/lit/ - Literature

>>10549535
>being a logical positivist
>in howevermany years if years exist of the replication crisis
kek did /sci/ laugh at you too?

>>10549537
Oh look another entirely unsubstantiated perspective of the universe that has existed 0.00000000000001% of its history

>>10549540
ikr, it's almost like transcendental idealism is as good as it's getting

>>10549547
What's the relation to religion?

>>10549567
that line jesus stole from plato that everyone calls kant's categorical imperative.

There's a reason why atheists can't produce good art anon

>fiction is bad
I don't know you're going to swing the market at this point, anon.

>>10549535
you dont understand what religion is, there is a reason why some spread all over the world and last thousands of years while others fade away with no records.
Its obviously more than just silly ways to explain the world by people who didnt have science

report non-literature threads
https://sys.4chan.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=10549535

>>10549583
It’s really not.

>>10549577
I like fiction

>>10549573
I also agree with this, I find churches beautiful and enjoy ancient stories. I think being purely rational is a shitty way to live. But none of these things motivate me to makes non-empirical claims about why the universe exists.

What should I masturbate to, lads?

>>10549535
>the universe started x years ago
brainlets not only say this, but start constructing sciences based around such a laughably stupid assertion

you are all hopeless

>>10549616
your own baby pics

>>10549606
whats with all the rules on how to live life then? are those just fun trivia?

I've started to feel guilty about my own thread but it is refusing to delete. Feel free to report.

>>10549641
We could talk about books now if you like?

dae sience is literally infallible, just like how the bible was in the middle ages but this time it's true???

>>10549645
I'd rather that yes. Any writers similar to Lovecraft one could recommend? I finished his complete works and am craving more

>>10549627
Basically yeah.

>>10549535
>I can only think of 2 reasons to believe in God in resistance to all reason

There's another one:-
3. Everyone around you believes in God and you want to fit in.

In fact this is the chief reason people believe in God.

>>10549535
>"It's the current year" isn't an argument
>Atheists claim that god doesn't exist
>Religious people claim he does
Nobody actually knows for 100% certainty so both groups are wrong.

You have to have "faith" to believe in both Atheism and Religion.

Nontheists of /lit/, who are you favourite religious writers?
For me, it's St. John, St. Augustine, Simone Weil, and Martin Buber.

>>10549535
What kind of shitty social circle are you in OP? Athiesm is for mid-class midwits.

>>10549660
Agnostic deism following a moral code to the letter is the way to go.

Also, since we are seconds away from creating a contained AI, I think we can throw an infinite someone a bone and say our existence was created by conscious means, especially considering humanity has had a near constant relationship with "the divine" small d for the last 100,000 years

>>10549807
>following a moral code to the letter is the way to go.
fag

>>10549807
Also, I like how John Galsworthy puts it

>>10549813
Go in peace my brother

>>10549649
ETA Hoffmann

>>10549649
p. good

>>10549535
This board just wants to be contrarian. Atheism relies on the scientific method to progress, and as a result, that is where literature, too, is heading. /lit/ just wants to be contrarian because they think that to take the negative position of something, to have a "criticism" makes them seem smart, somehow understanding things better than the brainlet being fed scientific evidence and forming their worldview around rational humanism. No serious intellectual can accept religious beliefs. Philosophy has done away with the logical consistency of god at least since Spinoza, and science ever takes the ground from beneath religious belief. Don't get worked up by them being contrarians.

>>10549864
Meanwhile persons of all stripes go to my church on sunday and participate in charitable events all week, and proselytizing atheists are the contrarians.

>>10549869
wtf i love god now

>>10549864
This. I forget the exact summer, but whenever i first started lurking, i remember one day where there was like 10 christfag posts, and then it seemed like everything changed. Look at the archives circa 2011-2012. No one used to seriously discuss theology here (at least without a thin veneer or irony). Whenever the fedora tipping neckbeard thing started going around, there were some threads posted about the summa, calvin, et. al (which were of high quality, oddly enough), the typical "have you read all of aquinas anon?" bait type shit, and i guess the newfags took it seriously. It'd be hard to prove, but I'm sure the /pol/ migration compounded it.

>>10549869
This doesn't make any sense. People of all stripes does not lend credibility to your church, nor does doing charitable events--which any GOOD person will do regardless of their religious beliefs. There isn't a single moral thing that a humanist cannot do that a religious person can do. There are plenty of evil things religious people do that you can only do because of your religion. The whole religious people do more good than other groups has always been a very weak defense of religious membership.

>>10549606
>>10549650
w e a k

The nature of physical reality has no bearing on the capacity for God. You're essentially saying there is no God because we can prove there is no old man sitting somewhere on a cloud in the sky. Have you ever considered a creator's possible position relative to a system of metaphysics?

>>10549898
>which any GOOD person will do regardless of their religious beliefs
God I hate you kind of people. At least Christians have some kind of notion for an objective criterion of goodness. It's all just intuition and social programming with you, and yet you insist on it with all the force of a dogma.DIE moralist faggot

>>10549898
>There isn't a single moral thing that a humanist cannot do that a religious person can do.
Yeah there is: worship God.

>>10549898
>The whole religious people do more good than other groups has always been a very weak defense of religious membership.
Its not about capacity to do good its about capacity to do bad. Atheists who still hold on to their juvenile resentment of otber peoples moral certainty bave a far easier time dropping the act and doing something shitty. I cant think of any two perspectives more different from which you might construct your moral identity between the sense of being a part of a system outside yourself and the sense of being utterly and completely morally self defining.

