/lit/ - Literature

>>11382240
Agnostic here. This could get interesting.

>>11382240
These aren't really about converting you, but they will make you more sympathetic to these modes of thought. This author is one of the heads of American pragmatism. He doesn't really make the case for a religion, but he does make the case for why some people can benefit from religion.

>>11382240
Well i used to be an atheist in my teens, 24 now and its mostly cause of bob dylan and lev tolstoy that id say i see worth in christianity and have periods where i can't think that there isn't a god. Most of the time i'm completely aloof to it, kinda thinking there might be a god or something, but not really pursuing it in any way, other than feeling inspired by things like

>Sometimes the world can become so wretched and hostile that even your own parents may turn against you and if that happens God will always be there to believe that you can better yourself.

Even if you don't believe in God, you can take that as meaning 'yourself' will always be there for you, or the world in general.

>>11383810
>gets converted by hacks like (((Bob Dylan))) and some faggot named Lev Tolstoy (never heard of him)

Just read a bunch of literature and keep pondering this shit. Tbqh with you, youu need to expel the idea that finding God will answer all your questions. There's lots of dissatisfied Christians, Hindus, Kikes, etc.

tl;dr just read books and think

>>11384021

go be insecure elsewhere. The average American shitheel could probably kick your ass.

>>11384051
ooh watch out we got a tough guy on /lit/

>>11382240
if you're genuinely one of the 15% or so of people who have no capacity for religious belief then there isn't a book in the world that is going to provide it for you
if you're actually one of those weird agnostic fence-sitters then you'll probably be converted by whatever book most closely agrees to your pre-existing personal biases

>>11384055
I'm not an American and I'm not sure if i could kick your ass or not. However, there are some of us who don't come here to shitpost and would rather see some more mature discussions and less facile memes.

>>11384068
Yeah well I bet I could beat your faggy ass

>>11384051
at least I'm not someone who reads books by your imaginary friend "Lev Tolstoy" (I've heard of Leo Tolstoy , not this Lev Toystory fucking fag)

>>11384021
>Lev Tolstoy (never heard of him)
Are you retarded?

>>11382240
For me personally it was very valuable to experience sincere christian art in general. Not Dosto, who seems intent on blatantly shitting on atheists, but Tolstoy, Bach (Johannespassion), Tarkovsky, they really made me understand religiousness on an emotional, intuitive level.

>>11382240
How about the Confessions of St. Augustine? Did it for me.

>>11382240
Tolstoy kind of became a crazy old self righteous dood when he got older. I think Confessions is the best thing to come out of his near death years and even it gets a bit silly with the 'just love' idea. Read Death of Ivan Ilyich instead.

>>11384089
>Not Dosto, who seems intent on blatantly shitting on atheists, but Tolstoy, Bach (Johannespassion), Tarkovsky, they really made me understand religiousness on an emotional, intuitive level.
>Tolstoy
Who just shits on everyone

>>11384078
Lol I was defending that guy, but I am not actually him dumb ass.

>>11384068
>>11384078
Like, shitposting for the keks arent made for these threads. Its not funny, only you force yourself to laugh at your shit.

Im sorry OP

>>11383786
I've already read James, any other recommendations that were influenced by him perhaps?

>>11382240
Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript was written with the express purpose of determining how someone can become a christian.

>>11382240
>Leo

>>11382240
Rene Girard for appreciating the (potential) uniqueness of Christianity amongst world religions is good

Dostoevsky, even though he is overly hostile towards atheists as people have pointed out, for pointing out experiences that lead people to Christianity is good. Dostoevsky acknowledges the problems of faith, doesn't shy away from the problem of evil etc., but shows how believers push through these concerns in an act of passion.

Kierkegaard philosophised much the same thing--this leap of faith--putting your faith in something which can't be fully understood.

The main recommendation from me though would be to read Girard. He's the one that made me start to take Christianity seriously as a non-believer, and now I can't help but consider myself at least some form of Christian (I haven't fully worked out how to figure his insights into my life yet)

>>11382240
Saint Augustine's Confessions honestly made me almost cry when I read how he asked various Earthly objects if they are God and that their reply was they weren't but their beauty was.
It was also very humbling to know that the questions I've asked were asked 1600 years ago.
Still a strong atheist, however I learned about 5 years ago (28 now) that the whole thing shouldn't be argued but it should be discussed.

>>11382240
Theoretical physicist here.

Read up on hyperspace theorem and metaphysics. That's what made me religious. I'm an ethnic jew, and former atheist, but it was quite apparent to me after 8 or so years of studying the sciences that the universe DID originate from a self-existent entity of some kind, and the only phrase that could describe it was "God". I became Christian specifically (and was disowned by my ethnic jewish family as a result) because all things seemed to point to Christians being the closest to the truth.

I would also recommend reading up on occultism and the existence (and activities) of secret societies, as well as the history of opposition that Christianity has made to said secret societies. There is a thousands of years old history of "elites" fighting to control the world and Christians (and their technical predecessors) acting as the lone serious opposition to this politicking. Fascinating stuff, and, if you believe mankind is "naturally free" (which I think most [non-fedora tipping] atheists do), it serves as a very strong argument to Christians being on the side of "good" and their ideological opposition being on the side of "evil".

tl;dr: Science and history are the strongest arguments for religion, not some specific "books".

>>11385682
>I'm an ethnic jew
Sorry mate you lost me

>>11385682
interesting anon.

what did you find to be more valid of a model in Christianity rather and Judaism or other religions?

>>11385682
Based redpilled Jew, tell us more of your story.

>>11385682
This is borderline-copypasta levels of bullshit.

Started with Hume for me. He made me realise how silly the sort of reddit materialism is and how hard genuine knowledge is to come by.
He didn't convert me to Christianity or anything, but put me on a path to Spinoza and Aquinas and the Upanishads.
I used to be so convinced God was impossible because science lol, Hume taught me I didn't know shit

>>11385708
This. People who haven't read Hume think he's some sort of New Atheist redditor, but he's the one who slapped a lot of that shit out of me.

>>11385708
>Actually believing in the metaphysical beings
LMAO

>>11382240
Osho the book of secrets.
More generally anything related to a philosophical analysis of alterated not drug induced states of consciousness.

