The Atheist Alternative To Religion -Re: Black Pigeon Speaks – Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence


Hey Everybody, Marcus here. Black Pigeon Speaks put out a video recently
entitled: Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence. In it he attacks atheism and the likes of
prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. His thesis covered a number of different subjects. However, one of the accusations that Black
Pigeon Speaks lays at the foot of atheists is the absence of an alternative. He attacks atheists descending into nihilism
and offering no positive post-religious direction. I agree with Black Pigeon Speaks in so far
that the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins do not offer anything meaningful. In fact, I would posit that the atheist community
as it exists as a legacy stemming from the four horsemen is little more than the faith
that Christian morality will continue to obtain, at least the parts that said atheists like,
absent the metaphysical justification which underpin it; namely, God – specifically,
the Christian God. However, Dawkins and Hitchens are not sources
of any philosophical depth as I can ascertain from any of their work that I have encountered. One does not go to Hitchens or Dawkins if
one is at all seriously committed to exploring the atheistic world view. To explore an atheistic position one must
turn to philosophy proper. Indeed, there perhaps is no better source
than Nietzsche, who proclaimed the death of God, as a guide on what atheism entails. What I want to do in this response is to take
up Black Pigeon Speaks’ call to showcase an atheistic alternative to religion. I do this for the benefit of both the atheist
and theist communities. Atheists can benefit from the exposure to
a model of thought that does not simply gut Christian morals of their justifying cause,
but is a completely new paradigm of thought. For the theist, it helps to showcase what
are the best talking points in relation to the atheist solution as they may then be challenged
at a higher level of discourse. To begin to understand what a post-religious
alternative would look like, I will begin with what is the core idea, or as Nietzsche
calls it “The Most Abysmal Thought.” This is the concept of the eternal recurrence. In his work entitled “The Gay Science”,
Nietzsche puts for the following to his reader in aphorism 341: “What, if some day or night a demon were
to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now live
it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and
there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh
and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all
in the same succession and sequence – even this spider and this moonlight between the
trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned
upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!” Would you not throw yourself down and gnash
your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?… Or how well disposed would you have to become
to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation
and seal?” The concept of eternal recurrence is not the
easiest thing to understand. Nietzsche considered this idea so important
that it is suspected by many Nietzsche scholars that Nietzsche though it was the core of his
positive philosophical system. Nietzsche was well aware that the death of
God entailed an unprecedented tide of nihilism. He wanted to fight this tide as the yes-saying
part of his philosophy. Many know Nietzsche’s work superficially
as a nihilistic attack on Christianity, the “no-saying” part of his philosophy. They often forget that there is a rich project
of “yes-saying.” In fact, Nietzsche’s work entitled “Thus
Spoke Zaathustra”, is, when taken as a whole, this exact “yes-saying” positive philosophical
project of overcoming nihilism in a post-religious world. To understand the positive side of Nietzsche’s
project it is important to understand his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” The remainder of this video will tackle the
subject of this work in an attempt to highlight the main points and progression of ideas. To assist me in this, I will be drawing heavily
from Michael Gillespie’s thoughts. The story that Nietzsche recounts in the first
three parts of Zarathustra is the account of the path that Zarathustra follows to the
recognition of this titanic thought, his struggle to bring it to consciousness, and his final
supreme effort to affirm it. In the first part of the work, Zarathustra
recognizes and explains that he has come to understand that the ego is an illusion, a
mere projection of the self or body. The self itself, however, is nothing other
than the collection of passions that struggle with one another for dominance and control. The strength of the self depends in part upon
the strength of these passions but more importantly on their coordination in pursuit of a single
goal. The establishment of a rank order within the
self is thus the first step to mastery and this is achieved by the dominance of one passion—what
Zarathustra calls one’s virtue—over all the others. Behind or beneath all of these passions, however,
are basic biological drives and instincts and behind them the will to power that characterizes
and motivates all things. The will to power, according to Zarathustra,
is a will to overcome opposition but its ultimate goal is self-overcoming in the sense that
it constantly aims to become more than it is. This applies not merely to individuals but
to peoples, states, and everything else at all levels of organization. As Zarathustra discovers in the second part
of the work, however, such a will always finds itself already in the flow of time and thus
always already conditioned by a past that is beyond its control. In this sense it can never be truly free or
creative, and thus can never truly will. The rage of the will against this dead hand
of the past, against the “it was,” engenders what Nietzsche calls the spirit of revenge,
the desire to take revenge against one’s own impotence by finding something or someone
in the present to blame and punish. In confronting this problem Zarathustra recognizes
that in order for the will to be truly causal and to escape from the spirit of revenge,
it would have to will backwards. On the surface this seems to pose an insurmountable
obstacle to truly willing since the past seems to be always beyond our control, something
over which we never have power. Nietzsche, however, believed he had an answer
to this problem. Indeed, the great insight that frees us from
mere reactivity and allows us to be truly positive, active beings is the thought of
the eternal recurrence. The reasons for this are not immediately apparent,
even to Zarathustra himself. He clearly has some inkling of the titanic
