Abrahamic religions should be reformed with Gnosticism to help synthesize it with a post-Enlightenment view of religion. Jung characterized this synthesis very well. And the fundamental aspects of Gnosticism would allow for the cohabitation of all of the Abrahamic religions in a way similar to the Dharmic religions.

Atheism is just another view of religion, and a particularly nihilistic and materialistic view that leaves a moral void that is susceptible to be filled by another radical ideology, like Feminism or Communism.

I think I missed the reason why Abrahamic religions should be infused with Gnosticism.

Gnosticism holds a stance that is much more compatible with modern Western sensibilities.

Men and Women are equal.

So, it should be infused because...people in the west would like it more.

There was no original sin, and that the material world is inherently flawed and was not made by God.

God is a totality that is the source from which all comes from.

Abrahamic religions also carry a whole lot of '0ld sk00l' baggage.

Not really from a timeline perspective

Christianity is only 2000 years old.

And Islam only 1600

1400, I think.

You right

Seventh century

But Judaism is, what, 3000, 3500 years old depending on how you count it?

Yeah, but Judaism as we know it began alongside Christianity.

Rabbinic Judaism arose at the same time as Christianity, and both came from the same line.

I mean, Buddhism is 2600 years old

And that is the youngest of the Dharmic religions I believe, excluding Sikhism.

The problem is that Abrahamic religions are exclusivists

I don't know, it just seems disingenuous to try and change religious doctrine based off of what sells, rather than what one believes the truth to be.

Gnosticism has always been here.

The earliest known Christian work, the Gospel of Thomas, was Gnostic.

The Nazarenes, the judeo-christians of the first century, were believed to be Gnostic.

And a similar (possibly equivalent) sect, the Ebionites, were stated as Gnostics by the Gentile Church.

Gnosticism has existed since at least a couple centuries before Christianity, I'm not sure where exactly you could say they started to be a distinct group.

But what's your point?

I'm trying to refute your point of changing religious doctrine to what sells.

But...changing religious doctrine to sell it better to western audiences is your point.

But who is changing?

I think Dvir is getting more to Gnosticism doesn't hold the view that God is an individual and a direct giver of laws.

I'm pretty sure that's true.

Gnosticism takes from Neoplatonic philosophy in many ways, and in itself is a merger of the Hellenistic values of the ancient world and the new Christian values.

And at certain points it was possible that Gnostic doctrine would become dominant in the Christian world. Valentinus, the founder of the Valentinian sect, was inline to become the Pope. It was only after failing to do so that he went his own ways.

And Valentinianism spread throughout the whole Roman Empire, admittedly being primarily practiced by the educated and academics rather than the commoners.

Okay. I'm pretty sure that's all accurate.

I'm sorry, I think it's because it's late for me, I'm just not following.

Can we pick this up later?

I've been trying to follow the conversation and from what I get it's more that melding Gnostism with Christianity would help shore up those parts of Christianty that turn people away from 'religion' and towards more materialistic and nihilistic thinking.

Okay. I understand the utilitarian viewpoint, but I'm afraid I can't agree.

Beliefs should be based around what is correct, not what is useful.

How come no one is debating in the voice chat?

But religion is subjective

Text is good for posterity, helps go over things later.

Just like any other form of the humanities

Hmm? Most religions have concrete statements about objective reality that are true or false.

The Gnostic view of the material world is largely disconnected.

Since it isn't the realm of God

Especially Abrahamic religions.

My microphone is broken. I can't speak for other people though.

I'm on my laptop, and its noisy.

Bookworm, when it comes to religion on what basis would you regard a religion as correct?

When their statements and beliefs align correctly with reality.

Would you concede that the material world is intrinsically flawed?

What religion or faith do you follow? What do you believe aligns the closest with reality?

Alright, I think I'm going to hit the hay. Feel free to send me any questions directly and I'll do my best to respond tomorrow. Good night, guys, it was nice talking to you.

Me, personally? Roman Catholicism.

Would I concede that the material world is intrinsically flawed? ...Intrinsically is the key word there. I think...no.

But there is entropy

Energy is slowly drained

There is division of forces

Have a good night, Bookworm. If you're available tomorrow it would be nice to continue this chat.

Id like to go to,church, problem is the churches here are sketchy as hell and are full off upper middle class chinese. I day this as one.

