No.855
These people don't know you and thus are more sincere. They won't agree with you because they are afraid to upset you and they won't blame you because they have something to gain.
And it feels good to listen and help strangers.
No.856
>>854it feels nice to have someone listen then just ranting about stuff to the wall. maybe someone somewhere out there shares my pain, it feels nice to not suffer alone
No.857
It feels good to vent without having people judge you
No.858
>>857Should it feel good? I'm not trying to put anyone down, but isn't that kind of…pathetic(for lack of a better word)? Sad, even? But I guess it's no less pitiable than visiting a therapist, but at least a therapist is trained to have the best luck at actually helping you with the problems you have.
To me it just seems like a cry for help when we shout our troubles into the Wired for no reason other than to satisfy our own emotional anxieties. Isn't it a bit selfish to be bothering strangers with our burdens to bear when they're just helping you out of pity?
>>856Maybe you're right. Because when that happens you're not just venting, you're creating an opportunity to help someone else in a similar situation, even if it's just to cooperatively wallow in your suffering. I don't mean to sound pompous or philosophical, but there's something gutterally understandable about two humans writhing in the muck because that's all they can do at that moment. They can't do anything but cry out to God in lament. Because the only thing worse than suffering is suffering alone
No.859
>>858Honestly the part of talking to a therapist that I hated the most is that you have to pay someone to listen to your problems, and that they're being paid to listen. It's about as far away from genuine human interaction that you can get.
>Isn't it a bit selfish to be bothering strangers with our burdens to bear when they're just helping you out of pity?Because we're all anonymous strangers, you can get a genuine response, and thinking that the only reason people will help you or talk to you is out of pity is a depressingly pessimistic way to view the world. It all depends on how you look at it, personally I feel that there is less looking down on people and more camaraderie formed from also dealing with soykaf. More of a "we're all in the same boat" and less of "wow your boat fucking sucks, that must be terrible"
No.861
>>859I think we have different ideas of what it means to pity someone. To pity someone is to feel sorry for them, not to look down on them. They don't even have to be worse off than you are yourself. It drives you to help them.
What I meant to get at is that strangers aren't helping you because they know you personally and want to help you, they want to help you because they feel sorry for you, like helping a stranger pick up the groceries or books they dropped. It's genuine kindness, and I don't see pity as a bad thing by any means, but seeking that out is…desperate.
The more I think on it the more I begin to understand the reason people do it. And it's sad. But I get it. Suffering with the ones you love is far more meaningful, but when you don't have that then where can you go?
No.863
>>854OP I think you are disagreeing with the vanity (being unsure of your own value and finding esteem in others opinions' solely) and pity in it all.
gotta find your own values, it's hard.
No.864
>>861>To pity someone is to feel sorry for them, not to look down on them.There's a reason that "pitiful" is an insult everywhere.
No.865
>>864That's just it. "Pitiful" isn't an insult in and of itself, but people don't like to be pitied for the exact reason I mentioned. They want charity from someone just because they feel sorry for them. But that's precisely the kindness people are seeking out in the context of this thread.
In other words, yes, people often feel insulted if you call them pitiful, but it's because they don't like to be pitied, not because the word itself is the issue
No.869
>>861How is wanting to helping a stranger and someone you know different?
No.870
>>869>why do we read it?>to let the other find themselves in us.That's a really interesting point. I never really thought of it that way, actually. It's not just pity but our own selfishness playing a part as well in a way.
>>868The difference between helping a stranger and helping someone you know is that the latter is building a relationship with someone who is a part of your life, the same way a conversation with a loved one is far more valuable than the one you have with the cashier at the grocery
No.885
>>854i wouldn't know because i never do it
99% of the time online i am anonymous but that has no effect
would it help?
No.886
seems there's often an aspect of just, wanting to vent, and fearing the consequences of honesty in real life. its far easier, far safer for me to tell someone online that I am miserable or suicidal or self harming than it is to tell my family, or my friends in meatspace.
random folks in the wired aren't invested in me, and can be honest. they don't know my address, my name, my hangout spots, they cant call the police on me. but they can talk to me, and sometimes all I need is just, a person to listen, to sympathize with, and talk to.
No.920
It's about calling out and getting confirmation that you are being heard. I don't think it's about any specific replies or actually what you say, just that you call out when you are feeling awful and someone is there and lets you know that they listen.
On am only slightly related note: It is an incredibly wonderful and comforting thought that the internet allows you to be heard should want it, I feel.
No.921
>Isn't it a bit selfish to be bothering strangers with our burdens to bear when they're just helping you out of pity?
No, it isn't selfish cause people are choosing to answer you. When someone spontaneously does something kind for you, you should only accept that without making questions.
