One is Christian….he uses it to explain why he suffers and why he must atone….why he cannot abide by the values he, claims, to worship.
The other is an ahteist, and has replaced god’s will with Schopenhauer’s Will…he uses it to claim that he does not need to atone for anything because he never could have chosen to do anything differently.
One worships the absolute authoritarian totalitarianism of god’s will, the other worships the absolute totalitarian order of the cosmos, or Will minus a motive.
like free-will, god as a cocnept, has been ‘defined out of existence’ or defined in metaphysical, ways, nothing physical can ever match…in a Platonic idealistic way…similar to how the atheist specimen defined will and freedom.
Their only disagreement is over atonement….and cosmic motive.
The naive cuck believes in a cosmic motive - purpose….the disillusioned cynic refuses this naivete…his scapegoat requires no atonement….no sacrifice, because he can do no wrong…..but others have wronged him, in a bizarre twist of his psychosis..
This is why I refer to many atheists as “recovering Abrahamics”….they believe they’ve overcome the naivete of the Bible, but they have not.
They’ve only upgraded their verbiage.
Platonic idealism remains common.
One uses it to define the cocnept ‘god’ or ‘god’s will’, the other uses it to define ‘will’…god’s will becoems cosmic determinism.
Absolute order is affirmed by both.
The atheist version has simply rejected the Christ-cuck’s shaming techniques…he need not be ‘saved’ because he can never do anything wrong. He is already saved.
Oh dear, it’s the 'ol absence of evidence is not evidence of absence trick.
Alright, you asked for it. Here it goes: bro, i don’t even know what you mean when you say “god,” so the burden is on you to show me that we are even talking about anything at all. So I’m not saying yea or nay, I’m saying wuh.
I’m not asserting the existence, or non existence of God. It would be foolish to attempt that for the reasons you state. I just personally believe that God exists. Your assumptions about what God should or should not be are, however, more ridiculous than my belief that He exists.
“It would be foolish to attempt that for the reasons you state. I just personally believe that God exists.”
How very odd. And it’s not even pipe smoking scholastic justifiable belief but more like a child’s belief in the toothfairy. There’s certainly no reason for you to need to believe it - the natural sciences do fine at answering our answerable questions- so you must only want to believe it. Ah… you wanna do the right thing and live forever. I get it.
But why would you strike a deal with a self-indulgent genocidal misogynistic slave drivin son murdering racist tyrant? Why can’t you be a Hindu or something and settle for some reincarnation?
What has no beginning and no end requires no first cause.
God is irrelevant to existence…and only relevant to those who cannot cope with how existence is.
Extraordinary clams require extraordinary evidence….and this Platonic ideal can only exist in the minds of those who need it to help them cope…..and nowhere else.
A word referring to an abstractino with no external referents…in fact contradicting experiences existence.
A comforting existential crutch…a scapegoat, for the goyim…A savior.
Well, that’s not entirely true, but mostly. It’s logically possible for a person who’s every day is like a vacation at Disney Land to appreciate life so much they feel obliged to thank something. Belief for this person is not a crutch but an excess of satisfaction and gratitude.
Also, there’s another kind who isn’t terribly hurt by the world but just doesn’t like the idea of mortality… so they believe in god and do the godly stuff hoping to get an afterlife.
