/lit/ - Literature

What this thread is about to turn into.

>>1066125
CHRISTIAN ALERT! Release the lions!

>>1066125

>>1066125
The car? Don't even think about it, Christians.

>>1066125
Into the pit!

> Leon, gowele

ITT: Samefag trying to be funny

>>1066125
>Does anyone else share these sentiments?

No. Nobody has the right to be free from ridicule. Nobody has the right to go through life without having their beliefs questioned. Nobody has the right to go without being offended. 4chan of all places is the wrong place to go if you want total acceptance, love, and friendship. Maybe I'm just bitter but I think everyone should have their values questioned at some point or another.

OP, you have hit on the very reason I love /lit/.

Bitter shit, that's the rite of passage for every true intellectual, brah

The funny thing is how atheists pretend like the crusades, inquisition, etc. happened to them personally. what a joke, i know that atheists are not being persecuted for their beliefs at all, and yet they pretend like the Church is oppressing them simply by existing. The truth is that the church, and not its political ephemera produced by outsiders, and people with interests which are actually heterodox, is a perfectly benign and sometimes altruistic force in the world today. And by ''The Church'' I don't mean protestantism.

>>1066174
>>1066166
>>1066156
>>1066154
>>1066146
>>1066144
>>1066125

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED..

Religion was the opiate of the masses.

Now that the age of 'reason' is in full swing, we have politics, bad-science, and technology as opiates.

Hating Christians is logically retarded compared to all the new problems we keep creating.

(Agnostic btw)

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:

11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

16And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:

17And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

18And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

19And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
20And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.

21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

22And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

25And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

26And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:

31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

>>1066182
If everyone followed the picture's advice, I would have absolutely nothing against religion whatsoever.
You should watch a documentary called "Jesus Camp." I was subjected to the same kind of childhood as the kids in that movie.

>>1066125

While it's an easy way of making yourself feel superior to a large group of people as compensation for other shortcomings, I am certain that all atheists are deeply enlightened individuals who have explores the subject thoroughly and have come to a right conclusion.

Picture related, it is but one of the countless enlightened eScholars.

>>1066208

>who have explores
>explores

>>1066214

Oh darn it! You got me there.

>>1066208
You don't have to deeply explore something to realize that it's a poor decision. I haven't deeply explored forms of killing myself, but I understand that suicide isn't something I want to do, nor should anyone do.

STFU ATHIESMTS YOU ARE SO STUPID!!!!

The cull of New Atheists have been inflexible, dogmatic, arrogant, and worst of all intellectually lazy. At a time when we should be having the most vigorous intellectual debates about the nature of God and religion, we're getting the equivalent of Cliff Notes atheism from the likes of people like Dawkins.

/lit/ needs to prove to all that it's neckbeard is long enough.

I've explores lots of things. But some things just should just remain unexplores.

>>1066241
Sagan was an atheist.

>>1066252

The get out there and write a book and stop bitching.

>>1066263
I looked everywhere in your post, but I couldn't find an argument.

>>1066241

Because the theist in that picture molested the atheist when he was younger.

Sagan FTW

>>1066252

You're an idiot.

They're not being lazy. Dawkins did the best he could to write ~400 pages on an incredibly simple subject.

Dawkins and other sensible atheists never denied the possibility of God's existence. They dismissed its probability and the concept's value to society in a few relatively concise arguments, and were politely redundant for several hundred more pages.

Pic unrelated. It's my first captcha on this post. WTF?

>>1066252
I disagree with you there concerning Dawkins, who while abrasive at least does make contributions to philosophical and moral arguments. I personally pin the blame on the rise of gnostic atheism among internet types, which is foolishly based on the absolute certainty that nothing exists except for what we already know of, rather than focusing on the real issues of the dangers of dogmatic thought (which, no surprise, they themselves are so quick to give into). What no one seems to realize is that God is irrelevant to secular thought! Both atheists and theists make the completely idiotic assumption that "God" is a name rather than a concept. God is an idea with no definite attributes, completely and utterly impossible to prove or disprove! It is the assumptions of specific religions, in particular the irrational belief that a deity would think, speak, and act exactly like a human being, that is key in religious debates, but the PZ Myers crowd would rather bitch about people saying "God bless you" to them on the street.