importance of this thought long before he is able to articulate it or affirm it. In his first account of the idea near the
beginning of part 3 of the work, in “The Riddle and the Vision,” Zarathustra recounts
to his fellow seafarers that once not long before when he was walking one evening in
the mountain he found the spirit of gravity, half-dwarf and half-mole, sitting on his shoulder
whispering to him of the futility of all things. Zarathustra becomes more and more dispirited
until his courage brings him to confront the dwarf, telling him that it is “You or I.” In this confrontation, he warns the dwarf
that he does not know his (Zarathustra’s) most abysmal thought. This is the setting for the first presentation
of the idea of the eternal recurrence. As they are stopped by a gateway, Zarathustra
tells the dwarf that there is an eternal path that leads back the way they have come and
an eternal path ahead of them on the way they are going. He says that they contradict one another and
come together at this gateway which is named “Moment.” He then asks the dwarf if he believes they
contradict one another eternally. The dwarf replies that all that is straight
lies, and that time itself is a circle. Zarathustra warns the dwarf not to be too
easy on himself, and spells out the consequences of the idea. On the eternal path leading up to the moment
all things than can happen must already have happened and on the eternal path going forward
all things that can happen must yet happen. He asks the dwarf then whether everything
including the very moment they are now in must not eternally recur. But at this point in the discussion, terrified
of his own thoughts he grows quieter and quieter, and then has a vision in which he sees a shepherd
choking on a snake that has crawled into his mouth. Something cries out of him to the shepherd
to bite and he does so, spitting out the snake’s head and leaping up, filled with a laughter
that is no human laughter, transfigured into a godlike being. Nietzsche wonders how he can go on living
without hearing that laughter and how he can die now that he has heard it. The spirit of gravity is a pessimist, and
makes everything small with his crushing teaching that everything is in vain, that everything
that is born dies. Zarathustra’s will rebels against this notion,
and he confronts the dwarf’s pessimism with a deeper pessimism. Everything that has been or will be has already
occurred not just once but over and over an infinite number of times. The world in other words has no beginning
or end, as Christianity claimed, nor does it have an ultimate purpose or goal. And yet it is eternal. However, Zarathustra does not assert this
point but only poses it as a question. It is not something that can be dispositively
known and therefore cannot be asserted. Moreover, Zarathustra is clearly terrified
by the possibility that he might be correct. The reason that Zarathustra told the dwarf
he was being too easy on himself was that he only thought the idea of the eternal recurrence
in terms of a circle, that is, in a Cartesian fashion as a representation within consciousness,
and thus as merely something for a disembodied ego. The ego, however, is only the ephemeral surface
of the self. It isn’t enough merely to think the doctrine
of the eternal recurrence as a representation independent of the self; it must also be lived
or experienced. It is only when it is not merely thought but
experienced and willed with the whole self that the thought of the eternal recurrence
can be understood. Affirming the doctrine of the eternal recurrence
thus does not mean merely accepting it as something that is necessary in theory but
as something practical that we are always already a part of. It is thus not enough for one to say “Yes
I understand that everything horrible and petty is necessary as part of the whole;”
one must also will them, want all of the horrible and petty things with all one’s heart; not
merely accept them but also love them. In doing so one takes upon oneself the responsibility
for all things as one’s own deed. This of course means in a certain sense becoming
all things insofar as one becomes or becomes one with the will behind all things. To will affirm the eternal recurrence one
must thus give up the illusion of individuality and notion of the independent integrity of
the ego, and thereby become or become one with Dionysus. Dionysus being the Greek God symbolizing oneness
and manyness that Nietzsche often uses in the symbolism of his philosophy. Zarathustra recounts the vision to his fellow
travelers, but clearly does not understand it or know how to interpret it. He is in fact afraid to recognize consciously
what he already has experienced at some level of his being, what he already in a sense is. But the desire to understand the thought behind
his thoughts festers and grows in him until he eventually forces it to the surface and
into consciousness. The experience, however, nearly kills him,
first filling him with nausea and then knocking him out and leaving him unconscious for seven
days. What happened to him during those seven days
is never explicitly stated, but the section is entitled, “The Convalescent,” so presumably
it is focused on his recovery from the thought. From the stories his animals (his eagle and
snake) tell when he regains consciousness, we gain some insight into what occurred since
Zarathustra remarks that they understand what he experienced during those seven days. His animals watched over him during this time
of convalescence and when he awakens they chatter at him. Their chattering apparently helps him reattach
himself to life. He remarks that because of their chattering
the world seems to lie before him like a garden. Words and sounds he asks rhetorically, are
they not dream bridges and rainbows among things that remain eternally apart? This remark is among the most important in
Zarathustra because it gives us some insight into the ontological character of reality
for Zarathustra. All things, he suggests remain eternally apart
and are held together only by the dream bridges of symbols, words, gestures, sounds, etc. Ontologically, this is a classical nominalist
claim in the tradition of William of Ockham. He suggests in this way that there are no
universals, no species or genera, but only radically individualized beings. The order that we perceive in the world is
then created by symbols of various sorts that we use to group things together. The world is then a sheer manyness of radically
different beings, although even to call them beings or things is a stretch since that attributes
some form of universality to them. In view of this difficulty, it might be better
to say simply that the world in its core is a manyness of differents. The experience of this manyness for Zarathustra
