You act as if there is something wrong, evil, or bad about that while denying the existence of a perfect being, so.
Either you’re wrong about evil, or… about the Good… or, you’re mislabeling an imperfect being with the word “God”.
Just restating my perfectly logical thesis.
Tom Hanks. If you created a planet identical to erf and put six billion Tom Hanks (and only Tom Hanks) on that planet, that civilization would last longer than any other human civilization on any other planet.
I had a professor who hated Tom Hanks. I have no idea why.
Why argue? There is a cannibal who feeds on human souls, after killing and torturing people first. This is the one who should be called God. Naturally, no one will pay for the cannibal. But religions, in order to survive, invent kind idols, then sell them to fools who are willing to pay for a lie. Is everything in its place? Ah, it’s hard to admit you’re a fool when you’ve paid for a lie, isn’t it? Well, sorry. God cannot be bought. And idols are too ridiculous and pitiful to pay for. Do you feel sorry for the wasted money, and that’s why you deify idols?
What‽
Can you rephrase?
Is it hard to grasp? Where does the soul go? Who needs Death? Why hunger, cold, disasters, cataclysms? Finally, why are people so stupid? Who is to blame for all of this? Can’t seem to figure out what “everything is by God’s will” means? And why do you even live? I’ve rephrased it. Does it make more sense now?
In order for something to grow, to transform, it has to stop being (let go of) what it was. It has to be more of what it always had/has the potential to be.
If it doesn’t cause pain/pleasure, it didn’t mean anything. If it causes pain/pleasure, it means something.
Joy and misery are not mutually exclusive.
To obtain the rational, it is necessary to exclude the sensual.
The rational rules the sensual, rather than being mutually exclusive from it. Without the sensual, what is there to rule? There have to be conditions for the possibility of choice in order for there to be choice.
Give an example of reasonable feeling. Can’t do it? Then why try to lie? Maybe it’s easier to memorize what you’re told? Feelings distort reason and lead to unreasonable actions.
…the absence of cognitive dissonance and the presence of cognitive concordance when one follows the evidence where it leads, rather than preferring distortions that hide it.
Distortion, or simply lies, can easily be exposed by stating the truth. But the presence of only accusations is the lie itself. When there is nothing meaningful to say, the opponent tries to negatively describe the person they are talking to. Cognitive dissonance is a consequence of an individual’s psychological discomfort caused by the collision of conflicting ideas, beliefs, values, or emotional reactions in their mind. In contrast, there is a coherent system of views where everything is logical and systematic. There are no miracles or contradictions typical of religions or atheism. Your unwillingness to understand fits easily into this system. Faith is the instinct of herd mentality, which is why there is no desire to break the conditions, boundaries, and prohibitions of the herd. Do you notice the difference? Everything is always logical and evidenced, both in accusations and conclusions. Specifically, what needs to be proven, are you able to state it, or are you incapable of doing so?
Are you just running a program or something?
“…as if every passion didn’t contain its quantum of reason”.
- F. Nietzsche
“Feelings such as disappointment, elation, grief, and even love are all responses to certain situations. They develop according to some inner logic: they don’t strike at random.”
— Nina Rosenstand, explaining Martha Nussbaum in The Moral of the Story / An Introduction to Ethics p. 15
but also…
“If we have no feeling of moral approval or outrage, then do we really care about whether something is morally right or wrong? If we don’t feel that it’s wrong to harm a child, then how is logic going to persuade us?” (ibid, 13)
Maybe via this route:
But if someone doesn’t even have a hunger for authenticity, they’re going to stay a liar who will never overcome their distortions.
Is this an attempt to assert that Nietzsche was reasonable in his passions? (Just joking). It seems no one explained to poor Nietzsche what passion, reason, and quantum are — that’s why he was babbling nonsense, mixing everything together. Don’t hedge (by referring to a funny authority), but give an example of a reasonable feeling. There’s a folk saying among the Russians that’s much wiser than whatever Nietzsche came up with: “It’s good where we aren’t.” And as a consequence, two mockeries. First: If you’ve never been there, how do you know it’s good? The second is even sharper: It’s good precisely because you’re not really there.
What’s the point of all this? Nietzsche was wrong. There’s not a drop of reason in passion.
People are always liars — they lack complete evaluations and precise knowledge of the future. Evil can be judged as good if you know the consequences. Precisely, good can lead to evil.
OK now this is the last thing I have to say to you. If you know how it ends, and that every moment is an opportunity to turn back to the good, and that our intentions that motivate our actions are what count, and that evil is the privation of good and could not exist on its own, you would not have said that.
Funny. I know it well. It’s certain and undeniable. Existence will end with the Apocalypse. Another civilization will destroy itself. And my presence on the forum will end with a ban. But did I ever say that good or evil exist on their own? It’s you who are lying about the opposite, claiming that Satan is evil. What’s even funnier — he lived in Paradise. I’m saying the opposite. Faith is Evil. But faith is your choice. That is, you like to live in lies, and faith, in this case, is what creates the lie. A lie cannot exist without faith. You are the proof of that.