Would Christians rather give up their faith permanently, or let 50 people burn to death horribly?
>>598764
Could a true Christian ever truly give up their faith? Who would be the judge of that?
>>598764
The way I understand the whole heaven/hell tradeoff, Heaven is like a +infinity reward, and any amount of suffering on earth is finite. So from a numbers standpoint, having every single human being suffer a lifetime of pure agony would not outweigh the potential reward in the afterlife of a single soul.
Apostasy is never justifiable.
>>598802
Christianity isn't utilitarian.
>>598802
Suffering in hell is infinite
>>598811
Would you rather have 1 million people tortured eternally or give up your faith?
What would be your cut off point?
>>598820
The end doesn't justify the means in Christianity, full stop.
>>598764
Give up my faith
Then do what the bible ascribes and practice in secret.
Also that picis amazing on so many levels. It's like a multicultural concentrate
>>598817
Right, its the -infinity side of the equation? So anything and everything the church asks you to do is worth it, otherwise....
>>598820
The point of Christianity is one innocent man suffered so that all could be saved.
Same point for "if you find one good person, I won't destroy Soddom and Gomorrah"
>>598826
I can understand not giving up your faith under the threat of personal injury.
But this? This is sick.
>>598836
The person doing the killing is who is sick.
>>598764
Define 'giving up christianity.'
How one could see what lies in someone else's heart? What if the person is doing 'taqiyya' for their whole live.
>>598859
Taqiyya isn't permissible in Christianity.
>>598859
Let's say for the sake of argument that we have some kind of sophisticated neural surgery we can perform that will instantly and painlessly remove your faith.
In addition we have a comprehensive neural scanner that can tell with complete accuracy what someone believes, to verify.
Given these convenient abilities, what is your price in human misery to hold on to your faith? Just as a hypothetical.
>>598838
Not that anon, but what if you could save those people from dying by giving up your faith? Also, what if god sends you to hell for not saving their lives instead?
>>598764
an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth
>>598870
Denying your faith nullifies in Christianity anyway, at least in God's eyes. You can secretly hold it without being blatantly, but you exist the covenant the moment you explicitly deny it. This is something you can repent of (like Peter did), but it has to open and vocal, you have to repent your denial of Christ with appropriate acts.
>>598881
I dont understand what you mean, i get talions law, but what does it have to do with the post?
>>598764
1. HOW IS THAT A VALID DICHOTOMY?
2. FAITH IS NOT JUST "RELINQUISHED"; FAITH CAN ONLY BE LOST, OR GAINED.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT FAITH IS? I DO NOT THINK SO.
YOUR QUESTION IS AS ABSURD AS ASKING: "WOULD YOU GIVE UP YOUR EMPATHY?"
>>598878
Christianity isn't utilitarian. He's not going to send me to hell for refusing to deny him. Sophia the Martyr had all her children slain for her refusal to deny Christ.
Now, I can opt to die in their place. I can be tortured for these people. All that I would be willing to do (but it would scare the shit out of me). I cannot deny Christ, though, full stop.
>>598882
*exit the covenant
>>598878
Majority of gods care about souls more that about lives, because humans are mortals by design.
>>598764
What's the context?
>>598893
>that
than
>>598891
Define faith then.
>>598893
"Life" and "soul" are synonymous in Christianity. Christ literally says "whoever will lose their soul for my sake will gain it"
>>598897
"FAITH": TOTAL TRUST IN SOMEONE, OR SOMETHING, AND TOTAL FIDELITY TOWARD SOMEONE, OR SOMETHING.
All humans should pray a Manager for building /religons/ section on this forum.
>>598892
Good response.
>>598913
Could you lose your trust in someone then?
>>598764
Would atheists rather that random strangers be tortured if it meant keeping dust out of their eyes?
>>598922
OBVIOUSLY, BUT TRUST CANNOT BE RELINQUISHED; ID EST: IT CANNOT BE LOST AT WILL.
WHY IS IT THAT I AM EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU?
ARE YOU MENTALLY IMPAIRED?