>>10549535
>it's the current year+3
>still using current year memes

>>10549928
>>10549928
>>10549928
>>10549928
>>10549928
>>10549928

>>10549616

>>10549646
yeah, it's infallible like a hammer is infallible. the statement doesn't really mean much. regarding the infallibility of the morons who use science and hammers though...

>>10549807
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>>10549869
>thousands of years of religion
humans continue to thrive and exist

>100 years of atheism
lol now we have atom bombs and almost wiped out all of humanity and also commit genocide upon genocide

>>10549535
>-We know *wildly controversial and arguably flat-out wrong statement*
ok great argument dude

>>10549952
>humans continue to thrive and exist
t.guy who didn't have to face mongol/arab/napoleonic/conquistador/etc hordes

>>10549952
>>100 years of atheism
and the most atheistic societies have to unironically import humans from more traditional societies because they are not self-sustainable

>>10549962
their genocides were nothing compared to the 20th century

>>10549963
The import of cheap labour is because of capitalism not atheism.

You can't prove the bible is true, but you can prove it is false.

>>10549969
>muh juice

>>10549969
>nothing
mongols
>30 million up to 70 million
muslim conquest of india
>over 400 million Hindus

>>10549979
same thing

>>10549942

is that clairo?

>>10549969
what these guys >>10549990>>10549986 said (although these figures are questionable)
people also have better technology, so don't conflate the effect of technology on our ability to inflict violence with "atheism"
fucking people don't understand basic concepts like causation vs correlation

>>10549676
>[Philosophical opinion] is for [insult/buzzword].
Beat it, kid.

dont bother op. biblefreaks are unreasonable, their outdated ways is being culturally extinguished

>>10549676
>>10549653

>>10549952
This is your brain on religion.

>>10549535
Just spend a minute picturing the opposing political party of your own in your country and all the people that belong to that opposing party as having no basis for an objective morality, no historical connection to their culture. Once you picture a group like republicans in the USA without religion, knowing what types of people they are, what do you think would happen? Take a moment to speculate, as human's are built to do.

>>10549535
/lit/ never really used to be religious and used to just view holy texts as literature
But you would know that if you weren't just a baiting polfag

>>10549898
You're a little too confident about morality there, bud. Read On the Genealogy of Morality and/or Beyond Good and Evil.

Religion is the highest form of art. If you don't understand art you can't understand religion, vice versa. Tarkovsky said it best when he said that the purpose of art is to help man advance spiritually.
But you wouldn't know anything about that, since you posted that trash meme.

>>10549573
>Who is Beckett
>Who is Joyce
>Who is Calvino
>Who is Ungaretti
>Who is Leopardi
>Who is Lucretius
etcetera

>>10549535
>Praying, dedicating hours and weeks to practicing religion
Lmao always funny when people assume if you believe in God you must believe in some abrahamic religion or some shit like that. Just be a deist.

>>10550355
there's nothing your pathetic judeochristian gods can do that the flying spaghetti monster can't do better

>- We know the universe is 13.8 billion years old and dictated entirely by physical laws
>- We know these physical laws give rise to evolution which can produce conscious beings
>- We understand the all too human origins of the hundreds of religious faiths on Earth that are all nonsensical and mutually incompatible early attempts of apes to explain their surroundings
>- We know that we are nothing but matter and chemical reactions and that there's no such thing as free will
>- Almost no public intellectuals who are taken seriously are religious
>- No arguments for religion or God withstand even the mildest scrutiny

Every single one of these statements is false.

>>10550328
Metropolis is kitsch and not real art..

all we know is that the world is all that is the case, biotch

>>10549535
None of that proves the inexistence of a god tho.

>>10549928
Ah, right, you think there needs to be objective morality in order for their to any morality at all. It's ok, we have all turned 16 before and read Mere Christianity.
Secular humanists can feel just as passionately about their morals as a religious person does regardless of the way by which they arrive at their morality. Evolutionary altruism explains why humans developed morals. This doesn't require cloud man, and sufficiently explains it. This is a perfectly valid way to have subjective morality and reach the same conclusions, just by a different method--a more rational and self-correcting method. It is idiots like you that think if morality isn't objective then we are all going to be anarchists and savages. Use your noggin, anon. Try picking up some Darwin at your library, or start in the kid's section with Everyone Poops so you can see that even you are full of shit.

>>10549933
This doesn't explain anything. If you are not religious then this doesn't apply to you, and you are back at the same objection.

>>10550171
I have read both. Nietzsche is making precisely this point, that in the absence of god, the individual is responsible for value-creation. If you remember, Nietzsche proposed that in the moment where master and slave morality came to exist, it was the slave morality which in a moment of genius inverted their moral system to value suffering and self-denial so as to regain control over their will to power. But after that moment it no longer served as a useful inversion, and began to harm the religious individuals that acted this way. This conversation is no different. Just continuing to value the slaves, even against Nietzsche's analysis.

Some scientifics qualify religion as a primitive behavior which only produces suffering and death amongst humans. However, they follow a somewhat christian morality. Is there a scientific argument to prove that christian morality is the best for humankind?

>>10550425
It's ok, we have all turned 16 before and read Sam Harris.
Have you ever actually thought about the things you're writing about? Or read about them, instead of regurgitating Wikipedia info and merge it with your adversarial philosophy - your worldview is defined by oppositions to someone you are having a debate with "no, BUT..." The effect of this being that you are always trying to counter someone else's rhetoric, rather than reflecting on the actual meaning and implications of your own arguments.

