/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, News, History

Posting Mode: Reply Return

Max message length: 5000


(used to delete files and postings)


  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.

08/28/20 Come and join our Matrix/IRC servers, the info can be found here.
02/09/20 /ausneets/ has been added!
11/23/19 Donations can now be made via PayPal, thank you for all of your support!
11/21/19 We have successfully migrated to LynxChan 2.3.0, to see all of the changes to 16chan, click here.

[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(40.26 KB 480x462 philosophy vs religion.jpg)
PHILOSOPHY VS RELIGION Anonymous 01/18/2020 (Sat) 21:50:31 ID:539d99 No. 21123
Anons, why are you religious? Why do you believe in god or gods that are separated from this world? Philosophy is the only true way and here is why: It is funny to believe that someone had just created all this and to also believe that that someone is perfect. Someone that is perfect does not need to create anything, he himself should be enough on his own. The need to create comes from incompleteness. Only everything together is complete. By that logic God=Universe. God's laws are Nature's laws. We can either choose to live by them and we will have a worthy life or we can damage ourselves by abandoning them. I'm just putting this here because I'm sick of fights between Christians and Pagans. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>Correct me if I'm wrong. You're not. >Why do you believe in god or gods that are separated from this world? Only a lesser being believes such a thing. History proves it. >God's laws are Nature's laws. We can either choose to live by them and we will have a worthy life or we can damage ourselves by abandoning them. Nothing else needs to be said.
The Natural Laws govern us all and can be found through logic and then applied to our societies through the organic state and such. Laws like; The strong should rule and not mate with the lesser, National Interest over Self Interest.... ect Stuff like that which are reinforced through people like Darwin and Hitler and made evident by the fact that if you don't follow these laws only ruin for your people this yourself can occur. Relgion isn't needed in any part of this process and infact runs counter by assuming the truth and using the lie of a divine being to reinforce it.
>>21128 >Only a lesser being believes such a thing. History proves it. The only thing history proves is that non-religious people have a much lower birthrate than religious people and will be out-competed by them in the long run.
>>21560 That response was reffering to: >"...that are separated from this world?"
>>21123 You have a poor understanding of Process Metaphysics. Learn things. You don't have a problem with Religion, you have a problem with Substance Metaphysics. Philosophy has plenty of that too. (Plato, Aristotle and onward)
>>21123 >only true way Universalist dogma.
>>21656 I think your obsession with Universalism as a negative is very funny considering Pluralism is the ideology par excellence of Liberalism and Woke Liberalism in particular. Every sjw academic is heavily biased toward particularism and pluralism. It's the defining feature of Post-Modern philosophy in general.
There is more to life and being than Logos and rationality anon. Your post reeks of hubris and naivete. Higher mind is the first gate but God is all around us and if you continue to search and question you will receive the answers you're looking for.
>>21658 >Every sjw academic is heavily biased toward particularism Not really, they are universalists. Otherwise there would be no J in SJW.
>>21674 Yeah, well, go make a universalist comment like "all religions are the same but with different names, Kabbalah is the same as Kashmir Shaivism" on a liberal forum, some mainstream place on Facebook or reddit and see how very wrong your assumption is
(456.41 KB 800x1280 Screenshot_2020-01-25-11-49-59.png)
>>21674 I'm not trolling you, universalism is really despised in woke culture
>>21679 (((western))) Kikes are switching the masks into "people's people" again it seems. It's funny that niggers don't realize how universalism is the only reason why they exist today.
>>21678 The ideas of "social justice" , "human rights" and other humanist garbage are also a purely religious positions, yet they tolerate other religions while considering them inferior to theirs. They never take personal freedoms to their logical conclusion, because they were never supposed to. I could easily destroy any SJW/liberal in an argument by using their very own pretenses and beliefs. But they are emotion-driven people who don't care about logic so it's futile.
I think religion should also cover things like philosophy and idealogy as these things are just secular substitutes for religion. The point of all 3 is to (attempt) to explain the process of reality and ascribe meaning when necessary. >>21679 >>21685 I'd like to jump in this little debate regarding SJW universality vs particularism. In their words, they claim to be against universalism, but in their actions, they embody it. Actions speak louder than words.
>>21685 >>21688 One of the books that redpilled me was Ecology Of Freedom by Murray Bookchin, an anarchosocialist book by a jew. How's that for irony
>>21689 Checked, sounds interesting. Unfortunately, my book pile is unmanageable as it is and not taking newcomers.
>>21688 read The Kybalion and study the Hermetics. religion, philosophy, and science are not only compatible but inextricably linked.
>>21123 >Christianity >Paganism Shit and garbage. I’ll take neither. If you want an end to the infighting within White Nationalist circles then there needs to be a united push to embrace Esoteric Hitlerism. Acknowledge faith and religion as separate concepts, with faith being the blind belief in a false god and religion being the literature, traditions and practices that accompany it. Religion should be embraced and faith rejected. I am currently writing a book on this which will probably be ignored by the majority of White Nationalists who are more interested in frog posting and other useless bullshit than actually coming up with a plan to move our agenda forward.
