using the multiverse as a scapegoat.

JFL sure bud, coming from the group that excels at circular reasoning that's totally believable

Circular Reasoning. What is Circular Reasoning? A fallacious form of argument in which someone assumes that parts (or all) of what a person claims to. - ppt download

Pop Culture Examples Bill:

slideplayer.com

 

[Deleted member 19546]

so you can remove every problem in your life without it leading to "another problem in the spotlight", or are you saying Gods power is limited?

If God granted you all your wishes right now, you will start wishing new things. You can see where this goes.

Do you just want to be a human vegetable connected to an endless supply of serotonin? Because that's the logical conclusion of your worldview.

I guess if I love someone, I should strive to make their lives like that otherwise I hate them.

Disingenuous and false analogy, you are speaking about God as though he has human limitations

It has nothing to do with human limitations, simply, love is not fixing a person's every problem. That's simp logic. There is value in agency.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Its been shown so much that you provided not one example, why do you idiots argue like this?, wouldn't this have been the perfect time to post an example of how it was shown?

Belief in a SPECIFIC God (or set of God's) isn't natural at all

Already posted a link showing belief in God is natural and that darwinism is mathmatically improbable, if not impossible.

You argue like this because you are used to just believing things you are told to believe without requiring actual evidence

Nope, I've watched and read several videos/books to convince me of the truth of Islam and the falsehood of atheism. I've even sat through hours of videos by non-muslims and ex-muslims attacking and criticizing Islam, and have genuinly considered their arguments, yet here I am, still a muslim. And it's you say this when atheists love pushing an evidenceless theory like evolution.

Look into videos made by Mohammad Hijab and Darwinian Delusions.

human beings are intelligent and self aware, so throughout history they tended to personify aspects of creation and liken them to humanity, that's the original concept of "Gods" (plural) e.g. The Sun God, The Moon God, The God of Harvest, The God Of Wealth and Prosperity, etc

They would depict these beings as being human in form, having human traits and emotions, etc

Religion is taking all of these concepts and placing them UNDER THE MANTLE OF A SINGLE BEING OR SET OF BEINGS INSTEAD OF THEM BEING SEPARATE PERSONIFICATIONS

Where are you getting this from? And why would humans personify aspects of creation? That makes no sense. It makes more sense that they their is a God and rather than worshipping God for the things he's created, humans worshipped the creation itself EI worshipping the sun instead of worshipping God for creating the sun.

No its like saying after no fault divorce was put into place women initiated 70% of divorces

Its also like saying when you add college education to that situation women initiate around 90% of divorces

(look up the stats)

Your argument is that knowledge = atheism. Yet we also see those same "knowledgeable atheists" embracing dog-fucking, feminism, suicide, drugs, LGBT, and so on. Kind of like how Richard Dawkins screeches about the "Abrahamic God being a sexist and homophobic God" lmfao. So on what grounds should I accept that this emergence of atheism isn't a result hedonism and a desire to chase ones own selfish goals rather than being from knowledge as you say, given that, despite the so-called knowledge you Gaytheists have, you still can't seem to comprehend the harms of feminism, drugs, and hedonism.

This is observable reality

The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

As secularism grows, atheists and agnostics are trying to expand and diversify their ranks.

www.nationalgeographic.com

The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising

The rise of the atheists

www.scientificamerican.com

As a whole, atheists are decreasing though, especially given they dont have kids

"God" is a concept that thrives in the absence of knowledge, the more knowledge people have, the they attribute unknown things to God

lol Yet muslims and christians were advancing the sciences long before atheism ever came around. And even now, knowledge of the universe leads to accepting a divine creator, both from the mathmatical and philosophical perspective. Whether it is how finely-tuned the universe is, or how improbable evolution by chance is, and so on.

Watch these vids if you want


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE2_2vuDTao&list=PLlaR95z5J5SidM85z7oYFVNQwlU8NhyTO&index=2&t=0s



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n-zYRZy5NQ

You do realize that once before people thought that lightning striking was because of God, now even someone like you knows the scientific process behind lightning, but ironically you have just retreated towards "other unknowns" as proof of God, and those things too will soon be explained and then the people like you of that future will retreat further away again, all the while more and more people become atheists

Technically, all things that happen because of God, including lightning strikes, but that's not the point.

What other unknown are you talking about lmfao it's atheists themselves who crawl to multiverse nonsense in order to explain the complexity of the universe and life rather than simply acknowledging intelligent design.

You are confused, maybe other atheists do this, but I'm a nihilist, when I bring up evil (the concept), its not that I think it exists, is to show the hypocrisy of God himself being evil

Good and evil can only defined by God.

Well its nonsense to begin with, but either way I'm pretty sure being a blue pilled beta provider is more mentally healthy than believing in the black pill, so by that logic why don't you aim to be a blue pilled beta provider

No it isn't more healthy, Islam already acknowledges the black pill in many hadiths and ayahs.

Ignorance is never a positive no matter how much "better it makes you feel about life"

Who here is talking of ignorance?