is thus analogous to the experience of Dionysus, the experience of being torn to pieces. The world experienced in this way is a sheer
abyss, the original chaos out of which Hesiod imaged the world to arise. It is only words and sounds, logos and music,
that form the world into a whole. Or to put it in terms Nietzsche used elsewhere,
it is only the power of art that gives names and order to things. Through art the world thus ceases to appear
as a chaotic manyness and becomes a world, a beautiful multiplicity within a well-rounded
whole, or as Zarathustra puts it, a garden. But even here there is a further complication. Each soul, Zarathustra goes on to say, lives
in its own world, radically and eternally separate from every other soul. This absolute alienation follows, of course,
from the earlier ontological claim, but is also part and parcel of our subjectivity. The world through art and language is always
as it is only for me. The world as others perceive it is always
then merely an afterworld for me. On the surface, this claim very much resembles
Descartes’ claim that the cogito ergo sum experience can only demonstrate to me my own
existence and not that of others. Nietzsche, however, takes this insight one
step further than Descartes and draws the radical but not unwarranted conclusion that
if everything is for and through me, then there is no outside of me. I am everything that is. Or to put it another way, if God is dead,
I am god. Here we have some insight into not just the
idea but the experience of the eternal recurrence, but the difficulty of affirming it. If there is no outside me and everything that
is, is through me, then affirming the eternal recurrence means affirming everything without
exception in its radical and absolute difference, as primordial Hesiodic chaos, as abyss. This Dionysian insight is made bearable only
by words and sounds that in Apollinian fashion make us believe in a world and thus make the
insight into this abyss bearable. We get some inking of this from the words
of Zarathustra’s animals who recount to him what he has learned during those seven days: Everything goes around and everything comes
back; eternally rolls the wheel of being. Everything dies, everything blossoms again;
eternally runs the year of being. Everything breaks, everything is joined anew;
eternally the same house of being is built. Everything parts, everything greets every
other thing again; eternally the ring of being remains faithful to itself. In every Now, begin begins; round every Here
rolls the sphere There. The center is everywhere. Bent is the path of eternity. For one who thinks the thought of the eternal
recurrence there is no outside himself because in thinking and affirming it he becomes one
with all things and is thus shattered into thousands of pieces in the way that Dionysus
is torn to pieces and distributed in the world. But even in the agony of destruction and dismemberment,
he knows that everything comes back together again. This single thought sustains him and empowers
him. How is Zarathustra able to affirm this thought? Why is it not for him as for the dwarf or
later the soothsayer a source of pessimism and despair? Zarathustra’s claim here seems to be that
to the strong, to the healthy examples of what Nietzsche would later call, ascending
life, this is a joyful realization in spite of the pain because it means that they will
live their lives over and over again. Because they can say, “Once more!” in
the face of all pain and suffering, in the face of all that is petty and disgusting,
the world of the eternal recurrence is a beautiful world. Joy as Zarathustra indicates in the “Drunken
Song” is deeper than agony. For the strong the world is justified. Because they realize the world is the product
of their will and that they are therefore not determined by the dead hand of the past,
they are beyond the need for revenge. In this way, they cease to be reactive and
become active beings, or, as he puts it in one of his notes, they become a Caesar with
the soul of Christ. Strong and powerful but also innocent and
affirmative. What calls such universal affirmation into
question for Zarathustra is the recognition that not only the strong and noble recur but
also the last man, the ugly, low, and despicable man. All efforts to improve man, to set him on
a course to becoming a superhuman being all still come back to this moment, to the unbearable
pettiness of the moment that he wants to escape. To affirm the eternal recurrence he thus has
to say yes to everything that he wants to overcome as well as to everything he longs
for. He has to love what he most detests. The recognition of this fact was the snake
that crawled into Zarathustra’s throat, the snake of disgust whose head he had to bite
off and spit out. And in doing so, he was, he tells us, able
to redeem himself, to redeem himself from the abyss of his most abysmal thought. For Nietzsche, as for Christ, the goal in
the end is thus redemption through love. Nietzsche’s claim, however, is different and
his love is at least arguably equal to or perhaps even greater than that of Christ’s
because he actually does love all of his enemies. Moreover, in his eternity no one is damned
and everyone has a place, although the world is not paradise to all who are in it. After affirming the thought of the eternal
recurrence, Zarathustra promises his soul something like a coming beatitude, urging
it finally to: sing with a roaring song till all seas are silenced, that they may listen
to your longing—till over silent, longing seas the bark floats, the golden wonder around
whose gold all good, bad, wondrous things leap—also many great and small animals and
whatever has light, wondrous feet for running on paths blue as violets—toward the golden
wonder, the voluntary bark and its master; but that is the vintager who is waiting with
his diamond knife—your great deliverer, O my soul, the nameless one for whom only
future songs will find names. It is Dionysian ecstasy that Zarathustra foretells
here, an ecstasy that Nietzsche imagines replacing the emotional religious ecstasy of Christianity. Here he is filled with the anticipation of
such ecstatic laughter, waiting like Ariadne for the arrival of his god, yet certain of
his arrival precisely because he has been able to affirm the eternal recurrence and
thus to become one with his god. Let us put into context Nietzsche’s understanding
of religion. Nietzsche was a student of the history of
religion and was deeply influenced by Friedrich Creuzer. Creuzer argued that all Aryan or Indo European
religions were essentially connected, that there had been an initial revelation in India
and that this revelation in one form or another had moved westward taking on ever new forms