>>598892
>I cannot deny Christ, though, full stop.
If it was good enough for Peter it's good enough for you, Constanmeme.
>>598950
Fidelity isn't just trust, it's also loyalty.
>>598956
Uh, you think Peter's denial of Christ is some example meant to be followed?
>>598950
>ARE YOU MENTALLY IMPAIRED
>says the tripfaggot who uses caps lock as a gimmick on a history forum
>>598965
He repented and it was a-OK. It's basically the Christian version of taqqiya.
>>598971
No, it's more comparable to Paul persecuting Christians and repenting.
>>598987
Unrelated to the thread but:
In the Gospels Jesus is said to have predicted that the Second Coming would happen within the lifetime of his followers at the time "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Mark 13)
We're now 2000 years or so down the line, does the Orthodox Church have a convincing explanation for why it didn't happen?
>>598893
worng mankind was created as imortal beings(godlike infact) but adam and eve were trick out of it by being decevied into thing it was somthing they did not have
>>599019
"Generation" means the entire line of people, not like we use it today. It could mean how we use it today, but that was more of a secondary meaning, it was must more completely used to indicate a line (the "generation of Abraham" for instance, would mean all his progeny and their progeny and so on). So Christ means it will happen before humanity passes away. The day or the hour, no one knows, that is why trying to make predictions with Revelations is so futile.
However, Christians did get a "foretaste" of Revelations, so to speak (Simon bar Kokhba was a foretaste of the Antichrist).
>>598764
>Would Christians rather entertain (not believe, entertain) the idea that Hinduism is correct, or would they rather have 1000 innocents sent to hell?
Was thinking of converting to Catholicism but this type of logic really disturbs me, it's psychotic.
Should I bring it up with my priest?
>>599073
Then what about Matthew 16:27,28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" ? Is death then meant in the sense that people only die when they are forgotten, and that since the Apostles are still remembered they haven't truly "died"?
>>599106
Christ said the kingdom of God is within (or among) you. That is, the Kingdom of God is the Church.
>>599100
Are you talking about OP's question, or what you wrote in the green text?
>>599133
Green text, I am sincere, just having trouble digesting these kinds of moral problems
>>599143
There's no sin in hypotheticals unless they become fantasies.
>>599129
I've been reading about Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius on Christianity. Can you direct me to further non-Christian historical accounts regarding early Christianity?
>>599159
Probably not, must historians hardly say anything about the Essenes, let alone Christians who took a while to become a sizable demographic of Essenes. I don't see any reason not to accept what Papias of Hierapolis said about the Biblical accounts, though
>>599177
*most historians contemporary with that period
>>598764
Kill them all. God will know His own.
>>598949
Atheists commit less crime. Empathy is not a matter of faith
>>599177
Hmmm. I'm trying to find historical evidence that supports Christianity being true but I don't consider the New Testament a factual historic document, so finding non-Christian sources that can correlate or confirm things in the Bible and events from that time (like Tacitus confirming the Crucifixion) is important to me. Thanks for you help though.
>>598764
There's no cutoff point. It is never better to give up the faith than not, because the good consists in the perfection of one's nature as what one is, and before anything else one is God's creature.
>>599212
Committing less crime doesn't necessarily make you more empathetic.
>>599217
That's true.
Being an atheist does, though.
>>599100
>innocents
>original sin
Only non-christians who have never heard of christ before get a very restrictive pass. If they heard of the good news of christ and continued to sin then they knowingly continue sinning. Like a cannibal who continues to eat men even if demonstrated that not being a cannibal is better
The lord said there is no greater deed than a man who lays down his life to save another.
It is the ultimate act of love he said. I would do it.
I know I wouldn't go to hell. I wouldn't go to heaven either. I'd be waiting for judgement day
>>599214
Like I said, there aren't even any surviving historical records before Christ that mention the Essenes, except Philo. During the early Church, I think only Pliny mentions them, and at the time he was writing, Christians were only a fraction of the Essenes. So trying to find non-Christians who cared enough to be writing about Christianity before it was a massive movement, probably isn't going to pan out. There were tens of thousands of religious movements at the time, and Christianity was one of the smallest for quite a while.
