/lit/ - Literature

It is worth it.

>>10559159
It's very interesting but you can't read it through as if it's a novel. It's a collection of mythology, law, cultic practices, poems, wisdom, etc.

Are you just interested in the stories or do you like the sound of the other stuff?

some of it

>>10559159
What do you think the answer is? What's the point of this thread?

>>10559174
Most of that sounds okay, but I won't buy into the concept of divine inspiration or give any parts of it more value just because it's a religious text. Only part I'm not sure about is law, as I don't know if I will gain anything from it.

parts of it are a pretty good poetry, literary the bible is interesting like gilgamesh is interesting and it uses the similar prosody stuff too, most notably parallelism

>>10559159
Its literally the most important and influential piece of literature of all time. So like check it out if you want. KJV is recommended.

>>10559203
You might not, it can be pretty dry unless you're really interested in it.

To avoid the legal stuff just skip these bits:

Exodus 25-31, 36-39
Leviticus
Numbers 1-9
Deuteronomy 1-30
Joshua 14-21

>>10559315
Thanks for the insight.

>>10559306
>KJV
Noted.

>>10559159
Its definitely worth it, KJV/DRA is on the level of the Greeks in terms of importance

>>10559357
I worded that wrong.
For version, use KJV or DRA, KJV is best cost wise.
Even if you aren’t religious, Christian morality is extremely sound. It also lead to other important /lit/ figures like Augustine and Aquinas. Maybe Nietzsche indirectly

>>10559159
Well, as someone in a similar situation I've begun to read the Holy Bible recently and the first book is unbelievably boring. "This guy lived for 600 years and had these five kids. Now this kid lived for 650 years and had three kids. Now this kid lived for 730 years and had two kids." I'm really bored by this supposed Jewish history.

>>10559368
Yea, its best to just skip Genesis, B E G A T gets boring reaaal quick.
I just skipped to Leviticus

>>10559381
Will you lose any important context if you skip through parts?

>>10559407
Don't skip anything, you can only find out in hindsight if you like something or not, nobody can tell you in advance if you will like things or not. You are being memed.

>I know that I will never be religious.
Most diehard christ fans said this at one time in their lives

>>10559424
Source on that claim?

>>10559407
Yes except for Genesis which is mostly THIS PERSON BEGAT THIS GUY WHO BEGAT THIS GUY WHO...
>>10559415
Im only saying to skip Genesis due to the begat fest

>>10559381
>skip Genesis
Yeah just go ahead and skip one if the most influential books in human history.

>>10559476
Never mind, Begat fest is only a small part
READ GENESIS

>>10559159
>I know that I will never be religious.
I too once believed this, and I was wrong.

>>10559515
so how did it happen

>>10559515
You can't PROVE there's a god, though. Why do you believe in one? You can't prove there's an afterlife either. Why does religion hold any importance? Why do people take this stuff seriously? A lot of people believing in one thing doesn't make it true. Explain yourself.

Yes, the King James Bible is a must-read. This is not, in my opinion, negotiable.

Obviously some bits are much more important than others, and there's a lot of repetition, but don't mess about trying to save a few minutes here and there, just read it ALL, and then go back and re-read the key bits.

You do this, firstly because of its merit as literature in its own right.

But also because if you haven't read it, you really can't appreciate fully any serious literature that came after it.

Basically, most people who wrote anything after the KJB would have read it, and would have known it very well (i.e. lots of it by heart), and most important, *would expect that his readers would know it too*.

It's astounding how many references to it you notice once you're familiar with it.

Some of these are very obvious - e.g. exactly why did T.E.Lawrence call his Autobiography "The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom"?

But some are much more subtle. Here's just one example off the top of my head. In "The Silence Of The Lambs", after Hannibal Lecter escapes, he stays at an hotel. Harris writes something like this (I don't have the book handy so this might not be word-for-word, but it's pretty close) -

"The hotel suite seemed enormous to Doctor Lecter after his long confinement. He enjoyed going to and fro and walking up and down in it."

Well if you know your King James Bible that line just JUMPS OUT at you because it's from Job. Basically the devil is talking to God and God says "How did you get here?" and the devil says "From going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it".

Of course it's a big slog, and OK, you can skip a paragraph if it is just literally a list of names begetting other names, but you have to put the time in.

It's often said that Abraham Lincoln learned everything he needed about writing from the King James Bible and the Complete Shakespeare. OK, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit. Get to work! :)

>>10559559
Well what harm is there in believing in such? Why not?
Theres literally no reason to be Atheist.

>>10559559
This type of proof wrangling is pretty funny to me now. If you think of it from this perspective your'e never going to understand it. I didn't understand it either. People don't have faith because they read a compelling argument somewhere, you know? You'll either experience it or you won't. If that isn't "evidence" enough, I don't really care.

>>10559587
How is it logical to believe in something with zero evidence? There's no reason not to be aethiest.

>>10559592
Faith doesn't equal truth, though. It may all just be a huge delusion. Can you explain religious faith in a logical manner? If not, then what is the value of this faith? How is it not worthless?

*atheist

>>10559562
I like this argument, and appreciate the effort.

>>10559627
>muh logic
Tell me the harm of theism, please. You’re spouting things that I would have expected to see in 2008.
Tell me how its logical to givethe middle finger to every religion thus possibly (not sure of every religions stance on this) killing every possible afterlife while simultaneously not believing in an afterlife because Atheists reject the entire concept.

>>10559681
>2008.
wasn't that long ago at all

>>10559689
Maybe it was 2010 or whatever, its the time where r/atheism and The Amazing Banana Fucker were a big thing

>>10559681
You can't just throw out logic. You're dodging the question. The harm, is that people like yourself choose to disregard logic and encourage others to do the same. Tradition and FEELS don't mean shit. Why does it manner that there are a million flavors of theism? There's still no logical basis in any of it. Again, a lot of people believing in one thing doesn't make it true. A lot of groups believing different things doesn't make any one of things true either.

>>10559738
And who says you cannot be religious AND logical?
Alot of historical philosophers and inventors were infact religious, at the least Voltaire was Deist but the complete rejection of theism is a more recent thing.
Im going to ask again, show me how religion harms either the individual or society.

>>10559627
>>10559738
If there is no God, I have no obligation to be logical or truthful about anything, so your point is meaningless.

It's the most eternal anglo book there is. They even have their own version tailored especially for anglos

>>10559760
Have there been no wars due to religion? Or religious persecution? Or influence in politics? No arcane laws? Overly strict parents fucking up their kid's childhood? Perversion of religion, notably Islam? It's never held back innovation? No one's ever felt "brainwashed"? No one has been excluded due to their beliefs? No one has been wrongly judged? You could go on and on. Don't claim it does no harm.

Is there any credit to the theory that a roman soldier was the father of jesus?

>>10559820
>overly strict parents
im sorry your parents didnt let you read harry potter anon

The more literary essayists I read, the more I realize how novice-friendly Harold Bloom's big projects are. Opie, you should read pic related if you're not religious and unfamilar with the KJV. It's peppered with excerpts, so you don't need a Bible of your own. Kind of an equivalent to "A Very Short Introduction to..." — but actually useful.

Beyond this, I wholly agree with >>10559562.

>>10559828
Do you have any REAL arguments?

What about the marriages that never happened because of religious differences? Or friendships? Or corrupted church figures? Radical Islam? No big deal, right?

>>10559159
>Is the Bible worth reading for someone with absolutely zero faith?
No, obviously not. Unless you have an interest in the history of culture and religion, don't bother.