Everytime someone answers you it is because he/she is empathic towards you, feels to be a better person if he/she helps you, uses that occasion to reflect about his own life or about the Wired, has a perverse interest for humanity or simply is bored. In all those occasions (wich are not the only ones possibles) he/she is having good time, like you while reading his reply or venting, so in the end happiness is produced without any damage for anyone.
No.922
People used to write in diaries. And honestly, that's where it should have stayed. There's nothing worse than having to read a board full of angsty children whining about how soykaf their life is. Unfortunately the internet has created a generation of narcissists who crave any kind of attention whether it be posting about how wonderful their lives are or how woe is me their lives are.
Life has no meaning.
"To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering."
Regardless of how soykaf your life is, someone has it worse.
"That doesn't lessen that individuals problems!"
Yes. Yes it does. Your life is soykaf by the standard of your society. Your degree of how soykaf your life is, is incomprehensible bliss to others. Stop fucking whining about it.
These "feels" boards are the worst fucking thing about these "cyberpunk" chans.
No.923
>>854I don't like impact them, i prefer to observe.
No.924
>>922If life has no meaning, why are you whining about how people behave in a way that doesn't please you? They are free to complain if that makes them feel better, and you're free to find another edgy board where you can discuss
constructive nihilism. Do you think every member of this thread has to dance around you? You're the actual narcissist child.
No.925
>>924Just because life has no meaning doesn't mean you can't complain about it you fuck stick. If that were the case it would negate hundreds of years of philosophy.
They can whine all they want. And they can be called out for their narcissistic behaviour when they do.
Nobody was asked to dance around anyone. All that occurred was some pointed out the horsesoykaf of these feels boards. Which you taken great offence to. Maybe you should start a live journal or tumblr and whine about how awful your life is there instead. Because nobody wants to read your soykaf other than enablers who'll provide faceless token gestures of empathy for their own egotistical back patting purposes.
No.927
>>926>they probably just wanted to feel some sense of belonging and compassion.Then take it to tumblr. This board is supposed to be about tech and cyberpunk. The same soykaf plagued Lainchan too. Whiny children pissing and moaning about how horrible their pathetic lives were. Not because they had any type of mental problem, just because they were straight up losers.
I can't think of anything less cyberpunk than a fucking /feels/ board.
>They might feel like people on these forums will get something that friends, family, therapist won't.Like what? An echo chamber of validation that they're not the only ones with a pathetic existence? Again, they can go look for a circle jerk on Tumblr. They're much more accommodating to those with self diagnosed issues and mental problems.
No.928
>>927Calm down mate. This site is whatever the mods and the community wan't it to be. If you want a pure cyberpunk website quit complaining and make one yourself
No.929
>>928> and the communityAnd therein lies the rub. There's more than whiny little narcissists filled with teenage angst that are part of the community.
No.930
The admins could always drop /feels/ from the list when you browse /all/. That way you won't have to see /feels/ without browsing specifically to /feels/. Then far more interesting threads, boards and posts aren't bumped down the list, making you have to wade through them, because little Timmy doesn't have a diary and thinks other people actually give a fuck about his laughable troubles.
No.931
Alright stop pissing yourselves, I’ll go to Tumblr.
No.932
>>930I agree that there's a problem but we can't remove feels from all, as much as cyberpunk is about tech it's about human experiences too. It just that feels doesn't represent that in its current state, more akin to a mild r9k. I think the problem stems from the board being called feels. It's as if specifically made towards soykaf threads. I wouldn't start a serious discussion on /feels/.
No.933
This thread is about understanding the phenomena, not complaining. If you have a problem with the site, post it in
>>>/q/.
No.934
>>927>I can't think of anything less cyberpunk than a fucking /feels/ boardReally? Because as cool and interesting as they are, plenty of things on this site aren't strictly cyberpunk. Take your personal vendetta to the mods. When they also tell you to stop overreacting and irritating everyone around you maybe you'll actually listen for once.
Cyberpunk is all about the ground level life of individuals in an advanced world around them run by machines that would keep on turning with or without them. It's an allegory for real life, like most works of fiction. I've always thought about these kinds of boards as a quiet talk at a bar of sorts, where people will relate their own experiences in order to connect with just about anyone.
Not everyone on here is paranoid about Facebook or into hardcore programming. We came here for Lain and we came here for the Aesthetician, and when people with similar interests congregate then the dialog is bound to end up in threads like these eventually. All this board does is give people a place to post them without cluttering another board.
No.935
>>934> Take your personal vendetta to the mods.There isn't one you sycophantic brown nosing fuck. At no point did I ever mention mods. You're the first one to bring mods up.
>When they also tell you to stop overreacting and irritating everyone around you maybe you'll actually listen for once.Maybe you can take their dick out of your mouth. Or what's more likely is you're a mouthy cunt of a mod that doesn't have the balls to wear their flair when posting.
>Cyberpunk is all about the ground level life of individuals in an advanced world around them run by machines that would keep on turning with or without them.That has fuck all to do with posting your feels soykafe on the board.