>>11385729
I didn't say that, I said I didn't know shit

>>11382240
Walden awoke my sense of spirituality

>>11383810
>bob dylan

Has Dylan ever explained why he became a christian? The clearest he's ever spoken about religion was fairly recently when he said that he finds organized religion irrelevant and that music is his religion.

The Way of the Pilgrim is a good book from the Orthodox mystical/spiritual standpoint.

>>11382240
I got your back OP.

>>11385856
I've never been an athiest, but Walden definitely lead me on the path to become more spiritual. Walden is such an amazing masterpiece that gets unfairly criticized more often than not.

>>11382240
Read Chesterton

>>11385708
Pic related is pretty much the reason Why I can't trust any religion.
Every culture has a different creation myth.
if humanity got sent back to the stone ages, the new creation myths would be completely different from the old creation myths with entirely different beliefs and traditions.

But someday...

They'll rediscover Farming
They'll rediscover Metal working
They'll rediscover Architecture
They'll rediscover Medicine
They'll rediscover Electricity
They'll rediscover Flight
They'll rediscover Computers
They'll rediscover Atoms
They'll rediscover Space Flight

And the first man in space will see the derelict satellites and realize someone thousands of years ago, has had these same thoughts and done these same things and reached these same places.
And they'll realize that their old beliefs were never true as they would dig through our old records and learn of our creation myths and see how radically they differ from their own.
But they will see our discoveries and become oddly connected with the knowledge that each nation with their different systems of government, religions, and ideologies all came to the same conclusions on a single aspect, technology.

And they'll ask "How is it we fell to ruin?"
and they will read "Simply because belief overpowered reason for a brief moment"

>>11385968
Your no fun allowed atheism is the as as no fun allowed religion.

>>11385968
Is your fedora a little bit too tight on your head?
If you look through all ancient creation myths (myths; not scientific statements, but myths, mind you) without prejudice, you will see that all of them actually say roughly the same thing. The same thing that science states today.

>>11385682
some good copypasta material right there, you theoretical-physicist ethnic-jewish former-atheist christian

>>11385968
>fedoratheism420.png is why I don't trust religion
>ties culture to faith (calls it religion too lol)
>gives a cuck poem about traveling back in the past, how scientific

>>11382240
The answer to this depends on what the value of believing in 'god' is. What do you mean by god? Why do you want to believe in him? What do you think you will get out of it? I recommend you read Hegel and Nietzsche before you wrestle with the genuinely religious texts some anons like to recommend. The truth will set you free. Self-deception is self-imprisonment.

>>11385976
I'm agnostic actually.

>>11385978
only until "in the beginning there was a single object which became all of creation" everything after that was just vague similar nonsense with human like entities being the first thing created.

>without prejudice, you will see that all of them actually say roughly the same thing. The same thing that science states today.

YES! That's the real problem!
Someone, somewhere was on the right track in thinking "hey, what was here before us? didwe come from something else? if we did where did that come from...?" Then someone else comes along and say "Oh, That's Wangadoo, goddess of all creation. Who was born of the great Pineapple Bush of the Floating Nothingness". And they start repeating their version the belief as fact, instead of keeping in mind they have no proof of any of these things, just blind belief because it "makes sense". Never mind the fact that it may actually be close to the truth, the decide to accept as truth and then start convincing people that similar ideas using different names are wrong and heresy.
So yes I do recognize the similarities but they get muddled as soon as it becomes a "fact" rather than belief open to interpretation.
And yes I do understand the difference between being religious and be spiritual.

>>11385990
>fedoratheism420.png is why I don't trust religion
I'm agnostic, not atheist

>ties culture to faith
beliefs and traditions are the basis of culture, Which can eventually form to become a religion.
Or are you prepared to educate me on how each of these things aren't related?

>traveling back in the past,
It's the far-off future after we nuked ourselves, otherwise why would there be satellites already floating in space, numbnuts.

>cuck poem
Really, now? you couldn't come up with anything better, like "Space Alien Wet Dream" or something?

>>11385968
Surely bait but
>he thinks science has resolved the prime mover issue

>>11386028
If it can be understood by the human mind, then it will be resolved eventually by science.

Since science is literally just the objective analysis and study of every little thing that pops into out head.

Unless you happen to know something other than the name you like to call this "prime mover" by.

>>11382240
Eliade, Guenon, Evola.

>>11386058
>>11386058
>If it can be understood by the human mind, then it will be resolved eventually by science
Firstly not true, see ethics or aesthetics. Secondly, the universe is full of things that can't be understood by the human mind

>>11386058
Science can not explain how a universe is created while working within the framework of a universe. What is there to experiment? What data to collect? Hegel can explain the creation of space, time, and matter better than any scientist today, and even if he’s not correct, the scientist won’t produce any more insight than the philosopher. At some point it becomes acceptable to not simply rely on experimental observations.

>>11386027
> nonsense with human like entities
Those are just products of their respective cultures, anon. In fact, your original images stacking all those cultures together is beautiful as a native Hindu: shows the one universal truth that is beyond our geographical distances.

>>11386079
>Firstly not true, see ethics or aesthetics
>He believes that if we don't understand something perfectly the moment we first become aware of it we never will.
Understanding things, takes time. Just because we don't fully understand something now doesn't mean will never understand ever.
We used to believe sickness came from demons, curses, disobeying elders or or fucking that goat. We now know that it wasn't because of demons or curses, but fucking that goat the elder told us not to fuck, was the primary vector for the virus to infect us.

Though I have to ask, why you believe we won't be able to fully understand ethics and aesthetics? Because based on what I see we're on the right track to understanding both of these things merely by being able to experiment with both of these. If we aren't able to understand these things fully we should not be capable of predicting the effects of manipulating them at all, but yet we can.

>Science can not explain how a universe is created while working within the framework of a universe.
This might be true but...
>What is there to experiment? What data to collect?
Just because you believe there might be nothing left to do, doesn't mean all that can be done or all that can be known has already been achieved. If we don't understand something or if what we're doing is not producing the result we want, then the fact of the matter is we're missing a piece of the puzzle, there's something missing that we have yet to be aware of, something left to discover.
You may have lost your curiosity, but I haven't lost mine yet.

>>11386120
If you actually read past that first sentence, you would see we're saying the same thing, except you're doing it more concisely. it's all based on a observation that multiple people from different areas have that eventually get hijacked by something the ends up muddling it for petty reasons.
it's exactly what I meant by "that someone will eventually rediscover it" because it's there in front of us.