The point isn't "arriving at" morality (as if it were a static destination). Of course our moral thinking and behaviour is dictated by certain processes. Even the Christian registers the world in terms of grace, Fall, temptation, conscience. I'm not sure why you are so excited about the fact that morality can be "explained" by evolution, as if this is some radical information. The point is not whether or not a moral sense exists, but whether or not I actually have any real obligation to follow it. Whether or not there is in fact an 'ought' along the 'is'.

I am not arguing for theism, or for objective morality. I think you are a half-way man, several centuries past his use-by date. Stirner was very astute in his criticism of Feuerbach's 'Essence of Christianity' - Feuerbach has not moved us past religion and God, in fact he has substituted it with perhaps an even more oppressive dictate: the notion of 'Man'. This religious idea of 'Man' which is prescriptive, imbued with all the same moral content as God had been, but completely inexplicably. Why should we reify any attributes of man like this at all? At least the Christian worldview makes sense, at least it pretends it is not make-believe and not a useful delusion (Schopenhauer was quite right when he noted that the "moral truths" in Christianity, no matter how valuable, lose their power once the spell is broken... we cannot reach a compromise). Humanism is utterly arbitrary, but for some reason refuses to admit it. It is all in the last analysis just as fake as its nemesis Christianity.

You are so trapped in this idea of arguing with some redneck Christian strawman who thinks "le atheists have no reason to be moral so they arent" that you only move around upon the surface, engaging with an idea only as much as you need to so you can win debates with retards.

>>10550425
>there needs to be objective morality in order for their to any morality at all.
For their moral claims to be valid and legitimate, yes.
>Secular humanists can feel just as passionately about their morals
So feels > reals, after all?

>>10549535
>thinks physical laws haven't ever changed through spacetime

>>10549535
God is a multi-dimensional being, but religious texts lacked the linguistics and understanding necessary to explain this because humans at the time didn't even understand that they were only 3rd-dimensional creatures.

>>10550501
ok alex

>>10550504
I don't understand the reference.

>>10550516
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFIn708ssFg

>>10550501
>>10550504
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>>10550521
Yes. Exactly the same thing.

It's convenient because religion let's you sort out who just started posting here with views you can entirely ignore.

In the end I think that's why Allah created religion.

>>10550002
Yeah wtf it is

>>10550481
I take your point. I agree that it is important to engage with the ideas rather than know them only insofar as they are useful for arguing. I also agree that often the mainstream atheist movement does use the redneck Christian strawman, which really doesn't get them any closer to developing their position.

Explaining morality in secular terms involves many more processes than just evolution, but I think that evolution provides the model of selection required to show the use of some morals and not others, based on their evolutionary utility. This is separate from whether you ought to follow these morals or not. Your decision to follow certain morals lies in your formulation of value, which will likely exist in a similar way to many other people who live in similar conditions. Those very conditions are imperative enough in dictating morality--that acting good will bring about better conditions for the duration of time you are alive on earth, not some credit score you will have in the afterlife.

Humanism is far from arbitrary. What is best for humans, according to the dictates of reason, forms the content of our morality. This immediately requires an understanding of nature at it's joints in order to properly calibrate a system that maximizes individual freedom and equality. Religion cannot perform this task while enforcing cosmic rulings that clearly interfere with freedom and equality, like homosexuality, and everything of the sort. Christianity is a delusion that takes itself seriously. But why is that a good thing in your view? The humanist position is not a delusion, and is sincere. You seem to be hinting at some refined sense of nihilism, that you would prefer and delusion that "makes sense" to a world without delusion that doesn't make sense. Viewing religion and humanism in these terms neglects the redemptive qualities of both--that some form of authenticity about life can be ascertained by following the principles. I prefer to live with science as my navigator. There is no ambiguity, no delusion.

Thinking you're intellectual for being atheist when the true intellectual accepts there will never be a concrete answer for or against many things like God. If you were playing the scientific argument then be agnostic or theist that's against organised religion. Really you're just a puesd that's scared by the unknown.

>>10550350
Joyce wasn't really an atheist tho. He struggled with Catholicism and whatnot his whole life

>>10550634
>What is best for humans, according to the dictates of reason
what if religion is what is best for humans according to the dictates of reason

>>10550682
It isn't, as I said, because it leads to immoral actions, like rejecting homosexuality, condoning genital mutilation, and necessitating a submissive position to cloud man.

>>10549535
The jews stuck the Torah on the front of the bible.
You need only read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to know Christ. Then you will see (((them)))

>>10550685
All of those are only immoral in your subjective opinion.

>>10550685
the most brutal and violent regimes in the history of the world have been atheist, weird how that works out huh

>>10550690
They violate the principles of equality, which are upheld by a collection of subjective moral agents.

>>10549535

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But, because, I am enlightened by OP's intelligence.

Indeed I quite rather tip my fedora to you dearest sir, truly I do quite indeed dare say good sir, you are a pillar of rational intellectualism in a quagmire of quite rather irrational superstition.

>>10550691
Carfax

>>10549535
>- Almost no public intellectuals who are taken seriously are religious
>Only fools think 9.11 was an inside job, all public intellectuals agreee muslims did it.
>Only fools think Apollo faked the moon walks, all public intellectuals agree.
>Only fools think the Nazis tried to genocide the jews with gas chambers. All public intellectuals agree.

Meanwhile, every other intellectual who disagrees is thrown in prison.