>It's an allegory for real life, like most works of fiction.That has fuck all to do with posting your feels soykafe on the board.
>I've always thought about these kinds of boards as a quiet talk at a bar of sorts, That has fuck all to do with posting your feels soykafe on the board. Obviously you're not old enough to have ever been in a fucking bar. And if you are, the bars you have been in have been inhabited by more whiny glitterboys like yourself. Men talking about feelings in a bar? The fuck out of here.
>where people will relate their own experiences in order to connect with just about anyone.EXPERIENCES. NOT. FEELINGS. Which has absolutely fuck all to do with whiny narcissists, posting soykaf threads about how awful their day to day lives are. Buy a fucking diary or start a fucking blog.
>Not everyone on here is paranoid about Facebook or into hardcore programmingThat has fuck all to do with posting your feels soykafe on the board.
>We came here for Lain and we came here for the AestheticianThat has fuck all to do with posting your feels soykafe on the board.
>and when people with similar interests congregate then the dialog is bound to end up in threads like these eventually. No. It doesn't. This is a problem specifically catered to by these cyberpunk boards. On no other *chan that I visit do I have to wade through such a fucking load of "boohoo woe is me" horse soykaf.
>All this board does is give people a place to post them without cluttering another board.IT DOES CLUTTER UP OTHER BOARDS. Specifically /all/ which has already been pointed out.
No.936
>>933>>933This thread opened the discussion up. The discussion is being had. Shut the fuck up.
No.937
>>935I'm the OP, not a mod. I haven't been on this site nearly long enough to be qualified for something like that. That comment was the first reply I've made since this soykafstorm broke out on the thread I created, so don't confuse me with whoever else you were already arguing with.
My point is if you don't like it just go to the mods. They're in charge of the site and they call the shots. If you actually have a problem with it then go talk to them, you don't have to be a dick to all of us.
No.938
>>937>you don't have to be a dick to all of us.Go get your fucking hug box.
No.940
>>935You could try being more polite. I entirely agree with you but you look like a clown. And I know you're anonymous and you don't care but you should because being an asshole can invalidate your opinion in some people's eyes. Being correct is good but being tactful is better.
No.941
>>940>being an asshole can invalidate your opinion in some people's eyes.That's their fucking problem. There's nothing more insufferable than holier-than-thou pseudo intellectual and pretentious arse wipes who think that swearing makes someones argument any less valid. One could be a pretentious prick and write an overly flowery and wordy response to appear to be something that they're not. But there's very little point when a fuck, soykaf, cunt or bollocks gets the point across just as well in fewer words.
>Being correct is good but being tactful is better.Bollocks. Correct is correct, regardless of how its conveyed. There's a fucking problem with the younger generation of today and I blame social media and a generation that grew up being molly coddled by their elders. Participation trophies for coming in last. Told their art and opinions are worth something when they're absolute soykaf. Bunch of whiny fucks, all little snowflakes. Apparently the punk part of Cyberpunk is dead. Might as well rebrand the board as catering to Cyberhippies.
No.942
>>940>Being correct is good but being tactful is better.You're policing speech. Fascist.
No.944
>>941Communication isn't just a sequence of true statements. Of course HOW you say things is going to be just as important as WHAT you say, because half of any conversation is implied.
You've barged into a discussion you had nothing to add too, repeatedly insulted the people conversing, and declared the conversation worthless. OF COURSE people are going to complain about your tone and word choice - that's not because they're "sensitive snowflakes", but because your choice of tone and words have had negative consequences.
So long as at least one human is involved in the conversation, feelings are going to matter.
No.945
>>942If I had tact I'd obfuscate my opinion further so you couldn't claim such things. I was merely making an observation of how people interact around me. You could be correct, but the technique and forum result in different outcomes.
>>941You're basically a minority here complaining about the majority on /feels/. Your choices are either leave or change the majority, by alienating them I doubt you can change them, so you'll end up leaving.
No.946
>>944>Communication isn't just a sequence of true statements. That wasn't the point that was being discussed. The point was that being tactful is better than being correct. Which is absolute bollocks. Correct is correct regardless of how it is conveyed. What YOUR OPINION on that is irrelevant. Facts are facts. They could be carved into your skull with a chisel. It doesn't make them not true because of how they were conveyed.
>You've barged into a discussion you had nothing to add tooThat's your fucking (soykaf) opinion. This
>>922 was me. I'm very involved in this discussion.
>repeatedly insulted the people conversing, and declared the conversation worthlesWRONG. I've insulted peoples soykaf opinions. And the only use of the word "worthless" has been by yourself. So that's another untrue statement from yourself.