>>11386151
>Though I have to ask, why you believe we won't be able to fully understand ethics
Can't see you solving is-ought any time soon. I'm not sure you can use induction to prove anything really, I've no idea why you think we're on the right track to solving ethics or aesthetics now than we were a thousand years ago

>>11385968
Creation miths are not scientific truths.
But I think canticle for Lebovitz will be a good read for you.

>>11386151
Man, this is either some good bait, or a genuine 14-year-old edgy atheist blinded by science.

>>11386167
>I've no idea why you think we're on the right track to solving ethics or aesthetics now than we were a thousand years ago
Did they have the same level of understanding of neuroscience, biology, psychology and genetics that we have today, or even a concept of mental illness other than "insanity"?. Because all of these have a pretty crucial role in determining how our minds work. And these are just pieces of a grand puzzle that they just didn't have to tools to even discover yet. Because it seems to me you're making the assumption that all the we are aware of right now is our ultimate limit. And that's what I can't understand, in how you can say we can't understand something because of our present understanding of things.

Some examples would be the fact that a thousand years ago they weren't even aware of micro-organisms, viruses, and bacteria, but yet they still attempted to cure the sickness these micro-organisms, unbeknownst to them, were causing. The were getting close but they just couldn't grasp at the essence of the sickness because no one had created the tools neccessary to discover them yet.
Nowadays even elementary schoolers viruses and bacterias and their role in sickness and the most dependable way of treating them.

What we need to do is to try and find a factor we might be overlooking and how we might try finding it.

>>11386307
>14-year-old edgy atheist blinded by science.
>atheist
I said I'm agnostic and not being religious doesn't mean I don't believe in A god,
But rather I just don't believe in YOUR god as YOU know it.
>edgy
>because trusting and believing in humanity's curiosity and willingness to understand the world around them is edgy
commit sudoku
>blinded by science.
well if you hate science so much stop using computers, the internet, medicine, cars and everything else that's a product of technology and live like the amish do. Do you even know what the word "science" even means, or do you just like to assume things to be angry about?

>>11386350
>Some examples would be the fact that a thousand years ago they weren't even aware of micro-organisms, viruses, and bacteria
These are physical things that actually exist. Morality is an abstract concept which doesn't exist physically, as is beauty. It's an enormous act of faith to think one day science will solve ethics.

>>11382240
Uncle Tom's Cabin

>>11386368
>Morality is an abstract concept which doesn't exist physically, as is beauty.
And yet people sense of beauty can be turned upside after taking some LSD. And there are reports of people sense of morals and what they took pleasure in doing changing radically after a brain injury. In these cases something physical is having a tremendous effect on their morality and sense of what you would consider abstract. You say morality doesn't exist physically, but I say it does, specifically in the neurons of the brain as a specific pattern or programed response, otherwise a small brain injury wouldn't be able to effect it.

And I know you're going to say "Well if it's physical as you believe it to be then we would already be able to change it and manipulate as we please". And we can. Not perfectly, but you yourself are already aware of some of these things, it's just that the thought of associating these certain things with each other has never occurred to you. The first thing is in the realm of psychology, specifically trauma therapy. For instance: intentionally turning something a specific person views as terrifying, disgusting, or other wise negatively into something positive by speculating and dissecting the patient's patients experiences to solve why this specific person views this specific thing negatively. Neuroscience tells us that the brain makes certain physical connections in the cases of traumas by linking memories located in certain parts of the brain to the part of the brain associated to either pleasure or fear. These parts have been known to show activity when ever certain traumas or experiences are recalled and tend to have a large influence on why certain things can seem beautiful to one person, but ugly and disgusting to another.
I truly believe that trying to disregard the effect of the physical brain from the "mind and soul" of a person is just willful ignorance. Morality is the same way can be manipulated in the same manner. Morality and emotion are tend to act in tandem, after all it's hard to find something morally objectionable or morally agreeable without feeling the appropriate emotion.

>>11386448
Retard.

>>11386151
>>11386350
>>11386448
I'm starting to make more and more spelling and grammatical errors, I'll be heading to bed soon.
For whoever thinks I was trolling or baiting, sorry, most of my responses and speculations are genuine, I might not have been able to express them in a way where my meaning and intentions were a bit clearer, I blame my lack of sleep for that.

>>11386466
Explain

>>11382240

Reading most classical literature (if not even contemporary literature up until the 1930s) should make you at least transcend the current paradigms on deist modes of thought and crank your gears for higher contemplation. These are some books which, over time, firstly disentangled me from lacklustre and banality of modern historical materialism and gradually into more open-minded forms of agnosticism:


- Book of Job
-The Divine Comedy
- Moby Dick
- Dosto's oeuvre
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poems
- Les Chants de Maldoror (obviously not to be more sympathetic to theist modes of thought, but it rly dinks u dink)
- Beyond Good and Evil (see parenthesis above)
- Ezra Pound's poems
- TS Eliot's poems

>>11386448
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that with your shitty logical positivism, morality is not objective, morality does not exist outside of mind. If everything is just a bunch of chemical reactions, there is no event that OUGHT to happen.

>>11386469
>Did they have the same level of understanding of neuroscience, biology, psychology and genetics that we have today, or even a concept of mental illness other than "insanity"?. Because all of these have a pretty crucial role in determining how our minds work. And these are just pieces of a grand puzzle that they just didn't have to tools to even discover yet.
Guess what? The 'grand puzzle' never ends so you're traumatic injury shit is a totally moot point. People knew this 200 years ago.

>>11386470
>modern historical materialism
what do you mean by this?

>>11386350
>well if you hate science so much stop using computers, the internet, medicine, cars and everything else that's a product of technology and live like the amish do. Do you even know what the word "science" even means, or do you just like to assume things to be angry about?
nah, how about you go ahead and seriously engage with Heidegger's, Ellul's, and Kaczynski's critiques of technology. you praise medicine for relieving suffering but do not realize that technology has brought about the potential (and possibly actualization) of suffering on a scale dozens of times worse than serfs dying from the plague.

