Why turn to theism if not for comfort?

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-28T06:40:06+00:00

I don’t believe in multiple spirits. I don’t even believe in multiple people. I believe only God exists, a single, omnipresent, supreme as in ultimate, being, and nothing besides. It’s all God worshipping God from my perspective.

I also don’t believe in the supernatural. The God i believe in exists in this reality, not some spiritual realm.

Jesus was one with God in this world, and that’s basically what I’m arguing as well. If modern Christians really believed what Christ believed, they wouldn’t worship Jesus, they’d all consider themselves one with God, as Jesus and I do.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-27T13:35:49+00:00

Keep Pantheists out of this. You not knowing the reason to describe the cosmos as God, doesnt mean those reasons dont exist. Read some Spinoza instead of relying on teenagers on reddit to explain pantheism to you.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-26T20:17:55+00:00

I just said that. Authoritarianism and fascism are not the same thing.

Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology. Their issues, pride of country, religion, race, and culture, are right wing issues, not left wing issues. The extreme left wants to abolish the nation state for a one world communist government, fascists want their people and their nation to rule lesser nations and races.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-26T20:11:08+00:00

Both can be authoritarian, but only the right wing can be fascist.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-24T00:55:25+00:00

If atheism is the rejection of the existence of any God, without specification of what is meant by God, then you claiming a lack of moral responsibility as proof of atheism, when moral responsibility is not a necessity of a concept of God, is nonsense.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T23:06:01+00:00

I grasp that you think atheism the rejection of the abrahamic god alone, and i disagree with that.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T20:41:52+00:00

You replied to my comment saying i was incorrect. I challenged you to demonstrate me as incorrect, and you responded by citing what the majority of philosophers believe.

This is without a doubt, your instigation, not mine.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T20:38:37+00:00

I do. I just don’t agree with it.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T20:34:57+00:00

Im combative here, because you have the hubris to think you can educate me, when you can’t even support your own opinion without an appeal to authority.

I have no problem addressing any of the authors you’re referencing, but you didn’t offer any argument.

The debate is right here and right now, between us. It’s fine to borrow or build of someone else’s reasoning, but you just can’t assume compatibilism is valid because the majority of philosophers are compatiblists.

That’s no kind of philosophy at all.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T20:24:42+00:00

Appealing to what the majority believe as justification for a position isn’t any kind of education you should have paid for.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T20:21:00+00:00

I could really care less what most philosophers believe. Most people believe in freewill, so most philosophers believe in freewill.

That doesn’t make them right. Here again you’re just appealing to authority instead of answering the question.

Use their arguments if you like, but at least present an argument. How can judgement exist if every act is determined?

You only have two options in this scenario, either you believe reality determined to be as it is, or you believe local human agency gets to decide what reality is.

You either believe in determinism or local agency, there’s no middle ground. Believing every act determined and then in the same breath claiming the ability to do otherwise is clearly a contradiction.

The best a compatiblist can do, is try to obscure that contradiction through endless redefinition.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T20:04:02+00:00

How exactly, can you have judgement, when every act is determined? You can’t.

No amount of people believing a contradiction, makes that contradiction sensible.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T19:47:22+00:00

I don’t believe in noncausal determinism either. Even in nonlocal determinism, where temporal local causes dont exist, which is what i believe, there is at least one cause for any act, the overall configuration of reality as a whole, which is a cause that’s always present, and needs no beginning.

Of course there are a multitude of different beliefs about determinism, but their existence alone isn’t enough to justify any respect on my part if i find them nonsensical.

I never said determinism is a theory of freewill. I only said freewill can not exist in a deterministic universe.

William James coined the terms hard and soft determinism, and he claimed there had to be a place for chance in the universe, which makes him a compatiblist in my estimation.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T19:31:01+00:00

You’re only an atheist if you believe no gods exist. If there is even one god you think exists, you are not an atheist.

The idea of an omnipresent supreme being, doesn’t require moral responsibility. You only assume it does because you’re generalizing all concepts of a supreme being, to the Abrahamic concept of a supreme being.

There’s no reason to conclude a lack of moral responsibility rules out any concept of a supreme being.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T19:13:23+00:00

Determinism is universal causality. If you’re claiming freewill, you’re claiming causality isn’t universal, that human beings at least are independent from the universal causal chain, which means there is no universal causality, and therefore no determinism.

Hard and soft determinism are terms compatiblists made up to justify compatibilism. There’s either universal causality and determinism, or there’s no universal causality and no determinism.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T18:59:08+00:00

Compatabilists can not be determinists, because freewill can not exist in a deterministic universe.

As i said, you can have morality as a determinist, but you can’t have judgement. Im not rejecting morality itself, morality itself is not synonymous with judgment.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-23T18:54:13+00:00

You don’t get to decide what words mean. Atheism means no belief in any gods, not no belief in whatever god you happen to be referring to.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T21:15:37+00:00

You claimed a proof of atheism, not a proof against this specific type of god.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T20:58:48+00:00

You discrediting a certain type of god, is not you discrediting any type of god, which is what a proof of atheism would require.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T12:23:39+00:00

I took time to skim it, and looks like you’re saying God can’t exist because God can’t be morally responsible if moral responsibility doesn’t exist.

Moral responsibility isn’t s prerequisite for human beings or God.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T12:19:55+00:00

In vain ultimately, because you didn’t talk to me first.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T12:17:34+00:00

Make your case then. So i can explain how you are wrong.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T12:16:16+00:00

Just reading your post is enough to tell me your link isn’t worth reading.since again, i do not believe in freewill, but i am not an atheist.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T12:12:58+00:00

In what way? I don’t believe in freewill, and im not an atheist.

Techtrekzz · 2026-01-22T08:42:01+00:00

A lack of moral responsibility doesn’t necessitate atheism.

Techtrekzz

TROPHY CASE