You are using circular logic here, there is no point in life, life simply happens, the point is to do whatever you want

Also you seem to be confused about "atheism's game", in the theory or evolution, the point isn't SURVIVAL PERIOD, the point is for THE FITTEST TO SURVIVE

So people doing shit that destroys their lives IS PART OF THE GAME NOT A CONTRADICTION OF IT

So you admit atheism is contrary to survival of the fittest given they kill themselves the most and have the fewest kids? lmao

 

[FlamingCel]

If humans have an innate belief in god (based on nature), then how do you explain the existence of so many atheists/agnostics?

JFL this is just a fallacious assumption you're making. Science has never proven that belief in god or belief in anything for that matter, is an intrinsic part of human nature. No "belief" is part of nature lol, if that was the case then beliefs would be OBJECTIVE (universal)

However, the opposite is true: beliefs are SUBJECTIVE and vary from person to person based on their INDIVIDUAL circumstances of birth and life experiences.

It's like you dont even have the self-awareness to realise the fact that had you been born in an atheist family, you would likely believe that there is NO god and you'd be ironically making fun of religious people for being illogical.

You are a product of your GENETICS and ENVIRONMENT.

You are religious not due to nature but because you were born in a religious family and basically raised to have religious beliefs (by your family, religious community etc.), not for the purpose of just keeping those beliefs in your mind, its so that you could APPLY those beliefs in your life through ACTIONS. By being religious, you are restricting your life choices and placing self-imposed limitations upon your ACTIONS, reducing the number of potential avenues for success. This is NOT due to NATURE, it's due to SOCIAL CONDITIONING.

Religion isnt part of nature, religion was created by humans to facilitate social order and the illusion of peace/meritocracy by exerting control over a population, people like you have a "followers" mindset and are very easy to manipulate, you will blindly do what you're told without even thinking for yourself, even if doing so is to your detriment.

In order to be a leader, dont think what others have raised to you think, learn to think for yourself and try to influence other people's beliefs instead of having your beliefs be influenced by others.

@BlkPillPres feel free to add anything

I was born in a religious family and I did not believe in god.I hated life.The world is horrible.Then I realized the reason the world is bad is because os satan.All the elites,freemasons believe and worship satan.Thats why the world is the way it is.For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[Deleted member 25707]

Just do you. Believe in whatever the fuck you want whatever gives you hope. If it's Allah so be it. If it's a rock so be it. If you don't believe in God then keep your opinions to yourself. You are not superior to others just because you are an Atheist. I've met plenty of amazing Particle Physicists who believe in Christianity. You are not special. No one is special. Just live your life the way you want and don't interfere in other's faith. There, end of the discussion.

 

[Edmund_Kemper]

Then the question you have to ask is why would God create us (or other animals for that matter) if suffering is an intrinsic part of existence? What does it accomplish? The only thing we've been granted is a prison in which we characterize the reduction of pain as pleasure and happiness.

When I look at the world around me, I don't get the intuition that any of this is "better than nothing". If we're talking about ontological arguments, I'd say that the very act of creation is flawed, as is everything about our existence. I don't believe that the hollow and finite nature of our world is evidence against the existence of a creator, it's only proof that said creator is sadistic and similarly flawed.

We’d be all be lazy and happiness would have no meaning without pain and suffering. Sure heaven has a lack of it but in order to enjoy heaven you have to handle earth.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Where are you getting this from? And why would humans personify aspects of creation? That makes no sense

Dude I think you need to do some historical research, this is common knowledge so you've either been living in a bubble or you are lying

You've never heard of the Sun God Ra of the Egyptians?

You've never heard of "pagan" Gods?

Please understand that these are Gods that are older than your faith (especially the "pagan" God's)

There are so many God's and based on what I've read, the Sumerian Gods are the oldest, do some research, the Christian God (same God of Islam, just different doctrine) isn't the first conceptualized "God", which is very ironic seeing as you consider him to be the "one true God"

The Major Deities of 11 Ancient Cultures

Gods and goddesses of most of the ancient cultures share similarities and differences, no matter whether they are ancient Greek, Japanese, or Aztec.

www.learnreligions.com

It makes more sense that they their is a God and rather than worshipping God for the things he's created

I don't think you get the point, maybe english is not your first language

The people of the past simply thought that there were multiple God's, they weren't worshiping the things that a single God created, they were worshiping multiple Gods that reigned over certain aspects of creation

You are arguing with circular logic by presupposing a single God created everything and they are worshiping what that single God created

[For The Religious] - Could You Guys Please Stop Using Circular Logic In Arguments (You Seem To Lack The Self Awareness To Realize You're Using It)

Seriously, its the most common argument I see from you and it always just makes you look disingenuous and stupid, it literally ruins your arguments, you are making your own arguments less convincing YOU ACTUALLY SOUND THIS STUPID:

incels.is

Yet muslims and christians were advancing the sciences long before atheism ever came around