>>10550359
>flying spaghetti monster
Since when is this place reddit?

>>10549535

>Religious thinkers
Everyone notable from year 0-1950

>Atheist thinkers
Sam Harris
Richard Dawkins
The Amazing Atheist

>>10549535
>It may suck for you, but it's time to join the rest of the intellectual world in the 21st-century.

Nah, I think its time for a Crusade to massacre all you brainwashed robopath demon cunts.
In the US I think we need a civil-war to kill all the lefty faggots who worship cuck neocon narratives.

>>10550359

Ah, good one dearest sir, I do dare truly say, good jab. Quite indeed, to us true intellectuals, a bit of fun sport quite in the vein of satire, that's par for the course. Quite indeed good sir, quite truly rather indeed. Excelsior my good dearest gentle sir, excelsior.

>A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity.

>At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.

>So people stop short at natural laws as some- thing unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.
>And they are both right and wrong. but the ancients were clearer, in so far as they recognized one clear terminus, whereas the modern system makes it appear as though everything were explained.

>>10550722
Everyone notable operating with almost none of the scientific knowledge we have today. There are many better thinkers than those atheists you listed. Shitty argument lol

>>10549535

I am a chaos magician

>>10550634
>Explaining morality in secular terms involves many more processes than just evolution, but I think that evolution provides the model of selection required to show the use of some morals and not others, based on their evolutionary utility.

Alt-Right are armed and ready to know you lefty atheist faggots Darwin's Theory in action.

We need a big civil war of culling lefty atheist faggots. They are of the devil. Christ said his last word to his disciples was "Sell your cloaks and buy a sword".
Don't mistake our virtues for weaknesses. The time will come God orders us to lay down his vengeance upon thee devil worshipers.

>>10550742
Why pretend to be a follower if you don't even understand the words of the person you follow?

>>10550742
>We need a big civil war of culling lefty atheist faggots. They are of the devil. Christ said his last word to his disciples was "Sell your cloaks and buy a sword".
Don't mistake our virtues for weaknesses. The time will come God orders us to lay down his vengeance upon thee devil worshipers.

>>10550705
>principles of equality
What has equality given us? Women and coloreds voting according to what the nice ((man)) on the television tells them? Fags marching naked through the streets in 'pride' parades? What would happen if me and some of my friends had a pride parade I wonder? And don't forget the rising acceptance of dudes with fake tits and inside-out cocks! Oh sorry I meant women lol

Equality is a meme

>Let me first consider, again, our first experience of wondering at the existence of the world and let me describe it in a slightly different way; we all know what in ordinary life would be called a miracle. It obviously is simply an event the like of which we have never yet seen. Now suppose such an event happened. Take the case that one of you suddenly grew a lion's head and he began to roar. Certainly that would be as extraordinary a thing as I can imagine. Now whenever we should have recovered from our surprise, what I would suggest would be to fetch a doctor and have the case scientifically investigated and if it were not for hurting him I would have him vivisected. And where would the miracle have got to? For it is clear that when we look at it in this way everything miraculous has disappeared; unless what we mean by this term is merely that a fact has not yet been explained by science which again means that we have hitherto failed to group this fact with others in a scientific system. This shows that it is absurd to say "Science has proved that there are no miracles." The truth is that the scientific way of looking at a fact is not the way to look at it as a miracle.

This thread proves that even the intellectual elite of the most powerful hive mind on the planet don't realise what the hell is going on, namely that we're just a bunch of artificial apes feeding the AI research data stack of reptilian overlords.

>>10550705
The principles of equality is not codified in a specific sense anywhere. They are ever evolving because they are subjective and not objective. You cannot justify subjective stances with more subjectivity.

>>10550705
>They violate the principles of equality
And? I have no obligation to care.

>>10550691
>muh mao
chinks have been killing chinks for time unmemorable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

>>10549535
>being an edgelord fedora tipper
>the current year
OP, grow up. It's 2018, not 2008. Your autistic screeching isn't going to shake any religious person.

>>10550733

Red herring and ad hominem.

Next.

>>10550897
How about you answer all the posters above then instead of cherry picking the easy arguments?

>>10549535
OP, we don't fully understand the universe. We aren't even close to fully understanding it. You're just as blind and fanatical as religious people.

>>10550908

Argumentum ad populum and ad hominem.

Next.

>>10549649
William Hope Hodgson. Start with The House on the Borderland. He was a huge influence on Lovecraft and helped pave the way for cosmic horror.

>>10549649
His biggest inspiration was Edgar Allan Poe.

>>10549535
Scientifically speaking before the big bang is it not thought that all matter and anti matter and everything the universe is was somehow all bound up tightly in one entity or being? Why could this being not have been conscious? What is the exact nature of consciousness and can it exist even if the physical form is in a state of entropy?

>>10550930
No ad hominem. Glad you studied in your freshman rhetoric class though

>>10549963

But this is not indicative of a fault of atheism, which accurately describes the world. It is instead indicative of a fault which is natural to human beings themselves, who taken as a group are clearly not well able to cope with the reality of a godless world.

The philosophy is not at fault. People are. Don't get it twisted.

>>10550946

Ironically, ad hominem. And red herring.

Next.

Corinthians

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”c

20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength

>>10550968
>dur hur fuxk logic gods smartur than logic

>>10549535
I'm really not. If anybody is right it's the Calvinists, not the Catholics or Jews or anybody like that. Everything is predetermined by fate, salvation is a sign of God's grace and mercy, and the damned were always going to be damned. Sounds cruel but that would only be an appeal by humanity at understanding.

