Atheist vs Christian vs Spiritual Thinker

[Leo Gura]

It's crucial to realize that scholarship is not truth-seeking nor real philosophy.

Academia trains scholars, not truth-seekers.

John Vervaeke is a great example of how even the best acadrmic is still severely limited in understanding.

Vervaeke is as good as academic philosophy gets but it is nowhere close to enough for what I teach. You cannot understand reality that way.

Truth/Consciousness/God/Love is completely beyond all that. Nothing human will do.

Edited yesterday at 05:41 AM by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

4 hours ago, Alexop said:

The most annoying thing about those pseudo-thinkers is that they gaslight you by calling you uneducated enough to understand their deep shit. If a youngster cannot grasp what you say there it is probably shit, or it is too advanced for 99% of people so little to no effect in helping society.

Anytime someone says you need to read a book to understand them they are bs and you shouldnt listen. A good way to sort through bs is to understand this. You dont need to read a single book to understand the universe.

Old people will gaslight and be like people used to thirst for knowlege and read every new book. Thats because they were bored as fuck and have 0 imagination.

Edited yesterday at 05:44 AM by Hojo

[Alexop]

2 hours ago, Hojo said:

Anytime someone says you need to read a book to understand them they are bs and you shouldnt listen. A good way to sort through bs is to understand this. You dont need to read a single book to understand the universe.

Old people will gaslight and be like people used to thirst for knowlege and read every new book. Thats because they were bored as fuck and have 0 imagination.

People form different times used to feed their egos in different ways. Reading books is a good way to feed your ego. Meditation and spirituality is ego's another favourite. Academia and presenting studies, another.

It is amazing to me that most people who do these things wake up with more ego not less, especially if they get successful. Tell to a vipassana rat that they are not enlightened or even if they are, their epistemology is shit because they only how to stop thinking and not how to think. Tell to the coolest academic professor that they are full of shit. Tell to a person who read 3000 books that their behaviour is the same as before they read those books. 

 

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

John Vervaeke is a great example of how even the best acadrmic is still severely limited in understanding.

He isn't just an academic, he is much more than that.

You are framing this whole thing as if a good chunk of Vervaeke's work wouldn't go completely against most of academia's group think.

You know that he is the dude who introduced multiple ways of knowing and that philosophy is much more than just conceptualizing about things, right?

[Salvijus]

15 hours ago, Hojo said:

Every time Alex is asked a question about why he thinks something he either quotes someone else or pedantically argues basic human knowledge almost intentionally to not say what he thinks personally. Like a robot. He cant debate these things because hes pretending to not be human while debating aspects of being a human. This tells me hes not even a philosopher.

It's the ability to comprehend and appreciate different complex ideas while staying impartial at the same time that makes someone a great thinker. Alex shines with that quality in my view. He immediately understands everyone's position perfectly and gives appropriate responses that make them question their position in a deeper way that they haven't done before. That's a profound thing to do and requires deep intelligence. It doesn't matter if he chooses to find references for those ideas, it's his personal choice. Really there are no new ideas. Everything profound has already been said thousands of years ago. 

Edited yesterday at 12:39 PM by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

He isn't just an academic, he is much more than that.

You are framing this whole thing as if a good chunk of Vervaeke's work wouldn't go completely against most of academia's group think.

You know that he is the dude who introduced multiple ways of knowing and that philosophy is much more than just conceptualizing about things, right?

It's still not good enough. He will never realize God or the things I talk about.

You can tell how mired he is in academic philosophical scientific norms and ways.

It is still not truth-seeking! He is too deep inside the academic system to deconstruct it.

He is exactly my point about how serious this problem is. As you say he is exceptional as far as academics go. But it is still not enough to reach what I am trying to teach you guys.

I am trying to lead you to an entirely new domain of consciousness. Beyond anything humans understand or speak about.

Edited yesterday at 02:01 PM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am trying to lead you to an entirely new domain of consciousness. Beyond anything humans understand or speak about.

You are also gesturing towards a new and different type of cognition that can process info and reason in completely alien ways , right?

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

You are also gesturing towards a new and different type of cognition that can process info and reason in completely alien ways , right?

Yes

Trans-human cognition, divinely inspired.

[Aaron p]

got Gemini to sort the primary arguments into neat format:

The discussion centers on the modern Purpose Crisis, analyzing foundational answers offered by Christianity, Atheism, and Spiritual thinking.

 

Stances and Foundational Arguments

 

1. Christian Apologist (Greg)

Objective Meaning: Purpose is absolute, real, and flows from God's design.

Rejection of Nihilism: Rejects the idea that "the glory is in the search," viewing this as a "nihilistic enterprise" because definitive, objective conclusions about ultimate meaning are possible.

Criterion for Meaning: Meaning requires lasting significance. The "meteor thought experiment" suggests if all legacy ends shortly after death, typically meaningful human activities become pointless.

The Problem of Suffering: Suffering (e.g., cancer) is explained as the impact on the world resulting from the violation of God's commands (original sin reference).

 

2. Atheist/Psychiatrist (Alex)

Subjective/Practical Meaning: Finding meaning and purpose is a practical, internal, psychological task.

Clinical Goal: The goal is clinical—to solve the problem of a suicidal patient who has "no reason to live" within weeks by teaching them to find purpose.

Empirical Definition: Purpose is defined and measured empirically as a "sense of meaning" that is quantifiable (on a scale).

Focus on Control: Life is often experienced as passive challenges (feeling controlled). Purpose is about regaining freedom by engaging with active challenges.

 

3. Spiritual Thinker (Dr. K)

Effective Outcomes: Both science and spirituality are effective for mental health outcomes, including reducing suicidality and improving resilience.

Holistic View: Focuses on mechanisms that provide a concrete, felt reason to wake up in the morning.

 

Key Rebuttals and Debate Points

The Nature of Purpose: The Christian distinguishes between the "sense of meaning" (subjective) and "real meaning" (objective truth), arguing a person's feeling can be misguided. The Atheist rejects the religious solution as a "solution being provided without explaining exactly why it provides a solution".

Suffering and Worldview: The Atheist challenges that a worldview which fails to make sense of the moral intuitions about suffering is inadequate, demanding more than a reference to "mythical human beings".

AI end___

 

The central theme seems to be purpose and it's influence on the reduction of suffering. There is without doubt a mental health crisis currently for young people in particular and with the digital age in full force, people don't know how to handle the pure lack of apparent purpose in anything in a world led by western civilisations that are becoming more secularly materialistic and hedonistic by the minute. 

Theory aside for a moment, it's actually a super central topic. Overall people usually have to choose to either be a religious ideologue, a hard headed atheist or an airy fairy spiritual person who secretly also has no idea but is actually closer to the truth because he doesn't think he knows it like the other two but lacks power as a result. 

In terms of what I actually care about in the video, probably would be that the video itself stands as a testament that humans do not understand how to solve life. This is pretty much my only observation.