I am a Buddhist
We believe what we can see
We believe what we can prove to true

So I ended up with the conclusion that Masturbation was parts of reason why I failed as a swimmer
There are some other reasons, too, but they are all just there to make feel less guilty

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

So regards to the bombs found in the DNC, does anyone else think this is an inside job? Seems awfully convenient for this to happen 2 weeks from midterms.

Alexander Soros just blamed Trump for it.

As if they knew the packages would be intercepted and reported.

It isn't a definite, but it is within the realms of plausibility at this point.

There is no low the DNC would go.

Heres an argument

Atheism is a fundamentally flawed and weak religion.

And it is a religion

It is an ideological stance on the existence of God and the nature of reality.

It is a religion with role of refuting religion.

If you are familiar with 40k, atheism can almost be personified by the fifth Chaos God Malal.

It is flawed and weak because it is the rejection of a higher reality beyond the material. The fervent of Atheists are just as zealous and dogmatic as any other religious radical.

An atheist isn't like an agnostic who I would better describe as secularists, since they largely remove themselves from religion.

Organised atheists discussing their reasoning does not mean all atheists are organised and behave the way youre saying

No, but atheism also leaves people morally lacking.

That is an opinion, not a statement of fact

Which either leads to nihilism or another radical ideology that co-opts the place of religion

can you define atheist?
your definiton seems bit odd.

An atheist is one who rejects the existence of God and the Divine.

I would personally argue that those who lack belief in religion aren't atheists, only those who disbelieve in religion are.

I would say an atheist is someone who does not think that there is an existence of a God or Divine

you do kinda get into semantics when going into the existence of a "god" as described by monotheistic religions, specifically the omnipotent ones

if god IS all-powerful and all-knowing, then god is not sentient. you cannot think if you already know what you're about to think. such a being cannot have intent, for it's intent is literal reality.

god as both a sentient and all-powerful being is illogical.

if we define god as merely existence, then there is very little weight to worshipping such a being

im atheist.
And i dont have any other thing common with other athieists that i dont belive in god or divine.
its not religion by the definiton.
and being athiest as it self is not radical by the defenition

I would argue that a more controversial standpoint would be to be atheist but also reject the concept of evolution as fact

Many christians that I have interacted with automatically assume your atheism means you are an evolutionist

the biggest problem atheists have in the religion debate is the assumption that god does not exist. in truth, landing on such a conclusion is irrational. we do not know for certain.

but, if we take it to it's logical conclusion, all-powerful and all-knowing are mutually exclusive with sentience

Also Christianity isn't monotheistic, it is a Trinity

I would argue against that, its not irrational,

Its what that whole flying spaghetti monster argument comes from,

You don't believe it exists, cuz theres 0 evidence for it either,
Hence atheists don't believe in god cuz theres 0 evidence

And religions like Hinduism still have an ultimate God from which all other deities are derived.

its not illogical.
my default just is that its not true until proven otherwise.

I believe God to be the representation for the totality of existence.

God is the complete wholeness of existence that existed before Time and the Universe

Why does it have to be God?

god is disgusting then. he farts several thousand times per second

😛

Can existence not just be existence?

"wholeness of existence"? that existed _before_ time and space?

what do you mean by this?

God is the totality of existence

In your opinion

if god is everything then god is not sentient

god is the sum of all information in the universe

There was an infentesible amount of "time" at the beginning of the existence before space and time were distinct entities

@Dvir do you belive something can be eternal?

Only what comes before time is eternal

my dick is eternal 😉

As it exists perpetually

*Hypostasis*

so you belive god have always existed?
but universe cant be always existed?

That is the general Christian worldview

The difference is that God did not create the Universe

The Universe is the result of complete totality coming into contact with absolute nothingness.

It is as light is, it always seeks darkness to fill.

Those things could never have existed logically

why you think there have to be starting point?
Why there have to be nothingness before universe came to be?
why it cant just be always been there?

The Universe lies below the Aeons (divine realms fashioned in conscious thought) and is personified as the being Yaldabaoth, the great balancer/

Complete totality could never have been seperate in order to come into contact with absolute nothingness

going to deep into theism here

can't really apply and logic here

Because the existence of something automatically destroys the existence of nothingness

semantics

what is nothing?

what is something?

If there is only something, there isn't everything.

But if there IS something, there is no absolute nothingness either

this universe is the bottom aethyr of 30 - it was nothing until the higher aethyrs touched the nothingness to create our plain of existance

Dark Holes are an example of absolute nothingness

something along those lines as per the books of enoch

^

If there's one subject that could be singled out as the most difficult to discuss through text over the internet, metaphysics would probably be a strong contender.