>>10549535
Atheism, like religion, is all about faith. There isn't any irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist and there are all sorts of mysteries of life that science hasn't explained. And yet you atheists blindly cling to "science" and smugly proclaim there's no God. Agnosticism makes more sense than Atheism.
>inb4 hurr durr agnosticism is just cowardly atheism!

>>10549535
You are the living proof of how logical positivism destroyed the art and the human spirit. Now thanks to this logic we are living a meaningless hedonistic dystopia.

>>10550964
Unironically, a witty rebuttal.

>>10549583
>argument ad populum

>>10549535
>we know
False. Science is invalid and begs the question. You can stop trolling.
>No arguments for religion or God withstand even the mildest scrutiny
The most false statement of all.

>>10549606
>its not because some doucher on reddit sed so

>>10551060
you saying your life is meaningless because of fedoras on the internet?

>>10549869
I don't know any people at my church who dedicate themselves to service. Seems like a lot of them want a free eschatological ride

>>10549653
>In fact this is the chief reason people believe in God.
False. Nobody around me is religious.

>>10549807
>Agnostic deism following a moral code to the letter is the way to go.
BECUZ I SED SO
Atheists literally do not know how to think or argue.

>>10549864
Progress does not exist. Science is invalid.
> rational humanism
Rationality is irrational and humanism is inhuman
>Philosophy has done away with the logical consistency of god at least since Spinoza,
Spinoza is a nonentity to anybody who has actually studied theology.
>>10549898
>Arbitrary definition of 'good'
Somebody doesn't understand ethics

>>10549898
>There are plenty of evil things religious people do that you can only do because of your religion.
False. Not to mention that humanism is a religion.
Tankies are humanists.
>good and evil are defined by me becuz i sed so
so this is the power of atheism...

>>10550425
>Evolution
Not valid, sorry STEMsperg. Drink a bleach cocktail.
>perfectly valid
No it is not.
>hurr durr le darwin
Not an argument, sorry.
>rational
Not defended, please stop spewing trash.
>anarchism is bad
>'muh brayn' is good
Oh, so you're a statist too. Hope you enjoy a bloody uprising.

>>10549951
this isn't even sophistry. Its just stoned rambling

>>10550634
>what is best for humans
Is entirely fucking arbitrary you damn retard. This is what happens when STEMspergs think they can speak.
>freedom and equality are good
BECUZ I SED SO MUHFUGGA
>I prefer to live with science as my navigator. There is no ambiguity, no delusion.
False on all accounts. You can stop trolling now.

>>10550961
Anon raising an important side-point that is the becoming of the atheism vs religion an exercise of pointless wrangling and pseudo-intellectual fisticuffs where pseuds of both sides use logical fallacies to 'rebuke' each other. In short, that graph and the general situation is just like it's always been, that is people being slow to adjust to changing worldviews. If there's one use for the 'current year' meme, it's that it's current year and people are still fighting over this shit, like, anons wtf, go read the greeks or have sex cus you're gonna be dead soon and meet God almighty or your oblivion depending on what you subscribed to once still alive.

>>10550705
equality is only real even by your standards if everybody has the same nature, you wouldn't put a fish on dry land because "all animals have the right to breath"

now you can argue that the same "principles" should apply to fish, just adapted for their nature of breathing under the water, but at that point you have already conceded my point, and saying that all humans have the same nature is just an article of faith because it's convenient for your argument

>>10550685
>its immoral becuz i sed so
LE FUNYY LE FUCKGING CLOUD MAN XDDDDDDD LE FUNNY LE SKY FAIRY S XXDFXFDDFDFDFDGDG IM SOR RUFKCING FUJCKINY AND FUCKING ORINGALU HIXUXUXUUD LE UPBOAT CUXUHFGIDG

>>10550705
Intersubjectivity is not objectivity. Neck yourself.

>>10550733
Science is invalid. Sorry kiddo, some of us aren't impressed by hand-wavery and gadgets.

>>10549952
>stop crucifying, boiling, flaying and enslaving conquered people
>create more efficient methods of wiping out an opposing force
>normally don't even use the technology purely because its destructive capability is known
>MAD has allowed for over half a century of peace time

yeah, what a bunch of jerks

>>10550961
>its accurate becuz i sed so

>>10551012
>hurr durr logik is gud becuz i sed so hurrrrrrrr dae le logical engineer man?!?!! KILL DA JOOS REEEEEEEE

>>10550689
nah Luke is way too Jewish as well.

Why is it only atheists get triggered by Christians?

>>10550752
this is like the religious version of the fedora guy

>>10550733
Hahaha. You are so haughty you would base your faith in an unprovable theory? Well watch out, science is developing the theory that you’re an idiot and these proofs are helping us collect the proof we need. Unlike Evolution, which could never be observed, your idiocy is fully viewable by anyone inspecting this thread.

>>10550961
>which accurately describes the world

uhhhhh

>>10551012
If God is real then he very well would be "smarter than logic"

>>10549535
>Are you guys actually religious or is it just a meme on this board?
>It's 2018 guys it's fucking embarrassing to be religious at this point
Is this what passes for trolling these days?

>>10549535
>We know the universe is 13.8 billion years old and dictated entirely by physical laws
>We know these physical laws give rise to evolution which can produce conscious beings
>how's and what's
>nothing about why's or ought's
2+2 is 4, but that never put 4 pounds in my pocket.