and names. This included even Christianity which was
understood in this context not merely by Creuzer but also by German Romantics such as Hōlderlin
and even Hegel as the final realization of a religious process that had begun in the
East and come to fruition in Europe or what he called the Germanic world. While Nietzsche accepted the idea of a continuity
in Indo-European religions and a transference from East to West, he was convinced that Christianity
was not a perfection or completion of the original revelation but its antithesis, that
Christianity in other words rejected everything that the ancient Greco-Roman world had achieved
in matters of religion. Indeed, in his view the birth of Christianity
coincided with the death of paganism. Thus, with the death of the Christian God,
he hopes Dionysus may return again, although perhaps under a new name produced by future
songs, but exercising the same force he had in the ancient world. Nietzsche imagines this return as an apocalyptic
event. He points in this direction with the title
of the last section of part three of Zarathustra, “The Seven Seals.” It becomes explicit at the end of part four. Zarathustra is waiting for a sign that the
world is ready for his return and for the proclamation of the doctrine of the eternal
recurrence. He is convinced, however, that this will only
occur when the level of distress has risen to its peak, that is, only when all of the
consequences of the death of God have been realized and swept away all of the moral and
political structures of Christianity. Only then will it be time for what Zarathustra
calls, the Great Noon. The last section of part four is called the
sign and ends with Zarathustra’s imperative, “rise now, rise, thou great noon!” He then begins his descent back to man to
proclaim the doctrine of the eternal recurrence. The Great Noon is a theme that arises repeatedly
in Nietzsche’s later thought and is an integral part of his final teaching. It is the moment when humanity must decide
its future, whether to pursue the path to the Ubermensch or becomes the last man. This moment as Zarathustra explains occurs
when man is midway between beast and believer. The meaning of this passage becomes clear
when we view it against the background of Zarathustra’s description of man in the “Prologue”
as a line stretched between beast and Ubermensch. There are three stages between these two that
he describes in “The Three Metamorphoses,” the first section in part one: the camel (or
believer), the lion (or destroyer), and the child (or creator). The last man stands between the beast and
the camel/believer. For the last two thousand years, humans have
been believers. With the death of God this is no longer a
possibility. Man must either follow the path toward the
Ubermensch or he will inevitably degenerate into the last man. The Great Noon is the moment when man stands
midway on the line. To go on he must transform himself from a
camel/believer into a lion/destroyer. To follow this path is thus a choice for war
and destruction. To follow this path humans must become hard,
as Zarathustra points out in section 29 of “On Old and New Tablets.” This means above all purging oneself of pity,
which Zarathustra characterizes in part four as his final sin. The path to the Ubermensch, as Nietzsche makes
clear in his plans for future works, involves a long and drawn out war against the remnants
of Christianity and a struggle for power in the post-Christian world. The choice for this path in the short run
is thus a choice for the formation of a warrior class willing to destroy and clear the ground
for the new age, beyond all pity, and thus beyond even the last vestiges of Christianity. The next two hundred years in Nietzsche’s
view will thus be a time of wars, “the like of which the world has never seen.” This period will serve to further harden man. At the end of this time he then imagines that
the Ubermensch will arise out of this warrior elite, a Caesar with the soul of Christ. As Nietzsche himself describes it, it is in
fact the most abysmal thought, the most uncanny and unsettling, and also the most terrifying. Its consequences are also monstrous, the collapse
of European morality and two hundred years of war and destruction. While these factors might repel most people,
however, they seem essential to Nietzsche. One does not think and will this thought because
it will make life easier or more pleasurable. It thus seems unlikely that the thought is
the result of hedonistic desires or even self-interest narrowly understood. Moreover, the fact that it threatens to shatter
our humanity is an indication that it takes us to the very limit of human experience if
not beyond it. Insofar as it forces the individual who thinks
it to will the worst of all things, it also offers an escape from resentment and revenge,
and the absolute affirmation of everything. To will in this way, Nietzsche believes is
to will as a god, a god of course in a universe that is irremediably tragic. At the end of the day, Nietzsche thinks that
thinking this thought is something greater than human. To think it is to become one with Dionysus
as the spectators of ancient tragedy did, and thus to participate in the Dionysian ecstasy
of reunion and dismemberment. Finally, the thought opens up the possibility
for an apocalyptic transformation of the world and the birth of the Ubermensch. For Nietzsche the death of God rendered the
spirituality of the last two thousand years impossible. His most abysmal thought in his view opened
up a new path. This was a path filled with pain and suffering,
a path of war and destruction, and filled with danger. His experience of the idea of the eternal
recurrence, however, led him to believe that it was the path humanity must follow, a fact
reaffirmed in the title for the last chapter of his last work, “Why I am destiny.” You see, where Black Pigeon Speaks of the
absence of an atheistic alternative and direction, I would take the criticism in a completely
different direction. There is an atheistic alternative, but those
who so proclaim themselves atheists these days would find this direction monstrous. They find it monstrous because they are atheist
in name only. In their heart of hearts, they are Christian. The popular atheism so prevalent online is
only made possible via Christian morality continuing to obtain. As Black Pigeon Speaks correctly points out,
one may call oneself an atheist and still remain moral. However, such an atheist does not remain moral
because of his atheism but in spite of his atheism. To practice a post-Christian, post-religious
morality is to practice a morality that moves beyond Good and Evil. This is not something that today’s atheists
are willing or psychologically capable of doing. Thanks for listening. Go team.