>>599218
Why?
>>599228
So, outside of faith, why do you think it's true?
>>598764
This question forces the answerer to make too many assumptions. What are the circumstances? Are those really the only options? Are you trolling a reaction in /his/ when others are better for that purpose?
>>599233
From the point of view of an unbiased historian, there is no reason to reject the account of Papias of Hierapolis
>>599230
That is debatable, personally I think that the reward and objective morality system probably means people don't learn to appreciate the onherent goodness in feeling for your fellow man. All we know is that it is demonstrably true
>>599241
You think so, eh?
>>599244
That's not what it means to love somebody. Of course, if you change definitions you can make everything fit according to your worldview.
People raised in secular homes are demonstrably more just, compassionate and altruistic.
Of course, if you change the meaning dishonestly and make it inherently a religious function, you are just doing a cop-out.
Imagine if someone said all christians are evil, and then argued that "evilness is by definition to believe in god", would you find that a satisfactory argument?
>>599244
"To love someone isn't to love them" - that one guy who isn't as good as Tolstoy
>>599259
Are they compassionate and empathetic when it comes to the unborn?
>>599268
Tolstoy never wrote anything half as profound as Notes from the Underground. But it's not really appropriate to compare Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, since they had very different outlooks and concerns. Tolstoy didn't even write about the same economic class Dostoevsky did.
I consider myself christian living by the values taught to me in my past religious studies (catholic school), but I would rather give up on my faith than let some poor sod die because I was too proud.
Not that much of a big deal to me, since I'm not religious anyways.
>>598795
Came here to post this
You can't voluntarily lose your faith
>>599273
>notes
>even have as good as the death of Ivan ilyich
I'll grant that notes is very good
In any case, Christians gonna wank over whatever author they like most theologically, and Dostoevsky does that weepy "life is so horrible and tragic and god is the only answer to that tragedy :-((" and it makes me sick to read.
>>599278
If you're using the term "faith" to mean loyalty, as in "always faithful", then you can certainly renounce. If you're using it the way James does, as in trust in God coupled with fear, then no you can't voluntarily lose it, but since James says demons have strong faith (but not works), it's not worth anything on its own anyhow.
>>599269
Are christians compassionate to the rocks and roads they walk on? Empathy is to understand and realize that other beings can feel and that you are not the only one that deserves not to suffer. To empathize with the unborn is impossible, cause they neither feel nor do they live. It's a controversial subject though, there are plenty atheists that feel abortion is reprehensible.
By the way Constantine, can you tell me a bit about yourself? I find you pretty fascinating. Are you a theologian or just an enthusiastic christian?
>>599286
Notes is a work of profound philosophy on the level of Nietzsche. It is extremely dense and has layers of literary, satire, philosophy, theology and politics. I actually plan to write a commentary of each chapter to post on /lit/ down the road, but I'll write as I go. It's such a powerful work. So is Crime and Punishment and his other long stuff, but that's too long for me to make extensive commentary on in one OP.
>>598838
And you had the chance to stop him.
But you're apparently fine with people being tormented in eternity for ignorance or rejection of Christianity, so why should anyone expect of you any moral decency.
>>599293
Rocks are not human beings.
>>599299
I'm not fine with it, not at all. It's not like I want them to be.
>>599301
Neither are fetuses
>>599303
Yes, they actually are,.by definition.
>>599292
Through faith alone : ^)
>>599297
Uh, it's not that great, but I suppose I'll have to read your arguments.
I don't see it having much profundity outside of Dostoevskys understanding of the psyche, and in either case you're reading that into his work, whereas it's undeniable in Nietzsche (the most profound thinker certainly of his age)
>>599297
Pastebin it and link it in your Orthodox FAQ when you're done? I've read Notes and C&P but knowing very little about the religious side of things It seemed like there was a lot I simply couldn't understand. Despite that I found both compelling reading.
>>599305
>2016
>appealing to definition
Are you genuinely persuaded by analytic reasoning of this sort?