Science is severely limited to how's and what's; its silence towards why's and ought's is deafening.

The laws of gravity only describe, they certainly aren't causal.

>We know that we are nothing but matter and chemical reactions and that there's no such thing as free will
What I plan to say right now is not an argument for free will but rather a demonstration of when determinism fails. Is not Quantum indeterminacy the accepted fact that we cannot at least not determine certain information about particles and that our description of the physical system, our universe, is literally incomplete? So it seems that determinism fails, because there are literally physical properties that we cannot obtain or describe. And yes, I know this is quite the layman's explanation of it, but it's not like quantum indeterminacy is going anywhere.

You sound like you subscribe to pure scientism. Do you think science is the only method of finding truth, measuring truth? If so, I'd assume you would hold close the scientific method. The Sci. method is pretty reliable when determining a truth value. But how would we know that with only scientific knowledge? Apply the scientific method to itself in regard to it's effectiveness when determining truth values. But that's circular is it not? Do you use a pair of pliers on itself to determine how well it grips? Do you use a pair of scissors to cut itself to determine how well it cuts? I hope not, and the same is for the scientific method. Here's another place where science is limited in determining truth. This is all if you are is some way too loyal to science in being the only path to knowledge.

Oh too, did you know that most scientists thought that universe was eternal while Christians claimed it had a beginning? Did you know that it was a Catholic priest who theorized the Big Bang? It seems that the Christians were right about this, considering most scientists think that the universe had a beginning.

If this thread want to discuss atheism and theism, it will all have to revolve around the beginning of the universe if we're to be honest.

If the theists are wrong about the origin of the universe not being deistic in nature, they ought to become atheists. If the atheists are wrong about the origin of the universe, they ought to become deists at the very least.

>>10551215
>160 replies
I don't know you tell me

>>10551087
yeah, no
the fact that some religions die and others stand the test of time proves that not all religions are the same
and it also proves that some religions must be superior to others in some way too
if some religions are superior to others then there is obviously a value structure pushing some fowards

>>10549613
lol like humans could ever be purely rational. If there are four gas stations on a corner where one has the cheapest price, why the fuck are people at all four?

let's not get into the specifics of the analogy, but humans are so irrational, everyday too, lol

>>10551261
So the fact that Christianity is dying in the west proves that Christianity is wrong

>>10551276
all religions are wrong, science is wrong all the time too, it doesnt mean there is no value to them

>>10549807
so you're a lukewarm pussy?

>creating AI
>Gödel
>outside the formal system

>>10551133
are you going to elaborate on that or ... ?

>>10550634
>What is best for humans
>>10550685
>like rejecting homosexuality

>provides no natural altruistic value for propagation of species
>implying there is such a thing as a natural morality in the first place

you can't make this up people

>>10550842
this

Y'all need some motherfucking JME McTaggart in your lives. Seriously.

>>10549583
Dude you are fucking dumb this better be a joke

At the end of the day most people are religious because they are afraid to die and afriadto acknowledge that they don't mean anything. It's just fear.

>>10551352
not an argument

Look at this fucking brainlet

>>10551375
"The religions must be around for a reason" isn't n argument for their vailidty either and that's the point. Are you serious ?

>>10551378
idk man, like 100 million died within 100 years in the 20th century and humans didn't anything fancier than famine, bullets, and exhaustion. They didn't even need God to do it...

>>10551386
that wasnt my argument?

>>10551173
excuse me

>>10551117
Did you just not feel like making any arguments today or is this how you always are?
>Rationality is irrational and humanism is inhuman
Awesome catchphrase! Do they sell this on t-shirts at Jesus camp?

Is morality sustainable from a pure scientific perspective?

>>10551126
>>good and evil are defined by me becuz i sed so
This argument, with some fierce competition, is probably the worst christian meme going around this board. You do realise that selecting Christian morals as the "objective" result of Divine Command Theory over any other faith is just as arbitrary as humanist morals? Not to mention selecting the interpretation you adhere to and which biblical texts you accept as canonical. You can pretend religious morality is the answer to 'le nihilistic chaos' all you want, but the reason Christianity stopped being persuasive is because many realised it didn't have the objectivity that contrarians such as yourself now act as though it does.

>>10551247
Someone's been listening to/reading Prof. John Lennox.
Not that I disagree.

>>10549535
>177 replies and 19 images omitted. Click here to view.

ITT: miserable abstractions

>>10551461
Hahaha, indeed. Him being a mathematician and a Christian intrigues me; I'm a math major and I'm Catholic Christian.

>>10551449
Christianity at least have given society a codified, working compendium of morals. Atheism must strive to do the same with at least some level of cohesion if it ever wants to replace theism as a social structure. A council of Nicea for atheism, if you will.

>>10551483
Firstly, Christianity has never been unified in its moral teachings. There have been debates and schisms since its very beginning relating to what the 'real' teachings were, hence the existence of events like the Council of Nicea which were needed to declare certain views as 'heresy'. Secondly, I think you're mistaken about what atheism is. Its merely the opposite of theism. It doesn't express any beliefs beyond that and is not, contrary to the constant attacks on what people here see as an army of 'New Atheists' sweeping across the West, a unified movement of ideas. Its just a denial of theistic or deistic faith, thats all. Its a position thats been held by millions over the centuries even long before scientism or humanism became common terms.

After much introspection OP, I have come to realize atheism is pointless, not from a knowledge based perspective nor from a moral perspective. In fact religion offers neither of these things in objective manner ( the only objectivity in this world lies in things we can count and measure).