Yes, at an inefficient rate because religious zealots impeded progress, today science progresses at a much faster rate because nobody is going to be tortured for "heresy" or burnt at the stake for "witchcraft" because they decided to dabble in chemistry

Galileo had a conflict with the Catholic Church for the "heresy" of suggesting a heliocentric model (the earth revolves around the sun)

You would be one of those idiots burning people at the stake if you were born in those times, that's how religion works, you believe what you are told to believe in the Era you exist in, its the most NPC thing ever

So you admit atheism is contrary to survival of the fittest given they kill themselves the most and have the fewest kids? lmao

1. By that logic, black pilled incels kill themselves more than blue pilled incels that live deluded lives of false hope and settle on betabuxxing, so blue pillers are right and black pillers are wrong

2. We have 8 billion on the planet, we really don't need anymore, you do realize that at some point were going run out of space and resources right?

Ironically you are going to have to depend on those majority atheist scientists to advance space travel enough so that we can start populating new planets, and even in that era idiots like you will be saying that God without a doubt exists

Just do you. Believe in whatever the fuck you want whatever gives you hope. If it's Allah so be it. If it's a rock so be it. If you don't believe in God then keep your opinions to yourself

Ok then, will you be logically consistent and apply this logic to inceldom?

Are we supposed to keep our opinions about blue pilled beliefs to ourselves and let blue pillers just be blue pilled?

What about when it comes to women's behavior these days, are we supposed to keep our opinions to yourselves when it comes to hypergamy and misandry and "just do you"?

Are you seeing that you are just being a hypocrite and selectively applying your logic where it suits you?

You are not superior to others just because you are an Atheist

I guess by that logic you are not superior to blue pillers who are literal cucks and let other men fuck their wives because you are a black piller either

I'm not really an atheist though, I think A God COULD exist but I don't believe any SPECIFIC God DOES exist

I'm more of an agnostic

I've met plenty of amazing Particle Physicists who believe in Christianity

As if being a particle physicist excludes you from being illogical, you are arguing based on a false premise (all particle physicists must be logical by virtue of their field of study), not only that your argument is pretty much an appeal to authority

No one is special. Just live your life the way you want and don't interfere in other's faith. There, end of the discussion.

Again, I hope you'll be logically consistent and apply this logic to other aspects of life

So stop complaining about hypergamy, blue pillers, etc because you're not supposed to interfere with other peoples lives and you are supposed to just live your life the way you want and not try to tell anyone they are wrong

Its bullshit logic, and that's why you only apply it selectively

 

[Billowel]

I have been a believer and I have been an Athiest. Having seen things from both sides this is my take:

There is absolutely no rational argument or evidence that could ever prove or justify the existence of God. Period. Anyone with a thinking brain who is not deluding themselves could see that. Its a position that is indefensible. Any argument that has ever been made to that effect has been debunked over and over. It had always been that way. The issue is, now, with the advancement of science and knowledge, religion and God are becoming irrelevant.

Having said that, I do believe in God. Because of my personal experiences I believe and I know. Maybe its irrational, but it is what it is, we do a lot irrational things anyway. But its not a position I will ever try to defend in a debate. Because I know for a fact that as far as logic and evidence is concerned the Athiest position is robust.

Islamcopers are on another stratosphere of coping. They would literally jihadmaxx and blow themselves up to empower Chaddam to have his own 300 virgin foid harem. While hoping to get 72 hoor in jannat. If this is not low iq Teracoping I don't know what is

check my sig.go straight to the last superstition or answering atheism.

 

[BlkPillPres]

check my sig.go straight to the last superstition or answering atheism.

There's a difference between - "A God PROBABLY exists" and "A SPECIFIC God DEFINITELY exists"

Belief in a specific God is completely irrational

Could A God possible exist, yes, but there is literally no proof that A SPECIFIC God exists and we DEFINITELY have to adopt A SPECIFIC religion

 

[RandomGuy]

Bible peoples are different than one might think.


View: https://youtu.be/Vdx7p9lrv9A

 

[GoffSystemQB]

I guess by that logic you are not superior to blue pillers who are literal cucks and let other men fuck their wives because you are a black piller either

I'm not really an atheist though, I think A God COULD exist but I don't believe any SPECIFIC God DOES exist

I'm more of an agnostic

Aside from the the absurdity of the comparison am I'm the only one that finds mocking cucks when you prescribe to an "ego death" philosophy ironic? Maybe I'm missing something here that will be clarified by the response to this post. I probably am, but the thought has been lingering on mind and I'm curious enough I'll risk making a mockery of myself.

The way I see it is you're always arguing people shouldn't care about what others think, discard their pride/ego, their freelings/desires, and focus on satisfying their physical urges. Completely ignoring the fact that I think it's synonymous with telling someone "just become a psycopath" and how unfeasible it is, why would someone who's ego is completely dead care about getting cheated on so long as their able to fulfill their physical desires? There's more than enough statistical evidence of that happening (I suppose it's either to stomach having to satisfy others physical urges when yours are getting satisfied yourself).

https://nypost.com/2018/02/13/why-couples-who-have-good-sex-are-more-likely-to-cheat/

It's not like a prostitute isn't fucked by other men. From an objective standpoint only focusing on physical sensations aren't these guys having sex right now and satisfying their physical urges a step up from you who has to first wealthmaxx to hope to obtain hookers?