>>10559820
>has there been no wars due to religion?
Has every war be religious in origin?
>religious persecution
Kinda like USSR’s State Atheism?
>influence in politics
Why is this a bad thing
>overly strict parents
Im assuming you mean not letting kids play Pokemon or some shit, so MUH FEELS
>Perversion of religion
Its almost as if ANY belief system can be radicalized
>never held back innovation
Dont tell me you actually believe Christianity caused the Dark Ages
>brainwashed
So more fee fee’s? Who cares? Not logical to give a shit about someone’s feelings
>no one has been excluded
If your friends reject you cause of your religion or lack there of they are probably shit friends. Its still more MUH FEELS in this situation
>wrongly judged
How the fuck is this exclusive to religion

>>10559851
Wew, lad...you're one of those...

>>10559843
Not him but a lot of it is just ideological and will appear either way - hippie parents fucking up their children, secular purges and genocides, perversion of ideas etc.
and even besides that, most people are shit, they just tie their beliefs into their interactions with the world around them.

>>10559854
do you have any real arguments?

This is nothing, right?

>>10559887
Was another anon.

>>10559897
This is actually a sad thing, we could learn a thing or two from the mudslimes.

>>10559903
If you had a son who turned out to be gay, would you have him killed?

>>10559897
What are you trying to convey with this picture? Europe and the Americas (both culturally Christian) have the highest tolerance for fags, while Arabia and Muslim Africa have the least.

Is your point that some of the Africans are culturally Christian or something?

>>10559897
Surprisingly low amount of countries which execute gays, seems like most the islamic world simply criminalizes it
Also, what did you mean by “im one of those”

>>10559908
Not him, but I would have him sent to therapy.
I would try to fix my son

>>10559851
>Has every war been religious in origin?
Aside from the Crusades (and arguably not even then), the casus bellis for all wars seem to fit Socrates' "we want more land/resources" thesis from the Republic.

>>10559914
>being gay is something to "fix"

>>10559908
>>10559914
yes, I agree, I would also accept him if he wasn't acting on his urges
if he persisted then I'd have to put him down, even if it would pain me.

>>10559919
yes, Homosexuality is a mental disorder
Thus I would fix
Such disorder

>>10559909
Death penalty for homosexuality is due to sharia law.

>>10559910
I didn't say it, another anon did.

I recommend reading it several times. In its original Hebrew (old testament) is pretty much an example of primary orality, and even if the new testament appeared after the advent of writing, it is still fascinating in its original Greek.

The second re-reading: the Vulgata. This is the way the world experienced religion up to the Protestant reformation.

Finally, in your native language, compare different versions if you have the energy.

The Bible is idiotic and tribal, its 'wisdom' is that of superstitious dimwits and controlled crowds. It is a collection of spooks. That, however, does not undermine its value to the modern intellectual: a glimpse into a formerly predominant way of viewing history and the world, and one of the many (perhaps the clearest) manifestations of a myriad Jungian archetypes in plain sight. It is a reflection of many aspects of the human mind which the modern man strives to transcend (aufheben).

Finally, for bonus points, read the Hawaiian pidgin new testament. It is both hilarious in its retardation and an essay in linguistics.

>>10559926
>literally parroting a debunked 50 year old meme
You're just retarded, mate.

>>10559927
Yeah, Sharia law. What does this have to do with the Bible?

>>10559934
It has to do with Islamic law.

>>10559941
Stellar observation m8, but this is a thread about the Bible and Christianity.

>>10559946
See:

>>10559760
>show me how religion harms either the individual or society

>>10559934
In his mind every religion in every country works in the same way, and every individual has to obey the same interpretation of the religion and religious laws
He considers all of it to be stupid cancer and doesn't see the differences

>>10559930
So seeking to mate with those of your own gender rather than mating with the opposite gender which we are biologically made to do in order to reproduce which is the entire fucking point of sex in the first place is NOT a mental disorder.
Even IF faggotism is not a mental disorder i would still send my son to therapy
>>10559934
Even then, not all the islamic countries act upon such law, most seem to only imprison gays.

>>10559952
Religion is all stupid cancer that veers close to mental illness or psychopathy but it's not PC to bring that up. Because the only group worse than sjws, are the fundies.

>>10559959
>So seeking to mate with those of your own gender rather than mating with the opposite gender which we are biologically made to do in order to reproduce which is the entire fucking point of sex in the first place is NOT a mental disorder
Nope, and we haven't considered it a disorder in over 50 years. Sorry if that spergs you out, but it's true. You can look up the DSM yourself.

>>10559962
>ess jay dubyahs
Stop watching Sargon

>>10559962
Sorry that you had to go to the church too many times. Or maybe your mom told you that's its wrong to touch yourself

>>10559952
Religion has clearly done harm, and continues to do so. Anon:
>>10559760 asked how, specifically.

And yes, I realize there are differences betweens countries/religions/laws/etc.

>>10559969
>everyone who is critical of religion must have had some middle class "trauma" with their parents or are just rebelling against society man! Because their family is religious.
It couldn't possibly be that I'm juat critical of religion.

>>10559967
Sargon is a faggot, I don't watch him.

>>10559822
anyone?

>>10559970
The harm you pointed out is minimal however, religious wars are an extremely small minority compared to wars of casus beli
And things like countries persecuting gays are more of arguments against state religion as this rarely happens in secular societies even if such societies are majority Christian for example.
I was mainly seeking an answer like how does an individual adopting a religion like Christianity harm him? How does it impede logical thinking?

>>10559983
when your opinion is so one-sided, hateful and emotionally charged then it's prudent to assume that you've had some bad experiences with it yourself.

>>10559998
and fuck i was so close to getting quads

>>10560000
>one sided
>hateful
I don't hate anyone outside of people who use faith to prey on the grieving and weak, but I absolutely dislike the concept of organized religion and what it does to people and societies. When the same neurons that fire in your brain during a psychotic break or a schizoid episode as when someone experiences a "miracle", you have a hard time convincing me that this isn't an alarming medical issue.

>>10559738
>You can't just throw out logic
Watch me.
But seriously, why do you hold reason and empiricism as the only way to know? Is faith and experiential intuition something you've never had? I'm sure if you examined your beliefs at their foundation you would find that you take a lot on faith and because it "sounds right" to you.

>>10559998
It impedes logical thinking because you start believing things that have no evidence or basis in science. I still have gotten no answer for how this rational.

*how this is rational

>>10560016
>Religion is all stupid cancer
yep, totally not one sided and hateful :v
>I don't hate anyone outside of people who use faith to prey on the grieving and weak, but I absolutely dislike the concept of organized religion and what it does to people and societies.
then you could say that in the first post instead of spouting r/atheism smear all over the place
>>10560017
this

>>10560018
So it barely affects logical thinking whatsoever.
You’re acting like all theists are brainless sheep and that no theist can ever think logically.
You basically called nearly everyone in history and modern day irrational, including many philosophers and intellectuals.
You know what’s irrational? Believing that being religious denies any potential logic

>>10560016
and I'd like some sauce on this, out of curiosity
>When the same neurons that fire in your brain during a psychotic break or a schizoid episode as when someone experiences a "miracle"

>>10560041
>it's a smear
Fucking kill yourself, mate.

>>10560018
see >>10559790

>>10560018
Slippery slope? The foundational axioms of science can't be proven by science either, so what?

>>10560050
go on a walk and drink some tea, it should calm you down
unless you're that much of a wanker all the time, in that case you should seek a therapist.

>>10560049
There are numerous studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3968360/

>>10560062
>>10560049
This was a bad link, I meant more actual neuroscience:
https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/81/1/295/705172

>>10560047
>being religious denies any potential logic
I never said it denies ANY potential logic

>>10560069
Then why claim that religion somehow impedes it? Anyone can think rationally religious or not, you have yet to prove that Religion harms rational thinking

>>10559887
Do you? Slit your wrists.

How come there aren't any mentions of the ESV translation? I'm under the impression that translations like KJV are written as thought-for-thought translations instead of word-for-word. So the translators wrote what they wanted the passages to say instead of writing the passages as they were originally written.

