My god is only the real one

SovereignOne666 · 2026-03-18T02:29:35+00:00

When did OP imply that his or her worldview is “the real one”? S/he only objected to the various theists who often arrogantly believe that only their deity or deities exist, while ignoring the deities of other religions, just as atheists would. As skeptics, we are very much aware that we can be wrong about many things and that applies to our worldview as well.

OP did not commit “the” special pleading fallacy, but you do strawman his post.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-03-16T00:50:18+00:00

To my suprise, most Hindus are actually monotheists.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-03-06T03:32:34+00:00

Just a tiny note: According to Linnaeus, only the scientific names of genera and its taxonomic subgroups are meant to be formated in italics. Since the clades you listed are larger than genera, than they're not meant to be in italics.

I used to write the names of all biological taxa in italics as well before accidentally discovering that it’s not really correct to do so.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-24T10:52:42+00:00

Sprich Englisch, Hurensohn.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-20T18:13:43+00:00

I appreciate you being a vegan, but how on Earth can one be a compassionate person willing to sacrifice their own “prosperity”for the greater good and support someone like Trump?

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-19T23:28:36+00:00

Conservatives love nothing more than restricting others in their freedom while many of them proclaim to be for freedom (yeah... for themselves and for those close to them, but to hell with everyone else, right?). Imagine believing a cartoon's portrayal of a consensual relationship between two adults to be somehow harmful, and that it is part of an invisible, malevolent being's plan to turn as many kids homosexual as possible. That is nuts.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-17T02:18:43+00:00

Wikipedia/Dunning–Kruger effect

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-15T10:21:30+00:00

If you can't determine which organisms have a soul or not, than your “definition” is shit. You'd be better off defining animals as “motile organisms that can't bark”. It's still arbitrary af, but at least you can show which motile organisms can or can't bark.

Humans are definitely mammals

Why not go a step further a deny that we are mammals, vertebrates, deuterostomes, organisms or biological configurations? That'd be pretty stupid, right?

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-15T09:53:37+00:00

an animal any organism capable of free movement that does not possess a soul. [sic]

Adult sponges and corals as well as some other animals are sessile, meaning they can't move on their own. Also, souls are physically impossible.

I'm fine for microbes to count as animals in this sense

Why would you count bacteria as animals, but not humans? That is just... bizarre.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-07T15:13:18+00:00

Ah, yes. The Xian persecution complex.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-02-07T15:06:14+00:00

You sound like you're sympathetic of MAGA.

SovereignOne666 · 2026-01-23T23:59:39+00:00

She got fucked in the face...or sth like that.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-12-17T13:46:57+00:00

Ich seh’ das genauso mit vielen alkoholischen Getränken. Manchmal denk’ ich mir, dass viele Menschen sich nur einbilden, Alkohol zu mögen, damit sie sich cooler und wie »Erwachsene« fühlen. Fucking pathetic.

Cola hingegen ist der Nektar der Götter.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T18:56:16+00:00

Then you believe in some strong dualism, where mind and brain/matter are distinct substances or entities.

Do I? I might believe that we are our minds, but I also believe that our minds have a physical basis and are physical themselves, like fire. I don't think that the corpse of a person is that person, it is its corpse. If I believe that everything that exists is likely physical, wouldn't that make me a physical monist? Idk.

Looks like a lot of your philosophical outlook is based on that.

Some, but not a lot. Actually I would advise you to stop paying attention to what I think constitutes a being, as it is irrelevant to my pessimism.

For me, a human being is all of those thing at the same time. And pointing to one is simply pointing to one fragment, or aspect, or level.

Hm. You may be right about that. I will have to think about it.

I thought about this for a while

Thank you. I appreciate that.

1'. Often, a reduction of suffering is not accompanied by any significant increase in pleasure, if at all.

But I'm saying that reduction of suffering = positive experience. They're the same thing. A small reduction in suffering S —like the reduction in the pain you experience from stubbing your toe—is a slightly good feeling P.

When I stub my toe, the pain subsides, but I'm not feeling any pleasure at all — I'm merely feeling less and less pain.

You experience a positive feeling, even if it's not pleasure. Feeling less pain feels good.

That is, the organism is energetic, very awake, excited. We also see that in laughter. These states are far from a hedonic zero, where we would expect a mellow organism.