Indeed the statement "better incel than cuck" is a statment of PRIDE that you're not diminishing yourself to such a level in which you disregard all self-respect and self-worth to satiate your physical urges. And it only serves to prove to me that one shouldn't discard all of his ego even if he could.

 

[Caesercel]

Then the question you have to ask is why would God create us (or other animals for that matter) if suffering is an intrinsic part of existence? What does it accomplish? The only thing we've been granted is a prison in which we characterize the reduction of pain as pleasure and happiness.

When I look at the world around me, I don't get the intuition that any of this is "better than nothing". If we're talking about ontological arguments, I'd say that the very act of creation is flawed, as is everything about our existence. I don't believe that the hollow and finite nature of our world is evidence against the existence of a creator, it's only proof that said creator is sadistic and similarly flawed.

Pleasure, pain, happiness. These are just words that humans came up with to describe their experiences born from biology. In reality their is no pleasure and no pain.

atheists can't prove the big bang or anything of the like.

Big Bang is pretty much fact at this point. There are conflicting theories about the details of how it might have happened. But it can be said with good surity that such an event did occur in the history of our universe.

 

[Billowel]

There's a difference between - "A God PROBABLY exists" and "A SPECIFIC God DEFINITELY exists"

Belief in a specific God is completely irrational

Could A God possible exist, yes, but there is literally no proof that A SPECIFIC God exists and we DEFINITELY have to adopt A SPECIFIC religion

Feser doesn't allow spaces for what ifs.If you agree with his basic presuppositions(that motion exists etc etc) then you must accept the abrahamic conception of god. Just because something has presuppositions it doesn't mean it's a "probably". by that reasoning since me typing here presupposes that someone/something is typing then it must not be true that i am typing(since the action presupposes someone doing the action).therefore you cannot be reading what i just wrote since this piece of writing never came to be.You get the gist of this fallacy that some might fall for.

 

[SubhumanAbomination]

This thread is such a pain in the ass.

Listen guys, if you want to believe in God, go ahead, if you don't, it's also your choice. You're the one who's responsible for your actions and have the right to make your own decisions.

If you need confirmation from others about your faith and beliefs, then you're not really confident in them in the first place.

 

[fuck_ITcucks]

Setting aside the logical arguments, youre retarded as an incel if you believe there is a just god and he gives a shit about you.

brutal

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

As expected, triggered a bunch of cumskin and curry soyboys with neckbeards. Mission accomplished. Keep crying for God, boyos.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Aside from the the absurdity of the comparison am I'm the only one that finds mocking cucks when you prescribe to an "ego death" philosophy ironic? Maybe I'm missing something here that will be clarified by the response to this post

I don't see where the irony lies, cucks being pathetic exists independent of ones perception of themselves, its almost as if you are arguing in order to not have an ego that means you have to be blind to other peoples short comings, it doesn't work like that, someone in a wheel chair clearly can't walk while I can, and that makes me better off

Me acknowledging that fact doesn't mean I have an ego, its me observing reality

These kinds of arguments which I tend to see from people saying - "you do have an ego" literally come down to people trying to falsely conflate "no ego" with "being dead" and you guys don't even realize that, you already have the false premise to begin with that just being alive means you have an ego, so your criteria for someone not having an ego is that they not exhibit any traits of perception or analysis associated with the living

You can't notice and point out that someone is uglier than you

You can't notice and point out someone is poorer than you

You can't notice and point out that someone is being illogical

You can't notice or point out anything that puts you in a positive light even if its true else you have an ego

In other words, you can't even state the reality you observe under your criteria

Its fallacious criteria to begin with, and its a normal thing on this site

You guys have the false premise of - "not having an ego" = "having no self awareness and being extreme modest regardless of what you can observe", basically one has to be a mindless robot in your book to not be an egoist

I probably am, but the thought has been lingering on mind and I'm curious enough I'll risk making a mockery of myself.

The way I see it is you're always arguing people shouldn't care about what others think, discard their pride/ego, their freelings/desires, and focus on satisfying their physical urges. Completely ignoring the fact that I think it's synonymous with telling someone "just become a psycopath" and how unfeasible it is

Why is doing whats logical psychopathy?

Also their feelings and desires aren't even real, those are the things they were indoctrinated to believe, no man is born valuing female validation more than sex, that's a learnt behavior, so if anything they only thing I'm asking is for them to be self aware enough to understand that they can change these behaviors if they choose to

why would someone who's ego is completely dead care about getting cheated on so long as their able to fulfill their physical desires?