>>10560084
Is faith in a religion itself rational? What about making decisions based on your religious beliefs. Religion has influenced people's actions, correct? This is where things get irrational. Just think about it.

>>10560106
Not him, but how does religion do anything different from secular philosophies? Everyone starts with presuppositions and builds from there.

>>10560105
There are two primary "schools" of biblical translation: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to hew closely as possible to the original language in grammar and expression; dynamic equivalence translations attempt to render the thought being expressed, which less concern for grammatical closeness. Formal equivalence translations should be preferred, in my opinion, but to dismiss dynamic equivalence as being "what [the translators] wanted the passages to say" is unfair; it may be the case at times, but you can find this sort of work in any translation as none are wholly unbiased. That being said, the King James Version is a formal equivalence translation, so your impression of it is wrong. Other formal equivalence translations are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV.

>>10560103
Only with your katana mr.fedora McPickleRick
>>10560106
Strawman, this is not proof
Its just “these people are just a bit less rational than me because they are religious checkmate”
You’e sounding like a parody of the Skeptics at this point

>>10560132
Not a strawman. Decision making involves thought. Making decisions based on irrational beliefs is irrational, therefore rational thinking is impeded.

>>10560138
>therefore rational thinking is impeded.
And?

>>10560146
That's it, right there. It harms rational thinking.

>>10560150
Okay, and? You can whine about rationality all you want, but no one has any obligation to be rational do they? All you're saying is that faith conflicts with your personal values.

>>10560138
Is there even a situation in which such would happen? Even so NOBODY uses Faith solely as a basis for decision making.
Do you SOLELY use logic on every single fucking decision you make? Just logic?
>>10560159
This basically, you’re basically worshipping Rationality at this point.

>>10560138
What rational basis do you have for believing the foundational logic laws?

>>10560159
That was in response to:

>>10560084
>you have yet to prove that Religion harms rational thinking

>>10559820
If you're going to use the "these people were religious and used their beliefs to do this and this and this" then having no theistic belief is arguably just as bad. You can't say something as a whole does harm when literally every belief has had at least one follower that's done something horrible.

tl:dr Your argument is a garbage.

>>10560173
I'd be interested in hearing your response regardless.

>>10560166
The question was if rational thinking is harmed at all by religion.

>>10560178
No one has an obligation to do anything at all. Doesn't change the fact that one is being irrational.

>>10560179
And such “harm” at best is minimal

>>10560188
It means that the fact that one is "irrational" means nothing.

>>10560191
"Minimal" is your subjective evaluation of the harm caused. Others would disagree.

>>10560192
It means something.

>>10560198
>It means something.
Which is what? That you don't like it?

>>10560198
>dae subjektive
>thats like, just your opinion maaaaaaaaaan

>>10560208
That one is being irrational, which affects their actions, which often affect other people.

>>10560212
Yes. And?

>>10560106
>Is faith in a religion itself rational?
Objectively, no. That was easy.

>>10560222
But anon
Isnt it subjective on what’s rational and irrational?
You’re essentially saying “religun thot bad, make other peepul act bad” “atheist thought gud, affect other peepul good!”

>>10560167
Oh boy, here we go with this presuppositionist argument. You faggots don't like the answer, but consistency and reliability of that consistency leads me to believe (based on repeated experience) that logic is something to follow. Faith says you can abandon the need for consistency by substituting it with feefees. You have actual autism if you think that's a way to function.

How do italians feel when confronted with the fact that they killed jesus christ?

>>10560270
You can use logic to determine if something is subjective or objective, so no.

>>10560270
You people parrot the same circular logic each time you are met with this epistomological dead end, that just amounts to "I like faith, so therefore it matters". Which is fine, just stop pretending it's logical.

>>10560279
italians don't have a lot of roman blood in them when you consider all the barbarian invasions and rapes and killings of the roman populace
or am I wrong?

>14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

what did G*d mean by this?

>>10560278
Why disregard experience tho?

>>10560303
> comes with tons of facts put out as objective facts
> am i wrong?

dude

>>10560313
That's Cain, and he was lamenting because of the consequences of his actions

>>10560278
Beautifully put, anon.

>>10559790
Wtf you cant actually be this dense

>>10560355
Please tell me how, in a fully natural world, I am obligated to perform any action.

>>10560337
I just don't know a lot about history and don't like to throw stupid shit out of my mouth with full confidence.

>>10560344
Sarcasm?

>>10560389
Not at all.

>>10559950
I know this site seems user-unfriendly compared to Reddit, but next time, quote the post to which you're replying.

Also, the principle of charity is foundational to modern philosophical discourse. If you had read more, you would know that Arabs have been anti-gay for centuries before Sharia (see: Pausanias' speech in the Symposium). Ditto for Africans. The religious justification of anti-faggotry there is not its genesis.

>>10559928
Why then, The bible?

Why not the Quran, the Torah, or the Mahabharata?

>>10560414
Perhaps my exact formatting didn't sync with your aesthetic preferences, but I did quote it. Look again.

>>10560431
You fucking idiot.

Here (>>10559897), you posted an image in response to (>>10559760), but only quoted (>>10559887). Even if you had quoted correctly, your image is pants-on-head retarded — the anti-gay attitude does not stem from Islam, but comes centuries before it! Read more, and carefully.

>>10560418
The Torah is part of the Bible.

>>10560438
The purpose of the image was self-explanatory for anyone reading the thread. A quote could have been added, but wasn't crucial. I chose not to. You didn't initially quote the post in question, so I believed you were referring to the one you did quote. Quote the post in question next time.

Also:
>The death penalty for homosexuality has historically been implemented by a number of regimes worldwide. It is currently still extant in a fairly small number of countries or parts of countries, all due to sharia law.
>all due to sharia law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_for_homosexuality

The reason it is STILL in place is due to sharia law.

>>10559587
pascal's wager is a starting point but you should move towards other reasons.

>>10560506
That table doesn't do anything for me. Using it in any argument would seem like a joke to a non-theist.

>>10560506
pascal's wager is stupid
it presumes that there's only one true faith that you're going to choose, while you may as well become a jew or an islamist, even hinduist
t.theist

>>10560472
Look, I'm getting really tired of arguing with you because you cannot seem to get the point:
>Certain peoples in certain regions have historically (read: pre-Islam) harbored anti-fag sentiments.
>When these people were ruled by a foreign empire (say, Rome), there were no anti-gay laws to support their beliefs.
>Even without laws, these societies still shunned homosex and killed gays.
I hope by now, you're starting to see that the danger to the gay individual comes not from laws or religion, but from a tradition of being hated by his peers.
>Lo and behold, these people take to a system of laws that supports their prejudice. These laws happen to be religious.

Here's where you come in:
>hurrr it's religion's fault that gay people are killed in these regions!!
Take away the laws, take away the religion: just leave the people and the land. What do you think is going to happen? Do you think they'll start to rival San Francisco for most AIDS-infected rainbow parades tomorrow? If you do, you're an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between formal and efficient causes.

You're also forgetting: these backwater African shitholes lacked a codified system of laws until so very recently. In many regions, Sharia law was their societies' first encounter with such a system. The laws did not change the will of these people, it bolstered them.

>>10560540
But does religion not effectively enforce an anti-gay sentiment to continue as long as people continue being Muslim? All that can be true while religion helps extends the lifetime of antifag laws.

>>10560506
This has always been for brainlets.

>>10559159
if you’re completely autistic no you sud just keep reading technical manuals and jerking off to tindr pics of women you’re too afraid to message/will not match with you

>>10560557
The anti-gay sentiment would continue its natural lifespan without Islam or Sharia law, as it has for centuries before and after. In order for you to blame religion as "'harming the individual" (we could go so far as to say homosexuality itself harms society), you would have to prove that Islam is the first cause for anti-gay sentiment.