The question whether God exists is equally pointless as asserting that he exists. Ascertaining that X theology is better than Y theology is also pointless. Here lies the conundrum however, one can never do away with God, and by God I don't mean Zeus or Shiva, but the Abrahamic monotheistic God. This is a God that answers for everything and nothing, he is the punishment and the salvation all at once, he can die and come back to life, he can extinguish himself. Gods mercy is not kindness but obedience to the Law and the Law of nature or the spiritual status of mankind will always be bound to Him,as his existence presupposes in simple terms the freedom of humanity to do evil. Acknowledging God is not just acknowledging a "sky daddy" it is acknowledging a deity that allows nuclear chaos, and absolute alterity and laceration. The monotheistic God demands everything but provides nothing, he is a like a virus that can never be extinguished since once mankind realizes its freedom it comes to realize the absolute freedom of God as a being that gives potentiality to all of existence. I can't explain any better than this, but I feel at the bottom of what we in philosophy call the great call of the Outside, that is the thing that is beyond our correlative senses in space/time, and which has attracted philosophy and science since their creation, can be become manifest ultimately as the Monotheistic God.

>>10549535
What came before the universe?

>>10549535
>the scientific method is the means to know everything
>the scientific method can't prove the scientific method

>>10549952
>>100 years of atheism
What is Epicureanism

And I'm a Catholic

>>10551506
I know all of that but even in Christianity's flaws it still has cohesion. I'm not misunderstanding what atheism is as being anti God either. I'm stating that such a simplistic and limited stance will never inspire people. It's like when Republicans spent 8 years just being anti Obama. Not inspiring and that's why they got usurped by the first guy to come along and be FOR something after the traditional Republicans spent a decade of being purely reactionary.

>>10551506
>the teachings of christianity are represented by the word and not by the spirit

Anyone with half a brain knows that theological differences are at most surface level disagreements

>>10551554
But now you've moved away from the theological discussion of this thread. You can argue the practical implications of theism or atheism in a society but ultimately, whether or not it can have positive outcomes for people, the former can't be seen as anything more than a useful fiction. Also, what you call a vacuous atheism is actually what I see modern intellectual Christianity becoming. Scroll through this thread and the majority of the 'theistic' arguments will just be attempts to undermine the scientific method, not active efforts to justify Christian faith.

>>10549535

Read the principle works of:

William James
Chesterton
Kierkeegard
W.H Auden
Yeats
T.S Eliot
Wittgenstein
Flannery O'Connor
Graham Greene
Muriel Sparck
J.F Powers

>>10551564
>most surface level disagreements
No they really aren't. Christianity has been simultaneously used to justified actions that are the polar opposites of one another. Even something as fundamental as The Golden Rule can be applied in a million different ways, even in something as significant as life and death issues like abortion.

What are you going to do about it? Stick a banana in yourself like that funny Youtube man?

>>10551582
That's a strange argument to make. Is anything in the world immune to wildly varying """interpretation"""? People can distort anything. It doesn't change the meaning, as seen by honest and rational people.

>>10551573
I don't see how you can separate the practical from the ontological if you want to replace theism as a force in society. What I am, in fact, pointing out is that this is exactly why atheism will not supercede any theism. It is a fact that a large portion of humanity want to be led by SOMETHING and if you don't give them SOMETHING to follow they will fill that vacuum. For example, a mundane thing that religion often provides for many people is a simple, distilled guide on how to raise their children. This is attractive to people who do not have the time/will/ability to delve deeply into pedagogy or childhood development. If atheists want to rid society of religion they ought to strive to put together a simple, effective guide for parents with children.

Agnostic deism following Christian ethics and Hindu eschatology is literally the only sensible belief system and anyone who believes in anything else is a FUCKING IDIOT

>>10551596
>Is anything in the world immune to wildly varying interpretation
To some extent: no. This isn't a "weird" argument to make at all in the 21st Century.
>It doesn't change the meaning, as seen by honest and rational people
I'm sorry but this is complete nonsense. Just throwing in two buzzwords like that doesn't make for an argument. If there is a true meaning to the gospels, its yet to have announced itself in any kind of uniform way, hence the endless doctrinal differences across the Christian world. There isn't even any kind of clear belief about what is literal and what is metaphor. What this looks like to me is that you have an interpretation which you can't see past and therefore declare it to be "honest and rational".

>>10551483
"Atheism" isn't a unified set of beliefs you brainlet

>>10551605
Its not a question of "replacing" theism, its much more about the failures of theism to convince people of its validity. Atheism at its core, as I've said, isn't a movement and has no aims. There is no inherent need to rid the world of Christianity in atheistic belief. It may have its uses (which I think you may overestimate, Christianity don't address even a quarter of the issues that arise in childcare) but atheism has no obligation to do anything or offer any kind of replacement.

>>10551644
Did you even bother to read my response to the guy who said the exact same thing as you. I realize that atheism isn't a set of unified beliefs. I believe this feature of it is what makes it inherently unappealing to the masses. Because people want to be led by SOMETHING. Atheists who want to replace the role of religion in society ought to ponder this is all.

>>10551671
Honestly that whole comments tone is why mainstream people will continue to reject outright atheism. It rings hollow and selfish.

>>10549620
What are you even saying?

>what is truth?

