Lord of the Rings anime sequel

What was the anime you watched?
Castlevania isn't anime btw

ok, then why should they adapt european catholic stuff? stick to your bugman shinto shit, don’t infect western stuff with it

Are you drunk? holy shit. I'm a character from LOTR. This is the god of my universe.

>why don’t you ask tolkien to show you his god?
Because he's dead and would just tell me to frick off if he wasn't and call the police when I refuse to.
>im saying homosexuals like you should stay away from adapting literature that embodies a world view utterly opposite to yours
I'm saying your world view is fricking moronic, makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, you are totally incapable of PROVING your magical sky daddy's existence so I don't care when some other culture wipes their ass with your insane garbage.

Yes I'm fricking mad, I'm sick of people making wild and ridiculous claims while smugly refusing to fricking show anything. GET YOUR FRICKING GOD TO COME DOWN HERE AND SHAKE MY FRICKING HAND OR SHUT YOUR FRICKING MOUTH ABOUT HIM.

I don’t get what’s not making sense to you here. The books are good and have the comfiness they do because they aren’t inspired by some nihilistic homosexual view of reality. It’s like getting a mormon to write game of thrones or something, the brain writing it would be incompatible with the established reality of the story. That’s why the tv show came across as so insincere and awful.

sir, the only one talking about god is you

>still dodging the point incredible

I don’t get what’s not making sense to you here. The books are good and have the comfiness they do because they aren’t inspired by some nihilistic homosexual view of reality. It’s like getting a mormon to write game of thrones or something, the brain writing it would be incompatible with the established reality of the story. That’s why the tv show came across as so insincere and awful.

Fair enough, thanks for the honest answer, but I have real issues with the notion that deism is the only way to find meaning in the world. The will to help others and to make the world a better and more wholesome place should come from one's own sense of virtue, not an erroneous belief in an invisible being that guides us all and gives us meaning (because somehow a higher power's will supersedes our own in terms of value). I like the atmosphere of the story and the world he created, I just hate the notion that anything good and right in this world is because this intangible fricking thing floating in the cosmos said so, it's silly, infantile and robs the genuine goodness of actions actual living people take.

Do you?

Literally people just said you shouldn’t get people with a completely incompatible world view to tolkiens to adapt his work and extend it. It won’t work. You started screeching that you don’t believe in god when it’s not relevant, tolkien did

>Why does it matter? Again would I want a devout catholic to make a sequel to thus spoke zarathustra? No. It goes both ways.
Fair

It is barely about atheism and mostly about his overman larp. Christian nietzsche is just dostoyevsky who i’m fairly sure nietzsche didn’t like

the whole “make your own morals and meaning” crap the other sperg was writing paragraphs about is a direct result of his thinking so yeah he’s popular. believing that instead of centuries of culture and language and philosophy and brain chemistry breeding axiomatic ways of thinking into you, you actually just spontaneously generate the moral and metaphysical truth about everything as some infallible deity individual outside of time is concomitant on what he wrote about

Nietzsche actually quite liked Dostoevsky

He even called him "the only psychologist from whom I had something to learn"

>nothing spontaneously made all reality and your brain chemistry and thoughts are the random meaningless result of atomic collisions who present a provably inaccurate and merely useful to eat and frick model of reality to your awareness
Correct, and until you can prove otherwise, I cannot fathom thinking any differently.
>LELELE
Knock it off homosexual, everyone knows what good and evil are. Killing someone else isn't wrong because God said so, it's wrong because you are causing suffering and snuffing out another life.

I think deciding that you personally have the ability and right to invent a standard of morality you then proceed to judge all over life on is the most delusional arrogant shit i’ve ever heard. Each to his own.

Every single person on the entire planet does this every day of their lives and a supreme all creating God doing the exact same thing does not overtake my own determinations. It's not difficult to be a decent and kindhearted person just because homosexuals (not you, just in general) can argue all day and night that such things cannot be objectively quantified, nobody out there is running around setting babies on fire because God didn't tell them not to. Job should've told God to go frick himself.

that’s like getting mad that the laws of mathematics determine what is true. if you’re religious god isn’t a being floating around, he is being itself, he is the somethingness instead of nothing all material reality is willed by and parasitic on. morality in that case is no different from gravity or thermodynamics, it’s a rule inherently part of the universe that you cohere with.

I hate people who do this, you try to argue God is not a particular being like almost all modern concepts of Christianity claim him to be but some nebulous all encompassing willpower coursing through the universe. There is no identifiable will, it is sheer randomness. Elements move and behave in predictable manners with no determinable intelligence behind any of them, they simply are.