>>10560618
>its natural lifespan without Islam or Sharia law, as it has for centuries before and after.
You have absolutely no knowledge of human history if you think hating homosexuals is something human society just "naturally" always does...

>>10560618
>he's just a low-key homophobe
Color me fucking shocked, given gymnastics, who would have known?

>>10560618
This argument makes no goddamn sense.

>>10559790
As someone that renounced all faith long ago, this is an incredibly bad argument.
If all we have on this earth is each other, it is imperative we do right by one another.
That said, being the sort of atheist that attacks people for having faith is just as stupid as being the sort of religious person that attacks others for not believing in their own personal brand of bullshit.
We can make this work, if we all work together, anons.

>>10560633
>human society
>implying just one
You have absolutely no knowledge of human history if you think having a globally homogeneous set of values is something that humanity just "naturally" always does...

>>10560638
>loving Plato's Symposium
>while being a homophobe
If everyone is homosexual, then there is no reproduction. If there is no reproduction, there is no future society. Thus:
>we could go so far as to say homosexuality itself harms society.
Funnily enough, homosexuality is historically hated more in the fucking desert than in idyllic regions.

>>10559820
You could easily swap the word "religion" with "politics" in this and it would become an argument as to why politics are a bad thing and we should dismantle society. Both religion and politics are mere ideologies which people subscribe to. Those things on themselves aren't inherently bad or flawd, but their extremities can be.

>>10560679
>If everyone is homosexyal, then there is no reproduction
This would literallly NEVER happen. Reproduction will always continue as long as the human species lives. Even if homosexuality became more prevalent than heterosexuality (zero fucking chance), we will still have artificial insemination and sperm banks. Not an argument for how it harms society.

>>10560664
He's talking about the innerworkings of your mind, your spirit.

You will tell me you will behave with no God. But by not grounding yourself in an extrasensory being who looks over all, then you have no faith in the soul either, or by that extension in the spirit. Your view of the world is all that is physical and nothing more. This does become problematic when it comes to your morality, which should be particularly corrupted by this perceptual materialism to the point when you have no communion with others or God, spiritually and by that extension emotionally.
>>10560679
I do love Plato's Symposium, but I also think that once people have understood God's command to be that homosexuality is wrong, they should refrain from homosexuality. That is, I don't blame the people who God did not come down to yet for being homosexual, they had no notice of the divine kingdom of Israel, or the immaculate conception within Israel yet.

>>10560720
You misunderstand: the ideal of homosexuality threatens society, while the ideal of heterosexuality perpetuates it. You're mixing and matching "society" and "human species;" think about prehistoric, tribal societies numbering a few dozen people. These people did not communicate with other tribes, so they were unenlightened of the fact that "reproduction will always continue." Life was nasty, brutish and short. Every assfucker was a wasted birth. (And, surprisingly! they didn't have artificial insemination or sperm banks.)

Obviously, humans can 'evolve' out of this belief once they have the means. But I'm talking about the origin of these beliefs and how it comes before religion.

P.S. You stink of Reddit.

>>10560773
Why are you acting as if your special fairytales are at all relevant to the real world?

>>10560801
I have not made a single post on Reddit. Who cares about ideals of homosexuality? Let's talk modern day harms.

>>10559159

If you like history it's interesting in parts, although the poetry and lists of boring shit will drag anyone down who lacks a certain motivation. It will also help you understand a lot of the cliches of western literature, although by virtue of absorbing western literature you might find many of the scenes eerily familiar as they are aped endlessly in countless mediums. If you ask me it'd probably be a good thing to give biblical references a rest for a while, and if I were religious I'd like to point out they distort and usurp the actual bible when it comes to the popular imagination.

>>10560679
None of this makes any goddamn sense...

>>10560819
Fine, homosexuality is okay in the modern day; in fact, I wouldn't mind a smaller population. None of that has to do with the discussion, which was about the historical formation of these prejudices and the non-relation of Islam to their genesis.

>>10560848
Are you stoned or something?

>>10559159
>>10559159
keep in mind that The Bible isn't a monolith. It was written over centuries by various persons and some books are therefore more profound than others. You'll probably never see an allusion to Deuteronomy or Numbers, but Ezekial, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Job... (the list goes on) ought to be read by anyone before they can call themselves cultured.

>>10559357
The Greeks are a fucking meme, Literally nobody needs to read The Odyssey in 2017.

>>10559482
That presupposes human history is a matter of great proffundity itself

>>10559559
why is everyone so hung up on the existence of God rather than his nature? After I read the Bible I was thinking "welp, I certainly HOPE this guy doesn't exist".

>>10560506
It seems any time someone uses one of these charts to for a moral argument, they go full retard.

I'm not Christian and I enjoy reading it. But if you're not interested in the development of the religion, the history of the region, the philosophical insights, or the actual spiritual messages, I don't think you'll get much out of it. As far as stories go they're very antiquated, as the method of storytelling was almost completely absent of prose or descriptive language. I can tell you that if you go into it thinking you "know" that you'll never be religious, you won't enjoy it. Open your mind and approach it free of bias and you'll get much more out of it.

>>10561062
Nobody needs to read anything, you brainlet.
If you like good literature though, you might want to start with the Greeks,

>>10561169
>hurr durr its old and people keep referencing it so its good

What exactly is the literary merit aside from the fact that other writers and intellectuals keep incessantly referring to it?

>>10561138
Wow I went full retard. I meant to say

*to facilitate a moral argument*

The other chart of course being Benatar's one regarding asymmetry.

>>10561183
It's fine if you want to keep reading your Science Fiction books, boy. But don't be one of those assholes that has to be contrarian against anything that is older than a hundred years or so because you don't want to ever expand your horizon.

>>10561258
>hurrdydurr yo lik sins faction jejejejeje

You couldn't pay me to read that trash. Its almost like I don't like books where the character goes on some silly adventure fighting with wierd creatures because that subject matter is for brainlets.

>>10561279
Homerfags BTFO

>>10559159
Is Plato worth reading for someone who's not a pagan?

>>10561165
>spiritual messages,
any secondary texts I should read so I know what to look for and what mindset to have?

>>10561416
You mean in the context of monotheism? Yes.

Plato was a polytheist but platonism can be applied to monotheism.

>>10561416
well Platonism appears in Luke and Paul so why not?

>>10560443
The jews have different things.

Still why the bible? Why not another religious text?

Older ones are deeper, and are the root of what the bible lifted anyway.

So why?

>>10560278
If your "logic" extends to anything remotely complicated, it cannot prove it's own consistency. If it could, it would be inconsistent. You're admitting to a non-logical justification, aka faith. Congrats.

>>10559203
You don't have to buy or skip anything. Remember that it's a library, not a book. The law and ritual bits are like primary sources in that xeroxed reader your prof assembles for a history class. Just power through, read a wikipedia article or two and try to imagine what the writing meant to the people who wrote it 2,500 years ago.

I'll warn you there is a tendency for atheists to read it saying "I'm not reading it for inspiration, just culture" and still be angry with it that they aren't inspired. So mean that when you say it. It's a very human collection.

From what I've gleamed, Christianity is a lifestyle philosophy. It's a whole new way of thinking about the world and interpreting the events in your life. It takes a huge commitment to really get any value out of it(to put it crassly). To a huge portion of the people who adopt this mindset, it feels like an epiphany and they feel better off for it.

Considering all of that, I don't think you'll get much from it apart from advice like "plant seeds where they'll grow easily instead of wasting time on barren dry land" which is obviously really good advice that can be applied to a broad range of things, but you probably won't feel compelled to act on it and may end up forgetting you ever read it.

I could never take the leap of faith, so the bible just frustrated me and made me slightly anti semitic.