>>599305
No they actually aren't. They are by definition not human yet. And definition is not a good argument anyway, pedantry doesn't make something moral.
>>599311
That's because he's probably reading a bunch into the work that's not there. The Brothers Karamazov is obviously Christian in its intentions. Notes has no such reading, it's no more than the story of the 19th century 4chan autist told with a deep understanding of the human psyche.
>>599309
I posted an earlier thread on it here
>>>/lit/7608603
>>>/lit/7615270
>>>/lit/7617856
But I'll talk about it in a much more detailed way next thread
Notes from Underground laid out the concepts of ressentiment and the Last Man exactly as Nietzsche did, before he did, and Raskolnikov's explanation of the "extraordinary man" is 100% synonymous with Nietzsche's idea of thee Ubermensch.
>>599302
Yet you worship both the doctrine and the deity who enforces it.
Isn't one of the promised joys of heaven looking down on the suffering of the damned?
Either way, you've already admitted a million lives is worth less to you than your faith. Is it any wonder to you why some may find the religion perverse?.
>>599311
I will, if it's extensive enough to merit it. The Underground Man's description of "retrogate" guy who rejects paradise and leads a rebellion against it, parallels the Devil very much. Dostoevsky's work is laced with the paradox of freedom--freedom over reason is both what Christianity means to Dostoevsky, and also what defiance of God can mean (such as the atheist in hell in the Brothers Karamazov, who simply rejects 2 + 2 = 4, so to speak, when he denies the reality of hell because it disagrees with his sensibilities, and he says the whole thing is absurd and he just lies down and refuses to get up.)
>>599314
They are by definition human already. Dehumanizing them doesn't make killing them moral.
>>599228
Josephus is our other source on the Essenes.
>>599318
Do you have concrete grounds to say the underground man is a response to that guy?
As far as your other speculation, claiming the underground man self-sabotages out of existentialist freedom is about the worst reading I can imagine. He's a self-sabotaging character because he's afraid of leaving his pattern in life. Dostoevsky is getting toward the existentialist message and he does that through that conduit by showing the life of the ultimate "last man"
He also doesn't capture the full nuance if Nietzsche, at all
>>599319
First off, Tertullian was the one who said that was a joy of heaven and he is the father of "Latin Christianity", not Orthodox. As for the second person Nietzsche ascribed the quote to, Aquinas, Nietzsche completely fabricated that, but Aquinas was also a Latin thinker anyway.
Moreover, the very idea is incoherent due to the Orthodox conception of hell: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/st-isaac-the-syrian-the-hellish-scourge-of-divine-love/
I would give my life for those millions if I could, I would do anything I could, but denying God is not something I could do, because it is wrong. Christian morality is not flexible, it's not utilitarian. Right and wrong are not relative or varying, they are cut and dry. I cannot kill a person to save a million either. I couldn't switch the tracks on the trolley.
>>599337
There are no facts, only interpretations. Pretending you've found "higher" truths is unworldly bullshit that nobody can accept
>>599334
>Do you have concrete grounds to say the underground man is a response to that guy?
Yes, absolutely, the "Crystal Palace" was a structure in London that the protagonist of What Is To Be Done? fantasizes about turning into a utopia commune, and the Underground Man refers to utopia as "the Crystal Palace".
>>599328
They arent human. Saying otherwise in a dictionary doesn't make it so.
They do not feel or think, they are just clumps of meat and fat.
>>599341
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
>>599343
Be careful with your line of thinking. Someone might say you aren't human one day, and say you don't think or feel consciousness because there is no proof you are more sentient than a complex machine. It might be because of your race or your IQ or any number of factors, but when you try to use a soul to define humanity without subscribing the soul, it is dangerous.
>>598949
How many people are protected from eye trauma?
This is important.
>>599342
That's interesting, but I think then the work is a reductio ad absurdum and you're still reading it wrong. I see no reason to infer that the underground man is a conscious existentialist. I mean, we both see /r9k/, it seems intuitive to me that he's trying to model that person, the living example of people who self-sabotage and avoid happiness. Except I don't think anyone on /r9k/ recognizes this motivation in themselves as neither does the underground man
>>599346
"I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go."