What is a dark hole?

black holes are technically physical objects though

their mass is just so great

Black holes are huge amounts of mass

Theyre so massive that they have a pull on photons

So they can't be seen

just think - the amount of shear mass in a black whole, there may be an entire universe inside one, we ourselves could be inside a giant black hole. Our universe was created when our black hole formed

there is not an entire universe in them though

we have a basic understanding how how black holes come to be, and therefore what they're made of

multiverse theory is a hypothesis

no grounds for it's truth, but no way to disprove it

https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe

just a theory

Interesting thought, but the universe shows an ability to expand and contract, whereas black holes can only gain mass

Or at least, it is theorised that way, the problem with many things this big is the amount of belief and assumptions that you have to make

https://curiosity.com/topics/there-might-be-a-universe-inside-every-black-hole-curiosity/
another bit of explanation
```Black holes form when a very massive star dies and its core collapses into a space so small that not even light can escape it. The boundary that delineates that point of no return is called the event horizon, and a sort of opaque "wrapping" that doesn't let you see the singularity itself. Importantly, as matter falls into the black hole, the event horizon grows: rapidly at first as the black hole begins to form, then more slowly as matter falls in at a lower rate.

During the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded incredibly rapidly — faster than the speed of light. (Since space was technically being created, that universal speed limit didn't have much sway). Over time, that expansion slowed down. Doesn't that sound a lot like a black hole's event horizon? Is it possible that our universe is the event horizon in some other universe's black hole?```

could just be a similarity

we can't say anything for sure

all we can do is list off what something "isn't"

which is the scientific method

When it comes to the nature of this Universe, the scientific method supersedes religion

A black hole is mass though and the universe has plenty of space where thre is no mass

there is that "missing mass" thing where it's probably not empty space but mass we can't observe yet

and one of the theories why spiral galaxies don't fly apart as they should if there was just empty space

referring to dark matter?

gravitino

good ol' subatomic particle heavier/larger than neutrino I believe

The original statment about atheism being a religion is incorrect, because while there may be organised atheists that believe a particular set of things, there are also atheists that are not organised and do not believe a specific set of things

There are many different types of Christians, some are more organized while others are small churches or entirely independent.

But all are based on the same core tenets

Atheism is not

Atheism has the core tenet of refuting religion

Incorrect

then what is atheism?

It isnt about refuting religion, there may be some who make it a point to talk about atheism as an opposite to religion but as I said earlier, atheism is more about the simple premice that there is no god

So there is a core tenet.

In that respect yes I would have to agree, although it is impossilbe for there to be a way of thinking that contains no tenets

you have core tenet to not belive my spagetti monster.

When it comes down to it there are probably only a handful more universal core tenets that you could find in all of Christians. These could become pretty distinct, like the Miaphysites or the Nasrani for example.

Religion is more than a tenet or set of tenets though, it is a system of belief that sometimes includes ritual or tradition

You are right in that atheism lacks any ritual or tradition, which is its problem.

If you really want to stretch the definition of religion, just state that the scientific method and the scientific community are those aspects

But the thing is, that you can do that for anything

That is the point of the Tech Priests in 40k.

Religion is more than that though

When we use the word religion it is in reference to a supernatural being to be worshipped

I will concede that atheism isn't a religion in of itself, but atheism is often not packaged on its own.

Atheism rejects a supernatural god to be worshipped

and even the existence of one

I believe that religion is innate to humans and not the Universe, but it is essential part of our being and not one that should be starved.

christianity is jewsih.

I think atheism can lead someone susceptible into another ideology that surplants the role that religion usually has.

salvation is from the jews" john 4:22

If we can agree that the only thing seperating religion from any other way of thinking, that involves ritual and tradition, is the supernatural entity, then what you are saying is that it is inherent that all should need to be fulfilled by a supernatural entity

God is not an active being

That would suggest a lack of free will

Humans are the only beings we know to have a higher consciousness, I believe the conscious mind to be the closest thing to God that we know exists.

Like Yeshua Ha'Notzri says, "The kingdom is inside you, and all around you."

The Prophet does not become a Prophet by doing nothing, the Prophet must manifest out what was envisioned to him.

I would ttend to agree that the uniqueness of the human consciousness is a phenomenon that could lead to that conclusion, but it is also impossible for us to know whether there is or is not consciousness within any other living being in the universe

And if they do share consciousness like ours, I would call them Humans.

I believe Human to be the idea of the sentient being, in a literal sense we are just Hominids.

There does not require there to be a god for any of those things to be true though

They don't, but they can be explained by it.

All things can be explained by the supernatural

That is the point of the supernatural

Consciousness is an abstraction though

It isn't quantifiable

Only until enough has been done to qunatify it

that is why science is always expanding

And this is why I am a psychology major

If the spirit came into being because of the flesh it is a marvel,

Psychology does not necessarily aim to quantify the consciousness though, arguably neuroscience does more in that regard

If the flesh came into being because of the spirit then it is a marvel of marvels.

I intend on focusing on depth psychology

I hold a Jungian view of psychology

But the actual science behing what cuses our conscience will not be discovered by psychology. Psychology is the study of what a conscience contains,not what it is or how it came to be

Well I care more about understanding it because I have a satisfied idea of how it came to be in the first place.

And if I discover my view was wrong I will change it.

Through the supernatural

Fair enough

Consciousness is the result of the numerous different parts of the human body coalescing into a single conscious being.

I am saying it is divine, I am not saying it is necessarily a result of supernatural forces

I am definitely not saying they did it directly

Anything god-like is by definition supernatural because it would defy what is naturally quantifyable

And I think consciousness is not naturally quantifiable

Exactly, until it is

Which may not be possible, or may just take time

But I don't think it is something that can be fully understood by man, how can a consciousness fully comprehend consciousness?

Psychology deigns to comprehend consciousness, neuroscience seeks to define its perameters of operation