>>11386475
Considering everything through the reductionist lens of sociology and economics. Even the best material historians (such as Fukuyama- who, in his later books which were treatises on political order and security, recognised the incapacity of his historical materialism to generate any meaningful metanarrative contra his 'end of history') recognise that their epistemology is severely delimited and can only draw extremely tenacious and exoteric conclusions

>>11386488
Do you think there is a better way to consider history than through sociology and economics?

>>11386493
Modes of agnostic (as well as religious) thought are much better at explicating intercenturial phenomena and coherently dealing with an ontologically integrated consideration of history, whereas completely atheistic ones are essentially limited by their empiricism, and in particular the lack of empirical substantiation for the essentialism which undergirds all agnostic modes of thought. it's 2:40 am here though so im going to sleep now

>>11382240

>>11386482
>but do not realize that technology has brought about the potential (and possibly actualization) of suffering on a scale dozens of times worse than serfs dying from the plague.
You think I'm not aware of the fact the we can't perfectly predict and control the effects experimenting with new technology can have?
I"m aware that with antibiotics being improperly used, we have accidentally created some strains of antibiotic bacterias have resulted in super bugs. You think I don't know about the effect nuclear radiation exposure has had on people who had experimented in proximity to radioactive elements, and the birth defects it's caused for the children of those people?
I am fully aware that there are risks with experimenting with things we don't fully understand. Would the acceptable alternative be: Do nothing because bad things might happen if you do anything?
Because if you believe in not experimenting or trying to discover new things, how can you justify taking advantage of the positive effects of technology while admonishing the negative effects as if they were intentional? We can't know the effects of new technology without experimenting and testing. The more obvious matter to discuss is that new technology will happen anyways, as some humans are just born with curiosity, we may not fully understand it, but we're aware of it.

>>11386471
>If everything is just a bunch of chemical reactions, there is no event that OUGHT to happen.
And yet here we are doing stuff and shit, there must be some reason we are able to will things. By some mechanism, we are able to have preferences and make judgements based of incomplete information with. By some mechanism, we are able to imagine things that don't exist.
What is it about everything being a bunch of chemicals reaction, makes you so afraid of entertaining the thought that this might be true?
I can sorta understand your apprehension to believe that your decisions and thoughts are not actually a result of your force of will, is it might invalidate your own idea of what it means to be a human with free will, or what not. But if it turns out to be true, then what? There's always the possibility you could be wrong, I know that's true of me as well, that's why I question things and ask for proof or try to prove it myself if I'm able. After all it's easier to trust in what's there than what isn't

>>11386472
>the "grand puzzle" never ends
And how do you know this are you omniscient? can you definitively prove it's impossible? If not, than why can you say it's impossible with so much certainty? Or do you just consider it so unfathomable, that it just can't be possible? Because you don't seem to acknowledge that you could be wrong. I' haven't read what ever books you have read to lead you to that conclusion. But you should never make the assumption you can't be wrong about something because no has put in the effort to prove it to you.

>>11386648
>antibiotic bacterias
I meant antibiotic-resisitant bacterias

>>11386648
You're a monster, anon.
God have pity on your soul.

>>11386720
>You're a monster, anon
Well someone has to be one, otherwise how could you feel good about yourself if you're the worst person in the room. Glad I can play the role of the monster for you.

>>11386648
>But if it turns out to be true, then what?
Then you're right. Everything is futile. Why would you believe this?

>>11386733
I feel in no way good because of you. I will pray for you.

>>11386741
yeah and I'll pray for you motherfucker

>>11386648
Because even if the puzzle were solved then man would prove himself to be a man and not consent to it, sucka

>>11386737
>Why would you believe this?
Because I believe lying to yourself, to make yourself feel better is worse. I'd rather pursue and accept the truth. After all, what good does lying to yourself do in the end?

>>11386741
I believe praying is giving up, it's acknowledging that you do not have the capability of effecting the change you've hoped for, and ultimately leave it to someone else. I'm quite sure I've answered a lot of peoples prayers before but I've received no thanks from them. That's just the lot given to the scientist, all the blame and none of the praise. So I'll continue being the monster, since it's what I believe in.

>>11386648
Even if everything about the brain is discovered. And all activities are only chemistry.
It still can't tell you which chemisty is good and bad.
If someones chemistry makes him enjoy murder can you really condem it wrong?
Science can't answer ethical questions because it's amoral, it's not good or bad it's just a tool for better life.

>>11386783
>I'd rather pursue and accept the truth. After all, what good does lying to yourself do in the end?
But you're not pursuing the truth you're expecting a truth that is discovered through a process external of an individual, which is no truth at all in the end. A signboard of truth through science doesn't mean anything. You really expect everything be solved by reason? You pleb

>>11386783
Your rational truth doesn't lead anywhere. God is beyond this universe. You won't even attempt to seek him out in spirit and that will be the failing of your life, mark my word.

>>11386783
>That's just the lot given to the scientist, all the blame and none of the praise.

I'm an agnostic fucker and kind of on your side, but jesus mate don't be cringeworthy or I might just have to convert

>>11382240
Whether a god exist is something we may never know, thought I do believe the holy bibble is just the word of bunch of men than the diction of actual deity.

>>11386783
>Because I believe lying to yourself, to make yourself feel better is worse.
But you're lying to yourself that by having the ability to manipulate people to the farthest extent possible, not even trying to assume that Your Chemical Morality would prevent someone from attempting to do this, which is absurd, is in the end just evil anyway you'll look at it. And you fool yourself there is little consequence to this.

>>11385861
Its not so much about whether he's a christian or not, it's him opening my mind to what poetry and inspiration can really mean to you. I don't need to be explained anything for an idea to sprout in my brain and it's irrelevant to what bob believes. He's a celebrity that has said thing when asked, not ever an essayist or a preacher really, outside of that brief period where he tried to converr people into being christian.

Metaphysics
Consolation of Philosophy
City of God
Proslogion
Summa Theologica
De Docta Ignorantia
Pensees
Meditations on First Philosophy
L'Action
A Life of Jesus
A Canticle for Leibowitz

>>11386779
>man would prove himself to be a man and not consent to it, sucka
Damn, you have defeated me!

But I wasn't actually trying to prove life is meaningless, I was just speculating that there might be something we're not aware of yet. That in itself is meaningful to me, at least.