>>10551690
Sorry if you thought it was smug, I often find the “loving Christian” tone to be unbearably self-satisfied. Also, the point you’re making is useless. This thread is about the existence or non-existence of a personal god, so whether or not “mainstream people” will accept a lack of belief in such a thing is irrelevant. Atheism may “ring hollow and selfish” but as a position it makes no assertion outside of a lack of belief in theism, so it can be empathetic or selfish there is nothing inherent in it.

>>10549535
"In Religion let us recognise the high merit, that from the beginning it has dimly discerned the ultimate verity... An intuition forming the germ of the highest belief in which all philosophies unite. The consciousness of a mystery is traceable in the rudest fetishism. Each higher religious creed, rejecting those definite and simple interpretations of Nature previously given, has become more religious by doing this...

And now we observe that all along, the agent which has perfected this purification has been Science. We habitually overlook the fact that this has been one of its functions. Religion ignores its immense debt to Science; and Science is scarcely at all conscious how much Religion owes it. Yet it is demonstrable that every step by which Religion has progressed from its first low conception to the comparatively high one it has now reached, Science has helped it, or rather forced it, to take; and that even now, Science is urging further steps in the same direction.

While this process seems to those who effect, and those who undergo it, an anti-religious one, it is really the reverse. Instead of the specific comprehensible agency before assigned, there is substituted a less specific and less comprehensible agency; and though this, standing in opposition to the previous one, cannot at first call forth the same feeling, yet, as being less comprehensible, it must eventually call forth this feeling more fully."

>>10549535
Thanks for the new Copypasta.

>>10549593
what went so horribly wrong

>>10549535
>Are you guys actually religious
I think in religious terms, but like a cocaine addict I can't shake off my disgusting habits. My pride/shame even keeps me from going to God, whom I've had an interaction with.

So am I religious or not?

>>10549535
>he thinks """""""logic""""""" and """""""""reason""""""" are somehow more noble and correct than faith

The human brain is limited in capacity, and so we should question it's """"""""""scientific""""""""" findings because they were created by a mind that could perceive the universe in a way that is completely wrong

>>10551729
If it's useless and irrelevant than so is atheism. Denigrating people who are using a system because it is providing a certain amount of functionality is pointless unless you aim to at least replace some of that functionality in an equally cohesive and user friendly way.

Take OS', for instance, they serve to make the powerful hardware of our computers work in a functional and user friendly way. Much how religion offers a sort of software for being a part of our world and society. Atheists are like Linux users bashing people for sucking the big Apple and big Microsoft cocks while offering a loosely defined, open ended expanse of options to navigate. They don't provide any of the functionality a layperson needs but then denigrates them for needing that functionality. The whole position loses all relevance and usefulness in any real sense from there. It just becomes a masturbatory exercise in self infatuating, pseudo intellectual right fighting that neither helps nor hinders anyone or anything.

>>10551831
>If it's useless and irrelevant than so is atheism. Denigrating people who are using a system because it is providing a certain amount of functionality is pointless unless you aim to at least replace some of that functionality in an equally cohesive and user friendly way.
Exactly. It's like evolution; it'll keep occurring regardless of whether people believe in it or not. Atheists must have a goal in their proselytization. It's usually something banal (revenge) or very easy to disprove (like utopianism), so they hide it and pretend not to understand you when asked. I mean, that's a good showcase of their evaluation of truth.

>>10551150
>Science is invalid. Sorry kiddo, some of us aren't impressed by hand-wavery and gadgets.

Then why do you go to the doctor when you get sick?

>>10551138
What kind of dumbass are you? Trying to be contrarian over whether freedom and equality are good or not?
How is it false that I believe science is a more effective tool for understanding my existence than religion...?

You haven't actually done anything with this comment. Just rejected a couple of things without evidence. Half of the shit on here has no evidence at all, and by being the contrarian you assume the position of being more knowledgeable because you can point out objections. But you aren't actually doing this, you are just disagreeing and shitposting. You are the brainlet lol

>>10549535
>positivism

It never ceases to amaze how many "science" people don't understand science. Read Popper you fucking mediocrity

>>10549864
>Atheism relies on the scientific method to progress
Or as some others would state it "I'm motherfucking retarded". The scientific method means attempting to falsify things that are falsifiable. God's existence cannot be falsified as it is not empirically testable.

Read a fucking book you moron.

>>10550672
>Joyce wasn't really an atheist tho. He struggled with Catholicism and whatnot his whole life

imagine being this illiterate

>>10552023
Lol got eeeem

>>10549535
Nice bait I’ll bite

>- We know the universe is 13.8 billion years old and dictated entirely by physical laws
God created the universe 13.8 billion years ago
- We know these physical laws give rise to evolution which can produce conscious beings
God designed the universe such that it would form and compounds would form life and that the life on earth would mutate into other forms of life
- We understand the all too human origins of the hundreds of religious faiths on Earth that are all nonsensical and mutually incompatible early attempts of apes to explain their surroundings
For every comfortably confirmed physical model two or more more unconfirmed ones rise to expand upon it. Science is a hydra and burning of the neck stumps rarely happens
- We know that we are nothing but matter and chemical reactions and that there's no such thing as free will
Very few models of the universe alive today are deterministic entirely, and all scientific investigations into the nature of free will have been laughable attempts of seeing whether the brain turns colorful on a laptop monitor before or after some dude presses a button
- Almost no public intellectuals who are taken seriously are religious
Yeah, most of them are agnostic. Big difference between atheism and agnosticism, especially to intellectuals
- No arguments for religion or God withstand even the mildest scrutiny
“Dude I discovered a new particle with a super freeeeeeaky spin that means there isn’t a god”