/lit/ - Literature

>>16867460
The figures of the enlightenment like Kant or Rousseau were religious you dumb retard.

Kant literally says at the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason that “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” ...

>>14919263
> what reasoning could those of you who are theists possibly have for a...
-> There are countless books that explain the reasoning of belief: Lao Tzu, Zhuangzhhi, Homer, Bhagavad Gita, Plato, the Sufi poets, Buber, Augustine, Pascal, Alesteir Crowley, Abraham J. Heschel, Simone Weil, Paul Tillich, Boethius, James Joyce, Carl Jung, ... I could go on.

>... have [a reasoning] for a... for which no evidence exists.
-> You could ask atheists the same thing: "Why would you NOT believe in something for which you don't have any evidence" Yea, this is the unpopular counter argument, but ok, nevermind, here's the real one:
It is obviously the case that through all of human culture, history, society that there was some kind of religion present (heck even Marxism is by "smart" atheists considered a religion since it doesn't fit into their western secular world view shaped by Christianity). It's a fact that there's gotta be some kind of order/will to the universe/reality/world, but not because the universe/reality/world system require or don't require one, but because we humans do: we need one in order to explain the world to us: why we live, why we die, why we do anything and everything really. Because religion is not focused (solely) on some metaphysical grounds, it's (also) very practical and poetical, like the human mind. Religion works through stories, symbols, visions of the fantastical and the absurd, through parables and morals, through art, through human relationships, and so on.

> Do you simply not subscribe to the scientific consensus of the modern era?
-> Why would anyone "simply subscribe" to the scientific consensus. Scientists don't do this either. You have to test and prove something, you can't just subscribe to the concensus. No one should do this, we should question everything, it doesn't matter whether you are a theist or atheist (and you are being a bad atheist for assuming or suggesting something like this, because you don't spread your gospel, that is, the atheist gospel: "Don't just follow what some old book says, be rational and question everything")

> Things don't need evidence to exist?
-> To really answer this, we would have to know and understand how exactly things come into existence or non-existence, how exactly language, the senses, consciousness and the human brain works and so on... Anyway, again, if you look at history and the human need for religion in society and in the individual, you'll find a lot of evidence (where's the atheist utopia?)

> What are your thoughts ... that there exists a ... positive correlation between atheism and high intelligence?
-> Doesn't mean shit if you don't cite anything. Still, it's impossible to say, since it depends on the place and time age and culture. Also, some of smartest people were, religious (Da Vinci, Pascal, the Greeks...)
Anyway, why would this even matter, isn't the atheistic argument: "We are supported by science and logic, not by the fallible human masses"