>If someones chemistry makes him enjoy murder can you really condemn it wrong?
This is the very reason I got into neuroscience and artificial intelligence, because I just don't believe you can rightly blame someone for this. Because really they're being compelled to do this against there own benefit. And I want to correct that. Will a psychopath remain a psychopath even after the "wiring" has been corrected? Is it more ethical to "wire" someone's brain in a way so that altruistic actions bring pleasure? If a psychopath denies "treatment", is it because of their own will or simply an addiction to the pleasure the brain rewards itself with? What if my own brain chemistry was wired so that I feel pleasure helping people? If I made the choice to do that to myself would it be unethical?

>>11386806
Sorry, but as someone who is looking to treat diseases like Parkinson's and and disorders of the brain like Psychopathy, so that people are at least able to die as themselves, instead of slowly losing their mind in old age to the point where they die calling out the few names they can remember because their surrounded by family members they no longer recognize, and being called an amoral monster for it
It stings quite a bit.

>>11386924
Your "wiring" will lead to horrors that far outweigh anything you claim to cure.

>>11386932
So don't do anything because bad things might happen? Then why live?

>>11384055
Please leave.

>>11386940
I've been here 4 damn years. I'm what's know as an 'Old Fag' around here. Show your respect bucko.

>>11386944
>only 4 years
I bet you don't even watch anime

>>11385708
Where to start with hume?

>>11386956
By that I meant 4 years on /lit/. First went on 4chan somewhere around 2008, but I started lurking full time in the cancer period around 2010/11.

>>11386956
What’s the problem with that?

Truth is, if you found 4chan ANYWHERE OUTSIDE of the ‘newfag range’ and didn’t unironically browse /b/ during the golden age, you are a TOTALLY IRRELEVANT PERSON.

And this is coming from someone who is almost a ‘cancer’

>>11386939
To repent for bad things that happen that seek out the ultimate good in the grace of God.
You don't fuck around with nature thinking, "Hey, shit will either work out, or it will be a disaster." This way nothing will change and suffering will continue from one way to the other.
That's the problem with you rationalists. You just don't comprehend that which is beyond the feeble human nature, but still seek it though it anyway and end up nowhere.

>this stemfag making wild claims about the potency of science when we can't even prove cause and effect
It's real 'faith that move mountains' shit.

>>11386924
>>11386783
>>11386733
>>11386648
>>11386648
>>11386350
>>11386448
>>11386469
>>11386151
>>11386058
>>11386027
>>11385968
HOLY SHIT you are so naive. I am tired of STEMfags engineering our fucking doom. You have no grasp on philosophy, your have overdosed 10 times over on a scientism worse than ever seen before. Yes, it's nice you're trying to treat parkinson's, but we are talking about science and technological progress as a whole causing destruction or the potential for destruction that is way worse than the benefit of technology. (the potential of a nuclear holocaust, the actual holocaust (which was not possible without a technological system), millions of people being born only to starve, etc).
On free will, I have no apprehension to just believe that everything is just a chemical reaction, because we are not 'controlled' by the reactions, we ARE the reactions, I just believe that there is a possibility that this is not the case.
Also, science is not concerned about what the human mind can comprehend, science is concerned about the natural world. I have no idea how you think science can bridge the is-ought gap. Actually, It fucking can't. You don't have to worship mindless scientism in order to treat conditions.

>>11387064

>>11387068
The cringe is all on your side, friend. Just go back to >>>/pol/ or wherever that meme is still funny.

>>11387098
I'll pray for you anon.

>>11386027
>So yes I do recognize the similarities but they get muddled as soon as it becomes a "fact" rather than belief open to interpretation.
I told you, creation myths are only myths. They are not to be taken literally. Nobody treats them as documental testimonies of what really happened.

>>11387099
Would you mind actually explaining your position?

>>11387133
Sure

>>11386967
And yet you don't seem to have any qualms about using any of this technology that other people have already paid the price for. There's a reason we're still alive and not struggling through a perpetual nuclear winter. It's because people use these new technologies with at least a semblance of restraint because they're actually aware of their potential for both good and evil. It's because humans aren't totally evil that that there is more than one group of humans alive right now. Is the potential abuse of new technology what you're actually afraid? Is it really that hard to trust humanity?

>why live?
>To repent for bad things that happen.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were Catholic.

>>11386986
If it actually started "moving mountains" then is it really a wild claim? I mean, look at you, talking to someone who might be thousands of miles away, you using witchcraft or something?

>>11387064
So really you're just scared because people you have no control over can inadvertently end everything you know and love, completely by accident and you have no way to prepare for it.

And for your information I only took the recommended FDA dosage of scientism and not a dose more, scout's honor.

>>11387106
>Nobody treats them as documental testimonies of what really happened.
Would you care to make a wager?

>>11386956
what do we call people who started browsing 4chan in 2017/18?

>>11387153
Scum

>>11387153
Well not "people" that's for sure.

>>11387148
I still do not see how science can explain what is good and what is not, it's just not made for that.

>>11387148
You don't understand the problem of induction do you?

>>11387179
I am aware of that, I never said science can explain what is good or what is not, only that it can enable us to better understand what can influence a person to FEEL something is good or not.

>>11387205
No, no I do not.
As my definition may differ from yours I ask that you please explain.

>>11387148
>Is the potential abuse of new technology what you're actually afraid? Is it really that hard to trust humanity?
This is not a matter of 'trusting humanity to not be evil', it is a fact that dozens of trillions of equations are needed to predict even the fluctuation of prices in the US economy, not including hundreds of other domains that would be needed to be predicted to keep technological society on a stable track. We do not have the computing power for this, and as computing power advances society will only become increasingly complex. We have no control over where our technological society is going to go and what it is going to do.
>So really you're just scared because people you have no control over can inadvertently end everything you know and love, completely by accident and you have no way to prepare for it.
I like how you attempt to paint my criticisms as some sort of primal, instinctive fear. Yes, it is a real possibility that technology will render upon this world untold suffering.

>>11382240
The only thing that will really convert you is direct spiritual experience. Being converted from books and theology is just changing one form of brainwashing for another, one type of social conditioning for another. Either way, atheist or “Christian from a book”, you don’t really know what you believe, you’re not fully certain of it, it’s just your relative and conditioned belief.

>>11387216
Just read Hume you pleb

>>11387148
> It's because people use these new technologies with at least a semblance of restraint
Yeah. They also don't try to fuck with human nature because fuck it, maybe we'll find something or maybe we'll fuck everything up forever.
You moron. You're no scientist, you're just a psychopath looking to be a God.