The point of a "committed relationship" is exclusivity, as you as a man are expected to expend resources (significant resources) onto that woman for the purpose of exclusivity, so you are pretty much asking "why would you care if you are being robbed"

A better question is, why even bother getting into a committed relationship, it makes more sense to just pump an dump or pay for sex, you can have your desires met and you don't have to worry about a woman basically stealing your money by cheating, since you are paying for exclusivity and she's not adhering to that "contract"

here's more than enough statistical evidence of that happening (I suppose it's either to stomach having to satisfy others physical urges when yours are getting satisfied yourself).

https://nypost.com/2018/02/13/why-couples-who-have-good-sex-are-more-likely-to-cheat/

No point in being part of a "couple" then as you'd be wasting your money, which is exactly why I'm pursuing the escortcel path

It's not like a prostitute isn't fucked by other men

Yes, and you are paying a prostitute just to fuck her, you aren't maintaining her lifestyle and living with her, you aren't paying the typical "exclusivity fees" a boyfriend does, you aren't buying her gifts, meeting her parents you care nothing about, etc

From an objective standpoint only focusing on physical sensations aren't these guys having sex right now and satisfying their physical urges a step up from you who has to first wealthmaxx to hope to obtain hookers?

If they are paying hooker prices then yes, but they are paying girl friend prices, and if that doesn't mean they have exclusive access, then they are being robbed

How can I put it

I'm a guy who is broke and has to wait till pay day to buy a pizza so I can eat something I enjoy

Then there are other guys who have money and can buy pizzas all they want, but every time they buy a pizza random people come up and take slices out of the box

I don't get to eat pizza, but I'm also not being robbed of the pizza I bought ONLY FOR MYSELF

These men are paying for exclusivity, so if they aren't getting that, I'd argue I'm better off as my money isn't being wasted

Indeed the statement "better incel than cuck" is a statment of PRIDE that you're not diminishing yourself to such a level in which you disregard all self-respect and self-worth to satiate your physical urges

No, guys like you can only comprehend that statement as one of pride, for me its one related to resource use, getting your money's worth

Let me put it this way, if I found a rich sugar momma who just kept me around, gave me starfish sex every once in a while, and brought around random Chads to fuck her everyday, I would not give a fuck because SHE IS FUNDING MY LIFESTYLE

I will take advantage of that, build up my wealth, and leave to do what I want

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO CUCKS THEY ARE FUNDING THE LIFESTYLE OF ANOTHER PERSON AND BEING CUCKED

Do you get the difference, I don't care about "being cucked", for me the bad part of being cucked is that YOU ARE UTILIZING RESOURCES SO THAT OTHER MEN GET LAID, its a waste of YOUR resources

 

[Caesercel]

JFL at you claiming religion is a "fairy tale" then turning around and going 'what about these different human species'. LMFAO they weren't different species, just different races like we have today. Besides, I don't think I need to mention to you just HOW MANY fabrications of supposed ape-human ancestors have been concocted by Gaythesits in an attempt to sell their lies.

The most retarted thing I have read on this forum.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Feser doesn't allow spaces for what ifs.If you agree with his basic presuppositions(that motion exists etc etc) then you must accept the abrahamic conception of god

I'm not agreeing with anything some guy Feser said JFL, what the fuck is formulating ones own thoughts such a foreign concept to you that you automatically assume I'm agreeing with someone I've never heard of before

This shit right here is sad, you religious types are a sad sight

Also the Sumerian Gods are older than Christianity, they are the oldest known Gods, so why not worship them instead, they are more likely to exist than some "new" God

An interesting TV show for you to watch is American Gods, basically new Gods are born over time when a concept becomes common enough, and basically "Tech Gods" are born

You saying that the God of Christianity is definitely the one true God is like someone saying that some new "Tech God" they came up with in the last few decades is definitely real rather than the Christian God

 

[GoffSystemQB]

I don't see where the irony lies, cucks being pathetic exists independent of ones perception of themselves,

And some would say that people paying for sex being pathetic also exists independent of ones perception of themselves. At least that is large perception people have in current society, but you would argue that's false.

Why is doing whats logical psychopathy?

It sounds like what you're prescribing requires becoming emotionally dead.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the two prominent practitioners of the ego death philosophy on this forum are autists, in which some are prone to becoming or emulating psychopathy as a result of their lived experiences.

I'm pretty sure even you said yourself that it happened as a result of your experiences (with your friend's suicide). It wasn't something that came about logically and then you convinced yourself to discard your emotions after rational thought.

It's largely a rationalization after the fact and a I don't think it's something people have control over.

Also their feelings and desires aren't even real, those are the things they were indoctrinated to believe, no man is born valuing female validation more than sex, that's a learnt behavior, so if anything they only thing I'm asking is for them to be self aware enough to understand that they can change these behaviors if they choose to

Validation, belonging, emotional closeness, and affection were always necessary it's just that it didn't always come from female sexual partners. It came from family, from friends, collectivism/tribes in society, etc. It's just that our current society is very individualistic and seems primarily focused on romantic relationships.