>>599349
That's STRENGTH, brother.
Let the strong eat the weak
>>599328
Okay, but seriously though, where do the chains hang from?
>>599349
>because there is no proof you are more sentient than a complex machine
Be careful with your thinking. A fetus is less sentient than any machine, for at least they process on some level.
Besides, do you think we should have the right to dismantle a machine that perfectly emulates human consciousness? Because it doesn't have a soul?
>>599334
Remember that Kaufmann said Notes from Underground is, "the best overture for Existentialism ever written." Nietzsche said after reading it, that Dostoevsky was a "kinsman" and "a psychological genius".
>>599359
>That's interesting, but I think then the work is a reductio ad absurdum and you're still reading it wrong.
Have you actually read any commentary on it? I'm curious because I have read quite a bit, and what I'm saying is not anything knew, but common knowledge.
>"I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes!
Christianity is about inheriting the earth.
>>599369
Such a machine doesn't exist. Fetuses do.
>>599377
I'll add that the guy Dostoevsky was responding to (who was a sensation among the socialist, atheist establishment) is mentioned often in his letters.
>>599378
And fetuses have no consciousness, nor do they at all think anything. They are less sentient than ants.
But if such a machine existed, would you feel it was not worthy of empathy? Such a machine could eventually exist
>>599385
>And fetuses have no consciousness
What makes you say so?
>>599387
Reality.
>>599392
Infants start learning their mother's voice in the womb.
>>599371
That doesn't make the underground man admirable at all. He's exactly the person you're supposed to have disdain for. Only a Christian could conclude that he has some strength of character.
>>598764
>>598795
>>598802
Why is everyone so autistic? No kidding you can't voluntarily give up faith and of course it couldn't be measured. It's a hypothetical to understand what the choice would be if it were possible.
"Hur dur I'd do neither, I'd call the fire department to save the people"
Not being able to distinguish between between fantasy and reality is a symptom of autism -- get yourselves checked.
>>599385
>Such a machine could eventually exist
According to what? Consciousness is not something that can be directly observed, it is barely understood. You're beginning the question in building in the idea that it is strictly materialist.
>>599377
Commentary by whom? Plenty of idiots say lots of things about things.
>>599397
No, it's a symptom of a bullshit question because it means it serves no purpose in ethics.
All actual good hypotheticals are grounded in plausibility, this one is just the edgy thought of a middle schooler who just came up with his first "deep" question.
>>599394
Do books have consciousness? Retaining information is not sentience.
And of course, atheists do almost universally not condone late stage abortion
>>599396
Dostoevsky isn't saying you're "supposed" to disdain or admire him, he's not that simplistic. The only clear cut "don't be this" people in Dostoevsky are the nihilists who think morality is something to be transcended (and even these people he gives great depth and perhaps more cerebral power an argumentation ability than to anyone else), and the only character who is ever really a just a voice for Dostoevsky's own sentiments is the Elder Zosima.
>>599398
>According to what?
Observations of the brain are taking rather big steps. It's likely that we can dynamically make a perfect(physical) emulation long before we understand it
>>599401
Kaufmann, Pevear, James Scanlan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4UTH0YDNwI
>>599403
Someone could just as easily say you are nothing more than a book
>>599407
Making an artificial, functioning copy of a human brain is about as closer (and as likely) as time travel.
>>599405
So Ilyusha's father isn't meant to be dostoevsky's mouthpiece either?
Nietzsche also believed people who tried to transcend morality were undesirable nihilists. But that's not at all what I'm talking about.
The underground man STORY isn't meant to be a judging story, yes, obviously, neither is the death of Ivan ilyich. But if your personal value set suggests the underground man is a piece of shit, as any person rightly should, then you can speak of that topic
The underground man made a promise and broke it. On any level of human interpretation, he's a shitty human being that we all ought to mock.