>>11387148
>muh science who needs religion
Ah yes. Summer.

>>11387243
>and as computing power advances society will only become increasingly complex
This only applies if people willingly try to offload as much personal responsibility to machines as possible, which now that I think about it, is exactly what a majority of people will do. I am aware that people abuse technology because it's convenient, though honestly speaking, anyone who relies too much on one thing deserves to have it fail on them at least once so they can learn the wisdom of having alternatives ready.

>>11387262
Only if you'll buy the books for me, I'm broke as fuck.

>>11387375
>You're no scientist
But I've got the labcoat and everything
>you're just a psychopath
I have not eliminated that possibility yet
though you probably didn't even read the part as to why I got into neuroscience to begin with.
>looking to be God
That's just you projecting, and honestly I don't take myself that seriously either

>>11387375
>muh science who needs religion
why can't I have both?

>>11387436
>>11387375
Oh, fuck I meant >>11387367

>>11387436
10/10 bait though, haven't seen anything like this in years.
Well done Satan.

>it’s another “people who intuitively understand why scientism is retarded but can’t convincingly enough articulate why argue against a retarded scientismist” thread

>>11387436
>>and as computing power advances society will only become increasingly complex
>This only applies if people willingly try to offload as much personal responsibility to machines as possible, which now that I think about it, is exactly what a majority of people will do. I am aware that people abuse technology because it's convenient, though honestly speaking, anyone who relies too much on one thing deserves to have it fail on them at least once so they can learn the wisdom of having alternatives ready.
So do you believe that technological society is going to self-destruct? i don't get your opinion

>>11387489
what are some examples of an attempt at a convincing articulation?

>>11387498
Science can not demonstrate its own legitimacy through scientific method

>>11385612
Anything one should read before Confessions?

>>11387498
Problem of Induction

>>11387544
How about deciding to ask such stupid questions? Just read the fucking book.

>>11385682
why do I doubt you're a theoretical physicist

t. physics graduate

>>11387498
I said “not convincingly enough”, I.e. for the scientismist. The arguments presented are already convincing enough if you don’t have some brainwashed bias towards the religion of scientism. Reductionistic scientismist materialism is an old-fashioned superstition, it’s already being squashed out and will hopefully be one day laughed at as the hoax it is, just like the old belief that the earth is flat.

>>11387544
>>11387551
well, plato helps, as well as aristotle, as well as reading the most important books of the bible (genesis, exodus, Deuteronomy, samuel, kings, chronicles, psalms, jeremiah, jonah, job, matthew, john, acts, romans, first corinthians)

>>11382240
The Kingdom by Emmanuel Carrere.

>>11387470
Thanks I try my best, but at least half of it was sincere.

>>11387489
What so who wins? Me and my retarded scientismatism, or the people who can't make me understand my retardation? Is it smart to argue with a retard? Can I still claim I was only pretending to be retarded? Is the grace period still in effect? I have so many questions that need answering. So far only 2 people have given me the names of authors whose books I should read, the rest were either laughing their asses of or praying for me.

>>11387495
It has a higher chance of self-destructing than not, before a certain point. After a certain point Humanity will be too tame to harm society in any fashion and become pleasure seeking drones being cared for by automated pleasure bots every waking hour. They be effectively dead inside, but technically alive. IF it manages to self-destruct before a certain point it won't destroy humanity but maybe 2/3 of the population in developed countries might die slow agonizing deaths due to the people with knowledge, skills, and resources that will help them survive, getting the hell out of Dodge, and leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Though a good amount of Americans are prepared for this, due to the Prepper culture. Although most countries in Europe will be getting massively raped by Arabs, in every sense of the word. Russia and China will stick keep to themselves, since ironically, communist countries in general are generally more self-sufficient than other nations that rely on exports to keep their population fed. Some people will like it, most won't.

Not a book, but as convincing an argument as any, in my opinion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPlK5HwFxcw

>>11387591
>>11387591
>So far only 2 people have given me the names of authors whose books I should read, the rest were either laughing their asses of or praying for me

Exactly, I find their poor argumentation amusing and sad, it makes the anti-scientismisticasticism side look bad. Particularly the people who went, “all of consciousness just chemicals? Th-that’s such a sad and depressing view! How can you believe that, you monster!” No one really wins except for a few people who correctly brought up figures like Hume, Heidegger, Ellul, and Kaczynski. By the way, your research into neuroscience to cure psychopathy and Parkinson’s and such can just as easily be added to the stockpile of how to condition, augment and brainwash people and take away their humanity.

>>11387591
Wait, you came in here like >>11385968 and then you're in your most recent post you're showing signs of techno-pessimism? Has your view changed?
For recommended reading material, try An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding about the problem of induction, and concerning technology, look Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology. Unabomber's manifesto is more polemic and gives you a quick anti-tech rundown, but Kaczynski really shines in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. I would recommend downloading a PDF of that and reading the sections that interest you. (maybe Why The Tecnological System Will Destroy Itself). Ellul's book is also really good.

>>11387614
I am actually surprised no has called me an edgy nihilist yet.

>>11387625
I was already aware technology can be abused, but most importantly that humans would rather use technology for themselves first and others second. Pretty much meaning humans will be lazy before being evil. I actually have a pretty simple view about the future and technology and people, in that it's devolves down to who decides what technology gets made, and how they intend to use it for themselves first, and how they intend to use it against others second. But I admit I am definitely not well read on the subject. Why else would I try to get people to give me some answers?

>>11387661
in that case I'd like you to consider chapter one of Anti-Tech, titled "The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control"

I have a question. Suppose you're religious. Do you believe there is A God or THE God? Do you believe that all religious people praise and pray to the same Entity (but It has different names) or do you believe 'literally' in the stories of exclusively your own religion?

As an example, let's take a look at Christianity. Do you believe that there is God, his son Jesus Christ who resurrected to save humanity and the Holy Spirit (along with the Divine Virgin Mary and Saints and what not) and that all of them are LITERAL figures and that by praying you are communicating with one of them? Or do you follow the doctrines of Christianity while recognizing other belief systems?

