I've looked into this faggot more closely, and he's really started to piss me off lately...

I've looked into this faggot more closely, and he's really started to piss me off lately. He is of course partially correct, atheism breeds nihilism, and nihilism is a poison.
The problem is his answer to that is to go with a half-measure, perennialist response of
>It's all the same bucko, shamanism, Abrahamic religions, eastern religions, they all draw water from the same well
Someone should tell meaning searcher boy that looking into religion with this scatter shot approach is like saying the word apple and orange have the same meaning. It's fucking illogical.
He's literally the 21st century equivalent of the soul searching hippie of the 60s, one that fucked himself over with benzos. For a culture to have meaning, it has to agree upon the central religious monolith, otherwise it simply won't work.

Attached: 4504.jpg (930x558, 21.55K)

>The most effective poison is that which you slip in with the medicine

>atheism is the medicine
Being an atheist in the year of our Lord 2k22 is literally the most midwit thing you can be.

Are you so stupid you cannot see the overlap in every single religion? You're not upset by his opinion, you're upset that he is correct and it forces you to step outside your thinly-lined thought process.

Clean your penis

Based

>they all draw water from the same well
Being human nature, idiot.

He's a total idiot his last Rogan podcast way the nail in the coffin. He's just fotm because all his ebfs are all so enamored with him and so happy to see him "back". Well lookie here boys drugs claim another great mind. You still need convincing?

>Are you so stupid you cannot see the overlap in every single religion?
Are you so stupid that you can't realize that just because there is an overlap it doesn't mean that you can substitute religions willy nilly?
If God exists, He has a nature, if He has a nature, then it's only logical that one religion gets more right than another.
But God most certainly is not an impersonal, cosmical force. The existence of the logos pretty much refutes that possibility.

Correct.
I'm going to divulge something you don't deserve from a very important piece of literature from the 18th century.
It is poorly copy and pasted, and I'm not sorry about that:
>When , after ages of ignorance and error , man became in some degree civilized , and he turned his mind to a close contemplation of the fountain of light and life -- of the celestial fire — he would observe among the earliest discoveries which he would make , that by its powerful agency all nature was called into action ; that to its return in the spring season the animal and vegetable creation were indebted for their increase as well as for their existence . It is probable that for this reason chiefly the sun , in early times , was believed to be the creator , and became the first object of adoration . This seems to be only a natural effect of such a cause . After some time it would be discovered that this powerful and beneficent agent , the solar fire , was the most potent destroyer , and hence would arise the first idea of a Creator and Destroyer united in the same person . But much time would not elapse before it must have been observed , that the destruction caused by this powerful being was destruction only in appearance , that destruction was only reproduction in another form - regeneration ; that if he appeared sometimes to destroy , he constantly repaired the injury which he seemed to occasion — and that , without his light and heat , every thing would dwindle away into a cold , inert , unprolific mass .