58 comments

  1. Nihilism is the deserved end of the naive deconstructionists – just don't let them take you on that progressive journey to nowhere.

    The philosopher Vattimo said the post-modern paradox of imagination – mythic, aesthetic or social – is the following: 'To know that one is dreaming, and yet to continue dreaming.'

  2. I used to be religious but later rejected but I do believe in there being real evil in the world. Moral relativism leaves one morally vulnerable. s
    In search of a higher order of living I have adopted Aristotelian virtue ethics and the non aggression principle. I just want to be as positive and "good" person as possible. Go light side

  3. The atheism philosophy of the past and modern day atheism is vastly different. It's easy to say "This person has a solution!" but that's not what is being pushed by the atheists we're dealing with.

  4. This sort of thinking is the ONLY ultimate reason for "MGTOW": philosophy, and (hopefully) new values. The herd awaits a new way of thinking, and will persecute you for it when you bring it them, and they will do so as a gift to the giver, to prove it's proponent's genuineness.

  5. Arrmeggedan before the return of the Christ…?

    Or 200 years of destruction before the appearance of the Superman…?

    Sounds like echoes of the Jewish and Islamic prophesies.
    Same vision … Different /ages/ symbols..?

  6. Is a demon, whose kind by reputation lie, to be believed when presenting the prospect of eternal recurrence? Or do i miss the point – a chance to explore what if?

  7. That last minute of your talk was like the swift thrust and twist of a dagger in the flesh of my perception of Atheism and its relationship to morality. Thanks for that! Worth every minute of listening to.