Let's suppose you're the first type of believer and let's suppose that somewhere exists another person who believes in, say, Hinduism. And for argument's sake, let's say that he is the most splendid person ever to exist, basically sinless. Now he's off in a temple somewhere praying to Vishnu. To remind ourselves, you don't believe that he is correct in believing in Vishnu because that would be a contradiction. When that person prays, God hears him? He is omnipotent after all? But then, is this person not a Christian? Due to geographical conditions he does have a different name for Him, yet he lives as virtuously as he can. Aren't you two worshiping the same Entity? But from his point of view, he can say exactly the same things about you (provided you are a good person which let's say you are). Would you be willing to pray to Agni? He to Jesus Christ? But isn't this the same as being a believer of the second type?

What makes A God THE God?

In my mind, this doesn't prove that there is no God, only that if there is, such an Entity would not care for the names we have in store. And the rituals which differ from religion to religion, country to country. And for the mass gatherings of praise. After all, it's not like God has ever started speaking during mass. Would it not be logical then to talk to Him in our privacy. Reformulating the question of religion into the question of believing whether or not there is a Deity with which you can communicate with your thoughts?

I apologize if it's not very coherent and if this sort of question has been addressed often, but I hope my thoughts are understandable. If there are books on this topic or something similar, please let me know!

>>11387551
Yeah silly me for wanting to get the most out of it and being prepared to read such a book. Please, read a book about the Langlands program, I'm sure you'll get everything without any prior knowledge.

dostoyevsky is your man (maybe)

>>11387674
Christ is unique in his implications. Read Kierkegaard. I understand what you're saying but most Christians obviously put Christ in a special contrast, and they have written at length about it.

>>11382240
Not gonna contribute but this seems like a good place to ask and I'm not going to kill a thread to ask this:

To all of the religious people on here (or agnostics sitting on the fence): have any of you ever read a thorough academic history of the church?

I like to think I have a decent understanding of Christianity having read the Bible, been to church quite a lot as a teen in school, having read Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, being familiar with the philosophy of Augustine.
I know the difference between faith and belief but still... How can you read a history of the Christian church (the entire church, with all it's schisms) and not start viewing religion as nothing more than a complex social mechanism, almost looking at it from an antropological or sociological perspective?

>>11387818
Not a Catholic but there’s a semi-blasphemous Catholic joke that “The fact that the Catholic Church has been able to survive despite being a contradictory, chaotic, idiotic mess is proof God is guiding it.”

>>11385968
But the Big Bang and the Christian Creation story is the same?

>>11385524
Which books by Rene Gerard do you recommend?

They say Rene Girard looks like the Shah of Iran

>>11386028

>>11387674
bump for interest

>>11386470
>Book of Job
Answer to Job, Jung

Read Les Mis. The whole thing, including the sewer descriptions.

Here to SAGE that this was a very good thread. Congradulations all for holding your faith unto the One True LORD.

>>11387980
That actually made me giggle, thanks anon.

>>11383810
I like to think of God as an idealized concept of the heights of humanity. I cannot believe in a real entity of any kind simply because there's no reason, but how do i reconcile my beliefs with the those of others? Well, through their religion they're accessing and drawing power from something inside them unbeknownst to them.
Strength of character, an indomitable comfort that can only be accessed by 'otherizing' this aspect of themselves. Maybe because consciously they don't think highly enough of themselves.

>>11386448
If you truly believe that our morality is connected to our physical mind, why wont you think that psychopats, sociopaths and all of the others aren't bad people? Because, in the eyes of science, there is no worse or better man, their brains are just structured differentely, so they are justified to do this and do not need to be sent on any therapy. But I am sure you dont believe this bullshit (unless youre ultra edgy kid), so what makes you believe that our values are better than the others? And that is the question to be asked.

>>11387674
Shameless self bump, didn't really get much of an answer other than one Kierkeegard recommendation.

>>11382240


The real goal of christianity was never to convert everyone radically, their real goal was to create a society where even people who doesn't see themselves represented by christianity will still practice the christian values. you may think you're an athiest but you sure have a christian heritage whittin and you spread it without even knowing.

Sorry for my crappy english. I'm not a christian, I prefer to stay agnostic but reading on christianity is essential even for a non believer.

I suggest to you Mere Christianity written by C.S. Lewis, it's probably is most interesting work on the subject.

Memes aside, how does one believe in God? I don't especially want to but I never have and I often wonder how somebody can believe so strongly in something without evidence or something.
>inb4 fedora
I choose to not believe blindly if there's no good reason to.

>>11390352
>wonder how somebody can believe so strongly in something without evidence or something.
Do you believe the physical world exists? That cause and effect apply? That other people are conscious?
You don't have strong evidence for any of these things.

>>11390208
>'m not a christian,
It shows
>The real goal of christianity was never to convert everyone radically,
I dont know how you could read the bible and come to such a conclusion check out the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20. There is a reason why the Jews went of of their way to have him killed.
>I suggest to you Mere Christianity written by C.S. Lewis, it's probably is most interesting work on the subject.
Lewis is the Christopher Hitchens of Christianity -great style and charisma that hides flawed and deceptive ideas.

Sorry if it sounds like Im coming off all negative but this kind of approach needs to be nipped in the bud.

>>11390352
The same way you do when it comes to historical events and abstract concepts.

>>11390367
I don't have strong evidence, that is true. I act as though these things exist, though. It sounds brainletty and pragmatic but if you don't, I feel like you can only slip onto solipsism. Also, even if the material world is an illusion of the senses (or whatever), at least I have that, whereas God doesn't appear to send me any signals.

>>11390398
Some people feel they've had the signals I guess. There's a great bit in Hume where he's explaining this stuff and he kind of breaks the 4th wall and explains to the reader that even he doesn't live his life as though the material world isn't real etc even though he can't refute it intellectually. I think he recommends playing backgammon to take your mind of it.

penis

>>11382240
This book lead me from being an agnostic to being a Christian

When I was 21 I took a college course with a possibly autistic theologian philosopher. The kind of stuff he was talking about made my brain twitch.

There was this rabid atheist sitting in the front row arguing with every little thing he said, so he kept debunking any arguments against the existence of God in front of the class.

This book is a "rational analysis" of God and the divine. Not really sure I totally understood it the first time I read it, but it made enough sense at the time for me to become way more open to the existence of God.