>OF COURSE people are going to complain about your tone and word choice - that's not because they're "sensitive snowflakes", Yes. Yes it is. They're pretentious pesudo intellectuals with a snotty nosed holier than thou attitude about how they believe information and opinions should be conveyed. The type of soykafcunts that would be all over thoughtcrime as a good idea. Policing peoples words and opinions and how they are delivered. It's like the state making designated protesting areas for demonstrations against things. Absolute bullsoykaf.
>but because your choice of tone and words have had negative consequences.And that is entirely on them. Because they're fucking snowflakes. Offense is taken, not given. Fucking touchy feely horsesoykaf. If anyone is offended by words they need to grow a set of fucking testicles and man the fuck up and need to get off their pretentious fucking high horses about how people express their opinions.
No.947
>>945>Your choices are either leave or change the majority, by alienating them I doubt you can change them, so you'll end up leaving."If you don't like it, leave". Fucking childish retort.
No.948
>>946>The point was that being tactful is better than being correct.Being tactful is important. Not more important, but still very important.
>Correct is correct regardless of how it is conveyed.Right, which is why I wrote "Communication isn't just a sequence of true statements.". How what you say is understood and interpreted is based on how you present it. In the extreme case: if you've made yourself so unbearable that no-one is listening, does telling the truth matter at all?
>WRONG. I've insulted peoples soykaf opinionsThat's simply not true. You've directly insulted people, repeatedly and intentionally.
>And the only use of the word "worthless" has been by yourself.So? I wasn't directly quoting you.
>And that is entirely on them. Because they're fucking snowflakes. Offense is taken, not givenNo. The idea that the speaker has no responsibility to how their speech is interpreted is just silly: Conversations have at least two participants, and they're both involved in making decisions.
If you're bothering to talk to someone, you clearly care enough about their views that you're trying to influence them. And if that's the case, you damn well ought to care enough to try and structure what you're saying in a way the will be understood clearly. If you don't care about that, then that brings your reasons for talking into question.
Insulting people or being a dick doesn't help convey ideas or information, it just makes the other person frustrated. And blaming them for that is downright ridiculous - at worst, it suggests that may be your actual goal, rather than communication.
>Policing peoples words and opinions and how they are delivered. It's like the state making designated protesting areas for demonstrations against things.Stop the victim act. No-one is policing you. No-one is forcing you to do anything.
> If anyone is offended by words they need to grow a set of fucking testicles and man the fuck upWhy would people NOT be offended by words? Words aren't insignificant - they're some of the most important things humans have ever done. "Sticks and stones" isn't a reasonable philosophy, it's a schoolyard bully's taunt.
No.950
>>941>there's very little point when a fuck, soykaf, cunt or bollocks gets the point across just as well in fewer words.It doesn't. It makes you seem unintelligent and emotional. If you can't scrape together a concise enough statement that you have to resort to name-calling and shouting FUCK every other sentence then you're not manifesting any intelligence or maturity beyond that of a 14 year old.
Despite your fevered attempts at labeling me a liberal snowflake, I'm a traditionalist Christian conservative that considers freedom of speech to be second only to my right to life itself. But that doesn't mean I don't stand up for myself when I'm being berated by a stranger who wants to destroy the peaceful thread I created because he decided to have a temper tantrum in front of the few people that even participate in this site to begin with.
No.952
Going back to the original purpose of this thread, I'm a little concerned about people's willingness to dismiss "attention-seeking" as an inherently negative thing. People are inherently social, and we tend to respond VERY badly to a lack of social interaction - exclusion from a group is probably one of the oldest and most widely-practiced forms of non-physical punishment. Given that, it's perfectly understandable that people who don't feel like they're connected IRL would go online and find strangers willing to listen to them. Even a tenuous emotional connection to someone you'll never meet is better than being alone.
That's not to say that "attention-seeking" is an inherently positive thing either, of course. Plenty of people try and get recognition simply by being loud, disruptive or obnoxious. But I think providing something like /feels/ is probably a net positive, both to the community and the people in it.
No.953
>>854I can't tell you why people in general do it, but I can tell you why
I do it:
I have a hard time communicating the actual psychological/emotional pain I feel on a day-to-day basis to my family/friends. I don't like to make them worry about me and would rather they disliked me for being a lazy cunt than worry about me being depressed, self-hating, and borderline-suicidal. I still like to externalize my pain, though, so I usually either write it into a text file I never open again, or out into the Wired for some anonymous strangers to read.
Or, in short, it's because I'm avoidant and find refuge in anonymity.
No.954
>>947That wasn't a retort, I'm not arguing with anyone, just predicting what will happen from my past experiences. The bollocks person is clearly in the minority here, as they keep behaving that way they are losing credibility, and will end up leaving ( or change their opinion, which in the context of anonymous would amount to leaving ). They could stay but they'll just waste their own time. Of course they could craft a better course of action to promote their agenda on this board, but I have a feeling they won't.