All concepts of good and evil are rooted in pleasure and suffering. There is absolutely no exception to this ever that isn't rooted in moronic religious hogwash. What makes one suffer and one feel pleasure are mostly universal and while definitely not objective, aren't arbitrary either, and you don't need total objectivity to base your behavior on them. I like animals, I recognize many of them can experience emotions, I feel bad when I think about them suffering, so when the opportunity arises I try to help them (feed the birds, help insects outside to a safer area where they won't just starve indoors, care for my shelter dog etc). I know someone out there, probably too many, would take pleasure in making them suffer. Does my will objectively have more value than theirs? Nope. Does that mean I don't hate them and hope they rot in a concrete cell for the rest of their lives? Nope. If God told me to sacrifice a goat, what would I say? Go frick yourself.
>That chemical impulse for “good” has emerged from particles colliding together until an organism bred successfully enough to stick around. What has any of that got to do with good or evil?
Chemical impulses are the only things driving either of us to be here or do any of this at all, so I don't get how you can find them meaningless.

>Suffering and pleasure are two sensations that evolved for no reason whatsoever so that particles which generated self replicating cells for no reason whatsoever could be protected more efficiently.
yep
>Where are you getting a moral ought from there? Why would I be “good” (based on whatever your specific definition is) if at base goodness derived from conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with good and are really just unconscious self perpetuation methods?
Why in the world do behaviors that evolved for self preservation have no meaning to you? Life is all there is, you either exist or you don't, so naturally organisms that were motivated to exist would develop them.
>And really, if the whole system is based on self perpetuation and preservation, I have a duty to frick people over to dominate myself
No, you don't, and this is one thing I hate about debating with people: everything needs to be taken to some extreme. Just because these behaviors arose from a goal doesn't mean you need to minmax towards that goal at all times, you are a conscious thinking emotional being motivated to arbitrary goals by a great many things. Would this be different if God said X is right and Y is wrong?
>Why does existing inherently generate meaning?
Why would God existing inherently generate meaning?

>Organisms are motivated to exist, that doesn’t mean morally they have to, or should.
Now you are just being silly. If your God says otherwise, he is evil.

>nobody is setting babies on fire
People literally did this in carthage. People did similar shit in south america. Indians burned their wives alive. People don’t randomly develop the very specific post christian western secular system of ethics you have lmao. Spartans threw infants off of fricking cliffs. Odysseus murders a baby in the illiad and there’s no hint whatsoever he did anything wrong, it was an enemy baby. Your values aren’t some sort of magical unchanging code built into human brains, they’re changeable and based on conditioning the same way training a dog is. It’s bizarre that you claim to be all rational about reductionist about physics and then turn into a caveman when this question comes up.
>because God said so
Not said, but is so. Again, why is something true? Because it’s objectively a part of the way reality functions, if it isn’t, it’s subjective. If morality isn’t made up, it is intrinsic to reality in some way and can be quantified. No different from any other law.

Because if you believe in morality, it must be objective and an actual part of reality. I don’t believe a series of contingent causal events are self justifying but likely parasitic on a force of reality that isn’t perishable or bound by time and contingency- the same way a mathematical system under gödel can’t be proven without reference to a system outside of it. It’s like trying to define truth- we know what it is, but any definition is instantly circular and axiomatic. It’s based on some sort of ideal faculty that isn’t derived by observation but is innate to the way we perceive reality. That’s the same place I think moral impulses come from.

I think deciding that you personally have the ability and right to invent a standard of morality you then proceed to judge all over life on is the most delusional arrogant shit i’ve ever heard. Each to his own.

Piss of you worthless, stupid, ill read, ill educated dim light bulb internet atheist wet fart. You are stupid and it is time you were told that. I mean thick. Your best hope is you are a teenager and will evolve.

Oh also he stated Isaac Asimov as one of his favourite comtemporary writers, who was literally an atheist israelite who wrote sci-fi

>Sauron was not a 'sincere' atheist, but he preached atheism, because it weakened resistance to himself
from his letters. if the dude is making a literal demon eye preach atheism the man himself probably didn’t like it. also read his essay on fairy stories where he compares materialists to jailers who want to control how people think

Lmao this fricking dude thinks he knows anything about Tolkien while ignoring that the guy, a devout Catholic, was friends for decades with an atheist. Get the frick out of here, poser. You reek of /misc/.

I would love to see how upset he would be if he could see his the endstate of his attempt at creating a distinctly British folklore now lmao. Even the Jackson movies that i liked were so far from the soul of the books that Christopher Tolkien fricking hated them. They weren't even able to get the Amazon drek made until he was dead and buried.

He became Christian when he was 32 years old

Sure, but that doesn't change that he was an atheist at one point