  8. when there is "light" there is darkness as why calling something that simply "is" why would we call light "light" if it is a permament state not balanced by anything. So if there is evil in this world, then there might be some good somehow. But what kind of god that knew anything create evil knowing it will do some bad deeds and destroy humanity. Would a painter create a painting knowing it will be destroyed just after ? What kind of creator of god can see anything , and do nothing ? who wants a god like that ? A weakling. Why am I an atheist if god knew I would be one ? Does that not mean it's god fault by default for creating me knowing I would be born ? Why would I go to hell ? Why would I even accept to be judged by that kind of joke as a pathetic super being ? If god cannot create something he cannot lift, he is no god.

  9. I grew up with grandparents who kept Nietzsche and Schoepenauer on the mantle.

    I guess that's why I find "new" atheists so distasteful?

    Hitchens was at least an entertaining drunk. But guys like Harris and their hatred of Man, pfft….

  10. I do not mean to be Zarathustra's oversimplifying Dwarf, but are you saying that contemporary atheists are grasping at the world blinded by the sort of scrupulous, categorizing of things as good or evil inherent to Christianity? and that the path forward is merely acceptance—and love—of all that which has, is, and will occur; to do this without making such judgments?

  11. A wise man once said, "An Atheist, a true atheist, is one who knows exactly what God is."

    That is, to truly understand the fundamental nature of the Universe is to know God. The principle of cause and effect governs everything. Therefore, everything is connected. Therefore, God cannot be a finite being separate from the "All" of Nature and no sane religion can make such a statement without it being refuted. If we define God to mean all that is holy, then everything is God and God is everything.

    Here is an argument in favor of this view in five minutes:
    The Importance of Being Atheist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD7obMmpqyE

    And an argument in the similarities of this view with Pantheism in seven minutes:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MtaJNdmuGE&t=347s

  12. How would a post-religious morality look like on a societal level? Would crime be legal? I can't even comprehend how this can be a good thing outside of an individual level. I feel like I'm entirely misunderstanding though…

  13. As an altar boy, I was atheist for a short while. The God of the bible, especially the OT, is one any emotionally mature person will outgrow. There is a Presence that one can make contact with personally and it put one in contact with the cosmos. People will have to look around and do some research to find the words of eloquent mystics to assist in this pursuit. Of course, one will have to think this pursuit is worthwhile. Many atheists respond to their heart and that puts me on the same page with them. It is the heart where one get "access" and it is wisdom and compassion, not a syrupy emotional state that we will find.

  14. Atheism is really an empty rejection of monotheism and an invitation to pluralistic theism which really just means revival of pagan mores and cosmology. This has already been part of culture via media: symbolic placement reference to pagan deities etc. it has been in play since the folklorists and has died out. Same with nationalism. The imperative of life is individuation. Personality, identity even al is all moving in a single direction to oneness, not plurality. This Is why individualism collapses under its own inner contradiction. In Islamic theology monotheism is designated by the term Tawheed which means "to make one" as well as "the oneness" of Allah. More than ever I believe that your metaphysical questions have their answer in Islamic thought. U can also explore other cultures like China and some Indian strains of thought. But western thought is finished. It has devolved to formal religious expression or crass paganism/ hedonism. Go check out Al Ghazzali. WM Watt did some good scholarship on him.

  15. The Poincaré Recurrence Theorem came out a year after Nietzsche went insane, so he most likely didn't come across it, but it proves that the Great Recurrence works even in classical systems; with quantum mechanics, it works even faster.

    Many trillions of trillions of years after the last black hole has evaporated, somewhere in the great emptiness that remains, a quantum fluctuation will lead to another Big Bang, which will create a Universe with different laws. Rinse and repeat and after an unthinkable number of universes, we will reach one that contains this moment.

  16. The apocalyptic ending of Christianity scenario is put in fiction in the "Dune" series' Golden Path. The neo-feudal/capitalistic, religious structure of humanity is suppressed by 3500 years of totalitarianism, with forced primitivism and dependence on the leader, and then withdrawal of that leader leading to famine and wars for power which lead to the Jesus-Caesar, which in this case are the independent and strong societies that remained.

  17. Said the same thing over at his place. He is talking about antitheism. Big difference.

    And also again, atheists do not need a substitute for religion. That is why we are atheists.