```Even though I’m a nonbeliever, would I be scared to learn that God really does exist? No. Far from it. The belief that God desires praise, worship, and violent retribution, comes from a lack of understanding about what it’s like to be an enlightened being. It is ignorance projecting ignorance.

The theist view of God is actually far more insulting than the atheist view. It is commonly held that the atheist is the offensive one, that the nonbeliever must walk on eggshells, and be considerate of the beliefs of others. That seems backwards to me. What if there is a god and that god is offended at the thought of people believing he desires worship and praise, demands it even, for eternity - like some petty narcissist? What if that god is disappointed in those who expected him to torture their enemies? What if the believers and the nonbelievers are made to face their creator, and it is the believers who must answer for their offensive beliefs? Even if that’s the case, I don’t think any of us would have anything to worry about, believer and nonbeliever alike, because any mind capable of creating this universe would be enlightened to the point of being beyond such petty concerns.```

That is an apt way of describing it.

You think I take offense when you talk shit about religion?

Also the idea that world without religion would be an enlightened paradise is idiotic.

Even if you believe atheism is good you cannot concede that in of itself it is the ultimate redemptive ideology for man.

its not ideology

And if atheism lead to utopia the Soviet Union would've been a utopia.

Also God doesn't need or desire praise.

You gain strength through union with God.

Your will is empowered, you join yourself to a higher principle, one that supersedes material law.

If atheism lead to more prosperous societies it would have become commonplace in distinct structured societies around the world.

Instead, the only indigenous human tribes we've encountered that were atheists were the ones with the lowest iq

Is it possible for a consciousness that exists due to being comprised of the different parts of the human body coalescing into a conscious being, to be joined with another consciousness without being destroyed?

You let it into yourself.

By your definition, that consciousness is unique to your own body

i dont think atheism leads to utopia.
and correlation does not imply causation😉

and i rather go back to roots and go pagan.

Well, I perceive consciousness as being able to exist through a union of a body/brain, soul/mind, and spirit/subconscious.

If you take away any one of these you would no longer be a conscious entity.

I've heard that perspective before

Yeah, common in Gnosticism and many other groups.

Mine would lean toward them being one and the same

I also think you can apply the three parts of your being to your three deaths; the death of your body, the death of your memory, and the death of your actions.

One main question I would have is: Is it possible for the physiological brain to contain more than one consciousness

Like split-personality disorder?

When we have not yet determined how it can contain a single consciousness, how can it contain a second

No, like how you say it joins with god

I believe that your soul is your own and it is your soul that gives you will. You don't have direct will over your body or your spirit/subconscious being, but you have the power to shape your body and spirit through your actions in the world.

So I wouldn't call it multi-conscious because they are all codependent on each other to maintain a consciousness.