>>10562682
Imagine being this wrong about something that even the stupidest members of the population can understand.

bump

>>10562551
That's not even remotely what I said at all, you people who make these odd counters just to dismiss logic as if you think it works.

>>10562551
This doesn't make any sense.

>>10561279
That's an accurate description of reality at its deepest level you pseud

>>10562874
Not that anon, but what exactly was he wrong about?

>>10561036
>read the Bible to get cultured
Imagine believing that.

Putting aside all the awful things you can justify and adopt from the bible, let's focus only on what good can be gleaned.

Isnt there, at the very least, a better book out there to improve ones character

>>10562682
I like it as a mystery religion more than a lifestyle philosophy. My preoccupation is that scientific materialism denies free will is met with strength by my own observation of will paired with the koan of the all-powerful creator of the universe dying suffering, humiliated, and forsaken. What does that demonstrate? Why build a world where you had to do that? It's so majestic I'm not sure I'm even bothered about the resurrection.

Thinking about that gesture (if it was made, if it was made to seem made, if it was made up) of compassion (literally, to suffer with) makes me both more certain of my own free will and more compassionate toward others just as a byproduct. So maybe Paul was right about the virtue of faith alone, and maybe you don't need that much before something transformative happens.

>>10566705
What in the fuck are you saying?

>>10566883

>>10559159
It depends, I have zero faith but I enjoy both the Bible and catholic poets due to their aesthetic sense. (Especially San Juan de la Cruz)

>>10559559
There would be no disbelief if we could prove His existence. If He allowed Himself to be seen, even a fraction of His true self, no living creature on earth could do not but fall to their knees and worship in submission.

Ambiguity enables free will. Faith is belief within free will.
We were sent Jesus, so that we may have a foundation for our faith.

He lived, taught, was persecuted by the state despite committing no wrong, was killed and placed in a tomb, and was found missing days later.
We know His followers, despite having witnessed the man who would (as they saw it) deliver them from Rome die on a cross in front of them on, decided to go forth in all directions and spread good news.
All this is objectively supported by ancient documents, and considered fact by historians regardless of their religious background.

Faith without a foundation of belief in fact is just wishful thinking.

>>10567066
its a good thing God is such a drama queen who likes to play games. I was almost worried the universe was apprehended by a complete maniac.

>>10561062
>le current year
t. hasn't read The Odyssey

>>10567099
Seems as though you only read my first paragraph.
>ambiguity enables free will.
This is critical. What point is there in a robot dog, programmed to love you? What point is there in men, programmed to love God?

Read this instead, OP.

>>10567162
How is it critical? I don't really understand how the threat of eternal torment (or the promise of eternal bliss for that matter) is not simply coercive. Christian theodicy and eschatology seems like the worst of all possible worlds when it gets right down to it. And I will never believe a Christian who swears he isn't jockeying for a position at the pearly gates, not because he's dissimulating (and he might well be) but because its reasonable to assume a mageton of subliminal bias is necessarily guiding his thought process since he has assimilated such beliefs.

>>10565620
>Being ignorant of biblical references

Say goodbye to grokking Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, poetry, and everything else under the sun.

t. athiest

>>10567229
or even this post for that matter ;^)

>>10567206
you are such a cynical piece of shit

>>10567229
>references to the Bible mean the Bible itself is necessary to become "cultured"
You sound ridiculous, mate.

I don't even believe in God and I don't care about religion but I really like the history, the esthetic, it's magic and divine

>>10567245
I'm not cynical at all anon but let me point out the absurdity of this tall order.

>kidnapper holding you and your family hostage
>threatens all of you with grotesque torture if you don't do exactly as he says
>Oh I'm doing what the kidnapper says because I love him

There's a clinical name for this condition. And don't revert to the disengenuous tactic of saying I'm comparing God to a criminal, you know very well that's not the point of this analogy.

>>10567229
He didn't say he was ignorant of Biblical references, anon.

>>10567277
As far as I can tell hell is just the absence of God, which would imply a continuation of the present state of the individual. Finding God is about moving your soul in a new, better direction, not avoiding some pitfall. You're thinking of protestant crazies who actually believe in the fire and brimstone stuff.

>>10560068
>>10560062
how does this help your argument at all? If anything it just proves that science has little to no understanding of schizophrenia.

>>10567302
If that is what you took away from that, you're moronic.

>>10567291
There might be a more accurate (and more awkward) analogy but the point is you believe the alternative to belief is eternal suffering. If I have a situation where I believe I'm at risk of suffering eternally then this immediately becomes, not even my primary, but my soul motivation to do anything.

>>10567310
What is schizophrenia and how can you tell that the things they experience aren't reality from their perspective? Physicalism is just retarded at a basic level.

>>10567314
You're actually a moron, Jesus fuck.

>>10567312
That's true, but I don't see why that changes anything. Growing closer to God is more akin to understanding and having faith than it is to being less sinful.

>>10567320
>t. physicalist reductionist
dude it's all just neuron patterns. Just look at my fMRI scan dude. look at the scan. See here I solved everything, no more questions just look at the fMRI scan m8. Like DUDE NEURONS

>>10559914
Yes because gay therapy's a 50/50 chance that your child will kill them self.

>I wouldn't have my child executed because I want to have a morale high ground, so I'll just flip a coin and see if he does it himself.

God fags/Fag haters are so delusional.

>>10559357
>KJV/DRA is on the level of the Greeks in terms of importance
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10567350
I see you're a frequentist....

>>10567325
because Christians constantly claim they are not in it for salvation. And I'm not here to grill them on it but you'll recall that I said earlier the doctrine of hell is coercive and therefore would seem to nullify the possibility of freely-chosen love. But I would go one step further and say that the doctrine of hell on its own is even more coercive than the idea of God revealing himself on its own.

I would say if there were a God that revealed himself and offered no eschatological scheme on the basis of obedience to his law, people would be far more likely to continue disobeying that God than a hidden God and the suggestion of the largest stick/carrot paradigm conceivable. And it is for this reason I'm inclined to call this arrangement "the worst of all possible worlds".

>>10567302
>>10567314
>gets shown actual neuroscience
>"b-b-but what even IS neuroscience bruh? Physicalism is dum dum"

>>10567328
>being anti-science because it says something that hurts his fee fees
>doesn't actually know what reductionism is or means
You are a literal pseudo trying to dismiss fucking neuroscience just for an argument, look at your life.

>>10567363
I know what neuroscience is, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the experience of Schizophrenia. It's like someone wondering what the 4chan experience is and some future researcher pointing out the soldering on a CPU.

>>10567369
reductionism = ascribing emergent phenomena to their component parts
physicalism = denying qualia as an independant aspect of existence, only considering the physical/material aspect
anti-physicalist reductionalism does not equal anti-science, you would know that if you weren't a self aggrandizing midwit trying to sound like you know anything.

>>10567373
>schizophrenia has nothing to do with neuroscience
Fucking wew, lad.

>>10567378
You are legitimately making me cringe with this shit...are you a metaphysics student by any chance?

>>10565582
Op says he believes his "logic" because of consistency, i.e. because it's worked for him many times before.

But how do we justify that claim? Just because something's happened every day up to this point doesn't logically say anything about what will happen tomorrow. All your life you can have sees white swans and believe "all swans are white," but then if you wake up tomorrow and suddenly see a black swan all of your consistency and reliability the rest of your life means diddly squat. So arguments based on consistency/induction (i.e. all of science) still require faith in induction.