  18. Wow, I thought just religions (and to some extent political Ideologies) were full of BS until I heard this….
    "People are willing to believe anything they either hope or fear to be true" I will neither follow the carrot of religion nor the stick of Nietzsche. Nihilism is the ultimate freedom for those strong enough to accept it. if you need to replace religion with something else, then it is you who is an atheist in name only, because you can't free your mind from the shackles of Ideological Dogma.

  19. I think, perhaps, you are missing something in your understanding of non-belief. If, non-believers in the US, are among those who perpetrate crimes the least; and countries with the lowest rates of religion most often have the highest living standards, how can one make the claim that non-belief generates a vacuum? If people are able to thrive, be happy, be productive, and find meaning in the universe without religion or belief, how can one claim that those virtues are predicated upon the varying expressions of deism? "I don't know", is a demonstrably suitable alternative to "I must know".

  20. Hi Marcus, I want to thank you for exciting my recent interest in Philosophy. I'd always tried to live a moral life intuitively, but recently I've discovered that my ignorance of some formal and scholarly concepts runs far deeper than I first suspected. I've started with learning about Aristotilean virtue ethics, and if my understanding is correct, I would say that you are a very functional human, being as rational as you are! I am an agnostic atheist and am incredibly interested in Nietzsche, but I do want to, as per your recommendation in a prior video, take heed while reading him, so starting from the basics is best!

    You're doing a wonderful service to men everywhere helping them to be able to logically reason on their quest for personal sovereignty.
    Best of fortune regarding your long term goal- I plan on donating to you very soon- consider it recompense for what you have done for me. Thanks Marcus

  21. Is eternal recurrence a metaphor for a deterministic universe and no free will? What are the implications of us not having free will?

  22. Beautiful work! This one's a re-watcher. I'm going to have to put together a playlist of all your Nietzsche themed works.

  23. What exactly is your channel about? And how does it relate to MGTOW? Why pertain your views with MGTOW? Just curious, I'm new here and can't grasp what you're about from this video.

  24. Great video, Marcus.
    Aphorism 99: THE DISAPPOINTED ONE SPEAKS–"I listened for the echo and I heard only praise"
    Good luck with the Renaissance videos.

  25. humans are animals and they behave how their genetics determine them to behave based on their environment… that is all there is… you can think about it for a week, and even your thoughts are just a result of what I just stated.
    There is no right or wrong. There are just people (animals) agreeing to what is right or wrong at a given time and in a given place.

  26. It's nice what you are sayijng, however, Black Pigeon is also talking about how to oppose those that would have yuo dead for what you are saying. If we did what you said we'd be overun by islamists. after they've killed their socialist 'allies' and people like yourself. The way things stand now. You don't want to face this reality and so people like Black Pigeon are exercising this task. You are just babling in the safety of the west. Are you sure you beileve in the superhuman. You'd be another dead infidel

  27. An excellent explication of Zarathustra and one of your best videos, thank you Marcus. It might take a while to digest all of these ideas- maybe even eternity 😉

  28. Marcus, you are quite correct in your assertion that both Hitchins and Dawkins are intellectual lightweights. However, Nietzsche is not a huge leap forward in that respect.

  29. Following Nietzsche only leads one to a life of aimless hedonism. This is a man who held an idealized conception of Africa as a place of unfettered sexual impules which he saw as preferable to Christianian Morality and western civillization (See page 43 of "Degenerate Moderns" by E. Michael Jones). The Nietzschean ethos is also what inspired Sigmund Freud, from whom the modernists got the idea that unhindered sexual desire was a public good, which further enabled the subversion of Western Society by the cultural Marxists and the Frankfurt School. If Nietzschean ethics can somehow provide a foundation for the west, they have so far failed to do so.

  30. hey marcus check out the channel illacertus  . It has good red pill knowledge like 48 laws of power. might be helpul for ourmgtow brothers

  31. Neitzsche's worldview is fundamentally self refuting duncey. Great job at being a dunce, dunce.

    (DISCLAIMER:

    There is no atheist on earth capable of critically discussing atheism, without changing the subject to critically discussing theism, and acting like if there's anything they think is wrong with theism, atheism cannot, not, be true.
    It does not matter if ZERO of what you say references theism, or anything outside of atheism, what so ever. You criticize atheism, and all they hear is affirmation of theism, and someone uttering the challenge "Do you want to debate theism?" to them.
    They CANNOT discuss atheism, in and unto itself. It must always devolve into a discussion of preference given their biased characterization of each worldview.
    If you think my assertion here is wrong, meet that challenge, prove me wrong. Show that you're capable of discussing ATHEISM as a worldview, in and unto itself. )

    Do you believe in the principle of induction?

    Do you believe that your reasoning abilities are reliable?