No.956
After reading about half of the posts before mine, I feel like there's something alien in many of the posts before mine. I don't seem to think this much about myself and my connections with people, I pour all that reflection and pondering into abstract objects instead. What's the point in knowing yourself well if you only do so in contrast/context of a world you had little to no time thinking about?
No.1002
>>1001I think the bigger issue than being 'traditionalist' is the fact you belief in an imaginary sky fairy in the first place.
No.1003
>>1002That's some juicy bait my friend, but I'm afraid I just ate.
No.1004
>>1003Nothing baity about it. You believe in something that doesn't exist. And if it does exist it's one of the most evil, vindictive and sociopathc entities to have ever existed.
No.1005
>>1004We all take things on faith every day, and rationalize the world around us because we don't have nearly enough time on this planet to empirically know just about anything at all. I'm not going to stick my nose up and reject the possibility of something greater just because you can't give me a mathematical spreadsheet that proves the existence of God. I'm not gonna be here long enough to have that luxury.
It's what aligns most with my perception of reality around me, and I have no shame in admitting that. Science is how we explain the world around us, it doesn't tell us soykaf about what exists in the first place. Besides, if we could comprehend and measure a God, he would cease to be a God, after all.
No.1006
>>1005Nothing of what you said addresses the fact that you can't prove that he exists and that if he does exist he's an evil, vindictive, sociopathic cunt.
You can believe in the imaginary sky fairy all you want. But the only reason you do is to make the reality of your own mortality and non-existence after death all that much more bearable.
You rationalise your existence and the world around you on the whims of an omnipresent psychopath.
That's sad and pathetic.
Besides, you can't prove the existence of something that does not exist. If he exists he is evil beyond compare.
Science exists because religious men tried to prove a God existed. Instead they found they were not the centre of the universe.
No.1007
>>1006>But the only reason you do is to make the reality of your own mortality and non-existence after death all that much more bearable.Hedging your bets. If he exists, you get to go to heaven because you believed in him. All the non-believers get to burn in hell (LOL gentle Jesus meek and mild - now burn for eternity).
If he doesn't exist, you'll know fuck all about it because you'll simply fizzle out in much the same way you fizzled into existence. You will cease to be you. Simply cease to be. Nothing but a husk. Worm food. And peoples egos don't like to think about that.
No.1011
>>1006>Science exists because religious men tried to prove a God existed. Instead they found they were not the centre of the universe.That's not why science exists. Somehow you've managed to get the motivations behind religion and science both wrong. Congrats.
I'm not going to start discussing theology here, I just wanted to give a brief explanation for why I believe what I do because you obviously felt compelled to mock me for it. Take it or leave it lol I'm not that invested
>>1007It's not really hedging my bets at all. I didn't choose to believe it - I just believe it. I have no control over what I believe, it's just what makes the most sense to me
No.1014
>>1011>That's not why science existsThe earliest religions were mythology to explain the world around use. Giving way to animism and others. That everything had a "soul". Organised religion was created to impose moralism upon people for control.
Thales was the first "scientist" to move from mythology to the scientific method to explain the world around him in 600BC or thereabouts. It's been a while since I read up on it. Other Greek philosophers soon followed him. Each of them getting further and further away from the mythological and into the scientific.
>It's not really hedging my bets at all.Yes. It is.
>I didn't choose to believe it - I just believe it.Yes. You did.
> I have no control over what I believeYes. You do. And you've chosen to believe in an evil, sadistic, psychopathic, omnipresent sky fairy. But whatever floats your boat.
>it's just what makes the most sense to meAnd that's the saddest part about it.
No.1015
>>1011>That's not why science exists. Somehow you've managed to get the motivations behind religion and science both wrong. Congrats.All modern science stems from Western Philosophical questioning of why we are here. Nearly all of it coming from the Greeks, specifically Thales, Socrates and Plato.
"Why are we here" is the fundamental question that underwrites pretty much every single bit of science today. We study evolution to learn HOW we are here. We study geology to learn how LONG we've been here. We send probes and point telescopes into deep space to learn how long EVERYTHING has been here.
The simple minded prefer to believe that something that can't be known to exist or not made it. The world is only 6000 years old. And that we were put here in paradise and told we could stay so long as we didn't eat an Apple. So the something that can't be known who knows everything made a woman from a rib of the guy even though, being omnipresent, he knew that bitch would eat the apple because of a snake he knew was hanging around too.
Of all the things to believe…
No.1016
>>1014You can't choose what you believe. You either believe it, or you don't. The most you can do is lie about what you believe. Why do you think the phrase "I wish I could believe that" exists? If you can choose what you believe, than you can change your core worldview every 5 minutes at will.