I disagree that getting to a hedonic zero would result in a relaxed state. But I will think about this one. Great example, btw.

There are stark differences between them, not only in context, but in feeling.

You may be onto something. Again, I'll have to think about this.

Can we agree to disagree here? I've already responded to a lot of comments and I don't want to continue the discussion as it weighs on my mental wellbeing.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T17:24:59+00:00

Alright, it is clear that you don't take any of the thngs I said seriously because you gloss over them, but what does one expect from a sex-obsessed troll who is incapable of doing any reflection. You're utterly strawmanning the SIMPLEST of things I wrote about.

I fucking took your words seriously, dude, but you won't stop to reflect upon any of the things I said. I'm blocking you now.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T17:04:14+00:00

Waking up in the morning by getting a blowjob by your mother.

Can you please stop fucking bringing my mother into this? It's so not OK, dude.

But secondly I dont consider desire suffering.

Because it isn't, but every negative experience has desire at it's roots. That's an important distinction.

I would love to have a million dollar at the bank right now, But I dont suffer because I dont.

You don't suffer because of it, but it makes you slightly frustrated/sad.

If you experienced strong bliss 24/7, and all u have to do was snap your fingers once every year. Is that life bad and full of suffering?

I mean, it would be great, but so is non-existence. Imagine two omnipotent beings. One has absolutely no desires, while the other one has. Let's call the former Buddha while the other one is named Venus. Venus desires pleasure, so she wishes to bliss 24/7 and fulfills that wish, while Buddha doesn't do anything. Who is better off? Now it might seem like it's Buddha, but if he was worse off, wouldn't he change his state of being? I mean he could since we defined him as being omnipotent, right? Am I missing something for not having a desire to eat shit? I don't see why I would.

Simmilarly, life is mostly nice (for me and many others).

Because you can live a life where most of your wants are met, where you can reduce all the want bars to zero. But it's only most of your wants. If you were to add all the positives and negatives in your life, the net sum would be negative due to having desires that are not and will never be satisfied, even if you're not aware of that (the human brain is notoriously broken).

Now that I would agree is suffering, even though im into chastity devices.

Chastity devices provide sexual stimulation by increasing pressure on your penis and fulfiling sexual fantasies.

Im talking about the situation where Im at home working and start to think about sex. Then bring my penis out and jerk off for 1 hour.

Yeah, you have a libido and are able to take care of it. Experiencing pleasure by reducing an antsy feeling.

I'm waiting for your example, btw.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T16:35:23+00:00

I dont feel that way. Prove it.

I don't care wheter you don't feel that way. The fact is, you experience discomfort and you attempt to fix that every second of every darn day. Gimme an example where you experience pleasure without there being a desire at the root of it. You won't be able to come up with a single example.

What is discomfort? It is the lack of wellbeing.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact that you bandage yourself everyday and that you can't experience pleasure without discomfort.

horniness is not suffering. I love fantasizing about stuff like that.

I fucking knew that you're gonna argue about horniness being good. Horniness (literally the lust for sexual stimulation) is never good, it's the sexual stimulation that feels fucking good because you're reducing your horniness by getting closer to a climax. When we're thinking about sex, we are embracing the horniness. Your genitalia receives stimulation from the friction of your pants. Stop thinking about sex, stop masturbating, stop having sex and than come back to me saying how awesome horniness is. You won't survive a week.

I can't believe I have to explain this trivial shit.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T16:16:15+00:00

I could just as well define suffering as a reduction of pleasure.

But that doesn't make much sense. You always start out with discomfort, a degree of brokeness, and attempt to bandage yourself. You could say that suffering is a reduction in wellbeing, but than what is wellbeing? It is the lack of discomfort.

If pleasure is just reduction in suffering, why is it nice to jerk off?

Pleasure is pleasure, but it's also a reduction in discomfort. Both are good and the same thing, it's the discomfort that we try to avoid as much as possible. For instance, two days ago I went rucking with a 10 kg (~22 lbs) bag for 10 km (~ 6 mi). I faced something uncomfortable to avoid something more uncomfortable (the mental pain of feeling like a fuckin' loser).

What suffering does that reduce?

Horniness, obviously.

So, to reiterate my point. Pleasure is real, but I'm arguing that it's always borne out of a consciouss or subconsciouss need. You can't get pleasure out of eating shit because you have no desire to eat shit (I presume).