Give it a read. Here's the wiki for it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Otto#The_Idea_of_the_Holy

this is a discussion on a supposedly intelligent board, pathetic

>>11385872
Based. Reading it right now and seriously considering leaving my pathetic life behind for the road for a year or two

>>11387674
The resurrection was a historical event. Therefore Christ’s teachings are substantiated. Eastern philosophy makes for as trash a religion as pure Platonism, and Judaism is fulfilled in Christ as Islam promises further revelation after Christ, and denies his role as the messiah.
If the resurrection happened, Christianity is real. If not, no religion is demonstrably true.

>>11392117
Why don't you contribute then oh wise one?

>>11382240
Sagan's 'Contact' did it for me. Not "god" per se, but the "numinous," his term for the non-theistic reality, lending toward a kind of weird and informational(?) certainty –even though it may be a mathematical one.

I kind of like to think of the horizon of a black hole: etched with the information of all existence/life in the surrounding space: indelible, but always fading into an untenable reality – bound for us to the strictures of nascent science but ultimately a relentless species of destruction.

>>11393298
cont.

I guess the theory –and it's always theory –is that the horizon of a black hole is transcribed with the physical reality of the space surrounding it much like the "edge of the universe" we can view is encoded with the time/particle/isotropic information of our observable universe.

Where the Numinous comes in is not what is embedded with from without but what is reaching out from within –like a poultice of metaphor supplemented by yet unknown realities.

I guess it's kind of like an extrinsic thought which thinking can observe –a kind of fractal given a bounding threshold which scales beyond it's current iteration in faith in all directions but still an offspring/springboard of and for its species
impervious to the iniquities of Time.

>>11393400
cont.

Also I'm drunk. sorry for shitting on your thread OP

please enjoy this painting of a cat's dream

>>11385861
He's scared of death, much like anyone his age.

>>11382240
Read apologetics. Something like William Lane Craig is really accessible.
That's how I got into religion. Once that part is settled, the spiritual side comes from prayer and scripture

>>11393257
Just take a look at this fellow's post >>11392297
and you'll realize that you don't need to have a diploma in something in order to criticize it

Former teenager atheist faggot here.

Became an atheist at around 12 due to childish rebellion. My parents tried to force catholicism down my throat since a very young age. I didn't buy into it.

Around 11 I started listening to black metal and my father didn't like it because it was satanic. I he tried to subtly destroy my black metal records, but he didn't succeed. He then tried to force me to study for the first communion. It also failed, thank God. I didn't go.

I was an atheist until my 16th. I had just broken up with an incredibly selfish manipulative girlfriend. I wasn't really great either, but I didn't try to undermine her regarding the things she did or wanted to do.

Got depressed because I was suddenly lonely. I didn't miss her, but I missed female company. I didn't have any close friends either. Started smoking weed and searching how to undo my crippling anxiety. Ended up researching lots of stuff about Buddhism, and started meditating, smoking weed, and meditating while high.

In one of these stoned meditations I say what I construed to be my pantheistic view of God, unintentionally. I saw God as the set of all things, from which all things come from and where all things go. Something above the Universe. Not "religious", but rather very logical in a simple way, but hard to put into words.

In less than 1 minute I went from atheist to pantheistic thanks to Buddhism and Marijuana.

>>11394629
>thanks to marijuana
based stoner

>>11394629 here

I also think that if I didn't get to learning about God I would be fucked today. Shortly after that first but very simple contact with the divine I started to read more into religions. I studied Taoism, Buddhism, the Hare Krishna, Christianity and lately I've been studying Judaism, even learning Hebrew. I'm not an ethnic Jew, though, I just caught interest for it.

The "complementarity" between Christianity and Buddhism is absurd. The teachings of the Buddha fill the gaps left by the teachings of the apostles, and vice versa, and Judaism fill in the gaps related to willpower and responsibility of the former two.

The Hare Krishna is really interesting but I think the best thing I learned from it was about the ideal relationship between the sexes.

Taoism sums it all up in the simplest way possible. Every time I learn something new about any religion, I also notice something new hidden within the Tao Te Ching.

If it weren't for these religious studies I would probably:

>be sucking trap cock
>be absolutely promiscuous
>wouldn't have an ounce of the discipline I have, which isn't great
>would be more ungrateful than I already am
>would probably have much less skill and willpower

>>11394629
>>11394992
That great anon.
You should also read the Bible now.

The most obvious answer is to suggest philosophical perennialism. An educated reader can identify common elements in the religion and soteriology of the Aztecs, Egyptians, Hindus, all flavors of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and various animist priests from Japan, Tibet, Greece and Namibia, and furthermore, that these elements can be divorced from the "sociology of religion" that atheists more readily identify with literature such as the Golden Bough, using an organized religion as a form of worldly governance rather than an actual connection to the Numinous. That is to say, the exoteric and the esoteric (the worship) are separable elements.

When people across the world and across time are demonstrated to actually experience esoteric religion in the same way even when their exoteric governance and signifiers are totally different, is it more rational to chalk it up to coincidence or determine that there is a common underlying vein of truth to their behavior?

Think of it like this:
>exoteric
Imam says fapping is bad, because without fapping the lay people make lots of babies, which means more workers, more tithes, and a more comfortable life. This explains why religions tend overwhelmingly to be vehemently anti-masturbation.
>esoteric
The druid faps but doesnt orgasm, because ejaculation depletes a subtle physical resource that he needs to use in conjunction with elaborate rites and invocations in order to establish contact with the numinous Otherworld he seeks. This is less intuitive, and it begs the atheist to wonder if there's a biochemical reason why Druids, Lamas, Orthodox Monks, Rabbis and so on care so much about retaining their semen.

>>11395068
Using NoFap reddit shit isn't going to convince anyone to become perennialist lmao

>>11395074
Look at how many boards on this site are dedicated to pornography and tell me that an example about dicks isn't the best way to illustrate the difference between exo/esoteric religious behavior.

>>11395087
An example about dicks isn't the best way to illustrate the difference between exo/esoteric religious behavior.

>>11395037
I do from time to time. Never read all of it though

>>11385682
>There is a thousands of years old history of "elites" fighting to control the world and Christians
This is funny because for roughly 1000 years it was effectively the Christians themselves who acted as the oppressive temporal authorities

>>11392297
>If not, no religion is demonstrably true.
What do you mean by "true?"

>>11395998

Idiot

>>11396064
Do you have a counter-argument?