If you could choose what to believe, than you don't really believe anything at all, because that would make all beliefs equally valid to you. You could prove it right now - I'll consider your little thesis to be true if you believe the Christian faith for the next 30 minutes. After all, you can just choose to truly believe something
No.1017
>>1015>Of all the things to believe…Oh. He also made sure to make sure his creations were unaware of good and evil. Good being doing exactly as God tells you. Evil being doing what he said not to. His creations. His omnipresence. He puts them into that situation knowing exactly what is going to happen away. Which means the sadistic fuck wanted to see it play out anyway.
Then there's the massacres, the slaughter, the natural disasters he inflicts to thin the herd every once in a while. Despite knowing that he would have to at some point. He knew they'd sin and he knew they'd be in for a life of misery and horror forever. But he went on with it anyway.
It would have been better for everyone if he'd not bothered.
Or, the bible is a simplistic collection of philosophical stories written by man to explain the WHY and HOW of us being here and why life is as it is. Then someone decided to come along later, make them gospel and rules for their super secret club against Roman occupation, that they were 'the chosen ones' (which is one fucking arrogant belief to have) and that as the chosen ones the evil, vindictive, psychopathic sky fairy was on their side.
Then everyone decided to get in on the action and create their own versions to control their own people and now that omnipresent evil bastard is on everyone's side and is making everyone's lives a misery, despite the fact he loves us all and all we have to do to sit with him for eternity is to believe in him. Because you'd want to sit next to a guy of that caliber. It would be worse than sitting next to Stalin or Mao.
No.1018
>>1016>You can't choose what you believeThat is the most retarded thing I've ever read.
>You either believe it, or you don't.You choose to believe it.
>The most you can do is lie about what you believe.Like lying to yourself about what you believe because it makes the what happens after that much easier to live with.
>If you can choose what you believe, than you can change your core worldview every 5 minutes at will.According to your good book God gave us free will… You can choose to believe or not. You believe because you're either; simple minded, hedging your bets, or your ego is terrified of the fact that this is all there is and can't deal with that.
>If you could choose what to believe, than you don't really believe anything at all, because that would make all beliefs equally valid to you.This is some grade A horse soykaf. I choose what to believe in and what not to believe in. And clearly your belief in an evil, sadistic, psychopathic sky fairy is not a fantastical fiction of belief I'm willing to entertain.
> You could prove it right now - I'll consider your little thesis to be true if you believe the Christian faith for the next 30 minutes. There's where you fucked up. This isn't about the Christian "faith". It's about an omnipresent evil, sadistic, psychopathic sky fairy. Let's look up the word "faith".
>strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.That's not going to fly.
>After all, you can just choose to truly believe somethingYou're still reaching.
No.1019
>>1016>You can't choose what you believe.But God gave you free will….
No.1020
>>1018I'm not reaching at all. Yiu go on and on about empirically proving things but you can't even prove to me that people can choose what they believe when you have the ability to do it yourself right now. Instead, you deflect and simply repeat the "no, YOU'RE wrong!" nonsense you said last time already.
You are ready and able to prove it to me right this very second, but you can't. That alone proves that you're statement is false. You can't even do it yourself for crying out loud. What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to go through justify that hypocrisy?
No.1021
>>1019That is absolutely retarded logic
No.1022
>>1020>You are ready and able to prove it to me right this very second, but you can't. That alone proves that you're statement is false. You can't even do it yourself for crying out loud. What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to go through justify that hypocrisy?You completely chose to ignore the bit about "faith". There's no mental gymnastics. Your entire belief is based on "faith". It's based on "spiritual conviction rather than proof".
It's impossible to argue against anyone that holds that mentality. They're simple minded, ignorant and pig headed in their vehement indoctrination to their good book.
You can't prove the existence of God. You believe in something you can't prove the existence of. You believe in something based entirely on faith. You might as well believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as well, because they're about as real as your imaginary sky fairy.
What I believe is irrelevant. Because I don't believe in what you do. Because I like to have proof. You on the other hand will accept whatever you're told if it makes you feel like your life means something, isn't a waste of time and this isn't all there is for you.
No.1023
>>1021Of course it is. God doesn't exist. I was merely replying to God boy that his omnipresent sky fairy, according to scripture, gave him free will. Meaning he gave God boy the ability to choose whether or not he believes in God. So his statement that "you can't choose what you believe" is false. According to the scripture as laid out by the men who put the words of the imaginary sky fairy onto paper. Or stone. Or parchment. Or whatever they were writing it all down on.
No.1025
>>1022As I said, I'm not going to start discussing theology here because it's a complete waste of time. I'm not trying to convince you that God exists, and yet you've been inexplicably projecting that onto me this entire time.
All I'm responding to is your bewildering claim that people choose what they believe, and once again you've completely ignored the fact that you cannot back up the claim that you made. Respond with some intelligence this time, please. I'll ask once more - choose to believe something like a religion for half an hour or even 30 seconds and I'll consider your outlandish statement.