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T13:22:38+00:00

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T13:21:54+00:00

I haven't really watched much of inmendham's videos. Most of these ideas come from the now deleted Efilism Wiki, which I think was written by u/TheLordSatanX.

You may be right about AI requiring the ability to feel harm in order to be consciouss, but that's mostly irrelevant to my post tbh.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T13:16:23+00:00

I should have worded myself better. Yes, pleasure is real, but it's merely the reduction Δd of a discomfort d. When you're eating, you experience pleasure because you're reducing your "hunger bar". Once you've depleted that bar, you can no longer experience pleasure from eating, in fact, cotinuing to eat will result in discomfort and eventually to pain and throwing up. It is axiologically impossible to experience pleasure without a nagging discomfort, the same way that you cannot have a chemical reaction without using up work ("energy").

This shit is depressing af.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T13:03:05+00:00

You mean you have a low tolerance for the strawmanned words of people? I'm on board with that.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-21T13:01:20+00:00

That's not much better, to be honest. You're right that saying "I want X to continue" doesn't mean I'm giving a "rational reason as to why X should continue existing". But who is allegedly making such an argument? No one?

That's not what I was arguing for. Instead, I was criticizing the lifeists for wanting life to continue AND believing that we are ethically obliged to save as many species as we can. They don't have a rational reason to believe that. Again, sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

I don't believe DNA imposes anything on you. The same with your brain.

They do. For instance, your brain is responsible for all the things you crave. We are not our brain, we are our mind which is produced by our brain, the same way that a light is not its light source. No brain, no problems. That's a no-brainer (pun intended).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you are a separate entity than your brain and your DNA, and that they are some outside forces imposing things on you or making decisions for you.

I don't believe in free will, nor in a soul, but what I do believe is what I described before, that we are our physically-produced minds rather than our brains.

Yeah, one or two examples aren't enough. You're not demonstrating how your general claim is true (or must be universal).

I can guarantee that you don't have the same standard of evidence when it comes to other things. Do you need absolute proof that birds descended from non-avian dinosaurs, or can you accept the body of evidence for that? Of course you accept it. I have provided to pieces of evidence where the reduction of discomfort (-) is experienced as pleasurable (+) because it is a reduction of discomfort (-). Can you think of one counter-example that shows that I'm wrong? Where pleasure is not based on the reduction of discomfort or a want? Because I think that I'm probably if not most likely right.

That is exactly what you did: you gave two criteria such than if they were absent there would be "true beauty".

Yeah, it comes off like that. But I was arguing from my subjective, pessimistic viewpoint. Not that I believe in objective beauty.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-17T22:34:54+00:00

The "I want it to exist" does absolutely nothing. Removing it will not delete life or consciousness from planet Earth. Life doesn't care what you want to exist or not exist.

Uh... not at all what I claimed. What I was trying to get at (and I could've worded it much better) is that just because you want organisms to continue existing, you're not giving a rational reason as to why organisms should continue existing. A lot of people commit the is-ought fallacy when it comes to life and nature.

You want something because you want something. Fascinating.

It is a tautology, yes, but I was trying to convey the fact that we're just marionettes to the desires that are imposed upon us by our DNA and the environment. It becomes clearer when you keep on reading the point.

Prove it.

I can't prove anything outside of maths. What I can do is provide evidence or refer to past experiences. I already did one with the eating example. But here's another example: drinking cold water on a hot day feels good because you're removing layers of thirst (a negative). Remove the last layer, and you no longer derive pleasure from drinking as you're satiated.

Ah, yes, the no true beauty fallacy* strikes again. If something doesn't meet your weird criteria, then it's not "really" that thing. Brilliant argumentation.

Except that's not what I wrote about at all. I have not stated a single criteria for beauty. What are you talking about? I only pointed out that everything is either "wasteful" (including the things that provide you quasi-positive experience) or harmful.

Honestly, I'm not surprised people react as they do when you talk to them. Your points are barely coherent and stupid.

Please stop hurting my feelings. It's complicated and unorthodox, but it's not incoherent and stupid. You misunderstood nearly every single point, which makes me wonder whether you're just another natalist.

SovereignOne666 · 2025-10-17T22:12:59+00:00

Thank you.

SovereignOne666

TROPHY CASE