>>1066284
Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. First, it assumes that we privilege "reason" as the epistemological approach that best describes the world. Reason, it should be remembered is not unmediated access to reality, but a discourse that parses through how and what we should interpret the world. But reason has its limits, especially when dealing with other cultures that have not lived through the Reformation and the Enlightenment. I'm certainly not saying that we should abandon "reason" but simply acknowledge its limitations.

Second, it assumes that all religions are reducable to simple sociological constructs, and that these constructs are applicable to every religion, in every culture, in every time. Such a simplistic approach, while it may very well be true, tell us little about actual difference between different religions and how they have shaped and molded cultures.

tl;dr Dawkins flattens the world out, makes it too simplistic, and is culturally insensitive to non-Westerners.

>>1066281

See, >>1066355 for a rebuttal

>>1066301
Bill Maher is an atheist.

>>1066284
>Dawkins, who while abrasive at least does make contributions to philosophical and moral arguments

>>>1066281
>Dawkins did the best he could to write ~400 pages on an incredibly simple subject.

Dawkins's book is just like any other book written by someone who has only a very basic understanding of what they're talking about. It's like he did no research or reading besides googling "arguments for god's existence" and then loled at them and decided to write a book. And I'm an atheist, not a butthurt Christian.

>>1066301
>Dubious, but logical
>but logical
Bill Maher doesn't even fucking believe in the Germ theory.
Wish I was fucking joking, but shit's true. He doesn't give a shit about evidence when it's not in his favor

The classic critique of Dawkins:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

A more recent critique:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response

>>1066372
**Playing devil's advocate here
The God Delusion isn't meant to be a reference point for atheists. No, it's not even meant to be something an Atheist would read in the first place. Dawkins is totally in his zone when he's talking about this - the book is written FOR people who are questioning their faith. Hence the usage of very common arguments that have been debunked millions of times before. The book isn't for someone who has been exposed to the "upper echelon" arguments that get into hard science yet.

We're not in Roman Times because

A) The Church grossly misrepresented the number of Christians killed.
B) Christians aren't currently considered to be committing treason simply by being Christian.

>>1066125

Not just /lit. It's everywhere in the current society.

I'm a Catholic, and I don't force my beliefs on anyone.

I know that no one was raised in the way that I was, nor had the exact same experiences that I had that lead me to where I am now. So who am I to judge others when I do not know their life experiences?

"Christians this, and Catholics that, Child rapists bla bla bla. Did you hear about the one joke about the priest and the little boy? wow, those Christians and their imaginary friends that float up in the sky and that dude that lives in fire. What a bunch of nut jobs. Lets make fun of them. They're mentally retarded."
Sigh...

>>1066382

>Hence the usage of very common arguments that have been debunked millions of times before.

>implying Dawkins acknowledges this, and didn't just use them because he is completely ignorant of theology and proud of it.

>>1066395
>We're not in Roman Times because we're not in Rome and it's 2000 years later.

>wah, wah, Christians are being treated like second class citizens
>2 billion of them, largest religion by popularion

>>1066366

hahaha, really!? "A basic understanding" of what he's talking about? Huge understatement. you sir are a fool.

>implying this backwater hick board is representative of 4chan

There are five people on /lit/, and no one cares what you think.

But make no mistake: the most hated group on 4chan is atheists. They are despised wherever they go, and are told to take their circlejerk elsewhere. 4chan's opinion:

agnostic > theist > pedophile >> atheist

>>1066408
Catholic here too.

I do feel kind of discriminated amongst people my own age. I don't even mention anything about religion, but when I'm asked and I tell people I'm catholic or that I study philosophy at a Catholic university, most of the times they spout such comments.

Most of my friends are agnostic or atheist, and I have no problem with that, nor do I meddle with their beliefs.

Why can't I get the same treatment?

>>1066182

Atheist of Muslim background. Back when I first became an atheist, I thought I'd tell my family, starting with my mother. She started crying and told me I was no son of hers, so I never bothered telling the rest of my family.

Being a student, I have to be around my family more than I'd like, and that means pretending to believe in Islam just so they don't hate me.It's Ramadan, now.

tl;dr fuck organised religion.