I could literally pay you $10,000 to believe in Islam for 60 seconds and the most you could ever do is lie to me and say you believe it. But you can't will yourself to do so - you cannot choose to believe it. How can you possibly not realize that?
No.1026
>>1025>All I'm responding to is your bewildering claim that people choose what they believe, and once again you've completely ignored the fact that you cannot back up the claim that you made.You're the one that claimed you can't choose what you believe.
>>1016>You can't choose what you believe. First fucking six words.
Your own belief system, your own religious scripture explicitly states that your 'God' gave you free will. Ergo; you can choose whether to believe or not.
Whatever argument you think you have about that is fucking null and void.
"Respond with some intelligence"???
You're the one completely ignoring your own belief system to try and win an argument. Your picking exactly what you're choosing to believe from your own belief system. You're choosing to believe you cannot choose, when it is explicitly stated that you have free will.
You are a moron. Or you just want to win an argument. For someone that doesn't want to discuss theology, as you've stated a few times, you really can't help yourself by coming back and continuing to repeat the false statement that you cannot choose what you believe.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in the Easter bunny? I'm willing to bet that there's a couple no's in there and they're there because you choose to believe in them. Despite the fact that they require just as much "faith" to belief in as your non-existent God.
You couldn't pay me soykaf to believe in Islam because for me to believe in something requires proof or a concrete theory that it exists.
"You cannot choose to believe" is the single dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard someone say. If you cannot choose to believe, then the whole aspect of FREE WILL write in YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM goes out the fucking window.
No.1027
>>1025>As I said, I'm not going to start discussing theology here because it's a complete waste of time. They why keep doing it?
>I'm not trying to convince you that God exists, and yet you've been inexplicably projecting that onto me this entire time.Nobody implied you are. Only that your belief in God is fucking retarded.
>All I'm responding to is your bewildering claim that people choose what they believe,This has already been pointed out to you several times now that people choose what to believe in. You are simply ignoring it.
You choose to believe in God.
Others choose not to believe in God.
So, that makes your statement nobody chooses what to believe redundant. If nobody chose what to believe, why wouldn't an omnipresent, omniscient, force everyone to believe in him, other than he gave them free will as written in scripture.
>and once again you've completely ignored the fact that you cannot back up the claim that you made.So far, you're the only one doing that. Like stated above and in other posts, you've repeatedly ignored the fact of free will as written in scripture. It's a fundamental basis of our very existence in Abrahamic religion.
>Respond with some intelligence this time, please. It has been done, and you continue to ignore it. You made the claim that you cannot choose what to believe. And once again it has to be pointed out that yes you can. See above.
>I'll ask once more - choose to believe something like a religion for half an hour or even 30 seconds and I'll consider your outlandish statement.I don't believe in anything that does not have empirical evidence or solid concrete theory. That's why I don't believe in invisible sky fairies. Or Santa Claus. Or the Easter bunny. Your entire belief system is based on 'faith'. Not proof.
>I could literally pay you $10,000 to believe in Islam for 60 seconds and the most you could ever do is lie to me and say you believe it. But you can't will yourself to do so - you cannot choose to believe it. How can you possibly not realize that?You pay me ten grand right now and I'll believe in lizard men controlling the world and whatever else you want me to. The fact is you can't. So the point is fucking retarded and redundant.
No.1028
Dogma. Indoctrination. Religious belief is like a house of cards that those who believe walk past gently because the slightest wind will cause it to topple over. So they do everything to prove their faith, to prove their piety. The idea that this life is all there is terrifies them. The evil, the horror, the chaos, the pain, the love, the beauty, the spectacular. There all must be a point to it, right? It couldn't just be without some guiding hand. When you die that can't just be it. It scares the religious folk. So they seek comfort in the make believe.
My grandfather was a minister for the Church Of Ireland. We live in Northern Ireland. I've read the scripture. And then some. And then I grew up. I actually questioned what I was reading and saw that none of it stacked up. Add to that a bloody sectarian conflict, which the embers of still burn today, there's not a lot of good things to say about organized religion. It's a means of control. A philosophical hug box for those whose egos can't entertain the concept that this is all there is…
No.1036
>>1035Good. Now please leave and never come back.
No.1037
>>1036What he said.
>>1035You've been communicated to clearly enough. You've just chosen to ignore everything that's been said.
The most basic of your own scripture you can't even wrap your head round. The concept of free will. Even the most retarded 'fedora' wearing atheist would know that little tidbit. So you can't be that 'good' of a Christian. I'm sure there's an indulgence you can pay, or a number of hail Mary's and How's your fathers to make up for it though. My advice would be to go all out and engage in flagellation. But I doubt you'd know what that is if you can't even grasp the concept of free will.
No.1038
>>1028I'm in tears of joy, it's beautiful. It must be fresh yes? It's glorious, thank you for giving birth to this. And you claim there is no god, the irony, to claim such pasta is not part of a bigger plan, ludicrous.