Humans are indeed social and emotional creatures. There are studies proving the benefits of such things on men anyways. And I know you'll say it's a merely a result of ego satisfaction, but what about newborns and infants? Those who haven't formed a sense of identity yet. Now obviously that's a very different type of validation and affection.

The point of a "committed relationship" is exclusivity, as you as a man are expected to expend resources (significant resources) onto that woman for the purpose of exclusivity, so you are pretty much asking "why would you care if you are being robbed"

Sure, for normal people. And normal people care about reproducing, validation, and are egoists.

The point for someone who just cares about physical satisfaction would be easier access to sex.

Also, I think we have to make a distinction between unwilling cucks and willing cucks. Of course there's always time and attention that's a part of a relationship, but I think the main resource willing cucks pay is "being pathetic." I don't think you need money to get in a polyamarous relationship, but what do I know honestly and whatever they're paying for it's not "exclusivity" certainly though.

Yes, and you are paying a prostitute just to fuck her, you aren't maintaining her lifestyle and living with her, you aren't paying the typical "exclusivity fees" a boyfriend does, you aren't buying her gifts, meeting her parents you care nothing about, etc

Well, you definitely are paying her to maintain and are contributing to her lifestyle and helping her fuck other guys (for free). But you aren't living with her or doing the rest I'll grant you that.

Granted I'm not sure how much of a necessary thing that is really. It seems simple enough to just avoid.

No, guys like you can only comprehend that statement as one of pride, for me its one related to resource use, getting your money's worth

Let me put it this way, if I found a rich sugar momma who just kept me around, gave me starfish sex every once in a while, and brought around random Chads to fuck her everyday, I would not give a fuck because SHE IS FUNDING MY LIFESTYLE

I will take advantage of that, build up my wealth, and leave to do what I want

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO CUCKS THEY ARE FUNDING THE LIFESTYLE OF ANOTHER PERSON AND BEING CUCKED

Do you get the difference, I don't care about "being cucked", for me the bad part of being cucked is that YOU ARE UTILIZING RESOURCES SO THAT OTHER MEN GET LAID, its a waste of your resources

That seems like a rather tame reason to be obsessed with cucks. Many people utilize their resources wrong. I also have to add that BOTH the escortcel and cuck are funding someone else's lifestyle which permits them to fuck other men for free quite honestly.

To me it's because I view cucks as pathetic creatures who lack self-respect. I would even say this is probably something biologically ingrained to get upset over which you could make an argument for honestly.

 

[Deleted member 818]

As expected, triggered a bunch of cumskin and curry soyboys with neckbeards. Mission accomplished. Keep crying for God, boyos.

 

[mänline]

It is also a cope for incels who believe that bad people will be punished after death and good humans like them not.

Only cope, when they think for themselves as good.

actually its the religious retards who are illogical, what proof is there that god exists? JFL at believing in something which has zero evidence, why not believe in unicorns and fairies, i mean after all you can't prove that unicorns and fairies DON'T exist.

Why not believe in unicorns and fairies?

1. If we saw colorful, glowing turds smelling like flowers on every street corner, we'd maybe talk about that too...
But the question of a higher power and intelligence which made this whole universe, which mankind calls God and is not a fantasy creature assembled of parts of the creation itself like a unicorn, but above everything arises automatically because of our own existence in this universe. And: This whole creation points to a creator, but not any sign - not even the mentioned fantasy turd - are there which indicates the existence of unicorns.

2. There was never a "prophet" or "revelation" of a unicorn to mankind. Not that it would tell us important things anyway as part of creation and also it would be a trait, which would the unicorn shift into the "God" spectrum kinda, but still true.

3. Like I also note above: A unicorn, even if it existed, would only be another part of creation like any other species here. Whether unicorns exist has no importance for a possible afterlife and not for this life, it cannot be a moral authority or source of final truth. The existence of God has.

 

[Deleted member 21883]

I am agianst fornication because it deprives virgins of virgin spouses, not because it angers an ancient sheep herder in space. I larp to try to marry a virgin.

 

[BlkPillPres]

And some would say that people paying for sex being pathetic also exists independent of ones perception of themselves

Yes, but the question is why they see it as pathetic, and its seen that way because you aren't getting sex "the manly way", but at the end of the day most men are paying anyways, "free sex" is an illusion, the average man is just attached to the illusion of "sexual conquest"

It sounds like what you're prescribing requires becoming emotionally dead

What I'm prescribing requires becoming logical, emotions always exist, how you respond to them determines whether you are logical or not, the weight you place on them and how much you let them influence your decisions is what you have control over, this is why all the guys on this forum saying "I feel X" sounds stupid to me, no shit you feel X, that has nothing to do with your decision making'

They ironically validate all of women's typical choices, because women are even more emotional, they just end up excusing women and they don't even realize it

I don't think it's a coincidence that the two prominent practitioners of the ego death philosophy on this forum are autists, in which some are prone to becoming or emulating psychopathy as a result of their lived experiences