>>10567390
This is just a beg that theists do and it's frustrating because it's just a big "but but but". Consistency is a test for the world around you, I don't have "faith" that every swan is white, I have no information to force me to change my opinion on swans, I have a consistent retest every day that produces a result I can reliably test. You are being retarded with this tired argument, it really does get obnoxious. Your type want to dismiss consistency as if you can't tell when something in the physical world is consistent. It's like how Philosophy 101 students think "brain in a vat" is some sort of mind blowing analysis. I have no tools to determine if my brain is in a fucking vat, no evidence that reality is vastly different or wrong as opposed to what I can test, so none of that matters. What matters is what I can test. Your what if is silly "what if tomorrow reality was goofy", well faggot, it's never happened. If it did, it would be seen as an anomaly or outlier, and not a trend. Consistency works, has worked and continues to work and no amount of sophist pleading is going to change that.

>>10567387

that guy's not saying that. what most STEMfags don't understand is that there exists knowledge that is outside the purview of science/third-person objective empiricism. For example you can have a blind man who knows everything scientifically about sight; he knows all the components of the eye, he understands how visual inputs are processed in the brain etc. etc. but all that scientific knowledge still won't give him direct subjective understanding of what it's like to see. If someone says that they directly had a spiritual experience, you going and waving an MRI in his face and saying "everything that happened was just NEURONS" doesn't really matter, and is working on a different level of understanding than first-person experience.

If you say that all that first-person experience is irrelevant and all we ~really~ are is just neurons firing then you're definitely a physical reductionist

>>10567402
>"spiritual experiences" are special snowflake experiences and none of that pesky science can really study it because I said so, it's magical
Fucking kill yourself, there are no "spiritual experiences" and every human reaction can be explained or understood. You're trying to assume that there are subjective human experiences that are beyond the scope of observation, which is goddamn absurdist thinking.

>>10567402
>that there exists knowledge that is outside the purview of science/third-person objective empiricism
If you truly believe that, you're underage or retarded.

>>10567412
I'm not talking about experiences beyond observation. If you put someone in an MRI when they're having a "spiritual experience" that brain image doesn't tell us anything about the subjective quality of the experience, which is what matters for the religious person.

>>10567402
>neuroscience like, doesn't really matter man! Since his subjective experience is better than your facts bro!
/lit/fags are actually retarded. I don't give a flying fuck what your subjective experience is, that doesn't mean you get to become exempt from logical scrutiny. Your feefees don't change the facts that there has literally never been a real spiritual experience ever proven or documented. It doesn't matter how hard you believe it.

>>10567418
lol tell me then about how we get logic from empiricism

>>10567422
>you put someone in an MRI when they're having a "spiritual experience" that brain image doesn't tell us anything about the subjective quality of the experience
Right, and I don't give a shit about whatever his interpretive experience is, it's still similar to a psychosis. Why do you care what his personal experience is? I don't entertain schizophrenics, I tell them to get help and therapy.

>>10567424
>Your feefees don't change the facts that there has literally never been a real spiritual experience ever proven or documented.
What exactly is your criterion of proof or documentation, if I may ask?

>>10567427
Through consist retest of the world around you, pseudo. If you are suggesting that there are magic facts that exist in some sort of unreachable bubble, then you're retarded.

>>10567433
>What exactly is your criterion of proof or documentation, if I may ask?
That there hasn't been any proof in the first place outside of "muh feels"?

>>10567389
What's wrong with metaphysics?

>>10559159
Read the Qur'an instead

>>10567434
>>10567401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

go back to /r/samharris

>>10567438
It's bullshit nonsense and not science?

>>10567437
your entire approach is wrong. you're literally thinking along the lines of apriori: feelings are not reality, what I perceive as matter is reality ----> let me call qualia "fee fees" to minimize them and poison the well

>>10567442
Hello Lawrence Krauss

>>10567441
>Some fucking pseudo thinks that you can hand wave arguments from anyone by eyebrow raising a philosophical dilemma that he learned in high school, all because he's butthurt about how neuroscience btfo religious "epiphanies"
>hurr durrr Sam Harris is a dum dum, all science is reductionist because me say so ;) knowledge dum

>>10567437
fucking atheists can't/don't even know that they're sad until their doctor sits them in a brain scanner and tells them that their cerebellar vermis is firing

>>10567446
>your entire approach is wrong
Except it's not? You have to proof the claim, not me retard. There has never been any real proof of a religious experience ever happening. Stop using terms you don't understand.

>>10567450
I hope that wink meant you're being sarcastic

>>10567456
I want you to kill yourself, this entire board is filled with goofy christfag retards that would have been laughed at 5 years ago, but for some reason, you have yet another Christian forum to jerk off in.

>>10567455
>>10567437
Again, you still haven't told us what your criterion of truth is or what you mean by "proof"

>>10567455
I'm trying to help you m8. Part of growing is questioning basic assumptions. What do you mean by proof? I assume you mean empirical proof of some physical mechanism behind the religious experience? Then no, there is no proof if that's what you're going for. Try expanding your reality, it's claustrophobic in that materialist little playground you have going for you. I would know since I'm a STEMfag

>>10565617
The whole point of Christianity is that your lifestyle isn't sufficient to save you from your own sin. Any changes to your lifestyle philosophy that occur derive from the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. So the "lifestyle philosophy" that usually accompanies Christianity is completely secondary, and in some ways not important at all to someone who actually takes Christianity as it presents itself.

>>10567464
You're trying to have a semantic argument now because we both know the proof doesn't exist. I want tangible evidence that a human being can have an otherworldly, paranormal, metaphysical experience with something or someone, that this can be observed, tested and repeated.

>>10567461
I'm not even Christian in the sense I'm sure you think I am. Here's another hint: Qualia relate to Religion in the way mater and energy relate to Scientific paradigms. Two descriptions of two different modes of reality.

>>10567472
>trying to define terms so that this doesn't become a pointless circlejerk
>muhh semantics

>>10567466
>assume you mean empirical proof of some physical mechanism behind the religious experience? Then no
Looks like we're done then.
>Try expanding your reality, it's claustrophobic in that materialist little playground you have going for you
I'm not really in the mood to play pretend that magic exists, no thanks. Maybe when your balls drop, you'll take larping less seriously.

>>10567472
How the fuck can you not realize how self-limiting you're being right now. It's like someone trying to explain the concept of football, but the person they're explaining it to wants it explained in terms of karate.

>>10567461
lol, i'm the other /lit/poster you've been talking to and I'm also a STEMfag (pure math actually)

>>10567477
>what even is proof man, like...woah...

>>10567454
reductionists btfo

>>10567480
>you're "limiting" yourself by not being gullible ebough to accept concepts and junk, pseudo-intellectual ideas without some rigorous litmus test to make sure you live as close to reality as possible
Imagine being a whorish and spinless sponge who takes in everything on the basis of "well I can't limit myself". That's the type of person who gets warped into a /pol/nigger or goes to /x/ to cry about how he thinks a succubus raped him.

>>10567479
>prove that 2+2 = 4 using scripture
>but I can't do that b/c it's a physical problem
>REEEE HERETIC!

>>10567488
What?

>>10567487
kek, whatever suits you best.

>>10565582
>>10567390
>>10567401
It's actually more than just faith in induction. Godel proved that almost all logical systems which allow things like, say, multiplication of natural numbers, are either inconsistent or incomplete. If the system is consistent, then it can't prove it's own consistency (his second incompleteness theorem). That's the "faith" I mean. His logical system, assuming it can do basic arithmetic, isn't sufficient to actually validate itself by its own rules.

Hey guys
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#ExpQueHowConExi

>>10567492
It's your exact logic genius, just inverted. Again, I don't know how to make this more simple religion/spiritualism:qualia science:physical

>>10567493
If you give up brain space for things you admit have absolutely no proof of (like magical metaphysics) then you're just fucking yourself over. Then it becomes a lifetime of little concessions, of "well if I believe this...." Day after day. Until you don't even recognize yourself.

>>10567496
You keep assuming there is something other than the physical world. I don't know why you do this.