>>1035Cheer up buddy, at least you've got great taste in anime. Although, It's not the best girl, but hey it's not the worst either.
>>1036How about you leave? Since you're infinitely more toxic, and provided nothing to this conversation. I'll take a bet and propose you're the same person from earlier in the thread with >muh facts >muh /feels/ clutter
No.1039
>>1038>How about you leave?You could choose to ignore him. But that would imply that free will exists. And we all know that you don't believe in that.
No.1043
>>1039First I'll let you know you're arguing with a completely different person, I just plopped into this thread for that marvelous spaghetti the irishman trickled down his pants onto arisuchan's black marble floor. Now lets get to the nitty gritty of what I think, free will exists depends in what context you look at it. From outside of you, you objectively have no free will, every action you take is predetermined by every action and consequence you took before. We're nothing but big squishy complex machine learning things. (We can argue about true randomness till the cows come home partner but I'm very unlikely to change my opinion unless you spawn a divine being that can predict the future who assures me that "listen kid, quarks move randomly by design, deal with it" and even then it's stretching it because how can it foresee the future if not for predeterminism? I don't see anything but seeing the infinite future to be proof of godhood (this would imply knowledge and power BEYOND knowing every law in the universe inside out and the intelligence capacity to process it on a whim, which alone is quite admirable), guess I'll have to take its word on it though) In your head, I guess you're allowed to consider what happens there free will, you've got not choice but to, from the simplest decisions, but all of existence has already carved a path for you, you're not doing much but uncovering it. You can take your triumphs and losses as consequences of free will, but they're just results of your previous experiences, and the rest of existence, which is predetermined just like you.
Are you going to reply? Or won't you? You could ignore the process but that choice will involve a lot of thinking for you, usually you won't notice it. You've got many systems in place to decide if to respond, some may override others, you might try to compare this soykaffest to other things you responded to, and those results, that would even alter your response if you decide to respond, to achieve the most positive outcome. Forget that, will it be in your honor to defend your subjectively true and good anonymous thoughts? Where'd you get that value anyway? Defending what's right? Is it internal angst, the valor of others, or as the irishman, the misbehavior of others, that you've been subjected to over the years? My point is, you'll be basing this decision on your past actions and their consequences, and there's nothing you can do to change that. You can laugh me off and simply not respond, and that wouldn't invalidate my point.
I'm not an unreasonable person though, I realize this entire reply is based on prederminism theory, which is a THEORY, but can you explain the world without it?
>bruh we're still having trouble figuring out how bicycles work you want us to know how quarks and soykaf move around?So I'll give it a couple more years/decades before deciding whether to accept that things are truly random and we have some magic goo in our brains that grants us any sort of semblance of free will.
P.S. best girl right here
No.1047
So we've got one idiot that believe in non-existent sky fairies, and one idiot that believes in non-existent equations.
No.1048
>>1047Still got you to respond baka, so you either want more or simply want to call me a loon, I'll take it either way.
>non-existentThey used to thinks atoms comprised the most fundamental layer of matter, then they discovered more. I'm surprised that such a logic oriented individual, such as yourself, wouldn't even entertain the idea that everything follows laws, and that everything has logic behind it, even the endless chaos you're wrapped in. Could the universe be so vast that everything and anything has and will happen? Could your perception of this chaotic nothingness be just a small grey dot on the universe's crt tv, almost identical to its neighbors?
Forgive me, I'm so self centered, say… What do you believe in? Or, well, know, if you'd prefer that? We might have a fun conversation. Cows are still out and about.
No.1049
>>1048I'll let you know you're arguing with a completely different person, I just plopped into this thread for that marvelous spaghetti the imaginary mathematician trickled down his pants onto arisuchan's black marble floor.
No.1050
>>1049Would work better if I wasn't writing borderline nonsense and posting an anime character with every reply, but I commend you for the effort and apologize if I offended you. While I am poking fun at you it isn't my intention to make you feel bad.
Perhaps still consider responding with your utmost beliefs you know to be true?
No.1052
Please stop posting with the same anime character every post (or using them at all; unless you're explicitly voicing the authentic in-lore opinion of the character throughout the whole conversation).
It somewhat helps with identifying your posts by glance, but at the cost of about -30% assumed intelligence
No.1054
>>1052Well, I spilled my heart but you refuse to spill yours, so I guess this too must come to and end. Pretend I've added a picture with a little silhouette of a witch flying away on her broom across the night sky with a big huge moon backing her and masking her colors.
I'll think of you when I'm reminded of Ireland.
Adios.
No.1057
>>1054>I'll think of you when I'm reminded of Ireland.I'll let you know you're arguing with a completely different person, I just plopped into this thread for that marvelous spaghetti the imaginary mathematician trickled down his pants onto arisuchan's black marble floor.