>>22351 I'll certainly ignore it. I've explored Esoteric Hitlerism and find it incredibly derivative (because it is). Furthermore, you'll never unite people under it because it has no emotional potence and does not convey the majesty of more popular religions. EH is very synthetic and contrived; it reeks of sterility. Basically, a fad for the hipsters of NS. You are part of the disunity problem, not the solution, as are all with the "my way or the high way" stance on personal matters. If you're serious about advancing our agenda and not just NS, then come here >>19639
>>22351 >Esoteric Hitlerism Yes, let's make a gay religion around one of the biggest anti-white psyops of the 20th century, if not all time.
>>21123 I find it interesting that spiritually speaking, "the far Right and the far Left" are both converging towards something akin to Gnosticism. I wonder if this has to do with both abandoning their Christian roots.
>>21123 >1. Claim: Having a need for anything implies imperfection, because it implies that one is not sufficient in oneself. >2. Claim: God needed to create us. > Conclusion: Therefore God is imperfect God did not have a need to create, but a desire, because love desires itself and its own expression. God desired to create beings whom he could love, and him making that free choice to create us results in the love being free on his part. However, for the love to be truly freely reciprocal, there must be the decision to reject it for both parts, hence man was given the choice to reject it, and he did (Genesis ch. 3). The temporary pain and suffering of this life, no matter how great, is infinitesimal and hence of no consequence compared to the unending comfort and deep satisfaction that reciprocal love grants. Furthermore, all injustice will be paid back, either on the sinner himself, or on Christ who bore the punishment for everyone who chooses to reciprocate Gods love and receive (John 3:16). In fact, God could not have created a world where no sin could exist, because that would imply the lack of a free choice on our part. Given Gods omnipotence, justice and love, the world as it exists is exactly how we would expect it to be. There is enough evidence for the ones who wish to believe and love God to do so, but not enough to force those who do not wish to. Hence, belief in God is a matter of reciprocating his love, and not one of rational forceful arguments in either way.
>>21123 Both are just meaningless verbal masturbation, repeating assumptions and inventions of people who never knew what they are talking about.
I hate both christianity and paganism. Both Christ and Odin were fags, neither should be revered as they are now. (Pro-White) Christians and (Pro-White Reconstructionist) Pagans (of the old/original animist/polytheist faiths of historically white peoples), on the other hand, I have no problem with, and I agree that both are being unfairly characterized and persecuted around the globe (and that the Christians are receiving this unjust treatment to a greater degree). Their I don't mind their whole shtick, I wouldn't mind living in a society they create or control, the issue I have, especially as an atheist, is when they make their faiths a core part of this conflict, and a requirement for any of their allies. It's for the same reason I have issue with NatSocs who insist upon only National Socialism being acceptable as a political position, and make National Socialism into a core part of the conflict and movement. Both are rejecting potential allies and reducing our appeal by adding unneeded demands to those who would otherwise be receptive and loyal to our most essential goals and causes, both are willing to tolerate untruths and conceal truths if they conflict with their pet dogma, projecting a very bad image for us who are supposedly on the side of "truth and free inquiry before all else" when it comes to discourse. Made all the worse when the Religious and NatSoc /pol/acks both refuse to clearly list off what policies and positions make up their given identity. they may expect us to either figure it out on our own, and, despite them telling us to refer to the original version of their claimed beliefs, we often come across ideas in these founding texts/people that even they clearly do not support (such as Hitler's position against racial segregation, his support of Islam, his love of certain socialist ideas that modern NatSocs reject, the idea that he would have made a very different country under what he would consider more ideal circumstances, the fact that as commander-in-chief, he is ultimately responsible for the choices of his generals, etc.) in which case the ideologues outright deny that these things are real (without needing to explain why), and censor you for bringing them up. Or maybe they want you to just agree with their pet ideology without knowing what it actually implies in full. Seriously, I've asked time and time again for them to tell me what makes one an "X", and they insist on being vague, or refusing to answer the question, they just want me to worship who they say to worship and support the things they support, even without fully understanding them, and NEVER bring up anything that they would think is negative about their objects of worship (even if it is in the very material they refer you to when you ask them exactly what it is that they support). One group of ideologues I'dd like to mention are those who oppose "white flight nationalism", a movement where pro-whites migrate en-masse to a location and establish it as a safe-haven for their race and base for growing their numbers and power. Even when "white flighters" make it clear that this is a temporary measure, those who oppose them state that the only acceptable course of action is to retake their lands, with no plan or goals as to how this is to actually be accomplished. So, fapping around in one's home fruitlessly LARPing their revolutionary fantasies on the internet wile their race is further subjugated and riven to the brink of slavery and/or extinction.