>>10567455
>There has never been any real proof of a religious experience ever happening
There certainly is proof for the people who have had them.

>>10567494
This is fucking wrong though and I don't think you even understand who Godel is

>>10567501
Your feefees isn't proof.

>>10567503
Go ahead, tell me why it's wrong.

>>10567500
What do you mean by "physical world"?

>>10567509
Who in their right mind thinks logical systems like mathematics, are "incomplete"?

>>10567508
why aren't they? you seem mightily concerned about feefees

>>10567511
>muh semantics again
The observable, testable, shared reality we all live in whether you want to pretend we don't or not.

>>10567515
>you need to explain why personal feelings aren't concrete proof of otherworldly powers or magic

>>10567513
OH MY GOD YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS HAHAHAHAHA

go look up the continuum hypothesis and it's connection to the typical axioms assumed by mathematicians. What an embarrassing way to out yourself out as a pseud who doesn't know what he's talking about

>>10567517
>thinking observable reality and testable reality are the same thing

>>10567513
Dude

>>10567521
Yes

>>10567498
There's no such thing as limited brain space, and I mean that in a strict physicalist sense. The human brain doesn't even approach saturation ever in any normal humans lifespan. You can absorb as much as you dedicate yourself to. Obviously there's an opportunity cost involved but I've found it worthwhile as someone in STEM academia (going for phd in planetary sciences) just b/c it allows you to see the structure of science from the outside.

>all these christcucks

It fucking sucks. I thought it would be a good read but most of it is as interesting as sitting next to nan while she rattles off about who begot who and then senilistically tells a rambling story about someone she knew who slept with their son cause god told him to.

Honestly, the whole collection of stories and mythology meme is just that but its aged terribly. You're better off reading some bible adaptations or some peoples takes on it like Cain. The Quran is a little better to read it has a more straightforward prose and isn't just some genealogy circle jerk. It's all still shit though I don't think there is much to gain. The greeks are much better tbqhfamila.

The old epic poems that predate it like Homers Oydessy and the Iliad are far more supreme in terms of ancient myths that you can pull meaning from. Or even better go read the origins of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind which is far more supreme.

>>10567520
You're moving the goalposts though...it's really silly to call math "incomplete", your terminology is a bit juvenile.

>>10567520
>he doesn't even know what he is talking about:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

>>10567529
I'm using the typical definition of incompleteness that you find in usage by set and model theorists. Please, continue to reveal yourself as not knowing what you're talking about, I'm enjoying it a good deal.

Furthermore, how else would you characterize a system as incomplete, unless it was incapable of proving or disproving one of the possibly well-formed formulas in it's language of discourse? What other notion of incompleteness makes sense?

>>10567494
>If the system is consistent, then it can't prove it's own consistency
I'll never understand why you retards always default to this argument. "Something that is consistent, doesn't prove that it has consistency".

>>10567519
>A(b) != B(b)

Jesus fuck who would've thought? I'm starting to wonder if some people really are p zombies.

>>10567540
I'm not the one defending metaphysics, dismissing science and pondering on whether spiritual experiences are real, anon. But I must be the pseudo...

>>10567533
good job linking me to the wikipage? If you read that first paragraph it talks about how the truth of that statement is independent of ZFC axioms, aka ZFC is incomplete because it cannot prove or disprove statements about the continuum hypothesis, although it has the language to formulate the Continuum Hypothesis.

>>10567544
You're literally cherrypicking what it says.

>>10567543
You're confusing two different people, first of all, and second of all, it's 100% clear that your worldview apriori rejects the possibility of another worldview, so productive argument is impossible.

>>10567541
brainlet detected, its ok mate not everyone can grasp something as complicated as "you don't know it's consistent, you can't prove it's consistent, you just know it hasn't blown up yet, and you're taking on faith that it'll stay that way"

>>10567548
>muh apriori!
It's because there isn't any fucking evidence. Why is that hard to understand?

>>10567551
But that's being disingenuous, you keep asserting that you can't prove consistency but that's not even remotely true of the real world you occupy with me.

>>10567546
HAHAHA oh lord I'm cherrypicking. Do you even know what that means? I "cherrypicked" the first paragraph of a source you provided? Do you want to pick a couple of other cherries from the wikipage to get something that you like better? You're arguing against a well-established mathematical concept, not me, and if you knew anything about the subject you would realize that. I would recommend giving up while you're far, far behind

>>10567551
>You're a brainlet if you think the universe you live in has consistent laws
/lit/fags may be the second most autistic posters on this site.

>>10567560
But what is your overall point though?

>>10567560
>this one hypothesis means consistency just doesn't exist in the world so therefore Jesus

>>10567558
The real world? Well why don't you give a proof of its consistency other than "it worked a couple of times." I mean something actually formal, or convincing. Cause right now I have 100 years of mathematical tradition in my favor, and you have a nu-atheist movement that started in the early 2000's and is slowly sputtering out now that everyone realizes how intellectually bankrupt it is.

>>10567548
we have different ideas of what evidence is. Just so I'm being absolutely clear and also b/c I'm enjoying myself rn, I see reality as two perpendicular systems: physical and qualitative. Evidence in the first system is based on the behavior of objects interpreted through external sensory data, which can be measured and confirmed by multiple people (science), evidence for the second is less consistent between individuals but depends on the behaviour of internal qualia ("fee fees")

>>10567571
>every day, for thousands of years is "a couple of times"
>atheists are "sputtering out" and intellectually bankrupt
Fucking wew, lad...

>>10567563
The overall point is that you claim to have a basis for your worldview that is stronger than a religious persons, whether that be a Christian or a Pagan or whatever. This is false, you have faith too, and it's just as incapable of explaining itself as the others are. At least the others don't claim to have proven themselves though.

>>10567571
So basically this just boils down to "wahhh wahhh, Atheists are stupid"? Yes, why can't I just be a religion cuck and maybe send some charleton 200 bucks online for digital metaphysics classes or believe in fictional beings?

>>10559172
FPBP

>>10567571
I'm a different poster in this thread, but goddamn, you shouldn't bring up godel's incompleteness theorem unless you really know what you're talking about b/c it's been totally misused by pseuds to be far more wide-ranging than it actually was.

t. pure math major who took a mathematical logic class, but dropped before we got to the incompleteness theorems

>>10567584
I still can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, fascinating.

>>10567578
>he legitimately believes that humans have held the same ideas about why things work the way they do for thousands or years
>he thinks his system has reached the end of this evolving process and that he has truly pinned down the natural logic of the world
get a grip dude

>>10567579
>the "but but but, you use faith too" popular meme.
Faith is a belief without evidence, anon. I have evidence that my light switch turns on, you can't say the same for whatever magic bullshit you probably believe. It never was the same, you're just regurgitating the nu-Christian talking points that the same eceleb Christfags throw around all the time. It's just an equivalence fallacy.

>>10567589
>there has been a day where oxygen disappeared
>where gravity stopped
>where the planet stopped spinning
But I'm the one getting mocked by you?

>>10567587
It extends farther than people give it credit for. For instance, if any part of your theory allows for the typical set up of arithmetic, it applies. You can also make arguments about its extension to formalized human languages, but I digress.

>>10567591
you're using circular logic here. You're arguing against people with a different viewpoint entirely using terms that only apply within your own system.

>>10567162
If I can program something to genuinely love me and it does so, why should I not be satisfied?
Christians use "free will" as if it were a catch all. If the Christian/Jewish God exists, free will does not.

>>10567591
evidence in faith based systems is akin to my belief lead to a qualitative experience of salvation, just as religion predicted. Your own bias inherently rejects that as a valid form of evidence and you refuse to accept the possibility that there could be more than one interpretation.

