Did this brainlet seriously never consider the hard problem of consciousness?

It does, but even that falters past a certain point. Does logic explain the color red?

I'm sorry, is your argument that people abandoned Christianity and religion for no reason at all?

No, Christianity failed because people had more free time and wanted to use that free time to enjoy life which Christianity is "as Pic related pretty much says in all of his works", unnatural and against the joy of life. People were no longer clinging to a false sense of hope of an afterlife, they wanted to find joy in this life. The Clerks used to be the most knowledgeable people around and were thus trusted by the general population on their belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. With the advent of the printing press and the enlightenment, people were becoming more aware of the faulty history of Christianity. They were rebelling against it because for most of history Christianity served as a weapon against the people used by nobles to firm their control over them. They wanted to be free but had nothing to replace it, they found that life had no meaning and were desperate for a way out... and thus spoke Zarathustra to give them a salvation against that Nihilism

Two steps forward, one step back. This is always how it goes whenever a culture shifts into new values. It doesn't mean Christian values were truer than what has come after.

All you describe is a consequent of empiricism not finding any evidence for God, as there is nothing to fear from solely pursuing earthly pleasure, because we became certain that God is not real like tables are real, therefore there is no possibility at all of supernatural punishment.

That is the core here, not the misdeeds of the church, it's why socialism and atheism went hand in hand.

Imagine a world where everything is the same, but we were witnessing angels descending from heaven every day and performing miracles.

Nobody would proclaim 'God is dead' then, in spite of whatever harm religions caused.

No, but it does mean there is no rational basis upon which to reject them either. The usual basis is that empiricism failed to find God, but empiricism also failed to find mind.

Are we to proclaim 'mind is dead', then? Because that is absurd, it means empiricism failing to find God does not allow us to reject the existence of God, or gods, or spirits in general, because using empiricism and reason to do so would mean we have to reject mind as well, and it is impossible to reject mind.

Free time is a spook

Nietzsche's "God is dead" madman parable was not him pointing out that Western civilization now had a rational basis with which to reject God. For Nietzsche, the underlying current of the world is irrational, which the rational sits on top of and at the whimsy of the irrational, like ourselves sitting on top of the tectonic plates which shift despite our desires per the planet's mechanisms. The parable was a prophetic vision that Nietzsche had. He noticed that there would be an unconscious spiritual takeover of Western civilization would would render God meaningless to us. The meaning of this vision is twofold:

1. God was ever only meaningful to us because of an unconscious spiritual takeover, not because it was true.

2. This change is out of our hands.

Nietzsche attributes the change to the belief in God, too. Our belief and narrow focus on God Almighty trickled into our other endeavors and influenced the path that the sciences were developed on, which eventually brought us to the creation of a civilization that was structured in such a way that the switch to God becoming meaningless became inevitable. From this, he birthed his Overman idea, which is not an idea based simply on Nietzsche's personal whimsy, but yet another one of his prophetic visions. The Overman will become the meaning of the earth because the earth wills it, not because Nietzsche wills it.

Attached: Nietzsche.jpg (1080x1080, 123K)

I see, this is more sensible. Obviously, whatever revelation Nietzsche had cannot be questioned, as it is beyond the grasp of reason.

The same is true for any revelation anyone has though. It's something like the blind men and the elephant.

Attached: 590.png (624x628, 64K)

>The same is true for any revelation anyone has though. It's something like the blind men and the elephant.
Sure. Nietzsche more or less said the same thing. What matters more to the prevalence of an interpretation than the "truth" of an interpretation is the "power" behind it.

Attached: 10162-Friedrich-Nietzsche-Quote-All-things-are-subject-to-interpretation.jpg (3840x2160, 3.55M)

>that hair line
yikes

Based Wittgensteinian.

Nietzsche =/= Dennett

>that there is no such thing as the supernatural
No, rejection of the idea of God is based on the fact the we discovered our evolutionary past. That we are not supernatural in origin.
And just because we don't have a complete understanding of the world, doesn't imply that what we don't know is "supernatural".

Actually god is dead becuase kant quick scoped him in critque of pure reason.

> understanding of the world, doesn't imply that what we don't know is "supernatural".

Perhaps, but there is also no evidence that it is natural. Reason breaks down at this boundary.

What we instead have is that everyone constantly experiences irreducible revelations through their qualia.

The idea of a revelation is, according to modern man, an absurd delusion of a religious mind.

I know that perhaps around here, it is more understood that there exist things beyond materialism, but modern man does not know this. Modern man genuinely believes science and empiricism to provide the whole truth, no truth outside it all, and that is a delusion.

What the fuck is this man's problem?

Attached: chalmers.jpg (1280x720, 93K)

He did no such thing. The critique is limited to an understanding of the form of human awareness.

>I CANT EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS THEREFORE GOD DID IT I CANT EXPLAIN HOW THE PLANETS GOT THE INTIAL SPEED TO ORBIT AROUND THE SUN SO GOD DID IT I CANT EXPLAIN HOW LIGHTNING WORKS SO THOR DID IT I CANT EXPLAIN I CANT EXPLAIN WHY RAIN HAPPENS THEREFORE THE RAIN GOD DID IT I CANT EXPLAIN WHERE BABIES COME FROM THEREFORE THE STORK DID IT
>I AM VERY SMART AND IF ANYONE TRIES TO POINT OUT IM DOING AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE FALLACY I WILL POST A FEDORA

>Between you and me, there is absolutely no need to give up “the soul” itself, and relinquish
one of the oldest and most venerable hypotheses – as often happens with
naturalists: given their clumsiness, they barely need to touch “the soul”
to lose it. But the path lies open for new versions and sophistications of
the soul hypothesis – and concepts like the “mortal soul” and the “soul as
subject-multiplicity” and the “soul as a society constructed out of drives
and affects” want henceforth to have civil rights in the realm of science.
By putting an end to the superstition that until now has grown around the
idea of the soul with an almost tropical luxuriance, the new psychologist
clearly thrusts himself into a new wasteland and a new suspicion. The old psychologists might have found things easier and more enjoyable –:
but, in the end, the new psychologist knows by this very token that he is
condemned to invention – and, who knows? perhaps to discovery.

>God is dead is based on the assertion that empiricism and logic disprove the existence of god.
NOPE

The thing about the HPC, is that it's genuinely considered intractable. Physics already got down to the subatomic level, there's nowhere else to go.