We all started off as blue pilled normies though, you seem to be falsely arguing as if its something "inherent" that can't be changed, that's completely wrong, its a choice to change, its a choice you have to make to adapt and change your mindset, none of us were born thinking like this, so anyone can start thinking like this

But its just easier to cope and ignore your problems than to change your entire world view and goals, a lot of people have attachments to their life and their perception of reality that they built up over years, so its not that THEY CAN'T CHANGE, its that they are UNWILLING TO CHANGE due to those attachments

The person I am now is drastically different than me even 5 years ago, and those changes were based on conscious decisions, not "it just happened", I chose specific paths, I adopted certain beliefs on purpose

I'm pretty sure even you said yourself that it happened as a result of your experiences (with your friend's suicide). It wasn't something that came about logically and then you convinced yourself to discard your emotions after rational thought

Are you seriously trying to argue that bad experiences and rational thought are mutually exclusive?

I'd argue its bad experiences that usually lead to rational thought because you learn from your mistakes

My friends suicide made me realize I had a final blindspot, my attachment to whatever connections I still had, not only that it made me realize that you can't plan your life around other people as they don't share your goals, we are all seperate consciouses, one should only make plans based on where they want to go in life and let others decide if they want to "come along for the ride"

It's largely a rationalization after the fact and a I don't think it's something people have control over.

Validation, belonging, emotional closeness, and affection were always necessary it's just that it didn't always come from female sexual partners. It came from family, from friends, collectivism/tribes in society, etc. It's just that our current society is very individualistic and seems primarily focused on romantic relationships.

Humans are indeed social and emotional creatures. There are studies proving the benefits of such things on men anyways. And I know you'll say it's a merely a result of ego satisfaction, but what about newborns and infants? Those who haven't formed a sense of identity yet. Now obviously that's a very different type of validation and affection

That's all majority nurture rather than nature, you raise a group of humans under different circumstances and they will adapt over time and adopt new values, humans are pretty much a blank slate

Well, you definitely are paying her to maintain and are contributing to her lifestyle and helping her fuck other guys (for free)

Ok by that logic you are paying to maintain the lifestyle of every vendor you ever gave money to and you are contributing to their lifestyle JFL

You are taking terms like "maintain" and "contribute" which have a context of significance and using them on something as minuscule as paying for a service, its ridiculous

Its a purposeful exaggeration as a means of strawmanning the act

It would be like if I called you buying a hotdog from a hot dog vendor - "Helping him raise his family"

Sorry dude, no, I know you want to liken prostitution to being a cuck, but it isn't close, you are exaggerating on purpose for that effect and it just looks ridiculous, and really just disingenuous

You aren't "helping the hotdog guy buy a new car" when you buy a hotdog are you? JFL

You are just buying a hotdog

You aren't "paying for the hotdog guys condoms so he can fuck women" when you buy a hotdog are you?

Are you seeing how ridiculous you sound, if anyone exaggerates paying for something like you did, YOU COULD MAKE PAYING FOR ANYTHING SOUND LIKE YOU ARE A CUCK

That seems like a rather tame reason to be obsessed with cucks

JFL dude is strawmanning all that you do in an argument?

You're the only one classifying anything I said as an "obsession"

I also have to add that BOTH the escortcel and cuck are funding someone else's lifestyle which permits them to fuck other men for free quite honestly

Women fuck for free regardless of whether you pay them so no, an escortcel is in no way paying for a woman to fuck other men, he's paying for his instance to fuck her, difference is the cuck is "in a relationship" and that comes with other fees, which makes no sense as he doesn't have "exclusive access" and that's what makes his expenditure a negative

The two positions aren't even comparable, again refer to my previous argument above about you exaggerating and misusing terms

You might as well say you paid for every street vendor you bought food from to get laid "like a cuck" its ridiculous what you are arguing right now

YOU ARE STRETCHING THE DEFINITION JFL

 

[GoffSystemQB]

Ok by that logic you are paying to maintain the lifestyle of every vendor you ever gave money to and you are contributing to their lifestyle JFL

You are taking terms like "maintain" and "contribute" which have a context of significance and using them on something as minuscule as paying for a service, its ridiculous

Its a purposeful exaggeration as a means of strawmanning the act

It would be like if I called you buying a hotdog from a hot dog vendor - "Helping him raise his family"

Sorry dude, no, I know you want to liken prostitution to being a cuck, but it isn't close, you are exaggerating on purpose for that effect and it just looks ridiculous, and really just disingenuous

You aren't "helping the hotdog guy buy a new car" when you buy a hotdog are you? JFL

You are just buying a hotdog

You aren't "paying for the hotdog guys condoms so he can fuck women" when you buy a hotdog are you?

Are you seeing how ridiculous you sound, if anyone exaggerates paying for something like you did, YOU COULD MAKE PAYING FOR ANYTHING SOUND LIKE YOU ARE A CUCK

The two acts are both paying for sex (and they fuck other men on the side).

All you're doing is asserting that in one case someone should care and the other one someone shouldn't which may be legitimate.