>>10567601
You don't know what circular logic is, do you? Look, at the end of this, you want me to bend and accept some epistomological or metaphysical reality despite no proof, no real concrete evidence and no reason for it to exist outside of "I want it to" and your argument has been trying to falsely equate whatevrr bullshit you are doing, to ME, as if I either have to conform to your rules or I'm a hypocrite. You're a pseudo.

>>10559159
If you have zero faith then literature isn't for you.

>>10567597
>there could legitimately be a point in time where there is no more oxygen on the Earth
>there could legitimately be a circumstance where the Earth's gravity wasn't sufficient to hold you to the Earth
>there are circumstances where the planet stops spinning, or where the planet just gets destroyed
The rules you believe in make a lot of assumptions, except maybe the gravity one, and even then our theory of gravity has had trouble matching up to quantum theory.

>>10567604
>evidence in faith based systems is akin to my belief
Jesus Christ, no...fucking hell man. Stop posting these tired arguments.

>>10567602
using particular religious inconsistancies against religion/spirituality as a whole is akin to using Lamarckian evolution against science. It really is endlessly fascinating how much religion parallels science. 99% of people live in one or the other and can't even see begin to see the logic of the other.

>>10567612
>our theory of gravity has had trouble matching up to quantum theory.
Oh boy....

>>10567615
see
>>10567613
This is even more intriguing since I've been on both sides, having once been an athiest, then flipped spiritual, and now realizing that both are equally valid/invalid. The experience of disbelief was fucking 100% identical on both ends. I know you won't appreciate it but thanks for the opportunity to debate this, I've loved every minute.

I just came into this thread to say you're all a bunch of faggots and if there is a God you're definitely going to hell.

>>10567598
No I agree, but I hate it when people abuse the difference between the everyday meaning of "complete" and the formal meaning of "complete" when talking about Godel. Saying that there exist statements that are true but unprovable in formal axiomatic systems is really different from "duuuude, X is incomplete because of Godel, which means we can't really know anything man"

>>10567604
>your own bias inherently rejects that as a valid form of evidence
It's not my "bias", it's just common fucking sense logic. Held up to scrutiny, your beliefs don't hold. There is no sufficient evidence to satisfy anyone outside of people who have a confirmation bias to begin with on the subject. Sorry?

>>10567622
which god

>>10567620
>atheism is both valid and invalid just like theism
No, just no. Believing in deities you can't prove isn't fucking valid, stop this "all the same" bullshit.

>>10567626
Brahma

>>10567626
Take your pick.

>>10567620
You're a smug prick and I have no idea why this board attracts christcucks anymore.

>>10567615
>religion is like science meme

>>10567637
>>10567626
Brahmanandam Paramasukadam

Kevalam gyanamurtim
Dwandwatitam gaganasadrisham
Tattwama syadilakshyam
Ekamnityam vimalamachalam
Sarvadhi sakshibhutum
Bhavatitam trigunarahitam
Sadgurum tamnamami


(translation)

Full of bliss, giving joy transcendent,
Of higher knowledge, the abode;
Dual no more, clear as the heavens,
Known to all as "Thou art That."
He is pure, permanent, unmoving.
The everlasting seer of all.
Far, far beyond qualities and thought,
Guru Lord, I bow to Thee.

>>10567641
>as if I either have to conform to your rules or I'm a hypocrite.

>>10567637
Who is Brahma?
Brahma is the first god in the Hindu triumvirate, or trimurti. The triumvirate consists of three gods who are responsible for the creation, upkeep and destruction of the world. The other two gods are Vishnu and Shiva.

Vishnu is the preserver of the universe, while Shiva's role is to destroy it in order to re-create.

Brahma's job was creation of the world and all creatures. His name should not be confused with Brahman, who is the supreme God force present within all things.

Brahma is the least worshipped god in Hinduism today. There are only two temples in the whole of India devoted to him, compared with the many thousands devoted to the other two.

What does Brahma look like?
Painted engraving of Brahma showing his four heads Brahma, 1820 British engraving ©
Brahma has four heads and it is believed that from these heads came the four Vedas (the most ancient religious texts for Hindus). Some also believe that the caste system, or four varnas, came from different part of Brahma's body.

He has four arms and is usually depicted with a beard.

Brahma's consort is Saraswati, goddess of knowledge.

Why is Brahma not worshipped so much?
There are a number of stories in the Hindu mythology which point to why he is rarely worshipped. These are two of them.

The first view is that Brahma created a woman in order to aid him with his job of creation. She was called Shatarupa.

She was so beautiful that Brahma became infatuated with her, and gazed at her wherever she went. This caused her extreme embarrassment and Shatarupa tried to turn from his gaze.

But in every direction she moved, Brahma sprouted a head until he had developed four. Finally, Shatarupa grew so frustrated that she jumped to try to avoid his gaze. Brahma, in his obsession, sprouted a fifth head on top of all.

It is also said in some sources that Shatarupa kept changing her form. She became every creature on earth to avoid Brahma. He however, changed his form to the male version of whatever she was and thus every animal community in the world was created.

Lord Shiva admonished Brahma for demonstrating behaviour of an incestuous nature and chopped off his fifth head for 'unholy' behaviour. Since Brahma had distracted his mind from the soul and towards the cravings of the flesh, Shiva's curse was that people should not worship Brahma.

As a form of repentance, it is said that Brahma has been continually reciting the four Vedas since this time, one from each of his four heads.

A second view of why Brahma is not worshipped, and a more sympathetic one, is that Brahma's role as the creator is over. It is left to Vishnu to preserve the world and Shiva to continue its path of cosmic reincarnation.

>>10567604
So basically, everyone who doesn't believe what you do, believe other things because of their bias and so everyone around you is just wrong? Except you of course.

>>10567651
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsa0WTp_vOM

very great and spiritual gift for everybody

>>10567591
Actually, God exists because I know so many Christians. I see a Christian everyday, and I will continue to see one everyday. Therefore I can be reasonably confident that since so many people always believe in God, he exists.

I bet you don't believe the above argument is sufficient to validate the claim "God exists." Well, the argument "things work every day and I have a possible explanation" isn't sufficient to validate the claim "my system is consistent". Regardless of which argument is worse, both fail to meet the standards of evidence required to actually validate their respective claim.

If a crime is committed and your spouse has been murdered, the fact that you're married to her is evidence that you might be guilty. If one juror walks in without looking at the case and says "I think you're innocent" and another walks in, notes that you're the victims husband, and says "I think you're guilty" it doesn't matter who had the better evidence; they both failed to actually validate their claim. They're both using faith.

>>10567666
That was the shittiest faux-example of consistency I ever read.

>>10567666
>a lot of people believe in a god
>checkmate consistency! Haha!
It doesn't matter that they believe, since a god has never been proven to be true in any consistent sense outside of "they want it to be real". That was a pitiful example.

>>10567666
>it doesn't matter who had the better evidence; they both failed to actually validate their claim. They're both using faith.
I keep trying to explain to you how the two arguments are inherently different though, you want it to be the same.

>>10567662
no, it's a personal thing, which is why theocracy wouldn't work, although if many people report the same experiences you could probably generalize some basic rules. This is a good point though, since it's one of the differences between science and spirituality as systems. One is inward looking the other is outward looking, other people exist afawk in the outward direction.

>>10567681
>he actually would shill for a theocracy

>>10567659
>>10567637
>>10567640

why does /lit/ claim all gods are true, but the only text I see you people talking about is the bible

>>10567688
by rules I meant axioms or postulates, I'm against theocracy

>>10567699
Because they're retards. Look at the guy jumping through hoops earlier about metaphysics.

>>10567699
because I can use lagrangian and eulerian perspectives at appropriate times, I can use jungian psychology and the big five, I can use bayesian and frequentist stats, etc. I have a preference for one or the other, might think the other is shit but it doesn't invalidate the system as a whole.