No, lying to a woman and breaking her heart is not existential heroism on any level
>>599411
Kaufmann said, explicitly, that the underground man is an existentialist hero?
>>599337
>, but denying God is not something I could do, because it is wrong.
Fanaticism has consequences. A choice so simple that harms no one but saves millions, and you take the moral high ground in spite of them.
>I would give my life for those millions if I could, I would do anything
> I can opt to die in their place. I can be tortured for these people. All that I would be willing to do
But if you did renounce your faith and were in fact sent to hell for it, it would be the same sacrifice. No, your salvation and the petty whims of a tyrant are more important to you than the well beings of other. That's why you, the Catholic church, or any Abrahamic religion have no stock in morality, nor have any business lecturing others on it.
>>599425
>Making an artificial, functioning copy of a human brain is about as closer (and as likely) as time travel
Not if you ask just about any neurologist, computer scientist or physicist.
>>599427
>So Ilyusha's father isn't meant to be dostoevsky's mouthpiece either?
No. Why do you think this?
>No, lying to a woman and breaking her heart is not existential heroism on any level
The Underground Man goes on from the first sentence about how wicked he is. I think you missed the point. He might be repulsive (which he chooses to be), but he's not there to illustrate what you aren't supposed to be like.
>>599430
No. And he's not an "existentialist hero," he's an existentialist villain.
>>599435
They'd by lying. There's no computer that could even process the most infinitesimal fraction of the data the human brain does in a second, we ourselves aren't even smart enough to comprehend a fraction of it, a great deal is unconscious.
>>599437
>No. Why do you think this?
Because Dostoevsky had a son die young, who was named Alyosha? Ilyusha's father is the voice of his despair
>The Underground Man goes on from the first sentence about how wicked he is.
So do /r9k/ frog posters
>I think you missed the point. He might be repulsive (which he chooses to be), but he's not there to illustrate what you aren't supposed to be like.
Stop acting like one hermeneutic approach is the right one. I'm granting you every fact of the matter (I.E., that Dostoevsky is responding to that materialist [which is summarized even pithier in Nietzsche]), but I think you've just stumbled upon a pretty out there interpretation that you're clinging to, and at this point posturing as though that exegesis is present in the text itself.
>>599431
>A choice so simple that harms no one but saves millions, and you take the moral high ground in spite of them.
A choice so simple would be for the person who is doing this ridiculous thing, not to kill them. Rather than creating this ridiculous hypothetical which is as perverse as asking if you would rape a woman if it would save a million lives.
>>599447
He's not existentialist at all, you're just confusing the author's psychological explanations with the character's conscious explanations of his motivations
The book is nothing more than an account of how someone can choose unhappiness, even live in tension with it, there's nothing existentialist about the text beyond who and where the lens is focused.
>>599453
Incorrect, there are some estimates on the brains provessing power, and according to those estimates current supercomputers are getting pretty close
>>599454
>Because Dostoevsky had a son die young, who was named Alyosha? Ilyusha's father is the voice of his despair
I would say the distressed woman who comes to Zosima is more of that. But neither of them were voiceboxes.
>So do /r9k/ frog posters
They don't have the same thought process the Underground Man does, c'mon, man. The Underground Man would intentionally wear a trenchcoat and fedora because it was "cinematic", knowing full well that is cringe-worthy, and in fact would cease to wear it if weren't cringeworthy, because that is the only reason he wears them.
>Stop acting like one hermeneutic approach is the right one
There are way more layers to the work than just one, but like I said, I'll write that all out later, and I will quote Dostoevsky's letters quite a bit.
>>599471
Alright, well I think you're full of shit on the matter, so I'll wait now for your posts rather than tread this road further.
>>598764
How do you suppose you go about "forcing" a person to stop believing in God.