My problem isn't with religion, it's with the type of thinking that makes religion bad, and this is apparent among those in the secular circles on both the far-right(/3rd position), far-left, and in between the two. They make claims that are not true, hide from claims about their position that they don't like, have unclear goals and no plan at all (and no interest in trying to address these issues), have no interest in anything that may be productive (especially if it means compromising on their pet dogma's influence over their end of the conflict, or working with those outside their circles of faith), it's everything their way or no way at all, and this is dooming them to inactivity, they'd rather the white race die out than thrive without their favorite ideology. To those to whom this may most directly concern - Here are my demands: Tell me what YOU think NatSoc is, give me all your proposals for political policies, and then we can talk about whether or not they should be supported. Don't refer me to the "mein kampf" again, I want to hear what you personally want in a country, because obviously you don't actually want a complete 1:1 recreation of 1930's/1940's Germany, you don't even accept the full extent of what that would imply (I know for a fact you would not want Hitler's full ideas on race and religion to be in effect, I know you want things done differently now than what was done then, quit pretending to be purist then rejecting the source material you recommended to me). Stop adding unnecessary shit to our cause, we need to demand the absolute minimum essentials, because we need numbers, we need to be heard, we need to be flexible if we are going to have any chance at winning, strict obedience to an strict list of standards is chocking us out. We want to save our people and their future. Atheist, Christian, Pagan, Capitalist, NatSoc, or whatever else there may be, it doesn't matter. If they genuinely defend and advocate for the white gentile race, if they accept the truth about the Jews, about race, about sex, about "sexuality", about the world and society, the truth about science and history. Then nothing else matters, and they are our allies, if we agree on the same set of factual claims, and on the idea that the white race is glorious, that it is under threat and needs to be defended, we need no more in common between us. lastly, stop shooting down anyone who comes up with a suggested course of action if you have no alternative plan to suggest in it's place, all you are doing by killing "idea guys" is killing our ability to do anything at all. This goes especially to those of you who attack the idea of meeting up or establishing some form of offline community, not everyone here has the people or resources you have, and if nothing illegal is being proposed, there is no reason to bring up the powers-that-be in our countries, except to kill any effectiveness we may have at reaching beyond our niche imageboards. People need each other, an wanting to find someone you can hang out with and be your real self around is not anything to demean or insult, it's one of the things that makes our race strong. also, a lot of us are not wealthy or even decently off, some of us are dirt poor, no excess funds to our names, and so we may suggest someone who has the financial resources use them to do something we feel needs to be done, but which we cannot afford to do ourselves. a lot of us are alone, with no one we can trust or be honest with, so when one of us asks one of you who has the support of others to use this team to do something important to the cause which we are unable to, we are not doing anything wrong by doing so. And yea, some people may bring up "optics", how using neutral language and being very specific and minimalistic with your words is going to be more effective than saying "the kikes run the world and hate white people" or "the niggers are stupid and criminal". we should only talk about the very minimum our data is saying, and no more, we must be very specific with our claims such that they cannot be refuted even in a small part, we must use words that do not convey any sort of bias or personal involvement with our claims, and we must not offend more than we absolutely have to. being vulgar and outrageous attracts to us attention, but not any attention we can use.it reinforces stereotypes about ourselves that aid the enemy, that we are unreasonable, emotional, ignorant, and violent. Lastly, working outside the political system towards a political goal is not code for breaking the law, organization and activism need not be suicidal re-enactments of the media's portrayal of Charlottesville, and there is nothing wrong with going outside and doing something you planned to do on /pol/. we must take risks to accomplish anything, politics requires risk-taking, and yes, we are well aware of the dangers before we even suggest something, we are saying that the risks are worth it.
(16.50 MB 3648x2280 ClipboardImage.png)
>the title of this thread
>>21123 I want to create a philosophy board on this site
>>28260 then do it, it sounds like a good idea
(472.35 KB 626x627 intellectual vs pseud.png)
>>27905 >pseudo-intellectual anti-dichotomy no-effort reaction-image posting
Why not both? You can be moderate about your beliefs. I follow God to keep myself from COOMing and other ways to fall from my best.
>>21656 If something isnt universal it isnt true
Philosophy is linked to religion, especially paganism


no cookies?