I'm not even asserting they're the same thing because they're not, but from a purely resoure allocation standpoint they seem similar how exactly is giving money to one not supporting their lifestyle of whoredom but is for the other?

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw. At the very least it wasn't put well enough. When you talk about "funding their lifestyle" are you talking about giving them money?

Are you trying to reference other things than money here?

JFL dude is strawmanning all that you do in an argument?

You're the only one

If you read back I was referencing the statement "better incel than cuck" and this forum as a whole.

Obviously it doesn't apply to you but clearly it's a matter of pride for most people.

I also like how you get triggered by meaningless statements like that. It wasn't really an argument so I don't really see how it's strawmanning in any case really.

That's all majority nurture rather than nature, you raise a group of humans under different circumstances and they will adapt over time and adopt new values, humans are pretty much a blank slate

Yeah they adopt new values and beliefs to match the current society they are in but humans don't live as lone wolves. I don't think they ever have if so I would like evidence. What I'm saying is that all these things PERSIST across human societies. What changes is the methods used to fulfill them and context regarding them.

I don't think if you take a kid and just satisfy him physically, his parents never show him affection, he has no friends, etc he will be just as well of (physically and mentally) as a normal person regardless of what you tell him or condition him to believe.

Well I don't want to get in an argument about tabula rasa tbh.

What I'm prescribing requires becoming logical, emotions always exist, how you respond to them determines whether you are logical or not, the weight you place on them and how much you let them influence your decisions is what you have control over, this is why all the guys on this forum saying "I feel X" sounds stupid to me, no shit you feel X, that has nothing to do with your decision making'

They ironically validate all of women's typical choices, because women are even more emotional, they just end up excusing women and they don't even realize it

You can respond logically and yet emotions and desires as a result of those emotions still remain. Lots of people here have used escorts and wealthmaxx and yet not all of their problems were solved.

If they were emotionally dead then they would be. They had still acted logically, but that doesn't overwrite the irrational parts of their brain.

We all started off as blue pilled normies though, you seem to be falsely arguing as if its something "inherent" that can't be changed, that's completely wrong, its a choice to change, its a choice you have to make to adapt and change your mindset, none of us were born thinking like this, so anyone can start thinking like this

Beliefs and actions one can easily change, but emotions can't be easily changed. They are largely set for you by your experiences.

Sure someone can become less emotional I think most of this forum is in some regards, but that's due to their experiences and trauma in life. Not signing up here and reading stuff or deciding one day just to throw it out lol.

 

[your personality]

show me proof of a gods workings and ill pickup whichever religion he belongs to. until then ill just assume your praising an imaginary spaghetti monster hoping for magic genie wishes

Flying Spaghetti Monster was yet another thing ruined by reddit tbh ngl

Religion the original chad worshippers.

Normies will go along with whatever dominant narrative but they are always and have always been chad worshipers.

 

[Deleted member 8353]

Pleasure, pain, happiness. These are just words that humans came up with to describe their experiences born from biology. In reality their is no pleasure and no pain.

While I'd agree about pleasure, and the word pain may be subjective, the the thing it's describing isn't merely an individual "point of view" at it's core. This was actually what I was getting at, pleasure is an illusion because we perceive the reduction or removal of negative value as pleasure. Suffering can be created or imposed, but most of what we describe as pleasure isn't real. I've posted about it a lot before.

Just think about it, most if not all pleasures are entirely dependent upon having first experienced their unpleasant counterpart. To truly enjoy food you must first be hungry, to appreciate the absence of pain you must first experience pain, to understand how important physical intimacy is you must first be deprived of it, to understand the blissful state that is an occupied mind you must first experience protracted boredom, and I could go on with this all day, but you get the point. Ultimately what I'm saying is that pleasure is basically an illusion, it only exists upon the comparison of suffering to it's cessation. Pleasure isn't an intrinsic good unto itself, it's only a measurement of reduction in negative utility.

What we describe as pleasure or pain is referring to the harm reduction and need fulfillment mechanism which exists within our minds. It promotes our survival by torturing us until the demands it makes are temporarily fulfilled. We perceive this fulfillment as pleasure, despite the only true dichotomy which exists here is that of suffering and it's absence.

So I'm not really sure where you're going with this, are you trying to say that ultimately none of our experiences are real? Sure I'd agree with that, but people can still suffer from them regardless, so I don't see how that's relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

 

[BlkPillPres]

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw. At the very least it wasn't put well enough. When you talk about "funding their lifestyle" are you talking about giving them money?

Are you trying to reference other things than money here?

If you don't immediately understand the difference in significance of "paying for sex" and "funding a lifestyle" within the context of being in a relationship, I don't know what to tell you

It just seems like you are going out of your way not to make obvious interpretations and assumptions, under any other kind of argument you wouldn't be acting as if you are confused by the distinction between FUNDING A PERSONS LIFE and paying for the use of a persons body for a time period

If funding someones lifestyle for you means buying something from them I don't know what to tell you, but one would assume that definition would obviously remove all meaning from the term "funding" if all it means now is to purchase from said person