    Do you believe in the uniformity of nature?

    Do you believe in the reliability of your cognitive faculties?

    Do you believe in the reliability of your senses?

    Do you believe that all truths have physical evidence for them?

    Do you believe in the existence of abstract concepts such as numbers, the laws of logic, etc?

    If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, and you're an atheist or a naturalist or both, please provide evidence for that claim.Make sure the evidence does not depend upon the thing you're trying to prove being true, to make any sense, because that would be viciously circular.

    You see, atheism asserts that all truth claims which are faith based, should be dismissed on face, yet takes all the above things on faith, yet considers them rock solid truths.All of these things are fundamental to knowledge, epistemology, logic, etc. I affirm all these things, but you see, all these things actually comport with my worldview, an atheistic/naturalistic worldview cannot account for the reliability of these things, in a manner that satisfies its own requirements for truth claims. These things ARE true, but they're mutually exclusive with a naturalistic worldview.
    How do you arrive at the conclusion that your reasoning capacity is reliably aimed at truth, within the context of an atheistic framework? In other words how is your epistemology not viciously circular in that you reason that your reasoning capacity is reliable?
    And acting like these questions are just "stupid" and not even deserving of anyone giving them one second of thought, etc, does nothing to address them. All it does is show that you're unable to, but intellectually dishonest enough to act like there's another reason you're not putting these issues to bed. PS: Remember atheists, asking for naturalistic evidence for something which by its very definition would not have any naturalistic evidence for it even if true, is a category error fallacy, which is one of many fallacies that atheists love to commit any time they try in vain to interact meaningfully with a biblical worldview. You cannot reason that your reasoning is valid, without resorting to viciously circular logic.

    all worldviews have at their core, epistemological presuppositions, which are things the worldview takes on faith, they're untestable, unfalsifiable, etc. the problem arises not in this fact, but when the worldview has presuppositions, which are fundamentally mutually exclusive with HAVING ANY presuppositions at all. That is the case with atheism. these presuppositions are core beliefs that people with that worldview filter ALL incoming data through. How we interpret the evidence, as well as how we determine what is valid evidence, etc. since all worldviews at their core have presuppositions that are not testable, its important to examine each worldview internally, to look for self contradiction, since that is the bedrock of refutation.

    atheism is a religion, it has items of faith it believes in religiously and cannot prove, and it is a worldview which attempts to address all the same eternal questions about the nature of reality that religions address. any philosophical position which addresses the same questions religions address, even if it denies the questions themselves (a form of addressing them), it is still a religion. Playing word games about atheism simply being an absence of belief in a God will get you no where. The fact of the matter is that is NOT all that atheism is. Not by a long shot.

  32. Atheism is for the intellectually retarded who don't understand evidence. Atheists put way too much weight on evolution's hypothesis that all life shares a common ancestor, which is patently absurd in light of the utter lack of relevant evidence and zero evidentiary foundation that such a thing is even remotely biologically possible in the first place. In other words, Atheists believe their interpretation of circumstantial evidence is valid because they say so. Sophomoric, intellectually irresponsible, and ignorant of its self defeating tautology.

  33. SYNCHRONICITY I was just about to buy a painting of the "school of athens. low and behold your channel pops up 2 days later with that background
    weird

  34. This was as good as I expected. Dawkins and Hitchens weren't philosophers but Harris IS pushing an atheistic, nihilistic, philosophy of science, that at its very core is historically revisionist, and denies the existence of free will and anything that can't be quantified in a lab…

  35. who Where the Gods of cave men how could they survive with no God to tell what is Good and Bad,The Universe Does not care about your existence ,It owes you nothing,But you owe it your existence, Humanbeings like to Put themselves at the center of the Universe,You will End oneday But the Universe is more than your single existence,Human existence carries on Beyond your extinction, Athisam is only nialistic to the Self-centred and those unwilling to accept the finality of Death

  36. How convinient of you to dismiss both Hitchens and Dawkins without presenting any argument, and how useful it is not to bring up Sam Harris.

  37. Come on facebook page MICHAELA ROTHSCHILD to join us in this ww3 against terrorism and Islam with David De ROTHSCHILD soon and THANKS as my husband to BE

  38. There is not much difference between atheists and theists, both are merely believers. Stop being a believer and become a seeker. Seek the truth, don't fall into agreement and disagreement before inquiry and research; existence has given us all the tools needed to do so. So use them and find the truth, because belief is just a strategy to deceive yourself.

  39. Atheists were the guys that raped the religious sisters and hung the priests. Dogmatic humourless bores who returned our nation to the Stone age.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published