>>1066382
Perhaps. But I still think this is the exact time when the debate about God must get more complex, not less, given the rise of radical Islam. Dawkin's critique of fundamentalist Christianity tells us little about how to negotiate Western-Muslim relations besides saying, "Well,, all religions are equally illogical. So they are both equally fake, and I respect neither of them." A good atheism should be able to acknowledge the harshest critiques of religion, but also acknowledge that religions are also extremely powerful ways of helping people to organize and understand the world. Religions are used to manipulate people, but they also help people organize a sense of identity and resist oppressors (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism). Demanding that people foreit their religion is an implicit act of intellectual imperialism.

But more to the point, don't forget, that for thousands of years, even simple peasants were able to comprehend complex points of Christian doctrine (the Trinity, resurrection of the body, bapsitism, the whole 9 yards). We should expect atheists to have an equally complex understanding of their beliefs.

tl;dr If atheists are as smart as they think they are, they should be able to transcend the religious food fight, not get bogged down in it.

>>1066408
It it's any comfort, I doubt this'll last nearly as long as Christian domination and the oppression of anyone who felt differently lasted.

You folks had a chokehold on society for two thousand years. We'll probably be done mocking you in a couple hundred.

Atheists are responsible for more deaths in just the last century than all religions combined in the previous five at least.

>>1066431
Studying Philosophy at a Catholic school?? Stephen Dedalus???

hehe, but seriously what school do you go to?
Sounds like a cool school experience

All of this
>wah, wah, I never force my beliefs on anyone
bullshit is childish. You aren't the only believers of your faith, and there are plenty of examples in every faith and belief (atheism included) of assholes who DO walk around and bring up what they believe as though it's the only thing in the world that matters, and everyone else is an idiot for not agreeing with them.
You know how everyone hated Germany durring World War II because of the Nazis? Well we hate you because of those fuckers.
Just as my German family in America were very careful to never say, "Surely not all Nazis are bad!" the last thing you should do is start up with this whiny bullshit. I don't defend the actions of atheist assholes, you shouldn't act offended when Christian assholes are called out either. They deserve the hate. The very SECOND you try "Hey, I'm a Christian and I'm not that bad!" you've become that bad. You aren't even the exception that proves the rule, you're just another example of the rule in action. The best Christians are those who just ignore those threads because it's all fucking silly internet arguments anyway, with all the impact on reality of a child yelling at his toys in hopes that they'll do what he says.
Grow the fuck up and stop whining.

>>1066454
except that dudes on the internet are always like "every christian is inherently stupid and christianity is an inherently stupid belief and there is no such thing as a good christian"

it's not like the only thing that happens is hating on unreasonable christians / religious people, it's pretty common to see dudes arguing against religion as such

(not actually engaged in this argument, not actually a christian, just sayin)

>>1066454

wat

>>1066449
Universidad Catolica Argentina.

Of course, it's in Argentina.
I think the experience is quite good. Though I'm catholic, I didn't want a strictly catholic formation on Philosophy, nor did I wan't to go to a state university where it's class after class of "religion is bad mmmkay?".

It was a nice surprise finding out they're quite neutral, keeping religion strictly confined to Theology classes.

First year is all about ancient philosophy, where they don't even mention christianism.
Second year, medieval, which is mostly dominated by the study of Aquinas.
The remaining three years are for modern/current.

I'm on the second year.

>>1066469
Wow, cool set up there. I am minoring in Philosophy and am taking the ancients this fall.
I have read an entire book on Aquinas, though i have not actually read the Summa Theologica. How are you liking him? Are you friends with your Theological professors?

>>1066125

OP has obviously not noticed that the longest running thread on /lit/ is full of Christians and was started because of a poem that is going to be used in a church setting.

>>1066482
>How are you liking him?
He's pretty interesting. We studied Aristotle quite deeply last year and it's similar. Our theological professors are really fond of Aquinas.

>Are you friends with your Theological professors?
Yeah, most of us are. We have barbeques and play football with all the proffesors now and again. I got one of them to read Marcus Aurelius too.

>>1066372

>>Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms.

This is marvelous.

>>1066500
thats great dude. Well then, read on

>>1066435
>fuck organised religion
SORRY I CAN'T HERE YOU OVER THE SOUND OF HOW HIP YOU ARE