>>599466
>What does reason know? Reason knows only what it has managed to learn (some things, perhaps, it will never learn; this is no consolation, but why not say it anyway?), while human nature acts as an entire whole, with everything that is in it, consciously and unconsciously, and though it lies, still it lives. I suspect, gentlemen, that you are looking at me with pity; you repeat to me that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, simply cannot knowingly want anything unprofitable for himself, that this is mathematics. I agree completely, it is indeed mathematics. But I repeat to you for the hundredth time, there is only one case, one only, when man may purposely, consciously wish for himself even the harmful, the stupid, even what is stupidest of all: namely, so as to have the right to wish for himself even what is stupidest of all and not be bound by an obligation to wish for himself only what is intelligent. For this stupidest of all, this caprice of ours, gentlemen, may in fact be the most profitable of anything on earth for our sort, especially in certain cases. And in particular it may be more profitable than all other profits even in the case when it is obviously harmful and contradicts the most sensible conclusions of our reason concerning profits – because in any event it preserves for us the chiefest and dearest thing, that is, our personality and our individuality.
If that isn't existentialist, I don't know what is.
>>599470
No, they are not. Computers cannot even process the thought of someone making you cold.
>>599494
And what are you basing this off? Your own sensibilities?
>>599505
I'm basing it off it is being simply too much data. For a computer to process the human imagination, it would be like holodeck from Star Trek, but even more advanced than that by far.
>>599460
>A choice so simple would be for the person who is doing this ridiculous thing, not to kill them
And once again you try to absolve yourself of accountability. I'll let the other anons decide for themselves whether or not your reasoning is valid.
>you would rape a woman if it would save a million lives.
You're really going to equate inflicting rape with denying Christianity?
Regardless, here's your answer. If a million lives were at stake, I don't care if it was on camera and my name spread across the news, tarnishing my reputation forever. I would rape a woman. Then I would probably kill myself afterwards.
Gentlemen, I must be off, Christ calls. I will be back later today though.
>>599488
>you repeat to me that an enlightened and developed man, such, in short, as the future man will be, simply cannot knowingly want anything unprofitable for himself
This section is geared towards this. Dosto is arguing against any conception of man that ends in utopia, especially here sounding like Feuerbachian socialism, where "without the constraints of X, Y", humans will be perfect and happy.
Yeah. No shit. Being against Hegelian Ends of History, socialist Utopias, any project that determines what man should be and concludes our reason will take us there is stupid.
The underground man is a pure negation of that, the reminder that we are Human, All Too Human and even in a place of relative privilege, with everything set up for success, we may not do it. Again, I'll refer you to /r9k/.
How many times have you heard frog posters purposefully rejecting women to get one over against "the system"? They choose isolation and misery over the discomfort of chasing "sluts". Maybe that's existentialist, but if so, it tells you nothing positive about what you ought to be, it's demonstrating the negative.
But then, its a slave morality, because one ought not define their morality by negatives.
It's just a work of art to show a type of person who stands as a negation of "expectations" of men to be a certain way. To make men conform to one habit. That doesn't make each person who doesn't fit into society an existentialist.
>>599510
Yet nothing in reality substantiates that claim. Even if the brain was the most optimal processing unit theoretically possible, then considering the size and caloric expenditure it is well within the reach of computers in the foreseeable future. But of course, there's nothing to indicate the brain is even that good, and all you're saying is completely baseless
The martyrs were willing to let themselves die rather than publicly renounce their faith, but they're martyrs. Is it wrong for a normal person to renounce their faith in speech, but not their heart if their life depended on it? In other words, is there a concept of Taqiyya in christianity?
>>598950
So would you agree with me that someone does not choose to believe? You either believe or you dont.
You can call yourself whatever you,want but belief is not a choice, right?
>>599967
I think that what we call "belief" is an emergent property of intellectual capacity as well as the impression of more-or-less convincing information or personal experiences.
Essentially you end up believing something if it strikes you as plausible. Sorry if that is tautological.
This is why people have diverse beliefs, due to the spectrum of intellect and the infinity of presentations of arguments. Any given statement might be believed by some people but rejected by others, each in their capacity to receive the statement and fit it into their concept of reality.
Some people are convinced of some "truth" only because of an emotional response. I'll come right out and say it, this is what I think religion is all about.
"Christian" women don't think twice about giving it up for Ahmeds' cocks so probably yeah..
